Latest news with #ProjectofStateSignificance
Mercury
09-05-2025
- Business
- Mercury
Federal Group's Daniel Hanna raises cost concerns about Macquarie Point stadium
Don't miss out on the headlines from Tasmania. Followed categories will be added to My News. One of Tasmania's biggest employers, the Federal Group, has expressed concerns about the 'uncertain and significant' cost of the Macquarie Point stadium after polling showed community opposition to fast-tracking the project. The statewide EMRS polling, commissioned by Federal, also showed that of those polled more than two-thirds, or 70 per cent, were opposed to the state government spending more than its cap of $375m on the stadium. Of the 878 Tasmanians polled in mid April, 50 per cent opposed the government withdrawing from the Project of State Significance process while 24 per cent supported the move. It comes as the government announced this week that there would be no private investment in the stadium and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation would borrow cash and sell land to make up the shortfall, which is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Federal's executive general manager, corporate and regulatory affairs, Dr Daniel Hanna said that the poll results should give the Tasmanian government pause for thought on their proposed fast-track stadium legislation. 'The results clearly demonstrate that Tasmanians hold concerns about this proposed stadium, especially the uncertain but significant costs,' he said. 'The proposed stadium is already a very divisive project, abandoning the Tasmanian Planning Commission process in favour of fast-track legislation will make that division even worse. 'Every developer in Tasmania must comply with the existing laws and processes, the Tasmanian community clearly wants the Tasmanian government to play by the same rules. 'The research supports the Tasmanian government reconsidering their position and continuing with the Tasmanian Planning Commission process.' Dr Hanna said the polling was commissioned to 'inform' Federal's submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which it has not made public. 'We wanted to understand the views of the Tasmanian population about issues related to the cost and process followed, and whether some of the concerns we have were more widely held,' he said. 'We have submitted a comprehensive submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission that outlines our concerns about this proposed stadium. 'These concerns have been held for some time and nothing we have seen recently has reduced these concerns. 'Our concerns centre on the proposed location, the significant costs to the state budget, the process followed, and the lack of consultation from the proponent. 'Having said that, we strongly support Tasmania having its own AFL team.' The polling results show that 62 per cent believe the Opposition and independent MPs should oppose the fast-track legislation if the spending cap is breached. Participants were asked if they agreed or disagreed with withdrawing from the POSS project, whether they agreed or disagreed that the Tasmanian government should spend more than its announced $375m and, if the government proposed to go beyond the spending cap of $375m, should the Opposition and independents oppose the special stadium legislation being introduced into parliament. Federal employs about 2000 people and owns both the MACq 01 and Henry Jones Art Hotel near to the proposed stadium. QUESTIONS FROM EMRS POLL ON MAC POINT STADIUM: 'The Tasmanian Government recently announced its decision to withdraw from the Tasmanian Planning Commission Projects of State Significance process. Do you agree or disagree with this decision?' Strongly agree – 14% Somewhat agree – 11% Neutral – 14% Somewhat disagree – 11% Strongly disagree – 38% NET Agree 24%; NET Disagree 50% 'Would you agree or disagree that the Tasmanian Government should spend more than its announced $375m?' Strongly agree – 12% Somewhat agree – 9% Neutral – 8% Somewhat disagree – 12% Strongly disagree – 57% NET Agree 21%; NET Disagree 70% 'In your opinion, if the Tasmanian government proposed to go beyond the spending cap of $375m should the Tasmanian opposition and independents oppose the special stadium legislation being introduced into parliament?' Yes – 62% No – 25% Unsure – 13%
ABC News
05-05-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Tasmania to seek loan for Hobart stadium funding shortfall in pivot away from 'private-public partnership'
The Tasmanian government will resist the temptation of partnering with the private sector to fund and build its proposed Hobart stadium — and instead go it alone via a Macquarie Point borrowings bonanza. The ABC can reveal the government will fund construction of the stadium via debt obtained through the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), on top of $630 million of already committed state, federal and AFL funding. The decision was rubberstamped by cabinet last week, following a market-sounding exercise and was based partly on advice from Perth consultants Paxon Group and the Melbourne-based Infrastructure Advisory Group. The government will pivot toward a "design and construct" model and away from a "private-public partnership", which it determined would carry too high a risk to the state and threaten already tight timelines. It then intends to sell off parcels of the broader Macquarie Point precinct to private developers and use those funds to pay off the loan — which is likely to be upwards of $200 million. The proposed stadium is due to be completed by 2029. ( Supplied: MPDC ) Photo shows A concept image of the proposed Hobart stadium at Macquarie Poi nt. A leading independent economist tasked with reviewing Tasmania's proposal to build an AFL stadium on Hobart's waterfront finds the project is "already displaying the hallmarks of mismanagement" and is likely to exceed $1 billion. The parcels would include about 17,000 square metres of commercially zoned space encompassing Macquarie Point's "mixed use" and Antarctic precinct, as well as the housing precinct at Regatta Point, and an underground multi-storey car park. Under the plan, those parcels will become available following commencement of the stadium — provided it is approved by both houses of parliament — with the market value of the land expected to rise as the stadium development progresses. However, those land sales are not expected to cover the full amount of the loan. The MPDC will use existing funds to pay for the stadium build and, on current timelines, is not expected to borrow until about 2027 or later. The state government plans to introduce "enabling legislation" to the parliament to progress the stadium, rather than continuing with the Project of State Significance process. ( Supplied: MPDC ) The current official cost estimate for the stadium is $775 million but has been estimated by external quantity surveyors to be closer to $900 million. The state government has pledged $375 million in capital funding, while the federal government has committed $240 million and the AFL $15 million, leaving at minimum a $145 million shortfall, but the loan amount will likely be higher than that. Public-private partnership would have left state worse off, minister says Public infrastructure funders from around the world had expressed strong interest in partnering with the government to deliver the stadium and broader precinct, with the ABC confirming Tetris Capital, John Laing Group, Capella Capital and property developer Milieu — which was set to develop the site under a previous master plan — were among those keen. Melbourne-based Plenary Group, which had assembled a consortium, including a financier and builder, was considered the frontrunner had the government opted to partner with the private sector. But in a statement, Business, Industry and Resources Minister Eric Abetz told the ABC that the government's advice was that a private-public partnership would ultimately leave the state worse off. Eric Abetz says the new funding model will help the stadium be built on time. ( ABC News: Owain Stia James ) Mr Abetz said it would "cost the taxpayer more, take longer to implement and take away from the asset being owned by and for the Tasmanian people". "The decision to prioritise the delivery of the multipurpose stadium through a 'design and construct' pathway provides certainty and confidence in the future of the precinct and the Tasmania Devils AFL club," he said. " We cannot afford any delays if we are to meet existing time frames set out in the AFL agreement. Without a stadium, there is no Tasmanian AFL team. " The government's deal with the AFL requires a roofed stadium be built at Macquarie Point for the state to get a team. ( Supplied: MPDC ) Plenary managing director Damien Augustinus told the ABC he believed a private-public partnership would "deliver greater innovation, more certainty around on-time delivery and costs, and better whole-of-life outcomes than traditional design and construct or managing contract procurement methods". Mr Augustinus said involving the private sector would "mean more investment in Tasmania, creating more Tasmanian jobs and permit a cohesive whole-of-precinct approach". " In the Macquarie Point precinct, the Tasmanian government has a golden opportunity to partner with the private sector to finance, deliver and manage a world-class sporting, tourism and entertainment precinct. " A render of a bar inside the relocated and re-imagined Goods Shed, next to the proposed stadium. ( Supplied: MPDC ) What's a private-public partnership? A private-public partnership (PPP) would mean a public infrastructure firm would fund a shortfall, construct the stadium, and then enter an agreement with the government to maintain, and potentially operate, the stadium and precinct for 25-30 years. Photo shows A map showing pinch points on three out of the four sides of a stadium and nearby areas. Macquarie Point is hemmed in by a highway, a working port, heritage buildings and a knoll, with just enough space for a stadium. The Planning Commission has laid bare the problems. The government would have paid the consortium an agreed upon annual or quarterly fee, and likely a slice of revenue generated by the precinct for that period of time. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that while tempting, private-public partnerships had their pitfalls. "Because it's usually believed the private sector can manage construction projects more efficiently than the public sector, that is assumed to result in a net saving to the government," he said. "What PPPs sometimes ignore is that governments can borrow at lower interest rates than private companies, and in many PPPs that have been entered to in other states and in overseas jurisdictions, the private participants often find ways through complex legal contracts find ways to transfer risk back to the public sector." Saul Eslake says private-public partnerships have their pitfalls. ( ABC News: Daniel Irvine ) Mr Eslake said borrowing through the MPDC would provide the government with some budgetary camouflage — but that ultimately it will still be public money that will be borrowed and needs to be paid back, with interest. "If the government were to borrow through TASCORP in its own name, that would be reflected in the government's budget deficit and would add to the government's net debt," he said. "But if the Macquarie Point Development Corporation were to borrow — they would not appear in the general government's deficit and net debt, but rather in that of the public and non-financial corporation sector. "Although that would be disclosed in the budget papers, the borrowings of GBEs [government business enterprises] and other public non-financial corporations don't get as much attention or scrutiny." More stories on the stadium: Crucial independent MLC 'pleased' with change in funding Independent MLC Ruth Forrest, who holds a crucial upper house vote on the stadium, is not yet sold on the project, but said she was "pleased" the government had rejected a private-public partnership and that it would "absolutely" influence her vote. "It's critical in my mind," Ms Forrest said. Photo shows Concept art showing interior of sports stadium with cricket match underway. If it wasn't already official, it is now: The proposed Hobart stadium is massively on the nose among many Tasmanians. "It won't cost the state any more, because ultimately, we'd be underwriting any private-public partnership I would imagine. "It's more transparent because the people of Tasmania will have more vision of what it'll actually cost." Ms Forrest still wants answers to key questions raised by the Tasmanian Planning Commission as well as surety around the ongoing operating model of the stadium. "I'll need to be really clear about the operations of the food and beverage, the hospitality, the venue space, what that looks like. We need to own all of that, operate and control all of that to be assured it can be a sustainable model," she said. Greens say government's taxpayer funding promise is broken The government has long insisted its funding toward the stadium was capped at $375 million and "not a red cent more". The Greens, who have long opposed the stadium, said the decision to switch the funding model signalled a "huge broken promise". "The premier said 'not a red cent more' than $375 million would be spent on the stadium, but now Tasmanian taxpayers are responsible for many hundreds of millions of dollars more than he promised," Greens deputy leader Vica Bayley said. "The Liberal government's talk of private investment has always been a ploy to mislead the community about the true cost of the stadium to the taxpayer. "There's no good model for funding the stadium, which is why the government should scrap it."
