You are here

Cost Benefit Analysis a Business Case Against the Stadium

Cassy O'Connor MP  -  Thursday, 19 January 2023

Tags: Stadium, Macquarie Point

Cassy O'Connor MP | Greens Leader

The MI Global Logistics cost benefit analysis is a business case *against* the stadium.

Even after piling ridiculous assumption on false premise, it still paints a dismal picture of massive economic loss and debt to be carried by Tasmanians.

On the report’s best case scenario, the stadium presents a NET loss of $132 million. The economic activity and ‘social benefit’ loss to the taxpayer, who will have to bear all the costs, will in fact be much higher.

Industry stands to gain all the benefit and carry none of the costs. It’s taxpayers footing the bill for Jeremy Rockliff’s vanity project.

The Liberals can wheel out as many blokes in suits as they like, but if it was a viable project, industry would pay for it.

The redacted ticket price in the report also looks close to double interstate football match prices. Tasmanian taxpayers are being asked to pay to build the stadium, to cover its ongoing maintenance costs and losses, and then will be asked to pay through the nose just to get through the gate at a game.

Do Jeremy Rockliff and the AFL think Tasmanians are chumps?

Do any of the stadium supporters really believe Hobart would get multiple events a month with more than 13,000 attendees each? If they do, what world are they living in?

The Liberals’ stadium dream is an atrocious waste of public money. Government should be funding social infrastructure projects that actually have a net economic and social benefit – like houses, health centres and schools.

The mega-stadium is literally straight out of TV satire, Utopia – and that’s where it should stay.

If Jeremy Rockliff needed any more evidence the stadium was terrible idea, this cost benefit analysis says it in black and white.