Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some comments in relation to document No. 23, which is a response to an order for the production of documents relating to the proposed AFL stadium on the Hobart waterfront. I want to make it very clear to the Senate that the response from Minister King to the OPD that was passed by this Senate on 14 June, relating to urban renewal projects at Macquarie Point, which was tabled on 23 June, is a completely unacceptable and insulting response to an order for the production of documents from this Senate. I want to be clear about this. The order, as passed by the Senate, said this:

… all information (including documents) relating to the Macquarie Point Precinct and University of Tasmania Stadium 'urban renewal projects' …

The minister's response to the Senate says:

… it is unclear as to what specific information the Senator is requesting …

Well, firstly, it is not me who is requesting it; it is the Senate requesting it—this chamber. It is not me; it was passed by the Senate. Secondly, it is not unclear at all what documents the Senate is requesting; it is requesting all information relating to those projects. For the government to come back in the way that it has, saying it's not clear what specific information is being requested, is ridiculous and it smacks of a cover-up. This stadium is being foisted upon the Tasmanian people by a state Liberal government in cahoots with a federal Labor government, and they are both completely servile to the interests of the AFL.

Tasmania is facing a housing and rental crisis like the rest of the country. Hobart is the most unaffordable capital city in Australia in which to rent. I mean, the idea that we would spend likely north of a billion dollars on a stadium that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Tasmanian people is a disgrace. And what we are seeing now is a deeply unpopular decision by the Albanese government here in Canberra and the Rockliff Liberal government in Tasmania. I have to say, I don't often agree with Mr Jeff Kennett but yesterday Mr Kennett said—and I do agree with him about this—the federal funding agreement is flawed. The return on investment will be negative in perpetuity. There should be an option in the deal for a Tasmanian AFL licence without a new stadium. Maybe it was a blue moon last night, I'm not sure, but I stand here finding myself in furious agreement with Mr Jeff Kennett. I will tell you something else I agree with him on: his observation that there is a lot of public opposition to the stadium. He's right about that. He has understated it but he is right about that.

You have a billion dollars of taxpayers' money at stake here for a stadium that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Tasmanian people. This stadium has only been foisted on us because the suits at AFL House flew down to Tasmania, wandered around the joint for a few hours and said, 'We will have a stadium there, thanks,' pointing at Macquarie Point. They got on the plane and flew back again after having made it clear that unless we agreed to put a stadium right there on Macquarie point we wouldn't get the AFL team that we have been fighting for, for decades. That is what has happened here.

Tasmanians don't want this stadium but they have a right to know what information the government is holding about the stadium. The government's response to this order for the production documents wasn't an insult to me; it was an insult to the Senate. I want to be very clear the government has not heard the end of this. They haven't heard the end of it in this chamber and they haven't heard the end of it publicly. The Senate has a right to know what information the government is holding about this stadium, and the Greens will give the Senate every opportunity to demand that the government become more transparent and reveal the truth.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.