Tas Tasmanian Election 2024

[nobbyiscool]

The AFL team/stadium/training centre is set to come to a head with an early election in Tassie.

The Libs will be confident in winning back the 2 seats that went independent during this term imo.

 

[Borough Blood]

Could the result put the new stadium at risk?

 

[Coolangatta]

Could the result put the new stadium at risk?

Sounds like it could put it at risk, yes.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Could the result put the new stadium at risk?

The current Mac Point plan is absolutely at risk, the opposition parties don't want it built. They'll argue that there are alternate options that still allow an AFL team... but they aren't options that the AFL has agreed to.

It's going to be one of the biggest election issues.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I predict a Labor-Greens-Lambie majority, uniting to kill the stadium.

 

[QuietB]

I just want Labor to win. Then the Liberals do not hold government anywhere.

 

[The King!]

Libs will win

Aren't they increasing numbers to 35 again this election

 

[Father Jack]

Could the result put the new stadium at riskhopef

hopefully

 

[Jascave]

It would be fair to say that apart from Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton, the person who will be watching the Tasmanian state election result with more than the usual amount of interest will be AFL CEO Andrew Dillon, seeing how much time, money and investment the AFL has made trying to get the new Tasmanian team up and running. Yet it could all come crashing down with a thud if Labor wins the Tasmanian state election.

 

[Festerz]

It would be fair to say that apart from Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton, the person who will be watching the Tasmanian state election result with more than the usual amount of interest will be AFL CEO Andrew Dillon, seeing how much time, money and investment the AFL has made trying to get the new Tasmanian team up and running. Yet it could all come crashing down with a thud if Labor wins the Tasmanian state election.

Nah. What would come crashing down is the AFLs attempt to bully the Tasmanian people into accepting the AFL blackmail demand of the creation of a $800m mostly taxpayers funded roofed stadium on prime real estate as a prime condition of them getting their own team in what is supposed to be a national competition.

 

[The King!]

Nah. What would come crashing down is the AFLs attempt to bully the Tasmanian people into accepting the AFL blackmail demand of the creation of a $800m mostly taxpayers funded roofed stadium on prime real estate as a prime condition of them getting their own team in what is supposed to be a national competition.

The AFL didn't approach Tasmania to join the comp.

The stadium funding from the state government is 375 million.

 

[ferball]

Just moved to Tassie. Know a few people who would probably vote Liberal but might not because they don't want the stadium. Yes they want a footy side but not at that price. Some are quite pissed off with the AFL about the situation. I honestly don't blame them.

I also know a few people who are convinced that the benefits the stadium will provide the state long term are worth it.

 

[Festerz]

The stadium funding from the state government is 375 million.

What's your point?

How much of the estimated $800m total funding for the Hobart stadium is not coming from taxpayers - either via the Tasmanian or Federal Governments or transfer of public land?

Why should the AFL make a new closed roof stadium a condition of Tasmania getting their own team in a national competition when they are kicking in less that 2% of the funding ($15m)?

 

[Festerz]

I also know a few people who are convinced that the benefits the stadium will provide the state long term are worth it.

Yes - as with all publicly funded sports projects, it can be argued that the project will bring in substantial public benefits - including thousands of jobs, urban renewal, a massive tourism boost, a visible pathway for young athletes and a long term public asset for the benefit of Hobart residents.

But my experience is that most of the government funded cost benefit assessments are fatally flawed in that they are not only based on terms of reference set by the proponent (the government) that favour the project and hence over-estimate the benefits of the development but they completely ignore the opportunity cost of that investment being diverted into other public projects that may have a far greater public benefit - public housing, hospitals etc.

Professor George Tanewski, Director of the IPA-Deakin SME Research Centre has said that coming up with a rigorour assessment of the project proposal should be pretty bloody simple. “Look at the value of the actual stadium. How much revenue will that stadium generate over perhaps a 10-year period. Then figure out the net value and the multiplier effect it will create for the Hobart area. It’s very simple. Yet all of the talk we’ve heard since the announcement is emotion and politics.”

On balance: Lessons from the Hobart stadium fumble - publicaccountant.com.au

The national debate brought on by the announcement of a new AFL stadium in Hobart demonstrates a greater need for transparency and accountability around government infrastructure projects.

www.publicaccountant.com.au

Just moved to Tassie. Know a few people who would probably vote Liberal but might not because they don't want the stadium. Yes they want a footy side but not at that price. Some are quite pissed off with the AFL about the situation. I honestly don't blame them.

Exactly, and you have a better line of sight on the issues than me.

To be clear, my view is that a high class major stadium and multi use venue in Hobart might well be the very best option for that land and of taxpayers money for the long term.

But my concern is that these should be a matter for Tasmanians to decide with their elected government undertaking a public and transparent assessment of the project and not as part of a secret deal involving AFL House. And it should NOT be tied (as the AFL has insisted) to the entry of a Tasmanian team into the AFL.

And regardless of who gets to form government after the election, it seems certain that the Hobart stadium will remain a bitterly decisive issue for the Tasmanian people. Surely that is not a good think for the people of Tasmania Or the AFL?

Edit: Should be noted that the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval under the Rann Government in a deal done with the AFL to shift football from AAMI stadium at West Lakes was initially widely criticised in SA, including by the Adelaide Crows Football Club. However ten years after the new Adelaide Oval opened to AFL it is loved by both AFL teams and their supporters and is the host venue for major sporting and concert events.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I'd forgotten all about the increase in MPs.

7 members from 5 electorates using Hare-Clark... Tasmania may well never have a majority government ever again.

 

[sherb]

Nah. What would come crashing down is the AFLs attempt to bully the Tasmanian people into accepting the AFL blackmail demand of the creation of a $800m mostly taxpayers funded roofed stadium on prime real estate as a prime condition of them getting their own team in what is supposed to be a national competition.

Thank you Rebecca.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The last opinion poll doesn't make pretty reading for the Liberals.

https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/01/yougov-predicts-4-parties-in-next-state-parliament/

If this poll is accurate, a majority want them out of government, and will probably vote accordingly.


You might think from looking at the above chart that the Liberals can hold onto government if they buddy up with Lambie. The problem is, Lambie's voters want the Liberals gone just as much as Labor or Greens voters do.



So basically, it's unlikely Rockliff will have any friends outside his party after he managed to annoy the independents so thoroughly. I think he's toast, and so is his stadium.

 

[sherb]

The AFL didn't approach Tasmania to join the comp.

The stadium funding from the state government is 375 million.

Exactly.

Tasmania went to the AFL for a licence, not vice versa.

The AFL then set out the conditions under which it would grant that licence.

That's not bullying, that's how business (and life) works.

 

[Festerz]

Thank you Rebecca.

You're most welcome Gil

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Exactly.

Tasmania went to the AFL for a licence, not vice versa.

The AFL then set out the conditions under which it would grant that licence.

That's not bullying, that's how business (and life) works.

It may be how business works, but it's fair to ask, to what extent should the AFL be run as a business? Of course they have to look after their bottom line, but their mandate isn't to shareholders the way a real business is. It's ostensibly to all footy fans, as they're serving as custodians of the sport as a whole. I don't believe the AFL is truly working in the best interests of the fans, but to some extent they have to be seen to be, to maintain their credibility amongst both the people and the government. Forcing Tasmania into an extortionate deal isn't helping that cause.

 

[Festerz]

Exactly.

Tasmania went to the AFL for a licence, not vice versa.

The AFL then set out the conditions under which it would grant that licence.

That's not bullying, that's how business (and life) works.

No - the Tasmanian Premier went to the AFL seeking entrance for a Tasmanian team into the AFL rather than having to rely on two Melbourne based teams for their AFL fix. This being a national competition and all.

And the Tasmania Premier, since departed, agreed to accept the conditions imposed on getting that licence - namely a new roofed stadium on Mac Pt.

A large proportion of Tasmanians disagree with that condition. And have voiced their opinion. It is now a major election issue.

That's how democracy works - and given the overwhelming majority of the new stadium is taxpayer/voter funded that's how life works too.

How are those AFL 'business' decision working for the AFL creations GWS and Gold Coast working btw?

Enough hypocrisy from you, Gil.

 

[sherb]

It may be how business works, but it's fair to ask, to what extent should the AFL be run as a business? Of course they have to look after their bottom line, but their mandate isn't to shareholders the way a real business is. It's ostensibly to all footy fans, as they're serving as custodians of the sport as a whole. I don't believe the AFL is truly working in the best interests of the fans, but to some extent they have to be seen to be, to maintain their credibility amongst both the people and the government. Forcing Tasmania into an extortionate deal isn't helping that cause.

I did say "life" as well.

And Tasmania weren't "forced" into anything. They could have said no.

The words "bullying" and "blackmail" have been thrown around ad nauseum in this discussion, by people who clearly have no idea that those words don't apply in the context of this issue (see Rebecca's post in this thread for a good example of that).

Now I'm far from a defender of the AFL, but they do have the right to set the conditions for a licence for a new team.

 

[sherb]

No - the Tasmanian Premier went to the AFL seeking entrance for a Tasmanian team into the AFL rather than having to rely on two Melbourne based teams for their AFL fix. This being a national competition and all.

And the Tasmania Premier, since departed, agreed to accept the conditions imposed on getting that licence.

A large proportion of Tasmanians disagree with that condition. And have voiced their opinion. It is now a major election issue.

That's how democracy works - and given the overwhelming majority of the new stadium is taxpayer/voter funded that's how life works too.

How are those AFL 'business' decision working for the AFL creations GWS and Gold Coast working btw?

Utter hypocrisy.

But Tasmania wasn't "bullied" or "blackmailed" into anything (your words). You are using emotive and inaccurate language.

The government are the representatives of the people and they made a decision on their behalf. That's what governments are for.

That's how democracy works.

And you know you are on the wrong side of the argument when you have to start playing the "look over there" game by the way (GC & GWS).

 

[Coolangatta]

I did say "life" as well.

And Tasmania weren't "forced" into anything. They could have said no.

The words "bullying" and "blackmail" have been thrown around ad nauseum in this discussion, by people who clearly have no idea that those words don't apply in the context of this issue (see Rebecca's post in this thread for a good example of that).

Now I'm far from a defender of the AFL, but they do have the right to set the conditions for a licence for a new team.

This 100%. Not only do they have the right to, but they should.

Now, if you want to argue that Tasmania had to approach the AFL because they had no intention whatsoever in creating a Tasmania team, then that's okay. Hell, you could go one further and argue that the AFL set conditions they didn't think Tasmania could or would meet because they don't really want a team there, but I would argue that the stadium is actually a reasonable request because it's well known that Bellerive is a shit location.

Anyway, I hope this sets a precedent for a 20th team. Whoever it's going to be, the AFL should make it clear what is required of them to gain entry. Ironically, a new stadium wouldn't necessarily be a condition that is set because location has a lot to do with it. If it's already in a good spot...

 

[Festerz]

I'd forgotten all about the increase in MPs.

7 members from 5 electorates using Hare-Clark... Tasmania may well never have a majority government ever again.

The last opinion poll doesn't make pretty reading for the Liberals.

https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/01/yougov-predicts-4-parties-in-next-state-parliament/

If this poll is accurate, a majority want them out of government, and will probably vote accordingly.

You might think from looking at the above chart that the Liberals can hold onto government if they buddy up with Lambie. The problem is, Lambie's voters want the Liberals gone just as much as Labor or Greens voters do.


So basically, it's unlikely Rockliff will have any friends outside his party after he managed to annoy the independents so thoroughly. I think he's toast, and so is his stadium.

And a reminder that it was Rockliff's secret stadium deal with the AFL that created this crisis.

Two backbench MPs conservatives Lara Alexander and John Tucker – quit the government and moved to the crossbench, citing a lack of transparency over the stadium deal. It pushed Australia’s last Liberal government into minority until they refused to sign another agreement with the Premier and so an election was called.

Hostility towards the AFL stadium deal will be foremost on campaigning and it will be interesting to see how Lambie, The Greens and Labor will campaign around it given that it has probably gone too far for the Mac Pt deal to be scrapped completely.

People will be looking for alternative solutions before committing their vote but alternatives thought out on the run during an election campaign are never the best place for good thinking. Although, coincidentally the Rann Labor Government commitment to a substantial revamp of Adelaide Oval to replace AAMI Stadium, was in direct response to a Liberal Party election proposal to create a new multi purpose stadium alongside the Adelaide Parklands.

Sometimes political pressure can lead to the best outcome for the people, Regardless of what is eventually built and where, just like the Colosseum, once the thing's finally built people will flock to it and the controversy of its construction will be forgotten. And whichever Emperor who is in power when it opens will reap the political rewards.