Hobart's stadium debate live: Final vote expected tonight as independents signal their approval

She wants answers over the impact on the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. But leader of government business Tania Rattray says she's already answered about noise issues earlier.

"There's been that consultation with the TSO and I can prove that I've read this out at an earlier time and I'm not going to read it again," Ms Rattray replies.

Ms O'Connor doesn't believe her question has been addressed.

"Have these levels that have been set, [have they been] set to a standard?"

Leader of government business Tania Rattray is answering questions around transportation for the stadium.

She says the existing bus fleet for school runs will be repurposed for event day buses to get people to and from the stadium.

Other MLCs raised concerns that not all of those buses may be disability accessible.

The stadium requires 80 additional buses for event days, but Metro Tasmania has had severe driver shortages in recent years, resulting in service reductions.

Details of a proposed bus plaza at the stadium are yet to be confirmed.

Last week, Tasmanian Planning Commission panellist Lynn Mason - a former chair of Metro - said that buses might need to idle on the Domain, and that the lack of planning for the fleet and plaza is "a very large problem".

"[This] has been swept under the carpet," she said.

They're back in the chamber to resume going through the order clause by clause.

Earlier during the concept phase, the stadium's fixed roof — a condition of the AFL — was a problem.

The predicted shadows cast by the structural beams were cited as a reason by cricket authorities to say they could not sanction playing at the venue.

However, after much back and forth, a solution was arrived at.

Read more in this story by the ABC's Chris Rowbottom:

They've just agreed to stop proceedings for an hour while they go get some food.

They were sounding a bit tetchy earlier while talking about the need for a break. Some of them only had a few hours' sleep last night as they were debating until 2:45am.

Hopefully they return refreshed at 7:45pm.

So where are we up to? 

They're going through the stadium order clause by clause and asking questions. We're only at clause 42 out of more than 130 and they've been going since 11am… I think it's going to be a long night.

Independent Bec Thomas is back and asking questions — and is not happy with some comments made by Greens MLC Cassy O'Connor.

Ms Thomas' decision to support the stadium yesterday was crucial for the government.

She was absent from the chamber for a period — along with several other members — prompting some pointed remarks by Ms O'Connor about whether they were providing enough scrutiny.

Ms Thomas was unhappy with these comments.

"I refute and am somewhat offended by the assertions made by the member for Hobart earlier, and imputations made about me and other honourable members in taking a break from the chamber," she said.

"I thoroughly scrutinised the order and asked questions at the draft stage, and achieved some changes to the final order based on the questions I asked and feedback I provided."

The Tasmanian Planning Commission panel talked a lot about the safe dispersal of 23,000 or so pedestrians after events, and especially in emergency situations.

They said pedestrian infrastructure would need to be upgraded in the area around the stadium.

Just last week, the panel reiterated in parliament that these upgrades need to "be funded and adequately planned", and tripping hazards be addressed in the surrounding area.

But it won't be happening,  government leader of the Legislative Tania Rattray has told the debate.

"Dynamic pedestrian modelling has been undertaken to test the movement of people from their seats to destinations across the city," she said.

"From this modelling, only temporary operational mitigations are required."

So barriers on Davey Street, basically.

The Collins Street pedestrian overpass also seems to have dropped off.

Ryan:

Is there any chance the vote won’t happen tonight? Cassy O’Connor seems hellbent on delaying this vote.

Doug:

Mike Gaffney's question about "screens" is so patently a time-waster. He doesn't want the stadium, why would he want there to be more clutter around it and why would he want there to be more money spent on erecting them?

David: 

How can you talk about something that is a done deal for 48 hours. No wonder our country has no productivity

Things are getting a bit silly in the Legislative Council as the debate shows no sign of stopping.

Greens MLC Cassy O'Connor: "I note the presence in the chamber of a large blow fly, probably brought in here by the smell of this order."

The last few questions have been centred around the contaminated soil that is currently present at the Macquarie Point site, which has served many purposes — including the location of sewage treatment works, slaughterhouses, timber yard, livestock yards and railway hub, to name just a few.

Cassy O'Connor asked for specifics about how this contamination would be removed and which agency would be responsible for managing this.

"Given that it contains mercury, arsenic, lead, asbestos, cyanide ... what is the plan for the safe storage of those materials during the staging process on the site — given they are toxic soils?" she asked.

Tania Rattray's response:

"Contaminated material will be managed through disposal at certain waste depots and level three material, approximately 10 per cent of the 22,000 tonnes, will be taken to the Copping Cell," she said.

"Further, the development of all or any part of project land must not occur until an accredited environmental auditor has certified that the remediation of that part of project land has occurred to a standard that is satisfactory."

Owen:

The fact that this project completely isolates Hobart from the disused northern suburbs railway line hasn't been talked about enough. Not only will the stadium exacerbate traffic in the CBD, it stymies one of the best options we have for getting some people off the road and beating gridlock. The original Macquarie Point plan preserved a rail corridor through the site, now with the stadium there's simply no way past.

Mark:

What are the chances that independents that have previously stated they will vote yes will change their mind should they be unhappy with scrutiny of specific clauses?

Sam: 

A question about these long speeches, why can't a politician articulate an argument within a reasonable amount of time - say 30 mins? Wouldn't it be a lot of waffle if they speak for 3 hours, and that too through midnight?

One of the buildings directly impacted by the construction of the Hobart stadium will be the Goods Shed — a heritage-listed rail shed built back when Macquarie Point was a railyard (about a century ago)

The 115-metre-long building is currently used as an events space, but it's going to be moved to the northern end of the site to make sure there is enough room for the proposed stadium design.

Planning documents reveal the building will potentially be transformed into a hospitality space, which could be used for events, markets and live performances.

Renders display it as a trendy, greenery-filled bar where people can mingle over fruity drinks while celebrating a heroic Devils comeback victory.

You can read more about the plans for the Goods Shed in this article by Adam Holmes:

As they move onto the staging and design approvals section of the order, Mike Gaffney has asked if there are any plans for an area for crowds to gather and watch games near the stadium.

"It could be a full house and people still want to go and experience [the atmosphere]," Mr Gaffney said.

"Is there an area outside the stadium that has a big screen that people can go and congregate — hear the noise, hear the sounds?

"Is there the capacity ... to have a large screen for those who can't get in because it's full or because they can't afford to get in?"

Tania Rattray said the government would have to take the question on notice.

She said there was room in the plazas outside the south-east and north-east gates of the stadium for crowds to assemble, but she said the provision for a screen "is not included in the proposal at this time".

Back on the cost blowouts question.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff committed to seeking more funds from the Commonwealth, AFL or private sector if costs increase above the estimated $1.13 billion.

That promise was key to getting the support of independent Bec Thomas yesterday.

But what does the Commonwealth think?

"The Australian government is investing $240 million in the Macquarie Point Precinct. Our contribution is capped," a spokesperson said.

Oh well, always worth asking.

Proceedings are back in full swing in the Legislative Council following that break.

The upper house is running through the stadium order section by section, with MLCs asking questions from the government.

The order is 157 pages long and they're on page 25 at the moment, so we're not exactly progressing at lightning speed.

Cassy O'Connor continues to ask the bulk of questions, but we've also heard from the likes of Meg Webb and Bec Thomas.

The Macquarie Point stadium isn't Tasmania's first major new stadium proposal.

The original plan to house the Devils AFL team centred on a stadium built by the government at Regatta Point, with a retractable roof.

That was soon deemed not to be feasible, and Macquarie Point was chosen as the preferred alternate location.

But the Regatta Point idea didn't die there.

It was picked up by a private consortium called 'Stadia Precinct' which was headed up by engineer Dean Coleman, and backed by former Labor premier Paul Lennon.

Their stadium, dubbed 'Stadium 2.0', was to be built in the same location and feature a broader development which included a private hospital, a hotel and private accommodation.

However a government assessment of that plan in November last year deemed it too would not be feasible.

There were even early concepts for a Macquarie Point stadium in 2018, conceived by local architect Don Gallagher and Cox Architects, and one by JAWS Architects.

They were included in the Tasmanian AFL Taskforce's report to the AFL in 2019.

Mr Gallagher's concept was a sunken, and open stadium without a roof.

The JAWS architecture drawings showed a roofed stadium inspired by an abalone shell.

Talk of a new AFL specific stadium for Hobart stretches back into the 1990s, when a 30,000 seat stadium was proposed for the Hobart Showgrounds.

A group putting together a bid for an AFL team even gave then-AFL boss Wayne Jackson a tour of the showgrounds after he flew in by helicopter.

That stadium was estimated to cost — ahem — $22 million.

Away from the oval sports, there was some discussion about a rectangular stadium for Hobart that could have housed a Tasmanian A-League team in 2018.

A pre-feasibility study was completed for a 15,000 seat venue at the preferred site of Cornelian Bay. It explored options ranging from $70m to $165m.

The proposal had the support of federal member for Clark Andrew Wilkie, but never progressed past the pre-feasibility stage.

In terms of what's happening inside the upper house, they have just decided to take a break to allow the government to prepare an answer to a question from Bec Thomas.

Ms Thomas asked the government to clarify where it would be publishing information regarding any changes made to construction conditions and in what time frame that information would be published.

Tania Rattray moved that the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again, which was granted.

They will return after "the ringing of the bells" (when the government has prepared an answer).

The discussions over the past hour have been very slow and detail-oriented, with a lot of questions about noise management plans and enforcement of restrictions.

Malcolm, we are getting TWO BRAND NEW FERRIES which will be operating ANY DAY NOW *

Hopefully, the TWO VERY BIG AND SHINY FERRIES will be in service well before the Tasmania Devils are smashing Collingwood at MacPoint stadium.

* probably by end of next year, touch wood

Here is a question from Osman, who asks:

I'm really interested to know what would happen if the $875M spending cap is reached, but there's no bailout from the commonwealth or AFL or if private sector assistance is either unavailable or asks too much in return? It seems unlikely that we'd be left with a half-built stadium?

In that case, the government would request Tasmanian Parliament agree to release more funding — this is via something called an appropriation bill.

If the parliament has similar numbers to now, it's difficult to see that request being refused — Labor are unlikely to let the construction pause, and upper house independents could probably be convinced, like they were yesterday.

Of course, this would be contrary to the commitments made to independent Bec Thomas to cap spending at $875 million, but that commitment is not particularly binding.

And the government has already arguably gone well over Premier Jeremy Rockliff's $375 million "and not a red cent more" promise, due to adding $490.7 million in borrowings for Macquarie Point Development Corporation.

The only fallout would be political — something that Mr Rockliff has shown a willingness to wear over and over with the stadium project.

Or, the government could reduce the "scope" of the stadium to keep the state's contribution under $875 million.

Expect questions about the roof if it comes to that.

If you were wondering, Cassy O'Connor was not happy with the government's response to that last question.

"Another completely inadequate answer to a question that was put which exposes again the flimsiness of this order and the provisions within it," Ms O'Connor said.

"The leader for government was not able to detail any heritage conservation plans or conditions that would actually protect heritage values down there.

The Greens MLC then become more frustrated after receiving an answer to a different question a few minutes later.

"I hope that honourable members who have already made up their mind that they're going to vote for this order are paying attention because we are seeing very clearly how weak this provision is," Ms O'Connor said.

"There is no provision in here that provides any comfort."