It’s a town-planning exercise of immense complexity.
A roofed stadium at the intersection of Hobart’s only major arterial routes, on the edge of a heritage waterfront CBD, in a city with limited public transport, tight time frames and at a time of budget pressure.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) was scathing of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium in its draft report on March 31 — and over the coming six months, most of these concerns remain.
The final report today — recommending against the stadium — was almost just as scathing.
“This report is not unexpected,” Premier Jeremy Rockliff said.
The panel has provided a level of scrutiny that might not have otherwise occurred, and Mr Rockliff says it is now in the hands of the parliament to decide.
The TPC report will help to guide this decision.
Why did the TPC reject the stadium?
The TPC had three main problems with the stadium: its size and location, its poor urban planning and the cost on Tasmania’s budget with limited returns.
On the first point, the TPC described the stadium as a “singular, large, bulky monolith” that overwhelms the surrounding buildings and does not flow with Hobart’s mountain-river landscape.
On the second, it does not activate the land for other uses and creates an isolated precinct, while questions are unanswered about public transport, pedestrian use, car reliance and a traffic “shock wave”.
And the third — potentially the most scathing — was the upfront cost, amount of debt and repayments, poor economic returns and broader impact on Tasmania’s public services as a result.
The project of state significance process effectively “turns off” planning laws, so these are seen as advice for parliament — and the advice is a resounding “no”.
Loading
Is the stadium now dead?
No.
The government changed laws last year to allow the parliament to have the final say on the project of state significance process.
Mr Rockliff intends to introduce an “order” to parliament by the end of this year to approve the stadium, incorporating the feedback from the TPC and from his earlier enabling legislation to attach conditions.
Labor has given unconditional support for the stadium, but now say they will “take their time” to consider the report.
If it has Labor’s support, the order will pass the lower house, and will then require the support of three out of eight independents in the upper house to be approved.
Of those eight, Meg Webb, Ruth Forrest, Mike Gaffney and Rosemary Armitage are opposed.
It means the government will be lobbying Tania Rattray, Dean Harriss, Bec Thomas and Casey Hiscutt to support the stadium.
Graphic of the “key design features” of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium, taken from Enabling Legislation Report Consultation Draft, Hobart, May 2025. (Tasmanian government)
Has the cost increased?
Yes.
The first estimate was $715 million in late 2022, then it increased to $775 million in 2024 after a design update, and again to $945 million in May this year.
This has increased to $1.13 billion today.
The TPC estimates the public loan at the end of the construction period will be $1 billion, which grows to $1.8 billion over 10 years due to interest.
The TPC says the construction will cost each Tasmanian household $4,100, and that $50 million per year would need to be recovered in taxes.
How will it be paid for?
The Tasmanian government has promised to cap its spend at $375 million in “capital” costs.
The Commonwealth has committed $240 million to the Macquarie Point precinct, rather than specifically for the stadium, and requires a plan that includes housing.
The AFL will provide $15 million — while also adding significantly more for overall grassroots football support.
The rest comes through debt, with the Tasmanian government choosing not to pursue a public-private partnership.
Loading…
But won’t it make money?
A KPMG report, prepared for the government-owned Macquarie Point Development Corporation, estimated a cost-benefit ratio of 0.69.
The TPC report estimates it will be 0.45 — so for every $1 spent, it gains 45 cents.
There is then a disagreement over whether there are additional economic benefits from a stadium that were not quantified in these estimates.
The TPC said there was “optimism bias” in the government’s cost-benefit figures, while Mr Rockliff said the TPC had “massively underestimated” the economic returns.
Stadiums are big. Why is this a problem for Hobart?
The TPC describes Hobart as having a “natural layered landform” from kunanyi/Mount Wellington down to the River Derwent, and the waterfront as “the centre of the amphitheatre”.
The Macquarie Point stadium will dominate the Hobart skyline. (Supplied: MPDC)
There are relatively few large buildings, and none near the scale and bulk of a stadium.
“It is the combination of the size, bulk and location of the stadium that cause it to be discordant with its surrounds, to such an extent as to overwhelm and disrespect them,” the TPC report reads.
Other states have built new stadiums; can’t Tasmania follow their examples?
The Tasmanian government regularly points to Optus Stadium in Perth, the Townsville Stadium and Adelaide Oval as examples of recent stadium developments that have broad public support.
Parliamentarians even went on a recent tour of Adelaide Oval.
But the TPC argues that Hobart has substantially different urban challenges, while it lacks the established public transport links of other cities.
“Unlike successful examples of city stadiums, such as Adelaide Oval or the MCG, there is inadequate space at the Macquarie Point site to mitigate the city-scale negative effects of visual bulk and homogeneity,” the report reads.
Will it still have a roof?
Yes.
But the proposed domed translucent roof did not escape criticism from the TPC either.
Its size, height and level of translucency of the chosen material — ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) pillows — is still subject to change.
“The nominated ETFE material is reflective to at least some extent and in different light conditions, and will appear relatively luminous, not recessive,” the report reads.
“In its setting, this will increase its perceived size.“
How will people get to the stadium?
The government estimates that 30 to 40 per cent of people will travel by car, and the remainder by bus, ferry or walking.
There could also be park-and-ride facilities built in places like Claremont, Huntingfield and Geilston Bay, but there are no firm plans.
The TPC describes the government’s mass passenger ideas as “largely conceptual and aspirational”.
A render of Macquarie Point stadium as seen from the south-east gate. (Supplied: Macquarie Point Development Coorporation)
The bus mall at the stadium still needs to be designed, while Metro Tasmania is continuing to face issues in attracting drivers, let alone staffing for 80 additional event buses.
There was also the potential to geo-block ride share services like Uber to prevent drivers from “circling at low speeds” and stopping in traffic lanes.
Corporate patrons, however, will have access to 300 parks in the stadium’s underground car park.
Will it create much traffic?
The stadium is proposed for the confluence of the Brooker Highway, Tasman Highway and Macquarie/Davey streets — the only major route through Hobart.
Before and after events, streets and lanes will need to be closed, the report notes.
The closure of Davey Street during a Dark Mofo parade gridlocked the Brooker Highway, while a truck crash on the Tasman Bridge in 2023 saw traffic jams rapidly spread through suburbs.
“The Hobart CBD traffic network is not resilient and is prone to unplanned incidents creating ‘shock waves’ of congestion and gridlock through the network,”
the TPC report said.
Has the government resolved safety issues for pedestrians?
The draft TPC report raised a range of concerns about pedestrian safety, the potential for pinch points, and emergency evacuations.
This stems from a large amount of patrons needing to walk on narrow footpaths alongside busy arterial roads, and being funnelled through a waterfront precinct.
A pedestrian overpass on Collins Street is still being considered, along with the widening of footpaths on Davey Street and temporary barriers along the Tasman Highway.
The TPC saw issues as manageable, but would require significant event-day planning and resourcing.
Isn’t there meant to be housing too?
Yes, in order to obtain $240 million in Commonwealth funding.
The TPC continues to describe the proposed housing as isolated and a poor urban design outcome.
Specific plans have not been released, but the Tasmanian government says a draft plan has been presented to the Commonwealth and could be finalised by the end of this year.
Do people actually want the stadium?
Despite the level of public interest in Tasmania, there has been almost no reliable public polling.
This week, the Tasmania Devils released results from an online “survey” which it said pointed to support for the stadium from several younger demographics.
Polling analyst Kevin Bonham extrapolated the data to reach an overall result of 38 per cent support, 49 per cent oppose, but was critical of the survey’s methodology.
He said the best polling on the topic was by EMRS in February this year, which resulted in 36 per cent support and 59 per cent opposed.
Discussion about this post