The proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium in Hobart should not proceed, a long-awaited assessment from the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) has recommended.
The final report finds that the stadium would “diminish the economic welfare” of Tasmania, the government’s cost-benefit remains significantly overestimated, and it would have an “irrevocable and unacceptable” impact on Hobart’s landscape.
It estimates that the government would need to accumulate $1 billion in debt for construction costs, which would rise to $1.8 billion over 10 years, and taxes would need to increase $50 million per year over 30 years.
The report states the construction cost equates to $5,900 per Tasmanian household not reliant on Commonwealth income support.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff responds to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s report.
1m agoWed 17 Sep 2025 at 12:14am
‘Today is just another step’
The premier says he wants the project to proceed and the report’s release is “just another step”.
“I note that the planning report has said this is constructable. And those matters that were concerning Tasmanians around safety and transport and other key matters — they can all be resolved.”
4m agoWed 17 Sep 2025 at 12:10am
Premier Jeremy Rockliff is speaking now
He’s at the Longford Football Club reacting to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s report.
5m agoWed 17 Sep 2025 at 12:10am
Premier’s first reaction in Facebook post
Jeremy Rockliff has responded to the report on Facebook, saying his Liberal government will “continue to fight for this project”.
He says the report underestimates the wider benefits of the stadium:
Today, the Tasmanian Planning Commission has released their report on the Mac Point Stadium.
It found that concerns around transport, safety, access and noise can be successfully addressed.
Unfortunately, it still massively underestimates the social and economic benefits that the stadium, a new AFL team, and a supercharged events industry will have on Tasmania.
It’s the reason why new stadiums right across the nation are approved using special laws, not the traditional planning scheme.
And that’s why our process gives Parliament the final say.
The TPC has done its job, and I thank them.
It’s now time for democratically elected Members of Parliament to have the final say.
8m agoWed 17 Sep 2025 at 12:06am
We’re standing by for the premier
Premier Jeremy Rockliff is expected to hold a press conference in the next few minutes in reaction to the planning commission’s report.
He’s just been delayed a few minutes.
The report provided a $974 million upfront construction cost, including car park, buses, lifecycle costs and state subsidy for the Tasmania Devils AFL club.
The cost-benefit ratio is less than 0.5, meaning that for every $1 spent, less than a 50-cent direct benefit will be returned.
“The proponent’s cost-benefit analysis prepared by KPMG and released in September 2024, shows a base-case benefit cost ratio of 0.69,” the report reads.
“Since this study was undertaken, the stadium construction cost estimate has increased significantly.”
The proposed stadium will be purpose-built to host AFL matches. (Supplied: MPDC)
Stadium’s size is a ‘fundamental problem’
In its conclusion, the report was highly critical of the planning elements of the stadium.
“The fundamental problem is the size, location and geographical features of the site, in its highly valued context, do not support the disproportionately large, monolithic building proposed,” it reads.
“Proceeding with the project will give rise to irrevocable and unacceptable adverse impacts on Hobart’s spatial and landscape character, urban form and historic cultural heritage.
“The project represents a significant net cost and will diminish the economic welfare of Tasmanians as a whole.”
The project was assessed under the 12-month-long project of state significance (POSS) process and the recommendation comes after an interim report and public hearings.
The stadium should not proceed, the Tasmanian Planning Commission has recommended. (Supplied: MPC)
The recommendation is not binding, with Tasmania’s parliament having the final say on approval for the project with a vote in both houses of parliament.
The report was critical of the stadium proponent — the state-owned Macquarie Point Development Corporation — which said that the stadium would have “unquantifiable social benefits”.
The TPC described the measurable social benefits as “small”.
Rockliff still proceeding with stadium
In a social media post, Premier Jeremy Rockliff disagreed with the independent planning panel’s assessment.
“Unfortunately, it still massively underestimates the social and economic benefits that the stadium, a new AFL team, and a supercharged events industry will have on Tasmania,” his post reads.
“It’s the reason why new stadiums right across the nation are approved using special laws, not the traditional planning scheme.
“The TPC has done its job, and I thank them.
“It’s now time for democratically elected Members of Parliament to have the final say.”
The Liberal government and Labor opposition have both supported the project but the two parties would need the support of three independents in the upper house in order to proceed with the project.
The stadium is a requirement under the AFL’s contract with the Tasmanian government for the state to have its own AFL men’s and women’s teams.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission’s conclusion:
The fundamental problem is the size, location and geographical features of the site, in its highly valued context, do not support the disproportionately large, monolithic building proposed.
It is a building which is incongruent with the valued characteristics of its spatial context, completely at odds with the long-established planning principles guiding and informing development, and with the land and urban fabric surrounding the site and the heritage values associated with nearby places.
Proceeding with the Project will give rise to irrevocable and unacceptable adverse impacts on Hobart’s spatial and landscape character, urban form and historic cultural heritage.
In addition, the Project represents a significant net cost and will diminish the economic welfare of Tasmanians as a whole, and it offers almost no scope for the site to become a vibrant active place that is attractive to visit outside of major event mode.
In very simple terms, the stadium is too big for the site and the benefits it will bring are significantly outweighed by the disbenefits it creates.
Loading