Economist v Premier in heated Hobart AFL stadium clash

It’s a clash almost worthy of a stadium crowd: a renowned economist and a beleaguered leader trade accusations under parliamentary privilege.

An impression of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium in Hobart. The Tasmanian government is under pressure to deliver the stadium to deadlines stipulated by the AFL.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Economist Nicholas Gruen has spectacularly clashed with Tasmania’s Premier over the Hobart AFL stadium proposal, effectively accusing Jeremy Rockliff of “sidelining inconvenient truths” and “undermining those who tell them”.

The broadside followed the Premier’s attempts – under parliamentary privilege – to claim Dr Gruen’s critical review of the $1.4 billion proposal was “tainted … by an apprehension of bias”.

Dr Gruen’s response, read to state parliament late on Thursday, did not mention Mr Rockliff by name but accused “political leaders” of “shooting the messenger” and continuing to ignore facts.

“Tasmania deserves a decision-making process in which political leaders seek the public interest informed by genuinely independent analysis,” Dr Gruen said.

“Not one that sidelines inconvenient truths and undermines those who tell them.”

Nicholas Gruen has fired back at attacks on his independence made under parliamentary privilege. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

The pointed comments came after Mr Rockliff on Thursday told parliament he had no faith in Dr Gruen’s report on the stadium because the economist initially failed to declare a meeting with stadium critics before starting his review.

The Premier has flagged potentially withdrawing the Macquarie Point stadium from the ‘project of state significance’ planning process his government chose.

This dramatic threat came after the Tasmanian Planning Commission issued an interim report finding the project would cost almost twice as much as claimed, damage Tasmania’s “economic welfare” and saddle taxpayers with a $1.8 billion debt.

Mr Rockliff – under pressure to deliver the stadium to deadlines stipulated by the AFL – argued that because the commission’s report considered the Gruen report it also could not be relied upon.

Dr Gruen rejected all of the Premier’s arguments and accused the government – which commissioned his report at the request of the Jacqui Lambie Network – of continuing to ignore key issues surrounding the stadium.

He also took aim at the AFL, which has threatened to cancel the Tasmanian Devils’ entry into the competition unless the stadium is built at the site, specifications and timelines it has stipulated.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff in Tasmania’s House of Assembly, where he has claimed Dr Gruen’s report on the AFL stadium proposal is ‘tainted … by an apprehension of bias’. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

“The AFL has insisted that a stadium be built and that it be built quickly enough for the project to be irreversible by the time the new team takes to the field,” Dr Gruen said in a statement read to parliament by an independent MP.

“Rather than work through the issues with the community, the AFL quickly concluded that Macquarie Point would be a nice place for the stadium and this quickly crystallised into a ‘take-it-or-leave’ it proposition.”

Dr Gruen said the government was wrong to suggest the stadium could be built for just $375m in state borrowings – the “cap” imposed by Mr Rockliff.

He said the commission came the same conclusion but mostly based on its own independent analysis, rather than relying on his report.

And he rejected what he described as an attack on his independence. “It is not only unremarkable for reviewers to consult with stakeholders with strong and diverse views — it is expected,” he said.

He had belated declared the early meeting with stadium critics. “Realising I’d missed recording some stakeholder meetings when the report was first published, I updated it and published it online – a strange place to hide an embarrassing detail,” he said.

He noted that the “questioning of my independence” came after he “documented in detail” the failure of the government’s project team to provide standard analyses.

“To be specific, the analysis of the stadium’s visual impact, the site selection report and the optimistic assumptions and failure to consider opportunity cost in its economic analysis,” he said.