Mac Point Stadium cannot be assessed on economics alone, Planning Commission told

Any meaningful cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Mac Point stadium must include non-financial factors, including social and cultural outcomes, a leading economist has told a public hearing.

Renders of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium, home of the Tasmanian Devils.

Any meaningful cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium must include factors beyond pure financial considerations - such as social impacts and the effect on Hobart’s perceived livability - a leading economist has told the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

Appearing before a TPC panel assessing the Mac Point project on Tuesday, KPMG economist, Michael Malakellis, described stadia as social infrastructure which produced a range of tangible and intangible benefits for their communities.

Mr Malakellis said the Hobart stadium proposal should not be seen only through an economic lens, but for the value it might produce hosting sporting matches, concerts, and cultural events.

Tasmanian Planning Commission panel chair, Paul Turner. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE.

“It’s important to consider the social value that an asset like a stadium can generate for a community, and don’t focus just on the things that are easy to observe or to measure, which typically are the economic components,” Mr Malakellis said.

“And if decision-making is weighted towards economic benefits and costs, we may end up with sub-optimal outcomes.

“Because the idea that a stadium has potential to improve the liveability in a region is very important, but also incredibly difficult to measure.

“Liveability can be reflected in inflows of populations or the retention of young families …

And where people choose to live, work, recreate, and do the various things that make their lives interesting and fulfilling.”

Addressing Mac Point’s estimated benefit-cost ratio - which has been calculated at below 1.0 - Mr Malakellis said it was rare to find a contemporary stadium proposal in Australia in which economic outcomes were forecast to exceed cost.

Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre representative, Nala Mansell, told the Commission that despite her organisation’s long-standing claim to the Macquarie Point site, it had been excluded from all decisions relating to the stadium’s design and governance.

Nala Mansell addresses a crowd at Risdon Cove as part of NAIDOC week. Picture: Linda Higginson

Calling on the TPC to reject the proposed multi-purpose stadium which she described as “another monument to colonialism”, Ms Mansell repeated her request for a land transfer to facilitate the establishment of a permanent, Aboriginal owned and operated cultural centre.

“Macquarie Point is not a blank canvas as it’s been described, it’s part of a living Aboriginal cultural landscape that holds generations of stories, history, and trauma,” Ms Mansell said.

“This stadium is not just a bad planning decision, it is a political betrayal.”

Heritage expert, Jim Gard’ner, gave evidence that he had rated the stadium’s visual impact on views from Victoria Dock and Constitution Dock areas as high - as opposed to very high - due to the range of perspectives available across the site.

Mr Gard’ner said that just as the Hotel Grand Chancellor was clearly visible in some locations and less impactful from other standpoints, the stadium would not present in a uniform way.

“Because it’s such a large heritage site, there is not a homogenous impact when you can view it from so many different vantage points,” Mr Gard’ner said.

“There are [many] valid viewpoints to choose to assess the impacts, and they show quite different outcomes.”

The TPC public hearings, which are being held as part of the Rockliff government-initiated Project of State Significance process, are due to conclude on Friday.