Labor should adjust its position on a new Hobart stadium for the fledgling Tasmania Devils Football Club, according to party stalwarts and key unions.
But it is unlikely the party will fully pivot towards the planned build at Macquarie Point, which is part of the signed contract between the state and the AFL.
Analysts say that campaign “confusion” on its stadium stance contributed to Labor’s defeat on Saturday’s state election.
On Tuesday afternoon, Rebecca White announced she would step down, leaving the party leadership open.
The Tasmanian secretary of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, Richie Hassett, said explaining the party’s position on the stadium to union members had been a challenge.
“From the conversations that I had with my members out on the job sites, they were certainly a little bit confused with where the Labor party sat with it all,” he said.
“I think Labor could have perhaps, in hindsight, articulated their position a little bit better.”
Mr Hassett is hopeful of what he calls a shift back to the Labor party’s “core values” in regard to the stadium.
“We want to see our members supported with good paying and good condition jobs.”
“Major infrastructure jobs are hard to come by here in Tasmania, and when they bob up, we want to make sure we get the best possible outcomes for our members.
“We’d like to think the Labor party are supportive of that.”
Ex-Labor leader urges rethink
Labor initially opposed the stadium, before later voting to progress it through the project of state significance planning process.
During the election campaign, Labor expressed strong support for the new club while saying it would attempt to “re-negotiate” the stadium deal.
It has since faced criticism for failing to not outline its negotiation terms, or an alternative plan for a southern home for the team.
Former Labor leader Bryan Green said his party needed to rethink its stance following the launch of the Tasmania Devils club, and the massive take up of foundation memberships.
“We’ve got to be in a position where people understand that we’re not going to compromise the team for politics,” he said.
“I would not want to see Tasmania not have a team because we can’t come to grips with the issue of the stadium.”
More than 75,000 people snapped up $10 foundation memberships for the new Tasmania Devils AFL and AFLW team within 24 hours of the March launch, smashing the club’s expectations of 40,000 members by October.
Mr Green believes the government needs to explore an alternative option to the Macquarie Point site, which the Labor party still believes presents significant budgetary and engineering challenges.
“There needs to be clear heads when it comes to bringing this project to fruition,” he said.
“Whether it’s stadium 2.0 at Regatta Point or some other negotiation with the AFL, to get it to a point where something sensibly can be done.”
AFL not budging on deal
Font PR director Brad Stansfield, who spearheaded the Liberals’ election campaign, believed Labor’s lack of clear position potentially cost them the election.
“If the Labor party had a strong position against it from the start, if Rebecca White had of stood on Macquarie Point every day and said, ‘I hate this thing’ and every second day said ‘I’m going to build a hospital instead’, Labor would be in government,” he told the FontCast podcast.
“I fully expect the Labor party to have a position under their new leader [and] I expect that position will be to support it, but criticise it as to how much it costs and how many bricks aren’t laid.”
Former Labor minister and senator Terry Aulich said the party should have gone harder and earlier with a clear position.
He also said Labor should consider endorsing the alternative Stadium 2.0 proposal, despite its proponents seeking a $715m commitment from the state government.
“The second option is actually quite an attractive one when you think about it. It’s hospitals, it’s residences, it’s a lot more than a stadium,” he said.
But the 2.0 plan has already been shelved by the state government, following a series of briefings with proponents Dean Coleman and former Labor leader Paul Lennon.
The AFL has also dismissed the proposal and will not budge on the deal it struck with the state government in May last year.
The deal stipulates a 23,000-seat roofed stadium at Macquarie Point.
A change in the deal would also not be endorsed by the 18 AFL club presidents, whose signatures are required to ratify league expansion.
“The club presidents have been very clear on that. The deal is the deal,” Adelaide Crows chairman John Olsen told the ABC.
Rebecca White was the lead advocate for a re-negotiation of the deal, with a focus on removing the stadium condition.
Whether that remains the party’s stance is unclear.
“That’s a conversation that will need to happen between the new caucus,” Ms White said.
“I’m not going to pre-empt any policy decisions that are going to be made by a new caucus. It hasn’t even been convened yet.”
Dean Winter, who remains the only confirmed candidate for the Labor leadership, has also spoken of “sitting down like adults” with the AFL.
He has previously expressed deep concerns about the Macquarie Point site.
Stadium assessment progressing
The stadium was made a requirement of the license agreement in order to shore up the Devils’ economic position, due to the lack of a suitable southern home base for the new club.
Bellerive Oval, with its limited seating capacity of 12,000 and restrictive suburban location, was deemed economically unviable long-term for the club, which will aim to convert at least a third of its 170,000 foundation members into fully-fledged season ticket holders by 2028.
Last month, the guidelines for the project were finalised by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, with the Macquarie Point Development Corporation compiling the submission for the stadium to be lodged later this year.
It’s expected the project will take approximately 12 months to assess before returning to parliament for a final vote by both houses.
If the planning commission approves the stadium, Labor could well side with the government to pass it through parliament given its willingness to send the project into the planning process in the first place.
LoadingLoading…