Legislative Council, Tuesday 8 April 2025

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, what a mess. Something that should have united our state has turned into a word that is unparliamentary. It is just - I find this really sad.

Ms Webb - Tragic.

Ms FORREST - That the government has stuffed this up to such an extent that now we are having a debate like this. A debate that has gone quite off the track in many respects. I am going to focus partly on the content of the motion, but I also need to respond to some of the points that have been made. To be absolutely clear, from the outset, I have consistently stated my position on the team and the stadium.

I support our team. I am a good north west coaster. I come from the same town as Brendon Gale. Brendon said to me the other day, 'Your mum said you were in a kitchen a while back.' I was. She lives in Burnie. I went to school with Grant O'Brien, went on the school bus with him to high school. I cannot remember being on the bus, but he can remember me being on the bus. I was good friends with his cousins, who were also on the bus; I do not remember Grant. He tells me he was on the same bus. I do not remember many of the boys those days, but anyway Grant assured me we were on the same bus.

We produced a lot of really amazing AFL football players. My dad was a true blue Saints supporter, like nearly all of the north west coast, because who did they look up to? Darrel Baldock. Most of you would know now - if you do not, I will tell you again - I went and I was lucky enough to run into one of my now very grown-up babies, the captain of Fremantle, Alex Pearce, when I was in Perth last week. He was a big baby; he has grown a lot since then. He made me look like a midget. You can see in the photo. Another north west coast young man who is - well, he is not kicking goals, he plays down the back line - but he is a fantastic captain. We went to the match and watched the western derby, which is quite a thing. We were supporting Freo at a West Coast home game, not necessarily the smartest thing to do, except that Freo won, so we were actually safe, but there you go.

So, Mr President, I feel really sad that we have got to this point where it is become a slanging match and there have been a lot of - perhaps a little bit of - disingenuous information put forward. So, my contribution is not going to be sequential and ordered because I have been making notes. I did not have a lot of time to think about this because this only came onto the notice paper, I do not know what day last week because I was away. I started reading the integrated Impact Assessment Report, but I did not get right through it. I did see some significant matters of concern that were not surprising to me. I did discuss a lot of these matters related to stadium and high performance centres when I was in Perth. I went to the game at Optus Oval, I went back the next day. I had a full tour of the stadium, including all the parts you cannot get to normally.

I thank the Minister for Infrastructure for his assistance in accessing the West Coast Eagles High Performance and Administration Centre. That is a purpose built facility, it has two ovals. Interestingly, one oval is a public oval that they look after at their expense that is MCG size. The other oval is an oval that is Optus Stadium size. Australian Rules Football is the only international sport that does not have a fixed ground sized ground, they vary. Also, the guys there were really helpful. They showed me all around, right through it after I admitted that I was actually more supportive of Freo. When I explained why they were impressed so that was okay. They also then organised my visit to the Fremantle Training and Administration Centre, which is a different set up altogether. It was really valuable to look at both.

It was valuable to look at a purpose built training administration facility, which is what the Weagles one is and the Freo one is a community based facility that links with the council. The Cockburn Council have put money into it as well. They administer some parts of it and that has one ground - and the women were playing on it when I was there. The West Coast Eagles were training at the High Performance Centre when I was there, the guys were out training - the women were playing at the Freo Ground at the High Performance Centre and they're in the process of building a new stand and a new facilities specifically for the women.

They have one ground and I said, 'Well, is that inconvenient only having one ground? Because we know how different the sizes are.' They said, 'No, we're smarter. Our one ground is big enough to cater for every ground and we move the goal posts, we move the boundary line when we need to, to practise on a different size ground.' There you go, different thinking. It was interesting. It was really interesting talking to the people and particularly the guy that showed me around at Fremantle - on very short notice, I will add, squeezed me in between training and other matters and management meetings he had to show me around. He was involved with the building and design of the stadium and with this facility. I thought, 'Well, maybe we could use him here.' I asked if he was interested to come across. I don't know, but we do need someone who knows this stuff, we really do.

Mr. President, to be really clear, I have consistently stated that I do support the team. I have been a foundation member of the team, which I know over 200,000 people are. It is easy when it is only $10; very smart move by the Devils to do it that way. I know they will not have as many fully paid up membership people in the future, but it is a good start. It is a really good start.

My position on the stadium is I absolutely do understand the need and I have supported the building of a purpose built facility for this team. I get that. I get it more after visiting Optus and I am going to Adelaide Oval in early May. That will be at my entire expense. Some other members are joining on that trip. I want to make it clear that there is no hospitality. I am funding it all myself. I want to understand how it works there as well, what the process was there to get that built. I will do everything I can to inform myself, not just read the reports which is tedious in itself because some of the complexity of some of the documents but to understand because the South Australian model is different to the Western Australian model. The two teams in Western Australia are owned by the West Australian Football Commission (WA Football). In South Australia, they are not, they are owned by the AFL.

The South Australian National Football League (SANFL) have a big part to play, but it is different. I had a really interesting discussion with Trevor Nisbett[okay] who was the former West Coast Eagles CEO during the build. He negotiated pretty hard and tough, from the sound of it, with the West Australian government during the determination around the model for the operation of the stadium. The government wanted all sorts of things, and he said no. I did not hear the government side of it. I heard his side of it, but it made sense to me. It was also clarified by Mike McKenna[okay] who showed me around. He is the VenuesLive WA CEO that manages the whole site and precinct.

What really struck me from my discussion with him and Trevor Nisbett now works with the AFL was the way they ensure that the teams are financially sustainable. This comes to some of the minister's comments here, and why I think there is a real discussion that needs to be had around this, and it is that the state needs to own the whole lot. You cannot be going out with public private partnerships because they are in it for themselves and that is where the money is. That is where the money comes from. That is where you can get $4 million or $5 million revenues for a match coming from the food and beverage, which is all done from within, from what they own. He said they manage all their sponsorship lighting, all the other stuff that goes into the stadium. When I said to Trevor, the government is looking at going out to the private sector for a lot of this stuff, he said, 'No, you cannot do that'. I said 'I know. That is what is concerning me.'

I had a brief discussion with the Premier today. I am meeting him again tomorrow. I am deeply concerned that we are not setting this team up for success. We are setting up for financial hardship because of the model that is being proposed here. That is a real concern to me. When you are up and going and fully operational, it costs about $50 million a year to run the team, any team. Trevor Nisbett said to me that it will cost you more than that in the first few years. If we do not have a model that financially supports the one team we have not two anchor teams like every other state, the one team that is not even established fully yet, they have not got players on the field if we do not do this right, we will need to prop them up for forever.

The model is really important here. Rather than get too distracted about where, how and when - as I said, I do support a new stadium, I support a purpose built facility, but I am concerned. I have always been concerned about the actual site and I will come to that in a minute. However, the reality is for me, as someone who has ranted on forever about the financial state of this state, I do not want to see us put on additional burden. It is going to be a big enough burden if we get this stadium built. If we go to the private sector, you may as well borrow the money at a high rate yourself. The outcome is no different.

We would be better off -

Ms O'Connor - It is worse.

Ms FORREST - borrowing the whole lot through TASCORP and doing it ourself. Then we get all the revenue that comes through that.

I am deeply concerned. I am having further discussions with other AFL people about this. I want the government to take this really seriously. So much for team success on the field - you will not have success on the field if the team is not financially sustainable. You will not attract the players, you will not get the coaches, you will not get the medical teams, you will not get the allied health people with the physios, all of that, because they will not come here for a non financial team.

I thought I was on some stupid wild goose chase down a rabbit hole I did not understand until after that discussion. I was very grateful to go there. I acknowledge the help of Kathryn McCann to set up the meetings in the first place, and Brendon Gale, but, you know, I made my own way there, people were very helpful, willing to help and talk to us. These people want us to have our team by and large. There are some AFL clubs who really do not want us in there, I could name one or two, but I will not, but since those initial discussions were had some of the presidents of some of the 18 clubs have probably moved on. I do not know. Some of them might, some might not, but some of them were pretty bolshy about not really wanting us in there, making it really tough and I was not in those negotiations, Gil McLachlan was. Brendon will tell you, Brendon Gale, he was in amongst it.

So, for me, I think we do need to make an investment. How we do it and where we do it is the challenge. Now, I have not been surprised for any time at all that Macquarie Point is a site that is problematic. I was talking to a friend of mine who was responsible for building the convention centre in Melbourne, went to drive the first pile, reclaimed land, swampy stuff, you know, a bit like Macquarie Point really. Drove the first pile, pipe, gone. Next one, gone. It is a terribly problematic site.

There are all the problems that have been identified through the PAC inquiry. They have been reiterated in some of the documentation I have read in the Integrated Assessment Report and the public safety, I know the member for Nelson talked about that. That is a real concern, obviously, because when you leave Optus Stadium, for example, and it was pretty much a full house, the Western Derby is always pretty much sold out, and I caught the train. It is nearly an hour's walk into the city, it is not a quick walk. I mean, it was designed so you could not drive your car there, though. The only people can drive their car there are the players and the officials and the car park is under the stadium for that - and people with a disability, a mobility disability. The rest of you, you catch the train, you catch the buses and they will bring in all the regional buses to deal with it or you park on the other side of the river and walk across the new beautiful bridge. It looks a bit like a black and white swan - that was the design of it.

So, when people leave, there are people going everywhere, but unlike when you leave the G and you head for Jolimont train station, where you take your life in your own hands if Richmond or Collingwood have played, the people just flow, there is room, there is space and people just flow. We went on the train, no crush. It is all very organised, people go in one way to the left, people go off the other way to the right, up we go on the train, off you go. Nothing like the experience of Jolimont I have had a couple of times. That is seriously scary sometimes, you know. Like it is amazing how many people you can fit into a train carriage there.

Anyway, Macquarie Point is problematic. I have said that repeatedly, I have said it consistently. Now, this motion calls on, and I note the member for Pembroke's questions about reopening negotiations, I think the AFL has been pretty clear they do not intend to renegotiate. I think we are going to have to negotiate around the edges on this one. I think our point would be if they, because I doubt they will try to impose some of those financial penalties, I think that is when the fight should start. I am happy to leave part of that fight, will be right there behind anyone who wants to fight that one.

Mrs Hiscutt - I will buy you a hockey stick.

Ms FORREST - Alright, and a basketball, yes, but they are the sort of things that we should be negotiating and I know they have said it has to be Macquarie Point, but for them it really is about a stadium that is accessible for the people to attend. I think if the TPC, if we allow that process to continue, that is the point I will get to, then if it cannot be built there, it is just not feasible, not possible - the risk is too high, the cost is just too great - then they are going to have to renegotiate.

Ms O'Connor - Should we not start talking earlier though?

Ms FORREST - I think we can do it by a bit more quiet diplomacy. I prefer the quiet diplomacy rather than the Trump-style diplomacy.

Ms O'Connor - Yes.

Ms FORREST - Penguins agree with me on that.

Ms O'Connor - Penguins?

Ms FORREST - Penguins do.

Ms O'Connor - Yes, the penguins - oh, not in Greenland, on Heard Island.

Ms FORREST - Penguins agree with me on that. I know, the giant penguin in Penguin included would agree with me on that. Yes. So, I think there are better ways to do it. I am flabbergasted that - and this is what has been reported in the media - the member for Rumney, or the member for Pembroke in his absence, can correct me if I am wrong here but I was contacted when I was in Western Australia - the Labor Party has said whatever the government do to get this stadium built, whatever legislation they bring in, they will support it. Now, if that is true, that is a fundamental abrogation of responsibility to scrutinise legislation. Okay. That is your job. I mean, I do not know, if the government goes down that path, I will make it pretty clear right now, there is pretty little chance I will support any legislation that completely subverts our planning system. We have seen far too much of this from this government of late and it is fundamentally wrong. It is sweetheart deals. We saw it with the Stony Rise development. All those things which subvert proper process and, once you do it once, why don't you do it for the next person, the next person, the next person? And even though we did it for - well, we - parliament did it for the pulp mill back in whatever -

Ms O'Connor - It was 2007.

Ms FORREST - In 2007, I knew it was a while ago. The pulp mill still did not get built, did it?

The Project of State Significance is an uncertain process. It is a complicated process. It is a big process. We know that. That is what - there was a demand made by former members of the Lower House to require that, but I held a view that that would be the most appropriate way - myself - I held that view, that it would have been the most appropriate way for it to be assessed because it is fully integrated. It is a big capital expenditure. It considers the social and economic impact, which is a big part of this proposal. Very few projects have survived it. Basslink being one. Basslink needed a significant extension of time to get it over the line but it did and it is built. But most others have not managed to succeed. There was one, I understand, a long time ago for a West Coast mine but, other than that, it is pretty fraught.

So, it was always going to be a fraught process. The government's response and the MPDC's response, once that integrated assessment landed was disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful because that is part of the process. That is the information they had. If you do not agree, well, that is fine. Put forward your information, make your argument, address the point - the legitimate, genuine points of concern. Tell us and the Tasmanian Planning Commission how are you going to mitigate against that? How are you going to guarantee public safety? How are you going to ensure that the roof holds up? There is no risk with the roof, is there? It has never been built before anywhere in the world.

There are risks that really need to be properly considered here and we need a rigorous planning scheme and to start attacking experts because you do not agree with them is one of our great failings as Australians. We see it all the time. You do not like the answer, you criticise the person, the expert. Expert assassination. It is disgusting.

Do not like the result, play nicely, put your own case forward and mitigate the problem. If we cannot do that, well, maybe we should not build it there. Maybe we should not. Maybe it should be somewhere else and even though I am from the north-west and the people I represent either vehemently oppose it because of its cost, think it should be in Launceston because then they could go there and back in a day, but now we have started the high-performance centre at Kingston, that is out of the question. You cannot have a high-performance centre down south and have your match - your proper facility up in the north. It just does not work. So, we have already boxed ourselves into Hobart now, unless we are going to turn that into something else, the one down in Kingston, and do another one up in Launceston. The member for Launceston is probably quite happy with that.

Ms Armitage - I would be very happy with that.

Member - You know the Silverdome, they are spending lots of money there.

Ms FORREST - Well, yes, that is hardly a high-performance centre though.

Ms Thomas - It is good enough for the TIS.
Ms FORREST - Yes. It has not got a big oval space though, has it?

Member - No.

Ms FORREST - Anyway, that is a bit off the point. We are getting right off the point.

Ms Armitage - There is a lot of scrub around it. There is a lot of scrub around it.

Ms FORREST - There is a lot of scrub around it, I know. Yes. Being from the north-west, I accept that we need a purpose built facility, a stadium. I reluctantly, and perhaps somewhat sadly, accept that it needs to be in our capital city if it is going to be there. I am deeply concerned about the location itself, the way it was chosen, and the process that has unfolded with it. It is a high risk project. It is a very high risk project, but our team is a low risk proposition. The team is a really low risk proposition. It already has 200,000-plus members. Okay? It is a low risk proposition. The stadium is a high risk proposition. It is a shame that they are not the same.

Madam Deputy President, my community do have differing views on this. When I sit down and talk with them about it, they can see where I am coming from, and by and large they absolutely back in and support the team. I was very upset by the nastiness that occurred when Rum'un was presented. I mean, does anyone here not know what rum'un means?

Ms O'Connor - If you are a rum'un.

Ms FORREST - It is amazing how many people from the South do not know what a rum'un is.

A member - My nan used to call people rum'uns.

Ms FORREST -Yes, you see, everyone's nan used to call them a rum'un. The nasty comments on social media about Rum'un's appearance. Rum'un was designed by our own Terrapin Puppet Theatre.

Ms O'Connor - Hear, hear.

Ms FORREST - Rum'un is made out of fabric from school uniforms with the engagement of school kids all around our state. Montello Primary School kids that have a uniform in there because they are green. Everyone heard about Montello Primary School. All those little tasselly bits. I accept that Rum'un looked better in the flesh than in the photos perhaps, so if you haven't met Rum'un in the flesh, go meet Rum'un in the flesh. One of Rum'un's best tricks is Rum'un can swallow a football and then poo it.

Ms O'Connor - That is so Tasmanian.

Ms FORREST - I know, and the kids - your kids would love that, would they not?

Rum'un did not do that on Rum'un's amazing launch, but apparently they can do that. I was assured of that. Rum'un's got the knee patches on account of the gravel oval in Queenstown. It is a really clever design by our own theatre puppet company.
A member - A whole narrative to it.

Ms FORREST - Yes. I said to them, 'Maybe you should have told the story first and then brought Rum'un out and put the story up first.' Might have not had so much hate comments. I love Rum'un. I think it is very creative. When you see some of the other mascots around, some of them lack imagination, do they not? Yes, sorry, I think ours is the best.

To go back to some of the other points - I said it was going to be a bit all over the place I did tune into Question Time this morning in the other place while I was getting ready for us to start. There was a question - I am not sure who asked - to the Premier about public private partnerships and whether that be made public or not. My expectation is if you do go down that rather foolish path as a government that it would be very public, about agreements that are made. None of these commercial-in-confidence rubbish. The Premier said there was nothing wrong with public-private partnership, except I would say that it is all in the benefit of the private part of the partnership, not the public. I have made my point about that. If it is to go into an arrangement like that, particularly if it includes any of the revenue raising capacity of the facility, then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are on a hiding to nothing and you will be far better off borrowing the money and doing it yourself because the costs are less. Absolutely less. I will keep banging on about that and hope people listen.

Tasmania, as we talked about and other members have said, has sought for years and years and years its own AFL team. This is not something new. It is not something that has not been thoroughly canvassed. The Colin Carter report years ago said it was viable, said it should happen, said we did not need a stadium straight up, all of those things. It has been report after report and finally we get here. Sadly, we saw an agreement signed by the Premier without - as the committee has heard and will report on in due course as part of the public hearings, we heard that the agreement that was signed on 3 May 2023 did not go to Cabinet for formal ratification, did not seek Treasury advice and, arguably, is not in our best interest in many respects. Having said that, we now have a different CEO of the AFL, the one who negotiated that deal. I hope that he will take perhaps a more conciliatory and negotiatory approach to this, to ensure that Tasmania is not done over and that our team can indeed be successful, because its success on the field will only come with financial success and support.

The team has its support from the members and the people, but it needs the other support that delivers on it financially. I remember saying this to someone just recently - the difference for Tasmania here is that we are being asked to deliver this and we only have a stadium and we only have one team. Every other jurisdiction where there has been a requirement to build or decision to upgrade the stadium or build a new stadium had two anchor teams.

Mr Duigan - Geelong.

Ms FORREST - How much money has the state given them? Millions. Millions and millions and millions.

Mr Duigan - It is going pretty well.

Ms FORREST - One of those teams that might not have wanted us in, it might have been that one. Anyway, I think Geelong, yes, they just have millions of dollars and they have had millions of dollars over -

Mr Duigan - It is our template.

Ms FORREST - Well, they own their own facility. They get all the revenue from it. There is your model too.

Ms O'Connor - It is not really the template, is it?

Ms FORREST - Yes, but they have been a team in existence for how long? When was the Geelong Football Club established?

Mr Duigan - We have been playing football for a long time too.

Ms FORREST - Yes, that is right. Tasmania has been playing football for a long time, yes.

Ms O'Connor - Oh, did you read the Gruen report, that preface in the Gruen report? About our history? No, you did not. Okay.

Ms FORREST - I am just reading through my notes. I think the other thing about the Gruen report is that Nicholas Gruen was invited to provide evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. That information is on - actually, I am not sure if it is published yet, it may not be published, but it was a public hearing. Some of his comments will obviously inform our report.

I wanted to correct some of the comments made about this report. It is a report that was prepared for the then members of the Jacqui Lambie Network. It was not a government report, it was not the government's report to publish, even though they did for a period. It was prepared for the Jacqui Lambie Network members. It was always intended to be released on 1 January. I asked Mr Gruen that when I was interviewed by him as part of his consultation. It was always going to be the date and I thought 'That is a crazy date', but anyway, that is the date - well, that was the date that was determined.

It was for - well, it is now the two independents who were Jacqui Lambie members at the time and one Jacqui Lambie member now - to make that report publicly available. Criticise them if you cannot find it publicly. It is not the government's report. They had to pay for it as part of a deal but it was commissioned by others. Also, in his report, he does not say: 'Do not build it.' He says: 'If you are going to build it, go in with your eyes open, know what the cost will be, know what the risks are.' I think it is important we do not misrepresent, in any way, those matters.

Ms Webb - Who has done that?

Ms FORREST - I am not saying anyone did that

Ms Webb - Sorry, I misunderstood you

Ms FORREST - I am just saying we have to be careful. There have been many comments criticising the government for not having this publicly available. It is not their report.

Ms Webb - That was one criticism, but it was not -

Ms FORREST - Yes, but that is not their report, it is the Jacqui Lambie Network people's report, and former Jacqui Lambie -

Ms O'Connor - But didn't the government pay Dr Gruen?

Ms FORREST - They paid him, but it was not for them. That was part of the deal.

Ms O'Connor - Sure, but they agreed to it and they paid him.

Ms FORREST - They paid to do it. It was commissioned by them. They were the ones who decided who to engage, as I understand it. Anyway, I think they should make it more publicly available. Absolutely.

Ms O'Connor - The JLN members?

Ms FORREST - Yes. Unless they do not want other people to see it, but it is out there anyway if you can find it.

Ms O'Connor - It is like we have moved on though, is it not?

Ms FORREST - It is available online. It is also on our PAC website. We received it as a tabled paper. It is publicly available there if members are looking for it and trying to find it easily under our stadium inquiry page.

My decision on this particular motion is not a reflection on any other matter that might come before this House related to this. This is about this motion itself. I have indicated that, depending on what the government decides to do, I would much prefer them to allow the TPC process to unfold. If it cannot be addressed through that process, I cannot understand what other possible process they can put in place through legislation that would give the necessary assurance that it can indeed be built there safely in a way that mitigates against the risks to public safety, financial risk, and all those other things. Until I see the legislation, if that is what they choose, still, I would caution against it if I was cautioning the government on this. It is pretty unlikely that I would support something that overrode an agreed process - agreed by the parliament.

I also think it seems pretty clear that the AFL knows how to get down and get dirty. They have been pretty clear now, we have heard the rhetoric, 'no stadium, no team', 'no negotiations on this stadium', threat, threat, threat. They will probably just thumb their nose at this motion as well. Even if it were supported unanimously which clearly it is not going to be they would probably still thumb their nose at it.

Ms Webb - Is that a reason not to support it?

Ms FORREST - I am not saying that is a reason. I am just saying that is the reality. That seems to be the attitude they take.
Ms Webb - The motion is not for them.

Ms FORREST - The motion is not for them, but it is, because it is about going back to renegotiate with them on matters that are somewhat unclear. It does say to reopen negotiations regarding the location and construction timeline. They will just keep saying, as they have, that it is at Macquarie Point, until it is not. We need a proper process, which I thought we had, to determine whether or not it was at Macquarie Point.

The employment figures that the Minister for Sport reiterated and I am not so sure on the construction figures, I am sure they are relatively accurate. I do know from my conversations in Western Australia those figures around the employment of ongoing are very accurate in terms of the number of people employed at a high-performance centre and at the ground itself managing the team. It is a massive operation. I think we also know that back in the old days there was a coach and assistant coach. Now there is a coach for everything.

Mr Gaffney - In 1983, Richmond had nine full time staff. They now have 150.

Ms FORREST - That is right. It is incredible. Some of that is medical staff and other allied health and all that, but the number of coaching staff and the psychological coaches and all the things that go into a successful team now is phenomenal. That is the same in all elite sports. It is not just AFL. It is a massive machine once you get to that level.

Member - It is an industry.

Ms FORREST - Yes, it is a full on industry and business. To attract the best of people, you have to be able to afford to pay them. Some of the trades you hear about of players, phenomenal amounts of money for some of the best players, that is why you have spending caps, I suppose, to try and keep a lid on some of that, but geez. It makes our pay look pretty poultry, does it not, really?

From my perspective, what really concerned me, more than anything about what we are at, is the path the government is heading down. Just to reiterate that matter about the financial sustainability of the team, I cannot think what I was looking for, but I came across an Auditor General's report into the financial performance of Adelaide Oval and it was called InDaily, it is an online news article, and I just wanted to quote a couple of parts from this, it said;

'Adelaide Oval management says its business model is working as intended, but it faces rising costs, including a $25 million increase in expenses to run the famous ground. The increased revenue was in part due to an $11.5 million increase in beverage sales and an $8.5 million increase in food sales.' [tbc]

This is the point I was making, if you outsource all this, there is a lot of your revenues, okay? The guys at Optus, told me they think the game on the Western Derby, they would have cleared race revenue of $4-5 million from their food and beverage - and they have really good food there, like it is not pies and chips and coke, it is all sorts of much more healthy foods, you can get pies, but you do not get national pies, they are Western Australian pies from a western pie maker and around the corner you get all these other things and healthy food, West Australian food and they use Western Australian producers, you know? That is what we should be doing.

Got to go build first. The Auditor-General report said the increased employee costs reflected increases in casual wages to cover more shifts as patronage and number of events increased to the oval. It also said that an increase in major events led to a $1.6 million increase in utility costs as LED lights saw more use for more sporting events and concerts, while $1.4 million extra was spent on stadium management costs, such as planning and security due to increased patronage.

There is increase in usage, these are 2023-24 figures, for last financial year. Adelaide Oval hosted the inaugural gather round in 2023 and that was on top of its weekly commitments to the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs and some other events, it went on to say a $4.1 million trading loss, $98.1 million income versus $102.2 million expenses came before Adelaide Oval received a net contribution of $5.1 million from Sandfall and SACA, which is the different set up, they get funding from those two organisations, Sandfall being a pretty big player in it.

The two sporting bodies, under its agreement with Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority, AOSMA, provide a $15.1 million to ensure to ensure AOSMA has sufficient work in capital to support its operations and so, the 2022-23 financial result is the fifth straight year AOSMA has recorded a trading loss, excluding contributions from Sandfall and SACA. So, there are still challenges in this but without all those revenues from the food and beverage and everything, it would be a very different picture.

It goes onto say the Adelaide Oval business model is working as intended and continues to generate solid returns for its shareholders and for the end users of the stadium. Adelaide Oval CEO, Nick Addison, said in the statement. I just want to reiterate that point that, if we are going to do this, we need to do it properly. We need to own it and we need to run it. You can use an operator to run it, but at Optus Stadium the government get to clip the ticket [inaudible 10.14.56 p.m.] get to clip the ticket and the team certainly clip the ticket and if we do not do it that way, we are in a hiding to nothing financially.

Those are the key points I wanted to make. I am desperately concerned that we are heading down the wrong path. Financially, it is going to be an absolute risk to the state if we manage to proceed with this. I believe we do need to - in some form or other, but if we do not get the model right, the team could be doomed to failure.

Go Back