This stadium debate, and criticism on cost, drives me up the bend.
All criticism is based on the principle. How can you possibly spend so much money when people are homeless and dying on ambulance ramps?
Of course those things are more important. Literally ANY investment can be positioned less appropriate/worthy than those things.
It shouldn't prohibit investment. Because at the end of the day... $715M, or $2B if it overruns, is not actually a lot of money. The original figure represents 9% of ONE year of the existing budgeted spend on Health, without accounting for Housing. The stadium cost will be spread out across multiple years, which means as a % of health, it is even lower. The stadium budget wouldn't necessarily otherwise be available for Health, as the spend has only been made available for this specific project (which is especially the case for the federal $240M contribution).
Comments on the cost as a taxpayer I don't get either. It's the same as talking about salary management at AFL clubs. You've got absolutely zero control on how its spent, so it's moot to talk about.
Jacqui Lambie went on The Project and ranted that Tasmania can't afford the Stadium, because Mick Malthouse (you read correctly) said Tasmania can't afford it. I'm not misinterpreting, that is what she said. Everything she says on this matter is invalid.
I implore the doubters to not be hung up on the principle of the spend, recognise its not a lot of money, and start seeing the opportunity this will bring Tasmania.