Evidence heard by today's Public Accounts Committee has raised even more questions about the assumptions relied upon in the business case for Jeremy Rockliff's stadium.
Drawing on his considerable experience in bringing large concerts to Tasmania, music promoter Charles Touber said the business case appeared to have been reversed engineered to suit a narrative, and that the attendance projections within it were "meaningless".
He said Tasmania's population and market were too small, fragile and temperamental to sustain multiple large events each year as the business case projected, with the costs of bringing equipment to Tasmania far outweighing the benefits of playing to a smaller crowd than an act could in Sydney or Melbourne.
Mr Touber summed up what many Tasmanians have been thinking when he said "as a business case, it's a basket case" and "it's not a business model, it's just wishful thinking".
Despite having more experience than anyone in organising large concerts in Tasmania, the committee heard the government has not consulted Mr Touber at all.
Labor has long said that a stadium is not a matter of enthusiasm or ambition, it's a matter of engineering and finance.
The more we scratch beneath the surface, the more apparent it comes that Tasmanians are going to be picking up the tab for Jeremy Rockliff's stadium for decades.
It will be debt funded at a time when Tasmania is in record debt and deficit.
To now, there are still no plans, and no up-to-date costings beyond the extremely ambitious figure of $715 million dreamt up on the back of an envelope.
Today's testimony from Mr Touber confirmed that from a concert and events perspective, Jeremy Rockliff's plans are detached from reality.
Janie Finlay MP
Member for Bass
