Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This month the AFL will make a decision on the Tasmanian bid for an AFL team—a 19th team, a standalone team. To put it simply, Tasmania should have a team in the AFL. We are in fact a foundation AFL state. We are home to some of the oldest AFL clubs in the country. The club where I played and the club where my sons played, the Devonport Football Club, was founded in 1881, before many of the current AFL clubs came into being.

Tasmania is an AFL state, and for the AFL to be a truly national competition Tasmania should have a team. The Tasmanian government has submitted a bid to the AFL which seeks, as I said, a standalone team, a 19th team, in the national competition. That submission clearly shows that a Tasmanian AFL team stacks up.

A subsequent review commissioned by the AFL, conducted by Colin Carter, likewise concludes that a Tasmanian team stacks up. In fact the Carter report says:

Today, the AFL's 'purpose' is: "Progress the game, so that everyone can share in its heritage and possibilities". Presumably, this applies to Tasmania. It seems fair to argue that the onus of proof is not on Tasmania to justify its inclusion. It is on those who say it should stay excluded.

That's the quote from the Carter report.

Having established the case for a team in the AFL, at the last minute another hurdle has been put in the way of Tasmania. Apparently now we need to have a new stadium. What's happened all of a sudden? It wasn't part of the submission from the Tasmanian government. It wasn't required in the Carter report. In fact the Carter report talked about having a stadium strategy. We're very comfortable with that. We have two very good stadiums in Tasmania—Bellerive Oval in Hobart and York Park in Launceston—which currently host AFL games. So why this sudden requirement? Have the AFL suddenly got cold feet? Are they trying to put a last-minute hurdle in Tasmania's way? They shouldn't.

If you look at the history of new teams coming into the AFL, none of them have had that hurdle. Brisbane came in back in 1987. They started at Carrara before moving to the Gabba in 1997. Those two ovals have both had development over the years. It was not a pre-requirement for the team to come into the competition. The West Coast Eagles came in back in 1987. They didn't get a new stadium for more than 30 years. Adelaide, in 1991, didn't see a new major development for 20 years. Fremantle, in 1995, are obviously benefiting from the new stadium in Perth. And, likewise, Port Adelaide—it was 20 years after they came in that a new stadium was built. Gold Coast came in back in 2008. Their advantage was the Commonwealth Games in 2018; their stadium was significantly upgraded for that event. And GWS are still developing their stadium. Given that history, on what basis does the AFL think it can suddenly put a hurdle in Tasmania's way? I say congratulations to Tasmanian Premier Rockliff for saying it how it is: 'We have two stadiums. We're not going to be dictated to by the AFL. We won't be stood over. We won't be patronised by the AFL like we have for years.'

In the AFL Hall of Fame there are 24 legends. Four of them are Tasmanian—Baldock, Hart, Hudson, Stewart. Tasmania has as many legends of the game in the Hall of Fame as South Australia and Western Australia combined. We have a very proud heritage in the game. I've had AFL clubs coming to me over the last three years seeking funding for their community developments. Why can't Tasmania as a community have its own team? So here's the rub from my perspective: perhaps the message from this place to the AFL should be that not a single dollar of Commonwealth money goes to any club until Tasmania has its 19th team in the competition. (Time expired)