Don’t like the message? Shoot the messenger
In the void left by the lack of a government response to Dr Gruen’s review, Our Place has noticed some high school debating tactics entering the discussion:
Unable to challenge the facts contained in his comprehensive analysis of the Mac Point Stadium proposal and the Team Agreement that was its genesis, the pro-stadium cult* have turned their attack on Dr Gruen himself, impugning his integrity and questioning his expertise.
Ad hominem has always been the go-to response of scoundrels. As they’re now doing with the Gruen review, attack the man, not his findings (too many words to wrap their heads around in 170pp?), and they attack his credibility:
- He’s just one ‘opinion’ … so we’ll ignore the fact that his findings align with every other analysis conducted into costings (KPMG, MI Global, WT Cost Report appended to MPDC’s Submission to the TPC) none of which, no matter how much they stretched the data into an optimistic scenario, could make this proposal profitable for the proponents (ie. Tasmanians!).
- He’s only an ‘economist’ and shouldn’t extend his commentary to issues of social justice, planning or environment … so we’ll ignore his extensive experience in data analysis and building the HALE Wellbeing Index to include social parameters that go well beyond this narrow definition of ‘economics’. As the founder of Lateral Economics, (the hint is in the ‘lateral’ part of the name) Dr Gruen has not gone beyond his purview and has simply addressed the brief he was set.
- He’s biased because he once worked as an adviser to ALP governments … so we’ll ignore the fact that it was a Liberal government who hired him to conduct this review; or that his company, Lateral Economics built the HALE Wellbeing Index with that old leftie news organ, the Herald Sun; or that he served on the Productivity Commission during the Howard Government, and directed the Business Council of Australia’s ‘New Directions’ project in the late ‘90s; or that he’s had a regular economic column for the Courier Mail, and wrote regularly for the AFR. Not to mention, the apparent support of the stadium by Tas Labor surely nullifies any allegations of bias towards them. Read his bio. He’s hardly a rabid leftie:
Unfortunately for the pro-stadium cult, Dr Gruen’s review comprehensively discounts every argument offered in support of a stadium at Mac Point and the fanciful notion that it can be built without any more than $375M from Tasmanian State coffers.
“But there’s lots of interest from private investors … ” they say.
The review points out that there may be that interest, but it will only be in the most profitable components of the development, cushioned by the financial input from the state, thereby further diminishing the state’s capacity to recoup its losses. Let’s face it, if it was ever going to be a truly profitable venture long term, private investors would have been champing at the bit to build it from the get-go.
As Dr Gruen concluded, the benefits have been overstated, while risks and costs have been understated … and that’s putting it mildly!
So where to from here?
Go back. Start again and follow a proper planning process:
- Establish a NEED.
- Obtain a social licence – how much are the people of Tasmania willing to forgo?
- Refine the parameters – what exactly do we need, how much can we afford, what are the acceptable risks?
- Survey potential sites for suitability – size, access, neighbours, environment – and impacts both during construction and after completion.
- Assess potential costs realistically – upfront, ongoing and opportunity cost impacts – and then add a percentage for cost overruns that reflects those for existing/current similar proposals.
- Get an unequivocal Cost Benefit Analysis.
- Do your ‘market sounding’ if you’ve got this far.
- Then build it only if all the above parameters stack up.
Here at Our Place, we haven’t been able to get past No. 1.
*If you believe someone who tells you outright lies in the face of factual evidence to the contrary, you’re in a cult.