Tasmania coordinator-general's stadium opinion piece involved stakeholder input before release

Less than two months before a final vote in parliament on the Macquarie Point stadium, Tasmania's coordinator-general, John Perry, entered the public debate.

The senior state service employee's intervention came in the form of a 3,000-word opinion piece published in Tasmania's major daily newspaper, The Mercury.

Mr Perry attempted to quantify the broader economic activity that would potentially stem from the state's then-promised $875 million spend.

His predicted economic return was more than six times greater than the government's own estimate.

"Can we really afford for the State not to make that investment?" he wrote.

The main role of Mr Perry's office is to attract private investment into the state.

But his public commentary on the stadium, prior to a parliamentary vote, prompted questions about whether he adhered to principles in the State Service Act to be "apolitical" and "impartial".

What was not known at the time was the extent of the role other interested parties played in helping to shape and promote Mr Perry's work, well before it was publicly released.

Emails obtained by the ABC — provided by his overarching department nine months after they were requested under right to information laws — show that draft copies of the piece went through a range of hands, including one of the main stakeholders: the Tasmania Devils AFL football club.

Football club involved in state servant's 'awesome work'

The piece came out in October 2025, but two months earlier, the football club was already involved in Mr Perry's work, emails show.

He was carrying out his own economic analysis on the stadium, sending Tasmania Football Club's marketing manager, Kathryn McCann, a "draft iteration of the narrative".

John Perry: As you can see, the narrative still needs a lot of refinement, further tidying and tweaking.

Kathryn McCann: It's looking very useful. Want to make a time in the next week or so to regroup on this (awesome) work?

A month later, Mr Perry presented his modelling and analysis to the football club's senior executives and chair.

The next day, he wrote to Premier Jeremy Rockliff suggesting he would seek approval to publish an opinion piece on his modelling, "as I expect is required as a public servant".

No formal approval could be found under right to information laws; neither the government nor the Office of the Coordinator-General responded to a question about what form the approval was given, and if advice was sought.

State servant wanted to 'counterbalance' public commentary

As the piece developed, Mr Perry described his intention in multiple emails as being "to counterbalance the 'we can't afford the stadium'" commentary.

He sent a draft to Ms McCann, and two drafts to Master Builders Tasmania chief executive officer Jenna Cairney, who is a former communications director for the premier and past Mercury editor.

John Perry: Very keen for your thoughts and suggestions.

Jenna Cairney: This is looking really really great. I'll have another stab of it overnight to try to get that first section down to a reasonable size for a large talking point/oped in the newspapers.

Ms Cairney wrote that she had "whipped up" a media release "for a news lead", while Ms McCann suggested incorporating further information — the content of which was redacted — and offered to assist in distributing it to media outlets.

A media release was ultimately not included, but the ABC understands it was pitched to media outlets as being fully Mr Perry's own work.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC) also had a request.

The government was due to release its formal response to a scathing Tasmanian Planning Commission report on the stadium.

DPAC wanted Mr Perry's piece to be released to coincide with this.

Suggestion to brief 'key' upper house members

Three days before it was released, Mr Perry sent a draft copy to DPAC and the premier's office.

It included mark-ups and Ms Cairney's "general approach for releasing" it to the media.

Mr Perry also mentioned to Mr Rockliff's chief of staff that he would offer to brief "key" upper house members on his economic analysis.

At the time, the stadium looked set to pass the lower house with Labor's support, but the government needed the vote of at least three additional upper house members.

Briefings by department staff relating to bills are typically extended to all upper house members, rather than selected members; the ABC asked what was meant by "key" members and if it was appropriate for a state servant to make this political suggestion.

Neither the government nor the Office of the Coordinator-General responded to this question.

The suggestion for Mr Perry to brief these members appears to have originated with the Tasmania Football Club, emails show.

A briefing was not offered, according to at least one of the upper house members whose vote was required by the government.

Government argues Perry acted 'independently'

Mr Perry was questioned in a parliamentary hearing after the piece was published on October 11, saying it had not been requested by the government.

He was asked about who reviewed the work and analysis.

"I had shared internally just before it was released and I provided it the day that it was provided to others," Mr Perry said.

He said he had "sought some input" from people outside of government, and had talked to the football club.

Mr Perry provided a written response in which he said he provided the "final version" to "people who have regular contact with the media".

The extent of the involvement of the Tasmania Football Club and Master Builders Tasmania — and the sharing of a draft with the government — was not disclosed in parliament, nor in the piece itself.

A spokesperson for the Office of the Coordinator-General said it had publicly supported other proposals. It is unclear if any of these were publicly funded.

"The office has undertaken various levels of analysis for a number of major investment proposals over the years and, where appropriate, provides official support for a proposal on the record," they said.

"Working collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure timely material that is both to the point and factually correct is vital."

A government spokesperson said the work was done independently and was "in accordance with his duties".

"Attracting investment is what Mr Perry is employed to do," they said.

"Mr Perry independently undertook this work to assess how the stadium might impact Tasmania's economy."

Economic analysis faced scrutiny

The content of the opinion piece was also heavily scrutinised at the time.

Mr Perry argued the stadium would generate "at least $220.9m per year in new economic activity" at a cost of $44.5 million to finance the debt, a benefit of $4.97 for every $1 spent.

He wrote that other public commentary on the stadium had "questionable inclusions and startling omissions", and his office told the ABC his piece aimed to "address misinformation".

While being based on different methodologies, it was a vastly different figure to the government's estimate of 69 cents of benefit for every $1, and economist Nicholas Gruen's estimate of 44 cents per $1.

Independent upper house member Ruth Forrest described it as "when economic spin masquerades as analysis".

Labor's Dean Winter was also critical, despite the party being in support of the stadium.

He argued that Mr Perry had double-counted interstate visitor activity and new hotel economic activity, which Mr Perry rejected.

The stadium passed the upper house in December after several remaining independents supported it.

Work to remove about 100,000 cubic metres of soil from the waterfront site started in July.

The government intends to have it completed by the end of 2030, meaning the Tasmania Devils will play at least the first three seasons at Bellerive Oval and York Park.

The overall cost estimate remains at $1.13 billion, but an update could be provided once the construction tender process concludes.