" Not really when the state needs funding towards the health system. I am a liberal voter but it is a shit decision to consider building a 600+ million dollar stadium when the health system is so bad."
Why is it a shit decision though?
What makes you think it's “$600m spent on a stadium means $600m not spent on health”?
We know that’s not how it works - to begin with only a small portion is budgeted, then you need to consider a portion of the money comes from a sale of the Ent centre - that sale doesn’t happen if they don’t build the arena and therefore cannot possibly be reallocated to health. Then there’s federal funding structure which doesn’t just “divert” to whatever the state wants - usually funding is under broader federal budgets to meet criteria.
The absence of a river bank arena doesn’t mean there’s suddenly more money available to health.
Equally, you have a scenario where construction industry needs an injection which is the focus of a lot of federal budget and important to employment in SA, and there’s no big health infra alternative beyond what has already been committed by both parties anyway.
Then there’s the obvious nature of making money and improving/stimulating the economy, something an arena, particularly one connected to the convention centre does. SA can’t just be reliant on the Federal Government for money whenever they’re in a shit storm, there has to be some semblance of an operating economy and private sector.
So, I don’t really see where removing the concept of a riverbank arena suddenly makes health flush with additional funding - because it doesn’t.
Such an obvious slight of hand campaign!