The Tasmanian government has dialled up its pitch for a new stadium ahead of a critical vote, saying the state will suffer immense reputational damage if it isn't built.
The Liberals, who are unmoved in their support for the $1.13 billion Macquarie Point venue, on Wednesday released their response to a damning state planning commission report.
The commission recommended the stadium not go ahead because its costs outweighed the benefits, it is too big for the site and would impact the area's heritage.
The stadium, which needs to pass a vote of parliament in November to be approved, is a condition of Tasmania entering the AFL and AFLW in 2028.
Failure to build the venue would mean future generations would lose jobs and opportunities, the government said.
"The reputational damage inflicted on our state would be immense," the response said.
"To walk away now would be to walk away from so much more than just a stadium."
Tasmania's Labor opposition has pledged support for the stadium, meaning it will pass the lower house.
However, its path in the upper house is trickier with the votes of three of eight independents needed to get it through.
Independent Bec Thomas, who is on the fence, said she was awaiting more information from the government about the cost and payment plan for the stadium.
Support was also contingent on adequate funding for grassroots sports facilities, she said.
"It's a big decision with significant impacts either way and I appreciate people's patience as I form my view," Ms Thomas said.
Several independents have been vocally anti-stadium, while others want to see more intel.
Independent Ruth Forrest, who is yet to reach a position but has been critical of the Macquarie Point price tag, wants more detail around supporting stadium infrastructure costs.
"I support the team, I support the need for a new stadium but at the right time, right place, right cost," she said.
The government is drafting an order to approve the stadium, which can't be amended once it is tabled in parliament.
The government brushed aside the commission's cost-benefit analysis of less than 0.5 - meaning for every $1 spent, less than a 50 cent direct benefit would be returned.
The stadium would create jobs, investment and long-lasting intergenerational benefits that cannot be easily quantified, such as community pride and belonging, the government said.
The commission said the state government would accumulate $1 billion in debt for construction, which would rise to $1.8 billion over a decade.
The government claims it can pay off the debt within the life of the stadium, which is estimated to be 30 to 50 years.
It would be done as "part and parcel" of every budget, Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Minister Eric Abetz told reporters.
"The team itself says it needs a new stadium for it to succeed on and off the field," Mr Abetz said.
"If we want to listen to experts, they may be the experts to listen to."
The Greens and anti-stadium group Our Place Hobart said the government had produced glossy propaganda that was re-running the same arguments the commission rejected.
"This government response does nothing to clarify exactly how Premier (Jeremy) Rockliff will pay for this," acting Greens leader Vica Bayley said.
"With health and housing services already underfunded, Tasmanians simply can't afford a stadium."
The government said modest impacts on the heritage of the site were justified because of the stadium's transformational opportunities.
