Have you heard that Sydney has a new fish market? And have you heard that it cost $836 million?
I mean, fair dinkum, $836 million for selling fish.
Now take a look at that fish market. Ain't it magnificent? What a dramatic design.
Such a design is in fact a long way towards the sort of sensational, eye-catching piece of work that we should have at Newcastle Quay, near Newcastle Interchange.
As this column pointed out two weeks ago, Newcastle Quay offers a historic opportunity for a spectacular and iconic waterside feature that would draw national or even international attention to us.
"Nah," the state government said to itself. "Newcastle doesn't need spectacular."
Instead it ran a Newcastle Quay competition that required a not very remarkable housing and commercial development. By making no great demand on the developer, the state has maximised the price it will get for its land.
But when it comes to building a fish market in Sydney, well, that's different. In Sydney, even a fish market must be a spectacle.
So in Sydney, there's a harbourside splurge of state money. Here, it's a cash grab and "Good enough for Newcastle".
Now, let's not be ungracious. After all, the state also built a fish market for us, about 25 years ago in Hannell Street, a few hundred metres from Newcastle Quay. It cost $4 million, equivalent to $8 million in 2026. So we can fairly say that Sydney's fish market cost 105 times as much as ours.
So in Sydney, there's a harbourside splurge of state money. Here, it's a cash grab and "Good enough for Newcastle".
I reckon that's a pretty good indicator of the relative importance of the two cities as perceived by state ministers: they'd see Sydney as about 100 times more important than Newcastle.
Or, if you like, they'd think about Sydney about 100 times more often than they think about us. It sounds about right, doesn't it? It's amazing what insight we can get from a couple of fish markets.
OK, OK: Greater Sydney is about nine times as big as Greater Newcastle. So let's adjust for population - and see that selling a fish in Sydney is still worth 12 times as much state funding per person as selling a fish in Newcastle.
It must also be admitted that the wondrous Sydney project was launched by the former Liberal-National state government, not Labor. But I don't remember any criticism of the decision at the time by the then Labor opposition.
Indeed, Labor ministers are now keen to be associated with it. "The world's best fish market officially opens in Sydney" was the proud press-release headline on opening day this January.
"Rising from the water on Sydney Harbour, the new Fish Market is the third major landmark on Sydney Harbour joining the Opera House and Harbour Bridge, and is set to attract more than six million local and international visitors each year," said Premier Chris Minns and ministers including those responsible for land and planning.
Get that? They identify it as precisely what they refuse to build here: a major harbourside landmark. And it's for selling damned fish.
Ministers, I don't think opening day was a cause for celebration. It was an occasion for apology to the rest of the state: "We're sorry, but we've blown $836 million on a fish market. Blame the Libs and Nats."
Now, we could be onto something here with the cost of this fish market. It could indeed be Newcastle's all-purpose monetary unit for things that we don't get.
For example, we can say that the state could give us a complete urban rail line from Cessnock and Bellbird for no more than 0.24 Sydney Fish Markets.
Now, I admit that providing a rail service that connects the underprivileged Coalfields with Maitland, the university and central Newcastle cannot excite ministers as much as providing Sydneysiders with the finest venue in the galaxy for selling fish. But couldn't it excite them even 0.24 times as much?
Well, no. It seems not.
How about an underpass to replace Adamstown gates? As the Herald reported on Wednesday, the cost of that was estimated in 2014 as $85 million. But let's adjust that figure for inflation and convert it into our new what-Newcastle-doesn't-get monetary unit.
And the answer is 0.14 Sydney Fish Markets.
Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't think that a great many Sydneysiders had been screaming out for a fine new fish market. It wasn't the sort of thing you'd hear at a Cabramatta barbecue: "Mate, if there's one thing that Sydney needs, it's an $836 million fish market, and it's high time the state government gave us one."
By contrast, for many decades there's hardly been anyone in Newcastle who hasn't fumed about the militant refusal of successive state governments to replace the Adamstown gates. Yet our fuming matters not an iota.
Next, consider that the state is throwing Newcastle Basketball out of Broadmeadow so it can redevelop the stadium site. By failing to provide replacement land, it has pitted Novocastrian against Novocastrian, as the forlorn association has asked to build on playing fields at Lambton.
Again, this started as Liberal-National policy that Labor is sticking to.
For about 0.05 Sydney Fish Markets, the state could buy a new and well located site for Newcastle Basketball. But, actually, the net cost of the deal would be about zero, because proceeds from the Broadmeadow site could pay for it.
So that should lead us to be a bit more demanding. Why shouldn't the government stump up 0.1 Sydney Fish Markets and pay for a fine new stadium for this booming sport in Newcastle?
Would it help if we put a fish shop out the front?
No, it wouldn't. What helps get money and attention from the state government is being Sydney.
What really helps is not being Newcastle.
