Brisbane 2032: PM’s very mixed message in Gabba debate

Anthony Albanese says he is a big supporter of the Brisbane 2032 Games, but at the same time he’s also not committing to the 50-50 funding deal, writes The Editor.

There is a nuance hidden within the muted argy-bargy playing out between the Prime Minister and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk over how the Brisbane 2032 Olympics and Paralympics will be funded.

It looks to those paying attention to the debate as if Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is trying to walk both sides of the street – saying he is a big supporter of the Games, while also not committing to the 50-50 funding deal the Palaszczuk government brokered with the former Morrison government.

He did this in an expansive interview with The Courier-Mail on Friday, in which the Prime Minister said he was committed to working “cooperatively” with the state but then pointed out that not only had the 50-50 deal not been committed to paper but that the NSW government had funded the vast majority of the Sydney Games in 2000.

He also said the main Gabba stadium did not necessarily require a rebuild, as a “refurbishment” only could be adequate – and cheaper.

Screen grabs from a digital depiction of how the Gabba might be transformed for the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane.

It all sounds pretty dire for the state government’s hopes of going halves in the billions of dollars that will be required. And Greens MP Amy MacMahon picked up on those comments, asking the Premier in parliament on Wednesday if she was now “reconsidering plans to knock the stadium down”.

More on the Premier’s response in a moment, but first to the signal Mr Albanese is actually sending to the government: which is not that the feds will necessarily walk away from the deal to help (politically that would be fraught) – but that instead he will not be handing the state a blank cheque, and that everything will need to properly stack up before he commits a dollar.

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister, with Annastacia Palaszczuk, Premier of Queensland. Photo Steve Pohlner

And that determination might prove a challenge for the state government, which appears to have decided that a full rebuild of the Gabba will be necessary (based on the Premier’s response to that question in parliament – that “the answer to that question is no”).

On face value, a full rebuild appears not only more expensive than a simpler revamp but also far more problematic in other ways, such as where do the Brisbane Lions AFL team play their home games for the several years that construction would take.

We have posed the question here before about whether a revamp could be the better option, considering the billions of dollars saved could be spent on other infrastructure.

There is also a school of thought doing the rounds in the federal government that if a grand stadium is required for the opening and closing ceremonies that an upgraded Suncorp Stadium could easily do the job – and if that is the case, all the Gabba needs to be able to do is host the Olympic and Paralympics athletics meets.

Why then, the argument goes, is a $3bn (potentially) rebuild needed? And further, how would that look politically in these times of economic challenge?

There are a number of counter arguments.

One is that Brisbane does not have a competitive cricket stadium, with the Gabba now two decades old.

Second is that the so-called “back of house” facilities at the Gabba are simply out of date, and so almost force a rebuild.

And then there is the not-insignificant matter that Brisbane promised the International Olympic Committee a new stadium – and that is very much a done deal.