Editorial: Focus of 2032 must on better outcomes

Neither of the Olympic bosses who have suggested a QSAC upgrade live in Brisbane, so do not have an interest in proper legacy outcomes for the city from the 2032 Games, writes the editor.

An early concept of a redeveloped Gabba stadium for the Brisbane 2032 Games

Claiming that the Premier’s plan to upgrade the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre is the best option for the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games because it will deliver a legacy for track and field is like saying you’re demolishing your pool and building a brand new one so the kids can have a better swim.

And yet that is exactly what Australian Olympic Committee president Ian Chesterman is saying in explaining his support for the plan to demolish the 48,000-seat stadium at Nathan so a new venue can be built there that in Games mode will seat 40,000 (the smallest since Amsterdam in 1928), and just 14,000 after the closing ceremony.

Mr Chesterman says the upgrade would provide a modern track and field centre that can host local, national and international events long into the future, but then also points out that athletics already attracts more than 750,000 active participants to QSAC every year.

That is because QSAC already has two 10-lane international-standard running tracks and an international-standard throws facility, as well as a modern gym and sports science lab at the Queensland Academy of Sports headquarters there – that the state government has just recently spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars upgrading.

In other words, QSAC is already a modern track and field centre.

Mr Chesterman’s real motivation – and it is shared by his influential predecessor John Coates – is to kill off any more controversy over talk of a not-popular new multibillion-dollar stadium in Brisbane being linked to the Olympics brand.

Neither of these two men live in Brisbane, and so they do not have the same interest in proper legacy outcomes for the city that readers of The Courier-Mail do. For them, a successful Games is what matters.

For Queenslanders, what should matter is not allowing this once-ever opportunity to pass by without our city and state being better for it.

This debate should not be about a stadium. It should be about how to use the new venues required for the Games to breathe new life into the liveability of our capital. And the best way to do that is to locate new facilities as close to each other, and to the central business district as is possible. The 1980s approach of suburban venues does not deliver nearly the same economic uplift.

But Mr Chesterman’s language is clever. In a statement after the AOC AGM over the weekend he went on to say: “The AOC has taken a strong position that we do not need the Gabba redeveloped for Brisbane 2032, nor do we support a replacement stadium being built specifically in time for the Games. If Queensland and Brisbane decide they need a new stadium in the future for the AFL, as an entertainment venue, and for the cricket, that’s up to them. But it’s not a requirement for the Olympic Games.”

Exactly. And that is where this conversation has gone wrong right from the start – when former premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in 2021 said a rebuilt Gabba was necessary “for the Games”.

A rebuilt Gabba (or a new inner-city stadium) is actually necessary not for four weeks of sport in 2032, but because the venue is about to reach its use-by date, our city is not far from outgrowing it, and because other capital cities have left us in their wake. Even Hobart is soon to have a more attractive stadium to host cricket Tests than the Gabba!

Viewed from that perspective, the commitment from the government of not much more than it spent last week giving us all an extra $1000 off our power bills ONCE on a venue and precinct that will change our city and our state for AN ENTIRE GENERATION is actually a totally worthwhile investment.

And so Mr Chesterman is right, in a way. A new stadium at Nathan would be great for track and field. But choosing it over the alternative would see Brisbane lose its annual cricket Test, kneecap the Lions – and leave us all still having to fly to Sydney to see the big concerts.

It remains a terrible decision.

THANKS TO YOU, ALBO

He has not yet backed his words with a monetary commitment, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese deserves credit for yesterday saying what every Queenslander believes: The Bruce Highway deserves to be as safe as the M1 south to Sydney.

Mr Albanese was famously one of the nation’s most enthusiastic ever federal infrastructure ministers during the time he had that job,
15 or so years ago – and his love affair with bitumen, concrete and steel has not cooled since.

The now-prime minister also knows Queenslanders have to fall back in love with the federal Labor Party if he is to have any chance of governing in majority after the next federal election, due early next year.

That is no doubt why he twice said yesterday that the Bruce Highway that links Brisbane with every coastal regional town and city 1700km north to Cairns “should be” of the same quality as the dual-carriageway highway that links the NSW capital with its northern coastal centres. This is exactly the point The Courier-Mail has been making over the past month in our Help Our Highway campaign.

We welcome the Prime Minister aboard, and wait with expectation for the funding announcements that will follow this commitment.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here