Jacinta Allan rejected secret 2026 Commonwealth Games rescue bid

While Jacinta Allan was telling Victorians the 2026 Commonwealth Games were on track, behind the scenes a rescue plan was underway.

Jacinta Allan with former premier Daniel Andrews before she took over the top job. Picture NCA NewsWire / Ian Currie

A secret 2026 Commonwealth Games rescue plan to save hundreds of millions of dollars by cutting sports and axing a regional athlete village was prepared for Jacinta Allan on April 15 – two months before she boasted to parliament about the event’s “tremendous progress”.

The 20-page Games Organising Committee report, seen by The Australian, provides a detailed picture of the budget crisis engulfing the Games internally while the new premier, then the Games minister, was assuring the public it was on track.

The PowerPoint presentation – stamped “protected cabinet-in-confidence” and described as “OC Budget Briefing – Deputy Premier – 150423” – recommends abandoning key aspects of the regional Games in favour of shifting some events to Melbourne to cut costs.

The biggest savings measures floated in the report were abandoning Gippsland entirely, shifting a range of sports such as track cycling and aquatics to Melbourne and dropping others such as golf, coastal rowing and basketball.

The April 15 document states: “The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the options proposed within the OC submission that could provide a cost saving of $165m-$168m.

“Two further options are also presented that, outside of OC cost savings, would de-risk the delivery of VIC2026. These are: Move sports to Melbourne (The Victorian Games) – saving $63m. Remove Gippsland – saving $150m … excludes policing and transport savings.”

Sources familiar with the financial crisis unfolding behind closed doors between February and July told The Australian Games chiefs briefed Ms Allan about the April 15 rescue plan later that month.

“It (the document) was prepared by the Organising Committee for a discussion with her … the response it triggered from government was ‘well, that’s all great, but that’s not what we are doing here’. She and the government wouldn’t have a bar of it.”

Ms Allan said on Tuesday she was briefed on “unacceptable numbers” in March relating to the Commonwealth Games.

“We’ve been clear (that) when made aware of cost pressures, the government requested further work and options from officials to try to deliver the Games within budget,” a government spokesperson said. “We looked at different ways in which we might reduce the costs, but they also reduced the benefits to be delivered for Victoria. $6bn is just too much to pay for a 12-day sporting event.”

The emergence of the April 15 “OC Budget Key Mitigations” report is expected to spark fresh questions about Ms Allan’s evidence to a parliamentary committee on June 13 in which she claimed “tremendous progress” was being made in delivering the event. She went on to tell the committee the Games would be a “roaring success” and already making “history”.

On July 18, four weeks after the Commonwealth Games Delivery Minister’s evidence, then premier Daniel Andrews stunned Victoria by cancelling the Games amid fears costs could soar to $7bn.

The April 15 document recommended wholesale changes to the original regional model – announced by Mr Andrews six months before last year’s election – to host the Games in Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat and Shepparton, and the Gippsland region.

Scrapping sporting events including some cycling competitions, and moving other events to Melbourne, was going to cut costs by more than $70m, according to the document. The razor was also going to be applied to “scaled-back” opening and closing ceremonies and cuts delivered to security services and “reduced” Indigenous programs, with the aim of saving another $94m.

A section of the report, entitled “alternate strategy options”, raised the prospect of abandoning Gippsland totally, stating: “It’s a Victorian Games and Melbourne is part of Victoria. Moving entire Games City to Melbourne. Moving all Gippsland activity to Melbourne continues to be the single most impactful reduction of costs and delivery risk. Results in approximately $82m OC savings.”

The report stated the advantages of abandoning Gippsland was about “de-risking” the program and reduce pressure on the public transport system and workforce.

The report states the disadvantages of dropping Gippsland were “no legacy benefits for Gippsland” and a “departure from regional Games model and commitments to the hub sites”.

The April 15 report also raises the prospect of switching to a “fully relocatable” athletes village in Ballarat, delivering an “indicative” saving of $417m. But it lists the risks associated with such a move as “loss of local council co-contribution, no legacy benefits from site remediation for future development at proposed village site and no legacy benefit from upgrade to Eureka stadium … departure from public commitment”.

Among one of the more controversial savings measures canvassed was to cut security costs by $59m, with the report stating: “Reduced security presence and temporary security infrastructure. The security activities planned are extensive and scalable options can be considered. Security benefits are temporary, no legacy.

“Reduced security infrastructure (metal detectors, CCTV cameras, hostile vehicle mitigations. reduced security guards in place for Games. Risks … lower security presence and infrastructure comes with associated higher risks around Games security.”

The April 15 report also flags the potential cost savings from reducing or axing First Peoples programs associated with the Games.

“First Peoples program funding is discretionary and not a Host Contract requirement,” it states. No funding for Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations or grants to community groups. Limited spend on Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) initiatives.”

While the report says this would save $10m, the risk was that the “government has announced commitments and signed off on the development of the RAP”.