Editorial: Time the experts had their say on Games venues

The decisions on appropriate infrastructure for Queensland’s Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032 should be left to people who know what they are talking about, writes the editor.

David Crisafulli is right in pointing out what should be obvious: that we cannot expect our politicians to be experts on sporting venues – and so the decisions on where and how to build appropriate infrastructure to support Queensland’s Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032 should actually be left to people who know what they are talking about.

This is the heart of the problem, and why two premiers have now been burdened with unpopular choices for the athletics stadium for the Games – in both instances they themselves just dreamt them up.

Former premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s dream of rebuilding the Gabba was cooked up so last-minute that when she announced it in 2021 with former prime minister Scott Morrison, not even he had been told about it previously.

The $1bn price tag attached to the plan by Ms Palaszczuk was also just made up, it has since been revealed. The real cost was likely to be more like $3bn, subsequent assessments revealed – and it had not even been considered what cricket and the AFL would do during the years the Gabba was being demolished and rebuilt. No surprise, then, the Gabba plan lost community support.

Enter current Premier Steven Miles and his ambition to blow at least $1.6bn converting the old QEII Stadium at Nathan from its existing – but dated – 48,000-seat capacity to a 14,000-seat venue as a “legacy” for athletics in Queensland.

That idea came after he decided to just ignore the recommendations of a review led by former Brisbane lord mayor Graham Quirk that he had commissioned. That review rejected the Nathan option, and instead proposed the government use the $3bn it had earmarked for the Gabba to build a new stadium on a greenfield site at the inner-city Victoria Park – an easier option than the Gabba, and one that would deliver economic benefits into the future that far surpassed anything that an upgraded venue at the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre at Nathan could ever hope to deliver.

Concept Victoria Park Olympic Stadium by Archipelago. Photo: Supplied

But Premier Miles was having none of it. He was mindful that he was in an election year, smack-bang in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis – making a $3bn spend on a new stadium a tough sell politically.

And so with two weeks still to run on his independent review that he had promised to listen to, he instead decided to forge ahead with the Nathan option. It was an idea proposed by the Australian who orchestrated Brisbane’s successful bid for the Games, the International Olympics Committee vice-president John Coates.

Mr Coates thought it was the best chance to win back community support for the Games, because it would be cheaper. The opening and closing ceremonies, he said, could be held at Suncorp Stadium.

But Premier Miles and Mr Coates have misread the room. An online survey of couriermail.com.au and news.com.au readers that asked “what option should Queensland choose for the stadium?” has now received over 26,000 votes. The $1.6bn Nathan proposal has won just 12 per cent of them, behind 16 per cent for the $2.7bn rebuild of the Gabba – and 72 per cent for the $3.4bn Victoria Park option.

And so yep, spending $3.4bn on a stadium is actually six times more popular than spending half that at Nathan, which, as the home of the Queensland Academy of Sport, already features an international-standard athletics training and competition facility.

But what would our readers know? Their opinion sure matters politically, but like the politicians, they are not experts in this space.

And so back to Mr Crisafulli, who as Opposition Leader could be our new premier on October 27.

Premier Steven Miles on Monday. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

He said this yesterday: “I would be no better than Steven Miles if I said to you this is the option and it’s the only option. It has to be driven by all levels of government and the best and brightest minds – if you don’t, you end up with a captain’s pick from a premier who chooses QSAC and he is the only person who thinks that is the right option.

“I’m going to do things vastly differently. I’m talking about exactly the model NSW did in 1995 when they set up an independent infrastructure co-ordination authority. We have time. I want Queenslanders to know there has been 1000 wasted days of time, but within 100 days we will get the show back on the road.

“They’ve plucked QSAC out of the air. I’m talking about all levels of government – the best and the brightest, not a political pressure valve (like the Quirk review was).

“Sydney was awarded the Games in 1993 – seven years out – and in 1995, five years out, they established what I’m talking about (an expert infrastructure group).

“After 1000 days of chaos and crisis I’m asking for 100 days to sort out this mess.

“Make no mistake, we will have world class venues. In contrast, the government has said it’s QSAC or bust. Not many Queenslanders agree with that. I’m asking for 100 days to sort out the mess.’’

It is certainly not our job to do Mr Crisafulli’s PR. And we stand ready to hold him to account when that is required, as we have in the past.

But in terms of a response to how to navigate this vexed issue, it would be hard to find better. After Paris, Queenslanders have realised we are on track to being embarrassed on the global stage. It is time for a more mature and considered approach.

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

Originally published as Editorial: Time the experts had their say on Games venues