by Preparations for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics became embroiled in a new political fight on Sunday when the city’s mayor, Adrian Schrinner, withdrew his support for the planned $2.7 billion rebuild of the Gabba Stadium.
The new Gabba would be the main Olympic stadium and is the centerpiece of the Queensland government’s plan for the games.
But the reconstruction has been controversial. Many local residents oppose it and the state has pursued it over cheaper options.
Related: Brisbane mayor resigns from 2032 Olympics forum, calling it ‘dysfunctional farce’
What has happened?
Schrinner’s decision to withdraw his support (and give up a Games hosting forum) followed the Queensland government’s announcement that it would redevelop the Brisbane Showgrounds into a $137 million boutique stadium to host cricket and AFL, while the Gabba will be a workplace for four years from 2025.
Guardian Australia understands the AFL in particular had lobbied for the showground, which was its preferred option as a temporary home for the Brisbane Lions.
The state government announced the plan on Friday, including that the city council, the AFL, Cricket Australia and the Royal Agricultural Society would be asked to cover about two-thirds of the cost.
Schrinner says they hadn’t even told him before. He says the state’s sports minister, Stirling Hinchliffe, had only tried to call him late the previous day.
“It is clear that the Games have become more about expensive stadiums than the promise of vital transportation solutions,” Schrinner said in a statement.
“The state government’s clumsy and foolish attempt to extort tens of millions of dollars from Brisbane taxpayers for a new RNA stadium was the last straw.”
Why is the Gabba being remodeled?
The International Olympic Committee has said redevelopment of the Gabba is not necessary to host the Games; The new mantra is that infrastructure should not be built just for the Olympic Games.
There were initially other options on the table for a major athletics stadium: the redevelopment of the Albion Park greyhound racing track or the QE2 stadium in Brisbane’s southern suburbs, which hosted the 1982 Commonwealth Games.
The Gabba plan has been pushed by the state government for several reasons. The first is the need to appease the stadium’s long-term tenants, AFL and cricket, who have been pushing for improvements for years.
Related: Plan for 20,000-seat stadium to temporarily replace Gabba starts Queensland funding row
The Gabba has traditionally hosted the first cricket test of the Australian summer, but in 2018 it was stripped of the honor over fears the stadium was “outdated”.
“We haven’t seen any material progress at the Gabba in terms of improving public services for some time,” Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland said at the time.
Queensland has also invested billions in the “cross-river train” project, which will dramatically improve public transport links to the Gabba district.
Why is it controversial?
Queensland government sources yesterday questioned why the state would go public when it had not agreed to a funding deal.
“This is the second time we have botched an announcement about the Gabba that was not ready,” said a government source.
The first was when the Queensland government unilaterally announced in 2021 that it would redevelop the Gabba as the centerpiece of the Olympic Games.
Federal Fairfax MP Ted O’Brien, who represented the Morrison government in initial Olympic planning, told the ABC last year he was “dismayed” when Queensland announced the Gabba plan without consultation.
“It wasn’t so much the abuse of trust; It was annoying that they just came out and made an announcement because we were trying to do things on a unit ticket, that was annoying, but that in itself wasn’t enough to kill the deal,” O’Brien said.
“The problem was that we were selling a proposal to the IOC about ‘new rules’…no big, new, flashy, shiny investments. We are going to take advantage of our existing facilities. And then, out of nowhere, on the front page.”
The Queensland government is now footing the bill for the Gabba alone.
The redevelopment puts pressure on local services and will require the demolition of an adjacent heritage-listed school. The area is ground zero for the emergence of the Greens as a political force in Brisbane (local, state and federal representatives are all Green) and for them the plan represents a government overreach at a time when people are struggling with housing and the cost of living. concerns.
The state government initially promised an independent authority to oversee games venue plans, but abandoned the idea and will self-manage the projects. A government source questioned whether this was a desire to consider the AFL and cricket and that an independent body could “focus instead on the needs of actual Olympic sports”.
Schrinner told ABC on Monday that an independent authority was needed.
“This process has been a failure,” he said.
Now what?
On Monday, Palaszczuk said the simple solution to relocating cricket and AFL during the Gabba rebuild would be to move them to Carrara, the 2018 Commonwealth Games stadium on the Gold Coast, but neither code wanted that.
The subtext is clear. These two sports will be the big beneficiaries of Olympic spending. If they also want a luxurious temporary stadium, they will have to shell out money.
“We have calculated our part and now we need to see what the other parties can contribute,” Palaszczuk said.
Of Schrinner, Palaszczuk noted that he had previously supported the fairgrounds plan and suggested his outburst was related to municipal elections due early next year. The city has recently encountered budget difficulties and has drastically cut spending on services and other projects.
Could the Gabba plan change?
There will be a state election in Queensland next year and the Liberal National Party opposition has been relatively timid about its own ideas. Schrinner is also from the LNP. His intervention will increase speculation that things could change.
Without a doubt, a new government could change course, especially considering that the physical works are still far away.
Schrinner said he didn’t have a firm opinion on whether Gabba was the best option, but that he had lost faith in the state process, which he said has focused on validating the government’s decision; the most recent report is literally a “validation.” report” – rather than evaluating the merits of all options.
“If an expensive stadium is the legacy of the Olympic Games, those are not the right Games,” he said.
