Chapter 4Brisbane 2032 Summer Olympics: The Gabba and Redland Whitewater Centre
4.1Along with assessing Australia’s preparedness to host the 2026 Victoria Commonwealth Games, the committee was tasked with looking into preparations for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Brisbane (the Games).
4.2The committee was particularly focused on examining the potential benefits from and impacts of investments in infrastructure—both sporting and otherwise—for local and regional communities, and the legacy that will be left after the Games.
4.3This chapter addresses two key issues that emerged in relation to the Brisbane 2032 Summer Olympics and Paralympics: the proposed redevelopment of the Brisbane Cricket Ground (commonly known as the Gabba) and the proposed construction of a Whitewater Centre at Redland. This chapter will:
outline community and stakeholder concerns around these proposed developments;
look at the adequacy of consultation;
consider evidence from the Queensland Government and other proponents of the projects;
outline alternative options; and
present the committee’s views and recommendations.
4.4In its final report, the committee may consider additional evidence received in relation to these issues, and draw further conclusions.
The Gabba redevelopment
4.5In February 2023, the Hon Annastacia Palaszczuk, Premier of Queensland and Minister for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, unveiled the Queensland Government’s plans for the redevelopment of Woolloongabba and, specifically, the Gabba Stadium. Under the plans, the Gabba will be demolished and rebuilt, then act as the main stadium for the 2032Olympic and Paralympic Games, hosting both the opening and closing ceremonies and the athletics events.
4.6The cost for the Gabba redevelopment is estimated at $2.7 billion, which would:
increase the stadium capacity from 42000 to 50000;
update amenities; and
build active transport corridors to Southbank and the central business district (CBD).
The redevelopment incorporates closing and repurposing the nearby heritage‑listed East Brisbane State School, which would be relocated to make room for the Gabba Stadium expansion. The Queensland Government has proposed converting Raymond Park, located in nearby Kangaroo Point, into a temporary warm‑up track for athletes, restoring it to a park after the Games.
4.7According to the Queensland Government, the complexities of ‘building on a constrained site’, mean that ‘completely rebuilding the Gabba is cheaper than trying to bring it to a truly accessible, modern standard’. The new facility would also include women’s change rooms and provide greater digital connectivity, leaving a long-lasting positive legacy for the state.
4.8According to the Premier, Queensland is missing out on international sports and events because its stadium is not ‘up to scratch’; the Gabba ‘must be upgraded’ to ensure Queensland remains competitive on the world stage.
4.9Figure 4.1 shows the plans for Raymond Park and Figure 4.2 shows the Woolloongabba Precinct Concept Plan.
Figure 4.1Raymond Park Plans
Source: Source: Cameron Atfield, 'No home resumptions as Olympic warm-up venue plans take shape', Brisbane Times, 31 July 2023 (accessed 7 September 2023).
Figure 4.2Woolloongabba Precinct Plan
Source: Image from: Brisbane Development, New Renders Unveiled for Woolloongabba Concept Masterplan, 19January2023 (accessed 7 September 2023).
Community concerns
4.10The committee heard passionate evidence from a number of community groups, organisations and individuals opposed to the redevelopment of the Gabba in its proposed form. Brisbane Residents United (BRU) describes itself as Brisbane’s ‘peak body for community resident actions groups’. BRU argued that the proposed Gabba redevelopment represents inappropriate spending during a cost of living crisis:
We believe the proposal to spend $2.5 billion (likely $4 billion with the inevitable budget blowouts) on demolishing and rebuilding The Gabba stadium for the 2032 Olympic Games is a manifest misallocation and misuse of public monies.
4.11Ms Elizabeth Handley, President of BRU, said the Gabba has been renovated twice, at significant cost to taxpayers—$128 million in 2005 and $35 million in 2020—and to now knock it down is a ‘vast misuse of public money’.
East Brisbane State School
4.12BRU submitted that it is concerned about plans to demolish the Woolloongabba Place Park—a heritage-listed former police station on Main St next to the Gabba—and is especially opposed to the plan to relocate the East Brisbane State School (EBSS). Along with concerns about losing the heritage value associated with the school, BRU decried the ‘loss of opportunity’ for children to walk to school, and the inevitable increase in traffic:
East Brisbane, Woolloongabba and Kangaroo Point are areas of high density development encouraged by both state and local governments. This has naturally lead to a rapidly expanding need for school places for residents’ children. This area has heavy traffic congestion, being part of a major feeder routes across Brisbane. Adding to this congestion by moving the school outside the area and consequently creating additional traffics is counterproductive.
4.13Representatives of the EBSS community explained that closing the EBSS would remove ‘the last remaining school in the entire East Brisbane, Kangaroo Point and Woolloongabba catchment area’. ProfessorDaniel Angus, Association Member of the EBSS Parents and Citizens Association Olympic Impact Group (EBSS PCA), observed that the 124-year-old school has ‘survived multiple major floods, two major pandemics and two world wars, but at this stage it seems it will not survive an Olympics’.
4.14Professor Angus said the recent decision by the Queensland Government to relocate the school to Coorparoo is not supported by the community. Moving the school out of area would likely impact on the health and fitness of students, over 70 per cent of whom currently walk or ride to school, and reduce the workforce participation of women, who benefit from the school’s location near public transport:
The proposed Coorparoo school does not serve the educational nor greater needs of our community now or into the future. Our own survey … revealed that 93 per cent of 1,000-plus local residents want a school to remain within the current catchment area.
4.15The announced location at Coorparoo was also noted to be around two kilometres from the existing school, and too far for students to walk. Clearly some students, depending on where they live, would face a longer journey.MrAngus said this is particularly inappropriate as many residents live in apartments and use public transport. Locating the school outside the area would impact the environment, as more people would be forced to drive. EBSS PCA submitted that parents are also concerned about the safety and quality of footpaths in the area, which are located right on roads with heavy traffic.
Raymond Park
4.16Raymond Park is an inner city public park, officially established in 1915, which services the high‑density areas of Kangaroo Point, East Brisbane and Woolloongabba. The Friends of Raymond Park described it as ‘an important public space’, which is ‘highly utilised’ for sports and recreational activities, ‘well-loved’, and ‘highly valued by the (large surrounding) community and visitors’. They argued converting Raymond Park—even temporarily—would result in the loss of critical community recreation and health facilities, some homes, mature trees, shade and cooling, and the loss of a community meeting space. There were also concerns raised around increasing traffic and disruption during construction, noise and dust impacts, and an increase in the urban ‘heat island effect’.
4.17BRU also opposed the planned use of Raymond Park as ‘a temporary warm-up track for the Olympic athletes’, noting the Park’s important role as a community sports facility and playground. BRU argued removing access to these facilities for a temporary warm-up track ‘prioritises elite sporting facilities over community sports facilities’.
4.18The Friends of Raymond Park questioned whether ‘due diligence’ was taken in assessing the impacts of the proposal, including impacts on the community, environment, property prices and logistics, and suggested the organisers find a location that is more ‘fit-for-purpose’:
Friends of Raymond Park have over 750 members who are strongly opposed to this development. To date the Save Raymond Park petition has almost 3000 signatures opposed to the construction of such a development on green public open space.
4.19Founder of Friends of Raymond Park, Ms Melissa Occhipinti, said the Park represents 50 per cent of the available green space in Kangaroo Point and plays an important role in maintaining good mental health for residents in an otherwise highly-urbanised area. Removing access to Raymond Park would, MsOcchipinti said, ironically decrease community participation in sport and physical activity.
4.20Another argument against the plan to use a redeveloped Gabba for the athletics and Raymond Park as the warm-up track is that Raymond Park is not actually adjacent to the Gabba. According to a number of submitters, Raymond Park is over 465 metres from the perimeter of the Gabba, and over 600 metres from the proposed new Cross River Rail and Brisbane Metro transport hub. This means shuttle buses will be required. In contrast, the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre (QSAC) has a warm-up track directly adjacent to the facility.
4.21According to the Brisbane Times, warm-up tracks have traditionally been adjacent to Olympic athletic venues, including in Sydney, Tokyo, Athens, Beijing and Paris, ‘so the 500-metre journey to the main venue will be an anomaly for this millennium’.
Legacy
4.22Submitters and witnesses questioned whether developments associated with the Games would leave a positive legacy. The West End Community Association (WECA) said the costs associated with the Gabba redevelopment may be higher than the benefits:
Much of the infrastructure focuses on catering for the two to three month Olympic window and may not deliver substantial benefits to our communities. The proposed resumption of local parks (Raymond Park) and the Gabba rebuild that will resume the East Brisbane State Schools must not result in loss of essential infrastructure for the existing service community. … We see a lack of preparedness from Olympics organisers to maintain community benefits through the next nine years of construction and then post-Olympics.
4.23BRU submitted:
There are a large number of examples of past host cities that struggled to recoup their investments or experienced underutilized and decaying facilities after the Games. It is questionable whether the projected benefits will materialize and if the region will be left with a positive, lasting legacy.
Official views
4.24Conversely, the Queensland Government argued the Gabba redevelopment is focused primarily on legacy:
… it will support the long-term professional sport, community and entertainment needs of the city before and well after 2032 and capitalise on the significant transport investment in the precinct, including Cross River Rail and Brisbane Metro. [It will provide] better spectator viewing, more seats, better accessibility, improved and future-proofed digital connectivity, sport and spectator facilities for all genders, purpose-designed access to new transport infrastructure, and increased comfort for spectators and athletes, including more roof coverage to protect sports fans from the elements.
4.25The Queensland Government stated that the Gabba redevelopment ‘needs to happen’ regardless of the Games. This idea was echoed by MrLewisMatthew (Matt) Carroll, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC), who said the Gabba is an ‘old facility’ that has ‘reached its use-by date’. Mr Carroll confirmed that the redevelopment is ‘not necessary or sufficient’ just for the Games, and that a redeveloped Gabba would have long-term uses, beyond the Olympics. Mr Carroll also insisted that decisions around sporting infrastructure are ‘a matter for the government’, not the AOC.
4.26Asked to confirm whether the Gabba redevelopment was a requirement for hosting the Games, Mr Carroll replied:
It is necessary for the Olympics to have a venue capable of hosting the athletics, both for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It’s necessary to host other sports as well. The Olympic movement is saying, ‘If you don’t have one and want to build a new one, make sure it is not just for the Olympics.’ That’s what the Gabba rebuild is about.
4.27The Queensland Government submitted that it is aware of concerns around housing, and is planning to expand the Woolloongabba Priority Development Area ‘to enable better use of state land and the precinct for more housing, including social and affordable housing’. In addition, the Government plans to turn the athletes village into ‘a diverse riverfront development that meets the needs of our growing population and includes social and affordable housing’.
4.28Mr Mike Kaiser, Director-General, Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, explained that ‘project validation reports’ are currently being prepared, which will ‘ensure venues meet both games and legacy requirements before they’re funded by government’. He argued that, by constructing a new rail line and footbridge, the redevelopment would connect the Gabba to the Brisbane CBD, and bring ‘significant opportunity to Woolloongabba’, including ‘precinct revitalisation and urban renewal’.
4.29In relation to Raymond Park, Mr Kaiser gave assurances that no houses will be resumed for the project.
4.30Mr Kaiser was asked if the Australian Government had been asked to contribute funding towards the Gabba redevelopment; he confirmed that it had been asked. Federal funding was not agreed to because, according to Mr Kaiser, the redevelopment is ‘part of a broader urban renewal precinct redevelopment; it’s not just a stadium’.
4.31The committee also heard from Ms Cindy Hook, Chief Executive Officer, Brisbane Organising Committee for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games (BOCOG). Ms Hook implied the Games are being organised in a way that meets the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) ‘new norms and Olympic Agenda 2020+5’, which means the Games are ‘being prepared and designed to fit this region, not the region to fit the games’.
4.32Ms Hook said the decision to use Raymond Park for the warm-up track was made by ‘the state’, and that the project is not BOCOG’s project. However, MsHook later responded to a question about minimising negative impacts from the Games, saying:
You can’t say there’ll be no impact, but we need to minimise that. For example, we’ll need to use Raymond Park if we’re going to use the Gabba. We should minimise the amount of time we need to do that and minimise the impact to anybody around it. This is not a period of years; it’s a period of months. We need to minimise negative impacts and create maximum opportunity.
Consultation
4.33Community members were concerned about a lack of consultation. BRU said that, while local communities are the ‘key stakeholder’ in these decisions, no consultation mechanism currently exists:
The local community is a significant stakeholder and should be a participant (with teeth) in the oversight and accountability structures. There should be mechanisms for genuine consultation and input.
4.34BRU argued residents have not been provided with sufficient information to understand the basis of decisions or the likely impacts, and that there has been ‘little transparency and accountability’.
4.35Members of the school community and supporters of Raymond Park felt the same way. Having submitted a number of suggested sites for relocation to the Queensland Government, Professor Angus was frustrated by a lack of meaningful consultation. He said the community was only finding out about decisions from media releases. Ms Occhipinti said any responses to letters they wrote to ministers and officials took months to arrive and were evasive.
4.36Community groups argued that claims by officials that they are ‘in constant communication’ with the community are untrue. Professor Angus described the consultation process around the school’s relocation as a ‘sham’, saying only three options were offered for consideration (two of which were in Coorparoo); that no ministers have attended the school to speak to affected parents and residents; and that teachers were told about the decision 20 minutes before they had to start teaching their classes.
4.37Mr Kaiser was asked about community consultation and suggested that ‘community opinion is divided’ on the developments. While the Queensland Government is taking into account the views of local councils and local communities, Mr Kaiser said plans would ultimately be determined based around the ‘legacy benefit’ to the city and South-East Queensland more broadly.
4.38The AOC was also asked to respond to suggestions that it had failed to respond to a request to meet with community members about their concerns. Mr Carroll said the AOC has responded, and undertook to provide a copy of the correspondence to the committee on notice.
4.39On notice the AOC acknowledged that, while it had written responses to letters about the Redland Whitewater Centre and Raymond Park, Mr Carroll had been incorrect in that:
… the AOC did not respond to letters received from community members in relation to the Gabba redevelopment as the issues raised in the correspondence were matters for the Queensland Government and beyond the AOC’s remit.
4.40Ms Hook was asked if she would commit to meeting with affected communities and groups, such as BRU and the Friends of Raymond Park. She said she would be ‘happy to meet with them and review their evidence’. Ms Hook noted that BOCOG had done a letter drop to residents about the Raymond Park project. However, it appears this was done after the State Government announced it would not reclaim houses as part of the project, not prior to the decision being made.
Alternative options
4.41Affected community groups proposed alternatives to the planned Gabba redevelopment. Friends of Raymond Park clarified that it supports the Olympics and is not opposed to the redevelopment of the Gabba—if this is done within the current footprint. BRU and Friends of Raymond Park recommended that:
the opening Ceremony be held at a refurbished or renovated Gabba, contained within the existing footprint;
the Cross River Rail Site becomes ‘a park and forecourt supporting the Ceremony’; and
the Athletics be relocated to Carrara at Queensland Sport and Athletic Centre (QSAC), 10 kilometres from the city.
4.42According to BRU, these options would ‘provide more positive legacy outcomes for SEQ/Brisbane’, would be more environmentally sustainable, and would be in line with the ‘new norms’ and other stated aims of the Games.
4.43The Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department), submitted that Brisbane’s bid was for a ‘sustainable Games’, where 84 per cent of venues would be ‘existing or temporary’. This is in line with the IOC’s ‘new norm reforms’, which ‘encourage reduced venue sizes, optimisation of existing infrastructure, reuse of the field of play for various sports and provide flexibility in designing the games to meet long-term development goals’. The department also noted that the Commonwealth does not have a role in funding the $2.7 billion redevelopment of the Gabba or Brisbane 2032 villages.
4.44The Queensland Government submitted that new venues have only been proposed if they meet the following criteria: (1) the venue is planned irrespective of the Games; (2) the venue is required for legacy; and (3) the venue explicitly supports the growth of the region.
4.45Mr Carroll confirmed that, under the ‘new norm’ policies, Olympic hosts should avoid building new venues if appropriate venues already exist.
The Whitewater Centre at Redland
4.46The Queensland Government’s plans for the Games include a plan to construct a whitewater facility at Birkdale in Redland City, which would act as the venue for canoe slalom events. The committee heard significant community concerns around this proposal.
Community concerns
4.47BRU described it as a ‘poorly conceived proposal’, saying:
The cost of constructing an Olympic white-water course can easily exceed $100 million. There are 82 paddlers entered into the canoe slalom at the Paris Olympics next year. The Brisbane Games, on those figures, would have to commit over a million dollars per competitor to host a sport with fewer Olympic participants than handball, fencing, or skateboarding. This is the sort of extravagance that The International Olympic Committee has already moved decisively against.’
4.48Redlands2030, an incorporated community association, was strongly opposed to the proposal, saying:
the construction would ‘likely result in unacceptable environment and heritage impacts on a publicly owned site’;
events could be held elsewhere, at existing facilities;
the legacy facility would become a burden to the community and be ‘uneconomic’; and
the proposal was not justified by a public business case.
4.49The Birkdale lands house a community precinct and heritage buildings, along with land that has ‘heritage environment values’, including a koala habitat and freshwater aquifers that feed nearby mangroves. Redlands2030 argued residents want to see this value maintained.
4.50Mrs Debbie Pointing, President of Koala Action Group Queensland, explained that the area is ‘known as the Koala Coast’, and once housed an estimated 6000 koalas:
… but it has now experienced a catastrophic decline of up to 80 to 90 per cent of the population due to habitat loss, disease, vehicle strikes and dog attacks. There are now approximately 600 koalas remaining. … The site contains some of the best koala habitat in the area, and the endangered koalas that live on the site will be affected by the construction and operation of the new whitewater centre. It is indisputable that, if this large industrial sized centre goes ahead, it will present an impenetrable, permanent barrier to the north-south movement of koalas across the site.
4.51The land was bought from the Commonwealth in 2019 by Redland City Council with the sale reportedly being subject to the development of a Conservation Agreement. However, Redlands2030 said the agreement is confidential and a final version may not have been signed. Redlands2030 urged the committee to advocate for greater transparency around this agreement, and the Council’s plans for developing the precinct.
4.52The Community Alliance for Responsible Planning (CARP) Redlands Inc (CARP Redlands) also opposed the project while being clear that the organisation is ‘not anti‑Olympics’. This alliance of six local organisations said:
The $100 million Olympic Whitewater Stadium proposed on land at Birkdale in Redland City is being forced on the people of the Redlands.
The Redlands community did not ask for it and we do not want it. It is an idea of Redland City Council’s own making.
4.53CARP Redlands suggested the Redland City Council has ‘misled’ the Queensland Government by pretending the proposed Whitewater Centre is ‘much-needed, long-wanted and supported by a robust business plan’. Instead, CARP Redlands claimed the people of Redlands want ‘nature, conservation and heritage protection of the 62-hectare Birkdale Community Precinct’, including the koala habitat.
4.54Pointing to the Host City Contract Principles, CARP Redlands noted that the principles stipulate: ‘Where new permanent venues need to be constructed [they should not be] located in or adjacent to statutory nature, cultural protected areas or World Heritage Sites’. CARP Redlands suggested the establishment of a protected cultural and environmental heritage site and koala sanctuary at the site instead of the Whitewater Centre would create ‘an intergenerational legacy’, and tourist attraction.
4.55According to CARP Redlands, the idea for the Whitewater Centre was ‘initiated by Redland City Council itself, apparently with the backing of the then South East Queensland Olympic Games proponents’, and the ‘commitment’ to host the Whitewater Centre in Redlands ‘was made well in advance of consulting the community’. Specifically, the Council’s bid to host the facility was lodged in May 2021, with the findings of a community consultation not received or discussed until the end of May and not specifically endorsing the Whitewater Centre.
4.56CARP Redlands observed that three out of the last six Olympic Whitewater Centres that were built have been abandoned, and the other three are operating at a loss, and/or ‘heavily subsidised’. Ms Lavinia Wood, President of CARP Redlands, said the New South Wales Government has recently taken over the Whitewater Centre from Penrith City Council, who have been running it at a loss. MsWood suggested that, if Queensland must have a Whitewater Centre, ‘it should be in state ownership’. CARP Redlands was concerned that efforts to ‘cross-subsidise’ the Whitewater Centre would encourage the Council to open up ‘additional commercial leases on that precinct’, further encroaching on the natural environment.
4.57CARP Redlands submitted that the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments are relying on ‘project validation reports’ to determine if the funding should be provided. Contacts to produce such reports for the Redland Whitewater Centre have been awarded to AECOM and Turner & Townsend Thinc, totalling just under $800000. CARP Redlands urged the committee to seek information on ‘the parameters’ of these reports, with a view to:
understanding if all matters—environmental, social and economic—as raised by our alliance of community organisations in our submissions to the Inquiry are fairly and truly represented
and if not, understanding how all matters—environmental, social and economic—as raised by our alliance of community organisations in our submissions to the Inquiry, can be introduced into the Validation process
ensuring that conclusions about validity are fairly and properly made across all matters raised.
4.58Mr Tom Tate, Mayor, City of Gold Coast was asked if he believed any of the proposed Games projects could be characterised as ‘white elephants’ or unnecessary expenditure. He replied, ‘I feel sorry for the future generation of Redland council that will have to foot the bill. I think the state government should foot the bill, in that case’.
Official views
4.59The Queensland Government argued that the Whitewater Centre would provide ‘a great opportunity for elite sport and community legacy’, being used year-round by Paddle Australia and Paddle Queensland ‘for high performance sport and sport development’, and available to emergency services personnel for swift water rescue training.
4.60The Council of Mayors (South East Queensland) insisted that the project was supported by the community and would provide ongoing benefits. MrScottSmith, Chief Executive Officer, Council of Mayors (SEQ), said a 2019 feasibility study suggested Redland as the ‘preferred location’ for the facility:
Redland City Council, along with the state government, [Queensland Fire and Emergency Services] and Surf Life Saving Australia, had already been in discussions with the federal government about purchasing that site. We came along with this opportunity. They took that opportunity because they already had a plan, which was to build a surf facility that would provide emergency services training and education and training for children in surf events such as rips. So there are all sorts of other legacy opportunities beyond the leisure side of it.
4.61Mayor Williams wrote to the committee saying it seemed that the committee has not been provided the detail around the development plans, which she described as ‘enriching and exciting’. The Mayor argued that the Council has led a ‘gold standard’ approach to venue planning, which puts legacy front and centre:
The design of the venue is focused on securing long-term benefits to Queensland and beyond, and achieves this through the integration of several user channels. In its legacy mode, the Redlands Whitewater Centre will include resilience training, defensive swimming, swift-water urban flooding rescue as well as elite sport training. A range of national and state groups have been a part of the legacy planning for this facility including Surf Life Saving Australia, National Emergency Management Agency, QFES and Queensland Police.
4.62In response to letters from Senator Penny Allman-Payne, the Hon Steven Miles MP, Deputy Premier of Queensland, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister Assisting the Premier on Olympics Infrastructure wrote:
The Redland Whitewater Centre is only a fraction of the Redland City Council's broader Birkdale Community Precinct development, and it is being built on an already cleared area of the precinct. Through the whole precinct development, protecting and conserving local ecology and cultural heritage will be considered during the planning process, including compliance with environmental legalisation. … The Birkdale facility will complement the Sydney facility and provides the best opportunity for a great elite sport and community legacy in Queensland, and it is incorporated into a broader adventure sports precinct with other activities.
4.63A further response in late 2022 clarified that the Whitewater Centre would be reviewed in 2023 through the Project Validation Report before the final investment decision is made; the report will:
… provide assurance to decision-makers that the investment commitments are cost effective and fit for purpose to deliver on both Brisbane 2032 and legacy use req4irements. Through this process stakeholder and community interests will be considered as well as key risks such as budget, scope and program.
Consultation
4.64Asked to comment on suggestions the community was not consulted, Mr Smith said: ‘The council have consulted the community. There’s a consultation report out that shows three in four residents of Redland supported that venue, that site and that master plan’.
4.65CARP Redlands reported that they sought access to the Council’s survey results and received a copy under freedom of information. The survey conducted by the Council received 1680 responses and looked at community preferences for the creation of the Birkdale Community Precinct. According to CARP Redlands, the survey found:
1,323 responses (78.8% of responses) supported nature trails
966 responses supported conservation uses
566 responses supported history and heritage uses
565 responses supported various education uses
149 responses (8.9% of responses) supported a whitewater facility.
4.66CARP Redlands suggested the Council’s claims that the survey indicated local people are in favour of the Whitewater Centre are disingenuous. The survey suggested popular support for the creation of a community precinct, incorporating cultural and natural heritage, flora and fauna, and recreational activities. However, the Whitewater Centre itself was not necessarily supported by most respondents.
4.67CARPRedlands provided further evidence of community opposition to the Whitewater Centre, including a petition to the Queensland Parliament, asking it to stop the development, which had 2051 signatures as at 5 September 2023.
4.68In contrast, Mr Carroll said it was the AOC’s understanding that ‘the majority of residents are quite welcoming of that facility being built at Redland’.
4.69On notice, CARP Redlands provided copies of a number of letters and emails sent to the AOC, BOCOG, the Prime Minister, the Premier of Queensland and other members of the Queensland State Parliament, and the Mayor and Redlands City Council, outlining community concerns about the Whitewater Centre development. Responses from officials have generally reiterated that the Whitewater Centre ‘aligns to the new norm requirements’ and will be a benefit to the community.
4.70CARP Redlands sent an email to all of councillors before their General Meeting on 17 August 2022, asking the Council to consider 20 questions about the development. Council records show there was a vote that day on whether to ‘proceed with the development of the Final Birkdale Community Precinct Master Plan for presentation and adoption at a future meeting of Council’. The vote was split, with Mayor Karen Williams subsequently using her casting vote to secure a decision to proceed.
4.71Noting that the Australian Government had been requested to contribute 50percent to the cost of the proposed Whitewater Centre, representatives from Commonwealth departments and sports bodies were asked if the Infrastructure Minister had received correspondence about the planned development. MrBillBrummitt, Assistant Secretary, Olympics, Paralympics and Sport Infrastructure Branch, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, confirmed that the minister had received correspondence and was awaiting the results of the project validation process—which incorporates stakeholder consultation.
Alternative options
4.72CARP Redlands proposed that the Sydney 2000 Whitewater Stadium in Penrith could be used as the Olympic Canoe Slalom venue in 2032. BRU agreed that the ‘Olympic-standard venue’ in Penrith was a better option:
As the IOC is well aware, the [Penrith Whitewater Centre] is ready, willing and able to host the Olympic canoe slalom, again, in 2032. There are major shortfalls in core infrastructure in the Redlands and beyond as the population continues to grow rapidly. This money could certainly be better utilised in the area.
4.73While hosting the event in existing facilities in Penrith was their preference, CARP Redlands also offered three other alternative options:
(a)Co-located with the 2032 Olympic Rowing Centre on the Wyaralong Dam, Beaudesert Shire
(b)Co-located with existing aquatic attractions on the Gold Coast on already-cleared land
(c)Reprise the previously investigated possibility of siting the whitewater facility in Logan City.
4.74Ms Wood asked the committee to recommend the Commonwealth refuse to fund the Whitewater Centre at Redland.
Scrutiny and transparency
4.75A key concern for the communities affected by these developments has been the perceived lack of transparency, and a failure to provide opportunities for scrutiny of Games decisions.
4.76The committee heard from Queensland Members of Parliament, MsFionaSimpson, Member for Maroochydore, and Mr Jarrod Bleijie, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Member for Kawana, at its hearing in Brisbane.
4.77MsSimpson argued there has not been a business case provided to justify the Gabba redevelopment, Queensland Government messaging has been misleading, and planned infrastructure developments may not meet community priorities. Similarly, Mr Bleijie said:
I don’t think it’s good for democracy to have the Queensland government making all these decisions centrally. I think there should be an absolute, independent delivery authority. The LNP in Queensland support the games. We support the infrastructure that was promised for the games. But I also want transparency, openness and accountability around the expenditure—and we haven’t got that.
4.78Mr Bleijie highlighted the fact that Queensland has a unicameral Parliament and said this has reduced opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of this expenditure and these decisions. The Government chairs the committees and has a majority of members. According to Mr Bleijie, an attempt by the Opposition to refer a meaningful inquiry that would provide ongoing oversight of the organisation of the Games was thwarted by the Government, who amended the referral, rendering it ineffective.
Committee view
4.79Hosting a major international event, such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, inevitably creates an impost upon communities and residents. It also requires significant investment of public monies, and inevitable disagreements around how funding is spent. The committee appreciates the scale of the task that faces the Queensland Government, and appreciates its willingness to participate in this inquiry, in contrast to the Victorian Government.
4.80The committee is concerned, however, that the Queensland Government is making decisions that stand to have deep and long-lasting impacts on people’s lives and communities, without proper consultation. Evidence to this inquiry shows:
decisions being made before community consultations take place;
communities finding out critical information from media releases, instead of directly from the organisers;
a failure on the part of the Queensland Government to establish formal consultation channels; and
a concerning lack of transparency when it comes to providing access to evidence and information justifying the more controversial Games developments.
4.81It may also be unwise and inappropriate for the Government to insist that a redeveloped Gabba host the athletics for the Games. Affected stakeholders pointed out that the Gabba could be redeveloped in its current footprint without the need to demolish the East Brisbane State School or develop Raymond Park. State governments should not use major events as an excuse to fast-track already-planned urban development against the wishes of their citizens and local communities, and without due diligence.
4.82The Gabba redevelopment should be subject to the same requirements for consultation as any development proposal, and required to be based on a sound business case. The Queensland Government should be honest with Queenslanders about why this project is being undertaken.
4.83Relocating the students of the East Brisbane State School to a new school location outside of the catchment area—where children can no longer walk or ride to school—represents a permanently poor outcome for the affected community that will outlast the 2032 Games. The Queensland Government needs to sit down with the community and find a solution that is acceptable—keeping front of mind over a century of history being weighed against a single event.
4.84In relation to Raymond Park, the committee is sympathetic to the concerns of residents. The onus is on the Queensland Government to demonstrate why the athletics need to be held at the Gabba, as opposed to at an existing or alternative venue. If organisers believe the imposition on the park will indeed be for ‘months, not years’, they should be able to prove this to residents. If organisers believe the Park will be fully restored to park land, they should be able to provide compelling evidence and demonstrate accountability to allay community concerns.
4.85In line with this, the committee sought assurances from Ms Hook that she would personally meet with affected communities and consider their arguments and evidence in earnest—we expect this to be done.
4.86The committee was also concerned about the proposal to build an expensive Whitewater Centre at Redland. It appears the local council is divided on the plan, with the Mayor having to use her casting vote to secure the progress of the project. The committee is concerned that the Council may be misrepresenting the views of the community and may be exaggerating community demand for this facility, of which it is the originator and proponent. Residents are deeply concerned about impacts on the natural environment and the koala population in the area, along with the possibility that the facility will leave a legacy of debt for the council and its residents.
4.87The committee agrees that major development decisions—such as the decision to build a Whitewater Centre at Redland—should be subject to a robust business case, and that business case should be publicly available. The history of whitewater facilities built for previous Games suggests there is a high likelihood that the facility could become a drain on the community and public funds in the future. This evidence would suggest that Australia does not need, and cannot sustain, two whitewater facilities. Proponents of the project should be willing and able to provide detailed evidence of the benefits to the community and residents of the state. Failure to do so inevitably results in doubt and division.
4.88The Queensland Government should be working with the New South Wales Government to fully explore the possibility of holding the events at the Penrith Whitewater Centre. It is unclear if this option has been fully investigated. The committee would like to see a detailed analysis of the feasibility of using the existing Penrith facilities for the Games, instead of building a new facility at Redland.
4.89The committee would also like to see greater transparency around the conditions under which the Birkdale lands were sold to the Redland City Council. If there was an agreement that the environment be protected as a condition of the sale, this must be made public and must be honoured.
4.90The Queensland Government must also provide a detailed report which outlines its justification for using a refurbished Gabba for the athletics events, rather than utilising existing infrastructure, such as the Queensland Sport and Athletic Centre.
4.91With the Australian Government providing up to $3.435 billion toward venue infrastructure for Brisbane 2032, there is a role for the Commonwealth in ensuring value for money and responsible planning on the part of the Queensland Government. The ‘new norm’ approach to hosting the Games must be front-and-centre to all decisions made about venues and infrastructure development, and the ongoing needs of communities and the environment must not be sidelined.
4.92As a condition of providing funding towards the Games, the Australian Government must ensure the Queensland Government lives up to the assurances it gave in applying to host the Games; namely, that the Games would leave a positive legacy for Queensland and the nation. There may also be a role for the Australian Government in coordinating efforts to ensure existing infrastructure across Australia is fully utilised and no infrastructure projects go ahead that do not represent value-for-money for the communities who pay for them.
4.93The committee recommends the Australian Government works with the Queensland Government, affected communities and Olympics Games organising bodies to urgently review the decision to host Athletics events at the Gabba stadium and the associated plans to demolish the East Brisbane State School and temporarily remove community access to Raymond Park. The review should consider the feasibility of alternative options, including using existing infrastructure, and work to find a solution that is acceptable to these communities.
4.94If the result of a review of the Gabba stadium decision still requires the demolition of the East Brisbane School, the Queensland Government should work with the local community to build a new school in closer proximity to the existing school than the proposed Coorparoo school.
4.95The committee recommends the Australian Government works through an intergovernmental forum, such as National Cabinet, to explore the most cost‑effective solution for hosting the canoe slalom events at the Brisbane 2032 Games. If it is feasible to host the events at the Penrith Whitewater Centre in New South Wales, including with refurbishments, this option should be prioritised over building a new facility.
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan
Chair