Brisbane’s preparations for the 2032 Olympics became embroiled in a new political battle on Sunday when the city’s mayor, Adrian Schrinner, withdrew 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 is controversial. Many locals oppose it and the state has pursued it despite other, cheaper options.
Related: Brisbane mayor resigns from 2032 Olympics, calling it a ‘dysfunctional farce’
What happened?
Schrinner’s decision to withdraw his support – and resign from a Games delivery forum – followed the Queensland government’s announcement that it would redevelop the Brisbane showground 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 favored as a temporary home for the Brisbane Lions.
The state government announced the plan on Friday, including that the city council, AFL, Cricket Australia and the Royal Agricultural Society would be asked to cover about two-thirds of the costs.
Schrinner says he wasn’t even told before. He says the Minister of State for Sport, Stirling Hinchliffe, had tried to call him late the day before.
“It is clear that the Games are more about overpriced stadiums than the promise of vital transportation solutions,” Schrinner said in a statement.
“The state government’s stupid and foolish attempt to extort tens of millions of dollars from Brisbane taxpayers for a new RNA stadium was the final straw.”
Why is the Gabba being redeveloped?
The International Olympic Committee has said the Gabba redevelopment is not necessary to host the Games – the new mantra is that infrastructure should not be built just for the Olympics.
Initially, other options were on the table for a major athletics stadium: the redevelopment of the Albion Park greyhound racing circuit, 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 a number of reasons. The first is the need to satisfy the stadium’s long-term tenants, the AFL and cricket, who have been lobbying for upgrades for years.
Related: Plan for a 20,000-seat stadium to temporarily replace the Gabba kicks off funding battle in Queensland
The Gabba traditionally hosted the first cricket Test of the Australian summer, but was stripped of the honor in 2018 amid concerns the stadium was ‘outdated’.
“We have not seen any material developments at the Gabba in terms of improving public facilities for some time,” Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland said at the time.
Queensland has also already invested billions in the cross river rail 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 if it had not agreed to a financing deal.
“It’s the second time we’ve bungled an announcement about the Gabba that wasn’t ready yet,” a government source said.
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 MP for Fairfax Ted O’Brien, who represented the Morrison government in early Olympic planning, told the ABC last year he was “dismayed” when Queensland announced the Gabba plan without consultation.
“It wasn’t so much the breach of trust – it was annoying that they just made an announcement because we were trying to do things on a unit ticket basis, that was annoying – but that in itself wasn’t enough to kill the deal,” O’ said Brien.
“The problem was that we were selling a proposal to the IOC about the ‘new standards’… not big, new, flashy, shiny investments. We will use 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 facilities and requires the demolition of an adjacent monumental school. The area is ground zero for the Greens’ rise as a political force in Brisbane – local, state and federal representatives are all Greens – and for them the plan represents government overreach at a time when people are struggling with housing and costs of living. to assure.
The state government initially promised an independent authority to oversee play venue plans, but abandoned the idea and will manage the projects itself. One government source questioned whether this was a desire to consider AFL and cricket and that an independent body could “focus instead on the needs of actual Olympic sports”.
Schrinner told the ABC on Monday that an independent authority was needed.
“This process has failed,” he said.
What now?
On Monday, Palaszczuk said the simple solution to moving 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 major beneficiaries of Olympic spending. If they also want a temporary stadium with bells and whistles, they will have to pay for it.
“We have determined our share and now we have to see what the other parties can put in,” Palaszczuk said.
On Schrinner, Palaszczuk pointed out that he had previously supported the showground plan and suggested his outburst was linked to the municipal elections due to take place early next year. The city has recently faced budget problems and has cut spending on services and other projects.
Could the Gabba plan change?
There is a state election in Queensland next year and the Liberal National Party opposition is relatively cagey about its own ideas. Schrinner is also from the LNP. His intervention will increase speculation that things could change.
It would certainly be open to a new government to change course, especially as physical works are still far away.
Schrinner said he did not have a clear position on whether the Gabba was the best option, but that he had lost confidence in the state process, which he said was aimed at validating the government’s decision – the latest report being literally a “validation report” – rather than assessing the merits of all options.
“If an overpriced stadium is the legacy of the Olympics, then that’s not the right Olympics,” he said.