Queensland’s Sports Venue Review bites the dust
Background
Last December, new Queensland Labor Premier, Steven Miles appointed the Independent Review of the Brisbane 2032 Olympics and Paralympic Venue Infrastructure (henceforth the Sports Venue Review) to “examine the 2032 sports venues with a focus on the new and upgraded sports venues”. In what was thought a clever move to emphasise the non-partisan and independent nature of the review, respected former Liberal Brisbane City Council Mayor, Graham Quirk, was its chair assisted by two other members (see Policy Insights 23/01/24).
The Sports Venue Review was established amid concerns about the mushrooming costs, contradictory and questionable government costings, and multiple controversies concerning the development and costs of proposed infrastructures for the 2032 Olympic Games. Exasperation was specially expressed about the plan to expand the current Woolloongabba Sports Stadium (the Gabba) by just 8,000 seats at the estimated but much challenged costs of $2.7 billion along with its disruption to a local school and community. That an election is due in October and the Labor Government is slipping the polls no doubt prompted the new Premier Steven Miles to appoint such an inquiry and giving it a 60 day deadline to report in the hope it might resolve these controversies and allow his government to get on with campaigning for the October election.
It is a common ploy by governments under attack and stress to appoint a public inquiry to defuse an increasingly damaging political issue by providing what appears to be an independent and expert advice on how some problem might be resolved so as to get a troublesome issue off the agenda. The problem with appointing any public inquiry is they sometimes probe into unexpected areas or produce recommendations embarrassing to the appointing government. Consequently, instead of getting an issue off the agenda inquiries inadvertently create new ones for a government to tackle.
The Miles Government sought to project the Sports Venue Review as being appointed for legitimate reasons to provide expert advice on venue developments and choice. Many, however, saw it as being established for politically expedient reasons of getting the Queensland Government off the hook over the Gabba decision of the previous premier. In other words, it was going to be a “whitewash” – giving the Miles Government what it wanted.
Whether a public inquiry is a “whitewash” or not partly depends on the nature and direction of its recommendations and what impact they actually have on government actions – are they accepted, rejected or just ignored?
So, what happened to the Sport Venue Review’s recommendations provides a means to assess both the Government’s motivations in its appointment and the effect of a public inquiry report on government policy – an area where is often much criticism about their actual impact.
What did the Review do and recommend
The Review worked hard, “considered more than 900 public submissions, met with 30 stakeholders, sporting groups and community organisations and inspected 28 proposed venue sites”. It submitted an 80-page report with 30 recommendations within its prescribed 60 day timeframe. The Review Report was released on 18 March. Costing $450,000 it was a low cost public inquiry.[1]
As expected, the Review ruled out the Gabba option and verified that a more accurate costing of developing that site was $3.4 billion instead of the previous government estimate of $2.7 billion. The Miles Government quickly and happily accepted this recommendation.
The Review, however, made other recommendations that raised new controversies for both the Miles Government and the LNP Opposition.
Foremost of these was that the Review considered that the originally proposed redevelopment of the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre (QSAC) was a waste of money. Instead, it was proposed that its activities be transferred to a new $3.4 billion stadium in inner city Victoria Park. This would be a similar cost for expanding QSAC and a limited upgrading of the Gabba.
The Victoria Park proposal immediately upset the local community that it would be too disruptive. Thus, the Government, eager to avoid upsetting another local community as well with an eye to the “agreed funding envelope” shared between the Queensland and Commonwealth governments, rejected that proposal. Instead, against the Review’s assessment the Government has decided to redevelop QSAC for $1.6 billion.
As a consequence, two complaints have now emerged about the Miles Government’s handling of the Olympics infrastructure and his government’s response to the Review.
First, the Government has reneged on its promise when establishing the Review that it would implement all the Review’s recommendations. Such promises are sometimes made by hard pressed governments when appointing inquiries, but are dangerous as an inquiry might produce a poor report, and make costly or ‘undoable’ recommendations.
Second, and more importantly by rejecting outright a major inquiry recommendation (to build a new stadium in Victoria park) and rejecting its advice about what not to do (the proposed QSAC upgrade) the Miles Government has undermined the efficacy of having a so called independent review. Of course, it is government’s right to do so but it makes the whole process look like an exercise in political expediency – the very problems that has plagued the Queensland Government’s whole approach since it won the Olympics. This criticism is further underlined when it became known that John Coates, former Olympics administrator and closely tied to the Brisbane bid, had advised the Miles Government – but not the Review it seems – that QSAC be developed as the main athletics stadium.
All this begs the question is why bother with a public inquiry costing $450,000 and wasting the time of both its three members and those 900 groups and individuals who made submissions and others who had meetings and discussions. Was the Sports Venue Review another example, as one critic said years ago, of a public inquiry that was a “wilful waste of public money and private time”?[2]
To these concerns the Miles Government has responded that it has accepted 27 of the 30 recommendations which affects a large number of Brisbane venues (like the Roma Street Area development) and most of the originally planned nearby regional venues and of course the Gabba no go recommendation. It argues it is taking the “tough” decisions in restraining expenditure costs.
While this whole episode has exposed the Government’s mismanagement of the whole Olympic process, the LNP has not been seen to have come out of the episode much better. Although also committed to the Games like the Government, the LNP has also rejected the Review’s Victoria Park recommendation and remains non-committal about other proposals including the Government’s now preferred QSAC option.
The LNP, too nervous to support the Victoria Park proposal because of local community opposition in an election year, proposes if elected in October to establish another review body and process in the form of a new Independent Infrastructure Co-ordination Authority. Its task is to decide what best infrastructure would be needed. Any such review, however, would be hamstrung as LNP leader David Crisafulli has ruled out any new stadiums! Understandably, the LNP has been accused of fence-sitting, and its new authority as just another examples of “kicking the can down the road” and thus not offering Queensland voters clear alternative to the Miles Government on the Games infrastructure issue.
Adding to the confusion and especially the LNP’s difficulties is the just re-elected Liberal Lord Mayor of the Liberal controlled powerful Brisbane City Council, Adrian Schrinner, supports the Review’s Victoria Park option. He argues Brisbane needs such a new venue if it is going to meet the needs of the Games but also allow Brisbane in the future to attract similar large events that presently go elsewhere because of lack of such facilities.
Conclusion and lessons
There are many lessons from this whole episode.
First, did Queensland Government when it won the 2032 Olympics really know what it was getting itself into or was it just all a publicity stunt driven especially by the former premier? Should there have been a much more transparent process in assessing the real costs and benefits of holding a modern Olympics and engaging with the community about understanding what it would involve?
Second, it seems since the bid was won in June 2021 (remember Queensland had no competition) the preliminary preparation processes have been a muddle, inaccurate information has been circulated, and good process lacking.
Third, as mentioned in an earlier Policy Insights on this topic, the shambles that this has all become highlights the lack of a Queensland Productivity Commission which was abolished (coincidentally in 2021 when Queensland won the Games bid). Consequently, Queensland does not have an independent body to assess costs and benefits of these sorts of projects. It is a gap in Queensland’s system of public administration. The LNP Opposition should be promising to address this deficiency if it wins office. Such a body, if properly constituted, would be more appropriate and produce longer term benefits for the taxpayer than its proposed Independent Infrastructure Co-ordination Authority mentioned above.
Fourth, and further to the point just made, the whole episode raises concerns about Queensland’s increasingly politicised Public Service. Does it have the competencies to be across complex issues like the Olympics and is it able and willing to provide “frank and fearless advice” to its political masters about the costings and suitability of proposed events and venues? The departments of Premier and Cabinet and Treasury, the key central agencies charged with co-ordinating government, have been missing these last three years. They have failed to ensure there is a proper whole-of-government process in policy development, integrity in the assessment of data and accuracy in the costings released to the public.
Fifth, the Sports Venue Review brings into focus the virtues and limits of a public inquiry.[3] In many respects, the Review performed well in meeting its terms of reference and producing a competent report within such a short timeframe. It consulted key stakeholders, absorbed multiple submissions, and viewed at first hand many of the proposed venue sites. While it gave what the Government wanted and expected in relation to the Gabba stadium, it had the integrity to give the Government – and the people of Queensland – what was needed in terms of proposing a new long-term stadium at Victoria Park, in rejecting on clear grounds the QSAC expansion proposal and truncating some of the other questionable suggested regional venues.
All this highlights that public inquiries should not be expected to resolve both the policy dilemmas and political controversies involved in complex matters like Olympic Games. These issues have to be resolved by elected governments in conversation on a regular basis with the electorate and the opposition and through existing institutions like parliament and based on a clear ongoing transparent process.
[1] The recent federal Royal Commission into Disability cost $600m, though of course went for several years.
[2] Gittins, R., “Would you head a Govt inquiry”, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 January 1981
[3] See Prasser, S., (ed), New directions in royal commissions and public inquiries: Do we need them? Connor Court Publishing, 2023 – order here.