Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games nearly four years ago under a reformed host selection process.
The process aims to reduce games costs, improve sustainability and ensure lasting community benefits.
Read more: Looking back at the Olympic venues since 1896 – are they still in use?
As Brisbane bid for the games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced around 80% of proposed venues already existed or would be temporary.
But four years on, Brisbane’s delivery plan looks very different. Those major changes come as our research has found many Queenslanders are apathetic about the games and concerned about their cost.
Recent controversies
In March this year, Queensland Premier David Crisafulli announced a raft of new and upgraded venues and transport projects.
These include a new stadium at Victoria Park/Barrambin, a much-loved inner city green space with cultural heritage significance.
The premier’s proposed venue changes are yet to be formalised, with a bill introduced to the Queensland parliament that proposes amendments to the Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act. This act relates to the governance, planning and delivery of the games.
The proposed changes aim to streamline delivery of the new venues and transport projects. The changes will enable these projects to proceed, even if they do not comply with 15 planning acts.
For example, the bill removes the need to comply with the 2016 Planning Act, the 1994 Environmental Protection Act and the 1992 Queensland Heritage Act.
These acts, and others named in the bill, provide protection for Queensland’s environment and cultural heritage and provide checks and balances to prevent damaging developments.
The bill also proposes to dramatically shorten the time available for negotiating highly sensitive cultural heritage management plans. These plans determine how land use can be managed to avoid harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage.
This will impact safeguards that can be used to stop developments which risk harming Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Finally, the proposed amendments remove any opportunities for statutory appeals, judicial review or other legal proceedings that may delay Olympic projects.
Why this matters
The proposed changes erode environmental and cultural heritage protections.
They also contradict commitments to environmental sustainability made during the host selection process. And they reinforce a pattern of the Olympic Games failing to deliver on big sustainability promises.
During a recent visit to Brisbane, the chair of the IOC Coordination Commission, Mikaela Cojuangco-Jaworski, suggested the changes were about “fast tracking, and not circumventing”.
The 2032 games can be a transformative mega-event, bringing opportunities and positive legacies to Brisbane and Queensland.
But the changes depart from the Queensland government’s initial plans, bypass accepted checks and balances, and deprive Queenslanders of their usual rights and protections.
Billions of dollars of public money will be spent to bring the games to life, which makes it even more important to deliver genuine social and environmental benefits.
Our research from 2023 -2024 explores how the 2032 games can leave a positive legacy for people across Southeast Queensland who are disengaged from sport and experience the greatest barriers to participation. This includes women and girls, migrants and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.
In conversations with 41 Queenslanders, we found an overall feeling of apathy towards the games. Some were unclear how the event would benefit them. Others were concerned the games would take resources away from areas they felt were more important.
One person commented:
The wellbeing of the communities of Brisbane is not going to be better because of the Olympics.
Another said:
Why is the government putting money into an Olympic games that could possibly fail, and not putting the money into resources that are going to help the communities that actually really do need the resources to actually survive?
This research highlights an urgent need and opportunity to ensure Olympic plans and outcomes are relevant and positive for the host community at large.
Opportunities and pitfalls
The Olympic host contract, which governs the games, implores authorities to honour their “pre-election commitments”.
These are the “guarantees, representations, statements and other commitments” submitted during the host selection process.
As it bid for the games, Brisbane’s case stated:
Brisbane recognises its duty to maximise positive social, environmental and economic impacts for its host communities. This duty extends to monitoring and oversight of all games-related human rights impacts, including in respect of equitable and accessible supply chains, responsive services, construction projects, inclusion and accessibility.
Using legal loopholes to push forward infrastructure projects contradicts this statement.
It also risks making many people ambivalent towards the games. Many may also become cynical about the claims the games will improve sustainability, wellbeing, sport participation and social connectivity.
The 2032 games will undoubtedly transform Brisbane and present opportunities to leave a legacy for Queenslanders.
However, the legacy is not guaranteed to be positive without careful planning and sincere stakeholder engagement. Organisers must not erode accepted environmental and cultural heritage protections and the legal options available to Queenslanders.
Millicent Kennelly receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has previously received funding from the International Olympic Committee.
Adele Pavlidis receives funding from the Australian Research Council
Laura Ripoll Gonzalez has received funding from the European Union.
Natalie Osborne receives funding from the Australian Research Council and volunteers for The Greens.
Sarah Joseph does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
