Address to Senate Inquiry on Australia’s Preparedness to Host Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games

On the 17th April, Save Victoria Park Inc. representative Rosemary O’Hagan, alongside Elizabeth Handley from Brisbane Residents United, addressed the Senate Inquiry on Australia’s Preparedness to Host Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games. The following is a transcript of this address -

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
17/04/2024
Australia’s preparedness to host Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games

HANDLEY, Ms Elizabeth, President, Brisbane Residents United Inc.

O'HAGAN, Ms Rosemary, Spokesperson, Save Victoria Park, Victoria Park/Barrambin Residents Action Group [by audio link]

[16:45]

CHAIR: I now welcome representatives from Brisbane Residents United and, via teleconference, the Victoria Park/Barrambin Residents Action Group. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses has been provided to you both. Thank you both for making time for us. Sorry for being a little bit delayed. You have an opportunity to make an opening statement if you'd like, and then we'll go to questions. Ms Handley, it looks like you would like to, and then I'll go to Ms O'Hagan.

Ms Handley : I represent Brisbane Residents United, Brisbane's peak body for community resident action groups. We welcome the opportunity to present to this committee. In 2015, the Council of Mayors (South-East Queensland) began investigating a South-East Queensland Olympic Games bid. According to Chair Graham Quirk, the Olympic feasibility study aimed to determine whether a regional Olympic Games bid would catalyse infrastructure and transport investment, boost the economy and raise the region's international profile. The International Olympic Committee granted Brisbane the games. It was sold to the people of Queensland as being under the committee's new norm of existing infrastructure. As part of this new norm, facilities were to be built or upgraded to create legacy facilities for the maximum number of sports.

The Queensland government seems to have made the sensible decision to refurbish existing stadiums to contain costs, instead of the proposed total rebuild of the Gabba. Through this process, we must avoid gifting public assets, land and funds to private entities based on spurious criteria such as 'civic pride' or 'Brisbane might miss out'. The whitewater rafting course at Birkdale, at $100 million, remains a manifest misallocation and misuse of public moneys. The Penrith whitewater centre was built for the Sydney games in 2000. As the IOC is well aware, the Penrith whitewater centre is ready, willing and able to host the Olympic canoe slalom again in 2032.

Green space is not vacant space awaiting development, as assumed in most of the recent suggestions for Victoria Park and the Roma Street Parkland. These proposals would override many years of planning and community consultation undertaken by the Brisbane City Council to enhance both these areas to serve the community's ever-increasing need for green space, with the vast increase in population density.

Public parklands are freely available for the whole community to enjoy. A large stadium is a commercial business that restricts access to only the paying public. The ticket price to major events in large stadiums is typically well beyond the reach of many people. Such a business on public land is, in effect, a privatisation of public green space for commercial use. The Victoria Park stadium proposal was instigated by a commercial business with no community consultation and no details for the community to consider. The sustainability of the Olympic movement depends on affordable spending. Whilst the development industry seeks to exploit big sporting events like the Olympics, it runs the risk of killing the event.

Sports and public parks are for the community, not an excuse for short-sighted development. It would be a brave government that embarked on such huge, unnecessary expenditure while Queenslanders are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis with record levels of hunger, homelessness, poverty and housing affordability issues and a growing lack of adequate education, community and health facilities for the surging population. This is not a time for governments to use ad hoc processes to spend excessive amounts of public money on one-off sporting events. Overspending billions of tax dollars for an event that lasts two weeks and provides some showcasing of Queensland and Australia for tourism is not a good use of public money at this time. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thanks, Ms Handley. Ms O'Hagan, this is your opportunity.

Ms O'Hagan : Firstly, I'd like to say thanks very much for this opportunity, because there is a lot to be said about Victoria Park that hasn't hit mainstream media. But, in saying that, I would like to also state that I should not need to be speaking to you today to advocate for the protection of a heritage-listed park with significant Indigenous history; a park which was granted to the people of Brisbane 150 years ago; a park which was to be the lungs of the city; and a park which now stands at half of its original size because generations of people have had their own bold visions. Today I speak with you, it would seem, because of a quirk of nature—a quirk of nature which has seen Victoria Park typecast as a backwater wasteland ripe for stadium development.

I've got four main points that I'd like to raise, and the first one just reinforces some of the points raised earlier today. Brisbane does have a considerable deficiency in terms of green space close to the city centre when you compare it to other major capital cities, and, given the 2032 Olympic 'goal for green', it appears odd that we've got a recommendation for a stadium which would inevitably result in irreversible destruction to Brisbane's inner-city green space in the name of the Olympics—an Olympics with an environmental sustainability objective.

Secondly, I think it's very important to note that developers and those with vested interests have been circling Victoria Park for decades. Unfortunately, what we've now witnessed is big business, big sport and big media using the Olympic brand to push onto the agenda a proposal that would result in environmental destruction to a notable section of what remains of Victoria Park. To this point, I'd like to highlight some concerns that we have with the Sport venue review.

First of all, we would perceive that it underestimates the impact on the park. It states that the footprint of the stadium would be 12 to 13 per cent—and in the media sometimes that's just diminished further by saying 'just above 10 per cent'—but it doesn't tell us about the footprint of the warm-up track or the access roads. It also doesn't highlight the environmental damage that would occur from the extensive earthworks across the hilly, challenging terrain. If you've been to Vic Park, you know it's very hilly, and we estimate that there will probably be a three-year construction period of extensive earthworks. Also, what would need to be considered is the environmental impact of 55,000 people roaming through the park at any point in time.

The second point in terms of the Sport venue review is that it has some vague and unsubstantiated references to disturbed land. This was very unclear. It's a sort of a convenient, 'Oh, it will be on disturbed land,' and it was only this morning, when I was listening to Graham Quirk, that I got a sense, maybe, of where he was talking about. It seems to be maybe the function centre, the putt-putt and the car park there. But there's a lot of unknowns—even the definition of 'disturbed', because I think having something disturbed with the stadium is extremely more detrimental than potentially a smaller putt-putt and the function centre.

This also then lends itself to the fact that the report failed to analyse how the stadium would co-exist with its immediate neighbours. That includes the four major schools and the major university campus. We've got the RNA, the dentistry school, the medical school and the ballet school. But, most importantly, we've got the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, which is by far the biggest hospital in Australia. If you had a stadium, for example, on the northern side or near the function centre, it would only be 100 or 200 metres from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.

The third point I want to raise is that, in June 2019, Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner announced that Victoria Park Golf Course would become a park akin to Central Park, where people would find 'hundreds of trees', 'free attractions' and 'a green sanctuary'. The Lord Mayor communicated that the park's natural environment will be restored and protected—rewilded. It would create homes for wildlife and improve urban cooling. Over the past five years, millions of ratepayers' dollars—that's yours and mine—will have been spent on the Victoria Park master plan. There's been a lot of discussion about the money that's been spent on the 60-day review. But what about the millions of dollars that have been spent on the master plan? Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner has now done a backflip worthy of an Olympic gold medal with regard to Victoria Park Vision, recently stating that there's a compelling case for the stadium in the park. We need to state emphatically and categorically that, no, you cannot have an urban forest, a natural landscape or a tranquil retreat if you go ahead and build a massive concrete and steel stadium.

The Olympics should not be an excuse to siphon off swathes of Brisbane's remaining inner-city green space by using a sleight-of-hand process and justification. We heard some of those justifications earlier today: 'No net loss of green space.' That's unsubstantiated. One of the things with these sports venue reports is that I cannot see a reference to it greening the Gabba. It basically says on page 24 that the Gabba would be repurposed. We can't have this convenient commentary on something which is unsubstantiated. The other really important thing here is that saying you can just take one bit of green space and put it in another bit of green space, and it all nets out, doesn't work. Primary school level education on ecosystems dictates that you can't simply replace a mature green environment with an immature green environment and expect the same result.

Finally, I just want to note that Victoria Park is supposed to be the lungs of the city. You can't expect lungs to function properly if you allow them to be obstructed and clogged. The events of the past few weeks have highlighted very, very clearly the grave extent to which this park is at risk. To that end, we are in a position where we are forced to push for legislative change to protect the park from the stadium or any other such proposals of its ilk. We present this draft agreement to change the City of Brisbane Act 2010. We've put it forward to the Queensland state government. Enough is enough. Victoria Park needs to be allowed to live and to breathe, and only in that way can it work as best it can for the city.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: I have to say, Ms Handley and Ms O'Hagan, you've answered the bulk of my questions in your opening statements, but that's okay. Ms O'Hagan, I might go to you first. You talked about no net loss of green space. It seemed to me that when the witness from the architecture firm earlier today was talking about the Brisbane Bold plan, there seemed to be an indication that, in their view, even within Victoria Park itself, there would generally be a similar amount of green space kept. I'm not quite sure how that works and whether I've interpreted it—

Ms O'Hagan : I don't know how it works, because I haven't seen it.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: But what I would like to ask you is this. It's very clear that, even if there was no net loss of green space, it would certainly be lots of disjointed, smaller sections of green space. Could you speak to the value of having a large area of protected green space versus equivalent amounts of small bits of green space all connected? I might ask you first, Ms O'Hagan, if you have a response to that, and then I might go to Ms Handley.

Ms O'Hagan : It comes down to this. I'm not a botanist, but I look at it and think that the important thing here is that you've got a mature green space. The golf course was there for a long period of time, and you've got some mature trees. You've also got, basically, wildlife that's been protected because you've only had golfers go through it. If disrupting the mature space and creating lots of different spaces and buildings in between, you can't necessarily protect the environment in the same way. When they were doing the Victoria Park master plan, they were also looking at wildlife corridors. You look at all the different aspects of this. Really, there have been no environmental assessments done on this bold plan. I think it's bold, because I think it's environmentally very bold. I don't think I can comment too much on it, because no assessment has been done on it to substantiate its impact.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Ms Handley, do you have any thoughts?

Ms Handley : I just want to dispel the myth that when you put a stadium in parkland—we're only taking a tiny little part of it. Just to give you an idea, these are some of the measurements—I do apologise for this, but I'm old fashioned, so I'm going to give it to you in feet: 11,000 feet long by 800 feet wide by 150 feet high. That's what we're talking about, and we're talking about putting it in Victoria Park. Brisbane is known for its ridge lines; it is a city of ridges and valleys. When you put something on the top of a ridge line, it automatically becomes much bigger and much bolder than it would be otherwise. This is something that is 25,000 square feet, and that is just the stadium. That is not the apron around the stadium. It is not the second stadium that is required for the warm-up track. It is not the other space that is required for javelin and those sorts of processes that need to happen.

We are looking at putting something into a park that the council, in its master plan, was talking about partially rewilding. One of the things that comes with rewilding is animals. Putting in something that is a night-time venue, essentially—stadiums in the main, a lot of the time, are night-time venues—means that you are then going to disturb whatever animals you manage to re-establish in that parkland. We already know that linking pieces of green space through the city to create wildlife corridors, particularly in areas where you have increased development, is becoming increasingly important. We also know that there are heat sinks. Our cities are becoming hotter and hotter, and those green spaces are becoming more and more important, acting as a buffer to those heat sections in the community.

Also, we talk about Victoria Park as if it's a straight-line walk from the train station at the exhibition ground to where the proposed stadium is supposed to be. That's nonsense. The gradient starts at five metres above sea level and ends at 65 metres above sea level. That is not a walk, for over a kilometre, that you could easily make. I couldn't easily make it. I worked at the RBH, so I know exactly what that sort of walk is about.

We talk about loss of green space and wanting to put it somewhere else. Brisbane has a history of this type of thing, where we are promised green space and then it's suddenly just sliced, sliced, sliced away. A classic example of that is the Howard Smith Wharves development. There's now a tiny little playground. There is virtually no green space left on that site. In fact, they were so desperate to try and work out what they could call green space that the cliffs behind Howard Smith Wharves became the designated green space that they were supposed to have in that area.

I hope that gives you an answer. It is so important. How do we expect to encourage our children to become involved in sports or outdoor activities if we refuse to supply them with the green spaces they need to experience that?

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: I have one other question. It's around the health and wellbeing of the surrounding community. We heard from the architectural firm that's proposing this plan that 100 metres from a stadium is totally fine in terms of other impacts—I think they were the words used this morning. Ms Handley, have you spoken to people who live in the vicinity of Suncorp Stadium, for example, about the impacts on surrounding residences?

Ms Handley : That would be me. I live, easily, a kilometre away from the Suncorp Stadium. I am still within the parking range of that stadium. I can hear everything from that stadium, and that's over a kilometre away. Just to give you an idea, as well: we are talking about the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere, which is what the RBH actually is. Along with that hospital, which people don't think about, are residences for things like cancer sufferers. People who come from regional areas are often put up in flats that are around that area. Are those the people that you really want affected by stadium noise? I would suggest to you that, no, they are not. I know for a fact that one of the—I can't remember which particular charity it is, but they have just recently completed a block of flats along that road that is near Victoria Park. I go there very frequently.

The other thing that I would bring to your attention as well is that to increase the amount of traffic around the Brisbane hospital would be absolutely criminal. As somebody who lives within the traffic control part of Suncorp Stadium, I can tell you that anybody who tells you that you are not affected by the traffic that is happening around that stadium is lying.

CHAIR: I have a quick follow-up on that. I wanted to ask about—I didn't get time with Mr Quirk—a little bit around the rail infrastructure at Victoria Park. I'm not that familiar with that side of Brisbane, but when I look at it now, with the Inner City Bypass and Legacy Way, the park's quite disconnected, if you like, from the rest of Brisbane. Would that be a fair statement? There's sort of a barrier now between it and the city.

Ms Handley : There sort of is, yes. There would be.

CHAIR: I should say, Ms O'Hagan, feel free to jump in at any time. My questions are general.

Ms O'Hagan : I live close by, and I know that most people who visit me would drive. I also know that, for example, you'll find most people drive to the Green Heart Fair, ironically. So Herston isn't the easiest place to get to, and, even with the Brisbane Metro and the Cross River Rail, I don't think it will be alleviated that substantially.

CHAIR: At the moment, from a road access point of view—keeping in mind that, even though ideally most people come and go by public transport to major sporting events, there are always some people who have to either travel by car or be picked up and left by a taxi or what have you—there's really only Herston Road, is that right, as the major waypoint of getting into Victoria Park at the moment?

Ms Handley : Yes.

Ms O'Hagan : Yes—or sometimes they'll go down Garrick Terrace if there's an event on.

CHAIR: That's already a pretty congested part of Brisbane, I presume, is it?

Ms Handley : Yes, it is.

Ms O'Hagan : Yes.

CHAIR: So that's going to be a real challenge.

Ms Handley : It is.

CHAIR: I want to stress most of these things aren't insurmountable, but these are things that weren't covered in detail by the Quirk review.

Ms O'Hagan : No.

Ms Handley : No. The truth of these things is that you actually have to walk the place before you really work out what will work and what won't. Victoria Park has a special significance as well as an Aboriginal site and is one of the most important Aboriginal sites in the city, which also has never been acknowledged. We need to be protecting these places.

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: I think that's all I have, unless, Ms O'Hagan or Ms Handley, there's anything else you wanted to add that you haven't had a chance to cover.

Ms Handley : I just wanted to say I find it a little bit surprising that we're talking about a stadium whose legacy will mostly be for football and cricket, neither of which are core Olympic sports, to be honest with you. I would far prefer, if we're going to spend money, that it was spent on stadiums that I know are going to be used for schoolchildren or for other people who are developing their skills in a sport and in ways that encourage people to become actively involved in sport, rather than just as observers.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Did you have anything else, Ms O'Hagan?

Ms O'Hagan : I appreciate your time. I would like to just reiterate that I think, in the name of the Olympics, we can do better. We can actually properly achieve a goal for green by making sure that, wherever we put our infrastructure, it doesn't disrupt pristine green environments.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Thank you.

CHAIR: I've just got a couple of questions before we finish up. Ms Handley, I think you're familiar with the situation around the Gabba. We heard earlier from Mr Coates that one of the reasons the IOC cooled on the Gabba was the local community opposition and they didn't want to be in a position of, I suppose, dividing a city. What's the feeling that you have regarding the people that live around Victoria Park? I suppose that's particularly to Ms O'Hagan. Do you think this would be a divisive proposal for those residents if it were to proceed?

Ms O'Hagan : Victoria Park is not just about the people in the local area. It was interesting that Graham Quirk's report said that the warm-up track would basically have less of an impact. He said the warm-up facility can be designed and located close to the stadium and, in brackets, with much less impact on the community relative to the Gabba. I contend that would not necessarily be the case at all. This park may not be literally in our backyard, but it's very important to a lot of people, and there are a lot of people who have lived around the park or have a connection to the park over generations. So I don't think that this is going to be taken lightly. It's not going to be taken lightly. But the reason why we've got a problem is that, generation upon generation, we've had people fighting for this park. I've gone through the archives. I'm looking at the state library and the history centres around Brisbane, and I'm finding, time and time again, decade after decade, people are trying to fight for the protection of this park. That's why we need legislation to change.

CHAIR: Finally from me, returning to the Gabba and the proposal from the Quirk review, if Victoria Park were to proceed, the Gabba would be demolished. Do you have any views on what that might mean for the Brisbane residents in the area that have lived with the Gabba for a long time? There is also a proposal that that goes to green space. Do you have any comments on that?

Ms Handley : I would take very much with a grain of salt any promises of green space if and when the Gabba is demolished. And I would seriously question whether the demolition of the Gabba would be taking place any time soon. I'm very honest about that because I don't think that would be happening. I can remember having a discussion with the fellow from the school at the Gabba who was an engineer, and he said that building was quite strong and certainly sustainable for a number of years. So I think sometimes there are arguments that suit what you want to happen in something, and I suspect that that's what has happened at the Gabba. I would also add that a number of people in Brisbane—I'm sure this is no secret—have a great deal of sentimental attachment to the Gabba because they went there as young people with their lunch or whatever and sat on the hill and did all that sort of stuff.

CHAIR: I remember sitting on the concrete benches at the Clem Jones Stand.

Ms Handley : Exactly.

CHAIR: I'll never forget that.

Ms Handley : Yes. It's something that's held very much in the hearts of Brisbane locals.

CHAIR: Yes, I think you're right. I mentioned that earlier.

Ms O'Hagan : I just want to say one thing as well. I think we sometimes forget about the fact that people choose to live around the Gabba. They potentially bought there because they liked being near the stadium. Also, we've got local businesses. If they get rid of the Gabba, what about the flow-on economic impact to those local businesses? And what about the amount of money that they put into the transport infrastructure around it? I think those things need to be really explored as well. It's easy enough to say, 'Yes, we'll demolish the Gabba and we'll make a green space.' But getting down to the finer details is what needs to happen before these recommendations can be truly put on the table.

CHAIR: One more question, Senator Allman-Payne.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Ms O'Hagan, would it be fair to say that the reverse is also true of people who live in the vicinity of Victoria Park, and that is that everybody who has located themselves there has done so on the expectation that they're living around a park that's protected in a master plan, not next to a massive stadium precinct that's going to have lots of traffic and everything that comes along with that?

Ms O'Hagan : To be honest, five years ago, people were still concerned about the zoning of the park. That's why we form these groups, because we do want to make sure that the park is protected. So I do think that it obviously does throw people's perceptions of where they live. People will not be happy. But it's not just about the people around the park. This park is not just about the people who are just residing around it. There are a lot of children who use the park. There are a lot of schools that use the park. It's more than that.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Thank you.

Ms Handley : Could I just make a final point?

CHAIR: One final comment, Ms Handley. We're out of time, but you can make one more comment, and we'll wrap up.

Ms Handley : I would just like to say that you actually need to think about the types of people who live close to a hospital. A lot of those would actually be the staff of the hospital. A number of those people work at night, they work very long hours, and they need places where they can sleep at the time that they need to sleep, which may not necessarily fit into the nine-to-five setting. So I think, when you look at putting something like this in that type of environment, you really need to consider who actually lives around there. I think that's a point that has not been mentioned and needs to be. The other thing is this: I would actually suggest to you that, if Boondall is not suitable for an entertainment centre—apparently, it has all of the setup that would make an excellent place for a replacement stadium. It has a train station there.

CHAIR: That's true. Thank you very much, Ms Hanley and Ms O'Hagan. I don't think you've taken anything on notice, but, if you do have any more information to provide to us, we're asking for that back by 1 May so we can consider it. Thank you again for appearing, and enjoy your evening. That brings us to the end of today's hearing. I just want to thank everybody who was involved and came along. I want to thank the Hotel Grand Chancellor again. We've been here many times. Thank you for your hospitality. Thanks to Hansard, the secretariat and all the senators that came along.

Committee adjourned at 17:17