Brisbane 2032: Should the Olympics Stay in Queensland, or Should Australia Put Practicality First?

The Olympic Games are awarded to a host city, but their consequences rarely stop at the city boundary. They influence public spending, infrastructure, tourism, sporting facilities and the communities that live with the decisions long after the closing ceremony.

That is why a debate now emerging around the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games deserves attention well beyond Queensland.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended the possibility of holding selected events outside Queensland, including rowing in Penrith, New South Wales, and tennis in Melbourne, Victoria. His argument is that using existing facilities elsewhere could save money and simplify preparations. Queensland Premier David Crisafulli, meanwhile, has pushed back against moving key events away from the state, arguing that Queensland communities should benefit from hosting the Games. The discussion followed a public appearance by both leaders at The Courier-Mail’s Future Brisbane event on 23 October 2026. https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/albanese-defends-interstate-venue-options-for-brisbane32

At the heart of the disagreement is a question with no easy answer: what should Australia prioritise when preparing for a major international sporting event — the most practical and cost-effective way to deliver competition, or the promise of a lasting legacy for the host region?

In my view, this should not be reduced to a contest between Queensland and the rest of Australia. It should be a serious discussion about how to deliver a successful Games, spend public money responsibly and create benefits that endure.

The case for using existing facilities

The argument for considering interstate venues is straightforward.

If another Australian city already has a suitable facility for a particular sport, organisers should at least be able to examine whether using it would be more sensible than building or extensively upgrading a venue elsewhere.

Major sporting events can create pressure to deliver new infrastructure within strict deadlines. Construction costs, planning approvals, technical requirements and transport connections all affect whether a project is viable. A facility that appears attractive on paper may prove expensive or difficult to deliver to the standard required for Olympic competition.

Using existing venues could avoid some of those costs. But the savings should be demonstrated rather than assumed.

An interstate venue would still require planning for athletes, officials, spectators, broadcasters, accommodation and transport. Organisers would need to consider how teams move between competition locations, how schedules are managed and whether the arrangement offers a fair experience for athletes.

The relevant comparison is therefore not simply the cost of a new stadium against the cost of using an existing one. It is the total cost and practical feasibility of delivering the event under each option.

PM Albanese has pointed to the Paris 2024 Games, where surfing was staged in Tahiti, as an example of Olympic competition taking place far from the main host city. That demonstrates that the Olympic model can accommodate geographically distant venues. It does not, by itself, prove that moving rowing or tennis from Queensland would be the right decision for Brisbane 2032.

Each sport and venue must be assessed on its own circumstances.

Queensland’s case is about more than geography

Queensland’s position also deserves to be taken seriously.

The state was central to Australia’s successful bid, and the promise of the Games includes benefits for communities beyond Brisbane. The Queensland Government’s delivery plan identifies venues and infrastructure across the state, including regional opportunities in Cairns, Townsville and Rockhampton. https://www.delivering2032.com.au/legacy-for-queensland/venues

Rockhampton is a particularly important example. The Queensland plan identifies the Fitzroy River as the proposed venue for Olympic rowing and canoe sprint, with upgrades intended to support competition and leave a legacy for local rowing.

Moving rowing to Penrith could alter that regional legacy. It could mean fewer visitors, less Olympic visibility and a different set of opportunities for local sporting organisations and businesses. The precise economic impact would need evidence, but the principle is clear: venue decisions can have consequences for communities that have invested time, planning and expectations in the Games.

Tennis presents a similar question. The Queensland Government is planning an upgrade of the Queensland Tennis Centre in Brisbane, including a new show court and additional match courts, with the venue earmarked for Olympic tennis and Paralympic wheelchair tennis. The stated objective includes benefits for future tournaments and community participation. https://giica.au/venues/queensland-tennis-centre

If tennis were moved to Melbourne, Queensland would need to reconsider the rationale, scope and expected legacy of that investment.

That does not automatically mean the events must stay. A planned facility should not be protected from scrutiny simply because work has been proposed or expectations have been raised. But decision-makers should explain how any change would affect the public investment, local sporting communities and promised long-term benefits.

A legacy is meaningful only if it is realistic, useful and proportionate to its cost.

Public money demands clear answers

The financial context makes this debate more important.

In his 23 October address, PM Albanese reiterated that the Commonwealth is contributing approximately $3.4 billion towards Brisbane 2032, describing it as almost half of the estimated total cost. The governments have also been negotiating how venues and infrastructure should be funded and delivered. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/future-brisbane

Public funding comes with an obligation to explain why projects are necessary, how their costs have been assessed and what communities can expect to receive in return.

That obligation applies equally to a new venue in Queensland and the use of an existing facility interstate.

There are two mistakes governments should avoid. The first is building infrastructure primarily to secure a headline or preserve a political promise when a more practical option may exist. The second is treating the lowest initial cost as the only measure of value, without properly accounting for regional development, community access, transport, operations and long-term use.

A venue that is inexpensive to use but difficult for athletes and spectators to reach may not represent good value. Equally, a major new facility may not be justified if its future use is uncertain and the financial burden outweighs its benefits.

The public deserves transparent comparisons, including realistic cost estimates, delivery risks and a credible explanation of the legacy each option would leave.

What does a successful Olympic legacy look like?

For decades, host cities and regions have talked about Olympic legacy. The phrase can mean almost anything unless it is supported by specific commitments and measurable outcomes.

For a regional community, legacy might mean a sporting facility that local clubs can afford to use, improved coaching opportunities, stronger participation pathways or the ability to attract future competitions.

For a major city, it might include transport improvements, better public spaces and venues that support events long after the Games. For athletes, it should mean competition facilities that meet technical requirements and help them perform at their best.

These benefits are not interchangeable, and they will not necessarily be distributed evenly.

If an event remains in Queensland, the relevant question is whether the promised local benefits justify the cost and whether the venue can be delivered to the required standard. If an event moves interstate, decision-makers should explain why the alternative is preferable and what will happen to the original host community’s plans.

Both choices require accountability.

The objective should not be to maximise the number of events held in one state at any cost. Nor should it be to disperse events simply because existing venues are available elsewhere. The objective should be to deliver the best overall Games for athletes, spectators and the public — while being honest about who gains, who loses and who pays.

One country, multiple sporting centres

Australia has a strong sporting identity across its states and territories. Sydney has hosted the Olympics; Melbourne has world-class sporting venues; and Brisbane is preparing to become the country’s next Olympic host city.

That national sporting capability is an asset. It creates options when major events are planned and gives Australia experience in delivering competitions across different locations.

But using that capability well requires coordination. If interstate venues are considered, organisers must assess travel distances, competition schedules, accommodation, athlete recovery, transport reliability and the experience of spectators. They must also work with the relevant sporting bodies and ensure venues meet the requirements of each sport.

The question is not whether Australia has the capacity to host events in more than one state. It does. The question is whether a particular arrangement would improve the delivery of Brisbane 2032 enough to justify its wider consequences.

That judgement should be made through evidence and consultation, not state rivalry.

The decision must be about the Games, not the politics

The public debate is likely to continue because the competing priorities are real.

Queensland wants to ensure that hosting the Games produces benefits for its communities. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to consider the use of public money and the national interest. Sporting bodies need venues that meet competition standards, while athletes deserve decisions based on performance, fairness and operational requirements.

These responsibilities do not always point in the same direction. That is precisely why decisions should be made transparently.

Before moving any event, governments and organisers should publish a clear comparison of the available options, including costs, technical suitability, delivery timelines, transport and accommodation implications, environmental considerations and legacy outcomes. They should explain which stakeholders have been consulted and how the interests of athletes and host communities have been considered.

And if an event remains in Queensland, the public should be able to see why that decision represents value for money.

Brisbane 2032 should not be judged solely by the spectacle of the opening ceremony or the final medal tally. It should also be judged by the quality of the decisions made before the Games begin — and by whether those decisions leave communities better placed to participate in sport afterwards.

A wider opportunity for Australian sport

The debate also provides an opportunity to think beyond individual venues.

Major events can create demand for expertise in sports technology, facilities, event management, athlete services, accessibility, coaching, research and workforce development. Sporting organisations and businesses can prepare for those opportunities by understanding what is required, developing credible capabilities and building relationships early.

However, opportunity should not be confused with a guaranteed contract or commercial return. The value of the Games will depend on how projects are planned, how procurement is conducted and whether the capabilities developed remain useful after 2032.

This is also where international sporting relationships can contribute. Australia’s experience in major-event delivery and high-performance sport can be shared with international partners, while Australia can learn from the expertise and experience of others.

For PlayForward Australia–India, this wider sporting ecosystem is an important part of the conversation. PlayForward is being developed as a platform to encourage connections and raise awareness of opportunities between Australian and Indian sporting organisations, businesses, researchers, coaches, athletes and technology innovators. It is not an official Brisbane 2032 programme or delivery partner, and it does not guarantee access to procurement, funding or introductions.

The principle is simple: strong sporting outcomes depend not only on what happens during competition, but also on the organisations, knowledge and relationships built around it.

The right question for Brisbane 2032

PM Anthony Albanese is right to argue that practical alternatives should be considered. Queensland is also right to insist that the promised benefits of hosting the Games should not be dismissed lightly.

The answer should emerge from a transparent assessment of the options, not an assumption that either every event must remain in Queensland or every possible saving justifies moving one elsewhere.

The best decision is the one that delivers world-class competition, responsible spending and a credible long-term benefit — with the reasoning made clear to the public.

Brisbane 2032 is a national event hosted in Queensland. Its success should be a source of pride for the whole country, while recognising the particular responsibilities and expectations that come with hosting it.

The challenge now is to make decisions worthy of that ambition.