On Thursday, 31 July 2025, I asked the Director General of the Department of Sport, Racing and Olympic and Paralympic Games and the relevant minister about whether there had been a breach of the Olympics host city contract in relation to the intended stadium at Victoria Park/Barrambin.
You can read my question and their responses below in full, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard) here.
Mr BERKMAN: Director-General, you would be well aware that the Olympics host city contract prohibits permanent construction in cultural protected areas and that Victoria Park/Barrambin is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its cultural significance, particularly its significant Aboriginal cultural heritage. How can the department proceed with a proposal that breaches that prohibition in the host city contract and is inconsistent with the IOC’s New Norm?
Mr McDONALD: Point of order, Speaker: that is not a matter for this committee, as was ventilated earlier. It is for the Deputy Premier.
Mr SPEAKER: Have you finished the question, member for Maiwar?
Mr BERKMAN: Might I respond to the point of order, Speaker?
Mr SPEAKER: You can.
Mr BERKMAN: I understand that the host city contract, which has been referred to a number of times in this hearing, is in fact a matter for the minister for the Olympics, even if the construction responsibility falls to the Deputy Premier and planning minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the question.
Mr Hopper: I am not in a position to talk to the planning matters. That is a matter for the Deputy Premier.
Mr BERKMAN: With respect, Director-General, the question was specifically about the obligations under the host city contract and under the IOC’s New Norm. How can the department proceed with a proposal that violates the host city contract and—
Mr McDONALD: Point of order, Speaker: the member just made an imputation but also it is not up to this department. The committee dealt with this under state development. It comes under the state development area.
Mr SPEAKER: Director-General, I will let you answer the question.
Mr Hopper: My answer remains that the matter that you are referring to is a matter that would be better presented to the Deputy Premier.
Mr BERKMAN: Director-General, is your department responsible for compliance with the host city contract?
Mr Hopper: A range of parties are signatories to these documents. It has relevance to them as well.
Mr BERKMAN: As far as the state government’s responsibilities are concerned, is your department responsible for the oversight of compliance with the host city contract?
Mr Hopper: As it relates to infrastructure, I do not believe we are, no, member.
Mr BERKMAN: Minister, regarding the Victoria Park Olympic stadium, why is your government prepared to violate the New Norm and the host city contract that prohibits construction on nature areas and cultural protected areas?
Mr McDONALD: Point of order, Speaker: that question contains an imputation.
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the minister to answer.
Mr MANDER: I will give the member a bit of a history lesson about where we are at today. A week or two ago, it was four years since we were awarded the games, which was the biggest lead-in period ever. That four-year period was wasted and it featured chaotic decision-making, with two or three different versions of what might or might not happen at the Gabba and that led to the demise of Premier Palaszczuk.
Mr BERKMAN: Point of order, Speaker: I appreciate the minister’s exposition of the history of our involvement with the Olympics, but my question had nothing to do with that history. It is actually about the compliance of this government’s plans with our host city obligations under the contract and the New Norm.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the minister is answering the question.
Mr MANDER: Context is important and the member will realise that in a moment when I finish my answer. We wished things had started a couple of years ago. If they had started a couple of years ago, we would not have to do what we are doing at the moment to accelerate the process. We have time but we do not have time to waste. The time of chaotic decision-making or no decision-making is over and that happened once the delivery plan was handed down about 125 days ago. Since that time, we have done nothing but get on with the job. To go directly to the point that the member is making, the IOC are over the moon about what we are doing to make sure we get things done. They had been worried from afar that we had lost momentum with regard to the games. The Coordination Commission, or CoCom, is a delegation of the
IOC that is responsible for the Brisbane games. When they came recently, they could not stop talking about how excited they were that decisions were being made and that we had taken measures to make sure it gets delivered on time. There are non-negotiable deadlines with regard to the construction of this infrastructure.
To answer the member’s question, the IOC are more than happy with what we have done and they support the delivery plan 100 per cent. All they want us to do now is to continue what we are doing: getting on with it