There are many reasons the people of Queensland elected the LNP government back in 2024 (the incompetence of the final years of Labor, for example), but one was to get the planning for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games back on track.

We trusted the LNP to make the right decisions to ensure that not only would Queenslanders not be embarrassed by the Games, but it actually might be something we could be proud of.

That has happened, and although we are yet to see too many shovels in the ground, the 2032 planning has given us good reason to expect that the Games will be spectacular.

We have trusted Premier David Crisafulli’s government to make the tough decisions. And, while we accept that many of those decisions can’t be put to a vote or even to a community consultation process, we would at the very least expect to see the reasoning.

So it was in that spirit that The Courier-Mail’s city reporter Rachel Riley put in a Right to Information request to see images of the unsuccessful designs for the main stadium in Victoria Park. These are the designs that were rejected when COX Architecture and Hassell, in partnership with Japan-based Azusa Sekkei, were ultimately selected in January to design the 63,000-seat venue.

This was not a search for a gotcha moment, or an attempt to undermine the final decision that was made. We just wanted to see the alternative designs to get a sense of how things could have been.

You can, for example, see images of the rejected stadium proposals for the Sydney 2000 Games. You can see images of the rejected designs for the Sydney Opera House. Generally, the exercise proves that the people in charge made the right decision.

But the Games Independent Infrastructure and Co-ordination Authority was having none of it.

“Disclosure of the visual components could reasonably be expected to prejudice the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of the tendering entities, as disclosure would reasonably be expected to result in competitive disadvantage and diminished market position,” GIICA wrote in its verbose, baffling and unsurprising response to our request.

“Enhanced public debate weighing concept imagery and the aesthetic aspect of the decision for this project has the capacity to interfere with GIICA’s capacity to objectively weigh options for ongoing architectural tender processes to reach decisions and deliver the projects for Brisbane 2032 in the public interest.”

So public debate over rejected proposals would hurt GIICA’s ability to deliver the 2032 Games?

What rot!

It also seems likely that the failed bidders were not consulted before GIICA took the decision to defend their “market position”.

We would imagine that all the submissions would have been imaginative, professional and distinct examples of world’s best practice in stadium architecture. And we’ll have to imagine.

We would also imagine the rejected designs would have given Queenslanders some insight into why the winning proposal was chosen.

We are not surprised by this decision. Despite the Crisafulli government’s pre-election promises of transparency and openness, Queensland remains the secrecy state.

BIG TECH SOLUTION

The suggestion from a consent advocate that fines for misbehaving social media companies should be calculated as a percentage of their revenue certainly has merit.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Chanel Contos said when Australia implements an online duty of care, the fines would have to be hefty so they couldn’t be dismissed as “a cost of doing business”.

“So instead of a monetary amount, like $100m, which is almost nothing to these companies, if it was a percentage of global turnover, that would have some serious accountability for violating those regulations,” Ms Contos, who founded the website Teach Us Consent in 2021, said.

That ability of the tech giants to simply pay up and move on was illustrated last week when Meta reached a settlement after they were sued by a coalition of US states. Meta agreed to pay $24bn over 10 years, a huge amount but a drop in the ocean for a company that recorded a $83bn profit last year.

An online duty of care would force tech companies to actively protect users from foreseeable harm on their platforms, rather than just reacting after bad content or abuse is reported. Legislation is expected to be introduced later this year.

As we have seen throughout our Let Them Be Kids campaign, the social media companies will only act out of self interest. Fining them a percentage of their revenue may just force them to act responsibly.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here