Brisbane’s 2032 Olympics will mean billions of dollars of public money will be poured into infrastructure projects over the next seven years. Following good governance processes and a commitment to transparency over decision-making will reduce the risks of corruption and undue influence and lead to better projects that meet the needs of the Games and the community for years to come. 

Infrastructure development is critical to meet demands for transport, energy, education, health and water and wastewater needs. It is crucial for economic growth, societal wellbeing and quality of life because it connects people to jobs, provides access to education and health services, supports businesses and facilitates trade. For Brisbane’s 2032 Olympic games, key facilities will also provide venues for recreation and entertainment, many of these will have ongoing impact for long after the games have packed up and moved on. If bad decisions are made, checks and balances are bypassed due to fast tracking to meet the deadlines, measures to prevent wastage are not put in place, it will increase the risk that Queenslanders will be paying the cost for decades to come. 

Infrastructure is one of the most corruption prone sectors globally, with an estimated 30-50% of a project’s total budget lost to inefficiencies and corruption. According to OECD research, 15 per cent of international bribery cases occurred in the construction sector. When this kind of wastage occurs, it can lead to skyrocketing costs and project that do not meet community needs or even cause harm. 

The infrastructure sector is inherently shaped by political priorities which can often go against good governance processes. The very nature of infrastructure projects makes them more open to corruption risks than other sectors, this is because of the uniqueness of infrastructure projects, the difficulties of comparing prices, the multiple actors involved, the complexity and long development period for infrastructure projects and a culture of secrecy which contributes to higher corruption risks and vulnerabilities in the sector.  

Transparency International Australia’s Accountable Infrastructure project identified common corruption red flags in infrastructure that can be a warning sign that corrupt activity may be occurring or that practices may create opportunities for those seeking to manipulate decisions or seek a personal benefit could take advantage of. Already news reports are questioning the integrity of decisions made by authorities and there are people and organisations of influence advocating for approaches that raise red flags for corruption that TI Australia has identified in our research.  

These include: 

• Improper influence by public or private agents in the selection of projects motivated by political or personal gains 

• Improper fast-tracking of government approvals, inadequate due diligence and meaningful community consultation of investor-led infrastructure development proposals, made to secure investment. 

• Postponing, fast-tracking, side-stepping or exempting regulatory clearances to favour specific interests. 

Four years of politicking and backflipping over whether to build a new Olympic stadium or upgrade existing one was finally ended by the decision by the Games Independent Infrastructure and Co-ordination Authority to build a new stadium in Brisbane’s Victoria Park. This new venue, and the advice given by an independent body, was rejected by the previous government, citing cost concerns. The decision is also backflip by the current Premier Crisafulli who promised during last year’s election campaign not to build a new stadium. The final decisions seems to have been made based on economic factors, including value for money.  

While this is unlikely to indicate that corruption has occurred, allowing politics to dictate decisions, rather than good governance processes has likely led to a shorter timeframe to deliver the project and likely an increased cost due to this delay. Ironically, by trying to save money, successive governments and political posturing have likely resulted in increased costs. 

Local community groups are also against the Victoria Park proposal arguing the project will destroy green space and is located on a site of significance to First Nations communities. Traditional owners say they are devastated by the decision that will build over one of Brisbane’s most culturally significant sites in the city. This raises questions around whether communities were consulted, whether cultural considerations were prioritised and whether alternative sites were considered. 

Questions over the independence of the independent advisory body, the Games Independent Infrastructure Coordination Authority (GIICA).  

The new venues plan was completed by an independent review panel, the Games Independent Infrastructure and Co-ordination Authority, whose independence has come into question following accusations it was handpicked by Qld Deputy Premier and Infrastructure Minister Jarrod Bleijie in an apparently secretive selection process hours before the team was announced publicly. This committee bypassed work done by the panel convened under the previous government which included all nine Games partners and its panellists appear to have been selected because of associations with the Minister. Again, while this does not mean that corruption has occurred, there are questions around whether this involves jobs for mates, and whether the advice of this body is truly independent or do their decisions serve the interest of the current government? 

The Games Independent Infrastructure and Co-ordination Authority is now calling for the Queensland government to implement special planning laws that would allow the fast-tracking of approval and construction on new venues. It is also seeking the ability to set aside normal procurement rules on a case-by-case basis. Fast tracking, bypassing or exempting normal regulatory processes are a clear corruption risk. This can create opportunities for questionable companies and individuals to take advantage of loopholes, it can mean that risks (to the project, the budget, the community, the final outcome) are not identified early, if speeding up the approval process results in less or no community consultation, it can ultimately result in delays, cost blowouts. Fast tracking can come at the expense of due diligence processes, including those related to environmental and social impact. It can exacerbate known corruption risks or remove time needed to gain community consent/social licence.  It can remove opportunities for compromises or better alternatives to be identified. Bypassing regulatory processes does not always lead to faster outcomes, and can result in greater problems that could have been avoided had normal regulatory processes been undertaken. 

The Brazilian infrastructure giant Odebrecht was involved in one of the world’s biggest corruption scandals was caught paying bribes to politicians and officials in exchange for contracts related to the 2016 Rio Olympics and the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Construction of the stadiums and other infrastructure including a rail network were used to channel bribes which implicated Odebrecht executives and high-level public officials and politicians.  The cost of the Maracanã football stadium was double what was projected as contractors overbilled by about $90 million dollars. This huge global scandal involved theft of public money on a grand scale and amounted to approximately $788 million in bribes over a decade. The scandal resulted in dire financial consequences for the state of Rio de Janeiro which declared bankruptcy three months after the Olympics closed. The cost of the bribes was ultimately borne by the people of Rio as civil servants, teachers and public hospital staff had their salaries reduced and delayed. The scandal ruined the reputations of business people and politicians and risked the success of the games, as the government had to step in to ensure construction was completed on time. 

In London 2012, poor planning and fast tracking to meet deadlines resulted in procurement processes that exempted normal processes. This created opportunities for unscrupulous companies to engage in fraud or to not be able to deliver. 

These examples highlight what can happen when poor planning and fast tracking are allowed to bypass good governance processes. While it has been said that an iron law of sporting mega projects is that they are over budget, overtime, over and over again, good process will help avoid the worst of this. To ensure that the Brisbane games do not result in opportunities for bad actors to take advantage of the vast amounts of money involved and profits to be gained, process must be followed and there must be transparency and accountability of decisions to avoid large cost blowouts, and poor outcomes for communities.