1. Fairness: The Rockhampton Proposal Cannot Deliver Fair Racing for the Olympics in July and thereafter 

Olympic rowing requires equal conditions across all lanes. World Rowing’s Statutes states that the organisation is committed to “fairness and equality of opportunity” in competition. Its core objective includes “preserving the integrity of rowing by ensuring fair sporting competitions.”. World Rowing’s manual for international rowing courses states in Clause B.1.1 that “the course is to offer fair and equal conditions in all lanes” ….

A river course like the Fitzroy River will by any river’s nature  have some variable flow causing inconsistent lane conditions. This is however further exacerbated in the case of the Rockhampton course by wind shadows caused by high banks on the northern side. These high banks protect those lanes closest to the bank from the adverse crosswinds on 2 out 3 days during July and are likely to create significant wind shadow advantages for some lanes. These factors create a high risk that the course will not meet these international standards of lane fairness and equality. Lane‑to‑lane variation is unavoidable.

Approving such a venue would require World Rowing to compromise its own rules, setting a dangerous precedent for the sport. 

2. Legacy Failure: 80% of Qld Rowers Live in South East Queensland

A world‑class rowing course (particularly one created at enormous cost to taxpayers ) must serve the community after the Games.

• Based on participation and club data, it would seem that approximately 10,000 rowing and canoe sprint participants live in South East Queensland.
• Only around 200 registered participants live within one hour of Rockhampton.
• Rockhampton is 7 hours’ drive from Brisbane, which would mean the Rockhampton course would therefore see negligible use from SEQ based rowing participants.

A Rockhampton venue would see minimal post‑Games use, contradicting:

• IOC New Norm requirements
• Olympic Charter legacy principles
• Host City Contract requirements for credible long‑term use
• World Rowing’s strategic objective to support sustainable, world‑class venues

A Rockhampton course would become a white elephant, funded by Queensland taxpayers and only used by a maximum 250 people on semi regular basis. If the course was to cost say $350M (which seems to be the current indication of a minimum) then the cost is in the vicinity of $1.5M per semi regular user.  

3. High Event Risk 

The “Mighty” Fitzroy is called that for a reason: the massive volumes of water it discharges and its significant destructive floods. It is one of Australia’s most volatile and flood‑prone rivers, experiencing major flooding with regularity. A significant flood event—even six months before the Games—could jeopardise venue readiness, and the ability to deliver a safe, fair Olympic regatta. In August 2024 (approximately the same time as the Olympics ) the rowing infrastructure of the Fitzroy River rowing course was washed away by a flood and rowing events transferred.  Based on historical data there is an approximately  25% probability of a similar or more devastating flood occurring in the six months before the Olympics are being held. Damaged course infrastructure may not be able to be reinstated by the time of the Olympics.  Based on previous floods that have damaged course infrastructure there is a 60% probability that whatever is put in place for the Olympics will be swept away by flooding every 5 years.  

4. Athlete Experience: Bris 32 Should Not Isolate Its Athletes

Olympic athletes on major Olympic spectator sports like Rowing deserve to compete and stay within the central Games environment, not 600 hundred kilometres away. Should the Rockhampton Proposal be accepted, the Olympic rowing venue would become the most distant from its host city in modern Olympic history.   

 5.  Reduced spectator numbers and material revenue reductions

Typical Olympic rowing events attract  in the tens of thousands of spectators per day when held near the host city such as in Brisbane. A remote venue like Rockhampton is likely to attract significantly lower attendance thereby diminishing the atmosphere, athlete experience, and global showcase of the sport.

Athletes would be isolated from the central Olympic Village hub , the broader Games environment, and the support systems that define the Olympic experience.

6. Governance Concerns: Pressure and Compromise

There is growing concern that:

• World Rowing may be pressured to relax fairness standards.
• Rowing Australia may be put under pressure to acquiesce with a venue that does not serve the sport’s long‑term interests.
• The AOC may prioritise politics over its Olympic Charter obligations.
• The IOC may be asked to overlook its own legacy and sustainability requirements.
• Bris 32 OCOG may be pressured to acquiesce with an inappropriate venue selection that compromises its obligations.
• Rowing Queensland's efforts to secure a permanent home of rowing in SEQ will lose momentum due to the Queensland Government's stance on the Rockhampton Proposal.

This petition calls on all governing bodies to uphold their own rules and objects , not bow to the political desires or convenience of a government.

7. A Better Alternative Exists: The City of Moreton Bay Proposal at Lawnton Lakes 

A better, fairer, cheaper and far more sustainable alternative is  available to be developed with the purpose‑built course on the Lawnton Lakes in the City of Moreton Bay. Click on this Link to learn more about it. This course:

• would meet fairness requirements,
• is close to the population base and 80% of Queensland’s rowing and canoe sprint participants ,
• would deliver a better Games experience for athletes and will ensure considerably more spectators
• ensures strong post‑Games use,
• aligns with IOC legacy principles,
• will strengthen rowing and canoe sprint in Queensland and Australia,
• provides a community recreational hub for many sports and family activities,  
• based on preliminary and international QS estimates is materially cheaper and
• would maximise Games revenues and taxpayers funds

This is the venue that delivers true Olympic legacy.

8. We Are Not Anti Regional 

This is not a debate about SEQ versus regional Queensland. Regional communities should benefit from Olympic related investment. However, it is also about ensuring each sports venue is placed where it can deliver the strongest long-term legacy, for that sport and the relevant region and its communities. The debate should therefore be “Is an investment in a rowing venue in Rockhampton the best use of Olympic related investment for the Rockhampton community and rowing and canoe. We believe that there are much better Olympic related investments that should be in Rockhampton – ones which would get far better post Games use by the Rockhampton community and to which that community has a greater affinity.

9. Who is behind this Petition 

This petition is started by Gary Merritt, Ray Ebert AM, Ceinwen Fay and Penny Dixon

We are long standing servants of Qld and Australian Rowing who make this broad change.org appeal based on the initial support and encouragement of hundreds (including Olympians, Paralympians, Australian rowing representatives and the broader Qld and Australian rowing community) who signed up to an open letter we published to the Queensland Government about this same issue. We are merely channelling the outrage of the rowing and canoeing communities who are perplexed and greatly frustrated by the Rockhampton Proposal. 

We have now moved our focus to the governing bodies that control or have some influence over the sport of rowing or the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We do this simply because of our great love and dedication to our sport and the State of Queensland and because of our belief that the Rockhampton Proposal is just an enormous mistake on so many levels.  

This petition is not initiated, funded or controlled by the City of Moreton Bay Council or the major Australian Company with whom it partners to facilitate the Lawnton Lakes alternative Olympic rowing /canoe sprint course proposal. We do however thank them for their courage and commitment in developing their Lawnton Lakes proposal .

10. Why This Matters

This petition should be supported by:

• Olympians
• Paralympians
• Queensland rowers
• Australian representative rowers
• Canoe sprint athletes
• Rowing and canoe sprint coaches, officials, and volunteers
• Queensland and Australian taxpayers concerned about waste
• Australians who just want Brisbane 2032 to succeed! 

Brisbane 2032 is a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity. We must not squander it on a venue that fails fairness, fails legacy, and fails athletes and fails Australian and Queensland  taxpayers !