Ron Clarke's (Gold Coast Mayor) Perspective

Although we are seeing a progress in town planning towards a preference for developments which satisfy economic, environmental and social considerations, as it stands now I don't believe the legislative acts fully cover these issues at a local or a state level.

Case in point, the proposed cruise ship terminal. There is a strong case for massive economic growth for the City should the terminal go ahead. The opportunities will be very diverse and any line of reasoning the state government makes for a proposed terminal based on economics alone, will be difficult to argue. The question here is: is the economic boost of the cruise terminal worth the costs borne by the environment and the impact on our residents? Let's explore that.

Environmentally speaking, the results from the environmental impact statement will bear immense weight on the public perception of the proposed terminal. This report alone will no doubt be the most scrutinized report by all residents, for or against the proposed terminal. In fact, it is imperative that this report is heavily scrutinized. The Broadwater, the Spit and South Stradbroke Island are clearly of great value to the City and destroying these natural assets is simply out of the question. We can only hope that the EIS will comprehensively explore all the relevant issues.

From a social perspective, I have serious concerns that the state government is not completely taking into account the desired outcomes expressed by the residents of Gold Coast City. Lack of community consultation serves only to breed distrust between the government and the people. If the state government doesn't pause to consider the public view, then it will cost them seats at the next election and set the scene for ongoing social unrest. Naturally, this is not a desired outcome for anyone.

Finding the delicate balance between promoting economy, protecting the environment and building better communities is difficult at the best of times, not least for Council when local government is being left out of the planning process for a major development in their own area.

So where to now? Let's give it due consideration when we have all the facts.
In particular, I'd like to have the two-year study of the Broadwater and its estuaries, now being completed by Professor Tomlinson's department, modelled. This would allow him and his colleagues the opportunity to assess the effect the dredging of the Seaway channel and turn-around areas for these big ships.

Answers to SOSA's questions regarding Broadwater Plans promoted in local papers

[NOTE SOSA's questions are in a darker colour]

29 October 2010

Dear Mr Gration

The Broadwater

Thank-you for taking the time to contact my office. Reference is made to your email dated Saturday 16 October 2010 posing a series of questions from the Save Our Spit Alliance regarding a recent newspaper article.

I welcome the interest from the Save Our Spit Alliance at this early stage in a potential master planning process for the Broadwater and offer my responses to your queries as follows:

Council at its meeting 17 September 2010 resolved to:

"An allocation of $700,000, representing 50% of the estimated costs to undertake the development of a Master Plan for the Broadwater Waterway Precinct, with the expenditure of funds being subject to the confirmation of an equivalent State Government contribution."