Marina at Clump Point - Who Cares?
  • The Facts
    • WHO IS CCA
  • GBRMPA DECISION REVIEW

Call for GBRMPA review of  Clump Point development decision

26/7/2018

1 Comment

 
This is an appeal for the public to send GBRMPA an email
asking for a review of their decision to approve a Marina Park permit for the World Heritage Area damaging Clump Point Port/Marina development.
Deadline 26th July 2018 
Picture


To GBRMPA
via email
[email protected]
 
Re: PERMIT ASSESSMENT - G39785.1
 
I request  GBRMPA reconsider  their approval decision for PERMIT ASSESSMENT - G39785.1
Please see following statement of reasons.
​
1. Consultation inadequate and misleading; secrecy
There was no public consultation at all before the Application was lodged with the GBRMPA.
GBRMPA unquestionably  accepted the Queensland Government’s sham process as public consultation.  The Mission Beach Community Information Session 2016 was not public consultation – it was a presentation on behalf of the Queensland Government and the GBRMPA, and it was attended by invitation only; not open to the public.
The Project Reference Group members were selected by the State Government and were restricted to local Mission Beach residents. The meeting process was forced-choice questions leading to pre-determined outcomes. The local Environment representatives rejected both the process and the reports claimed to be the outcomes of the Reference Group meetings which were riddled with omissions, false statements and inaccuracies.
Neither the public  or  the  Project Reference Group  were informed that  an EPBC Act referral had been lodged by the Transport and Main Roads Department (DTMR), even from the Project Reference Group. As a consequence of the deliberately withheld information:
(1)    The Commonwealth Environment Department noted there WAS NOT ONE submission received.
(2)     The Federal Environment Minister was not made aware of the false claim by DTMR the Project was only slightly changed from the original project which the Commonwealth Environment Department had approved.     
 (4)    Because the public didn't know about the  referral, the deadline for comment and review passed and with it the opportunity for the development to be declared a 'Controlled Action' including a required Environmental Impact Study. (EIS)
 
2. No EIS.  Assessment through the  Public Information Package (PIP) inadequate.
It was entirely GBRMPA’s choice. Instead of a PIP, GBRMPA could have required an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) with scientifically valid and reliable surveys reviewed by experts in their fields; but they chose not to.
An EIS would have required sufficient studies to gain information to base a sound decision as to whether this large project could go ahead without causing immediate, direct, indirect, cumulative, combined and consequential impacts. Instead, the GBRMPA set the bar as low as it could – a Public Information Package (PIP) for which no detail is required.
The project described in the PIP (the only information supplied for the public to make comment on)  was the inaccurate account (outcomes)  of the Reference Group (RG) process. 

3. Inadequate surveys and no expert review   
No  detailed or accurate surveys were carried out for the Clump Point Proposal. A serious foundation flaw that affected everything else in the Assessment Process.
The GBRMPA relied on former surveys which were scientifically inadequate. They failed to identify fish and other creatures; total omitted some species; no study of dugong movements across seasons; nor of seagrass as an ephemeral and seasonal crop on which dugongs are entirely dependent.
By avoiding a proper and detailed assessment of the area the GBRMPA cannot possibly be properly informed of the impacts of the real losses the Project will cause.
Without this detailed knowledge the GBRMPA cannot properly make an assessment of cumulative, consequential and combined impacts.  
 
4. GBRMPA’s total misunderstanding of World Heritage Aesthetic Values
GBRMPA revealed its total incompetence to understand, let alone assess, aesthetic values and world heritage aesthetic values in particular. GBRMPA has no in-house expertise; to the extent it has no idea how much it doesn’t know.
The GBRMPA used concepts that describe scenic amenity, visual amenity and visitor amenity; which have nothing to do with the world heritage related aesthetic value (a natural value) that arise directly from the natural physical features and processes of the GBRWHA.
When a natural physical feature is altered (such as the unique rock structure of Clump Point), its natural aesthetic value too is altered. This impact cannot be disguised or prettied-up.  An earlier visual example is the replacement of one of the set of boulder headlands that used to form a matching and varying pattern along the Cleveland Bay face of Magnetic Island. The boulders of Bright Point have been replaced by a set of ugly apartment blocks; and an Alcatraz-like scaffolding ferry landing. The aesthetic value of that face of Magnetic Island has been lost forever.
This was the development example  the GBRMPA assessment  officer gave to the  attendees of the Information Session of how an artificial reef 'island' could be approved avoiding the requirement for the  Marine Park boundary to be realigned.  
This is where Clump Point is headed.
 
5. GBRMPA rhetoric “trust us”:  misinformation
The GBRWHA is at risk from being placed on the world heritage in danger list.
In frank denial of the facts,  GBRMPA claims "It (the GBR)  is one of the better known coral reef ecosystems in the world and remains one of the world's best managed natural wonders".
The poor state of the GBRWHA is exactly why it is at risk from being placed on the world heritage in danger list.
 
6. GBRMPA rhetoric “trust them”: DTMR claim the Application is whole of project   
The GBRMPA cites, without assessing it, a DTMR statement that the project will not be added to.
There is nothing in law or engineering to prevent this or another state government from making an application for further additions to the present Proposed Project.
The remarks in the PIP that the Queensland Government will not fund all of the project is an invitation to the interested developers who have been promoting this project for their own commercial interests. 
 
7 Limited Seasonal use -  seven wet and windy months
GBRMPA hasn't considered the highly limited seasonal use of the proposed facility as a boat landing/loading facility.  
GBRMPA has not considered the only year-round use possible – as a boat storage facility; otherwise known as a marina; or the consequential future demands for higher, longer and wider rock structure to better protect moored/berthed vessels during bad weather.
GBRMPA has not assessed the risk of vessels being cast ashore in strong winds; nor of the project becoming a large-ferry servicing new private development on Dunk Island; nor the risk of insurance requirements that the enclosure and pens be reinforced to current standards. 

8. Displacement of existing tourism operators and local recreational users. 
The existing local tourism operators were given no opportunity to provide input to the advice documents that determined the Development Plan. They were not invited to attend the Information Session or  take part in the Reference Group meetings. Their needs have not been considered during the 9 - 12 month expected construction period.  Neither has access for the  recreational users.  As a result, the economic cost to the local community has been estimated to be as high as the claimed (unsubstantiated) economic benefits.  
 
9 Djiru wishes misrepresented
GBRMPA appear to have taken Djiru response that they did not wish to meet with the Queensland Government for another meeting "because they had nothing more to say", as acceptance of the project. The Djiru people have consistently said they would not  give consent for this proposed development.
 
10 Conflicting Uses
The Clump Point headland is a strong part of the Mission Beach Community identity.  As a unique  metamorphic landform it is  appreciated and enjoyed by  locals and visitors who  understand  or who wish to learn of its social, cultural and heritage significance. The public's quiet enjoyment of the high natural and cultural values of Clump Point is often inhibited by  existing  recreational  boating activities.  The proposed development will considerably hardening  natural areas of the headland. Increased commercial and industrial activities will dominate and intrude on the tranquillity of  Clump Point and bay environs and deny access for appreciation of  a significant part of the Marine Park.    
 
11 Feasible alternatives and options to prevent harm  
Throughout the process, numerous requests by  Reference Group members  to include the  Perry Harvey Jetty in  the project were denied.  By including the jetty, the scale of the boat ramp upgrade would have significantly reduced the footprint and impacts at the Clump Point  headland.  By GBRMPA's assessment officer's own definition the boat ramp original upgrade proposal was  "..small works not a large work like this one". 
By including the jetty, larger commercial vessels would be separated from smaller vessels reducing conflict between the two. Feasible  alternatives  and options were aggressively discounted by the members of the Reference Group  who supported a marina. These were not recorded in the outcome reports.
​
Signed
1 Comment

GBRMPA  muliplies GBR 'Collapse'  -  at Mission Beach

24/7/2018

0 Comments

 
Thank you to Nicole Hasham for telling it how it is in her article 'Australian governments concede GBR headed for 'collapse': (The Age 20 July 2018)
​
Sadly, there is more.
​
This official recognition of the impending death of the Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystem hides an unpublicised and deadly multiplier.
​
​The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and its political masters, the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments, are actively facilitating maritime constructions along the coast of Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), in defiance of UNESCO’s clear warnings that the GBRMPA should stop ignoring cumulative, combined and consequential impacts – “death by a thousand cuts” (UNESCO Mission Report 2012). ​​

Picture
From 'Mission Beach - naturally' booklet
Case study: Clump Point Mission Beach – a new island marina development (a 30-year aspiration of Senator Bob Katter and a handful of development speculators) in and affecting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and the Queensland Great Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park.
​

This development has now been approved (and funding provided) by the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. 
The project began as a Queensland “major project of state significance” but was re-invented as “code-assessable” for automated intra-departmental tick-and-flick approval so that no public consultation was “required”.  ​


​
​"This official recognition of the impending death of the Great Barrier Reef coral ecosystem hides an unpublicised and deadly multiplier
."
​
​                             Margaret Moorhouse, ASH
Picture
Somehow the project also avoided the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act.
Picture
​Meanwhile, on the coastal verge of the GBRWHA: it was easy to blame the farmers for coastal pollution reaching the outer reefs, after Queensland’s Bligh government abolished the only legislation that had protected the GBRWHA coast from “adverse impacts” (2012), followed by the Newman government abolishing riverine protection (2013).

​​The GBRMPA approval was more tricky: how to get past the 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and Regulations. This was explained to Bob Katter and Queensland officials by the GBRMPA Assessment Officer (audio record 2016). The GBRMPA could not, however, avoid “public notification”.  
Hiding behind their minimalist and outmoded regulations (email correspondence), they chose to bury their unpredictably timed and appealable Approval notification deep in their website, failing to notify either submitters or the formal local Project Reference Group members.
​Similarly, the Queensland government failed to notify the public, including the local Project Reference Group, when referring the development proposal to the Commonwealth Government (a requirement of the EPBC Act). The Commonwealth noted “no submissions” and happily approved it; perhaps unaware the public had not been notified, or that the contents of the Application were misleading – an obvious reason for keeping the Referral from the knowledgeable Reference Group community members. ​

​Somehow the project also avoided the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act.
Meanwhile, on the coastal verge of the GBRWHA: it was easy to blame the farmers for coastal pollution reaching the outer reefs, after Queensland’s Bligh government abolished the only legislation that had protected the GBRWHA coast from “adverse impacts” (2012), followed by the Newman government abolishing riverine protection (2013).​

​Local councils followed with glee. The
 Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) (covering the narrow coastal strip between the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area) is formally subsidising new development contrary to state planning and local zoning. 
Picture
New developers are offered fee-free application, two years rate-free, and a waiver of the standard requirement to contribute to the public infrastructure costs their development will cause (CCRC website). Pity the 10,000 or so mum-and-dad ratepayers.
​In sum: under cover of the destruction of the greatest reefal coral ecosystem on earth by climate change inaction, all levels of government are compromising what’s left of the GBRWHA - in the name of business and votes, unnoticed in far-away Victoria. I know Victorians love the idea of the “the Reef”; but few know that it is doomed, even without climate change, by government development decisions. Not just for Adani and ports and mines, but for 
dredging, reclamation, seadumping and bed-levelling inside the GBRWHA; by multiple coastal development approvals that are inaccessible to public consultation; by decisions made by the Queensland Government, the GBRMPA and the Commonwealth Environment Minister.
Coastal fringing coral reefs of the GBRWHA are succumbing not to climate change but to coastal development, whether by direct destruction or by pollution (Magnetic Island, Cleveland Bay, Clump Point Mission Beach).
Picture
One further act of propaganda: while the Commonwealth cannot change the boundaries of the GBR World Heritage Area (low water mark along the mainland coast), they repeatedly change the boundaries of the GBR Marine Park specifically to exclude new areas of dredging, seadumping and reclamation; or dismiss them from consideration as “de minimis” - a legal principle directly in conflict with Australia’s obligations under world heritage listing (Conservation, Rehabilitation, Presentation – “to the utmost”) and the direct statements of UNESCO that the GBRMPA must take into account cumulative, combined and consequential impacts precisely to avoid “death by a thousand cuts” (UNESCO Mission Report 2012).​

​Today, GBRMPA haven't even drafted a policy
Victorians are to be applauded for their in-principle support for the life of the GBRWHA - the interdependent life of reef and coastal corals, seagrass and benthic communities, marine mammals and turtles and a multitude of fish species. Now Victorians can ask the governments to stop hastening its demise through approvals of additional and preventable coastal development impacts.
 
 Margaret J Moorhouse

Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc
PO Box 2457
Townsville Q 4810
[email protected]

0427 724 052
Picture
0 Comments

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT EXPERT REVIEW OF  PROCESS

8/7/2018

0 Comments

 
**SERIOUS SERIOUS CONCERNS**

**AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS**
At any time only 100 people could be mustered for public meetings called by Bob Katter through MBCA in favour of this development. The 90% of MBCA members who supposedly support the development was taken from a survey that only attracted a small number of people. The MBCA executive would be able to give us those figures. Perhaps around 10?
Of the supposed 600+ MBCA members, an organisation that claims to be the 'one voice' for Mission Beach, there are never more than around 40 people (Maximum) who attend meetings. They seldom take a vote on important issues. THEY HAVE NEVER INVITED A BALANCED VIEW for the marine infrastructure upgrade to be presented.
MBCA may well have over 600 people on their email database but they CANNOT CLAIM THE MAJORITY of that number agree with the Clump Point development.

Now the MBCA 'membership' is subjected to FURTHER BULLYING from its executive to AIR DIVISIVE PERSONAL OPINION using what should be an unbiased information sharing forum.

Why was Bob Katter and vested interests allowed to dominate the numbers (STACK THE MEETING) of 'community' members invited to attend the Information Session in May 2016?

Why were LOCAL MARINE TOURISM OPERATORS EXCLUDED FROM THE MEETING which, in the Qld Government words, "took some time to determine who could attend"?

Why, after Novemebr 2015, did the Queensland Government REFUSE TO COMMUNICATE with the broader community and those who had been 'stakeholders' in all discussions concerning proposed marine infrastructure development between 2011 and the end of 2015?

Why did the Qld Government (Mr Lynham) only have discussions (BEHIND CLOSED DOORS) with Bob Katter and select members of the community who claim to represent the majority of the community?

Why did the present council, immediately on gaining office, change CCRC position and exclude the the jetty from marine infrastructure upgrades? Were they part of the secret meetings with the Minister?

GBRMPA base some of their statement of reasons for their approval decision on a letter received by CCED (Cassowary Coast Economic Development) claiming the development will give a much needed boost to the Mission Beach Economy when there are NO STUDIES TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. The group also claims to be the peak regional Economic Development representative but no longer meet as they could not establish a purpose to continue.
Why did TMR provide false information in their referral to the Federal Government?

Why was the Reference Group not informed when TMR lodged their referral for the development proposal to have opportunity for public comment?

Why did TMR refuse to have any further communication with *SOME* members of the Reference Group following the Governing from the Regions meeting in Cairns when the Hon Mark Bailey's attention was brought to;
**SERIOUS CONCERNS AT THE HIGHLY FLAWED** Reference Group process and **FALSE CLAIMS** made by his department in their development referral to the Federal Government?
​
WE DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
0 Comments

GBRMPA APPROVES PERMIT FOR  CLUMP POINT

7/7/2018

0 Comments

 
The GBRMPA approval came as no surprise. From the outset at the Information Session they were advising those who attended  how to circumnavigate  legislation.  How to avoid a realignment of the  Marine Park boundary by separating the rock wall from the land.  The precedent had already been set. "An example" said Kirstin Dobbs, Acting General Manager Reef Protection, who was the principle assessment officer for the project "is Nellie Bay"

It has only just now become apparent to the current marine tourism businesses who operate from Clump Point boat ramp that they will have nowhere to  transfer passengers from or to for at least 9 months during construction.

For those who are interested all the approval documents (below) can be found on the GBRMPA website here
attachment-a-pip.pdf
File Size: 8211 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2.g39785.1-statement-of-reasons.pdf
File Size: 333 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

clump-point_ts.pdf
File Size: 14866 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

attachment-c-epbc-sor.pdf
File Size: 944 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

3.assessment-clump-point-g39785.pdf
File Size: 3712 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

re-issue-permit-fna.pdf
File Size: 551 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

SHOW ME THE NEED!

5/2/2018

0 Comments

 
The proposal for the  Clump Point Port/marina is based on a 'WISH LIST' produced by SOME of the members of the Reference Group.  Here's what it says in the  Public Information Package (PIP)

"The Reference Group (RG) members also provided information about a number of issues including the likely size of vessels that should be considered (see Table) and the desirable facilities to be included in any design". 

Some of  the reference group members and local marine tourism operators (who attended meetings as  'expert advisers') wanted the existing jetty to be included in the overall considerations.  Any discussion about the jetty was denied. 

The facilitator even went as far as to say 
"the minister would get angry if the jetty was mentioned and that he didn't like the references already being recorded in the minutes"  

The State government refused to consider input from the RG other than the range of  proposals they specifically limited to Clump Point. 


Here's the 'wish list'
Picture
Reef Goddess ------Operates from Dunk Island
Island Spirit ------- Water Taxi. Beach landing between Mission Beach/Dunk Island. Uses Clump                                                   Point pontoon during rough conditions.
Big Mama ---------  Left the area solely because of weather conditions. (Not enough sunny days) 
Island Voyager -- Not operational
Spiegel ------------   Not operational
Betty Lou  -------   Operates from Cardwell
Quickcat ---------   Not operational
Reef Magic -------  Operates from Cairns
Mary Little ------- Happy at Hull River
Jarrah T  ----------  Operates from Hull River
Recreational ---   All fictional ​
The list (above) includes two large 150 passenger cats and another 70 passenger vessel. These three vessels alone comprise 370 passengers without counting the other charter vessels on the list,  one of which is a tourist sailing boat that left the area solely because of weather conditions. (Not enough sunny days) 

When the Clump Point (now called the Perry Harvey) jetty supported a thriving tourism industry in the 80's, Dunk Island resort was operating at capacity and the Cairns reef tourism industry was limited to Green Island.   Passengers were bussed from Cairns.  Mission Beach tourism businesses experienced pressure to operate even when weather conditions were unfavourable.  Locals working on the large fast boats often described their day  by  how many paper bags were used by the passengers. 

The larger boats became non-viable when Cairns developed as an international World Heritage Reef and Rainforest  destination. 


Existing tourism businesses don't operate reef tours in weather that would cause discomfort to passengers.

International studies have shown that tourists now prefer a more personal, cultural  and natural experience that relates to a local community.    

Mission Beach has got it all and is developing a strong identity and character as a low key village atmosphere supporting boutique businesses.

The Queensland Government is leading the proposal for Clump Point. There has been:
  • NO  studies to show supposed NEEDS
  • NO market research to support visitor demand 
  • NO statistics showing how many days a year tourist  boats can expect to operate from Mission Beach.
  • NO  consideration for existing BOUTIQUE OWNER OPERATOR  MARINE TOURISM  OPERATORS
  • NO  consideration for sustainable nature based tourism
  • NO consideration for the dire condition of the The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
  • NO consideration for long term ECONOMIC STABILITY
There are much better solutions for an upgrade of marine facilities that would give far more long term surety for businesses  and be more appropriate for a place that is positioned at the meeting of two World Heritage Areas.​


Given the large number of claims in the Public Information Package (PIP) that can be shown to be untrue - 
​WE DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.



You can help by emailing GBRMPA
A short email supporting the information on this site will make the difference!  Check out all our posts 
Your comments must be referenced as G39785.1. 
to [email protected] before 17 February 2018.
Public Information Package here​

Keep up to date - Follow our facebook page


.


Picture
0 Comments

Trojan Horse – State Government wastes local community time - ASH media release

2/2/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

Boaties invited from Townsville to Cairns and the Tablelands to use Clump Point Boat Ramp.

2/2/2018

2 Comments

 
Picture

Enough of the false claims! 
 

Lets start with the letter to the Editor
​published in the Jan 31  Townsville Bulletin 
MBBA President's claim
The facts
​"At long last the Mission Beach area looks likely to reap the benefits of the decades-long campaign to improve boating facilities for recreational users and commercial boat operators"
Don't you mean the decades-long campaign for a marina at Boat Bay?
Commercial interests will benefit at the expense of recreational boaties. 
Who is this proposal going to benfit?  Developers and real estate agents are very excited. 

"GBRMPA’s assessment is the project’s final hurdle".
The Mission Beach Clump Point Boating Infrastructure Project has not yet received all state and federal approvals.
“Tick and flick” State approvals are proceeding without EIA or public consultation, under pressure to be completed before GBRMPA’s Comments deadline.

"Funding is guaranteed by the State Government".
TMR Public Information Package states gov funding is not guaranteed see pages 11,17, 22. (link  on icon right) 
​Watch out for next stage. Who will it be to try again for private marina facilities in beautiful Boat Bay?
Picture
Click to download TMR Public Information Package

"We believe it is important that the Cassowary Coast and the wider community from Townsville to Cairns including the Tablelands, whose boaties are all regular visitors to Mission Beach, let the GBRMPA know that most of us support these much-needed boating improvements. Precise details and designs are available in an information package at hhtp/-Boating- facilities/Clump-Point- Mission-Beach or contact me for a brochure."
Most of us? – or just your mates?
This project started 6 years ago to address the congestion and conflict created by commercial operator/s hogging the space at the recreational boat ramp.
  • There is a maximum capacity of about 60 car/trailer parks on Clump Point
  • Why would anyone want to drum up more boatie visitors from as far away as Townville, Cairns and the Tablelands when there is already no room at the inn? If not to create pressure for a commercial marina?
  • Why would anyone want to introduce commercial use to an area that can't cater now to current local recreational needs?
Why would anyone go even further and suggest incorporating industrial use?

Poor Clump point! 
 Increased congestion!
More conflict!

What about our relaxed village atmosphere?
Our access and enjoyment of our own peaceful bay?
Picture
WAIT - THERE'S MORE!

​"Please indicate your support for this environmentally sound project to GBRMPA"
"At a time when off-shore corals are dying, this project will trash a thriving coral reef, destroy an unquantified area of benthic habitat, ruin the special beauty on which Mission Beach relies for tourism, and change the local ecology.
​
No wonder the government didn't want genuine public consultation.”

Margaret Moorhouse. 
see ASH media release

signed
PETER HEYWOOD
President, Mission Beach Boating Association Inc

A quick check on Peter Heywood's background:
  • Former Director of Mission Beach Harbour Pty Ltd
  • Former Real Estate Agent
  • Speculative Land developer
  • Proponent of (failed) marina development proposal of (World Heritage) wetland at Coquette Point
  • Spoke on behalf of both Mission Beach Boating Association  AND Mission Beach Community Association, when it suited, while on the Reference Group.

You can make a difference

GBRMPA  wants to hear from interested persons " ESPECIALLY those who believe that the proposed use will RESTRICT THEIR REASONABLE USE OF THIS PART OF THE MARINE PARK"  are invited to lodge written comments on the proposal with the Authority

Deadline for comments by 17 February 2018.
​Your comments
MUST be referenced as G39785.1.

[email protected] 
​

Tell them what you think in your own words. 
  • This proposal DOES NOT HAVE CONSERVATION OR TRADITIONAL OWNER  SUPPORT
 
  • This is NOT THE SAME (original) PROPOSAL that was approved and now abandoned by the state government​. 
 
  • This NEW PROPOSAL HAS HAD NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION. Despite the repeated claims to the contrary in TMR's Public Information Package  (PIP)(click icon right)
  
  • The  propsal will INCREASE CONGESTION AND USER CONFLICT
​
  • The project will INHIBIT YOUR ACCESS AND ENJOYMENT OF BEAUTIFUL AND TRANQUIL  BOAT BAY
​
  • The proposal is NOT  just an UPGRADE OF  RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
​
  • This will BECOME A PORT/MARINA
​
  • TMR is applying for the full extent of works  to support the present and future marine infrastructure needs of the Mission Beach area. WHERE ARE THE SUPPORTING  STUDIES TO SHOW THE NEEDS?  
​
  • Only part of  this proposal can be delivered SUBJECT TO AVAILABLE FUNDS
​
  • If approved, FUTURE EXPANSION as a commercial port and marina IS INEVITABLE
​
  • Where will the extra funds come from? Is this a TROJAN HORSE OPENING THE WAY FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE through the Qld Government's Public/private partnerships (PPP) program?​

  • Disturbance to the sea bottom (excavation and reclamation) associated with the proposal WILL RELEASE SEDIMENTS INTO THE OCEAN CURRENTS adding to the suspension of pollutants within Boat Bay (a habitat protection zone), Clump Point fringing reef and find their way to the outer reefs  65% impacted by  coral bleaching and currently heavily impacted by Crown of Thorns.

  • Increased pressure on a STRESSED AND DYING REEF WITH DIMINISHING FISH STOCK. ​
​​
  • We've been  LED UP THE GARDEN PATH!  Deliberately HOODWINKED!
​
  • We are relying on, and ASKING GBRMPA, TO USE THE DISCRETION UNDER THEIR ACT - Regulation 88Q (p) 'Any other matters' to PROTECT OUR WORLD HERITAGE AREA

  • ​Given the large number of claims in the Public Information Package (PIP) that can be shown to be untrue - WE DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

Remember this?!

Picture
Picture
Click to download TMR Public Information Package
2 Comments

Mr Katter's  blustering,  misleading letter to Mission Beach residents

25/11/2017

0 Comments

 
Lets take a look at what Mr Katter claims in his mail drop letter 
Picture
A development that requires a 140 metre (?) artificial rock wall to be built out into an open lee shore on a cyclone exposed coast cannot be described as "gently and firmly moving forward". A development that requires destruction of rare rain forest and creates user congestion and further demand on an environmentally sensitive unique headland  is not "growing in moderation".
 
How does Mr Katter's rhetoric fit with a long term vision that protects the exceptional natural environment and supports small, boutique locally owned and operated businesses?  The reason visitors are attracted to Mission Beach is supported by the website Experience Oz voting Mission Beach the second best regional destination “...thanks to its laid-back, tropical vibe away from the hustle and bustle.  “It is Mission Beach’s lack of commercialisation that gives it its appeal, with a total of four beach villages providing visitors with that isolated, secluded and exclusive feel most yearn for in a tropical getaway,” the website read.


Picture
No State Government public consultation
​Lack of notification of the EPBC referral
Picture

The State Government railroaded this NEW development through approvals with a dodgy Reference Group process described by legal advice as a sham!  The State Government claimed in their referral to the Federal Government that this NEW development is “... of a similar scale ...” as the previous development that gained Fed Gov approval. 
This statement is blatantly untrue
The original development at Clump Point was; 
An extra boat ramp and parking to cater for recreational boating needs.
The NEW development is; 
An extra boat ramp and parking, 
A separate 140 metre (?) rock wall (length determined on available $’s with the aim to create as much calm water behind it as possible to accommodate as many boat moorings as possible.
A new jetty of a similar scale as the Perry Harvey Jetty, 
Two 50 metre floating pontoons
At least 5 permanent berths behind the wall with unknown number of informal berths on pontoons
Raising/widening existing rock wall to accommodate a road for fuel tankers and general supplies for existing tourism and expanded commercial operations (barge, commercial fishing, Cruise Boat transfers)
Picture
Is there another deal being brokered between Katter and the Federal Government?
We obtained a letter through FOI written from the GBRMPA officer to the Federal Government (below) which claimed there has already been “extensive public consultation”. 
​                                          What was so secret that a paragraph needed to be  redacted?
 
We received the following from  the Federal  Environment department in regard to the redaction. 
"Document 12 contains material that would reveal the gist of legal advice provided to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority by their legal advisors".  "I am also satisfied that release the advice would result in 'real harm' to the Department".
Picture
Is there a plan to further avoid public consultation by falsely claiming
“... Extensive consultation has already occurred...”?
Picture
Can a GBRMPA officer assure anyone that assessment of a development within the GBR Marine Park​
"should be able to  get it through" or be ​ “speeded up” ? 

​What does that mean?
 
​
Can we feel confident this NEW  development  will be subjected to
​a ‘normal’ rigorous assessment process?
Picture
Unpleasant ​Confrontation?  Anger?  or BULLYING?
Picture
Harold Holt’s association with Mission Beach was with his “school chum” John Busst’ who was an active and  successful campaigner for protection of the rainforest and reef (both of which  Mission Beach relies on  for its main economy, tourism). Together with the local, national and international community they were responsible for the reef being protected under World Heritage listing.
Picture
A blatant untruth! 
There is an excellent natural safe harbour at Mourilyan, and all weather (excepting cyclones) anchorage at Dunk Island.  (And Diane Cilento once visited Dunk Island not Mission Beach)
Picture
​Another blatant untruth! 
 The last two years visitor numbers have reached record numbers. Mission Beach is not dying. It needs stability not the constant demands of vested interests  seeking short term financial gain and undermining established small businesses
Picture
Picture
‘Frank’ discussions, “angry Minister”?  Bullying tactics from vested interests?
Did the Federal government minister say this? Would he pacify bullies and pre empt an important GBRMPA decision on a development that will negatively impact on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ?  One that does not have conservation support.
Is this a Katter stunt attempting to avoid proper public consultation?
Picture
The Mission Beach Community needs stability. It relies on a thriving tourism economy. Tourism at Mission Beach relies on protection of the natural environment. 
​
The development planned for Clump Point is not a marine facility upgrade, it is not the  abandoned Mission Beach Safe Boating Infrastructure project.  It is a BRAND NEW development.  

All levels of government have acted to avoid proper process and public consultation on a development that will have long term adverse and consequential impacts on the land and marine environments. 
Picture
CALL FOR ACTION:
TMR to conduct independent investigation of the process 
​prior to moving forward with the project
0 Comments

CLUMP POINT PORT!

21/11/2017

0 Comments

 

How did  an upgrade to existing marine facilities
end up in a major expansion of development on Clump Point?

Picture


​The key points re Clump Point development are that;
  •  What is being proposed is a totally different (new) development from what is claimed by the State government to have had extensive public consultation and be only slightly different from what has already been approved.  
  •  The conservation sector does not support/endorse this project.
  • There is objection that the consultation process was inadequate and highly flawed.
  •  There are issues with the change in scope of the project (see comparison left).
  • There was  a lack of notification of the EPBC referral.  ​​
  •   Consultation focused only on Mission Beach locals when there are issues are relating to a WHA .
​
Call for action:
·         TMR to conduct independent investigation of the process
​prior to moving forward with the project
The original proposals had state and federal government approval and were awaiting assessment from GBRMPA before Mr Lynham visited Mission Beach, met only with vested interests and marina supporters then completely abandoned the original plans.

The current development proposal was determined by the (dodgy) Lynham Reference Group process that was claimed to be the ‘scoping study’ and ‘public consultation’. The process gave a false account of meetings and arrived at a predetermined outcome in the ‘advice  to the Minister ' (Lynham
) document.
0 Comments

What is the secret?

21/11/2017

0 Comments

 
How much faith can we have that this development is being taken seriously by those in charge of matters of national environmental significance and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
Picture


​We received the following correspondence (left)from the federal government to our request for a statement of reasons for their decision not to make the Clump Point development a controlled action despite the impacts on many matters of national environmental significance.

The letter reinforces the falsehood that the current development proposal  is  "similar" to  the last proposals that were "...determined to not have significant impacts on matters of NES..."​

"..more widely accepted by the community..." "extensive public consultation..." ??
​
What is said in the redacted sentence between the GBRMPA and the Federal Government Environment department?

​Very matey letter "...let me know if you require anything else..." signed Cheers!

​We were unable to talk to anyone at GBRMPA  to discuss our concerns.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    The Facts

    This blog presents the facts  about  development being planned for Clump Point. 

    Join the conversation and share on facebook
    ​

    Castaways threatening letter
    Letter to community from vested interest

    ..
    --------------
    Background
    information
    ​
    --------------
    ..


    Archives

    July 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Contact: Clump Point Marina - Who Cares?