Lets take a look at what Mr Katter claims in his mail drop letter
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.
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.
No State Government public consultation
Lack of notification of the EPBC referral
Lack of notification of the EPBC referral
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)
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)
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".
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".
Is there a plan to further avoid public consultation by falsely claiming
“... Extensive consultation has already occurred...”?
“... Extensive consultation has already occurred...”?
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?
"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?
Unpleasant Confrontation? Anger? or BULLYING?
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.
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)
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
‘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?
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.
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.
CALL FOR ACTION:
TMR to conduct independent investigation of the process
prior to moving forward with the project
TMR to conduct independent investigation of the process
prior to moving forward with the project