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.
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.
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)
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".
“... Extensive consultation has already occurred...”?
"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?
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.
TMR to conduct independent investigation of the process
prior to moving forward with the project