I look forward to working with Campbell Newman and his team on the Gold Coast in delivering better outcomes and lower costs, and helping to reinstate the Gold Coast as the recreation and lifestyle capital of Australia.

The LNP has a massive majority across the State and we will need a strong and experienced Mayor to ensure our issues are well heard – a Mayor who understands the challenges and opportunities for our unique city, a Mayor who has experience as a statesman for the city and a Mayor who can negotiate and achieve results.

Quite clearly there are issues the LNP government can implement arising from its commitments and these include:

• Funding for more Police and the Police helicopter.
• Improving rail services to Brisbane.
• Strengthen the anti-hooning legislation.
• Dredging the Broadwater.

Each of those are very welcome and vital to our city.

As Mayor, I would like to work with the LNP government to:

• Allow GCCC to take back control of water distribution and retailing without the costs arising from the Labor government ‘water reforms’.
• Maximise our opportunity to introduce ferry systems and improved recreational use of the Broadwater and waterways using the LNP Marine Infrastructure Fund.
• Remove controls on local government activity that make it difficult for GCCC to financially support local clubs and groups with their development programs.
• Change State legislation that requires GCCC to use prohibitively expensive Surfside buses for delivering innovative public transport services such as the YourBus home-pick up and delivery bus service currently being trialled in Pacific Pines, Coomera and Bonogin.
• Change State legislation to allow Council to designate locations where people can legally park with two-wheels up on the kerb.
• Change State legislation that restricts commercial ferry services to 6 knots, and instead adopt a ‘no-wake’ limit so we can make these services viable.
• Change State legislation to allow Council to deploy speed cameras to keep our local streets safer.
• Stop the Boral quarry at Reedy Creek by removing the Key Resource Area designation.
• Change legislation so that we can maximise the potential for growth and city transformation in the light rail corridor.
• Cut red tape to provide support for business, instead of restrictions.
• Maximise the investment in tourism infrastructure.
• Develop a special focus on Springbrook to deliver truly sustainable outcomes for economic enterprise, community well-being, and maximum protection of the fragile eco-system.
• Establish an off-shore cruise ship facility so our great city can quickly begin to benefit from this rapidly growing sector.

I believe I am the only Mayoral candidate that can effectively pursue these challenges and opportunities for the benefit of Gold Coasters.

It was with interest – and no small amount of dismay – that I read in the Gold Coast Bulletin on Saturday of “Tom Tate’s plan” for a Guggenheim-style art museum.

My interest was that I have been publicly promoting this concept for quite some time.

My dismay was that it reveals once and for all the kind of representative the Gold Coast will get if Tom Tate is elected mayor.

I first publicly mentioned my objective to develop a Guggenheim in this city before an audience of over a hundred at the UDIA Mayoral luncheon in November, and subsequently at least a few times in my presentations at Mayoral forums at which Mr Tate was present.

I detailed my vision for ‘an iconic, world class cultural centre on the Gold Coast’ on my web site in September last year.

The Guggenheim was mentioned in a media release I issued in January.

In recent correspondence I sent to some business leaders, I included this statement:
“I intend to develop a Guggenheim art museum or similar international-class facility that will add brand equity to our city and benefit the local economy.”

A copy of this correspondence was no doubt passed on to Mr Tate’s campaign – an action not unpredictable; correspondence not in confidence sent to multiple recipients is always likely to reach rival camps.

I don’t own the Guggenheim name but I can be certain that among the Mayoral candidates it was me and not Mr Tate who originated – and indeed expanded in depth – upon the concept of obtaining such a prestigious franchise for the Gold Coast.

I am becoming increasingly concerned at my rival’s style of campaigning.

He is bereft of original ideas, and has no capacity to implement them.

His self-developed concept of ‘culture’ has been to host bikini contests at The Islander in Surfers Paradise with “a specially built catwalk hovering only inches above the sparkling resort pool” for the “bikini models to strut their stuff” in front of males in the pool.
 
Tom’s only other self-developed contribution to culture and tourism was his idea to include a giant public artwork of a bikini-clad Meter Maid as a ‘star feature in a proposed $10 million redevelopment of the Islander Resort’.

Of this, Mr Tate proudly proclaimed: “I like to compare it to Leonardo’s Mona Lisa”.

No wonder it comes as a surprise then that he has suddenly discovered culture of a more grown-up nature.

His appropriation of others’ ideas and proud parade of them as his own to the media is disgraceful in a person who is asking for the trust of the people to run their city. Is this the kind of behaviour we want from our mayor?

There is great potential in him to damage the Gold Coast’s transition to a fully-rounded city with a mature outlook and reputation.

In matters of promotion of the Gold Coast, the election of Tom Tate would take our city backwards. He has a juvenile view of what locals and visitors want in the 21st century and the only way he can visualise a world beyond The Islander is to hitch a ride from someone else.

His blundering proposition to fill the lake highlights his lack of understanding of the significant hydraulic issues and genuine concerns of the broader community.

Tom’s money may help him hire an expensive team of spin-doctors to make him look good, but if you take them away you’re just left with clumsy, copycat, Tom.

The State Government has confirmed it will not require Council to collect PIP charges on its behalf. This will result in the removal of $146m in charges applied to developments on the Gold Coast since 2007 and will be a great stimulus to development.

This is particularly welcome news to me. The PIP regime was implemented by the previous Council in 2007. At the time the Deputy Mayor David Power said:

“It will not be without pain. The plan will mean new, and higher, infrastructure charges for many developers. But it does introduce a set methodology which provides a fair and consistent approach to charges, and a measure of certainty for the industry.”

Obviously there was a lot of pain. When I inherited responsibility for PIP under the Planning Scheme (as Chairman of the Sustainable City Future Committee from March 2008) I set about on a course to try to reduce the pain. The PIP could not easily be changed and this forced the need to introduce a range of temporary mechanisms and subsidies to try to assist the industry. These were introduced through 2009-2011.

In July 2011 Council introduced the lowest PIP charges in the State. Under my guidance Council also determined to introduce a mechanism to allow developers to ‘re-apply’ for their existing approvals, which would allow them to be lawfully issued a new set of much reduced infrastructure charges.

Around that time I first approached the Minister for Local Government (see below) urging the State to also waive its charges, which were prohibitive.

The State has now done so. It is a great day for the industry and the city.

30 May 2011 

Dear Minister Lucas,

Comments raised during last week’s Parliamentary debate relating to the Sustainable Planning (Housing Affordability and Infrastructure Charges Reform) Amendment Bill demand attention.

Since the Government’s announcement of the proposal to introduce maximum standard infrastructure charges, Gold Coast City Council has been a vocal supporter – both of the new regime and the State’s moratorium on the collection of State Road Charges.  This is in stark contrast to criticism from many other Councils, the Local Government Association of Queensland and the South East Queensland Council of Mayors. I can advise that we have already commenced discussions with the industry and given strong indications to them that it is our intent to introduce fees for residential product below the Government cap.

As you know Gold Coast Council was the first to introduce a Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) and the delay in other Councils doing likewise resulted in a competitive disadvantage to industry in our city. Council has worked with the industry on a range of subsidy and process initiatives seeking to reduce the local impacts. These included a Temporary Local Planning Instrument to enable charges to be calculated on ‘actual’ rather than ‘planned’ (Planning Scheme) demand, and a stimulus subsidy which reduced fees by up to 50%. These efforts have required subsidies to be provided to implement the PIP – the subsidies have cost ratepayers approximately $30m over the past few years.

I note reference during the debate to Council’s collection of ‘about $13 million’ in State charges. For a typical detached residential dwelling our charges have been about $31,500 which has included about $4,000 for State roads. For non-residential development the State road charge typically represents 40-50% of the entire charge applied. Accordingly this Council has issued Infrastructure Charge Notices (ICNs) for the State Road Charge of approximately $170 million since January 2007. Of this amount, only about $15 million has been receipted to date. Many of the projects – especially non-residential projects – have not commenced and are unlikely to do so with the current cost imposts.

We expect that many people who have existing approvals will approach Council requesting a minor change, prompting issue of a new ICN, which would take advantage of the new capped charging regime. We are already actively working with the industry to establish streamlined processes to enable this.

In this respect I do seek to confirm that the moratorium on the State Road Charge will apply in instances where a new ICN is issued, as per the process I have outlined above. If that moratorium can be applied I believe this will have a greater likelihood of stimulating currently dormant projects, creating immediate employment opportunities for South East Queensland.

It is unfortunate that in the debate of this Bill, on both sides of the House, the efforts of this Council in assisting the development industry, within the constraints we faced when administering the State’s only PIP, have been either overlooked or denigrated.

Yours sincerely

PETER YOUNG
Councillor for Division 5
Chairman, Sustainable City Future Committee

Cr Sarroff’s proposition to reduce Divisional allocations to $200,000 per annum is going to hurt the community. This is typical of Eddy who gets the language right – we should cut costs – but the delivery wrong – these are all highly desired projects that benefit local communities!
 
Projects in Division 5 -   2011-12
 
$50,000 – General allocation for small projects in Parks and Reserves                                    
$30,000 – General allocation for Roads and Drainage (eg guardrails, safety fencing)                                                  
$5,000 – Miscellaneous Investigations (design costs)                                                         
$45,000 – Community Grants and Donations (more than 40 groups provided with financial assistance this year)           
$20,000 – Community Concerts and Functions (eg Nerang Youth Festival, tribute to Damien Leeding in Pacific Pines, National skateboarding championship and skate workshops in Nerang)
$12,000 – Parks Alive Activity Program (eg tai-chi, outdoor films)                                         
$30,000 – Active & Healthy Program (eg school holiday activities in pools and parks)          
$15,000 – Nerang Celebrates Christmas                                                                             
$3,000 – Nerang RSL ANZAC Day                                                                                     
$20,000 – Paradise Country, Nerang Improvements and repairs                                          
$50,000 – Contribution towards YourBus home pick up bus service in Pacific Pines            
$17,000 – Community Development Officer Pacific Pines (1 day per week)                         
$34,000 – Community Development Officer Nerang (2 days per week)                                
$30,000 – Nerang Community Garden                                                                                
$50,000 – Improvements to facilities for Nerang Cardinals Baseball Club                            
$40,000 – Improvements and repairs to Bert Swift Hall, Nerang                                           
$75,000 – Replacement of old BBQ shelters Bischof Park Nerang                                      
$50,000 – Street tree program throughout Division                                                             
$15,000 – Contribution to ongoing improvement works at Nerang Cemetery                        
$47,000 – Pathway connecting two parks, Sandalwood Drive Nerang                                  
$25,000 – Play equipment Sandalwood Drive Nerang                                                         
$21,000 – Repairs to vandalised play equipment at Parklake                                               
$40,000 – Exercise equipment in Bert Swift Park Nerang                                                    
$40,000 – Exercise equipment in Central Park Pacific Pines                                                
$60,000 – Upgrades to Nerang BMX track  

I challenge anyone, including Eddy Sarroff, to identify which of these projects should not be funded if his proposed ‘cost-cutting’ measure is to be implemented.
 
There are two salient points that need to be made:
a)   some Divisions (including his) have significant sums available in addition to the Divisional funds from sources such as ‘Tables and Chairs’. This is worth hundreds of thousands per annum in some areas and allows expenditure on events and projects that in other areas must be funded from the Divisional allocation – examples being Christmas events, festivals and other celebrations, street-scaping and improvements to business precincts.
b)    Some of the projects above clearly should be funded from Whole of City eg cemetery upgrades, YourBus, upgrades to Bert Swift Hall and staff. I pay for community development officers (only one actually employed) but in other areas these are funded from Whole of City. There are heaps of inconsistencies like this. I provide the funds because they aren’t available from Whole of City but these are important projects.
 
It may sound good to ‘cut the Councillors funds’ but the reality is these projects are legitimate and through the existing system:
a)    Must comply with strict policies;
b)    Can be funded and completed much more quickly than through the Whole of City budgeting system and project scheduling
c)    If they aren’t funded from Divisions, then they either get funded Whole of City or don’t go ahead at all.