Recent Bulletin stories highlight why I think there is such a mood for change amongst Gold Coast voters. It highlights everything that’s wrong with this Council and why none of the sitting Councillors running for Mayor can be considered credible candidates.

Where is that ‘have a go’ spirit that the Gold Coast was built on?

I’m sure people told Sir Bruce Small he couldn’t do things, they wouldn’t work. But where would we be as a city if he’d not persevered.

I’m a realist, and yes some of my plans with take hard work, boot leather, knocking on doors and a lot of persuasion of Councillors, fellow ratepayers, State and Federal politicians; but is that a reason not to have a go – of course not.

In business when people ask why, I say why not. Other mayoral candidates say my plans can’t be done. I can understand their thinking given their personal track records of failure for our city.

Can’t is not a word successful business people settle for. It’s not a word the Mayor of the Gold Coast should settle for.

The Councillors running for mayor have been settling for can’t, won’t, don’t bother, too hard, forget about it and too late for far too long.

I’ve found in over 20 years of business life, there are always solutions; you just need to look for them.

Tenacity is the key to success. If you get blocked one way, you find and try another and another until you eventually succeed.

People that know me well will tell you that I about finding solutions.

Former Councillors, like Sarroff, Young and Douglas are naysayers, complainers, whiners and wingers. It’s the State Governments fault or it’s the Feds who are to blame or it’s the Global Financial Crisis or the banks won’t lend any more or the Council CEO let us down or Council Staff won’t tell us the facts.

The point is that it’s time that they take a good, long, hard look at themselves

‘No’ is the easiest thing in the world for a Government to say. For eight years, we’ve endured a Council leadership that has found reasons not to do things, complicated the most simple of processes, grown a bureaucracy and delivered fewer services at a higher cost to rate payers.

But, people of the Gold Coat aren’t fools. They know with the right person at the helm and the right approach, we can get things done and make all the difference.

If a piece of legislation needs a change, so seniors can get a better deal, then I’ll ask Campbell Newman to change the legislation.  For a man who ran on a cost of living platform and received the biggest mandate in the State’s history, I don’t think he’ll say no.

If we need to lobby the State to get additional funding for a road, we’ll do it.  If we need to look at private finance to support a new cultural centre, then I’ll do it.

The problem with these want-to-be Mayoral candidates is they don’t have the experience at problem solving to think outside the box and that’s what we desperately need on the Gold Coast right now.

Over the coming weeks, I will release more details and costed plans that demonstrate clearly how I will pay my plans and timelines for delivery. As I have been doing, I will continue to release all my detailed policy costings and identified savings well before polling day.

Isn’t it remarkable that not one candidate has supplied properly documented policies, costings and plans but all are screaming that I should release more of mine. All we get from the former Councillors is dot points and great slabs of stolen content from existing Council policy documents. The city deserves more for its candidates for Mayor.

When Cr Young made the outlandish promise of a 10% rate cut, did any of the other mayoral candidates explode with demands to see his costings? When Cr Douglas promised to get rid of all the rubbish tips across the city, has anyone asked for her detailed plan? When former Cr Sarroff claimed to be able to save $30 Million off the budget, has anyone asked to see the breakdown?

I want to make sure that when Gold Coasters go to vote they will have a clear choice. Voters can stick with the existing Councillors running for Mayor or opt for a fresh start, fresh thinking and a new approach to solving our city’s problems from me.

These sudden attacks are more to do with polling, positioning and posturing. Isn’t it interesting that only a week ago they were all crying out for “no more negative attacks”. Well it seems a week is a long time in politics because it is coming thick and fast from them now.

The choice will be clear on April 28th: more of the same from Councillors like Young, Sarroff and Douglas who have been there for up to 17 years, have had their chance and failed; or someone with a track record of successful delivery, that despite the challenges will get things done to deliver ratepayers lower rates and get the Gold Coast working again.

The former councillors running for Mayor have a policy approach that wouldn’t have worked years ago. Under them, we would never have built our airport to international standard, we would never have constructed nor extended the Convention Centre, we would never have raised the hinze dam for water storage, we would never have bid for nor secured the Commonwealth Games and we would never have seen the creation of the marine precinct.

Every successful infrastructure and event attraction projects for our city started with an idea, that became a concept, that was developed into a detailed plan that emerged as a priority, then was detailed and costed and after a major lobbying at all levels of government, was eventually built.

Council is the local Government for its citizens. Early support and early money for major projects is like yeast, it helps raised the big dough to get these big projects off the ground and implemented in the city.

The next Mayor of this city needs to have the ideas and the determination to see them through with energy, business experience and drive.

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.

Peter Young recently posted a blog on myGC bagging me out on my cultural centre plan.  His complaint seemed to boil down to the concept that he used the word ‘Guggenheim’ first and I should pay homage to this. Strangely he bags me for having a policy when his fellow council colleagues and mayoral candidates as well as himself fail to have a published policy on the cultural centre…

Peter’s attack on me seemed to be “playing the man and not the ball” so personal in fact that it warrants a personal response to Peter, point by point refuting the good Councillor…

1) I note your claim that you have been ‘publicly promoting this concept for quite some time. Well Peter, clearly its time you gave up as you have gotten nowhere!

The design that your Council project came up with reminds me of my uni days and specifically the engineering department of Sydney Uni. Its hopeless but what is worst, in all of this time you have not come up with a way to get the project funded without impacting on ratepayers. I have done that with my plan and is something you have failed to do in your 12 years in Council. So what exactly is the point of doing all the ‘promoting’ unless it is of course all about you just promoting yourself for Mayor?

2) I am really surprised to learn that you claim to be the inventor of the “Guggenheim” concept. How did you find the time while inventing the Internet, daily newspapers and the pasteurization process?

Peter, ideas are nothing unless you can implement them. My proposal is more about the sound funding model than a particular building design. You have a hopeless design for the Evandale site but won’t admit it. It is completely uninspiring and won’t attract a cent. Time to reboot the design process and get the funding without hurting ratepayers.

4) Your detailed vision doesn’t have a funding model and that is the key so beyond some scribbles on a a3 sheet of paper, what exactly have you achieved in your 12 years in Council for delivering such an iconic performance arts cultural centre?

5) Peter, you don’t have a copyright on the word “Guggenheim”.

If the people of the Gold Coast want evidence of your lack of a ‘Guggenheim’ worthy design, they only need to look at the building your Council design competition produced. I call it “office modern”.

6) I noticed that you have attacked me and not my ideas. So who exactly is “bereft of original ideas”?

7) You seem to have a unhealthily appetite for mentioning bikinis. Yes The Islander, a resort in Surfers Paradise, had bikini contests as well as all sorts of promotions over the years. That is what you do to run a successful tourism business. Something you have no experience in it seems. What a surprise our city is suffering citywide lack of promotion performance as well!

7) Peter, it was a GCB invention, putting a giant public artwork of a bikini-clad Meter Maid on my hotel by a graphic artist at the bully, not mine but I suppose your ‘truth and honesty’ campaign doesn’t extend to getting even these simple facts right. You have a history of making completely unfounded statements in public and never retracting them and I assume this time will be no different.

Surely after 12 years in public life you have learnt not to believe everything you read in the paper?

I never ever made the statement “I like to compare it to Leonardo’s Mona Lisa” so you need to retract that statement in your blog forthwith.

9) On your issue of “his appropriation of others’ ideas I would like to point out to you yet again Peter that the ‘Guggenheim’ museums and performing arts centers around the world ARE NOT YOUR IDEA ORIGINALLY – STOP CLAIMING THEY ARE.

10) You may contend that there is, in your words “great potential in him to damage the Gold Coast”. My only comment is that your potential is fully realised with you as a councillor in a city with the worst unemployment rate in our history, the highest number of business failures, the highest number of mortgage repossessions of family homes and the faster growing crime rate in the history of Queensland. This is on the back of the $1.4Billion dollar loss – the largest loss in Queensland municipal history! We have all seen you in action and the Gold Coast can’t afford another four years of you.

11) I love people like you Peter, who, when I disagree with them they say I don’t understand. In this case you say I don’t understand the complex hydraulic issues. Well Peter show me your civil engineering degree and I’ll show you mine. Oh, that’s right, you don’t have one. The lake was man made originally and we can ‘put it elsewhere on the site’ if it is needed at all now that the Hinze Dam has been doubled in capacity:- something I might add that you fought against back in 2003 but are now claiming credit for.

12) Peter, Gold Coasters have genuine concerns about your many trips to China not saving us from the economic downturn your planning, development and economic decisions have caused us in this city. They are genuinely concerned about the rising rates, rising water costs and the disappearing jobs while crime runs rampant. But yes, you mentioned the magic word ‘Guggenheim’ first back in what ever year. Smart fellow you are that you can even spell it.

13) You can’t have it every which way Peter: Either my plans are copied from you or my plans are blundering or my plans are brilliant but devised by the team of people I have built around me for my campaign. Which is it?

14) Ok, so Peter, if it is so important to you, I will admit that you used the word ‘ Guggenheim’ first. Now get out the way while I actually work to deliver just such a cultural centre that we can be proud of for our city.

And yes, this is the real Tom Tate answering.

P.S. I just did a search for ‘Guggenheim’ and ‘Peter Young’ and didn’t find you once on the massive Google search engine databases. Maybe I didn’t go back enough pages in the search. There IS a Peter Young who is exhibiting his art at one of the Guggenheim museums overseas. He says he was the first one to use the term ‘Peter Young’ and says he wants his name back from you! 

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.

Recently Cr Peter Young announced his run for Mayor and a few days after his announcement he sent an mass email to most of the Christian pastors, ministers and church administrators across the Gold Coast.

In the letter he basically indicated he considered himself almost the ‘chosen one’ and had a crack at the other mayoral candidates with snide remarks and innuendo about Susie Douglas, David Power and myself specifically.

Cr Young’s email was an affront to, well just about everyone in the city.

In the email he tried to give the impression that God was on his side for this upcoming Mayoral campaign and as such all Godly persons should vote for him.

I read the correspondence Cr Young send to Christian church leaders in our city’s daily newspaper the following day and in a word I was disgusted.

What right does Cr Young have to call into question my personal faith, Christianity or connection with God?

I took note of Cr Young’s brash attempts at garnering publicity for himself and shameless promotion for his mayoral campaign during the Commonwealth Games announcement despite it being a citywide ‘residents’ win, not his personal triumph.

However I was genuinely shocked how Cr Young was campaigning based around saying God is on his side and all the other mayoral candidates including myself, are practically Godless and less than worthy to be candidates from solely a faith point of view.

My faith is a personal matter for myself and my family and I suspect that the vast majority of fellow Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and the countless other faiths represented in our city. I also think that a person’s faith should not be a consideration in a political campaign. However with Cr Young’s missive to churches this week, Cr Young has tried to do just that.

It is a fundamental tenant of our culture, our systems of Government and our Australian way of life that the Church and Government are kept separate. That Government, local, State or Federal, does not and should not push onto anyone, one particular faith at the exclusion of all others.

I don’t know Peter Young too well, but I am quickly forming the view that he is a divisive character if his email is anything to go by.

How does he think the citizens of other faiths feel now about the city in which they live? How does he think they feel if their faith doesn’t happen to marry with Cr Young’s if he was to become Mayor?

I can’t speak personally for my fellow mayoral candidates Keith Douglas, Dean Vegas, Susie Douglas, David Power nor potentially Eddie Sarroff, however none of us deserve to be politically ridiculed by Cr Young, given ‘his personal assessment’ of our individual levels of faith and piousness.

I have suggested to Cr Young in an email that he should stick to attacking me on my policies or on my past record.

I implored him to leave mine and everyone else’s personal faiths out of the equation as it simply is not right, simply not Australian and simply not a principled thing to do.

I asked Peter to reconsider his piece of communication to the churches, pastors and ministers, retract it, apologise for it to all the other candidates and to the city’s residents and never ever attempt to use his religion as a weapon for his campaign nor use anyone else’s faith against them in a political campaign again.

I am yet to even get an acknowledgement from Cr Young from my email. The above blog has been taken from the email I sent to Peter Young and I decided to publish it on my website and as many media outlets as I can.

Politics, government and religion should not mix and churches should not be used as part of a campaign strategy to ‘gain a certain voter demographic”. It’s just plain wrong.