MEDIA RELEASE
14th APRIL 2021
Cruise terminal tribute to Prince Philip or a promise to save the park named in his honour?
It is time for the Mayor to abandon the Oceanside cruise terminal.
The terminal is totally inappropriate on the Philip Park site or anywhere in the Broadwater and Gecko Environment Council’s success, at long last, of getting the PwC Business Case Report, released in full, clearly reveals that.
The Mayor and most Councillors should be held to account for failing to release all of this report, especially Appendix E which lists all the risks involved in this proposal.
Lois Levy, Gecko Campaign Coordinator said “While it could be considered desirable to have a memorial to honour His Royal Highness the late Duke of Edinburgh, the community must still ask does the Mayor intend that the cruise terminal would still feature in this memorial?
Given the Duke’s intense interest in protection of the natural environment it could be said that a cruise terminal that takes over and destroys a public park and changes the wave and beach forms to accommodate massive polluting cruise ships would be extremely unsuitable.
The Gold Coast community has repeatedly demonstrated its opposition to a cruise terminal and are in line with the Prince’s values.”
Lois Levy, Gecko Campaign Coordinator said “While it could be considered desirable to have a memorial to honour His Royal Highness the late Duke of Edinburgh, the community must still ask does the Mayor intend that the cruise terminal would still feature in this memorial?
Given the Duke’s intense interest in protection of the natural environment it could be said that a cruise terminal that takes over and destroys a public park and changes the wave and beach forms to accommodate massive polluting cruise ships would be extremely unsuitable. The Gold Coast community has repeatedly demonstrated its opposition to a cruise terminal and are in line with the Prince’s values.”
Gecko Environment Council recently received a copy of the full and uncensored business case report on the Mayor’s much-wished-for ocean side cruise ship terminal to be built in Philip Park, The Spit.
Obtaining the release of the un-redacted PwC Business Case Report 2017 has taken many months.
Gecko’s requests to Council for the full release in early 2020 were refused so an application was then made to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC). After considerable communication between the OIC and Council, the latter which consistently refused to release the report in full, finally the OIC advised Council that their Office would publish the Report if Council continued to object. This spurred Council on to releasing the report to Gecko Environment Council.
Lois Levy, Gecko’s Campaign Coordinator, said “Gecko has pursued the release of this Report in full, in the name of transparency and accountability from Council. The Appendix E which contains the risks involved in this proposal should have been made public from the very beginning so that ratepayers of the Gold Coast could be fully informed, even though the report is now nearly 4 years old and most of the information would be out of date.” The Report clearly states in its Conclusions that “it is likely that the facility would represent a net cost to the City over the term of the analysis (30 years).”
This may seem irrelevant given the impact of Covid on the cruise industry, however it is important for residents to know that there were major risks to this project that the Mayor and Council were unwilling to reveal to the public.
It is Gecko’s opinion that the Mayor has spent an estimated $12m of ratepayer dollars on this project and the community has a right to ask what we got for that extravagance? So far the Mayor has not indicated that the project would be abandoned despite the financial and physical risks which have not been resolved.
The risks are listed in Appendix E as high, medium and low, but the overall impression is that there was an enormous amount of investigation to be done at ratepayers’ expense before anyone could have confidence in a decision to go ahead. Knowing this most of our Councillors still voted with the Mayor to proceed.
The highest risk listed was ‘that the staged approach will negatively impact cruise operators willingness to include the Gold Coast in cruise itineraries’ and this was a problem because the mayor has failed to get a commitment from any major cruise line that they would use the Gold Coast terminal.
It is ironic that one risk listed was that there would be “a severe outbreak of Gastro or Norovirus on a cruise ship that called into the Gold Coast.”
Just a few of the other risks included:-
• That passengers could not safely disembark or board in prevailing wind conditions due to excessive ship movement when tied up at berth.
• That the breakwater would have an adverse impact on coastal processes or the wave climate at the beach.
• All three cruise ships used in the simulated wave and wind modelling would have been in dire straits as the lines and fenders failed in 40 knot winds.
• The risk of working in a wave environment was to be off loaded to any contractor who was brave enough to take on the job.
• The risk that the Brisbane Cruise terminal would proceed. This project is now completed and is suffering from the Covid lead down turn in cruising.
• That cruise ships would have difficult navigating the terminal due to weather and wave conditions.
• That cruise ships could run aground on the seabed, collide with the berth or the mooring lines would break.
• That waves would overtop the jetty during operations, especially in rapid weather change conditions.
• That cruise ships would require a greater volume of water while at berth than expected.
• That the fuel supply was not reliable due to fuel barge arrangements of having to travel from Brisbane.
Another risk not listed was that the project would proceed to a home base port and require the take-over of more of the public open space that is The Spit.
Fortunately the Spit Master Plan has put paid to that, but the community must be ever vigilant.
The saga of the cruise terminal and the complete failure of the Mayor to be transparent and accountable in his dealings over this project is reprehensible.
A close examination of closed door meetings of Council, redacted reports and refusal to have open dialogue with residents about city planning matters could be said to reveal a Council only interested in its own survival and not the good of the city.
Can we expect a similar secrecy and waste of public money over the other pet project of the Mayor, the totally unsuitable cableway to Springbrook National Park?
History tells us this is likely.
Contact:
Lois Levy OAM
Campaign Coordinator
advocate@gecko.org.au
0412 724 222
