Redlands council – back to the future?

Public foreshores handed to private developers, petitions signed by thousands of people, and calls for Redlands council to be disbanded – sounds topical but we’ve travelled back in time to 1980.

Joe Kruger, a Labor MP, raised questions in Queensland Parliament on 19th March 1980 about the integrity of the Redlands local council and its support for development of a canal estate in Raby Bay, without public consultation.

Back then, Queensland was governed by a National-Liberal coalition government with Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Premier and Russ Hinze the notorious ‘Minister for Everything’.

Skullduggery, shoddy development plans and a local council more interested in talking to developers than the local community featured in Joe Kruger’s colourful speech to parliament, which included the following:

The people had not, at any stage, been given the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making processes. That would be one of the few times I have ever heard of any local authority not making available an environmental impact study on a development of this kind. I believe that the development plans that were available were so shoddy that people could not absorb from them what was going to happen.

It seems that when it comes to the way we are governed, very little has changed in the Redlands over the past 38 years.

Here’s the full text of Joe Kruger’s speech in parliament:

Redland Shire Council

I rise today to bring to the notice of this House the disgusting situation which has arisen in the Redland Shire in respect to the Raby Bay canal development, the financing of the proposed railway connection, and the disregarding of a decision of the Local Government Court upholding an appeal against the construction of a shopping complex in Cleveland.

I believe the Local Government Minister should terminate the life of the Redland Bay Shire Council because it is not doing the job it was elected to do. After he has done that he should terminate himself by resigning his portfolio of Local Government and Main Roads. There is no doubt in my mind that the Local Government Minister is not doing his duty and has lost touch with the people of Queensland in the field of local government.

I want to quote an answer by the Minister for Local Government to a question asked by my very good friend and colleague the honourable member for Gladstone. The last part of the question and the answer read –

” ( 4) Because of public controversy surrounding the Redland Shire Council, will he order an investigation into the affairs of the council and, if necessary, appoint administrators?

Answer:-

(1 to 4) I am not aware of any problems being experienced by the ratepayers of the Redland Shire in relation to the matters raised, nor am I aware of the other matters alleged by the honourable member in this question. I have no evidence before me which would suggest that an investigation should be conducted into the affairs of the Redland Shire Council.”

The answer was blunt, negative and useless. The Minister has obviously not watched television recently or taken any notice of the petition containing 4,000 signatures that was presented to this House complaining about what was going on in the Redland Shire, nor did he take any notice of the sentiments expressed at the public meetings held in the shire.

Let us look at the history of the Raby Bay canal development. The original plan was proposed by the Redland Shire Council in 1969 and was shelved in the early 1970s. In August 1978 the scheme was submitted to council and approved in January 1979. The matter was not put before the public at any stage, however, either through the local media or by councillors in their policy statements prior to the council elections held in March 1979. In June 1979 it was announced in “The Courier-Mail” that the Raby Bay canal scheme had been passed by Cabinet. Although it was learnt later that this was an approval in principle, the people were told that it was final and that the matter was closed. Is that not the best bit of skulduggery that members have ever seen? People were told that the matter was closed and that there was nothing more they could do about it, even though this was not correct.

In July 1979 local residents presented a petition signed by 200 people to the Redland Shire Council requesting a public meeting. This was denied. From that point, hundreds of people sent letters to all levels of government requesting information about the development, for example, the contents of the environmental impact study and impact assessment. The debate received wide coverage in the local newspapers, and there was also much wider media coverage throughout South-east Queensland.

Efforts to prevent the handing over of public foreshores to private developers culminated in October 1979 with the presentation of a petition signed by 4,000 people to Parliament requesting that the Raby Bay canal development be abandoned. Questions were asked in this Assembly in November, but Cabinet remained tight-lipped, and in December the final approval was announced. The people had not, at any stage, been given the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making processes. That would be one of the few times I have ever heard of any local authority not making available an environmental impact study on a development of this kind. I believe that the development plans that were available were so shoddy that people could not absorb from them what was going to happen.

On 10 December 1979 one of the largest public meetings ever held in the Redland Shire occurred, and those who attended voted unanimously against the canal development. They also voted to express lack of confidence in the Redland Shire Council. The Minister for Local Government said that he knew nothing about the problems that existed in the shire. Let me quote part of a letter sent to the then Minister for Lands on behalf of the people of the area. It read –

“Apparently, it has been generally said in places where one would believe some authority lies, that it is proposed to ‘throw open’ for development, part of what is geographically and correctly described as Raby Bay, and that such development will take the form of what is commonly called in Queensland ‘a canal development. estate’.

“Indeed the document issued by the Lands Department appears to leave it open for the successful ‘tenderer’ to submit to the Department his ideas and plans on how the Bay should be developed.”

I believe that that is just one way the Government acts to protect its supporters. In reply the then Minister for Lands, Mr Sullivan, said –

“The position regarding the proposed development of Raby Bay is that following the public invitation of applications in connection with the proposal, Civic Projects Pty. Ltd. won the right at ballot to enter into an Agreement with the Minister for Lands in terms of Section 223 of the Land Act for the investigation and study of the Raby Bay Area over a period of two years for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the proposed development. The Instrument of Agreement which has been executed by the Company and myself, as Minister for Lands, provides, among other things, that if at any time the Minister is of the opinion that either –

(a) the results of the investigations and studies do not warrant proceeding with the development proposal, or

(b) the granting of a Development Lease to the Company is or would be contrary to public interest,

the Minister may terminate the Agreement without liability for compensation to the Company as the result of such termination.

“You may rest assured that at all times in my dealings in this matter the question of public interest will be kept well in the forefront of my mind.”

It was a Minister of the Crown in Queensland who made those statements, but unfortunately the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads knows nothing about what is going on in that area.

I now refer to a Press cutting headed “Bay estate gift appeal to Hinze”, which stated –

“Protesters against the Raby Bay canal estate development yesterday called on the Local Government Minister, Mr. Hinze, to investigate the local council’s intended use of a possible $400,000 contribution from the developer.

“A spokesman for the Redland Foreshore Protection Group, Mr G. Skinner said the Redland Shire Council would receive l per cent from sale of about 1,000 residential block proposed in the $20 million scheme.

“The Shire chairman, Cr. Woods, has said the council was waiting for money from the development to start on a pedestrian mall in the main street of Cleveland…

“The National Party member for Redlands, Mr Goleby, who is also a Redland shire councillor, said any comparison between the Raby Bay development and the Gold Coast controversy was ‘rubbish’.”

Of course, he was talking about the other business that went on down there. Eventually the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads stepped in on it.

Another Press article, under the heading “State Cabinet has approved scheme terms”, stated –

“Mr. J. Goleby, M.L.A. (Redlands) said he had been advised of this by Lands Minister, Mr. Hewitt.

“He said cabinet last June approved in principal the development of the estate by a development firm Civic Projects Pty. Ltd.

“Mr. Goleby said the firm planned to reclaim 210 hectares of land with 30 per cent of this area set aside for canal system 20 per cent parks and recreation use and 50 per cent residential purposes.

“The estate will provide 1,055 building lots including 738 with canal frontages, 100 foreshore blocks, 27 dry blocks and 140 lots of medium density housing on land surrounding the canal system.

“Mr. Goleby said the scheme had been approved by Redland Shire Council by agreement with Council that the development would spend more than $1.5 million on sewerage and water services, landscaping, public boat ramps and other public amenities.

I have not heard of any developer developing land without spending money. That money is not to be spent for the good of the shire. It is to be spent for the development and sale of those blocks. The Press cutting continued –

“Another $637,000 will be spent on upgrading roads leading to the estate.”

Of course, the roads into the estate will be upgraded, but what about the other people who live in the local authority area and pay rates? They will get no benefit from this expenditure unless they buy blocks in this new canal development. This is the greatest heap of rubbish that I have heard any man try to put over the residents of an area.

I might also add that the same thing applies with Stradbroke Waters and Currumbin.

Something is wrong when developers are given golden opportunities to operate within a local authority area. It seems odd to me that all this happens in the area where the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads (Russell James Hinze) resides and has his electorate. Nobody can tell me that there is not a connection here and that there it not a lack of interest by the Minister in local authorities at this time.

Also, Mr. Tony Roberts, a spokesman for the developer at Raby Bay, who is a bankrupt, has now come out in support of the local authority down there.

At all times he is supporting that local authority to the hilt, and I believe that there are obvious reasons for this. He is doing a service to that local authority to cover up the problems in the area. Of course, the people are being told that there is nothing wrong. Other matters down there, such as the way in which the proposal for the railway line and the proposal for the shopping complex were introduced, are reasons why the council should be disbanded.

Another Press article, headed “Vote change on Lota line sought”, states –

“The question of the proposed railway extension from Lota came under discussion again at a meeting of the Redland Shire Council.

“At the previous council meeting, members voted unanimously for a Chairman’s Minute which, in brief, committed council to borrow $1 million in 1979-80 towards the cost of extending the line from Lota to Thorneside.”

But as the council found out more about the proposal, it tried to reverse that decision, but it was unable to do so because Mr. Wood is not the type of man who wants to discuss matters with the council or with the people of the area. He only wants to talk to developers who can engage in dealings that I believe are definitely suspect.

Another problem raised at the meeting of 400 people which I attended concerned pensioner rebates, and that has already been mentioned today. The local authority in the area gives little relief to pensioners.

All in all the time has come when the Redland Shire Council should be disbanded. The Minister knows how to disband councils; he has done it before. If he wishes, he will do it again.

Joe Kruger MP for Murrumba
Speaking in Queensland Parliament on 19 March 1980

Joe Kruger (Labor) represented the electorate of Murrumba from 1977 to 1983. This seat is currently held by Dr Steven Miles for the Labor Party.

Further Reading

Reflecting on the mangroves of Toondah by Jackie Cooper

Published by Redlands2030 – 23 May 2018