“You look at the amount of people that go to
Straddie, it’s a full lifestyle for them, yet the
mayor’s not looking at all stuffed that it’s so
important to all the people on the Gold Coast,
so it’s fantastic that people now get to see
what it was like in the seaway. If you show
some people now they go ‘what the, that was
the seaway? You’ve got to be kidding!’”
I
t’s been well established that there’s a
highly likely potential that we would lose
not only the South Straddie surf break,
but the overall surfing amenity of the area
would be significantly diminished with
damage or loss to wave shape and quality,
to the marine life and ecology. There’d be
the loss of accessibility, large-scale ferry
networks to South Stradbroke, crowding and
subsequent policing of the area, there would
be water quality problems and health risks
with all of the dredging - not to mention the
fundamentally unethical and unsupported
process of our own government giving away
a hundred hectares of prime public beaches,
waterways, marine park and green space to
a questionable foreign consortium with little
in return.
We are hearing more and more spin and hype
from the mayor and the ASF consortium
on a daily basis though, and they have
supplied ‘fact sheets’ that basically deny,
defer, downplay or otherwise counter all of
the known evidence whilst failing to properly
answer to the vast array of genuine technical,
environmental and social concerns that the
community has been asking of them for
about 18 months. ASF are claiming there will
be environmental enhancement of the area,
thousands of jobs for all and vast economic
wealth streaming in for Gold Coasters, oh
and of course the surf will even be better,
naturally. But how much of it is verified or
substantiated? How much of what they claim
is plausible, let alone possible? What can they
actually back up and are these companies
behind this all really worth trusting? It seems
not everything is as glossy as they have been
telling us.
Most of the main companies involved with
this proposal right now appear to be cloaked
in controversy and suggestions of highly
unethical business practices. Perhaps of
biggest concern is the fact that the main
construction companies that form the bulk
of the consortium and proposal are currently
debarred and banned from the World Bank
and dozens of affiliate banks worldwide for
fraud and collusive practices, stemming from a
major infrastructure project in the Philippines.
China Communication Construction Co, the
Guangzhou Dredging Co and China State
Construction Corporation were all banned in
2009 for their participation in alleged acts of
collusion and fraud, yet our local government
representatives seem silently content that
these three are currently the driving force
behind the broadwater proposal. At the
conclusion of the Bank’s investigation and
sanctioning, Leonard McCarthy, World Bank
Integrity Vice President said, “This is one of
our most important and far-reaching cases,
and it highlights the effectiveness of the World
Bank’s investigative and sanctions process.”
All of the companies involved appealed the
decision and lost due to the overwhelming
evidence against them. World Bank
Spokesman David Theis told China.org.cn at
the time, “All firms listed in the release had
the right to contest the debarments as part of
the World Bank’s sanctions process, and did
so. The bank’s sanctions board (both internal
and external members) then evaluated
the pleadings of the Respondents against
the evidence from the bank’s investigative
office. The release today shows the board’s
decision.”
ASF have somehow chosen AECOM Australia
to do their cruise ship simulations even though
AECOM Australia is currently facing one of
the largest class action lawsuits in world