top of page

To help your submission


The State Government is failing to consult with the Queensland public about:

  • opening up Queensland’s National Parks to private development.

  • all of the details and evident impacts of the Cooloola development plan.

Private development in Cooloola National Park, and in all Qld Parks, is now possible because of legislation passed by the Newman Govt.

Before being elected the ALP promised to repeal these changes.

It has now abandoned those promises and is acting secretively, in collusion with industry lobbyists, to exploit the offending legislation.

How can the Govt. reasonably assume the right to do this?


The State Government is falsely claiming that it has consulted.

Departmental records are claiming that extensive consultation was extended to local communities in the period June1-22, 2021. This is simply not true.

  • These meetings were (minimally) advertised as information sessions, not consultation events.

  • They were actively managed to suppress participant enquiry and objection toward the development plan and its details.

Formally recording them as ‘consultation’ is deceptive. It indicates the manipulation driving this entire process. It is also insulting to those who attended and felt abused by its heavy-handed crown management techniques.


The site selections impose damage and risk upon significant sites and public values within the National Park.

  • This impact upon Park values is being allowed to deliver commercial value to the private developer.

  • These developer-chosen site selections plainly demonstrate why private development should never be allowed within our National Parks.

No public control upon expansion or operational impact

Should these site developments proceed:

  • no mechanism exists for public consultation or control upon any further expansion of the scale and/or capacity of the development.

  • no reliable mechanisms exist to ensure compliance with operational standards, or to ensure public transparency toward breaches of operational standards or the action taken, or not taken, to maintain compliance.


No cost or revenue schedules exist to provide even minimal account of cost/benefit return to the public interest.

However input of public money and resources would be significant.

The Poona Lake site is totally unacceptable for development of any kind:

  • The loss of large trees across the proposed site would be catastrophic.

  • The Govt’s failure to be realistic and open about this loss is a disgrace.

  • The site access road would be a vector for weeds, pathogens and erosion into the pristine Lake catchment, and would require further habitat destruction.

  • Fire hazard and the impacts of fire risk and liability management are significant matters that Govt. is being either unrealistic or dishonest about.

  • The overall impact upon the ecology, stability and aesthetic of this unique and fragile lake catchment is unacceptable.


The Double Island Point site is totally unacceptable for development of any kind:

  • D.I. Point is the only undeveloped, essentially wild headland within the SE Qld. mainland. This unique and valuable character must be securely protected.

  • The selected site affords panoramic, majestic views toward the ocean and K’gari (Fraser Is.). This would attract demand from an elite global market and generate significant pressure for expansion.

  • No adequate controls exist to restrict this expansion pressure. This is demonstrated by the Government’s covert, industry aligned performance within this current proposal.

  • No secure means exist for preventing gradual expansion to an effective hotel scale of development upon the headland.

  • Restriction of public access and amenity in the vicinity of the site is inevitable to protect private assets and the expectations of high fee clients. This is likely to be sooner rather than later.



The Noosa River site is totally unacceptable for development of any kind:

  • Reports by ecology and wetland expert state this site is at high risk of incurring significant impacts. This expert advice is ignored to provide ‘scenic value’

  • The 500metre long site service road needlessly disturbs and degrades habitat and destroys the amenity of an existing popular walking trial.

  • Client transfer via the river will require additional jetty construction along the pristine riverbank. The current facilities cannot provide reliable access. This impact is neither acknowledged nor factored.

Add whatever else, or however much, you hate about this terrible plan.

Let us know what we’ve missed.

Email us:

bottom of page