A Clarification.
On 13th February, three state MPs wrote a co-signed letter to the Deputy Premier disparaging me, while seeking to express support for a Ministerial Call-In to be undertaken for the development application colloquially known as the “Reedy Creek Quarry”. When statements are made on the public record that are demonstrably false or misleading, one option available to Councillors is to exercise a right of reply in the section of our Council meetings known as “Clarifications”. On 17th February at the Full Council meeting, I exercised an opportunity, afforded me by Acting Mayor Mark Hammel, to respond.
You can watch the recording of the address in Chambers here.
Here’s the transcript of my Clarification;
Mr Acting Mayor,
It brings me no joy to be making this statement, given the politically charged nature of claims made against me personally in correspondence to the Deputy Premier authored by State MPs, Bates, Vorster and Gerber, and dated 13th Feb 2026.
I take my responsibility as a Councillor seriously and do my best to be a clear and accurate communicator about matters of interest to the 45,000 people I represent, as well the broader city, both in my role as Councillor and as Chair and spokesperson for the Lifestyle, Environment, Heritage and Resilience committee.
I would also note for context that I was one of the 15 Councillors that voted unanimously in 2014 to refuse Boral’s last application, and I also supported the allocation of funds between 2014 and 2018 to the relevant budget to fund the court proceedings defending our position successfully when Boral appealed, so I have some knowledge of these processes and their impact on community.
The claims of MPs Bates, Vorster and Gerber, written in their correspondence dated 13 Feb, are as follows;
“Instead, we have seen a concerning pattern of behaviour from the Gold Coast City Council, and in particular from the local councillor for Reedy Creek, Cr Glenn Tozer.
Cr Tozer has repeatedly attempted to shift responsibility onto the state government, pointing to the area’s Key Resource Area designation. This is misleading. A Key Resource Area is not an approval to extract resources, and it does not remove council’s role as the assessment manager.”
In response to these remarks, I would state not exclusively my own words, but that of District Court Judge Jones who on 4 May 2017 mentions KRA or Key Resource Area 66 times in his ruling upholding Council’s refusal of the previous application for a quarry on this site.
His Honour Judge Jones said, when referring to the state govt approvals already secured by Boral at that time;
“that these approvals exist and the extent of the scrutiny involved is relevant and does provide meaningful support for the proposal”
It might reasonably be said that His Honour chose NOT to overturn council’s refusal decision because the evidence indicated that there was not a sufficient need for the quarry at the time, noting the market had sufficient supply “up until at or about 2031.”
His Honour implied, accordingly, that the door remains open for a quarry to be approved at a later date when sufficient need for the resources arises. In his concluding remarks, His Honour stated “there can be no doubt based on the evidence of all of the relevant experts that this significant resource should be protected for future exploitation when appropriate.” Based on His Honour’s closing remarks, in the absence of state government intervention on their own legislation and approval processes, the introduction of a quarry in Reedy Creek is inevitable. It is not a matter of ‘if’, but ‘when’.
With regard to MPs Bates, Vorster, & Gerbers claim that I misled residents about the KRA, or other state approvals Boral has secured, I refer them and members of the public to that ruling of District Court Judge Jones on 4 May 2017, to help them be informed about the processes of development applications when they are refused and appealed, and for a realistic perspective on the likelihood of that material being used in future proceedings by the applicant or other parties.
This new application proposes to operate, after construction, from 2036 and so keeping residents informed about the implications of the KRA in the context of Judge Jones rulings is neither misleading nor abrogates Council’s responsibility to assess the application we have received. In fact, it helps inform it, helping locals to see the broader role of council, the state govt, and the court in deciding development applications.
Sadly though, Mr Acting Mayor, MPs Bates, Vorster and Gerber go on to state;
“Equally concerning is the failure to properly inform affected residents about the public notification period. As a result, some locals missed the opportunity to lodge objections. When a councillor fails to keep residents informed on an issue of this magnitude, it undermines trust in the entire process.”
In response, I would state the following;
On the 14th January, the day before the Public Notification began for this quarry application, I posted on my Facebook page, which has just under 7000 followers, information which alerted the public to the application lodged by Boral giving them clear and concise information about the matter, and the mechanisms by which they could make a submission.
As at last night, this 14 January Facebook post has over 38,000 views from 19,784 viewers.
On 15th January I did a TV interview with Petrina Zaphir of 9 News Gold Coast, also informing viewers of the public notification period.
From around this time, Neighbourhood Watch groups and other groups with members from my division, began distributing hard copy material to letterboxes in relevant communities to keep people informed of their own group views, not at my behest of course but of their own volition because they care about local issues. Members of the public also erected signs on local roads to raise awareness.
On February 7th I attended a rally of about 1000 people in Tallebudgera, with my colleagues Cr Martin and Cr O’Neill, and discussed, at length, with residents their concerns about the quarry and its possible impacts. I undertook a television interview on that day which was aired on following days.
On February 7th I posted again on Facebook, regarding the rally and its particulars and including information again about making a submission to Council. That post has 65,900 views from 39,600 viewers.
On February 8th I posted again on Facebook, with a video of my speech provided by rally organisers, explicitly encouraging people present to make a submission. There were over 5000 further views on this video.
On February 9th the public notification ended and we had received hundreds of emails from residents to the Division 9 inbox and replied, acknowledging every one. I do want to acknowledge the sometimes tedious but important work of my staff in that process, taking time to reply to everyone who writes to us, even when they are not from our division.
MPs Bates, Vorster, and Gerber have falsely claimed that I have failed to properly inform residents, but the data simply does not support that view. I engaged with residents online, in person, on television and via email, and they engaged with me. The collective awareness of this application resulted in more than 10,832 submissions to the main Council inbox.
I will confess that I didn’t start a website to farm email addresses seeking membership of a political party, but I felt that a step too far for my community-minded approach, although I know other politicians, who some say will say and do anything for a chance to obtain a membership fee and an email address, may choose that path.
It is important to note that throughout this process I have maintained my open and persuadable mind on the matter, carefully and intentionally reserving judgement on the proposal itself, offering empathy and a listening ear to residents sharing their concerns about possible impacts on their neighbourhood and quality of life, as well as explaining the state and local government processes that govern these matters.
Mr Acting Mayor, while these comments made by MPs Bates, Gerber, and Vorster on 13 February obviously and deliberately mislead the Deputy Premier and the public about my commitment to engaging with my constituents truthfully about state and local government processes, I believe in the discernment and wisdom of my constituents.
My constituents are savvy and intelligent people, who can see through silly and indefensible remarks made by self-interested politicians who are willing to do anything to save their reputations from the inevitable perspective that they fell asleep on this issue, failing to remove the KRA in 2024 when they were elected, noting that their former LNP colleagues in government had already refused to act when Council asked them to in 2014 and that their political opponents also failed to do, under the LNPs obviously questionable Opposition pressure, in the time between 2015 and 2024.
But as much as MPs Vorster, Gerber and Bates would like to make it so, this is not about political parties or political opponents, Mr Acting Mayor. This is about outcomes that are best for our city and the communities we represent.
More than ten thousand locals made their view known about this quarry application, and Council undertook its proper processes to afford them time to do so. Council has commenced the next phase, referring the application to the state via SARA, which is the next step clearly outlined in relevant legislation that governs Council processes. Contrary to what the letter authored by MPs Gerber, Vorster and Bates implies, every one of my colleagues here in this chamber cares about what the people think, and measuring those perspectives against the legislation that must properly inform our decision making is something I know every one of my Council colleagues take seriously.
I take it seriously.
To conclude this clarification;
Earlier in this meeting today, Council resolved to support the state’s proposed ministerial call-in of the Reedy Creek quarry application, a decision-making path that has always been available to the state govt to control and determine their own state interests like KRAs, determining where natural resources should be exploited and where mines and quarries should be located.
If my conduct and communication compelled consideration of a ministerial call-in, as the letter implies, then it would appear I have indeed done my job in influencing the best possible long-term outcome for the community, given that the ministerial call-in process is considered ineligible for appeal proceedings.
MPs Gerber, Bates and Vorster have always known this option was available to them and so it might reasonably be said their written claims against me are simply manifestations of their own misleading remarks to the public, and their failure to engage genuinely with their own constituents about the decision making mechanisms local and state government can, and occasionally must, utilise to deliver on their communities expectations. One can only hope their state ministerial colleagues will have greater integrity than they apparently do. I hope the Deputy Premier will indeed listen to the expectations of our hinterland communities, as I have demonstrated I have done, and make a suitable Ministerial decision accordingly.
Thank you, Mr Acting Mayor
****
If you want to find out more about the Ministerial Call-in process you can read about it here.
