Issues - Beach Erosion on the Gold Coast
This was a major issue that Cabinet considered at 10 meetings between January and October. It was also the subject of extensive media coverage, with a number of newspaper editorials criticising the Government for failing to arrest the dramatic loss of beach sand41. There had been similar problems on Gold Coast beaches during 1967 when apartment blocks at Surfers Paradise were 'menaced' by high seas 42. Various measures, including the construction of strategic groynes, were suggested by the Delft Laboratory in Holland in a report released by the Government in 1971.
In January, the Gold Coast City Council accused the government of 'hindering attempts to restore eroded beaches', claiming that it was 'more concerned' about rural matters than the State's major tourist area43. The Premier said in response that the government had offered to help the Gold Coast City Council a month earlier, but there had been 'no official reply'44. As 'huge seas' destroyed beachfront facilities, the Acting Mayor of the Gold Coast (Alderman Neumann) 'emotionally criticised' the State Government, and repeated his claim that it was giving higher priority to rural concerns than to the 'protection of the tourist industry'45. Bjelke-Petersen, saying his advisers 'continued to remind him' that an anti-erosion scheme for the whole Gold Coast costing $38 million was necessary, announced that he would fly to Coolangatta and personally inspect the problem46.
The Central Council of the Country Party decided that an experimental groyne costing $250,000 would solve the most urgent problem at Kirra47. Bjelke-Petersen announced on 25th January that he would present 'a programme aimed at halting beach erosion at Coolangatta' to Cabinet that day, and Cabinet approved an experimental groyne costing $200,000 48. Two cyclones that brought more high seas in February caused more damage, and 10,000 sandbags were carted from army stores in Brisbane to the coast49. Houses at Palm Beach were seriously threatened, with waves entering some homes as residents, soldiers and volunteers stacked sandbags 50. The Acting Mayor of the Gold Coast announced that 'getting the money' to tackle the erosion was 'no problem' and it was the State and Commonwealth Governments that were holding up work51. He called on each to fund 40% of the scheme's cost, with the Gold Coast Council to pay 20%.
Cabinet decided on 4th April that a programme of beach restoration covering the entire Gold Coast was needed, and noted that Commonwealth funding was not available52. Next day, Hewitt (Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs) wrote to the Council accusing it of 'procrastinating' and having 'no intention of implementing the Delft Report proposals'53. The Gold Coast City Council was initially reluctant to borrow money to fund the Delft scheme, arguing that it was beyond the capacity of the area to repay any large loan. The Queensland government announced that it would 'not do any more work' until the council undertook 'in writing' to adopt the Delft recommendations54.
In June, the Premier met personally with Mayor Small, who had won the seat
of Surfers Paradise for the Country Party in the same month, to 'insist' that
he accept the loan55. Eventually the Gold Coast Council agreed to accept the
government's conditions and implement the Delft Report proposals56. On 2nd
October Cabinet agreed to approach the Commonwealth Government to request
a 40% subsidy for the cost of the beach restoration project. The total cost
was expected to be between $12 million and $17.5 million, but the submission
noted that an extra one million visitors would holiday on the Gold Coast if
the beaches were restored57. The Queensland Government announced it would contribute
up to $6 million to fund the scheme 'if the Commonwealth will do the same'58
. The State Government advised the Council in December that it would suspend
all loans to the Gold Coast until it gave 'an unqualified assurance' that
it would 'honour a $13 million beach restoration programme'59.