Development to house 12,000 guests would not cause effects significant enough to warrant federal assessment, they say

This article is more than 6 years old

This article is more than 6 years old

A gigantic resort proposed for far north Queensland does not need federal environmental assessment, its backers have argued, even though it includes two casinos, eight accommodation towers, a golf course and a 33-hectare lake filled via a 2.2km pipeline from the Great Barrier Reef.



The $8bn Aquis project, slated for Yorkeys Knob, north of Cairns, is described as “Australia’s only genuine, world-class, integrated resort”.

The resort, which would cover 340 hectares, is backed by the Hong Kong investor Tony Fung, who last year bought the Reef Casino Trust, which operates the Cairns casino.

An initial advice statement from July last year describes the casino as the “man-made wonder of the world” that north Queensland is missing. The development would include accommodation for up to 12,000 guests, an 18-hole golf course, tennis courts and the artificial lake.

The resort would be built on the Barron river floodplains, which drains into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, on land used mostly as sugar cane plantations. The proposal has divided the small community of Yorkeys Knob.

In a submission to the federal Department of the Environment last week, Aquis maintained it did not require a commonwealth environmental assessment process, as any impacts on the surrounding environment – including the reef – were not significant enough to warrant it.

Should the proposal be considered for a “controlled action” under environmental legislation, a report appended to the submission is good enough.

“A draft EIS [environmental impact statement] has been completed but not submitted to the co-ordinator-general, pending finalisation of a related issuing of a casino licence that is critical to the project viability,” the company said.

Aquis said if the development did not go ahead an opportunity would be lost to preserve and interpret Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural values, and to preserve and restore natural habitats.

It also said the resort would provide refuge for local residents during storms.

Community groups have expressed concern at the size of the proposed resort and the social impact of gambling, and questioned whether any economic benefits would flow from tourists arriving on cruise ships.

Environmentalists warned the casino could disturb a delicate floodplain, risk pollution of the Great Barrier Reef and heighten the risk of flooding.

Wendy Tubman, a co-ordinator of the North Queensland Conservation Council, told Guardian Australia it was “essential” the impact of the casino was properly assessed.

“It’s a very sensitive area and it’s a massive development,” she said. “It’s only reasonable that they take precautions, even if it slows them up a bit.

“As Gaylord Nelson said, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.”

Andrew Picone, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said: “At a minimum, it should be considered a controlled action to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

“We have a developer here who thinks he should be given all the approvals, but there is due process and the community should have its say.

“The environment there is already a floodplain, it is prone to flooding even without the creation of artificial lakes. With climate change and rising sea levels, massive developments like this in storm surge zones put the environment at risk and put lives at risk, too.”