Dive Attractions Stakeholder and Community

Consultation Report

Prepared by Promedia Public Relations

APRIL 2013

Document version Author Edited by Date

Version 1 Karen Irwin 4 April 2013

Version 2 Karen Irwin 30 April 2013

Final Karen Irwin 30 April 2013

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared by Promedia Public Relations for its client, Gold Coast City Council. Promedia has undertaken research, analysed information and prepared the report in good faith. Promedia accepts no responsibility for decisions made or actions undertaken as a result of the contents of this report.

Page | i

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Report context .................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Project background ........................................................................................................... 2

SECTION 2 – CONSULTATION OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 4

SECTION 3 – SCOPE AND TIMING ............................................................................................... 5

SECTION 4 – KEY MESSAGES ..................................................................................................... 6

SECTION 5 – STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................... 7

SECTION 6 – CONSULTATION TOOLS ........................................................................................ 8

6.1 Contact points ................................................................................................................... 8

6.2 Frequently Asked Question fact sheet ............................................................................. 8

6.3 Advertisements ................................................................................................................. 8

6.4 Community information displays ....................................................................................... 8

6.5 Display boards .................................................................................................................. 9

6.6 Online resource (website) ................................................................................................. 9

6.7 Online survey .................................................................................................................. 10

6.8 Hard copy survey forms .................................................................................................. 10

6.9 GCengage online survey ................................................................................................ 10

6.10 Online forum ................................................................................................................... 10

6.11 Social media ................................................................................................................... 10

6.12 Stakeholder Reference Group ........................................................................................ 11

6.13 Stakeholder briefings ...................................................................................................... 11

6.14 Agency briefings ............................................................................................................. 12

6.15 Media .............................................................................................................................. 12

SECTION 7 – CONSULTATION RESPONSE ............................................................................... 13

7.1 Contact points ................................................................................................................. 13

7.2 Community information displays ..................................................................................... 13

Page | ii

7.3 Survey response ............................................................................................................. 13

7.3.1 Online survey ........................................................................................................... 13

7.3.2 Hardcopy ................................................................................................................. 13

7.3.3 GCengage ............................................................................................................... 14

7.4 Forum responses ............................................................................................................ 14

7.5 Facebook response ........................................................................................................ 14

7.6 Meetings with stakeholders and agencies ....................................................................... 14

7.7 Letter ........................................................................................................................... 14

7.8 Other activities ................................................................................................................ 14

7.8.1 Media ....................................................................................................................... 14

7.8.2 Social media ................................................................................................................ 16

SECTION 8 – ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................... 17

8.1 Issues raised - survey results .......................................................................................... 17

8.1.1 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 17

8.1.2 Dive industry involvement ........................................................................................ 18

8.1.3 Level of dive certification ............................................................................................. 19

8.1.4 Dive regularity and locations .................................................................................... 20

8.1.5 Dive regularity .......................................................................................................... 21

8.1.6 Dive locations .......................................................................................................... 22

8.1.7 Dive attraction features ............................................................................................ 22

8.1.8 Preferred site for dive attraction ............................................................................... 24

8.1.9 Benefits or concerns ................................................................................................ 24

8.1.10 Support for two world class attractions if funding available ...................................... 26

8.1.11 Preferred location of vessel and structure ................................................................ 27

8.1.12 Support for two purpose built structures at both sites if a vessel can’t be secured ... 28

8.1.13 Any other comments on the proposal ....................................................................... 28

8.2 Issues raised - other online channels .............................................................................. 29

8.2.1 Forum responses ..................................................................................................... 29

8.2.2 Facebook responses ............................................................................................... 29

8.3 Issues raised – stakeholder channels ............................................................................. 30

Page | iii

8.3.1 Stakeholder feedback .............................................................................................. 30

SECTION 9 – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ................................................................................ 31

SECTION 10 – SUMMARY OF EVALUATION METHODS ........................................................... 33

SECTION 11 – RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 34

SECTION 12 – CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 35

Page | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Gold Coast City Council conducted a four week engagement program from late February 2013 to late March 2013 to determine stakeholder and community preference on potential dive attraction structures – scuttled vessel and purpose built structures – and their preferred location – off Main Beach or off Kirra Beach.

This proposed project had been identified as a potential tourism project as early as March 2010 but was presented to the community for comment following numerous studies confirming the two most suitable locations based on costs, market demands, potential economic benefits and identification of environmental and operational constraints.

The intent of the community engagement program was to: • alert the community and stakeholders to the consultation program and the opportunity to have

their say • determine the community’s preference for dive locations off either/or both Main Beach or Kirra

Beach, support of two dive attractions if funding was available; preferred structures at each location if two sites could be funded and whether support existed for purpose built structures if a navy vessel could not be secured

• identify any community or stakeholder issues associated with the proposal.

The community and stakeholders were engaged via advertising, two community information displays, stakeholder meetings and online information.

A total of 250 respondents participated in the engagement process, with the survey (online and hard copy) completed by 171 participants providing the most feedback.

The engagement process found: • support for some form of dive attraction proposal for the Gold Coast • between six and eight per cent of respondents do not support any form of dive attraction • roughly 30 per cent support dive attractions at both Main Beach and Kirra Beach, followed by

support for an attraction off Main Beach only • should funding be available, support for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose built structure

was significant (around 65 per cent) • about 50 per cent nominated their preferred outcome as a scuttled vessel off Main Beach, with

a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach. • should Council be unable to secure a navy vessel, approximately 75 per cent of respondents

indicated their support for two purpose built structures.

These findings provide an adequate level of consultation response from both stakeholders and broader community.

This feedback is being provided to Council for consideration in its decision making regarding the funding or siting of future dive attraction/s.

Page | 2

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION The Gold Coast boasts all the hallmarks of a coastal playground, including pristine waters and abundant sea life. Gold Coast City Council is investigating whether it can capitalise on these features to become a world-class dive destination.

Although the Gold Coast is home to an established dive industry, it attracts only a small share of the lucrative dive market enjoyed by other Queensland and Australian destinations.

World-class dive attractions would elevate the Gold Coast’s reputation as a coastal destination and encourage more visitors to come to the region and stay longer.

1.1 Report context

In January 2013, Gold Coast City Council appointed Promedia to assist with a program of consultation for the proposed dive attractions project.

Promedia’s consultation activities commenced in February 2013 and were completed in April 2013 with the close of the feedback period on 29 March 2013.

Consultation was undertaken to seek feedback on preferences for a sunken vessel and artificial purpose built structure as well as any issues surrounding the two proposed dive sites identified at Main Beach and Kirra.

This report provides a description of the consultation activities undertaken and feedback received.

1.2 Project background

The opportunity for Gold Coast to develop an artificial dive attraction was identified with the objective of further enhancing the Gold Coast’s image as a vibrant and unique destination. There is currently no iconic dive wreck on the Gold Coast that attracts visitors and encourages repeat visitation.

In March 2010, Gold Coast Tourism commissioned the development of a Gold Coast Dive Attraction Scoping and Operational Study. The aim of the study was to identify and investigate opportunities to grow dive tourism on the Gold Coast. Recognised as a catalyst project in the Gold Coast and Hinterland Tourism Opportunities Plan (TOP), growing the region’s dive market through a dedicated dive attraction would not only lift the profile of the city, it would also make a contribution towards supporting sustainable tourism growth on the Gold Coast.

A new dive attraction could provide an annual boost to the city’s economy of $12 million and create more than 100 fulltime jobs. It could also bolster the city’s growing adventure tourism market and attract more than 7,000 divers and their friends and family to the Gold Coast each year.

As part of this process, Council has considered securing the Royal Australian Navy vessel HMAS Tobruk for a new dive wreck following its decommissioning in early 2015. Following proper preparation for scuttling, it could be transformed as a dive attraction by late 2016. Cost to secure the vessel is estimated at between $6-$10 million with the bulk of the cost to remove hazardous materials to protect the environment.

Another, or additional option, is a purpose-built structure which can be developed and installed within six months at an estimated $1.3 million.

Based on an assessment of locality options, the primary site for a Gold Coast dive attraction was identified south of the Gold Coast Seaway, 2.3km off Main Beach. An alternative site situated 2.5km off Kirra and accessed by the Tweed Bar was subsequently identified.

Page | 3

Gold Coast City Council engaged local consultants, International Coastal Management in partnership with the Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, to undertake the monitoring of the site positioned south of the Gold Coast Seaway (Main Beach site). The 12 month site began in June 2011, identified the suitability of the location in terms of current, visibility and benthic assessments.

A similar study was commissioned for the proposed second site at Kirra and was due to begin in October 2011. Deployment of the data collection for this site was difficult due to inclement weather and access over the Tweed Bar which was heavily silted. This year long monitoring began in February 2012. Results were presented in March 2013.

In line with Council's community engagement program to be innovative, coordinated, transparent and to facilitate participation in planning and decision-making processes, a public consultation exercise was undertaken to seek feedback on proposed structures and dive locations.

Page | 4

SECTION 2 – CONSULTATION OBJECTIVES The consultation program objectives were to: • alert the community and stakeholders to the consultation program and the opportunity to have

their say • determine the community’s preference for dive location at either north or south; support of two

dive attractions if funding was available; preferred outcome of structure at which location if two sites could be funded and whether support existed for purpose built structures if a navy vessel could not be secured

• identify any community or stakeholder issues associated with the proposal.

Community members and stakeholders were engaged via advertising, two community information displays, stakeholder meetings and online information.

Page | 5

SECTION 3 – SCOPE AND TIMING Promedia’s consultation scope was to provide project information in an easy to understand format and offer opportunities for stakeholders and the community to provide feedback, including an opportunity to meet with the project team.

Promedia worked with Gold Coast City Council to: • draft emails for Gold Coast City Council to distribute to stakeholders advising of them of

updates, consultation activities and offering one to one briefings • organising and attending stakeholder briefings and one to one meetings with stakeholders • conducting two community information displays to provide project information to interested

community members • produce a range of collateral to support information sessions and seek feedback • support Council’s management of social media tools including online survey, online forum,

Facebook and Twitter. and • m aintain stakeholder contact points, including a1300 information line.

Date Activity

February 2013 Begin consultation via emails to Stakeholder Reference Group and other stakeholder and launch webpage with dive attraction information and survey

February – March 2013 Advertising, community information displays, continued online information/feedback

March 2013 Continue consultation with stakeholders

April 2013 Report findings in community and stakeholder consultation report

Table 1 – Consultation activities overview

Table 1 provides an overview of the consultation activities and timing.

Page | 6

SECTION 4 – KEY MESSAGES Key messages developed for the program included but were not limited to: • diving is a financial contributor to the Gold Coast's tourism economy • the Gold Coast has an avid diving community and Council is fostering these pursuits through its

investment in both the recreational and commercial sectors • the dive attraction sites could add a further dimension to visiting the Gold Coast.

Page | 7

SECTION 5 – STAKEHOLDERS Stakeholders for this project were defined as below:

Primary Secondary

Dive operators Community

Recreational divers

State Government agencies

Page | 8

SECTION 6 – CONSULTATION TOOLS The following tools were used by the project team during the consultation period. Examples of collateral are available in Appendix 1.

6.1 Contact points

Promedia established a local call cost 1300 line (1300 033 800) at the start of the project. The project information line was staffed from Monday to Friday between 8.30am to 5.30pm. This number was advertised in all stakeholder emails. Gold Coast City Council provided reply paid mailing address envelopes at information sessions for community members and stakeholders wishing to return feedback forms via post.

6.2 Frequently Asked Question fact sheet

Double sided colour sheets were written and produced for distribution to the community. Collateral produced included a Frequently Asked Question flyer which was printed and made available at the community information displays as well as on the project website page and distributed to two Stakeholder Reference Group dive operator members to distribute to their dive customers.

6.3 Advertisements

Two newspaper and two radio community advertisements were placed in local media. These invited interested community members to community information displays to find out more about the projects and provide feedback.

Advertisements appeared in the following: • Gold Coast Sun, Wednesday 27 February 2013 • Gold Coast Sun, Wednesday 6 March 2013 • ABC, Hot Tomato, Sea FM, Gold FM (City News Bulletin), Tuesday 26 February 2013 • ABC, Hot Tomato, Sea FM, Gold FM (City News Bulletin), Tuesday 5 March 2013

6.4 Community information displays

Two community information displays were held at sites near the proposed northern and southern dive attraction sites. These were • Southport Yacht Club, Thursday 28 February 2013, 4pm to 8pm • Bilinga Surf Lifesaving Club, Thursday 7 March 2014, 4pm to 8pm

Page | 9

Community information session Bilinga Surf Club 7 March 2013

6.5 Display boards

Six A0 sized colour display boards were set up at community information displays. These boards contained information about diving on the Gold Coast, vessels as dive attractions, artificial structures as dive attractions, proposed northern site and proposed southern site locations.

6.6 Online resource (website)

Project information was posted on Gold Coast City Council website from Thursday 28 February 2013 until at least the delivery of this report in April 2013.

This website gchaveyoursay.com.au/divesites contained: • Project information including Frequently Asked Questions, diving information, sunken vessel

and artificial structure information, information and images on the proposed northern and southern site, maps of the proposed sites

• Information promoting community information displays

It also encouraged feedback by completing an online survey (linked) and encouraged contributing to a discussion forum

Page | 10

6.7 Online survey

A 12 question survey was provided on Gold Coast City Council’s website from 28 February to 29 March 2013. The purpose of the survey was to obtain individual responses pertaining to how stakeholders and community members viewed the dive attraction proposal and options relating to the proposal. This survey was accessible via a link from gchaveyoursay.com.au/divesites. The survey asked demographic information, involvement in the dive industry, level of dive certification, regular dive locations, preference for Main Beach or Kirra site, benefits or concerns with these areas, preference for two dive attraction sites if funding available or otherwise, preference for a scuttled vessel and purpose built structure at Main Beach and Kirra locations and other comments.

6.8 Hard copy survey forms

The same double sided, 12 question survey was printed and made available at community information displays and stakeholder briefings. Attendees were encouraged to complete these on the night or were provided reply paid envelopes to take away.

6.9 GCengage online survey

The same survey was also promoted to Gold Coast City Council’s standing community engagement participant group – known as GCengage. Council alerted this group to the dive consultation and encouraged their participation in both completing the survey and participating in the forum (see below).

6.10 Online forum

A ‘Bang the Table’ forum was available on Council’s gchaveyoursay.com.au/divesites website page. Forum questions posed related to feedback on: • support or otherwise for the proposed two world class dive attractions if funding become

available • benefits or concerns with the proposed Main Beach and Kirra sites • what is most important feature of dive site • any other comments.

6.11 Social media

Gold Coast City Council posted to its Facebook page on 28 February 2013 asking for feedback on the proposed project via the online survey. The two information sessions were also promoted. A similar themed message also appeared on Council’s Business Gold Coast’s News & Events page with links to the project web page and survey.

Dive industry organisations, PADI and Divers Alert Network (DAN) Asia Pacific were approached via email requesting their consideration in posting a link to the survey on their websites or Facebook pages. This request was unsuccessful.

Page | 11

6.12 Stakeholder Reference Group

Council established a Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) in 2010 which meets as required for updates on site monitoring reporting and to provide feedback to the project team.

The SRG comprises a range of organisations including government agencies, elected representatives, dive industry operators, charter vessel operators and an educational sector representative.

Groups and organisations represented included: • Department of Environment and Heritage Protection • Maritime Safety Queensland • Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry • State Development, Infrastructure and Planning • Department of the Premier and Cabinet • Tourism and Events Queensland • Member for Surfers Paradise, The Hon John-Paul Langbroek • Member for Southport, Mr Robert Molhoek • Devocean Dive • Diving the Gold Coast • Cooly Dive • Pacific Marine Life • Ocean Dive Charters • Marine Teachers Association of Queensland

In addition to this group, Council also identified approximately 30 other dive operators, dive industry contacts, recreational fishing groups and charter vessel representative groups.

Both the SRG and the other contacts received two emails before and during the consultation period. These were: • 20 February 2013 advising them of the soon to launch consultation period, details of the

community information displays and inviting their attendance, as well as the offer of a one to one briefing

• 28 February alerting them to Council's website going live, the survey being available, a reminder of the community information displays, and encouraging them to promote the online survey to their members or contacts where possible until 29 March 2013.

The Stakeholder Reference Group also met on 26 March 2013 to receive a briefing on the outcome of monitoring of the proposed southern dive site at Kirra.

6.13 Stakeholder briefings

Meetings with stakeholders were held in late February to early March 2013.Each meeting was attended by a Gold Coast City Council representative and a Promedia representative. These meetings were an information exchange and designed to seek feedback on the issue of preferred attraction and proposed site locations.

Briefings were held with: • Surfers Paradise Dive • Six tourism business owners as part of the Queensland Tourism Industry Council Business

(QTIC) Mentoring session on 14 March at Southport Yacht Club.

Page | 12

QTIC Business Mentoring session for tourism operators Southport Yacht Club 14 March 2013

6.14 Agency briefings

Consultation activities conducted during the engagement process included the following agency briefings: • representatives of Gold Coast Tourism, Tourism and Events Queensland and Department of

State Development, Infrastructure and Planning on 25 February 2013

6.15 Media

While the project team did not issue a media release about the dive attractions project or consultation, a media article appeared in the Gold Coast Sun on 20 March 2013 about the project and in particular, the Kirra site (see section 8.8.1).

Page | 13

SECTION 7 – CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Figure 1 – Total respondents to consultation period across all channels

Figure 1 graphically represents the total number of contacts (through all contact points) that the project team recorded during the consultation period.

7.1 Contact points

Only one stakeholder contacted the 1300 information line to request a one to one briefing.

7.2 Community information displays

Thirty-five participants attended the community information displays, with nine attending on Thursday 28 February at Southport Yacht Club and 26 attending Thursday 7 March 2013 at Bilinga Surf Lifesaving Club.

7.3 Survey response

Council’s dive attraction webpage attracted 843 individual visitors who visited the site more than 1400 times. Online information such as FAQ’s were accessed more than 600 times by approximately 200 of the site visitors. Interest in the webpage spiked around the time of both community information displays dates and was minimal after mid-March

The project survey was central to gathering feedback. Overall, 171 respondents completed the survey. Analysis of results is outlined in section 9.

7.3.1 Online survey

The online survey was completed by 98 participants. Twenty-eight were recorded within the first two days of consultation opening – in response to advertising, community session. This was followed by 48 responses within the next week carrying on from this awareness. Another nine were recorded on the day of and day following the Bilinga community session.

7.3.2 Hardcopy

Four participants completed surveys after attending the Southport community session, nine Bilinga participants completed surveys and one QTIC Business Mentoring participant completed a survey. Three additional surveys were returned via reply paid envelopes direct to Council’s project team.

Page | 14

7.3.3 GCengage

Fifty-six GCengage participants (of the 90 who visited the consultation page) completed the online survey after being alerted to the consultation opportunity by Council. More than half completed the survey in the first two days of the consultation period opening.

7.4 Forum responses

The online forum was designed to provide a platform for discussion of the proposal within Council controlled cyberspace. The forum was accessed via the dive attraction webpage and was managed by Council's consultation team. An average 162 people viewed the four forum questions and 21 comments were received before the forum closed on 29 March 2013. . The forum was led by three individuals making up more than half of the comments (11 comments). Two other people commented twice and six commented only once.

GCengage participants were also encouraged to comment on the forum questions. Four participated, contributing eight comments.

7.5 Facebook response

The Facebook posting of 28 February received 39 likes, two shares and seven comments (2 from same respondent).

7.6 Meetings with stakeholders and agencies

One dive industry business (attended by two directors) requested a one to one meeting which was held on 26 February 2013.

Representatives from three government agencies provided feedback at a meeting on 26 February 2013.

Six tourism operators attended a Queensland Tourism Industry Council Business Mentoring session at Southport Yacht Club on 14 March 2013.

Twelve Stakeholder Reference Group members met for a briefing on 26 March 2013.

7.7 Letter

A submission in the form of a letter was received from Connecting Southern Gold Coast Ltd. The letter supports a dive attraction at the southern part of the Gold Coast, specifically at Kirra. The tourism group supports a purpose built structure initially and a vessel should funding (and suitable vessel) become available situated adjacent to the structure. Connecting Southern Gold Coast said an attraction poses no threat to local surfing and would boost the local economy.

7.8 Other activities

The consultation team was aware of several other community or media generated activities during the consultation phase. They are listed here to provide the most comprehensive report possible, but have not been included in the total number of responses of Council-initiated engagement activities.

7.8.1 Media

An article appeared in the Gold Coast Sun/online on 20 March 2013 about the proposed Kirra dive site. This was media-sourced rather than generated through a Council media release. The article was positive and contained project key messages.

Page | 15

The online version attracted 33 comments from 30 readers. Comments were slightly more negative than positive, with the major of negativity relating to the “tackiness” of the proposed structure (8 comments). This response was skewed based on the newspaper’s own generated dive photo which had superimposed the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House, Big Ben etc onto the dive image – which some respondents may have believed to be a suggestion of the project team (see Image 3 below). Other concerns related to keeping the environment natural (2 comments) and concerns the dive attraction project was a diversion from the cruise ship terminal (2 comments).

This image has been removed due to potential copy right infringements.

Photo from Gold Coast Sun article 20 March 2013

Of the 12 comments of support for the proposed project, at least four supported a purposed built structure.

This was in contrast to the paper’s own online poll asking people to indicate their preference for a wreck, a pyramid, other structure or no support at all for a dive site. While there is no indication of numbers who voted, the result for the question: What would your preferred structure for a dive site be? was: • 55 per cent supported a warship • 14 per cent supported a pyramid • 12 per cent supported “other” • 20 per cent did not agree with a dive site.

Page | 16

7.8.2 Social media

Stakeholder Reference Group members and dive industry contacts were encouraged to promote the consultation period to their members and contacts. While not all postings may have been tracked, those the consultation team were aware of included: • an entry on the Gold Coast Central Chamber of Commerce website page from 28 February

regarding the consultation period and links (http://www.goldcoastcentralchamber.com.au/index.php?page_id=191)

• A posting in the online Gold Coaster on 1 March 2013 promoting diving on the Gold Coast and the Bilinga community session and online survey (http://www.goldcoaster.com.au/2013/03/01/gold-coast-scuba-diving/?)

• Facebook posting by DevOcean Dive on 27 February about the consultation launch and two community sessions.

• Facebook posting by Ecodive on 6 March promoting the Bilinga community session. The posting raised concerns about the impact on the existing Seaway dive sites and possible restrictions at a wreck dive attraction.

• Community action group Save our Spit also generated a Facebook posting on the day of the Bilinga Community Session (7 March) which raised concern about a) Council’s consultation process, in particular the online survey not being available to the public (although it had been open via the website since 28 February) b) concern that while a dive wreck would be positive for the city, the survey would be used to support the cruise ship terminal and that dive attractions would be “a trade off” for the loss of existing Seaway dive sites. SOS encouraged its supporters to attend the community session. This Facebook posting attracted 81 likes and 20 comments, (other than SOS). Comments related to concerns about Seaway impacts as well as the accessibility (time) of the community session. The posting was removed by Save our Spit on 8 March.

Page | 17

SECTION 8 – ISSUES RAISED This section is divided into the quantitative survey results as well as a summary of the types of issues raised by stakeholders during consultation.

8.1 Issues raised - survey results

The project survey was central to gathering feedback. The survey was completed in total by 171 respondents. This was broken into: a) 115 community members/stakeholders who had a stake or interest in this issue and

accessed the online survey following the community session, completed the survey hard copy at or after the community sessions, after seeing the advertising, via the Council website or via word of mouth

b) 56 members of GCengage, community members who actively engage in a wide range of Council consultation exercises as opposed to specific interests. This group provides a sample of Gold Coast ratepayers.

Results from both these groups have been analysed separately, to determine any difference between those with and without a stake in the project. The 115 respondents have been referred to as the “general” recipients while the GCengage results are defined as such.

8.1.1 Demographics

More than 60 per cent of respondents (and all from GCengage) were Gold-Coast based.

A broad range of suburbs was recorded for GCengage recipients but the most common place of residence of respondents were Robina (10) and Southport (8) areas.

Figure 2 – Respondents by location / postcode

In terms of age groups, 57 per cent of the respondents of the general survey were aged between 25-44.

This compares with a slightly older demographic of GCengage recipients, with more 82 per cent aged between 35-64.

Page | 18

Figure 3 – Respondents by age group

In the general survey results, 64 respondents indicated an involvement in community and recreational groups, with some indicating multiple group memberships. More than half nominated association with dive-related groups as per Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 – Community/recreational group membership

Only 15 GCengage respondents nominated memberships of clubs or groups. In comparison to the general group, only one was associated with a dive club.

8.1.2 Dive industry involvement

Q1: What is your involvement in the dive industry?

Respondents were overwhelmingly involved in the dive industry, with 60 per cent recreational divers, followed by 12 per cent dive instructors and 10 per cent tourism business owners/operators. Some recipients nominated multiple categories.

Page | 19

Figure 5 – Dive industry involvement

Of GCengage respondents, 14 (or 25 per cent) were recreational divers. No other categories were represented.

8.1.3 Level of dive certification

Q2: For qualified divers, what is your level of dive certification?

Of the 103 replies, 30 per cent were advanced open water divers, followed by 23 per cent open water divers and 17 per cent were dive instructors.

Figure 6 – Level of dive certification

Of the 15 GCengage dive certified respondents, almost half (47 per cent) had achieved open water certification.

Figure 7 – GCengage level of dive certification

Page | 20

8.1.4 Dive regularity and locations

Q3:How regularly do you dive?

Almost half the respondents (47 per cent) dive fortnightly or more frequently and another 25 per cent dive at least monthly. Fewer than 10 per cent dive every two years or less frequently.

Figure 8 – Dive frequency

Figure 9 – GCengage dive frequency

GCengage recipients dive infrequently compared to the general group, with most (67 per cent) diving three times a year or less frequently.

Page | 21

8.1.5 Dive regularity

Q4: Would you consider taking up diving, or diving more frequently if there were more dive attractions on the Gold Coast?

Survey respondent indicated overwhelmingly (80 per cent) that they would dive more frequently with additional dive attractions.

Figure 10 – Potential impact on dive frequency with additional dive attractions

GCengage recipients were more evenly split in response to this question with 48 per cent indicating they would dive more frequently than the 42 per cent who indicated new attractions would not encourage them to dive.

Figure 11 – GCengage potential impact on dive frequency with additional dive attractions

Page | 22

8.1.6 Dive locations

Q5: Where on the Gold Coast do you dive, and which other locations outside of the Gold Coast do you dive?

Respondents were then asked to nominate their answers in an open ended format. Of the 96 general respondents, most nominated multiple dive locations. The major sites or regional have been captured below in Figure 12.

The results indicated that the majority of divers dive locally, with 27 per cent diving at the Seaway, 28 per cent diving the Tweed/Byron region and 14 per cent nominated specifically Cook Island. The Sunshine Coast was also another region of interest for 11 per cent of the respondents, with many nominating the dive attraction wreck of HMAS Brisbane as the drawcard.

Figure 12 – Dive spots Gold Coast and other

GCengage results indicated a similar response to the general group, with popular local dive spots being the Seaway (25 per cent for respondents) and Tweed/Byron region 13 per cent, the same percentage as those who dive international destinations.

Figure 13 – GCengage dive spots Gold Coast and other

8.1.7 Dive attraction features

Q6: What is the single-most important feature of a dive attraction?

Respondents were asked to nominate the single most important feature of a dive attraction in an open ended question. Some respondents included more than one answer, and all responses were counted. As can be seen in Figure 14, the most common response (at 27 per cent) was marine life, followed closely by access or accessibility at 25 per cent. Seventeen per cent of the 108 respondents said biodiversity was the single most important feature of a dive location. Due to this being a qualitative analysis, it is feasible to combine the two terms – ‘marine life’ and ‘biodiversity’ as these terms could have the same or very similar meaning. Examples of the responses received to illustrate this include:

Page | 23

• Responses categorised as marine life – “Sea life, a place for marine animals, fish habitats, abundance of marine life”

• Responses categorised as biodiversity – “protection of biodiversity, variety of life, variety of fish species and organisms, abundance and diversity of species, diversity”

Combining these two terms brings the response to the single-most important feature of a dive attraction – being a wealth and/or variety of marine life – to 44 per cent of respondents.

Figure 14 – Single most important feature of a dive attraction

Other ratings included six per cent for responses categorised as interesting/things to see (eg “interesting features, needs to be interesting, good things to see”) with a similar response recorded for answers ranging from protection from the elements (four per cent), safety including safe bar crossing (3 per cent) and structure (three per cent). Three respondents (or three per cent) mentioned a wreck of some kind.

Figure 15 – GCengage – Single most important feature of a dive

Biodiversity (15 per cent) and marine life (15 per cent) - when combined - were indicated as the most important feature of a dive in GCengage responses (ie 30 per cent). However, the most frequent answer at 23 per cent was that having something interesting or something to look at (term such as “interesting, something to see, stuff to look at”). Safety was raised on three occasions, followed by accessibility and visibility. The “other” category included single comments relating to price, tourism, clear healthy water, appeal to range of divers and different types of dives.

Page | 24

8.1.8 Preferred site for dive attraction

Q 7: Two potential dive sites have been identified on the Gold Coast 1) Main Beach 2) Kirra Beach. What is your preferred site?

The community was asked to nominate which was their preferred location for a dive attraction based on the two identified sites at Main Beach or Kirra Beach. They were also given the option of nominating both sites; either site or opposing proposed dive attractions.

As illustrated in Figure 16, most supported dive attractions at both sites, which recorded 35 per cent support. Of the site location options, Main Beach was preferred with 29 per cent nominating this northern location in comparison to 17 per cent preferring the southern Kirra Beach location. Just over 10 per cent supported either option and another eight per cent did not support the dive attraction proposal.

Figure 16 – Preferred dive attraction location

GCengage surveys indicated a slightly different response, with the Main Beach site being the most favoured by almost 29 per cent of respondents, followed closely by support for both sites at 27 per cent. Twenty per cent of respondents supported locating dive attractions on either site, followed by 18 per cent preference for Kirra. A similar number of respondents as the general survey did not support either site at six per cent.

Figure 17 – GCengage preferred dive attraction location

8.1.9 Benefits or concerns

Q8: Please outline any benefits or concerns you foresee with Council introducing dive attractions to these areas

Respondents went on to outline any benefits or concerns they could predict in the two locations as asked in Question 8. Responses were gathered in an open ended question format. Some respondents nominated both pros (75 in total) and cons (35 in total) of the proposed dive locations.

Page | 25

Analysis of results illustrate there was support for the benefits of the dive attractions – particularly amongst the general group at 68 per cent and 52 per cent in GCengage group - in comparison to concerns about the project of between 32 and 48 per cent.- as seen in Figure 18.

Figure 18 – Total benefits v’s concerns Figure 19 – GCengage Total benefits v’s concerns

In the general group, the most common benefit nominated 46 times was an expected increase in tourism and economic flow on to the Gold Coast. This was followed by greater accessibility (four times).

In contrast, the most common topic of concern mentioned 11 times centred around development (including proposed cruise ship terminal) occurring at the expense of the Seaway and its existing dive spots. Another three respondents indicated their concern that the dive attractions project was compensation for Seaway impacts that might be caused by the proposed cruise ship terminal.

Figure 20 – Most frequent topics by number

While the GCengage group similarly highlighted tourism and economic benefits to the city, this group highlighted a concern about impact on surfing and sand at Kirra Beach as illustrated in Figure 21.

Figure 21 – GCengage most frequent topics by number

Page | 26

8.1.10 Support for two world class attractions if funding available

Q9: If funding became available, do you agree with the proposed plan for two world class diving attractions?

The survey outlined the cost, possible operational date targets, advantages and limitations of both purpose built structures and scuttled navy vessel. Support for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose both structure was significant, with 65 per cent nominating their support for this option. Support for scuttling only a vessel received the next highest level of support at 11 per cent, with the purpose built structure recording a similar level of support at 9 per cent. Opposition to the dive attraction proposal was recorded at seven per cent of total responses which aligns with the results of Question 7. Support for having either one, or the other of the dive options recorded six per cent support and the least preferred option was support of two per cent for designing and constructing two purpose built structures.

Figure 22 – Support for two dive attractions if funding available

A similar level of support for support for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose both structure was recorded in GCengage results (68 per cent), however the option to gain the next highest amount of support was for designing and constructing a purpose built structure only (at 15 per cent). Five per cent supported designing and constructing two purpose built structures. There was little support for scuttling a vessel at two per cent (which could be reflected in open ended comments about cost) and another two per cent support for having either one or the other of the dive options. A similar number of people compared to the general survey results did not support either option (eight percent).

Figure 23 – GCengage support for two dive attractions if funding available

Page | 27

Respondents nominated a myriad reasons for their responses. No overall trends emerged, but reasons that attracted more than one of the same comment centred around cost effectiveness of a purpose built structure and more dive sites the better.

GCengage also had a wide range of opinions. However one issue that did arise on several occasions related to cost (7). Some comments are as follows: • “Building a structure would be expensive and a cost we don't need • If the industry thinks that it is viable, then they should foot all the costs as well as compensate

the community for any loss or degradation of areas presently used by the wider community. • The scuttled vessel is too expensive when there are more important priorities that need funds • Unless funded by private industry/dive sit operators, the cheapest option should be used to

determine the success or otherwise, before expanding to a scuttled vessel and the higher costs.”

A copy of all responses can be found in Appendix 2.

8.1.11 Preferred location of vessel and structure

Q10: If funding was available for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose built structure, what is your preferred outcome?

Community members were asked to nominate their preference for a scuttled vessel off Main Beach and purpose built structure at Kirra; or a scuttled vessel off Kirra with a purpose built structure at Main Beach. Alternatively, respondents could indicate their opposition to the proposal.

As visible in Figure 24, slightly more than half (52 per cent) nominated their preferred outcome as a scuttled vessel of Main Beach, with a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach. This compares with 40 per cent who nominated the Kirra Beach option for the vessel, and a purpose built structure at Main Beach. Another eight per cent oppose further investigation into a dive attraction.

Figure 24 – Preferred location of vessel and structure

GCEngage results almost exactly replicated the above results with 50 per cent supporting a scuttled vessel off Main Beach with a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach, 39 per cent support for the reverse locations and 11 per cent opposed further investigations into the proposal.

Page | 28

Figure 25 – GCengage preferred location of vessel and structure

8.1.12 Support for two purpose built structures at both sites if a vessel can’t be secured

Q11: If it is not possible to secure a navy vessel to scuttle, do you support building and constructing a purpose built structure at both sites?

Exactly 75 per cent of respondents indicated their support for two purpose built structure locations should Council be unable to secure a navy vessel. GCengage respondents also overwhelmingly supported two structure locations at 64 per cent support for this option.

Figure 26 – Support for two purpose built structures if a navy vessel can’t be secured

Figure 27 – GCengage support for two purpose built structures if a navy vessel can’t be secured

8.1.13 Any other comments on the proposal

Q12 :Do you have any other comments related to the proposal?

Sixty-five comments were received in the general survey: The issues that received the most comments were: • 10 comments supported the project; another 3 supported both a vessel and purpose built

structure; while another 2 voiced the need for many dive sites (15 in total) • 9 did not support development around the Seaway or voiced concern about negative impacts on

the Seaway from dive attractions • 5 supported the project as long as the Seaway was not negatively impacted by a dive site • 4 supported a navy vessel • 3 opposed the project • 3 opposed the cruise ship terminal • 3 specifically supported the Main Beach site

GCengage respondents in contrast: • 2 nominated tourism suggestions such as museum/observatory • 2 supported a navy vessel • 2 supported the dive attractions proposal

Page | 29

All comments can be found in Appendix 3.

8.2 Issues raised - other online channels

8.2.1 Forum responses

The online forum posed similar questions to the survey questions.

What is the single-most important feature of a dive attraction? (8 responses) • Support for navy vessel - 3 comments • Need for environmental sustainability or environmentally sound construction – 2 comments • Protection from factors which would decrease visibility - 2 comments • Need for area to be protected from fishing - 2 comments • Other single comments related to need to attract marine life, wider tourism benefits, diveability,

suitable depth, accessible to all, diversity of environment.

If funding became available, do you agree with the proposed plan ... for two world class dive attractions? Please explain some reasons for your answer. (5 responses) • Need for safe access to Seaway – 2 comments • Project should not be at expense of Seaway – 2 comments • Support for wreck – 2 comments • Other single comments about support for purpose built structure due to cost effectiveness, need

for sites to be free/accessible to all, desire for Seaway access to be improved first before a dive attraction

Two potential dive sites have been identified on the Gold Coast: 1) Main Beach 2) Kirra Beach. Please outline any benefits or concerns you foresee with Council introducing dive attractions to these areas. (2 responses) • Decision to be based on location of cruise ship terminal – 1 comment • What environmental studies have been undertaken re impact on visibility – 1 comment

Do you have any other comments related to the proposal? (6 responses) • Support for wrecks other than ex navy vessels – 2 comments • Concern the cruise ship terminal will cause Seaway destruction – 2 comments • Other single comments related concern the project will destroy the Seaway via Broadwater

Marine Park, concern project will limit access (only for advanced divers, preselected contractors, fees etc), concern about consultation via online survey being biased by not being public – however the commenter later corrected this.

GCengage forum responses

Gold Coast City Council’s online community reference group, GCengage was also encouraged to participate in the online forum. A small number viewed the four forum questions, with a maximum of eight participants contributing to forum comments. There were no trends in forum comments, rather a mixture of recognition of benefits to the city, as well as concerns including funding.

All forum comments are included in Appendix 4.

8.2.2 Facebook responses

The Facebook comments can be categorised into the following: • 1 supportive of dive attractions, particularly a structure • 1 supportive of a wreck • 2 supportive of dive attractions • 1 supportive if environmental concerns are addressed • 1 not supportive of the concept due to cost/Seaway impact concerns.

Page | 30

8.3 Issues raised – stakeholder channels

8.3.1 Stakeholder feedback

Stakeholders were invited to provide feedback about the proposed dive attractions through one-to-one meetings, briefings and group sessions. In general, stakeholders were extremely supported of the dive attraction proposal.

Issues (and their frequency) that were raised and noted during these briefings can be categorised as per the following: • A wreck, not necessarily a navy vessel, was considered suitable – 4 comments • Support for dive attraction/s to be available sooner rather than later – 3 comments • Support for interesting items to be secured and retained onboard any scuttled vessel – 3

comments • Preference for any temporary monitoring station that may be secured for Kirra Beach to be

retained as a diving attraction – 3 comments • Preference for shipwreck – 2 comments • Preference for any attraction to be large in size – 2 comments • Northern site has better and safer access – 2 comments • Single comments related to support for a structure, support for both dive attractions, question

about how usage would be monitored, willingness to wait for a vessel to be secured, need for fishing exclusion zone around dive attraction, importance of contaminant remediation, importance of accessibility, support for northern site option.

Page | 31

SECTION 9 – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES Based on the community consultation results, stakeholders and the community overwhelmingly support the dive attractions proposal and. some form of dive attraction proposal for the Gold Coast.

Between six and eight per cent of respondents did not support any form of dive attraction.

Combining survey results of stakeholders/community and the GCengage consultation group, around one third support dive attractions at both Main Beach and Kirra Beach, followed by support for an attraction off Main Beach only, and then support for an attraction at Kirra Beach.only.

Should funding be available, support for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose both structure was significant (around 65 - 68 per cent).

About 50 per cent nominated their preferred outcome as a scuttled vessel off Main Beach, with a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach.

Should Council be unable to secure a navy vessel, approximately 75 per cent of respondents indicated their support for two purpose built structures.

Responses to survey questions are summarised below in Table 2.

Question General survey responses GCengage survey responses

1. What is your involvement in the dive industry?

60% recreational divers

12% dive instructors

10% tourism business owners/operators.

25% recreational divers

2. For qualified divers, what is your level of dive certification?

30% advanced open water

23% open water

17% dive instructors

47% open water

3. How regularly do you dive?

47% dive fortnightly or more frequently

25% dive at least monthly

> 10% dive every two years or less frequently

67% dive three times a year or less frequently

4. Would you consider taking up diving, or diving more regularly if there were more dive attractions on the Gold Coast?

80% would dive more frequently 48% would dive more frequently

42% would not

5. Where on the Gold Coast do you dive, and which other locations outside of the Gold Coast do you dive?

27% Seaway

28% Tweed/Byron

region

14% Cook Island

11% Sunshine Coast

25% Seaway

13% Tweed/ Byron region

13% international destinations

6. What is the single-most important feature of a dive attraction?

44% wealth and/or variety of marine life (27% marine life + 17% biodiversity)#

25% access or accessibility

30% wealth and/or variety of marine life (15% marine life + 15 % biodiversity)#

23% something interesting or something to look at

Page | 32

Question General survey responses GCengage survey responses

7. Two potential dive sites have been identified on the Gold Coast 1) Main Beach 2) Kirra Beach. Which is your preferred site?

35% prefer both sites

29% prefer Main Beach

17% prefer Kirra Beach

10% prefer either site

8% did not support dive attractions

29% prefer Main Beach

27% prefer both sites

20% prefer either site 18% prefer Kirra Beach

6% did not support dive attractions

8. Please outline any benefits or concerns you foresee with Council introducing dive attractions to these areas?

68% mentioned benefits

32% mentioned concerns

52% mentioned benefits

48% mentioned concerns

9. If funding became available, do you agree with the proposed plan for two world class dive attractions?

65% for both scuttled vessel and purpose built structure

11% for scuttled vessel only

9% for purpose built structure

7% oppose dive attractions

6% for either one or the other option

2% for two purpose built structures

68% for both scuttled vessel and purpose built structure

15% for purpose built structure

8% oppose dive attractions

5% for two purpose built structures

2% for scuttled vessel only

2% for either one or the other option

10. If funding was available for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose built structure, what is your preferred outcome?

52% prefer a scuttled vessel off Main Beach, with a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach

40% prefer a scuttled vessel off Kirra Beach, with a purpose built structure at Main Beach

8% oppose further investigation into a dive attraction

50% prefer a scuttled vessel off Main Beach, with a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach

39% prefer a scuttled vessel off Kirra Beach, with a purpose built structure at Main Beach

11% oppose further investigation into a dive attraction

11. If it is not possible to secure a navy vessel to scuttle, do you support building and constructing a purpose built structure at both sites?

75% support two purpose built structure locations

25% do not

64% support two purpose built structure locations

36 % do not

# Re Question 6, due to qualitative analysis, it is feasible to combine ‘marine life’ and ‘biodiversity’ as these terms could have the same or very similar meaning

Table 2 – Summary of survey results

Page | 33

SECTION 10 – SUMMARY OF EVALUATION METHODS The program achieved its engagement objectives (refer section 3) by: • promoting the consultation program to stakeholders via a variety of communication channels

including advertising, meetings and two community information displays • producing and distributing communications material – hard copy and online material • providing communication in a concise way with information written in plain English for ease of

understanding • offering stakeholders and the community several participation methods including the survey and

community information display days (falling within the consultation range of the International Association for Public Participation’s ‘Participation Spectrum’)

• providing the opportunity for stakeholders to have their say which was demonstrated by receipt of 171 completed surveys, 35 visitors to the community information displays and response online and via social media – therefore enabling Council to understand what the community and stakeholders would like for future dive attractions.

Both stakeholders (via SRG, meetings, community information displays, survey) were engaged as were broader community members (via advertising, community information sessions, Facebook, webpage and specifically GCengage).

In summary, this engagement exercise tested feedback the project team had received from the Stakeholder Reference Group by seeking additional input from the wider community, providing a more robust set of responses.

In evaluating the success of communication channels and tools, the difference in attendance at the two community information displays (nine at Main Beach versus 24 at Bilinga) is worthy of consideration. While this may simply be a reflection of the interest from these areas, it is acknowledged that the advertisements promoting the sessions ran one to two days before the first information session at Main Beach and this may have been inadequate time to capture people’s awareness of the opportunity or for their existing schedule - or conversely, it may have made the sessions top of mind.

In addition, the consultation team noted comments from community members which included the following: • a single survey respondent suggested additional project team contacts (phone, email) other

than social media • while not formally included in comment analysis, two comments on the Save our Spit Facebook

page suggested the 4-8pm community display times was not “family friendly” and at least one indicated weekends were more convenient for attendance.

While it is extremely limited feedback based on the overall number of people who responded to the consultation, a project specific contact method – either project email or 1300 number – could be considered on engagement material to ensure the most inclusive participation possible by those who do not use, or prefer not to access, online or social media.

Timings of community events are always considered.

Overall, the study did reveal that the most popular information channels used by the community in this instance were website visitation (843 unique visitors) and online survey (171 responses).

In summary, the consultation process allowed the community and stakeholders an opportunity to input into future Council decision making and therefore, met the project team’s objectives.

Page | 34

SECTION 11 – RECOMMENDATIONS Information provided by stakeholders and members of the wider community can assist Gold Coast City Council with negotiable aspects of the dive attraction proposal, should it proceed.

It is recommended that Council: • write to community session attendees and stakeholder briefing attendees thanking them for

their participation in the process • retain the Stakeholder Reference Group and keep them informed of the project progress at key

milestones (eg. following Committee meetings, Council decisions) or some correspondence at least twice yearly

• continue contact with the dive, charter boat and fishing industries as well as agency representatives to ensure they are kept up-to-date with project progress.

Council should consider ongoing consultation if and when funding is available for the dive attraction.

Re-engaging stakeholders could include: • involvement from the local (or wider) dive industry on or about the dive experience, structure

designs and use of the attraction/s

Government agencies associated with waterways for input into a long term management plan and permit system.

Page | 35

SECTION 12 – CONCLUSION Gold Coast City Council had clear objectives for its four week consultation program for the dive attractions project.

The community and stakeholders were provided a range of opportunities to provide feedback and ask questions about the project. The majority of respondents utilised Council’s online information sources and surveys to provide feedback.

Overall, consultation confirmed: • support for some form of dive attraction proposal for the Gold Coast • between six and eight per cent of respondents do not support any form of dive attraction • roughly 30 per cent support dive attractions at both Main Beach and Kirra Beach, followed by

support for an attraction off Main Beach only • should funding be available, support for both a scuttled vessel and a purpose both structure was

significant (around 65 per cent) • about 50 per cent nominated their preferred outcome as a scuttled vessel off Main Beach, with

a purpose built structure off Kirra Beach. • should Council be unable to secure a navy vessel, approximately 75 per cent of respondents

indicated their support for two purpose built structures.

These key findings will help provide Council with clarity in its decision making as to how to proceed with the dive attractions proposal.

Ongoing engagement will help to engender community and stakeholder support for any future stages of the proposal and its ultimate outcome.

Page | 36