Today, I read an article on MSN, via ABC News Brisbane, reporting that the Queensland Government has introduced legislation to lift a ban that previously prevented property developers from making political donations, including donations to Queensland councils. Other Australian states recognise, based on ethical and common-sense principles, that allowing property developers to donate to councils creates serious conflicts of interest, particularly where rezoning and planning approvals are involved. Restrictions on property developer political donations have also been upheld as constitutionally valid by the High Court of Australia in comparable cases, reinforcing the legitimacy of such bans.
When corruption in Queensland is discussed, those familiar with the state’s history often point to the Bjelke-Petersen era of the 1970s and 1980s, as its foundation. I would go further and argue that corruption did not begin in that period but rather became publicly visible then. The Bjelke-Petersen years effectively gave Queensland corruption a date stamp, even though widespread corruption had existed long before, likely dating back to the colonial era.
​
Queensland increasingly behaves more like a separate country than a state within Australia. It never truly embraced federation in practice, and the Queensland Government does not meaningfully answer to federal authority. This lack of accountability affects the entire nation. Housing prices are artificially inflated, particularly at the expense of younger generations and those who do not own homes and are already struggling with rent. 
At the same time, developers will now be permitted to legally and publicly donate money to councillors. Many have long suspected that similar influence existed behind closed doors during the ban, with ordinary people ultimately bearing the cost.

These issues extend beyond politics into the legal system itself. Queensland’s Supreme Court and legal services sector operate with limited effective oversight, regulated by bodies that often appear to protect the legal profession of which they are a part, rather than serve the public interest. Queensland is also the only Australian state without an upper house of parliament, leaving it without a key layer of legislative scrutiny and accountability. The system resembles a school with no principal and no independent oversight from the education department.

Policy decisions that favour developers have contributed to inflated housing prices, with many ordinary Queenslanders bearing the consequences. For a significant portion of the lower-income population, there is little recourse or protection, reinforcing a political culture in which dissent is discouraged and accountability is rare.

It is also important to note that the Planning and Environment Court, which hears challenges to council decisions and oversees rezoning and development matters across Queensland, is based in Brisbane and forms part of Queensland’s Supreme Court system. In practice, this has raised concerns that outcomes can depend heavily on legal strategy and access to well-resourced and influential lawyers, whether acting for developers or councils. For ordinary residents seeking to challenge nearby developments, particularly those without the means to engage such representation, the system can appear heavily weighted against them. Allowing property developers to donate to councils only complicates this landscape further, intensifying concerns about fairness, accountability, and access to justice.

© Marcus Mark, MarcusMark.org. All rights reserved.
Note: This article reflects personal opinion and commentary, based on publicly available information at the time of writing, and does not constitute legal advice.

Update – 23 November 2025 at 10 am
(Please read this update before the original post, which commences below it.)

I attended the protest held at the corner of Main and Evans Road, Toukley / Noraville. Around one hundred people were present. Many carried signs opposing the development, while others attended without signage. The residents I spoke with were locals, and they expressed their concerns respectfully and clearly. The development proposal is located on the corner of Main and Evans Roads, on the border between Toukley and Noraville NSW 2263.

The key points raised by those opposed to the development were:

1: Concerns about safety in the immediate area.

2: The need to protect the livelihood of nearby cafés, restaurants and takeaway businesses.

3: The fact that the proposed McDonald’s would operate 24 hours.

4: The site is not yet approved and is still under assessment, meaning McDonald’s can withdraw as they have only paid a deposit.

5: The proposed design has a small carpark, which many consider insufficient.

6: The plan includes just one toilet (unisex and disabled), not a fully serviced bathroom like larger McDonald’s locations such as Lake Haven.

After speaking with residents, I believe these concerns are valid and reasonable. This new information does soften parts of my original post and makes some issues clearer. However, it does not invalidate the broader considerations raised in my original post.

The development application has been in the assessment stage for longer than usual and, as a couple of protestors mentioned to me, it remains unapproved at this time. Although delays can occur for many different reasons, this may suggest that Council is still working through viability or suitability considerations for the site. This possibility aligns with some of the concerns raised by protestors and reinforces the importance of examining all perspectives carefully.

I remain neutral on this proposal. My aim is simply to provide balanced information, encourage discussion and help the community think through both the positive and negative aspects. I encourage anyone reading this to also review the original post below and share their thoughts. All respectful and relevant comments will be approved for display on this website, in the interest of transparency, balance and neutrality.

ORIGINAL POST, BELOW:

​We will gather on Sunday, 23 November 2025, to express our views on the proposed McDonald’s development in Toukley/Noraville. This proposal has divided opinions within our community, and it is important to understand both the concerns and the potential benefits.

Concerns About the Development
​
A key concern is the effect on nearby cafés, restaurants and takeaway shops. The local food scene in Toukley, Noraville and Norah Head is an important part of the area’s identity, and these businesses contribute significantly to its culture and character. It is reasonable to expect stronger competition for some operators, particularly those offering quick-service food. This deserves honest acknowledgement, as supporting local businesses is vital for maintaining the area’s diversity and vibrancy. One constructive approach is for Council to allow more visible, striking signage for local food businesses so drivers and pedestrians can easily locate them. McDonald’s could also contribute to community goodwill by offering funding for upgraded signage for nearby cafés and restaurants, including illuminated night-time signage that improves visibility at all hours. This will be a negligible cost to McDonald's, while helping potentially affected businesses maintain strong visibility and benefit from the increased traffic McDonald’s will generate, particularly during early morning and late-evening periods when the local operators are closed. With careful planning, cooperation and fair adjustments, McDonald’s does not need to disadvantage existing local businesses. Increased exposure and improved signage can in fact strengthen the entire precinct and help support long-term viability for all businesses nearby.

Arguments in Support of the Development

The previous smash repair workshop on this site was a light industrial operation, involving large truck deliveries of repaired vehicles on local roads. This created greater hazards and inconvenience than anything a family-friendly restaurant is likely to introduce. Replacing a light industrial use with a standard commercial use is a clear improvement in both safety and amenity, especially considering that residents tolerated the previous operation for many years. McDonald’s also provides structured employment pathways for young people, offering training, routine, supervision and confidence-building opportunities close to home. The restaurant offers a family-friendly environment, convenient dining options and community amenities such as toilets, baby-changing facilities and accessible spaces that benefit both locals and visitors. Playgrounds at most McDonald’s sites add value, particularly in an area with limited child-friendly facilities, where they can be left unsupervised at most times.

McDonald’s may also indirectly support nearby businesses. Families who visit McDonald’s may then walk to local cafés for a coffee or dessert, particularly if their children remain occupied in the playground. Access to amenities encourages people to remain in the precinct longer rather than returning home, increasing the likelihood that they will explore other shops. It is also important to note that local cafés and McDonald’s attract different customer bases. With thoughtful planning and adequate visibility for local operators, increased foot traffic can benefit everyone.

A further point in favour of McDonald’s is the strong corporate oversight that ensures operational standards are consistently maintained. This creates a more structured and orderly environment around the site and within the local community. In recent years, Toukley and surrounding suburbs have seen increased unsafe behaviour on the roads, including motorised bicycles well exceeding legal speeds on footpaths, unlicensed motorbikes travelling at high speeds down Main Road and various antisocial incidents. A professionally run business with clear protocols can introduce a stabilising influence in an area where enforcement has become inconsistent.

Benefits for Surrounding Businesses and Locals

As a commercial zone, one realistic alternative to a McDonald’s would be for the land to be developed into additional shops. In practice, this would almost certainly mean more food outlets or convenience-style stores, because these are the types of businesses most commonly attracted to small commercial parcels like this one. Such developments would compete far more directly with the existing cafés, restaurants and takeaway shops in Toukley, Noraville and Norah Head. Independent operators often overlap heavily in their menus, pricing and style of service, which can intensify competition and place greater strain on long-established local businesses. By contrast, McDonald’s has a fixed and predictable menu that does not imitate the unique offerings of local cafés and restaurants. This means McDonald’s is far less likely to threaten their individuality, allowing local businesses to continue building their own character, cuisine and loyal customer base without being copied or undercut in the same way that a new independent food outlet might.
If McDonald’s attracts more visitors to the area, nearby businesses will benefit beyond what they do now through a proactive approach. Facilities such as public toilets and seating encourage people to remain in the area longer, supporting surrounding shops. The development fits the existing zoning and could activate the precinct, making it more lively and economically resilient.

For locals, a McDonald’s ensures convenient access to a fast-food option at all hours, not just during standard business times, while also helping keep the area active and connected to the broader food and café culture.

With upgraded and more noticeable signage, particularly night-time signage, local food businesses will directly benefit from the increased visibility. Non-food businesses will also benefit by default through greater foot traffic and increased awareness generated by the additional activity in the area.
​
Traffic and Safety Considerations

Traffic congestion around schools can sometimes have a calming effect by naturally slowing vehicles and reducing the severity of potential accidents. Congestion during school peak times is unlikely to increase substantially beyond existing levels. 

Another point raised in the community relates to previous road fatalities in the area. In reality, this concern actually supports the case for the development. A commercial site like McDonald’s naturally slows traffic by increasing awareness, reducing vehicle speeds and encouraging more cautious driving. Slower traffic is a proven safety advantage, particularly near schools. The level of congestion already present at peak school times is unlikely to increase substantially, but the presence of a well-managed site can improve overall road behaviour.

It is also important to acknowledge the broader decline in road safety across Toukley and surrounding suburbs. Electric bicycles routinely travel well above legal limits on footpaths and verges; unlicensed motorbikes frequently speed along Main Road and antisocial behaviour such as objects being thrown from vehicles has become increasingly common. Police enforcement has dropped significantly, and unsafe practices have persisted for more than a decade without meaningful intervention. A well-supervised business like McDonald’s brings lighting, surveillance, routine activity and strong corporate standards that discourage this behaviour. Its presence can promote better monitoring of the surrounding area and contribute to a safer environment for families and residents.

Other Considerations

Some misconceptions have been raised about environmental impacts, particularly concerning wildlife. Research and experience show that 24-hour lighting often assists bird species, including Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoos, by providing reference points for navigation during low-light hours. Most bird species do not see well at night, and illuminated areas can help them move more safely through environments already shaped by human development. In this context, the lighting associated with McDonald’s is more likely to support local wildlife movement than harm it.

Health-related concerns are also frequently misunderstood. While some people are more prone to gaining weight, others are susceptible to weight loss, including individuals living with medical conditions or undergoing treatment. Higher-calorie foods can be beneficial in those circumstances. If McDonald’s products posed a proven and severe population-wide health risk, such businesses would not be allowed to operate. Public health outcomes depend on personal choice, balance and broader lifestyle habits rather than the presence of a single restaurant.

It is also worth noting that arguments about nearby homes do not carry strong weight. Residents regularly drive through residential streets to reach shopping centres such as Lake Haven and Tuggerah. Those developments are accepted as part of community growth, and the same principle applies here. Commercial and residential land uses commonly exist side by side and will continue to do so as the region grows.

The more constructive approach is for local cafés and restaurants to strengthen their visibility, particularly through improved signage and marketing. McDonald’s presence will bring additional traffic at times when local operators are closed, meaning their upgraded signage would be visible long before and long after their trading hours. This can increase awareness and attract more customers over time. Council approval for clearer, more noticeable signage and lighting for local businesses, potentially supported or funded by McDonald’s, would help ensure they benefit from the increased activity rather than be disadvantaged by it.

After reviewing the site myself, I have not found any credible evidence to support the objections currently being raised. When safety, wildlife considerations, economic factors and long-term community behaviour are examined closely, the benefits outweigh the concerns. My intention is to help ensure local cafés and restaurants secure fair support and improved visibility so they can thrive alongside McDonald’s rather than be overshadowed by it.
​
Conclusion

While no viable development at this site will be free from controversy, this proposal offers a practical and balanced outcome. McDonald’s provides youth employment, community amenities, a cleaner and safer use of the land and potential benefits for surrounding businesses when supported by thoughtful adjustments such as improved signage for local food businesses. It replaces an unsuitable industrial operation with a commercial use that aligns with zoning and has the potential to energise the precinct rather than burden it. Through cooperation between McDonald’s, Council and local businesses, the development can be shaped in a way that supports the local economy rather than undermines it.
Local residents can also contribute positively by continuing to support the cafés and restaurants they value, treating McDonald’s as an additional option rather than a replacement.

I emphasise that I am not campaigning for or against the proposal but encouraging a fair, well-reasoned and informed discussion. Open dialogue between residents and McDonald’s gives our community the best chance of achieving a positive outcome. 

Policing in the area is not what it once was, and much of this is linked to growing economic pressure. Many officers today are younger and facing the same cost-of-living challenges as everyone else. When people struggle to secure housing or stability, morale declines and enforcement become inconsistent. While this does not excuse the lack of enforcement on Main Road, it helps explain how the situation has deteriorated. A well-managed commercial presence like McDonald’s can help stabilise behaviour in areas where enforcement has slipped. Their presence also encourages more consistent oversight from authorities who recognise the need to maintain a safe trading environment. This can help create a safer, more supervised precinct for families, workers and residents who use the area every day.

​My intention is to help nearby food businesses gain council approval and the right to install more noticeable, lit-up signage at no cost to them, provided as a complimentary support measure associated with the McDonald’s development. This assistance would apply specifically to cafés and restaurants, as the aim is to support their prosperity and strengthen their position, while non-food businesses will naturally benefit from the increased activity in the area without needing additional signage.
​
I am not advocating for McDonald’s or opposing it; my intention is only to acknowledge the practical realities and help the community consider the matter with clarity and balance. 

Remember, we do not live under a perfect system, and in fact we are far from it. Many public debates begin with quick impressions rather than careful research, and it is important that we look at issues like this with depth, evidence and genuine consideration. Good planning relies on clear thinking and an understanding of the broader picture, and that is the approach I hope this discussion encourages.
​
© Marcus Mark, MarcusMark.org. All rights reserved.