Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb for accountability, credibility and transparency. Preference will be given to letters of 100 words or less. Some of the opinions below are comments from SCN’s Facebook page.
- Read the story: New compliance scheme rolls out for e-bikes
Lea Miller: I read with interest the comments from Department of Transport and Main Roads general manager Joanna Robinson regarding Queensland’s new EPAC Assurance Scheme, particularly her assurance that the reforms provide certainty for Queenslanders who have invested in legitimate e-bikes.
Unfortunately, for some responsible riders, particularly those living with mobility limitations, this so-called certainty is far from reassuring. Earlier this year prior to July 1, I invested approximately $4,000 in an e-bike now deemed ‘illegal’, purchased in good faith from a legitimate Australian retailer.
Following four foot surgeries and years of significant mobility restrictions, my e-bike had provided something I thought I had lost forever – the freedom to exercise, enjoy the outdoors and improve both my physical and mental wellbeing.
Due to my physical mobility restrictions, I rely on the throttle to initiate movement from a stationary position. Once moving, I can pedal. This is not about speed, recklessness or seeking an unfair advantage. It is about accessibility.
Ms Robinson speaks of drawing a clear line between responsible riders and those operating dangerous, high-powered devices.
I wholeheartedly support removing genuinely dangerous e-bikes from our streets and pathways. However, where is the consideration for responsible, law-abiding adults whose physical limitations mean they cannot safely operate an e-bike without throttle assistance and do have their e-bike safely locked at the legal speed?
There is no blanket law removing high powered motorbikes or sports cars from the roads that have the capacity to go faster than the speed limit.
The proposed assurance scheme may provide a pathway for some existing e-bike owners, but will it accommodate those people with medically documented mobility restrictions who rely on certain e-bike features for access to maintain their physical and mental health?
I find it particularly disappointing that government reforms intended to improve public safety appear to overlook the very people for whom e-bikes can be genuinely life-changing.
Mr Bourke from Bicycle Industries Australia describes compliant e-bikes as a fantastic transport solution. I agree. But surely a transport solution should also be accessible to people with physical mobility restrictions rather than effectively excluding them through blanket restrictions?
Responsible riding should be judged by behaviour and safety, not simply by the presence of a throttle and the size of a motor.
Mr Bourke says that he strongly supports the program designed to help e-bike owners understand whether their bike meets the Queensland requirements. There is no mention of what if it doesn’t? What is one to do with a $4,000 e-bike bought in good faith prior to July 1?
I urge the Queensland Government to consider a sensible, medically-supported exemption or alternative compliance pathway for riders with genuine mobility impairments who have purchased an e-bike in good faith prior to July 1, 2026.
Safety and accessibility should not be mutually exclusive. Surely Queensland can lead the nation in both.
Adrian Freer: But what about e-bikes that were legally purchased a few years ago when there were no restrictions on power? Our bike was legally purchased for road use and has now been made illegal.
- Read the story: Pensioners challenge village rate increases
Lance Cowan: We are residents at Village Green, at 1 Caloundra Road, Caloundra. We moved here from Rockhampton in July 2025. We are pensioners and find the 2026 notice of rate increase unjustifiable, particularly for fixed income people such as us. Council must reconsider rates applicable to retirement accommodation.
- Read the story: Council weighs stripped-back pathway plan
Anthony Reid, Peregian Beach: Your report on the revised Peregian Beach coastal pathway rightly notes that traffic calming, raised intersections and formalised parking have been dropped from the Active Street concept. Residents welcome that. It is what we told council in June, when councillors heard that of more than 90 residents consulted, only two supported the project. Four cars can park between the driveways of Nos. 19 and 21 Lorikeet Drive. For families arriving at Peregian Beach, that one stretch matters.
I live on this street and support a footpath. The revised plans still extend the kerb into the road and mark stretches where parking would be prohibited. Comparing Council’s drawings with where cars can park today, I estimate 53 spaces could be lost. Staff warn that delay could jeopardise grant funding. Yet the Liveability Fund has already granted an extension, and the report itself says the second grant is expected to be declined, which could leave ratepayers contributing almost $195,000 on a project forecast to cost over a million dollars.
Rushing a design that still needs clearer drawings, parking estimates and adjoining-resident feedback, all things the General Committee asked for, is the greater financial risk. Residents are not asking Council to abandon a footpath. We are asking it, before the vote on Thursday November 19, to publish the parking count, show how the Stage 1 alignment differs from the rejected one, compare the overwhelming residents’ preferred David Low Way route, and state the actual funding deadline. The drawings and supporting material are at peregian.issues.au/lorikeet.
- Read the story: Charity steps up mobile support plans
Peta Maree: We must have these outreach initiatives. Homeless numbers are rising all over while people wait on housing waitlists.
- Read the story: Revised rail plans released after public feedback
Suzi Taylor, Pelican Waters: My question is why it has to be so close to the poor residents in Pelican Waters. Those residents have purchased many years ago for the serenity and peacefulness of the area and now will be subjected to the noise of a train at all hours of the day. Not to mention the decline of their property values of living right on the train line. It doesn’t affect me, I am further away but I feel sorry for those residents right on the line.
- Read the story: Inclusive sports event eyes wider reach
The Lavender Sky Foundation: What an amazing day. Thank you to all involved in supporting us and bringing this event to the Coast. We live in such an amazing region and we are very grateful to be able to make these opportunities available to our whole community.
Stroke Survivors Support Network: Such a great day! Thanks Danielle Lenord from Lavender Sky Foundation for everything you do to support those who have a disability, even the “silent disability” that people can’t see, such as Aphasia.
- Read the story: Pedestrian upgrade to reshape road after crash
Prue Oswin: I would really like to understand why this is not a wombat crossing? It’s incredibly difficult for pedestrians to pick gaps in traffic near busy roundabouts like this one. That’s one reason why the Queensland guidance requires priority crossings in these contexts. There are some great examples in Queensland where this is being done by The Department of Transport and Main Roads.
Peter Hansen: Seems fixing one problem causes another. There must be another, even if more expensive solution, which works better for traffic/drivers and pedestrians?
- Read the story: Work starts on $78m training centre
Andrew Moran, Battery Hill: It’s good to see construction beginning on the new Caloundra TAFE Centre of Excellence. What interests me isn’t just the building itself, but what it says about the challenge facing the Sunshine Coast.
We regularly hear calls for more housing, more schools, better roads and improved community infrastructure. Most people would agree these projects are needed. But one question receives far less attention – who is going to build them? Every housing development, hospital expansion, road upgrade and public facility relies on the same pool of tradespeople and contractors.
The new TAFE is a positive step because it helps build the next generation of skilled workers. But training takes time. A first-year apprentice today won’t solve workforce shortages tomorrow. That’s why the housing discussion can’t stop at targets, funding announcements and planning approvals. It also needs to include workforce capacity, productivity and delivery planning.
The Caloundra TAFE is good news. Hopefully it also starts a broader conversation about whether we have the people needed to deliver everything already promised.
- Read the story: Surf club defends pig racing fundraiser
Katherine Paul: Pig races are fine, they are very resilient little creatures and if they did not want to run, they wouldn’t – they’re stubborn as. But they’re the most beautiful of creatures.
- It’s our money – let’s spend it wisely
Garry Reynolds, Peregian Springs: I’m a beneficiary of government spending and I’m grateful for it. Like millions of Australians, I’ve travelled on public roads, used public transport, relied on public hospitals and benefited from countless government services. None of these appear by magic. They exist because taxpayers fund them.
That’s why I find it hard to understand the attitude that government money somehow belongs to someone else. It doesn’t. Every dollar spent by government comes from people who have worked, paid taxes and contributed to the nation.
Because I appreciate what I receive, I try to give something back through volunteering and community service. It seems only fair. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.
Most Australians support spending on essential services. We want quality schools, effective hospitals, safe roads, reliable transport and support for people facing hardship. These investments strengthen communities and improve lives. Few would argue otherwise.
The real debate is not whether governments should spend money. It’s whether they spend it well.
Families across Australia make difficult choices every day. They compare priorities, delay non-essential purchases and work within their means. Taxpayers have every right to expect governments to apply the same discipline to public finances.
When projects run billions over budget, when agencies duplicate work, or when expensive programs fail to deliver promised outcomes, frustration is more than understandable. It’s justified. Money wasted in one area is money unavailable for a hospital bed, a school upgrade, better transport or support for vulnerable Australians.
Good government should not be measured by how much money it spends, but by the value it creates. The goal is not bigger budgets. The goal is better outcomes. That’s why transparency and accountability are so important. Governments should be able to explain where money goes, what it achieves and whether it represents value for taxpayers. Public trust depends on it.
Nobody expects perfection. But at a time when Australians are carefully managing household budgets and watching every dollar, it’s entirely reasonable to expect the same care from those managing the public purse. After all, it’s our money. We have every right to expect it to be spent wisely.
Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb for accountability, credibility and transparency. Preference will be given to letters of 100 words or less. Some of the opinions above are comments from SCN’s Facebook page.
