The announcement of a $1.5 billion Trump-branded hotel and residential tower on the Gold Coast has generated a level of public opposition rarely seen for a single development application, with a community-led petition surpassing 70,000 signatures in the days following the proposal's disclosure. The development, to be built by Altus Property Group Pty Ltd, would rise 340 metres across 91 storeys in the Surfers Paradise area, making it one of the tallest structures in Queensland if approved.
Leading the opposition is Craig Hill, a Queenslander and Legalise Cannabis candidate who merged his own petition with a second, separately launched effort to consolidate resistance under one banner. Hill, a former prison officer with 15 years in politics, has shown little concern about pushback from those aligned with the project. Asked whether he worried about repercussions, Hill was direct: "I've been a prison officer and I've been in politics for 15 years. They can do their worst."
Hill's objections extend beyond the brand attached to the project. He has raised specific concerns about the infrastructure burden the development would impose on local ratepayers, estimating that between $50 million and $150 million in public money could be required to service the tower's demands for sewerage, water, electricity, internet connectivity, and road upgrades. He also contends that the project would drive up housing prices across the Gold Coast and into south-east Brisbane. These are substantive claims that warrant scrutiny from planning economists and the relevant authorities, even if the precise figures remain Hill's estimates at this stage.
The Trump name itself is not incidental to the opposition. Hill acknowledged it plainly: "The Trump name is a big part of it. I don't think it aligns with our Australian values." He also pointed to Donald Trump's 2024 criminal conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, arguing that a convicted criminal should not be permitted to conduct business in Australia. It is accurate that Trump became the first sitting or former US president to be convicted of a crime in that case, though he received no custodial sentence and no immediate financial penalties, and has since returned to the presidency.
The strategic calculus here involves several competing considerations. From a pro-development standpoint, the project does carry genuine economic arguments. Altus chief executive David Young, who signed the deal on 14 February at Trump's Florida residence, described the development as 20 years in the making. Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate expressed support, saying the tower "will be very popular and will put us on the map." A counter-petition in favour of the project, which has attracted approximately 3,300 signatures, argues it "holds immense potential to transform the local economic environment and propel the region into a thriving hub of activity and opportunity." Foreign direct investment of this scale, properly managed, does generate construction employment, hospitality jobs, and downstream economic activity.
What often goes unmentioned is the degree to which Australian planning law already provides the primary mechanism for resolving this dispute, regardless of the political noise surrounding it. The Gold Coast Mayor's office confirmed to 9News that no development application has yet been lodged for the tower. A spokesperson stated that any such application "is assessed by city officers on its merits and in accordance with the Planning Act 2016." Queensland Planning Minister Jarrod Bleijie reinforced this, noting the project must abide by city planning laws and that approval "is a matter for council." The process, in other words, is already designed to weigh exactly the kinds of environmental, infrastructure, and community impact concerns that Hill and others are raising.
The broader question this episode raises is one that Australian communities have long wrestled with: at what point does concern about the origin or character of an investor constitute legitimate public interest, and at what point does it shade into protectionism or reputational politics? Those favouring the development are not wrong that large-scale foreign investment can benefit local economies. Those opposing it are not wrong that infrastructure costs are frequently borne by existing residents rather than developers. Both propositions can be true simultaneously, and the planning process exists precisely to adjudicate that tension through evidence rather than petition counts.
Reasonable people will disagree about whether a branded association with a foreign political figure should carry weight in a commercial approval process. What the Gold Coast case does clarify is that the institutions designed to manage these decisions, the Gold Coast City Council and the Queensland Department of State Development and Infrastructure, remain the appropriate forums. The strength of community feeling documented in the petition is a legitimate signal for elected officials to consider. Whether it translates into planning grounds for refusal is a different and more technical question, one that will only begin in earnest once a formal application arrives.