You are here

Plans to build $500 million Chinese theme park on NSW Central Coast bushland

See also: comment Opposed to $500 million Chinese theme park for NSW Central Coast (10/8/14) by the Australia First Party.

The Wyong Shire Council on NSW's Central Coast, has given its approval for the construction of the "Chappypie China Time" theme park to be built on 15.7 hectares of bushland at Warnervale. The bushland was sold to the Australia Chinese Theme Park Pty Ltd (ACTP) for $10 million. A short presentation by the Wyong Shire council to promote the Theme Park is shown below:

Evidently Australian entepreneurs are no longer capable of employing the Central Coast workforce to make goods and services to sell overseas. Instead, they can only offer jobs to serve affluent overseas guests in hotels, escort agencies or venues like the proposed "Chappypie China Time".

Other pages promoting "Chappypie China Time"

Chinese cultural theme park planned for Warnervale, video, poll (4/8/14, Newcastle Herald), , Chinese Theme Park for Warnervale - Office of the Mayor (Wyong Shire Council) (4/8/14, World News), Massive Chinese-style theme park proposed for Central Coast (4/8/14, ABC News).


I wonder which native animal's or bird's habitat this is taking over.

The one about the Asian century has evaporated and immigration has evaporated? ed. Could you repost please? I have no idea what happened, unless it got mixed up in a SPAM deletion, which sometimes happens. I'm sorry about this.

Dear anonymous,

I apologise.

Almost certainly your comment was deleted by me along with spam forum comments. I usually take sufficient care to prevent this from occurring, but on this occasion, I evidently did not.

Could I ask you in future to try to always keep your own copy of whatever you post to candobetter?

In time I hope it will be possible to install a comment writing program that will by default automatically save whatever you post to candobetter to your own computer. In the meantime, we will all have to be more careful.

- Ed

The development will start with a Buddhist temple.
Wyong Mayor, Doug Eaton says the park, to be known at Chappypie China Time, will cater for the growing Chinese tourism market and provide a massive boost to the coast's economy. If Chinese tourists want to come here, why would they want to be in China-land? Surely they could see Chinese icons in their own country? It would be like Australian tourists going to China to see a theme-park based on Australiana! All the mock Colonial houses, transplanted gum trees, wildlife that are considered "pests" in their own homeland, and other tacky reminders of our past!
The development would provide thousands of jobs! As if this justifies it? Jobs and jobs, and tourists who don't want to be immersed in Australian natural bushland, but will see it cleared, denuded and sterilized into a comic, clique of their own country!

I just rang the Wyong Council and spoke to a "customer service" person who told me that the development has not been approved (yet) and advised me that I could submit an objection to the development. If you go to you can download the appropriate form.

The notice below is from a campaigner petitioning the NSW Govt to publish a register of Crown Lands in and around Sydney before any more of them are sold off to developers. Clearly the Federal Govt is actively using public funds to promote the fire-sale. You can join a petition HERE1

suzie gold, Sydney

10 Aug 2014 — Is the public aware of the Chinese Brochure produced by the Dept of Trade and Investment which takes the form of a glossy brochure written in CHINESE show casing "potential investments opportunities"

"We are proud to showcase just a few of the potential tourism investment opportunities that are all in premium locations and will shortly be available including

2 adjacent sandstone buildings, which are unique to Sydney’s history and heritage

A commercial property that has high commercial potential for redevelopment and is immediately opposite the famous Sydney Town Hall

Unique Sydney Harbour tourism opportunities

North head sanctuary

Fuel tanks at George’s Heights Headland Park, Mosman

Greenfield opportunities on Middle Head Rd Headland Park, Mosman

The Jenolan Caves, lease all or some of 30 buildings"

I believe this is scandalous.

The brochure figures large at para 5.1 of the submission from

Crown Land is Our Land to Premier Baird.


1. The full URL for the petition is: .

Thank you, Suzie Gold for informing us of this scam and for providing us with an English language translation. Curiously, I could find nothing about this when I searched the NSW Department of Trade and Investment website with either the DuckDuckGo or Google search engines. See, for example:

"Jenolan Caves"

Clearly Premier Mike Baird intends to keep the citizens of New South Wales, in whose interests he is supposed to be governing, in the dark about their sell-off plans.

With China having more and more interest in assets here, I wonder if a future scenario could play out, where disenfranchised Australians, pushed out of homes decide to reverse the foolish decisions to allow foreign ownership of land, residential property etc.

Would that be a threat to China's interests? Would China, or another nation investing then have to decide whether to use force to protect their interests here? I think it a feasible prospect.

What if the only people who would take back our lands were a bit 'extreme', but because no one else tackled the issue, they got some power because they were the only ones proposing a solution. What if this put foreign nationals, and those aligned with those nationals here on alert, due to the rhetoric of this party?

I'm worried, as we sell our nation more and more to others, that this conflict of interest could lead to an ugly standoff.

Whilst, of course, I share Dennis's concerns about the sell-off of Australian assets to foreign corporations and governments, the title of his comment, "How long before China has a claim on Aus like Russia on Ukraine?", implicitly accepts the mainstream media lies about Ukraine. At no point in the conflict has Russia made any claim on Ukrainian territory. If you are aware of where this has occurred, Dennis, please advise.

An arguable exception is Crimea. However, the union of Crimea with Russia was overwhelmingly supported by the Russian-speaking population of Crimea. 97% of the 83.1% who voted in the referendum of 30 March 2014 to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. Clearly Crimeans had good reason to fear rule by the neo-Nazi putschists now in power in Kiev as is being confirmed by its genocidal war in the East from which over 500,00 have fled into Russia.

If you want to be informed about Ukraine and other current geopolitical conflicts, rather than having your mind moulded by the same 'reporters' who lied about Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc, etc, and who have on their hands much of the blood of many hundreds of thousands who have died in those conflicts, could I suggest you read articles about these countries including Ukraine on candobetter? Also, have a look at these websites amongst others: Global Research, Voltaire Net, Land Destroyer, Paul Craig Roberts, Russia Today, RIA Novosti, PressTV, the Syrian Arab News Agency, Syria News, The Syrian Girl, ...

At no point in the conflict has Russia made any claim on Ukrainian territory. If you are aware of where this has occurred, Dennis, please advise.

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation at

Hi Dennis,

This is a long post. I hope it makes sense.

Firstly, I agree that having foreign assets or people or foreign assets and people in important quantities will undermine sovereignty and democracy. Some precisions before further consideration of this:

You wrote: "How long before China has a claim on Aus like Russia on Ukraine? With China having more and more interest in assets here, I wonder if a future scenario could play out, where disenfranchised Australians, pushed out of homes decide to reverse the foolish decisions to allow foreign ownership of land, residential property etc. Would that be a threat to China's interests? Would China, or another nation investing then have to decide whether to use force to protect their interests here? I think it a feasible prospect."

I don't know if one could say that Russia 'annexed' Crimea when a decision was apparently made by a huge majority of 'Russian' Crimeans to become Russian. In my view, for your analogy to succeed where China might use force to protect assets in Australia against Australians seeking to assert their ownership of all assets on Australian territory, you would need to have a large body of 'Chinese' Australians making a decision to become Chinese because it was in their interests.

Separate administration of foreign assets and military outposts

In Crimea's case Crimea's separate administration must have made that decision easier. If special rules were made for Chinese development of parts of Australia, this could amount to a similar sort of situation of separate administration. Russia already had military bases in Crimea by agreement with Ukraine so if force had been necessary, it already had forces there. [1]

But maybe we are also overlooking a more pressing example of foreign assets and their defense in the problem of American presence on foreign soil. US military bases have separate administrations and military assets here and all over the world. I think they are planning new ones for Ukraine and these will put them in a geographical position to invade Russia. Conversely, Russia having military bases in Crimea does not put them in a geographical position to invade America.

I suspect that one of the reasons why Merkel and other European heads of State are going along with the US in its warmongering is that they are frightened of the capacity of the US military bases and weaponry to blow their countries to smithereens. Otherwise it seems odd to me that the European countries that normally avoid nearby wars (due to recent memory of invasions) are not pulling back from the warlike US NATO line towards Russia.

The US also embraces globalism and confuses capitalism with democracy. Europe has no such tradition of confusion, but it is giving into pressure from US influences on the EU, to capitalise its democracies.

Similarly, is the presence of US bases in Australia and the knowledge of all its weaponry that can be aimed on any country also the reason that Australia is so slavish towards the US in international politics and economic globalisation? Malcolm Fraser suggests that we would be better off not aligning closely with the US in this interesting interview.

Returning to the original problem of how having foreign assets or people or foreign assets and people in important quantities will undermine sovereignty and democracy, I hate to say it, but I think that our power-elites know this, intend it and don't give a damn about what we think. They are simply too far removed from our reality, like Marie-Antoinette. They have no notion of solidarity with their compatriots.

It is arguable that sovereignty and democracy have already been sold off along with all the other assets. It seems obvious to me that We-the-people are dealing with Them-the-globalisers. That is, the majority of our politicians and power-elites have long since been won over to the idea - financially convenient for them - that nations are passé. They think that the whole world is to be privatised for 'development' by corporations and trusts. Citizenship is to be replaced by financial contract. That seems fine to rich folk who live in castle like structures and have no fear of absolute poverty. For them there is always money to negotiate with and they expect to win from this dissolution of the nation states.

In such an ideology it is okay to give a Martian developer a 55 yr lease and permission to import Martian employees to develop a large swathe of once-were-Australians territory. Will the Martian government step in to defend Martian assets and expatriots if that enterprise is subsequently threatened, say when the 55 yr lease ends? Or will the Martian developer raise a private army from his Martian employees when they perceive that their jobs and company houses are threatened? The globalists will propose a longer lease, selling the land to the Martians or a Martian-Venusian-Australia merger. Or, if they think it more profitable, they will go to war, like NATO seems to want in Ukraine. Prior to the nation state people were used to kings swapping kingdoms like monopoly cards. We are returning to that state of affairs.

The power-elites who benefit from dissolution of nation states are not going to give this to us straight because that would risk instant severe revolt; we are finding out slowly as we question, initially indignantly, subsequently with despair, our loss of the citizen power once embodied in State assets where politicians and public servants had obligations towards the rest of us.

The financial contract situation replacing citizenship will be a feudal relationship - if we are lucky. I say 'if we are lucky' because feudal relationships entailed rights as well as obligations. Good luck if you have to constantly renegotiate with a succession of employers. Even worse luck if you don't even have employers. All we have in Australia are bills like the Victorian bill of Human Rights, which accords the most basic of rights but not the means to attain them. We have no civil rights; we only have whatever is our financial and situational capacity to negotiate. In the absence of a nation state we have statelessness, without rights or place. Our new definition is employed and unemployed, with an overclass known as employers, investors and developers.

As to what we might do about this. A beginning is to talk about it and recognise it.


[1] Whilst protecting the people in Crimea from the kind of thing that has happened in East Ukraine (violence initiated by Kiev), Russia could also be construed as protecting military assets.

On this matter, Putin has said,

” in my conversations with my foreign colleagues I did not hide the fact that our goal was to ensure proper conditions for the people of Crimea to be able to freely express their will. And so we had to take the necessary measures in order to prevent the situation in Crimea unfolding the way it is now unfolding in southeastern Ukraine. We didn’t want any tanks, any nationalist combat units or people with extreme views armed with automatic weapons. Of course, the Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defence forces. They acted in a civil but a decisive and professional manner, as I’ve already said."

Putin continues:

"It was impossible to hold an open, honest, and dignified referendum and help people express their opinion in any other way. Still, bear in mind that there were more than 20,000 well-armed soldiers stationed in Crimea.
In addition, there were 38 S-300 missile launchers, weapons depots and rounds of ammunition. It was imperative to prevent even the possibility of someone using these weapons against civilians. [I.e. there was a safety issue.]"(Source:

I think my original reply may have been lost, and I don't remember exactly what I wrote.

Regarding China, I don't think it matters too much whether Chinese here consider themselves as Chinese or Australian. My argument wasn't so much that Chinese Australian citizens would ask for help, but that China would insist in protecting its assets here. China considers Chinese people elsewhere as "Chinese living abroad". Remember that the Russian seperatists are technically Ukranian too, and whether they consider themselves as such or not. Putin has made a decision. The fact they are not Russian citizens matters not. They are ethnically Russians and thats what counts to Putin, and thats what counts around most of the world. What may happen, is that China offers 'security forces', which may be initially in some 'joint venture' with our police, and from there, who knows. Big things start small.

The power elites are separate from the nation. Cosmopolitan and a class of their own. If anything, national bonds and national sovreignty are mere barriers to be overcome (and the left provide the intellectual basis for overcoming traditional social structures by declaring them obselete and retrograde).

I think our modern world view equips us very poorly to deal with the future (in fact, I think thats why its pushed). Interchangeable populations, communities based on no commonality or shared enterprise, constant dispersal of people, these all disempower people. As does arbitrary group membership and these fake new "communities", such as online communities, mutual interest communities which are replacing more traditional social structures as peoples main form of identification. These all offer little empowerment.

Probably off topic now, and I never intended to specifically support one side over the other regarding the Ukraine. I don't consider Putin 'in the wrong', he's just doing what he needs to do.

There is a good article on Putin and his motives, which may be of interest to some.

DennisK, In my opinion that bloated and outdated (posted 7 April 2014) article about Ukraine that you linked to above is substandard. Could I suggest that, instead of only reading such articles and articles from the lying mainstream media, which gave us 'incubator babies'. 'WMDs', the 'Gulf of Tonkin incident', etc, etc, that you, you also read the articles on candobetter about Ukraine. Also, read the independent media such as Global Research, Voltaire Net, Russia Today, RIA Novosti, PressTV and Land Destroyer. When you do, you will quickly be able to see the 'reporting' in the msm for the lies that they are. -  Ed

See also: China's richest man earmarks $1.7 billion to spend on Australian property SMH (13/8/14), China’s richest man Wang Jianlin commits $1.7b to Australian real estate AFR (13/8/14).

China’s richest man, Wang Jianlin, came to Australia for a whirlwind visit in June, and he was feted by the most senior political figures in the country. Now, his property conglomerate Wanda, which is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, announced that it would invest $HK12.5 billion, or $A1.7 billion, in the Australian real estate sector, including building a $900 million tourist resort on the Gold Coast. Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb welcomed Wanda’s decision which follows on from the explosive investment by Chinese real estate companies in residential property in Australia over the last 12 months.

Chinese buyers’ insatiable appetite for overseas property is one of the major driving forces behind the aggressive investment strategy of major developers. The demand from foreign investors for Australian bricks and mortar is set to intensify for at least three years, driving a boom in apartment construction activity. Around 10 million of the wealthiest Chinese families, or around one in seven, are interested in migrating to Australia, according to a survey conducted by the broker. Tourism & Transport Forum chief executive Trent Zimmerman said the number of Chinese visitors to ­Queensland grew faster than the national average in 2013, rising by 16 per cent to more than 300,000.

A free market economy, based on open borders and international property and immigration, means Australia is "open for business" and is being globalized. For developing countries migration has unprecedented benefits including the transfer of skills and the direct cash benefits of remittance flows as migrants send a proportion of their income back home. This year's remittance flows to developing countries will exceed $436 billion, rising to $516 billion in 2016, or over five times the global foreign aid budget. The removal of tariffs and government subsidies, together with free trade agreements and international wages inequalities was only ever going to end with the loss of jobs and industries. We have lived well and now have been drawn into the capitalists' ultimate dream - pay global workers a pittance and maximise your profits.

The lure of investment in Australian property is because all properties in China are lease-held, which means they have a lease term of 70 years which is obtained via a land grant between the land user and government-run land administration department. After the lease expires, there is no certainty about what will happen to the land. Most of the time, it depends on the sitting government’s policies. In big cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Canton, all of which have huge populations, prices are high and property yields are low. In China it does not matter what grade of commercial real estate you invest in; it is difficult to maintain a return through real estate. Also, the federal government is facing demands from China that it be allowed to import workers for projects funded by Chinese investors as part of the free-trade agreement.

Penny Wong wrote: "A modern, competitive, innovative and productive nation must be open to the world – and engaged with the world. Our approach is to empower more Australians so they can share in the opportunities of an increasingly globalised world". It all sounds fine in economic theory, but the politicians, in spite of the glaring social problems that unfettered globalisation has created, will defend free trade and globalisation and convince the public – that there are no alternatives.

The Trans Pacific Partnership, a secret agreement between 12 nations, will grant to corporations, rights that are above those of individuals, communities and sovereign governments. Corporations will be able to sue governments for lost revenue if they are prevented from doing business based on environmental concerns. Protectionism is a swear word in polite society.

With the release in February of an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report, even Australia has been forced to confront China’s startling economic growth and increasingly assertive territorial demands. It doesn’t name China as a possible aggressor, but paints a worrying picture of the communist country’s amazing growth and its willingness to use growing military might to achieve its aims.

Tensions in the region are already rising. Beijing made headlines in November after declaring an “air defence zone” in the East China. It triggered a Cold War-style standoff with Japan, South Korea and the United States. It is reportedly considering a similar “air defence zone” in the waters between the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam.

A new arms race is exploding into Asia with an expensive and extensive shopping list of new weapons - who's buying what and where does Australia stand