Black Strategies of
South Burnett Regional Council (SBRC)
What were they Thinking?
6th November 2019
"Black strategies" are unofficial hidden strategies, in the same sense that secret operations that governments deny are known as "black ops".

This report shines a spotlight on SBRC's modus operandi. It reveals why SBRC makes so many questionable decisions and it explains why SBRC will continue to make questionable decisions.


Overview

SBRC spews out pretentious waffle about its official policies and strategies, replete with sanctimonious window-dressing about integrity, transparency and accountability.

SBRC's real modus operandi is very different from its boilerplate fiction. Every step of SBRC's way appears to be guided by sophisticated hidden strategies that evade and undermine the regulations that are supposed to protect the public interest.

Observation of SBRC over many years has led Ms Scipio to identify a set of black strategies that support a fundamental philosophy of discrimination that is epitomised by the phrase: "We all know how things are done around here."

Each of SBRC's never-ending questionable decisions and activities can be linked to one or more of these black strategies.

For obvious reasons, black strategies are always denied and are never documented in writing. Proof of their existence can only be circumstantial. The overwhelming proof that these black strategies exist is quite simply that they precisely explain the whole of SBRC's endless litany of questionable decisions and activities.


Discrimination

Discrimination is the name of the game. All of SBRC's questionable decisions and activities are discriminatory.

SBRC's black strategies are the bedrock of SBRC's policies and the blueprint for SBRC's discrimination.

Most of SBRC's discriminatory activities are carried out via the convenient mechanism of a property caste system.

SBRC's black strategies and the property caste system mesh together perfectly, like two cogs in a machine.

SBRC appears to be adept at finding new ways to sidestep the rules and regulations that it is supposed to obey. This means that in the future SBRC may evolve new methods of discrimination.

However there appears to be little chance that SBRC's core strategies will ever change.


top of page    

Black Strategy 1

Give control of SBRC assets and functions to non-democratic non-elected non-accountable non-transparent shadow organisations that are stacked with cronies and stooges, with SBRC retaining some nominal control.

Black Strategy 1
This strategy has multiple purposes:-
  • To preserve a well-established status quo in the South Burnett that is mainly based on a property caste system.
    (Click here to see a detailed report about SBRC's property caste system.)
  • To circumvent democracy by removing policy-making and decision-making from the hands of elected councillors.
  • To give control of council functions and assets to carefully-selected non-elected non-SBRC persons.
  • To conceal activities and information, and to obscure and obstruct public scrutiny.
  • To reduce the accountability of SBRC to the general public.
  • To paper over incompetence among SBRC councillors and staff.
  • To provide smokescreens for preferential dealing and other unconscionable practices.
  • To help to sanitise SBRC's many questionable activities and decisions.

SBRC antics that are explained by the existence of this black strategy:-


  1. Control of SBRC's Private Company Given Away

    A private company owned by SBRC has oversight of a private hospital that is also owned by SBRC. By using a private company for this function, SBRC is able to circumvent local government legislation.

    SBRC gave control of its private company for free to a board of directors, some of whom have vested interests in the healthcare industry. Ratepayers who do not have private health insurance got nothing in return. The directors are appointed by SBRC politicians.

    SBRC's private company is run as a not-for-profit charity. In financial year 2017-18, the charity raised only $2445 in donations and bequests, a low enough amount to indicate that being a charity is probably not the most important purpose of the private company.

    SBRC subsidises its private hospital via its private company. Ratepayers who do not have private health insurance get nothing in return.

    In reality, the main purposes of SBRC's private company appear to be to keep secret from ratepayers as much as possible about the hospital (see Strategy 5 below), to ensure that ratepayers have no say in any matter connected with the hospital, to provide smokescreens that enable the hospital to be operated in a manner that is not in the public interest, and to provide a mechanism for non-SBRC people to spend SBRC's money.

    Click here to see a detailed report about SBRC's private hospital.


  2. Peculiar SBRC Logo Selected by "Local Transition Committee"

    SBRC has a mighty peculiar logo. It looks like it could have been designed by a four-year-old.

    On 23rd April 2008, shortly after SBRC came into existence, a meeting of SBRC voted unanimously to rubber-stamp the adoption of the logo, apparently without any discussion.

    Ms Scipio vaguely remembers reading a media article in 2008 stating that design consultants had been paid $30,000 for creating the new logo. Oddly, documentary evidence of the cost cannot be found on the internet today, so the $30,000 figure must remain unconfirmed for the time being. If it cost more than $10, then the logo would qualify as an example of preferential dealing and of asset stripping. Actually, even $10 would be an excessive amount for what must have been all of five minutes work.

    The thing that is relevant to this particular black strategy is that it seems likely that the design of the logo must have been commissioned before the first SBRC elections took place on 15th March 2008.

    In other words, this black strategy appears to have already been firmly established before the first SBRC elections had even taken place. A "Local Transition Committee" had been in operation prior to the elections in 2008. This is evidence that SBRC's modus operandi already existed before SBRC existed.

    Ms Scipio says that SBRC could easily have chosen a symbol that represents the heritage of the South Burnett, or held an open competition at minimal expense to choose a more appropriate logo.


  3. LGAQ Stooges

    SBRC uses ratepayers' money to pay for membership of LGAQ (Local Government Association of Queensland). LGAQ often lobbies the state government about issues that affect who gets to control local councils.

    For example, LGAQ lobbied the state government to amalgamate smaller local councils, leading to the creation of SBRC in 2008. Considering that LGAQ is driven by politicians, it is no surprise that many politicians did very well out of the amalgamations. More salaried positions and bigger salaries are just some of the benefits to have flowed their way.

    For another example, most mayors oppose the introduction of compulsory preferential voting, which was planned to be implemented in the 2020 council elections. LGAQ obligingly lobbied against it and, lo and behold, the state government caved in and cancelled the plans.

    Another function of LGAQ is to provide consultancy services to councils, presumably because many councils are run by clueless people who are not competent themselves to do the jobs that they are paid to do. Whenever SBRC wants to pretend that it has obtained expert consultancy services in relation to any problematical issue, it seems to turn to LGAQ, who pocket an appropriate fee of course, paid for by ratepayers.

    It seems that LGAQ can be relied on not to rock SBRC's boat.

    For example, LGAQ was commissioned by SBRC to investigate possible uses for a large valuable centrally-located SBRC-owned block of land in Pound Street, Kingaroy. The land was formerly a council depot. SBRC goes to great lengths to pretend that it is trying to find a purchaser for the block. It can safely be predicted that LGAQ will not facilitate the former depot being developed into anything such as a new industry or a large government department headquarters that would bring an influx of new non-farming non-elderly people into the region.


  4. South Burnett Directions

    South Burnett Directions, a non-elected organisation with questionable strategy planning abilities, appears to have been given policy-making powers that should belong to elected SBRC councillors. Also, SBD appears to be attempting to take over other SBRC planning roles.

    Click here to see a detailed report about South Burnett Directions.

    One of SBD's favourite activities is to form sub-committees to consider each issue that it is interested in. Each sub-committee appears to typically include people who have vested interests in whatever issue the sub-committee is looking at. The resulting so-called strategies are actually wish lists, not strategies. Compiling wishlists is not strategy planning.

    SBD appears to behave as if it is an alternative surrogate for SBRC.


  5. Office Space Given Away to South Burnett Directions

    "There will be a coffee shop in front of the town hall", Mayor Carter was quoted as saying in a news report in the South Burnett Times on 26th November 2010.

    In 2011, SBRC spent $2.552 million of grant funding and ratepayers' money on redeveloping the forecourt outside its town hall and offices in Kingaroy. A new building was erected in the forecourt, to be leased to a cafe operator, despite a new cafe not being needed because there were already several cafes in the vicinity, and despite objections from the owners of the nearby cafes.

    The coffee shop had not yet been fitted out when it was realised that everybody at SBRC had completely forgotten to include any water connections or toilet facilities in the new building. This meant that it could not be used as a coffee shop after all.


    For a while, the building sat empty and idle.

    Eventually, lo and behold, by a complete coincidence, it turned out that South Burnett Directions wanted some office space. The building was converted into an office and was gifted to South Burnett Directions, to be shared with SBRC's Office of Economic Development.

    An expensive new "South Burnett Directions" sign appeared outside the building.


    The plan for an unnecessary coffee shop had caused critical comment, but probably not nearly as much opposition as would have been encountered if SBRC had proposed at the outset that it would spend money on a new building which would be gifted to a non-elected non-accountable shadow organisation whose main purpose appears to be to usurp the policy-making roles of democratically-elected councillors.

    This coffee shop saga appears to have all the hallmarks of a typical SBRC con-job. The pattern of events conforms with a pattern that is usually seen in SBRC's asset stripping activities, described below in black strategy 2, so maybe the coffee shop saga really belongs halfway between black strategies 1 and 2.


top of page    

Black Strategy 2

Strip council assets and sell or give them to cronies, with SBRC relinquishing control.

Black Strategy 2
This strategy has two main purposes:-
  • To pork-barrel.
  • To take assets from ratepayers and sell or give them to cronies.

SBRC's asset stripping projects, and also the gift of office space to South Burnett Directions described above in black strategy 1, typically conform to a general pattern, as follows:-
  • An asset of SBRC becomes available for a new use, sometimes for no apparent reason, sometimes for a questionable reason such as SBRC incompetence.
  • Throughout the process, which may take years, all objections are brushed aside. SBRC's propaganda machine is deployed to brainwash ratepayers into believing that SBRC has achieved the best possible outcome for the general public.
  • Demonstrably false and misleading statements are made by politicians.
  • A new user for the asset is found, who SBRC claims will deliver better outcomes than before for ratepayers.
  • In reality, the change will benefit only a subsection of the community, usually either cronies or wealthy people or primary producers.
  • Ratepayers are dudded.

SBRC antics that are explained by the existence of this black strategy:-


  1. Part of Adermann Park Sold to Associates of Deputy Mayor

    On 20th June 2012, local news website southburnett.com.au reported that "This afternoon St John's principal ... [said that] ... former SBRC Mayor David Carter .... floated the idea that the council wanted to look at better uses for its parklands."

    An earlier newspaper article had indicated that it had been decided that a firesale of Kingaroy's parks was to happen. SBRC was claiming that people did not use the parks and that they cost too much to maintain. The article stated that SBRC would either give away the land or sell it for development.

    In 2013, approximately 40% of Adermann Park in Kingaroy was sold to St John's Lutheran School to enable expansion of the school, even though the population of the South Burnett is falling. The public park had been given to the people of Kingaroy many years before and was under the nominal ownership of the Queensland government, with SBRC as trustee. Local residents strongly opposed the sale.

    Click here for more information about the sale of part of Adermann Park.

    Deputy Mayor Campbell, who had a conflict of interest because he was a board member of the school, had properly declared his interest in the matter and had left the council meeting that decided the matter before discussion of it commenced.

    This particular example of asset-stripping was anti-competitive. There are other schools in Kingaroy. They do not get the same favourable treatment.


  2. Adermann Park - Access to Public Reduced Again

    In 2018, SBRC granted St John's Lutheran School part-time exclusive use during schooldays of more than half of what was left of Adermann Park. The opinions of local residents were once again completely ignored.

    Deputy Mayor Campbell, who had a conflict of interest because he was a board member of the school, had by this time become Mayor Campbell.


  3. Three Properties Given Away to CTC

    Three SBRC-owned properties in Wondai were leased to CTC for thirty years at $1 per year.

    On 14th December 2015, local news website southburnett.com.au reported that SBRC had given South Burnett CTC a 30-year lease on three empty shops in Mackenzie Street, Wondai, with options to renew.

    As part of the deal, CTC was obliged to refurbish the buildings at a cost of $150,000. Included in the refurbishment were a new street frontage, false ceilings, external and internal access ramps, internal toilets, a kitchen/tearoom, the installation of a firewall, drainage work, rewiring, repairs to the roof, redecorations and new fittings such as blinds.

    On 18th March 2016, southburnett.com.au quoted CTC's CEO as saying "We always had our eyes on this building, but thanks to [Mayor] Wayne Kratzmann's assistance we managed to persuade Council to lease it to us for a very, very long time for $1 a year".

    There are many people who would like to be given three shops for thirty years, in exchange for only $1 rent a year, with options to renew. This asset stripping was at the expense of SBRC ratepayers who are the real owners of the properties. Meanwhile, SBRC is still the actual owner of the buildings, which means that ratepayers will probably continue to be slugged with the maintenance costs of the buildings for the next several decades, if not for ever.

    Although CTC had to spend $150,000 on refurbishment, CTC got $150,000 worth of value for their money. None of this money went to SBRC or to ratepayers.

    The CEO of CTC was a local VIP who had previously stood as the National Party candidate for the seat of Nanango in the 2004 Queensland state election. Coincidentally, another former National Party candidate for the seat of Nanango was Keith Campbell, who stood in the 2001 state election. At the time of the gift to CTC, he was SBRC's Deputy Mayor. In 2016, he became SBRC's Mayor.

    This is another example of asset stripping that is anti-competitive. CTC's commercial business competitors got nothing.


    CTC operates a large fleet of vehicles. Vehicles with "CTC" number plates can sometimes be seen parked near SBRC's offices, which can be seen in the background of this photo.


  4. SBRC's Private Hospital - Given Away

    SBRC's private company (see Strategy 1 above) leases out SBRC's private hospital to a commercial hospital operator at zero rent.

    Click here to see a detailed report about SBRC's private hospital.

    There was no tendering process. The hospital was gifted to a commercial hospital operator who had just previously provided a consultant to assist SBRC for ten weeks, at a cost to ratepayers of $150,000. The consultant then became the hospital manager.

    SBRC threw a swag of subsidies into the deal (see Strategy 3 below), including paying for building maintenance and capital improvements. Ratepayers have to pay for the upkeep of the private hospital with no prospect of any remuneration in return.

    It has been estimated that less than a quarter of ratepayers have private health insurance. Nevertheless, SBRC is forcing ratepayers who cannot afford private health insurance to subsidise the hospital for the benefit of a minority of wealthy people.

    This is another example of asset stripping that is anti-competitive because SBRC's subsidies ensure that no other commercial hospital operator can consider entering the region.


  5. Gordonbrook Dam - to be Given Away

    Gordonbrook Dam provides the water supply for the town of Kingaroy.

    Proposals have been outlined to give Gordonbrook Dam to irrigators. The proposals would give control of the dam to a non-SBRC organisation, presumably so that after the takeover the dam can never be returned to its rightful owners who are the townspeople of Kingaroy.

    A pretext appears to have been devised to sanitise the plan to steal the water. For many years, the residents of Kingaroy have been conditioned to believe that this is the only way that they can get improved water quality. It is rarely mentioned that part of the plan is for Kingaroy residents to pay through the nose for expensive water from Boondooma Dam.

    There are good scientific reasons to think that the chronic organic pollution of Gordonbrook Dam is probably preventable.

    SBRC has never investigated the sources of the chronic organic pollution of Gordonbrook Dam, despite the fact that a proper scientific investigation into the sources of the pollution would be easy and inexpensive to perform. It is possible that most of the pollution might be being caused by a few feedlots and/or piggeries that might not be containing their effluent. It is wellknown that such effluent can cause algae to flourish.



    It appears that one reason why the pollution has never been investigated is because the existence of the pollution is a convenient excuse to brainwash the residents of the town of Kingaroy into believing that they would be better off if they relinquished Gordonbrook Dam and paid for expensive cleaner water from Boondooma Dam instead.

    Click here to see a report about the apparent plan to steal water rights from Kingaroy residents.


top of page    

Black Strategy 3

Preferentially subsidise primary producers and businesses at the expense of residential and rural residential ratepayers.

Black Strategy 3
This strategy has multiple purposes:-
  • To foster chronic discrimination that is mainly based on a property caste system.
  • To take wealth from some ratepayers and give it to other ratepayers. Rural residential ratepayers are hit the most. Primary producers and businesses benefit the most. Some categories of ratepayers appear to be regarded as cash cows who are there to be milked for the benefit of others.
  • To give private business interests priority over the public interest.
  • To reward cronies and to pork-barrel the majority voting pattern of the South Burnett community.
  • To discourage activities and developments that might attract non-conservative voters to migrate into the South Burnett, which links in with SBRC's black strategy of hindering population growth.

SBRC antics that are explained by the existence of this black strategy:-


  1. Rigged Rates - Preferential Dealing

    There is a massive difference between the rate-in-the-dollar for farming properties and the rate-in-the-dollar for many categories of non-farming properties. As well as discouraging non-farmers from moving into the region, this disparity pork-barrels the farming vote.

    The rating system is designed so that people who own land with a higher unimproved valuation should pay more general rates than people who own land with a lower unimproved valuation. It is as simple as that. Different types of land have a different rate-in-the-dollar, which is supposed to reflect the different costs to a council of providing facilities and services related to the different land types, thus giving rise to a differential system of rates.

    Excluding charges such as water rates that are levied separately, the amount of general rates payable on a block of land depends on its unimproved valuation. The unimproved value of land is a function of its potential to produce income, its location and its amenity. For farming land, the potential to produce income is more important than the location. For residential land, location is the most important factor. For rural residential land, location and amenity are both important.

    On page 43 of the minutes of the special SBRC budget meeting of 25th June 2018 it is stated that "Costs which are not able to be recovered by cost recovery fees, business activity fees or utility charges shall be met by the levying of a general rate ...."

    SBRC's budget document goes on to state that SBRC's rating strategies are determined by, among other things: "the differing levels of demand that some land uses place on the services which Council is required to provide".


    Generally, the more valuable the land, the higher the general rates that are payable. Also, the more services and facilities that a category of land gets, the higher the general rates.

    But not in the South Burnett.

    Currently, for the 2019-20 year, the general rate for primary production land is 1.245852 cents in the dollar, while for rural residential land it is between 1.844120 and 2.327380 cents in the dollar, depending on which area a property is in. For residential town blocks, the rate-in-the-dollar is even higher.

    In the South Burnett, there is no justification for charging rural residential ratepayers, also known as blockies, a higher rate than primary producers, also known as farmers.

    Taking the classic case of Shellytop Road as an example, a property at the farming end of the road pays only 1.245853 cents in the dollar while a property at the rural residential end of the same road has to pay 1.927580 cents in the dollar. This differential should mean that SBRC provides far more services to blockies than to farmers.

    The opposite is actually true.

    The main differences in SBRC expenditure between the two ends of Shellytop Road are that SBRC appears to pay for weed control at the farming end but not at the blockie end, and the farming end has bitumen road access while the blockie end only has inferior gravel road access.

    Also, SBRC systematically fails to enforce the residential building regulations at the blockie end of Shellytop Road, which causes unnecessary sociological problems for law-abiding citizens there, as well as helping to ensure that the number of non-farmers registered on the electoral roll is kept as low as possible.

    Also, SBRC employs staff whose duties are dedicated solely to supporting the agricultural sector, which of course is of benefit only to farmers.

    In effect, there is an even bigger differential in favour of farmers because agricultural businesses can deduct what they pay in rates before calculating their profits. The more rates they pay, the less tax they pay. Rural residential blockies cannot do this because even those who maintain their properties as hobby farms are usually not registered as businesses.


    Click here to see detailed numbers and calculations about SBRC's rigged rates in a report about SBRC's property caste system..

    Taking the whole of the South Burnett together, the multiplier difference between the average rate for rural residential ratepayers and the average rate for primary production ratepayers was:-
    • 1.07 in 2009-10
    • 1.27 in 2013-14
    • 1.60 in 2019-20

    In 2009-10, the average rate for rural residential ratepayers in the South Burnett was 1.07 times the average rate for primary producers. In ten years, the multiplier increased from 1.07 to 1.60.

    These numbers conclusively prove that SBRC has been rigging its rating system to increasingly subsidise farmers at the expense of blockies. This is one of SBRC's biggest bloodsucking scams.

    There is not even the slightest justification for this deliberate discrimination.


    In many other local council areas in Queensland, the rate-in-the-dollar for primary producers is higher than for residential and rural residential ratepayers. For some other councils, the residential and primary producer rates-in-the-dollar are similar.

    Click here to download spreadsheets of the differential rates categories and figures for all local councils in Queensland, from the "Local Government Comparative Reports" page of the website of the Department of Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs.


    The differential rating structure in the South Burnett appears to be completely the wrong way round.

    SBRC appears to misuse the differential rating system to preferentially subsidise primary producers at the expense of all other ratepayers. This is one of the fundamental pillars of SBRC's property caste system.

    Click here to see a detailed report about SBRC's discriminatory property caste system.


  2. Rigged Rates - An Attempt to Increase the Rigged Differential

    At SBRC's meeting on 24th June 2019, Deputy Mayor Duff and Councillor Heit tabled an amendment to increase the difference between the rate-in-the-dollar of farming properties and the rate-in-the-dollar of non-farming properties. They proposed a freeze on any increase in the rate-in-the-dollar for farming properties, while all other rating categories would be increased.

    Fortunately, the other councillors did not agree and on this occasion the attempt was voted down. In any case, SBRC's rigged differential between farming properties and non-farming properties has been steadily increasing ever since SBRC was created and is now excessively bloated.

    This was one of the rare occasions when a vote at a meeting of SBRC was not carried unanimously.

    In the dialogue of the meeting as reported in the local news media, the two councillors referred to "rural rates", "rural sector", "rural ratepayers" and "rural people". It almost seemed as if they were genuinely concerned about all "rural" people, not just about farmers. Don't be fooled. Careful reading of the minutes of the SBRC meeting reveals that their amendment motion referred specifically only to primary producer properties and did not include any of the many rural residential categories of property in the South Burnett.

    Deputy Mayor Duff and Councillor Heit were of course only demonstrating how extremely committed they apparently are to SBRC's black strategy of preferentially subsidising primary producers at the expense of other ratepayers. Their attempted amendment was clearly aimed at securing the votes of farmers in future elections.

    Residential and rural residential ratepayers in the South Burnett often wonder why their rates bills have risen so much since SBRC was created. There is no doubt that much of the increases have been used to keep the rates of primary producers low.

    Residential and rural residential ratepayers in the South Burnett should take careful note of what Deputy Mayor Duff and Councillor Heit tried to do.


  3. Private Hospital - Preferential Dealing

    A swag of subsidies for Kingaroy's private hospital is paid for by all ratepayers regardless of whether they have or can afford private health insurance.

    Click here to see detailed information about ratepayer-funded subsidies for the private hospital.

    (See also Strategy 1 above for information about how SBRC gives control of its activities to non-elected non-SBRC cronies and stooges.)
    (See also Strategy 2 above for information about how SBRC strips its assets and gives them to cronies.)
    (See also Strategy 5 below for information about the systematic concealment of information by SBRC.)

    SBRC conceals how much money it spends on maintaining the hospital buildings and how much money it spends on administrative matters related to the hospital. When some details of expenditure do emerge, which sometimes happens when newsworthy information has leaked to the media, monetary figures are usually absent.

    For example, in early 2019 there were media reports about legionella contamination at the private hospital. Subsequently, on page 19 of the minutes of the SBRC meeting held on 20th February 2019 it is stated about the hospital:-
    ".. pipework system contamination with Legionella (waterbourne (sic) bacteria) is being managed by Council and South Bank Day Surgery. To date Council has installed filters on the tapes (sic) and shower roses within the area utilised for day surgery, administration and doctor consultation rooms. Council has engaged contractors to monthly flush cold and hot water lines and monthly water testing. Water Quality Management plan is being implemented ..."
    Every ratepayer shares the cost of all this.

    Also, on the same page in the SBRC minutes it is stated that:-
    "Safety switches have been upgraded to electrical switchboards in Kingaroy Administration Office, Nanango Depot and Lady Bjelke Petersen Community Hospital."

    There are salary costs incurred by two SBRC councillors and a council officer spending part of their working time as members of the board of SBRC's private company.

    There are operational costs incurred by SBRC unnecessarily operating a private company.

    There are also potentially massive costs associated with the hospital that SBRC ratepayers might some day have to pay. There are several things that could potentially go wrong. For example, if there were damages claims due to inadequate maintenance of the hospital then SBRC would be liable, because SBRC is responsible for maintenance of the hospital. A local council should not be exposing ratepayers to unnecessary financial risks that have nothing to do with local government.


  4. Airport - Preferential Dealing

    Subsidies for Kingaroy Airport have been paid by all ratepayers, even though the airport benefits only a small number of people and is not an essential asset for the community.


  5. Haulage Business - Preferential Dealing

    A haulage business is allowed by SBRC to operate in a residential area where it causes a nuisance to residents.

    The trucking business had been established at a residential property in Brooklands, Nanango, in contravention of zoning rules. Instead of taking action against the proprietors, at a meeting on 21st March 2018 SBRC unanimously approved a development permit for a "Material Change of Use Transport Station", allowing the haulage business to continue operating at the site.

    A list of conditions were attached to the approval. Some of the conditions seemed questionable, for example limiting the number of truck movements to eight per calendar week between the hours of 10pm and 6am. This condition was a remarkable slap in the face for residents, considering that some residents had complained of being woken in the night by truck noise, and considering that there are only seven days in a week. Somebody at SBRC must have been having a laugh.

    The special dispensation granted by SBRC to a haulage business is an example of SBRC's property caste system.

    Click here to see a detailed report about SBRC's property caste system.

    Residential ratepayers and rural residential ratepayers are treated as second-class citizens. SBRC gives preferential treatment to farmers, businesses and cronies.


  6. RADF - Preferential Dealing

    RADF (Regional Arts Development Fund) is locally administered and funded by SBRC. Grants in support of the arts, received by SBRC from the state government, are added into RADF coffers.

    In February 2015, SBRC's RADF Committee decided to fund an arts project with a $25,000 grant to two lucky artists. Just like that.

    There does not appear to have been any kind of competitive tendering process.

    The project was about photographing and painting iconic scenes in the South Burnett.

    The results were exhibited. A limited-edition booklet was published, but it does not appear to have sold well. Copies of it were later given away for free in Kingaroy Library. Although the booklet was printed on high-quality paper, the artworks inside it appeared to be rather ordinary.

    It appears that many people with a quality camera could produce better photographs, and there appear to be plenty of artists who could paint better pictures.

    Ratepayers seem to have been dudded. Without having to be paid thousands of dollars, many good artists have painted scenes of the South Burnett. Many good photographers have photographed the region.

    Better results for ratepayers could have been achieved at a much lower cost by offering modest cash prizes in an open competition.

    This RADF arts project appears to have all the hallmarks of SBRC preferential dealing.


  7. Environmental Levy (now abolished) - Preferential Dealing

    The Environmental Levy was abolished at the same time as the Road Levy was abolished, when a class action was looming against the Road Levy.

    The Environmental Levy preferentially subsidised weed control for farmers at the expense of residential and rural residential ratepayers.

    Most economists agree that agricultural support schemes do not increase agricultural production. All they do is simply add to the wealth of farmers.


  8. Road Levy (now abolished) - Preferential Dealing

    The $200-per-property Road Levy was abolished when a class action was threatened against it. It preferentially subsidised roads in farming areas at the expense of residential and rural residential ratepayers.

    This type of levy raises taxes per property, rather than according to property value. It is a step towards taxing per person, known as a poll tax. Such levies are used to circumvent the long-established local government rating system in which rates for general services are intended to be levied according to property value.

    Many rightwing politicians support per-property taxes and poll taxes because they force poor people to pay as much tax as wealthy people. Margaret Thatcher is a famous politician whose career went rapidly downhill after she attempted to replace the UK's property rates system with a poll tax.


  9. Roads - Preferential Dealing

    Even without its precious road levy, SBRC spends big on roads in farming areas, while residents in non-farming rural areas get substandard roads.

    SBRC expenditure on roads in the 2018-19 year did not decrease, despite large subsidies having been received by SBRC in grants from the Queensland Government's "Works for Queensland" program for works such as gravel resheeting of specific gravel roads. The subsidies were additional expenditure on top of what SBRC would normally have spent.

    The subsidies were for work on gravel roads. Not many people have noticed, but the ratepayer-funded money that would normally have been spent on these gravel roads was still spent, but not on these roads.

    Instead, the money must have been spent elsewhere on bitumen roads in addition to the money that would normally have been spent on them. If the money that would normally have been spent on the gravel roads had been added to the grant money received for them, then some of the busiest unsealed gravel roads in the western rural residential subdivisions could easily have been upgraded to bitumen.

    In other words, SBRC obtained government grants to fix specific neglected rural gravel roads, but preferentially transferred part of the benefit to other roads of its own choosing.



    Click here to see a detailed report about Shellytop Road near Durong, the most blatant example of SBRC's preferential dealing with respect to roads. The low-traffic western end of Shellytop Road has 1 km of good bitumen that services only one residence, belonging to one of SBRC's VIPs, while the busy eastern end, which services many residences, has unsealed gravel.

    Other busy rural residential gravel roads that are long overdue for upgrade to bitumen are T H Burns Road, Coverty Road and Glencoe Road. These three roads are linked together and connect the Chinchilla-Wondai Road with the Proston-Boondooma Road.


  10. Spending from SBRC Reserves - Preferential Dealing

    From time to time, SBRC dips into its financial reserves, usually to fund big ticket items of expenditure.

    There should be no problem with doing this, but the way that SBRC does it is usually questionable.

    For a start, SBRC always pretends that money taken out of its financial reserves costs ratepayers nothing. It is a fact that each dollar taken out of SBRC reserves costs ratepayers exactly one dollar.

    Financial reserves are built up from rates paid by all ratepayers. The problem is that some categories of ratepayer never get anything in return for the money that they contribute to reserves, while other categories of ratepayer receive far more than they contribute.

    This should not happen. For example, if SBRC has funded $5 million of the cost of a water treatment plant from reserves, then the $5 million should be returned to reserves over several years from the water rates paid by those who receive the benefit of the treatment plant.

    Many of the projects that SBRC funds from its reserves are located in towns, for example streetscapes and water treatment plants. It has also been revealed that SBRC uses its depreciation fund to pay for building works and services at its private hospital, which is of benefit only to people who have private health insurance.

    The rates that SBRC levies should to some extent reflect SBRC's expenditures from its reserves, but they do not appear to do so. For example, rural residential ratepayers never appear to receive any benefit from SBRC's use of its reserves, yet their rates are inexplicably high.

    SBRC's financial reserves provide a rich source of funds for SBRC to use in its preferential dealing activities. The existence of reserves provides SBRC with a mechanism for transferring wealth from some groups of people to others. The chronic secrecy that surrounds all SBRC's financial dealings prevents this issue from being analysed fully.


top of page    

Black Strategy 4

Social engineering - hinder population growth in the South Burnett and increase the proportion of elderly people in the population.

Black Strategy 4
This strategy has a single purpose - to maintain an electorate with a conservative majority.

https://profile.id.com.au/south-burnett contains statistics that show that the South Burnett has a stagnant economy, its population is falling and it has falling residential and rural residential property values. Meanwhile, most of the rest of southeast Queensland is booming and has expanding populations. The population of Australia as a whole is growing at an annual rate of 1.6%.

An example of the South Burnett's stagnant economy is that the postcode of 4611 in the South Burnett is, according to the taxation office, the lowest earning postcode in Queensland and the second lowest earning postcode in Australia.

The majority conservative voting pattern of the South Burnett region is associated with farmers and retirees.

The number of commercial farmers cannot be increased because, without subdivision, the number of farms cannot be increased because new land cannot be created. Also, there is a tendency for younger members of farming families to leave the region to follow careers in other fields.

At present, the people who do voluntarily migrate into the South Burnett are mostly quite likely to have rightwing tendencies, for two reasons. Firstly, many left-leaning people are appalled by the region's well-deserved reputation of being a rightwing reactionary stronghold, so they are not attracted to the region. Secondly, there is a preponderance of elderly retirees among those who do choose to make the move to the South Burnett. Senior citizens tend to be more conservative than younger people.

Hypothetical scenarios that might significantly expand the population of the South Burnett tend to involve an influx of people who are not farmers and who are younger than retirees. If some sort of hypothetical major new development attracted a large number of outsiders into the region then the new faces would probably not be as likely to be as conservative as the pre-existing population.

There are many types of large administrative and industrial and residential developments that might lead to an increase in the region's population. If a substantial number of new non-farming non-elderly residents migrated into the South Burnett then, as the population increased, the region's current conservative majority could eventually become a minority.

Such a demographic shift would probably be irreversible. Any increase in the South Burnett's population presents an existential threat to the region's electoral status quo. Hence the rationale for this strategy.

SBRC antics that are explained by the existence of this black strategy:-


  1. Unapproved Dwellings - Blind Eye - A Residential Deterrent

    SBRC systematically turns a blind eye to large numbers of breaches of the residential building regulations in rural residential subdivisions in SBRC's electoral Division Six. SBRC's Division Six is approximately the former Wondai Shire.

    Click here to see a detailed report about unapproved dwellings in Division Six.

    A result of SBRC's wilfull negligence is that most property owners there are either unable to enrol on the South Burnett electoral register because their main residence is elsewhere, or they are able to enrol but are unwilling to do so because they live in an unapproved dwelling and wish to minimise any official evidence of their presence.

    If SBRC did enforce the building regulations, then the rural residential subdivisions would be much more attractive to law-abiding people willing to invest their money and lives in proper residential development. If properly-approved dwellings were the norm, then there would be potentially hundreds of extra non-farming non-elderly residents whose names would have to be added to the South Burnett electoral roll. The extra voters would all be in one electoral division of SBRC, Division Six, meaning that there might no longer be a guaranteed conservative majority for the Division Six seat on the council.

    It is a legislative requirement that all councillors have the responsibility of ensuring that a local government discharges its responsibilities under the local government acts. In relation to the building codes, SBRC councillors appear to deliberately ignore this. They draw their salaries under false pretences.


  2. Roads - Preferential Dealing - A Residential Deterrent

    SBRC gives preference in its funding for road maintenance to properties in upper caste areas at the expense of properties in residential and rural residential areas, such as in the rural residential subdivisions in SBRC's electoral Division Six.

    Click here to see a detailed report about the classic example of Shellytop Road which has good bitumen for one residence at the favoured end and poorly-maintained gravel for dozens of properties at the other end.


  3. Obstacles Placed Against Wind and Solar Farms

    Obstacles are placed against new developments in the South Burnett unless a new development will either utilise mainly local people or will bring conservative people into the region.

    For example, in 2019 SBRC attempted to block the development of a new solar farm.
    (For details, see Strategy 7 below.)

    Wind farms and solar farms are typical of the types of modern new developments that might bring progressive outsiders into the region. In its 2019-20 budget, SBRC raised the rates for wind farms and solar farms by approximately 250%, to levels that are now twenty times the rate for similar primary production land. This is proof that SBRC does not want progressive developments in the South Burnett.

    Any development that utilises farming land is anathema to SBRC. SBRC claims that such developments use prime cropping land and therefore cannot possibly be allowed. The LNP assists SBRC in this regard by ensuring that Queensland has laws that protect prime cropping land from development.

    What SBRC is actually worried about is that when farmland is developed, whether for housing or for a solar farm or for some other purpose, the number of farming families in the South Burnett marginally decreases and outsiders move into the region. New developments on farmland gradually erode the South Burnett's conservative majority, and so SBRC blocks everything that it can.

    There is no economic justification for SBRC's resistance to renewable energy projects. In the current energy environment, the use of farmland for renewable energy projects may well be a better option in many cases than farming the land. It is a scientific fact that a solar farm is many times more efficient at solar energy conversion than a biofuel farm of the same size. Also, during times of drought, solar farms remain viable while primary producers demand subsidies.

    After comparing all the rates figures outlined in Strategy 7 below, any farmers or developers who might be thinking of renewable energy projects as a better way of using land will be scratching their heads and thinking again. If this is SBRC's attitude to progressive developments now, how much worse will it be in five years or ten years time?


  4. The Memerambi Mess - A Residential Deterrent

    At SBRC's meeting on 6th April 2011, SBRC granted a special dispensation to a property developer, allowing the developer to build and sell houses in Memerambi Estate before constructing essential infrastructure.

    Click here to see a detailed report about the Memerambi Mess.


    It is wellknown that property developers can go bust, for quite a wide variety of reasons. SBRC's discretionary dispensation created an unnecessary risk. The fact that the risk was unnecessary raises a suspicion that something was not right. It suggests that SBRC may have had a hidden agenda.

    In its conditions, SBRC specified that no certificates of occupancy would be issued until funded plans to complete all necessary infrastructure were in place.

    The developer then proceeded to build and sell houses, without constructing essential infrastructure.

    Eventually the developer became insolvent. Buyers of the new houses were left high and dry with houses that they could not complete because they were not permitted to occupy them. The house owners faced massive bills, first to pay for infrastructure and then to complete their houses, even though they had already made substantial payments to the developer.

    Some home buyers were financially ruined in the fiasco.


    There is a mystery surrounding a clause in the amended development approval. On page 8 of the minutes of SBRC's meeting held on 6th April 2011, condition GEN6 states:-
    " Provide an unconditional bank guarantee to the value of 1.5 times the estimated value of the uncompleted works as certified by a Consulting Engineer. "

    What happened to the bank guarantee?

    The way that SBRC's conditions were worded did not oblige the developer to supply a bank guarantee until infrastructure was substantially completed. Of course, by then a bank guarantee would no longer serve any purpose. Therefore it appears that, from the outset, the bank guarantee was an irrelevant nonsense.


    The mention of a bank guarantee in the development approval conditions may have given a false impression to home buyers that they were protected. In reality, by setting nonsensical conditions concerning the bank guarantee, SBRC appears to have deliberately ensured that there could be little possibility of there being a bank guarantee to cover the costs of infrastructure.

    The nonsensical nature of SBRC's conditions concerning the bank guarantee substantially reinforces a suspicion that the Memerambi Mess was deliberately orchestrated.

    The purpose of the disaster appears to have been to hinder population growth in the South Burnett.

    The Memerambi Mess had the effect of slowing down the rate of migration of non-farming non-elderly residents into the South Burnett. Increasing numbers of such people threaten the conservative voting majority in the region.

    The Memerambi Mess also destroyed confidence in the South Burnett as a place for investment in residential development.


    There is a further twist to the interpretation of the approval conditions relating to the bank guarantee.

    It appears that a literal interpretation of the wording of SBRC's conditions means that a bank guarantee to cover the cost of infrastructure should have been obtained by SBRC from the developer before the construction of houses commenced.

    This literal interpretation of the conditions means that it would appear that SBRC might be legally liable for negligence because SBRC did not obtain the bank guarantee but did allow houses to be built.

    It would be interesting to see how a court of law would rule on whether the conditions set by SBRC should have prevented the construction of houses until a bank guarantee sufficient to cover infrastructure had been obtained from the developer. This issue does not appear to have ever been tested in a court of law.


  5. Pound Street Depot - No Big Developments Wanted Here

    SBRC appears to be going out of its way to ensure that the former council depot in Pound Street, Kingaroy, will not fall into the hands of any enterprise that might attract a large number of new people to migrate into the region.

    Despite being on the market since 2016, so far all that SBRC has managed to do with the property is to lease it for six months for the purpose of "equipment and material storage". This poses no risk of the property causing an increase in the population of the South Burnett.


  6. SBRC Discrimination Favours Retirees

    Most of the children of elderly people are grown up and lead their own lives, so they do not live with their parents. Also, elderly people seldom give birth to new children. Also, senior citizens tend to be more conservative than younger people. These attributes make elderly people ideal as residents of the South Burnett.

    To encourage elderly people to occupy as many of the South Burnett's houses as possible, SBRC unnecessarily gives a $200 rates discount to ratepayers who receive a Centrelink age pension. SBRC's rates discount is equal to and is in addition to the age pensioner discount that is financed by the state government, giving a total annual discount of $400 to eligible ratepayers. Self-funded retirees do not qualify for the SBRC pensioner rates discount or for the state government pensioner rates discount.

    Also, to ensure that the South Burnett continues to be a particularly attractive place for elderly people to live, SBRC gives preferential treatment to organisations that provide aged-care facilities and/or housing for the elderly, for example organisations such as South Burnett CTC and SB Care.

    Ratepayers who do not qualify for the pensioner rates discount are subsidising the ratepayers who do qualify. This is particularly unfair to self-funded retirees who are forced by SBRC to subsidise Centrelink age pensioners. Residential and rural residential ratepayers pay a disproportionate amount of the subsidy because their rates (per dollar valuation) are set much higher than the rates of primary producers and businesses.

    According to website https://profile.id.com.au/south-burnett, nearly a quarter of the population of the South Burnett is now aged over 64. This unusually high proportion of elderly people indicates that SBRC's black strategy of hindering population growth is proving to be highly successful.

    In any local council that had genuine integrity, such a high proportion of elderly people would result in a cessation of unnecessary and unjustifiable ratepayer subsidies for elderly people. The state gives pensioners a $200-per-year rates subsidy and SBRC gives pensioners an additional $200-per-year rates subsidy. There is no justification in the public interest to continue SBRC's additional subsidy. Pensioners are already well-subsidised by the state.


  7. No Refugees

    SBRC firmly resists all suggestions that it might participate in refugee resettlement programs. This attitude not only fits with SBRC's black strategy of hindering population growth, but it also seems to go down well with conservative voters in the region.


  8. Rigged SBRC Rates - A Residential Deterrent

    There is a massive unfair difference between the rates of farmers and the rates of non-farmers (see Strategy 3 above). As well as pork-barrelling the farming vote, this discourages non-farmers from moving into the region.


  9. Taabinga Downs Estate - SBRC Attempted to Knock it Back

    The Taabinga Downs Estate saga is a good example of SBRC resistance to all developments that would increase the population of the South Burnett, even when a development would probably increase the conservative majority in the region.

    One of the rare occasions when SBRC councillors did not vote unanimously occurred in 2014 when the council split 4-3 on the subject of approving plans for Taabinga Downs Estate, a staged development of 256 relocatable homes. Initially, the vote was 4-3 against, but a later vote reversed the earlier decision and approved the development 4-3. The change of mind happened after one councillor became convinced that SBRC would not have a leg to stand on if the developer decided to lodge an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.

    At first glance, SBRC's final decision to give the project the go-ahead appears to be in contravention of SBRC's black strategy to hinder population growth. However, the development was restricted to residents over fifty years of age. It was only for elderly people, many of whom would be retirees, a demographic group that is perfectly acceptable for the status quo in the South Burnett, because elderly people tend to be conservative. And every year of course, all the residents would get a year older, making them even more suitable.

    Nevertheless, nearly half of the councillors remained strongly opposed to the development.

    One councillor used the derogatory phrase "trailer trash" in a tirade against it, even though a relocatable home is neither a caravan nor a trailer nor a mobile home. Relocatable homes are actually proper dwellings. They are prefabricated at a mass-production facility, which minimises their cost, and are then transported by road on the back of a large truck, in the same way that old timber queenslander houses are relocated.


  10. Economic Development Dept - Amazing Lack of Developments

    It was recently reported in the media that SBRC currently spends $800,000 a year on its so-called Economic Development Department, which seems to spend most of its resources on the tourism industry. It is debatable whether the department serves any useful purpose. Considering that the department has such a large budget, it is surprising that it does not attract new industries to the region.

    The logical conclusion is that the department must either be using its resources to deter new industries or is spending its budget on preferential subsidies. In the public interest, the money could certainly be better spent elsewhere, for example on sealing busy unsealed roads.

    SBRC spends a lot of time and ratepayers' money on promoting the tourism industry in the South Burnett. Tourism businesses do not threaten the status quo in the region because there is little potential for expansion which would attract new younger players. Also, the proprietors of many tourism enterprises in the region are well-connected to old-established families, to farming businesses and to politicians. Also, tourism helps to introduce elderly retirees to the region.


  11. Haulage Business - A Residential Deterrent

    The nuisance to residents caused by a haulage business being permitted by SBRC to operate in a residential area (for details, see Strategy 3 above) is an example of the South Burnett's property caste system. Town and rural residential ratepayers are treated as second-class citizens.

    SBRC's property caste system discourages ordinary people from being residents of the South Burnett.


top of page    

Black Strategy 5

Conceal every activity and expenditure that can legally be concealed, regardless of what is in the public interest.

Black Strategy 5
The purposes of concealing from public scrutiny as much as possible of SBRC's activities are:-
  • Generally, to avoid public scrutiny.
  • In particular, to conceal activities that are questionable.
  • To minimise public debate about questionable activities.
  • To make questionable activities appear acceptable.
  • To make SBRC propaganda seem more plausible.

SBRC antics that are explained by the existence of this black strategy:-


  1. Private Company Conceals Dealings

    SBRC gave control of its private hospital to a private company which is also owned by SBRC (see Strategy 1 above).

    The private company gifted the hospital to a commercial hospital operator (see Strategy 2 above).

    A private company does not suffer the same level of public scrutiny as a local council, even when the private company is wholly owned by the local council. SBRC abuses this loophole in the law to conceal much of SBRC's dealings in relation to the private hospital.

    Click here to see detailed information about scams related to SBRC's private hospital and private company.

    The minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of SBRC's private company are hidden from public scrutiny. Although some reports concerning the private hospital are tendered at SBRC meetings, this is now always done in secret closed sessions. The public can no longer learn anything accurate about the hospital.

    For example, on page 29 of the minutes of the SBRC meeting of 16th January 2019, it is stated:-
    Confidential Section
    14.1 CONF - 2562687 - South Burnett Community Hospital Foundation Limited
    Reason for Confidentiality
    This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 275(1)(h)
    of the Local Government Regulation 2012,
    which permits the meeting to be closed to the public ....
    ....
    Resolution:
    Moved Cr DA Potter, seconded Cr RJ Frohloff.
    That the information report on South Burnett Community Hospital Foundation Limited meeting of 20 November 2018 be received.
    Carried 7/0
    FOR VOTE - Councillors voted unanimously

    The following month, on page 36 of the minutes of the SBRC meeting of 20th February 2019, it is stated:-
    14.3 CONF - 2572322 - South Burnett Community Hospital Foundation Limited
    Reason for Confidentiality
    This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 275(1)(h) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public ....
    ....
    Resolution:
    Moved Cr DA Potter, seconded Cr RLA Heit.
    That the information report on South Burnett Community Hospital Foundation Limited be received
    Carried 7/0
    FOR VOTE - Councillors voted unanimously

    The information contained in this report was too secret to be released. It may have been related to a legionella outbreak at the private hospital. Earlier in the same minutes had been a brief description of works carried out by SBRC at the hospital, partly due to the legionella outbreak. No costs were revealed.


  2. No Detailed Breakdowns of Operating Expenditures

    In its financial reporting, SBRC avoids publishing detailed breakdowns of its expenditures. Costs are aggregated into general categories. It is impossible to discover in any detail how SBRC has spent its massive budget. It would be in the public interest for SBRC to publish exactly how much money it spends on procuring the services of specific businesses and consultants.

    For example, how much of ratepayers' money is paid to a local SBRC-friendly news website? Also, what do ratepayers get in return for their money?

    For example, under the terms of its agreement with the commercial operator of SBRC's private hospital, has SBRC paid the operator any money in compensation for any losses incurred while running the hospital?

    It would be very much in the public interest to have access to detailed information about SBRC's expenditures. If SBRC always acted with integrity, it would have no problem with publishing this information. The fact that it is impossible for the general public to find out this sort of information indicates that SBRC probably has little integrity, and the reason that it conceals information is probably because it has much to hide.

    For example, local politicians have claimed that SBRC's private hospital is cost-neutral for ratepayers, an assertion that is so demonstrably false and ridiculous that it proves that these politicians lack either competence or integrity or both.

    Click here to see details of SBRC's deceitful cost-neutral hospital scam.


  3. No Detailed Breakdowns of Capital Expenditures

    SBRC's capital expenditure and budget reports are a relatively recent addition to the list of items of public interest that SBRC conceals from public scrutiny.

    SBRC used to include a capital expenditure report in the minutes of its meetings at quarterly intervals. This information now only appears once a year, in SBRC's annual report. In SBRC minutes, quarterly capex reports have now been replaced with something like:-
    "Moved .... ... That in accordance with Section 170(3)
    of the Local Government Regulation 2012
    the revised 2018/2019 operational and capital financial budgets be adopted.
    FOR VOTE - Councillors voted unanimously"

    The capital expenditure reports themselves are no longer included in the minutes, so ratepayers can no longer monitor what SBRC is doing with its capital expenditures.

    What is SBRC so anxious to hide?


  4. Secret Closed Sessions

    SBRC abuses a loophole in the regulations to enable it to conceal many of its dealings from the public.

    At meetings of a local council, the council is permitted to go into closed session to discuss some categories of its business. This is supposed to happen only when there is a genuine reason to keep a matter confidential.

    However, SBRC goes into closed session for many matters that should, in the public interest, be open to scrutiny. If a matter fits into any of the categories for which a closed session can potentially be used, then a closed session will be invoked, regardless of whether there is any genuine reason to keep the matter confidential.

    SBRC clearly has a modus operandi of deliberately concealing information that ought in the public interest not to be concealed.

    SBRC invokes closed sessions for most land sales, granting of leases, discussion of tenders, construction contracts, matters related to SBRC's private hospital and matters involving legal issues.


  5. Spin Doctors

    SBRC employs staff whose only duties are to write reports and to liaise with the media. For example, in July 2019 SBRC advertised a vacant position for a Communications Officer.
    "An exciting opportunity exists for an enthusiastic individual to promote and deliver professional communications and engagement services that support Council's communication strategy using a variety of media including print and radio as well as social media.
    Mandatory:
    - Extensive experience in research, journalism, public relations, advertising and report writing."

    One of the most important tasks of SBRC's spin doctors is to ensure that reports published by independent news media contain only versions of events that match SBRC's official versions of events.

    Spin doctors at SBRC have a conflict of interest. These public servants have to produce the blah that they are instructed to produce, or lose their jobs. They are certainly not in a position to act in the public interest.

    It is not possible to count the number of spin doctors employed by SBRC. Only the topmost level of SBRC's organisational structure is visible on SBRC's website, despite much propaganda produced by SBRC about how transparent and accountable SBRC is.

    Before the creation of SBRC, senior figures in local councils in the South Burnett used to write their own reports and perform their own liaison with the press. Now, incumbent politicians have a team of professional spin doctors at their disposal to produce reports that are little more than propaganda and grandiose drivel. Ratepayers have to pay for not only the questionable costs of employing professional politicians, but also for the unnecessary luxury of employing spin doctors who specialise in weaving SBRC's tissues of fantasy.


top of page    

Black Strategy 6

Control of the media.

Black Strategy 6
This strategy has multiple purposes:-
  • To provide SBRC politicians with propaganda at call.
  • To brainwash the public.
  • To suppress dissent.
  • To obstruct public scrutiny.
  • To obscure facts.
  • To provide smokescreens for preferential dealing and other unconscionable practices.
  • To sanitise the fleecing of ratepayers.

Media organisations where SBRC may have influence:-


  1. South Burnett Online

    Southburnett.com.au is a popular local website. It appears to have close connections with SBRC. For example, one page of the website is devoted to "SBRC News".

    It is not known for certain, but It seems probable that SBRC pays the website or its associates for various services. The amount of money paid by SBRC to individual businesses is kept hidden from public scrutiny.

    As at August 2019, the domain name southburnett.com.au was registered to South Burnett Local Government Association Incorporated, with Fair Go Communications Pty Ltd listed as the contact name.

    South Burnett Local Government Association (SBLGA) was originally a joint enterprise between several local councils including SBRC. There appears to be substantial rightwing political influence within SBLGA. For example, Warren Truss was president of SBLGA in 1984-85 and in 1989-90. He was elected to the federal House of Representatives for Wide Bay in 1990, and held the seat until 2016. He was parliamentary leader of the National party from 2007 to 2016, and Deputy Prime Minister from 2013 to 2016.

    The southburnett.com.au website's main focus appears to be publishing local news articles and information about forthcoming local events. News stories are often informative, but not comprehensive. There is rarely any deep analysis of events, although the website does often link back to earlier reports that may be related to a current news story. In recent years, the website has included greater coverage of regional issues in addition to its local focus.

    A continuing strong connection between the website and rightwing politics is suggested by the fact that it frequently provides coverage of Deb Frecklington, the current leader of the LNP and local member in the state parliament.

    The website's treatment of SBRC is always favourable. Its news stories about SBRC appear to generally present SBRC in a more favourable light than is justifiable. The website never seems to question any of the many questionable pronouncements made by SBRC politicians.

    Visitors to the website can upload comments about news stories. However, visitor comments that are unflattering to SBRC or to rightwing politicians seem to be rare.


    Example 1: A report about a court action related to the Memerambi Mess.

    (Click here to see a detailed report about the Memerambi Mess.)

    In a case heard in the Planning and Environment Court on 26th June 2013, where SBRC was seeking a summary judgement against victims of the Memerambi Mess who were seeking an order to compel SBRC to pay for required infrastructure at a failed housing development, the judge stated:-
    "Although these allegations clearly call into question the conduct of the [SBRC] and give rise to potential claims for negligence, the issue before me is whether the conduct of the [SBRC] falls within the jurisdiction of this court ..."
    The judge found that the conduct of SBRC did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court because:-
    "although the [SBRC] may well have been negligent it is not the case that it has acted unlawfully."
    The judge went on to state that:-
    " ... the negotiated decision notice of the [SBRC] which enabled building works to commence before operational works had been completed has been a major contributor to the dispute before the court. In these circumstances I decline to make an order as to costs."

    In other words, although SBRC was a major contributor to the dispute and may have acted negligently, the court did not have jurisdiction to compel SBRC to make good the disaster, because SBRC had not acted unlawfully.

    On 3rd June 2015, in a news article about the Memerambi Mess, website southburnett.com.au stated that:- "While the Council was eventually cleared of any blame in the matter ..."

    Whether SBRC was guilty of negligence in the matter has never been tested in a court of law. All that the Planning and Environment Court did was to establish that SBRC did not break any laws. The Planning and Environment Court did not clear SBRC of blame for the Memerambi Mess. No court has ever cleared SBRC of blame for the Memerambi Mess.

    The news website's article appears to have presented SBRC in a more favourable light than was justifiable because no court has ever cleared SBRC "of any blame in the matter".


    Example 2: A report about a rise in SBRC rates for solar farms and wind farms.

    In its budget for the 2019-20 year, SBRC increased the rate-in-the-dollar for solar farms and wind farms by approximately 250%. (See example 3 in Strategy 7 below for more details.)

    In an article about rate rises published on 24th June 2019, the news website stated that:-
    "Rates for wind farms generating more than 200MW will rise by 50 per cent (from $160,000 to $240,000 per annum) - but all wind and solar farm categories have also risen."

    What the news website appears to have done was to report the rise in the minimum rate for a category of wind farm, without pointing out that this was the rise in the minimum rate and not the rise in the rate-in-the-dollar. In reality, the rate-in-the-dollar for all wind farms and solar farms had risen by an extraordinary 250%, not 50%.

    Assuming that rate rises are generally considered by the public to be an unfavourable aspect of local government, the news article appears to have presented SBRC in a more favourable light than was justifiable because it gave the impression that rate rises for wind farms and solar farms were only one fifth of what they actually were.

    Also, the news report did not mention the newsworthy fact that in the South Burnett the rate-in-the-dollar for solar farms was now twenty times that for primary production land, which might be similar land right next door. The news article appears to have presented SBRC in a more favourable light than was justifiable because it did not report something that appears to be highly questionable.


    In summary, southburnett.com.au is sometimes informative, but appears to be sometimes unreliable when reporting issues related to SBRC. Southburnett.com.au appears to be closely aligned with SBRC and appears to provide a favourable platform for rightwing politicians.


  2. South Burnett Times

    It should be pointed out that some information in this section could become out-of-date without kingaroar.com knowing about it, because nobody associated with kingaroar.com any longer maintains a subscription for the South Burnett Times. This means that kingaroar.com reads only a small proportion of all the issues of the South Burnett Times that are published. So, if anybody notices something of interest in the paper then they are welcome to alert kingaroar.com by sending details via the email address in the contact link at the bottom of this page.

    The South Burnett Times is published twice weekly. It is the main local newspaper in the South Burnett. SBRC spends quite a lot of money on advertisements in it. The actual amounts are not known because SBRC does not publish detailed accounts of its expenditure. SBRC sometimes buys full-page adverts to spread its messages.

    SBRC usually receives favourable coverage. Sometimes there is mild criticism of SBRC, but it is never severe. The South Burnett Times generally gives local politicians quite a lot of coverage. Like many other news organisations, its coverage of events does not appear to always be of reliable quality. Occasionally the accuracy of its reporting has been questionable.

    Before the age of the internet, the South Burnett Times was the dominant news outlet in the South Burnett. It is suspected that it is now gradually losing circulation. It may be becoming irrelevant to some categories of people. It is possible that many of the people who read the paper only do so because of ingrained habit.

    The newspaper appears to be experimenting with a paywall for its website. Its website gives the impression that the South Burnett Times is a small part of a much larger organisation. It is debatable whether the newspaper has fully grasped the potential opportunities that the internet offers.

    In summary, it appears that the South Burnett Times can usually be relied on to adhere to SBRC's preferred version of reality, although sometimes it does include mild criticism of SBRC.


  3. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    Currently, one of the directors of the ABC is a South Burnett VIP who is a steering committee member of South Burnett Directions, which is a committee of SBRC.

    (Click here to see a detailed report about South Burnett Directions.)

    Kingaroar.com has no knowledge about whether a director of the ABC can influence the content of ABC news or current affairs broadcasts.

    If it is not officially possible for a director to influence editorial content, there might still be a possibility that some ABC staff might feel uncomfortable acting against the known or assumed preferences of a director. There is also an alternative possibility that some ABC staff might welcome an opportunity to impress a director, by acting in favour of the known or assumed preferences of a director. The question of whether there is any direct or indirect influence is entirely speculative.

    So far there does not appear to be any evidence that news or current affairs departments of the ABC have delved into the highly prospective gemfield of potential stories that can collectively be termed the questionable antics of SBRC. This does not mean that ABC editors have been influenced by a director's opinions. Possibly, a litmus test might be if some of SBRC's questionable dealings became of major news interest generally but the stories then became stifled only at the ABC.

    In summary, the presence of a VIP associate of SBRC on ABC's board of directors gives the appearance that there might be some potential for SBRC to be treated favourably by the ABC.


  4. Social Media Websites

    There are many social media website pages associated with organisations in the South Burnett. Most South Burnett social media websites appear to be cluttered with the usual mix of echo chambers, trivia, irrelevance, misinformation and out-of-date information.

    Some social media webpages are associated with special interest websites related to the same topic.

    For some people, social media is the only medium that offers a viable opportunity to express criticism of SBRC.

    SBRC does not have the ability to control the whole spectrum of social media platforms. Attempts by SBRC to influence public opinion via social media websites are likely to have mixed and unpredictable results.


  5. Major Newspapers and TV Networks

    Reports about SBRC published by news organisations based outside the South Burnett are relatively infrequent.

    Over the years, a few reports about the Memerambi Mess have appeared in the mainstream news media.

    (Click here to see a detailed report about the Memerambi Mess.)

    A special dispensation, granted by SBRC to a property developer, enabled houses to be built without infrastructure. The dispensation was mentioned once in a report published by the locally-based South Burnett Times. Most local news reports do not mention it. The same goes for the news reports of the mainstream media, who appear to always report SBRC's version of events, that it was a was a loophole in the law that allowed the developer to build houses without infrastructure. In fact, the critical event was SBRC's special dispensation. The dispensation is recorded in SBRC meeting minutes.

    A bank guarantee to cover the cost of uncompleted infrastructure was included as a condition of the development approval, but the wording of the condition appears to have been a deliberate nonsense. As far as kingaroar.com is aware, the bank guarantee has never been mentioned in any news report produced by any organisation. The bank guarantee is recorded in SBRC meeting minutes.

    The failure of major news organisations to mention two of the most significant aspects of the Memerambi saga in their news stories is very favourable to SBRC's version of events. The omissions suggest that SBRC probably wields an unhealthy influence among mainstream news organisations.


top of page    

Black Strategy 7

Bend every rule that can be bent.

Black Strategy 7
There are countless examples of rule-bending by SBRC, in relation to a multitude of issues.

In most of SBRC's rule-bending antics, SBRC has acted in ways that are clearly contrary to the spirit of the regulations, against the public interest.

Details of many of SBRC's rule-bending antics can be found simply by reading through the above descriptions of black strategies. To keep this section as short as possible, most of SBRC's rule-bending is not revisited here, despite the mindboggling scale of the rule-bending. Only two issues are detailed here, these being issues that have not already been adequately described above.


  1. Conflicts of Interest

    If a councillor has a conflict of interest in relation to a matter that is being discussed or voted on at an official meeting of a local council, then the councillor must declare the conflict of interest and must absent themself from the meeting until after the matter has been finalised. This is because councillors are not supposed to benefit personally from being able to influence the decisions of their councils.

    At SBRC, whenever a councillor has properly declared a conflict of interest and has left a meeting, the other councillors invariably vote unanimously for an outcome that appears to be favourable to the councillor who has the conflict of interest. Is this just pure coincidence? Or is this a symptom of systematic mutual back-scratching?


    Example 1:

    In 2013, approximately 40% of Adermann Park in Kingaroy was sold to St John's Lutheran School. The public park had been given to the people of Kingaroy. It was nominally owned by the Queensland government, with SBRC as trustee.
    (Click here to see a detailed report about Adermann Park.)

    Deputy Mayor Campbell was a board member of the school. At a meeting of SBRC on 18th July 2012, at which SBRC considered a request from the school to support their application to buy the land, he properly declared a conflict of interest in the matter and he left the council meeting.

    The other six SBRC councillors voted unanimously for SBRC to provide a letter to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection in support of the request by the school to purchase the land.

    In 2016, Deputy Mayor Campbell became Mayor Campbell.


    Example 2:

    In the "Confidential Section" of the minutes of the SBRC meeting of 12th June 2013 it was stated that:-
    "Cr KA Duff declared an interest in the following matter and left the meeting at 12:02 PM. Reason: Cr Duff's brother is employed by GHD"
    "Engineering Consultancy Services for 2013 Flood Restoration Program"
    "Recommendation: That Council extend the direct engagement of Local Government Infrastructure Services and GHD Pty Ltd as project management and engineering consultants for the 2013 Flood Restoration Program. The estimated cost is approximately $5,000,000 based upon a target completion date of 30 September 2014."

    $5 million is such a large sum of ratepayers' money that, in the public interest, SBRC discussions about it should have been open to public scrutiny (see Strategy 5 above).

    In a secret closed session, the other six SBRC councillors voted unanimously for SBRC to approve the expenditure of the $5 million.

    In 2016, Councillor Duff became Deputy Mayor Duff.


    Example 3:

    In the the minutes of the SBRC meeting of 21st November 2018 it was stated that:-
    "Cr Roz Frohloff declared an interest in ..." [a development application for a solar farm]
    "Cr Frohloff's sister ... and brother-in-law ... are adjoining property owners and have signed a petition objecting to this project."
    "Cr RJ Frohloff voluntarily left the meeting ... while the matter was discussed and voted on."

    There then followed a lengthy SBRC "Officer's Recommendation" report in which fourteen reasons for rejecting the proposal were outlined, along with zero reasons for approving the project.

    The six SBRC councillors remaining in the meeting then voted unanimously to reject the proposal.

    The solar farm applicant appealed SBRC's decision to the Planning and Environment Court. The matter came before a meeting of SBRC again on 20th February 2019, and once again Councillor Frohloff declared the same conflict of interest. This time, the matter was dealt with in secret closed session, against the public interest (see Strategy 5 above). All that can be gleaned from the minutes of the meeting is that the solar applicant had offered to settle the dispute and that SBRC accepted the recommendations of a mysterious report, the nature of which was not divulged.

    In June 2019, it was reported in the news media that the Planning and Environment Court had found in favour of the solar farm, which had made a few minor changes to its proposal in order to satisfy SBRC and the objectors. It is clear that SBRC should not have wasted any ratepayers' money on attempting to block the solar development.

    Shortly afterwards, in its 2019-20 budget SBRC savagely jacked up its rates for solar farms and wind farms by approximately 250%.

    For the smallest solar farms, rates increased from 7.0 cents in the dollar to 25.0 cents.
    For the largest solar farms, rates increased from 5.5 cents to 18.75 cents.
    SBRC's rate for primary production land is only 1.245852 cents.

    The minimum rate for a solar farm was set at between $14,000 and $240,000, depending on size.
    The minimum rate for primary production land is only $1,070 for all property sizes.

    At first glance, these astronomical rate rises might appear to be a manifestation of a nasty vindictive streak that seems to be part of SBRC's character.

    However, SBRC's black strategy of hindering population growth (see Strategy 4 above) is probably another reason for the rate rises. Modern new developments that might bring progressive outsiders into the region appear to be discouraged by SBRC in every possible way.

    Yet another reason for SBRC to place obstacles against renewable energy projects is the longstanding support by rightwing politicians for the Tarong coal-fired power station in the South Burnett. This power station was originally championed by the South Burnett's most famous and most infamous politician, Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson, when he was premier of Queensland. The Tarong power station was, and still is, a major driver of economic activity in the region.

    In summary, it can be predicted that renewable energy projects in the South Burnett will be hindered by SBRC at every opportunity.


  2. Unanimous Decisions

    Voting in SBRC meetings nearly always has a unanimous outcome. For example, see the three examples described in the "Conflicts of Interest" section above.

    SBRC's version of democracy indicates that there might be collusion between councillors before each SBRC meeting.

    At SBRC, it appears that every major proposal is initiated and finalised behind closed doors. Later, perhaps much later, perhaps never, the public is notified of decisions via an official SBRC meeting where a charade of unanimous rubber-stamping is acted out.

    On the rare occasions when a vote in a meeting of SBRC is not unanimous, there nearly always appears to be either two black strategies that are not fully aligned, or there is disagreement within SBRC about just how far a particular black strategy should be stretched.

    For example, councillors disagreed over whether to approve the Taabinga Downs Estate. This appears to have been a case where two black strategies were not in perfect alignment. See Strategy 4 above for details.

    For example, two councillors wanted to preferentially subsidise primary producers even more than the bloated amount that was already on the table. This was a case where there was disagreement among councillors about the degree to which SBRC's rates should be rigged in favour of primary producers. See Strategy 3 above for details.


top of page    

kingaroar.com main page
SBRC's Property Caste System
(a major cog in the machine)
Analysis of
"South Burnett Directions"
(a major cog in the machine)
SBRC's Private Hospital
(ticks all the boxes)
Roads
(preferential dealing &
social engineering)
Unapproved Dwellings
(preferential dealing &
social engineering)
The Memerambi Mess
(social engineering)
Gordonbrook Dam
(asset stripping)
Adermann Park
(asset stripping)