Overview

A creature that feeds on the blood of another creature is a parasite.

SBRC operates a discriminatory property caste system. Primary producers and some businesses in the South Burnett pay less than their fair share of rates but receive better services than other types of ratepayers.

Everybody, regardless of their occupation or their property size, should be entitled to an equal duty of care from their local council. Everybody should be equal under the law, including under local laws and under building regulations. Although SBRC is supposed to apply the same standards to all citizens equally, there is not the slightest doubt that it does not do so.


Methods of Discrimination

Lower-caste ratepayers in the South Burnett are forced to subsidise higher-caste ratepayers.

The many methods of discrimination practised by SBRC can be grouped into three main categories:-

• preferential dealing
• asset stripping
• social engineering

The most obvious purpose of SBRC's property caste system is to facilitate preferential dealing, including a rigged differential rating system. Higher caste properties pay lower rates but get better local roads, better subsidies, better enforcement of building regulations and preferential treatment in a host of other ways.

Sophisticated asset stripping scams have become part of SBRC's modus operandi. Some assets that had previously belonged to all ratepayers, or just to town ratepayers, now end up in the hands of higher-caste ratepayers.

Also, some SBRC assets and functions are given to non-elected non-accountable shadow organisations controlled by higher-caste ratepayers.

The property caste system is also used for social engineering. Population growth is deliberately hindered in some lower-caste areas to ensure that the traditionally conservative majority of the region is maintained.


The Four Tiers of the Property Caste System

The top tier is composed of properties related to agriculture, tourism and most other businesses.

The second tier is composed of residential properties located in towns and villages.

The third tier is composed of rural residential properties, located in rural subdivisions. Many of these properties are bush blocks of 40 acres or more.

The fourth and lowest tier is a recent addition to the caste system. It is composed of properties where there are wind or solar renewable energy projects.


Preferential dealing has existed in some parts of the South Burnett since long before SBRC was created in 2008.

During the days of the former WSC (Wondai Shire Council), WSC operated a two-tier property caste system. Lifestyle properties in rural subdivisions in the western part of the shire were treated by WSC as lower caste properties compared with town properties and farms and businesses. In those days, discrimination was mainly confined to different standards being applied to the upkeep of roads in different areas and to different standards of enforcement of residential building regulations being applied in different areas.

Since SBRC was created, the property caste system has expanded geographically to now encompass the whole of the South Burnett, and the number of methods of of property caste discrimination has increased. Also, town properties have had their caste status downgraded to a tier below primary producers and businesses.


Renewable Energy Projects

In 2018, SBRC rejected a planning application for a new solar farm. SBRC cited fourteen reasons for rejecting the proposal and zero reasons for approving it.

On appeal, in 2019 the Planning and Environment Court found in favour of the solar farm.

Shortly afterwards, in its 2019-20 budget, SBRC savagely jacked up its rates for solar farms and wind farms by approximately 250%. The rates for solar farms and wind farms are now twenty times the rates for primary production land, even though SBRC provides no special services to solar farms and wind farms. This rigging of the differential rates system is proof that SBRC does not want progressive developments in the South Burnett.

Renewable energy projects in the South Burnett appear to be regarded by SBRC as a caste of unwanted untouchables.

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

However, farming should not be treated as some sort of religion that has sacred taboos based on dogma.

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.

What SBRC appears to actually be worried about is that when farmland is developed, whether for housing or for a solar farm or for any 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. Hence SBRC blocks or hinders everything that it can.

What is Preferential Dealing?

It could theoretically be argued that any expenditure by a local council must amount to preferential dealing because there is nothing that is used equally by everybody in the community. For example, money might be spent on maintaining a public park that is open to everybody but which is not used equally by everybody. But this is not really a preferential subsidy because everybody has access to the park even if they choose not to use it very often. Also it is not a preferential subsidy because there are no special circumstances that restrict the benefits of the park to a special subgroup of people.

There would however be a preferential subsidy if all ratepayers had to pay the same amount for parks but most of the money for parks was spent on some select areas while other areas were ignored. For example, money spent on parks in Kingaroy is of much more benefit to people who live in Kingaroy than to people who live 100 kms from Kingaroy. The differential system of rating is supposed to make allowances for the different benefits that people from different areas get.

The areas of public expenditure for which councils are responsible are well-defined, such as local roads, public parks, water supply, sewage, enforcement of planning laws, etc.

A local council has a duty to ensure that ratepayers money is spent on those things within the responsibility of council that merit expenditure the most and that the money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Also, one group of people or one locality or one street or one household or one business or one industry should not receive more favourable treatment than another, unless there are compelling reasons in the public interest. Any failure to adhere to these standards is preferential dealing.

Preferential dealing appears to be deeply ingrained into the corporate culture of SBRC.

See SBRC's Black Strategy 3 for more information about SBRC's preferential dealing activities.


Rigged Rates - Preferential Dealing

In the South Burnett, there is a massive difference between the rate-in-the-dollar for farming properties and the rate-in-the-dollar for non-farming properties.

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.

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 affecting value. For rural residential land, location and amenity are both important.


Here are actual figures for 2019-20, comparing rates for primary producers, also known as farmers, with rates for rural residential ratepayers, also known as blockies. It is feasible to compare rates for farmers with rates for blockies because farms and rural residential properties are intermingled with each other, whereas town residential rates are dufficult to compare with rural areas because council expenditures in towns are substantially different from rural areas.

For financial year 2019-20, the rate for Category 6 land (rural primary production) was 1.245852 cents per dollar of unimproved land valuation, throughout the whole of the South Burnett.

For financial year 2019-20, the rate for rural residential land varied between 1.844120 and 2.327380 cents, depending on location, with a non-weighted average of 1.99.

Therefore, for 2019-20, the non-weighted average rate for rural residential land was 1.60 times the rate for farming land (1.99 divided by 1.245852 equals 1.60).


If rural residential properties got the same level of services from SBRC as farming properties, then the rate ought to be the same for both.

Taking as an example the classic case of Shellytop Road, where there are farming properties and rural residential properties on the same road, the farmer at one end of Shellytop Road gets a bitumen road while the blockies at the other end of the road get a gravel road. Also, SBRC does not enforce the building regulations at the blockie end of the road. It can confidently be predicted, based on precedents set by the former Wondai Shire Council, that if unapproved dwellings began to appear at the higher-caste end of the road, then SBRC would soon take action against them. Also, SBRC expends substantial resources on weed control in the region, which is of benefit exclusively to farmers.

Therefore, the rate for farming blocks ought to be higher than the rate for rural residential blocks.

Instead, it is the other way round.

The rating system is based on unimproved property valuations. Property valuations are set by a free market. It is not supposed to be a system where every property pays a similar amount of rates. it is supposed to be property values that determine how much rates properties pay. The more that a property is worth, the more rates that the owner pays.

SBRC's rate rigging results in farming properties not paying their fair share of rates.


The picture of SBRC's rate-rigging can be seen more clearly when rates are compared over several years.

Kingaroar.com does not have figures for every year since SBRC was created. Figures for year 2009-10 and for year 2013-14 are at hand.

In financial year 2009-10, the fledgling SBRC had not yet fully consolidated its activities, so rates for primary production land were still being levied according to area.

The rate for Category 6 land (rural primary production) ranged from 1.5517 to 1.9180 cents per dollar of unimproved land valuation, depending on location, with a non-weighted average of 1.69 cents.

The rate for rural residential land varied from 1.4492 to 2.0212 cents, depending on location. with a non-weighted average of 1.81 cents.

Therefore, for 2009-10, the non-weighted average rate for rural residential land was 1.07 times the non-weighted average rate for farming land (1.81 divided by 1.69 equals 1.07).


In 2013-14, the rate for all primary production land was 1.0080 cents.

The rate for rural residential land varied between 1.1668 and 1.4800 cents, depending on location, with a non-weighted average of 1.2836 cents.

Therefore, for 2013-14, the non-weighted average rate for rural residential land was 1.27 times the rate for farming land (1.2836 divided by 1.0080 equals 1.27).


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 properties in the South Burnett was 1.07 times the average rate for primary production properties. 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.

It was already wrong when the multiplier was 1.07. Increasing the multiplier to 1.60 is one of SBRC's biggest bloodsucking scams.

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


Similar calculations could be performed for residential, commercial and industrial land in each of the towns of the South Burnett. However, there are so many different rate categories that this would be more confusing than illuminating.

Broadly, during the last ten years, residential land in towns has had even larger rises in the rate-in-the-dollar than rural residential land, while commercial land has had lower rises and in most areas industrial land has had decreases.

Here are the percentage changes in SBRC's general rate-in-the-dollar for some categories of land during the decade between 2009-10 and 2019-20.

• Rural (primary production)   minus 26%
• Kingaroy industrial               minus 16%
• Kingaroy commercial           plus 1%
• Nanango rural residential     plus 2%
• Wondai rural residential       plus 33%
• Kingaroy residential             plus 45%
• Nanango residential             plus 66%

The picture is clear. Some residential and rural residential categories have had large increases in the rate-in-the-dollar, while businesses either have not had increases or have had decreases. Primary producers have had a large decrease.

SBRC's rating system is rigged in favour of businesses and primary producers. Residential and rural residential ratepayers are forced to subsidise businesses and primary producers.


At SBRC's meeting on 24th June 2019, Deputy Mayor Duff and Councillor Heit proposed freezing the planned 2019-20 rate rise, but only for primary producers and not for any other category of ratepayer. They wanted to increase the already bloated subsidy for primary producers.

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 businesses and 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.


Farmers sometimes experience tough times. It is not only pests and diseases and weeds and droughts and floods and storms that destroy income. Another hazard for farmers is the greenite religion whose self-righteous adherents seem to understand little about anything that exists outside the inner-city. But none of this is any excuse for what SBRC is doing.

Farmers have good years and bad years. However, sometimes having to do it tough is no excuse for giving preferential treatment to farmers. The value of agricultural land is a function of the value of what the land can produce, averaged over several years. If farmers are given subsidies in a bad year then, for equitable balance, farmers ought to pay a premium in good years.

Agriculture and tourism are important sectors of the South Burnett economy. Averaged over several years, these industries make more than enough money to support themselves. There is no reason why they should be subsidised by poorer people. There is no excuse for SBRC to be operating a property caste system. It can even be argued that agriculture and tourism make so much money that they ought to be subsidising poorer residents, rather than the other way round as is happening at the present time in the South Burnett.


SBRC has rigged its rating system to preferentially subsidise businesses and farmers. Many other local councils do not do this. For some councils, their rate-in-the-dollar for primary production land is either similar to or actually higher than their rates for residential and rural residential land.

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.


Roads - Preferential Dealing

The differential system of rating is supposed to make allowances for the different benefits that people from different areas get. Instead, the differential rating system is rorted by SBRC to force lower caste properties to pay for benefits enjoyed by upper caste properties.

Click here to see a 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.

The report also contains details about how SBRC obtained government grants to fix specific neglected rural gravel roads, including Shellytop Road, but preferentially transferred part of the benefit to other roads of its own choosing.


Unapproved Dwellings - Preferential Dealing

Detailed analysis of SBRC's black strategies has led to new insights into the systematic blind eye that SBRC turns towards unapproved dwellings in the rural residential blocks located in SBRC's electoral Division Six. The area of Division Six is the approximate area of the former WSC (Wondai Shire Council).

Click here to see a detailed report about unapproved dwellings in the Shellytop Road area near Durong.

It can confidently be predicted, based on precedents set by WSC, that if unapproved dwellings began to appear at the higher-caste end of Shellytop Road, then SBRC would soon take action against them.

In higher caste areas, all a property owner has to do is complain and the building regulations will be enforced. For example, when WSC Deputy Mayor Kratzmann complained about shed dwellings near his hotel at Tingoora in 2015, lo and behold, action was immediately taken against the unapproved dwellings. Deputy Mayor Kratzmann of WSC sold his hotel a few years later, shortly before he became Mayor Kratzmann of SBRC.

Property owners who have spent a lot of money on ensuring that their residences comply with all relevant laws are disadvantaged by the presence of substandard dwellings near to their properties. Unapproved dwellings reduce the value of nearby properties. Also, while most residents of unapproved dwellings are good citizens, there have been some examples of residents of unapproved dwellings causing excessive sociological problems in their neighbourhoods.

The blind eye that SBRC turns towards unapproved dwellings in lower-caste areas constitutes preferential dealing. This double standard has existed for years, with the number of unapproved shed dwellings continually growing.


Ratepayers subsidise a 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 a report about scams associated with the private hospital, including details of ratepayer-funded subsidies.


Trucking Business - Preferential Dealing

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

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.

See SBRC's Black Strategy 3 for further information about the preferential dispensation granted by SBRC to a haulage business


Red Earth Flood Appeal - Preferential Dealing

Many businesses and people suffered loss and hardship as a result of the 2013 floods. Fortunately, various government relief funds became available, but government compensation for damage to rural land was restricted to agricultural land operated by agribusinesses. Rural lifestylers and hobby farmers were not eligible for government subsidies to fix damage to their land.

So, it might reasonably be expected that a new charity set up to help flood victims would help all those who were victims of the floods, including rural lifestyle landowners who were ineligible for government assistance because they were not primary producers.

In the South Burnett? Fat chance.

SBRC's Red Earth Flood Appeal was exclusively for the benefit of farmers. News reports and reports of speeches made by local politicians typically contained phrases such as:-

• "eligible applicants must be an agriculture-related business"
• "Mayor Kratzmann is encouraging farming flood victims to apply"
• "has now raised ...... for farmers affected by the ...... floods"
• "raised funds for our farmers in need"
• "has been dispersed to affected primary producers and businesses"
• "has already distributed ...... to affected primary producers"

As far as kingaroar.com is aware, the Red Earth Flood Appeal is the only charity in the history of charities that was set up exclusively for the benefit of profit-making businesses, to the deliberate exclusion of ordinary people who suffered similar losses under exactly the same circumstances.

SBRC donated ratepayers' money to the charity. This means that all ratepayers were forced to subsidise a scheme that discriminated against those ratepayers who were not primary producers. Also, some SBRC politicians spent a lot of their ratepayer-funded time on the charity.

Donors from far and wide were told that the charity was for rural residents of the South Burnett. Many donors were not told that non-farming rural residents were excluded from receiving assistance from the charity.

For non-farming rural people, the appeal should have been called the "Not A Red Cent Flood Appeal" instead of the "Red Earth Flood Appeal".




The Red Earth Flood Appeal is an example of the deeply-entrenched philosophy of preferential dealing that pervades SBRC's corporate culture.

It is scandalous that the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission (ACMA) allows blatantly discriminatory organisations in the South Burnett to be registered as charities. ACMA may be interested to hear from anybody who has concerns about the validity of the charity registration of the Red Earth Community Foundation South Burnett.


South Burnett Directions - Preferential Dealing Strategies

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

SBD was created in 2013 by SBRC as a "beneficial enterprise" under the Local Government Act.

SBD's main justification for its existence is that it claims to be an economic development strategy planning organisation. There are two sets of problems associated with this. Much of its activities are outside the scope of strategy planning, and most of the strategy planning that it does is of low quality.

As well as claiming to be a strategy planning organisation, SBD claims to be an economic development organisation. It appears to be possible that SBD does not comprehend that in local government there is a major difference between strategy planning and economic development.

If economic development was the main purpose of a local council then a council's strategy planning organisation and its economic development organisation could be closely related, or even combined.

However, economic development is only one of several strategic issues that local governments are responsible for. Many local government issues are more important than economic development. Yet, SBD concentrates on economic development, to the almost total exclusion of other strategic issues. In other words, SBD appears to be a major cog in SBRC's preferential dealing machine.

Although SBD claims that "liveability" is one of its key areas of focus, there is very little evidence that SBD has addressed a multitude of strategic issues that affect non-farming non-business residents of the South Burnett. SBD either has failed to identify SBRC's discriminatory black strategies or seems perfectly happy to perpetuate them.




The existence of SBD appears to be a result of a clever and sophisticated strategy to transfer control of SBRC activities to non-council persons and entities. This strategy exploits loopholes in the regulations that govern local councils in Queensland. SBD has 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. SBD appears to view itself as being an alternative surrogate for SBRC. This indicates that SBD may have an elitist disdain for democracy.

See SBRC's Black Strategy 1 for more information about the various ways that SBRC gives control of its activities to non-elected cronies.


Pensioner Rates Discount - Preferential Dealing

The discount that SBRC gives to Centrelink pensioners is, strictly speaking, not part of SBRC's property caste system. It is nevertheless included in this report because it does relate indirectly to housing, as is shown below (in the "Social Engineering" section), and it is also a form of discrimination, albeit positive for some pensioners.

It is of course a form of negative discrimination against all the ratepayers who do not qualify for the discount but who are forced to subsidise it. It is therefore definitely a preferential subsidy.




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.

Increasing the proportion of elderly people in the population helps to preserve the conservative majority in 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 either the SBRC pensioner rates discount or the state government pensioner rates discount.

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 relatively high proportion of elderly people indicates that SBRC's black strategy of hindering population growth is proving to be successful.

In most local councils, such a high proportion of elderly people would result in a cessation of substantial unnecessary 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.

It can be predicted that the proportion of elderly people in the population of the South Burnett will continue to increase, which will gradually increase the financial burden on those ratepayers who are forced by SBRC to subsidise Centrelink age pensioners.


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.

Most 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.

General Pattern of SBRC's Asset Stripping Projects

See SBRC's Black Strategy 2 for more information about the various ways that SBRC takes assets from lower-caste ratepayers and gives them to cronies and upper-caste ratepayers.

SBRC's asset stripping projects, and also the gift of office space to South Burnett Directions, 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.

Adermann Park - Asset Stripping

Click here to see details of how part of Adermann Park was sold to associates of Deputy Mayor Campbell who had properly declared a conflict of interest.

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.


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 dismissed.

Meanwhile, in 2016 Deputy Mayor Campbell had become Mayor Campbell.


SBRC's Private Hospital - Asset Stripping

A private company owned by SBRC has control of SBRC's private hospital. By using a private company for this function, SBRC is able to bypass local government expenditure and reporting legislation. SBRC's private company is run in a secretive manner by mainly non-SBRC directors appointed by SBRC.

SBRC's private company sub-leases SBRC's private hospital to a commercial hospital operator at zero rent.

Click here to see a report about scams associated with the private hospital, including details of how the hospital has been given away rent free.

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. While SBRC politicians falsely claim that the hospital is cost-neutral to ratepayers, ratepayers are not only paying for the upkeep of the private hospital but they also appear to be exposed to commercial risks, with no prospect of any remuneration in return.

SBRC's deal with the commercial hospital operator is an example of asset stripping.


CTC - Asset Stripping

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

On 14th December 2015, 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 particularly blatant example of asset stripping was anti-competitive. CTC's commercial business competitors got nothing.


Gordonbrook Dam - Asset Stripping

Click here to see a detailed report about how SBRC appears to be planning to steal the rights to water from Gordonbrook Dam.

Gordonbrook Dam provides the water supply for the residents of the town of Kingaroy. Proposals have been outlined to give the dam to irrigators. Kingaroy residents would then have to pay through the nose for water from Boondooma Dam. For many years, ratepayers have been conditioned to believe that this is the only way that Kingaroy residents can get improved water quality.

The existence of chronic organic pollution appears to be being used by SBRC as an excuse to falsely brainwash the residents of the town of Kingaroy into believing that they would be better off if they relinquished Gordonbrook Dam and had to pay for expensive cleaner water from Boondooma Dam instead.

It appears that SBRC does not wish to investigate the pollution of the water of Gordonbrook Dam, despite the fact that a proper scientific investigation into the sources of the pollution would be easy and inexpensive to perform.

SBRC's Black Strategy of Hindering Population Growth

See SBRC's Black Strategy 4 for more information about the various ways that SBRC hinders population growth in the South Burnett.

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

The South Burnett has a stagnant economy, its population is falling, and it has falling residential property values. Meanwhile, most of the rest of southeast Queensland is booming and has expanding populations. See https://profile.id.com.au/south-burnett for details.

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.


Rates - Social Engineering

It has been shown above (in the "Rates" subsection in the "Preferential Dealing" section), that through a rigged differential rating system, there is a massive difference between the rate-in-the-dollar for farming properties and the rate-in-the-dollar for non-farming properties in the South Burnett.

One of the direct effects of SBRC's preferential dealing with respect to differential rates is that it creates a disincentive for people to buy or to develop non-farming properties in the South Burnett.


Memerambi Mess - Social Engineering

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

Briefly, in 2011 SBRC granted a special dispensation to a property developer, allowing the developer to build and sell houses before essential infrastructure had been constructed. The developer then became insolvent, leaving the new home owners with massive bills to pay for infrastructure and to complete their houses.

Some home buyers were financially ruined in the fiasco.

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.

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 may have been 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.


Unapproved Dwellings - Social Engineering

It has been shown above (in the "Unapproved Dwellings" subsection in the "Preferential Dealing" section), that SBRC preferentially turns a blind eye to unapproved dwellings in rural residential subdivisions.

Detailed analysis of SBRC's black strategies has shown that the main purpose of SBRC's wilfull negligence appears to be to hinder population growth.




The existence of dozens of nearby unapproved dwellings deters property owners from developing their blocks in accordance with the laws of the land. This results in many blocks remaining undeveloped. The owners of undeveloped blocks mostly live outside the South Burnett, so they are unable to enrol on the South Burnett's electoral register because their main residence is elsewhere. The more undeveloped blocks there are, the fewer the number of blocks with permanent residents who can enrol on the electoral register.

Similarly, the owners of shed dwellings that are used as weekenders mostly live outside the South Burnett, so they are also unable to enrol on the South Burnett's electoral register because their main residence is elsewhere. This appears to be the main reason why SBRC, like the former WSC before it, takes no action to discourage the building of shed dwellings. The more weekenders there are, the fewer the number of blocks with permanent residents who can enrol on the electoral register.

People who reside permanently in unapproved shed dwellings in the subdivisions are often unwilling to enrol on the electoral register because many wish to minimise any official evidence of their presence. Also, an outlaw philosophy is prevalent among those who flout the building regulations. As long as these people keep their heads down, SBRC seems happy to take no action to enforce the building regulations. The more permanent shed dwellers there are, who cares as long as they don't enrol on the electoral register.

However, if there was a properly-approved dwelling on every property in the rural residential subdivisions, then there would be hundreds of extra non-farming non-elderly permanent residents whose names would have to be added to the South Burnett's electoral roll.

It can be assumed that if the hundreds of rural lifestyle blocks in the area were to be properly developed, then they would attract a fair proportion of people who have progressive tendencies.

The extra voters would all be in Division Six, meaning that there might no longer be a guaranteed conservative majority for the Division Six seat on the council. It would also be a big step towards eliminating the overall conservative majority in the South Burnett.

To help ensure that this will never happen, SBRC turns a blind eye to unapproved shed dwellings in Division Six.


Roads - Social Engineering

It has been shown above (in the "Roads" subsection in the "Preferential Dealing" section), that SBRC preferentially subsidises roads in upper-caste areas at the expense of people in lower-caste areas.

One of the direct effects of SBRC's preferential dealing with respect to roads is that it helps to deter potential residents from buying land and building properly-approved residences in the rural residential subdivisions of the South Burnett.


Renewable Energy Projects - Social Engineering

It has been shown above (in the "Renewable Energy Projects" subsection in the "SBRC's Property Caste System" section), that in 2018 SBRC attempted to block a planning application for a new solar farm. The applicant appealed to the Planning and Environment Court which ruled in favour of the solar farm. SBRC then responded by raising rates for solar farms and wind farms by an extraordinary 250%.

SBRC's resistance to renewable energy developments creates a disincentive for such projects in the South Burnett.

Repeating what has already been stated above, the reason that SBRC appears to be worried about farmland being developed, whether for housing or for a solar farm or for some other purpose, is that when this happens 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. Hence SBRC blocks or hinders everything that it can.


Lack of New Industries - Social Engineering

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.


Trucking Business - Social Engineering

It has been shown above (in the "Trucking Business" subsection in the "Preferential Dealing" section), that SBRC preferentially allows a haulage business to operate in a residential area where it causes a nuisance to residents.

One of the direct effects of SBRC's preferential dealing with respect to this trucking business is that it sends a strong message to residential ratepayers that their rights will be stamped on if a higher-caste property or business so wishes.

This helps to deter ordinary people from coming to live in the South Burnett.


Pensioner Rates Discount - Social Engineering

It has been shown above (in the "Pensioner Rates Discount" subsection in the "Preferential Dealing" section), that SBRC preferentially subsidises Centrelink age pensioners.

As stated above, the discount that SBRC gives to Centrelink pensioners is, strictly speaking, not part of SBRC's property caste system. It is nevertheless included here because it does relate indirectly to housing, and it is a form of discrimination, in favour of some ratepayers and against other ratepayers.

The purpose of the pensioner rates discount, in the context of social engineering, is to fill as many of the South Burnett's houses as possible with people who do not pose a threat to the status quo. Elderly people do not produce children and tend to be more conservative than younger people.