History of SBD - Extracted from SBD's Website

Here are extracts from SBD's website at southburnettdirections.com.au

" In 2013 South Burnett Regional Council (SBRC) established a peak economic and tourism development organisation - South Burnett Directions (SBD). It is a committee of Council consisting of business leaders representing agriculture, resources, automotive, finance, legal, health, tourism, livestock and food processing business sectors. "

SBD " has prepared the inaugural South Burnett Regional Economic Development Strategy and oversees the implementation of projects of regional significance ... "

SBD " was established to strategically develop economic growth. "

" South Burnett Directions has had success with opening a community hospital to support health services, implementing a tourism strategy, receiving funding from the Federal Government's Round 1 Black Spot Funding Program - the region winning new telecommunications at 4 black spot areas - the most awarded in Queensland. "

" In business and industry growth South Burnett Directions has led strategic programs such as the Business Excellence Awards and the South Burnett Rewards (shop local program), both of which build local business capacity and growth and facilitates (sic) a close working relationship with local businesses. "

" South Burnett Directions continue to work on implementing the Economic Development Strategy 2014-2019 and strategically developing economic growth for the South Burnett. "


The message that occurs most frequently in SBD's descriptions of itself is that it is an organisation that performs economic development strategy planning.

The word "Directions" in the name "South Burnett Directions" is an appropriate name for strategic planning activities because it recognises that one of the purposes of strategy planning is to formally define strategic directions.

Definitions of Strategy Planning

This section is not about SBD. It is about what strategy planning is. It is included in this report to provide sufficient background information to give the depth of perspective that is necessary to assess SBD's activities in relation to strategy planning.

Strategy planning is high-level planning that does not include the very highest-level executive task of setting an organisation's goals, although strategy planning can include discovering what those goals are. The goals should already exist. For example, in local government, goals are set by elected councillors who might or might not seek direction from their constituents. Strategy planning does not include relatively low-level operational planning or operational activities. Strategy planning is about taking an organisation's goals and determining the best strategic ways to achieve the goals.

Here is an alternative conceptual description of strategy planning.

• Strategy planners examine an organisation and define its present status, which can be called Point "A".
• They then consult widely to define where an organisation wants to be in the future, its goal, which can be called Point "B".
• Point "A" might be far from Point "B", or it might be near.
• They then determine whether Point "B" is a realistic goal. If not, then further consultation with stakeholders is required to define a realistic Point "B".
• They then determine the most efficient and optimal high-level initiatives, or strategies, for the organisation to get from "A" to "B".
• This is a strategy plan.

Here is an alternative pragmatic description of strategy planning.
Strategy planners set policy directions:-

• after having examined all strategic policy issues and alternatives in a holistic manner
• after having compared qualitative and quantitative costs, benefits, and risks for each alternative policy
• after having assessed the relative priorities of each policy issue
• after having assessed the inter-relationships between each issue
• to eventually arrive at a strategy plan, which should be the most optimal outcome given the overall funding constraints.

Having developed a strategy plan, strategy planners normally leave the actual implementation of the plan to the executive arms of an organisation, which is where most of the final detailed decisions are made about how each strategy is implemented.



Semantics

Most large organisations have major policies and goals that are usually defined by the upper echelons of each organisation. A strategy is a high-level concept that is intended to help achieve a major policy or goal. A policy that is "strategic" is a major fundamental policy.

A description of a strategy by itself will not necessarily include descriptions of methods for achieving the strategy. Methods can be defined at the same time as the strategy is defined, or they can be defined later. Methods of achieving a strategy can become part of a strategy plan.

Each method of achieving a strategic goal or policy can itself be referred to as a "policy" or as a "strategy". Higher-level policies are, in effect, strategies. At some point policies become so low-level that they cannot be described as strategic policies. In the context of strategy planning for large organisations, low-level policies are not strategies.

Each major policy requires strategies to implement it. Each strategy becomes a policy. There can be many different strategies that combine to achieve a higher-level policy.

To summarise, there can be many different strategies that help to achieve a major strategic goal. For each strategy, there might or might not be a set of supporting strategies at a lower level.

From the foregoing, it can be seen that there are a lot of semantics involved in defining what a strategy is. Consequently, there are many opinions about what strategy planning is.

Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that strategy planning is a high-level holistic policy-making activity that is separate from the operational activities of an organisation.

SBD's Version of Strategy Planning

Most strategic issues affecting the South Burnett are not directly related to economic development. SBD does not appear to have produced a comprehensive list of strategic issues for which policies or directions are needed. SBD appears to have produced lists of issues that are related only to economic development and SBRC's private hospital, concentrating mainly on agriculture, tourism and other businesses.

It is possible that SBD thinks that it has produced comprehensive lists of strategic issues.

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.

SBD appears to confuse economic development with strategy planning. This is a problem because most of the South Burnett's major strategic issues are not directly related to economic development. Most serious strategic issues are absent from SBD's output.

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. At a local government level, there are many strategic issues that are more important than economic development.

SBD appears to have been given the policy-making powers that should belong to elected SBRC councillors. SBD appears to set SBRC policies in a preferential manner in a few narrow policy areas, to the exclusion of a host of other major issues that affect the South Burnett.

SBD appears to focus mainly on issues of interest to agricultural businesses, tourism businesses and wealthy people, for example wealthy people who can afford to pay for private health insurance. SBD does not appear to be representative of society as a whole. SBD is a committee of business leaders, and SBD appears to be very proud of this.

The work that SBD does cannot be described as holistic. The interests of large sections of the population appear to be ignored by SBD.

SBD appears to form sub-committees who meet and arrive at "strategies". 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 also appears to organise "projects". It would generally be considered out of place for the tasks of organising and controlling operational projects to be included in strategy planning work.



Is SBD a strategy planning organisation?

Although SBD does do some work in determining policies or strategies for SBRC, SBD's strategic work is flawed by appearing to sometimes confuse executive and operational functions with strategy planning, by appearing to seek control of issues and activities at all levels in everything that it does, by appearing to generally restrict its focus to business and economic development, and appearing to ignore many of the major strategic issues of the South Burnett.

SBD does not appear to understand that to qualify as being of a strategic nature, strategy planning should be a holistic activity. While SBD does do some strategy planning, this appears to be of generally poor quality. In addition to performing economic development strategy planning for SBRC, SBD appears to try to control other aspects of SBRC's activities. SBD appears to more closely resemble "control freak syndrome" than a strategy planning organisation.

Occasionally, the concept of "liveability", or "marketing a liveable region", is highlighted in SBD's pronouncements. This would appear to indicate that SBD does claim to have a relatively holistic outlook. Unfortunately, there appears to be little evidence that SBD ever considers the host of strategic issues that are important to ordinary people who are not connected with agriculture or tourism or business or SBRC's private hospital.

The concept of "quality of life" can be used as one of the yardsticks for measuring the performance of a local council. For most ordinary people in the South Burnett, SBD's concept of liveability does not appear to resemble the concept of quality of life.

SBD's Steering Committee

As stated on SBD's website, SBD is a committee of council. Apart from the incumbent mayor, who is the chair, SBD's steering committee is composed neither of elected councillors nor of SBRC staff. So, although SBD is a committee that was nominally set up by SBRC, SBD is independent of SBRC and appears to have an independent life of its own.

The following details about SBD's steering committee were extracted from information in SBD's website at southburnettdirections.com.au

As at September 2019, the members of SBD's steering committee were:-

1. The current mayor of SBRC, who had a career in banking and agriculture, and was general manager of a large agricultural supplies company.
2. A senior accountant, who successfully grew his own business, and who has advised many businesses about how to expand their businesses in a profitable manner.
3. A community leader, who has experience of developing community investment programs and strategic relationships, and of organising large events.
4. A general manager of a large meat processing factory.
5. A senior lawyer, who has extensive experience in a legal practice and in government, and who is currently practicing in commercial law, family law, succession law and civil litigation.
6. An accountant and co-owner of a large agricultural business that includes feedlots, a trucking company, a cropping enterprise and a property development company.
7. A businessperson who has personal experience of running large successful businesses, of business expansion and of developing strategy and growth plans for those businesses.
8. A director of a beef production business, who is a senior office holder in a multitude of organisations and committees, and who is a rural leader and regional strategist.

SBD's steering committee does not appear to include any ordinary people who are not connected with agriculture or tourism or business. Nobody on SBD's steering committee appears to have interests that are aligned with the interests of large sections of the South Burnett community, in particular ordinary residential ratepayers and rural residential ratepayers.



Perceived Conflicts of Interest

SBD ought to have, at most, an advisory role in setting SBRC's policies. Instead, SBRC appears to have given SBD the policy-making powers that should belong to elected councillors.

As an independent committee, SBD is not subject to any of the rules or regulations that SBRC councillors and staff are subject to.

For example, there appears to be no evidence that anybody at SBD has ever declared a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest might or might not have been declared at SBD. There is simply no information publicly available about conflicts of interest at SBD.

Many members of SBD's committees appear to have vested interests in the issues that SBD considers. There appears to be considerable potential for their interests to appear to conflict with the best interests of some categories of ratepayers, particularly residential ratepayers and rural residential ratepayers.

If SBD was subject to the same rules as SBRC councillors, then it appears that many of SBD's "volunteers" would sometimes be obliged to declare a conflict of interest, because they appear to sometimes have vested interests in the issues for which they appear to be deciding SBRC's policies.

The strategies or wishlists produced by SBD appear to be of benefit to those who have decided the strategies, rather than of benefit to the overall public interest.

There are local government rules and regulations about conflicts of interest. These are rules that are supposed to protect the public interest. The rules do not appear to apply to SBD. They apply only to SBRC. Thus, the existence of SBD appears to be an institutionalised scam where conflicts of interest can reign supreme.

SBD personnel appear to be required only to have "a good understanding of both real and perceived conflicts of interest". There is nothing in this requirement that compels any conflict of interest to be declared. The requirement appears to be satisfied if a conflict of interest is understood. Nothing else, such as for example actually declaring a conflict of interest, appears to be necessary to satisfy the requirement. The requirement, as worded, is seriously flawed.

There does not appear to be any published formal mechanism for handling conflicts of interest at SBD.

Another issue of concern is that most of SBD's activities appear to be carried out behind closed doors. The public is told only what the final outcomes of SBD's deliberations are. Blow-by-blow accounts of SBD meetings are not published. Transparency appears to be substantially lacking.

The general public can have no confidence that SBD acts in the public interest. Given SBD's apparent emphasis on economic development and business profitability, it is thought by some that there is considerable doubt about whether SBD even has the slightest intention of acting in the overall public interest. There appears to be nothing in any statements made by politicians that suggests that SBD is compelled to act in the public interest.


SBD appears to have been created as a result of a clever initiative that takes advantage of a loophole in the regulations that govern local councils in Queensland.

While the cosy arrangement between SBRC and SBD might be perfectly legal, it does not appear to be in the public interest. The apparent existence of conflicts of interest appears to be a good enough reason why an administrator ought to be appointed to take over SBRC.

Summary of SBD's Activities

• SBD big-notes itself as being a "peak" body that wears the "mantle for leadership" in everything that it does. SBD's key areas of focus have been stated to be leadership, liveability, business stability and growth. SBD's repeating emphasis on "leadership" appears to indicate that its own status might be its main concern. There can be little doubt that SBD gives a much higher priority to its leadership role than it gives to the liveability of the region for ordinary residents.
• SBD appears to give a high priority to maintaining the status quo in the South Burnett, a strategy that ignores most of the South Burnett's more serious strategic issues.
• SBD is a committee composed mainly of business leaders. SBD appears to ignore and exclude the interests of ordinary non-business non-farming people.
• SBD performs what it describes as strategy planning, but which appears to be mainly a combination of preparing economic development wishlists and organising non-strategic projects, some of which appear to end in failure.
• SBD tries to assist some businesses in the South Burnett to expand and become more profitable.
• SBD appears to particularly focus its resources on the agriculture and tourism industries.
• SBD sometimes conducts brainstorming sessions that arrive at mindblowing conclusions such as agriculture is "a regional priority."

SBD's First Projects

Here is a list of SBD's first "projects". Note that somebody had already decided what the projects were to be, even though SBD had not existed for very long when the list was published.

• Public Private Partnerships Hospital/Medical: Improve South Burnett's medical services through public/private partnerships.
• Infrastructure Projects: Work with existing South Burnett Information Technology and Communication Companies to improve South Burnett's connectivity.
• Education: Assist local students by identifying education pathways to employment within the region.
• Education: Improve relationship with Universities and TAFE.
• Employment/Jobs Programs: Assist economic development and international exposure by attracting foreign workers to the region.
• Employment/Jobs Programs: Obstacles to Opportunities - Identify and improve the current skills and productivity of South Burnett's demographic.
• Business Growth: Business Excellence Awards.
• Business Growth: Mentoring For Growth.
• Tourism: South Burnett Tourism Strategy.
• FIFO/DIDO: Facilitate Transport Service for FIFO and DIDO.

The most serious issues in the South Burnett are absent from SBD's list of projects.

The list includes relatively low-level hands-on operational projects that are not of a strategic nature.


South Burnett Community Plan 2032

"South Burnett Community Plan 2032" is a glossy 48-page booklet published by SBRC about two years before SBD was created. In it can be found the seeds of the style of organisation that SBD later appears to have become.

From information contained on page 36 of the document, it can be deduced that the community plan was created in 2010 or 2011. The plan contains "strategies", "goals" and "actions" that are mostly wishlists of what people involved in a "community consultation process" wanted.

The strategies and actions of the community plan are suggestive of the style of the "projects" that SBD later organised. Page 36 also reveals that the "Community Plan" was a statutory requirement, which probably explains why there is little of real substance in it.

Imagine what might happen if SBRC had to genuinely reflect the wishes of the wider public? It would be a disaster for the status quo.

It would appear that in 2010 the dire prospect of at some future time having to introduce genuine community input into its strategies may have put the wind up SBRC. This may be what led to the initiative of creating an organisation supposedly dedicated to strategy planning, an organisation that could be relied upon to support, whitewash and rubber-stamp whatever antics SBRC might be up to at the time.


South Burnett Economic Development Strategy 2014-2019

In a 28-page report published by SBD in approximately 2014, titled "South Burnett Economic Development Strategy 2014-2019", are outlined the "goals and future direction of the South Burnett's developing regional economy."

At first glance, SBD has narrowed its focus to economic development. Here, it does not appear to be pretending to be the source of all of SBRC's policies and strategies, although the document does have the word "strategy" in the title.

But wait a minute, on page 4 it is stated by Mayor Kratzmann that there are four themes to focus on. Only one of these four themes is about business development. The other three are "leadership", "infrastructure" and "marketing a liveable region". In other words, the strategy plan is actually really intended to be quite comprehensive.

Big-noting is much in evidence as usual. As well as the "leadership" theme there is the usual spin:-
" ... SBD as the peak economic and tourism development organisation to focus on strategy development and identification and delivery of projects of regional significance."

Then it goes on to state:-
"Initially, South Burnett Directions is a committee of South Burnett Regional Council with the scope to recommend the best entity structure and funding model that serves the South Burnett for long term sustainable development."
This is a very ambitious scope indeed. Lower-caste ratepayers watch out.

Later in the document a planned "action" is described, one of many actions:-
"Ensure that the South Burnett Directions priorities inform the South Burnett Planning Scheme."
Here it seems that one of SBD's aims is to usurp all the planning roles of elected councillors, not just strategy planning.

Most of the Economic Development Strategy publication appears to be composed of waffle, drivel and wishlists. SBD's strategy plan fails to address many of the major strategic issues of the South Burnett.


News Articles about SBD

SBD publishes relatively little information about the details of its activities. To learn about events as they happened, one of the best ways is to look at stories about SBD that have appeared in the news media.

Here are some summaries of articles about SBD published by southburnett.com.au, a local news website that seems to always report favourably about SBRC and its associates. It never seems to question any of SBRC's highly questionable antics. Each news summary below is followed by relevant objective comments.


On 6th December 2012, southburnett.com.au published an article about the formation of SBD.

Relevant extracts from the article:-
"A new peak economic and tourism development board made up of businesspeople and community leaders ..."
"invited guests heard presentations ...from ... private economic development consultant ... about ... economic development ..."
"The new body - which would be set up as a "beneficial enterprise" under the Local Government Act ..."
"It would be resourced by council ..."
"four advisory committees based on the State Government's "Four Pillar" approach to the economy, ie Tourism, Agriculture, Resources and Construction."
" ... and have a good understanding of both real and perceived conflicts of interest."

Relevant comments:-

• Here it is confirmed that SBD is about business and economic development only.
• The meeting had invited guests only, in other words an exclusive policy had already been adopted, even before SBD had been created.
• SBD is a so-called "beneficial enterprise" and is resourced by SBRC.
• Here it is confirmed that the focus of SBD is fixed on tourism, agriculture, resources and construction. Therefore SBD cannot possibly be an organisation that examines issues holistically for the benefit of the whole community. It is of benefit only to the businesses of tourism, agriculture, resources and construction, to the exclusion of other important strategic issues.
• Later history indicates that resources and construction eventually seem to have fallen by the wayside, in favour of tourism and agriculture.
• SBD was required to have an understanding of real and perceived conflicts of interest. What happened to that understanding? The words "have an understanding of" do not seem to have any concrete meaning. These words do not appear to compel conflicts of interest to be avoided or even declared.

On 7th January 2013, southburnett.com.au published another article about the formation of SBD. SBD was referred to as a peak business committee and was stated to be a project-based committee that would steer economic development.

Deputy Mayor Campbell would chair a committee to select members of SBD's Steering Committee. The committee was to be chosen based on skills that would assist the chosen projects, after listening to feedback from business owners

Relevant comments:-

• It is stated here that the "projects" have already been chosen. Who chose them? The projects were chosen before SBD's steering committee had even been selected. This is a good example of how things in the South Burnett are decided behind closed doors, to be rubber-stamped later by stooges.
• SBD is a committee about which only a few things are known, selected by another committee about which nothing is known except that it was headed by Deputy Mayor Campbell. This shows that SBD is a long way from being democratically elected.
• The focus of SBD is claimed to be about business and economic development, and therefore SBD cannot really be about other things such as the many strategic issues that affect non-business non-farming residents.
• SBD is project-based. As has been explained in the section above about what strategy planning is, it is a bit of a stretch for a project-based committee to also claim to be strategy planners. Yet, this is exactly what SBD claims to be.

On 6th June 2013, southburnett.com.au published an article about SBD.

Relevant extract from the article:-
" ... three or four key projects to drive economic development in the region. One of these projects is likely to be a 'Think Local First' campaign."

Relevant comments:-

• SBD is project-based. It has been shown above that hands-on projects are not the domain of strategy planners. Here, it is confirmed that SBD is to operate at a much lower level than strategic.
• It is surprising that after all the fanfare, after all the months of preparation, after who knows how many meetings, the supposedly peak business brains in the whole of the South Burnett could only come up with a project as lame and non-strategic as a 'Think Local First' campaign. This type of project does not appear to be sufficiently fundamental to be of strategic importance.

On 5th March 2014, southburnett.com.au published an article about SBD.

It stated that SBD's key areas of focus were:-

• leadership
• liveability
• business stability
• growth

It mentioned three projects:-

• Business Excellence Awards, with a working group and with winners announced at a Gala Dinner.
• SBD was working with Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils to identify telecommunications black spots.
• SBD was seeking input from primary producers and transport businesses to gain an understanding of transport issues affecting transport of produce in the South Burnett.

Relevant comments:-

• The focus of SBD had been about business and economic development, specifically tourism, agriculture, resources and construction. Now the focus has morphed into leadership, liveability, business stability and growth.
• The supposedly peak business brains in the South Burnett could only come up with yet another lame project, the 'Business Excellence Awards', a project that is at too low a level to have any strategic significance.
• 'Identifying telecommunications black spots' - at last a genuinely strategic and useful project with the potential to benefit the whole community. A drawback was that this project should not have required an organisation dedicated to strategy planning to think of it. Everybody else in other regions was doing the same thing. Also, doing the identification is an operational task, not a strategic task, so it should have been left to others to carry out.
• The preferential bias towards agricultural businesses, is a recurring characteristic of SBRC.

On 18th May 2017, southburnett.com.au published an article about SBD's "shop local" project. "Shop local" had been identified by SBD as part of the region's "Economic Development Strategy". It was a loyalty program run by Rewardle which involved collecting points by swiping a card.

Relevant comments:-

• After four years, the "Think Local First" project has now evolved into the "Shop Local" project. It does not seem to have occurred to any of the hordes of people who have worked on this project that most people shop locally anyway because of the convenience. People who do not buy products locally usually have a good reason for not doing so.
• This is quite simply not a strategic-level policy. Why were the resources of a supposedly strategic-level organisation wasted on low-level operational initiatives?

On 30th July 2017, southburnett.com.au published an article about the tourism industry. SBD was not actually mentioned in the article.

A new "Visit South Burnett" tourism organisation had been formed by South Burnett tourism operators in response to a decline in tourists. South Burnett Tourism Association had previously collapsed in July 2015. SBRC had adopted a three-year Tourism Strategy and Implementation Plan in February 2016. SBRC was spending $500,000 a year on tourism, including $60,000 per year to Southern Queensland Country Tourism organisation.

Relevant comments:-

• SBD is not mentioned anywhere in this article. However, the minutes of the SBRC meeting of 3rd February 2016 reveal that it was SBD ("Council's peak economic and tourism development organisation") that had produced the three-year "Tourism Strategy and Implementation Plan" mentioned in the news report. Included in the plan is a lot of waffle, some interesting tourism statistics, and the by now customary big-noting of SBD, for example " ... the mantle for leadership now falls on the Tourism Reference Group of SBD ..."
• It appears that SBD spends a substantial portion of its resources on the tourism industry.
• Declining visitor numbers and the collapse of a tourism organisation clearly indicate that SBD's tourism strategies have failed. This indicates that SBD appears to be irrelevant and an expensive waste of space. This might explain why mention of SBD's name was omitted from the news article.
• Tourism operators are now taking matters into their own hands and setting up their own organisation. This is exactly how it should be. Who needs self-important self-serving planning organisations to tell them what to do?
• There is quite a lot of ratepayers money sloshing around and getting preferentially spent on promoting tourism. Most ratepayers get nothing in return. The easy money does help to explain why a plethora of organisations and committees are all interested in tourism.

It is relevant to mention here some subsequent evidence that SBD's efforts to increase tourist numbers had failed. In 2019, in response to continually decreasing numbers of tourists, SBRC set up the "South Burnett Tourism Advisory Committee". In the minutes of SBRC's meeting of 23rd October 2019 it is stated that the new committee:-
"has been established to focus on the strategic initiatives of regional tourism."

Even though the new committee is claimed to be about strategic initiatives and it is yet another committee and it is about tourism, it does not seem to be associated with SBD. There had been criticism from tourism operators about the marketing of the region. It appears that the failure of SBD's tourism strategies may have resulted in SBD falling out of favour among tourism operators.

SBRC's new tourism committee looks like it will be even more hopeless than SBD because half of it seems to be composed of councillors and SBRC lackeys. It appears that SBRC will be in charge of setting the objectives of the committee.

On 20th June 2019, southburnett.com.au published an article about the new committee in which it was revealed that:-
"Committee representatives will be required to behave responsibly and ethically, and will be required to declare any real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest."

This is substantially different from SBD whose committee members are only required to have "an understanding" of conflicts of interest.

Nobody seems to have thought about how it will be possible for there to be any tourism industry representatives on this new advisory committee, because conflicts of interest do not seem to be allowed. SBRC does not appear to have much understanding of conflicts of interest. Preferential dealing is all that SBRC seems to understand.

Perhaps there will be no tourism industry representation on the new committee. Another extract from the 20th June 2019 news report from southburnett.com.au states:-
"committee members will not be required to work within tourism or demonstrate any level of knowledge about tourism marketing."

This seems to mean that only irrelevant incompetent stooges will be on the new committee. It can only be speculated as to who will be given control of SBRC's tourism strategies via this back door.

Perhaps SBRC considers that the root of the problems of the tourism industry in the South Burnett is that there are just not nearly enough tourism organisations and committees. On 30th October 2019, southburnett.com.au published an article in which it was revealed that:-
"The Visit South Burnett Local Tourism Organisation will seek a formal partnership with SBRC. The move was decided at the first meeting of the newly formed South Burnett Tourism Advisory Committee."


On 16th February 2018, southburnett.com.au published an article about SBD's "shop local" Rewardle promotion.

The "shop local" promotion run by SBRC for 21 months was to end. Fifty-three retailers had paid $49 per month to take part in the Rewardle promotion. Only eight participants remained. SBRC would continue to pay Rewardle $270 per month for several months.

Relevant comments:-

• This failure indicates once again that SBD appears to be irrelevant and an expensive waste of space.
• Ratepayers are dudded again.

SBD's Brainstorming Sessions

A report about SBD was published on page 2 of the minutes of SBRC's meeting of 20th February 2019.

"Councillors joined South Burnett Directions Board Members and representatives from Department of State Development, Manufacturing Infrastructure & Planning [DSDMIP] for the February South Burnett Directions meeting."

"After a brainstorming session, agriculture was defined as a regional priority into the future as it has been in the past."

It is extraordinary that it required a "brainstorming session" to recognise that agriculture is and always has been the main industry of the South Burnett. Even fools with only half a brain already knew that.

Plenty of other things have also been happening in the world during the last one hundred years. Unfortunately for the South Burnett, SBD appears to have difficulty extending its horizons beyond the agriculture, tourism and private hospital industries.

It is of course possible that SBD's theatrical brainstorming session might just have been SBRC's way of impressing upon the Department of State Development that the South Burnett is no place for any new industries. SBRC does not seem to want to attract anything such as new industries that might result in an influx of new people into the region, for the simple reason that new people might not vote the right way. SBD's brainstorming session appears to have helped DSDMIP get SBRC's message.


SBD's Big Ambitions

SBD may have ambitions in the field of venture capital merchant banking.

In SBD's website are these statements:-
"South Burnett Directions in conjunction with South Burnett Regional Council is now ready to expand into private investment into the region with opportunities in the areas of:
Agriculture, Manufacturing, Transport, Processing, Telecommunications, Aged Care, Education, Horticulture, Health, IT, Agricultural Innovation, Light and Heavy industry, Tourism."
"South Burnett Directions can provide development support and resources to assist your business in establishing in the South Burnett."

What does this mean? Are SBRC and SBD planning to use ratepayers money to finance risky private business ventures?

Is this another SBRC scam designed to channel money from ratepayers pockets into the pockets of cronies?

Ratepayers had better watch out.

Plans for more Irrigation for the Region

On 5th July 2016, website southburnett.com.au published an article about a research project, to be carried out by SBD, to assess the economic benefits of introducing more irrigation into the region.

The benefits of water to farmers is a subject that requires no research. This research project appears to have been unnecessary. Perhaps the next research project will be an investigation into which direction gravity is pointing.

In any case, unless the people carrying out research have expert skills in the subject they are researching, then it is unlikely that the fruits of their research will have any merit.

What is actually going on? For years, the residents of the town of Kingaroy have been conditioned and brainwashed into believing that they should give their water supply to irrigators, because the water of Gordonbrook Dam is polluted with organic matter. Townspeople would then buy cleaner water from Boondooma Dam. However, water from Boondooma Dam is much more expensive than water from Gordonbrook Dam. According to the brainwashers, townspeople would be winners.

The "National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility" gives state governments access to a $2 billion concessional loans scheme for building dams, pipelines and aquifer recharge projects. A scheme has been proposed to borrow money to build a pipeline network to distribute water from Gordonbrook Dam to irrigators.



Organic Pollution of Gordonbrook Dam

SBRC has never investigated the sources of 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. Most of the pollution might be being caused by a few feedlots and/or piggeries not managing their effluent properly. It is wellknown that such effluent can cause algae to flourish.

A few simple tests could locate the sources of the pollution and then the polluters would be required to contain their effluent, just like everybody else. The problem might quickly be solved.

In the public interest, investigating and fixing the problem of organic pollution of Gordonbrook Dam ought to have a substantially higher priority than taking water from townspeople and giving it to irrigators.

SBD appears to have never identified the pollution of Gordonbrook Dam as a strategic issue.



Asset Stripping

Water is a valuable commodity. Kingaroy's water supply appears to be firmly in the sights of irrigators who want to take it.

Click here to see a report about SBRC's antics in relation to Gordonbrook Dam.

See also SBRC's Black Strategy 2 for more information about the ways in which SBRC strips council assets and sells or gives them to cronies.

SBD's questionable dabbling in water management issues appears to have made SBD a party to what may eventually develop into SBRC's biggest scam.

Tourism Billboard Advertisements

On 18th January 2016, website southburnett.com.au published an article about a deal struck between SBD and an advertising company concerning four billboards, two on the Bruce Highway and two on the Warrego Highway.

The billboards promoted:-

• Lake Boondooma and the Yallakool tourist park
• South Burnett's wine region
• the Bunya Mountains
• Kingaroy's Wine and Food in the Park Festival

SBRC paid for three of the billboards and the Wine and Food In The Park Festival paid for the fourth.

It is the role of elected councillors to decide how ratepayers money is spent. Also, some senior employees of SBRC have discretionary spending powers. But non-SBRC entities generally should not have the power to spend ratepayers money at their own discretion or to enter into contracts on behalf of SBRC, although it is thought that in relation to its private hospital SBRC has found a way around this. It is highly questionable for SBD to have been making executive spending decisions on behalf of ratepayers.

This is an example of SBD not only carrying out operational-level activities instead of sticking to strategic-level activities, but in this case SBD also appears to have performed the executive-level functions of deciding exactly how ratepayers money should be spent and of entering into a contract on behalf of SBRC.

The news article's words about who struck the deal were "a deal struck between South Burnett Directions and a large advertising company." The article stated that the cost was paid by SBRC. Therefore the money spent in the deal was SBRC's money. Presumably SBRC must have been acting on the instructions of SBD, because it seems unlikely that SBD has any control over SBRC's bank account. If the money was spent from SBRC's bank account, and any contract entered into was signed by SBRC and not by SBD, then it is probable that technically no laws were broken, even though it appears that SBD struck the deal.

What perhaps should have happened? After strategy planners had defined the details of a strategy to promote the region by advertising, they should then have left the implementation of the strategy to the executive arm of SBRC whose job it is to carry out executive functions. The executive arm of SBRC should then have investigated and selected appropriate advertising, after considering in a transparent manner all submissions from interested parties.

This billboard saga is an example of what is meant by the phrase "control freak syndrome".



Mayor's Link with the Bunya Mountains

Was there a Conflict of Interest?

One of the billboards paid for by SBRC advertised the Bunya Mountains. The billboard was located on a highway where passing motorists could see it. It is reasonable to assume that some people may have made a trip to the Bunya Mountains as a result of seeing the billboard. This would have been a normal intended result of hiring the billboard.

The main tourist carpark in the Bunya Mountains is overlooked by a tourism-related business comprising a general store, bistro and restaurant. It appears to be the main eatery in the Bunyas, a place where there are not many eateries. It seems possible that this business may have profited from tourist visits generated by the billboard.

The business appears to be operated by the wife of the mayor of SBRC at the time. The mayor, in his role as mayor, appears to have been a member of SBD's steering committee.

Of course, this must all have been just a complete coincidence. Wouldn't SBRC have ensured that everything was done properly at arms length?

Some unkind people might think that there may be a conflict of interest somewhere in this story about a billboard. If there was a conflict of interest, then perhaps it was properly declared within SBD.

SBD's steering committee does not publish the minutes of its meetings, so it is not possible for the public to know if a conflict of interest was declared, and it is not possible for the public to know what was discussed at meetings nor to know who was present at meetings nor to know what was voted on at meetings nor to know who voted nor to know how they voted. Therefore there is no evidence that any wrongdoing occurred.

Whatever may or may not have happened within SBD, this event draws attention to the fact that SBD is not subject to the same regulations that SBRC is subject to. It also draws attention to SBRC's pathological preoccupation with secrecy.

If anybody has more information about this story then they are invited to send details via the email address in the contact link at the bottom of this page. Kingaroar.com will be happy to correct this report if any part of it is shown to be incorrect.

SBD Supports SBRC's Private Hospital

In a page about health in SBD's website, it is stated that:-
"The South Burnett Region will continue to pursue health development through the South Burnett Community Hospital Foundation which supports the Lady Bjelke-Petersen Community Hospital and community."

In a page about SBD's history in SBD's website, it is stated that:-
"South Burnett Directions has had success with opening a community hospital to support health services ..."

The above statements in SBD's website clearly show that SBD is a supporter of the current circumstances of SBRC's private hospital. SBD also appears to be claiming at least part of the credit for opening the hospital, which seems odd because the hospital appeared to have been re-opened due to the efforts of local politicians. At any rate, SBRC councillors had to vote on the issue.



About SBRC's Private Hospital

SBRC owns a private hospital. A private company owned by SBRC controls the hospital on behalf of SBRC. SBRC's private company is run in a secretive manner by mainly non-SBRC directors appointed by SBRC. Some of the directors are medical professionals whose interests do not appear to coincide with the interests of the majority of ratepayers.

The private company leases out the hospital at zero rent to a commercial hospital operator. SBRC threw a swag of subsidies into the deal, including paying for building maintenance and capital improvements.

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.



Private Hospital Scams

Click here to see a report about scams and questionable issues related to SBRC's private hospital.

The majority of South Burnett ratepayers cannot afford private health insurance and cannot afford to pay private hospital fees and therefore cannot obtain hospital services from the private hospital that they are forced to subsidise.

It is fundamentally against the public interest and it is unethical for a local council to subsidise a private hospital.

The directors of SBRC's private company do not appear to have any duty or obligation to consider the interests of ratepayers. It is not known how conflicts of interest are managed by the board of directors of the company, because board meetings are held in secret and because the minutes of meetings are not published.

It is stated in the constitution of SBRC's private company that:-
"The principal object of the company is the operation and management of the business for the benefit of the residents of the region".
Apparently, the meaning of the word "residents" can be as few as two residents.

The private hospital appears to be part of SBRC's modus operandi of preferential dealing that has been in existence for years, carried out against the interests of poorer sections of the South Burnett community in favour of the wealthiest sections of the community. The hospital calls itself a community hospital, but it does not appear to be a community hospital, except in the sense that all sections of the community are compelled to subsidise it through the rates that they must pay to SBRC.

SBD does not appear to have addressed any of the many questionable issues related to SBRC's Private Hospital.

SBRC's Black Strategies

Black strategies are unofficial hidden strategies, in the same sense that secret operations that governments deny are known as black ops.

All of SBRC's questionable decisions and activities can be linked to a set of discriminatory black strategies that appear to be the bedrock of SBRC's policies.

Click here to see a detailed report about SBRC's black strategies.



Did SBD Create SBRC's Black Strategies?

At first glance, it might seem that SBRC's black strategies must have been created by SBD, because SBD is SBRC's strategy planning committee.

SBD was created in 2013. To determine which came first, SBD or SBRC's black strategies, events related to each black strategy are examined in the following paragraphs.

SBRC's Black Strategy 1

• This strategy gives control of SBRC's assets and functions to non-elected non-accountable shadow organisations stacked with cronies and stooges.
• This appears to be one of the strategies responsible for the creation of SBD, so the strategy must have been in existence before SBD was created.

SBRC's Black Strategy 2

• This strategy strips council assets and sells or gives them to cronies.
• The saga of the sale of part of Adermann Park began in 2012, before SBD was created.

SBRC's Black Strategy 3

• This is SBRC's strategy of preferential dealing.
• This strategy is a continuation of a strategy developed long ago by Wondai Shire Council (WSC). For example, many years before the amalgamation of councils in 2008, the low-traffic end of Shellytop Road was upgraded to bitumen by WSC, whereas the high-traffic end of the road to this day still only has gravel.
• It is speculated that one of SBD's VIP steering committee members might know something about Shellytop Road, because they appear to live at the low-traffic end of the road.
• See also the report in this website about unapproved dwellings that shows that the policy of turning a blind eye to unapproved dwellings in SBRC's electoral Division Six (formerly Wondai Shire) has been in existence since long before the amalgamation of local councils.

SBRC's Black Strategy 4

• This strategy hinders population growth in the South Burnett.
• WSC's preferential dealings with respect to roads and unapproved dwellings in SBRC's electoral Division Six (formerly Wondai Shire) were in existence long before the amalgamation of local councils in 2008.
• Also, the Memerambi Mess began in 2011, before SBD was created.

SBRC's Black Strategy 5

• This is a strategy of concealing everything that can be concealed.
• This strategy appears to have been in operation since SBRC's beginnings in 2008, well before SBD was created.

SBRC's Black Strategy 6

• This strategy is about controlling the media.
• This strategy appears to have been in operation since the days of WSC, long before SBD was created.
• See the report in this website about unapproved dwellings, which includes information about a mayor of WSC who seems to have thought that the media could be controlled forever.
• Since SBD was created, one of SBD's VIP steering committee members has become a director of the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

SBRC's Black Strategy 7

• This strategy is about bending every rule that can be bent.
• It is not in the public interest for a local council to bend the rules that are supposed to protect the public interest. It is doubtful if SBD could have been created if SBRC did not actively exploit loopholes in the regulations.

From the foregoing, it can readily be seen that all of SBRC's black strategies were in existence before SBD was created.



What Has SBD done about SBRC's Black Strategies?

Considering that SBD is SBRC's strategy planning organisation, what has SBD done to eliminate SBRC's discriminatory black strategies?

The answer is quite simple. SBD appears to have done nothing about SBRC's black strategies. This implies that SBD either has failed to identify the black strategies or is perfectly happy to perpetuate them.

SBRC's many questionable decisions and activities appear to be never-ending. They have not diminished since SBD was created in 2013.

Clueless SBRC Councillors lose their Policy-Making Powers

The work of elected local councillors falls partly within the sphere of planning, such as defining strategies and making policy decisions, and partly within the sphere of executive administration, such as making spending decisions and awarding contracts.

If SBRC councillors believe in democracy, then they must be clueless. They appear to have given away their policy-making powers to SBD.

When it comes to making decisions at its meetings, SBRC appears to unanimously rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made behind closed doors by nobody-knows-who.

See SBRC's Black Strategy 7 for more information about SBRC's unanimous decisions.



Existence of SBD Proves that SBRC is Incompetent

If SBRC really needs a separate organisation to determine its policy directions, then this would imply that SBRC is incapable of doing its job. The mere existence of SBD appears to be proof that SBRC is incompetent. Therefore the existence of SBD appears to be sufficient reason to appoint an administrator to take over SBRC.

SBD's Role in Relation to SBRC

SBD appears to be a major cog in SBRC's preferential dealing machine.

The existence of SBD appears to be a result of a clever and sophisticated strategy to transfer control of SBRC activities to non-SBRC persons and entities. This strategy exploits loopholes in the regulations that govern local councils in Queensland.

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

SBD appears to have been given the policy-making and strategy-planning powers that should belong to elected SBRC councillors. SBD appears to be attempting to take over other SBRC planning roles.

Although SBD appears to stick its control freak beak into every aspect of SBRC's activities, in theory SBD's actual powers embrace only what the apparently clueless councillors at SBRC have knowingly or unknowingly handed over to SBD. Councillors have the power to change this state of affairs at will. Although electoral upsets in the South Burnett are unlikely, there will always be some possibility that different more competent councillors could reclaim their lost territory.



SBD's Strategy Planning Deficiencies

SBD claims to be an economic development strategy planning organisation whose key areas of focus are leadership, liveability, business stability and growth.

Much of what SBD calls strategy planning is actually a mixture of executive decision-making and operational activities, neither of which belongs within the scope of strategy planning.


Sometimes SBD does not seem to be able to make up its mind about what it does. As well as claiming to be a strategy planning organisation, SBD also 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. In local government, many issues are more important than economic development. Yet, most other strategic issues appear to be ignored by SBD.


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.

The strategies or wishlists produced by SBD appear to be of benefit to those who have decided the strategies, rather than of benefit to the overall public interest. There appear to be serious conflicts of interest associated with SBD.


SBD's actual strategy planning activities appear to be of low quality. One of the probable reasons for this is an apparent failure to recognise and address most of the strategic issues that affect the South Burnett.

Among the many strategic issues that SBD appears to ignore are:-

• SBRC secrecy and inadequate accountability to the public.
• SBRC's private hospital having been gifted to a commercial hospital operator.
• Ratepayer subsidies for SBRC's private hospital.
• SBRC turns a blind eye towards unapproved dwellings in rural residential areas.
• SBRC has a rigged differential rates structure that subsidises businesses and primary producers at the expense of everybody else.
• SBRC has implemented huge increases in property rates for renewable energy projects, now twenty times higher than the property rate for primary producers, for similar land that can be right next door.
• SBRC engages in activities that deliberately hinder population growth.
• SBRC encourages an imbalance in the proportion of elderly people in the population.
• SBRC increasingly uses professional spin doctors.
• SBRC is stripping council assets.
• SBRC turns a blind eye to chronic organic pollution of Gordonbrook Dam that is probably preventable.
• SBRC engages in preferential dealing on a multitude of issues.

SBD often points out that it is an economic development organisation, so it is perhaps not surprising that it does not appear to consider the interests of a large proportion of the population. However, as well as leadership, business stability and growth, SBD claims that one of its key areas of focus is "liveability".

SBD's failure to address any of the above issues is completely at odds with its assertion that one of its key areas of focus is "liveability". SBD even has a page about liveability in its website. None of the above issues are mentioned there. It appears that SBD's concept of liveability is quite different from the concept of quality of life for ordinary people.

In a page about "health" in SBD's website, SBRC's private hospital is mentioned in the context of "health development" whatever that means, despite a recognition later in the same page that the South Burnett has a "low socio-economic status". It appears that nobody at SBD has noticed the paradox.

Genuine strategy planning is a holistic process that considers all aspects of an organisation and its sphere of operations. SBD's activities cannot be described as holistic.


SBD either has failed to identify SBRC's black strategies or seems perfectly happy to perpetuate them.



Justification for SBRC Administrator

If SBRC really needs a separate organisation to determine its policy directions, then this would imply that SBRC is incapable of doing its job. The mere existence of SBD appears to be proof that SBRC is incompetent. Therefore the existence of SBD appears to be sufficient reason to appoint an administrator to take over SBRC.

SBD appears to have been given control of SBRC's policies and planning. The apparent existence of conflicts of interest within SBD appears to be another good reason why an administrator ought to be appointed to take over SBRC.