At its special budget meeting in June, in one fell swoop Noosa Council voted to absorb what used to be the Tourism and Economic Levy into its general rates and took on what was previously Tourism Noosa’s responsibility for ‘destination management’.
The money is no longer applied only to tourism and industry purposes in spite of, as former CEO Brett de Chastel explained in his 2015 report to Council: “[In the early 2000s] the levy was requested by the tourism industry to assist in funding tourism related operations.” The understanding always was that these funds were primarily for the tourism sector, not general rates, until in July the arrangement was reneged.
It is no coincidence that the Noosa Parks Association (NPA) 2020 Strategic Plan listed among its projects to “advocate for a governance firewall separating Noosa’s destination management and destination marketing to guarantee sustainable tourism within the region” and in its 2021 review boasted the task was complete.
Michael Gloster – variously NPA president and vice president – along with several collaborators including Noel Playford, has for some forty years worked to influence Council decision-making. A couple of years ago in a Noosa News article ‘Gloster’s Way: Get in First’, he is quoted saying, ”We had to reform Noosa Council and have a heavy influence on town planning, because [that] was a really powerful tool to get additional chunks” […] We are the most successful community organisation to exercise our democratic right to influence our council.”
Whether NPA’s influence on council is a democratic right is questionable. ‘Democracy’ is usually defined as “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (Oxford Languages Dictionary). Nothing in this envisages a non-elected pressure group having special influence.
Now that Noosa Council has taken over the destination management function – which covers overriding control of economic, social, environmental and other matters as they relate to tourism – the Council appears to be confused about what to do with its new role. Councillors did request clarification but a ‘Further Report’ in the November 2021 General Committee Agenda offered little enlightenment:
“The overall objective of the destination management plan is to create a strategic framework that includes the activities of Tourism Noosa as one of its key stakeholders and delivery mechanisms. […] The term ‘agency’ is yet to be defined and will be part of the overall strategy development that provides options for the level of management that may be required going forward and the appetite of Council to control the outcomes.”
At the same meeting, the Economic Development Manager offered a bit more information but no details: “Regarding the destination management project, I’m finalising securing some resources for this to happen. […] And destination management framework, as the former CEO said to me, is about ‘managing success and managing pressures deriving from success’.”
During the General Committee debate, councillors referred to having been briefed about destination management by de Chastel, who was appointed CEO by the Playford Council in 2014 after Noosa split from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council.
He had been coordinator of the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group (STSRG) which during 2018-2019 deliberated unsuccessfully on how to establish sustainable tourism, the definition of which was never agreed.
It is notable that when STSRG was set up in March 2018, Michael Gloster as NPA president issued a media release that suggested NPA was putting itself and a satellite organisation in the driver’s seat: “Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association (NRRA) and Noosa Parks Association have invited Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa to join with them in seeking a better balance between Noosa’s prized residential lifestyle and environment, and Noosa’s tourism experience.”
As soon as the Council saw the release, and was appropriately dismayed that it was being cast a mere subsidiary, the document was withdrawn and never saw the light of day. From that point, the STSRG was presented as a joint Noosa Council/Tourism Noosa initiative.
So it is not surprising that STSRG membership included Gloster (NPA), Adrian Williams (NSRRA), Janet Kake (Chamber of Commerce) (both related to former Mayor and Gloster associate Noel Playford) and Phil Moran (in 2020 an NPA-supported Council candidate). There were also representatives of other environment groups, business associations, Cooroy and Pomona groups, Zero Emissions Noosa, and state MP Bolton. As a Councillor, I had opted to join then Mayor Wellington as a member.
From April 2019, the STSRG struggled to gain agreement for a draft joint declaration. In May a version was tabled by Gloster and a self-appointed subgroup of allies – Cooroy Area Residents Association, Heart of Pomona Inc, NRRA, Peregian Beach Community Association and NPA.
The document had no standing and went nowhere, so it was a surprise to see it recently reappear on Open Noosa as if it had some legitimacy. An accompanying suggestion in the same article that tourism industry members were deliberately blocking progress is untrue and disingenuous.
In fact the STSRG was having great difficulty in reaching agreement and the self-appointed subgroup had tried to hijack proceedings.
When this came to light, a representative subcommittee was agreed to work on a draft declaration. This was never completed and in November 2019 Steve McPharlin, Cr Tony Wellington and a ‘combined residents sub-group’ each presented separate versions. No accord was ever reached, no declaration made, and no more meetings were held.
In hindsight, we can now see how the Gloster group’s pre-emptive version provides insights into how NPA and its satellite entities had intended to capture and exploit destination management to advance NPA’s long-held goals to cap visitor numbers, cap numbers able to visit certain popular places (‘hotspots’) and introduce other initiatives.
Many of the proposals were worthwhile, but the attempt to circumvent proper process, was far from acceptable.
For the record, here are some substantive extracts from that document:
“Increasingly, overcrowding and congestion in coastal ‘hot spots’, threatens to erode visitor and resident satisfaction, particularly during peak periods. Resident and overnight visitor numbers are to a large extent controlled by the ‘development cap’ embedded in successive Noosa town planning schemes. The emergent challenge is to manage increasing day-tripper numbers too, so that during peak times, the total of number people (sic) in a hotspot (residents + overnight visitors + day trippers) does not reach the point where overcrowding and congestion diminishes the experience for all.”
“It is proposed that acceptable visitor numbers be determined for each of the following
hotspots: Peregian Beach and Sunshine Beach shopping centres, Noosa National Park Headland Section, Hasting Street, Main Beach and Noosa Spit, Gympie Terrace and Noosaville foreshore, Noosa Marina, Tewantin shopping centre, Noosa River between Tewantin and the river mouth, Teewah Beach to Double Island Point, and Upper Noosa River.”
“Integrated public and private transport system … to include:
- increased public transport, with differential pricing for residents, overnighters, and day trippers;
- smarter management of road access to hotspots (e.g. Noosa Parade, Noosa Drive Park Road, with differential access for residents, overnighters, and day trippers
- increased park and ride, with differential access for residents, over-night guests, and day trippers (e.g. differential fare pricing, differential access to and payment of for parking);
- increased paid parking in public car parks, with differential access and/or payment for residents, over-night guests, and day trippers;
- gradual introduction of management of acceptable visitor numbers in hotspots, by using an appropriate mix of the approaches outlined above”.
The NPA’s current strategic plan includes projects intent on capping visitor numbers and an NPA committee member is designated project manager for what has been termed the ‘Noosa Social Contract’. If this is to become official Council policy, however, it should be duly presented to the public and opened up for scrutiny and debate not planned by an unrepresentative, self-appointed clique.
These NPA summaries demonstrate how far the organisation has gone in planning Noosa’s future outside the democratically-elected body which is Noosa Council.
PROJECT: “Act as a watchdog to safeguard Noosa residents’ way of life and the Noosa experience for visitors”.
To support this NPA made a submission to Noosa Council on Short Term Accommodation which stressed “The negative social impacts of Short Stay Letting” and “Council regulating SSL within the Shire through both the Planning Scheme and a Local Law”.
PROJECT: “Advocate capping visitor numbers to acceptable levels during peaks periods (e.g. using online booking systems) to environmentally significant ‘hot spots’ such as: Noosa National Park headland section, Noosa Spit, Teewah Beach to Double Island Point, Upper Noosa River and Cooloola Sand Blow.”
PROJECT: “Advocate for a governance firewall separating Noosa’s destination management and destination marketing to guarantee sustainable tourism within the region.
In his 2017 NPA president’s report, Gloster had said, “NPA will conduct a community education and advocacy campaign seeking to persuade Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa to take a more proactive role in managing overcrowding and congestion caused by day tripper tourism.”
Since then he has repeatedly raised concerns through the media about overtourism, day trippers and his desire to cap tourism.
The targeting of day trippers, however, has been challenged by the reality of two years of Covid-related border closures. Businesses have had to pivot to greater dependence on day trippers to garner income. The future is uncertain and it is possible, or even likely if Covid cannot be adequately reined in, that strategies to cut back on visitation may backfire on the Noosa economy.
So now the community awaits what Noosa Council will make of its new responsibility for destination management, which in an important sense has been gifted to it by Gloster and NPA.
Will the Council now take control and explain clearly to the community why and what and how destination management will work in their interest?
Or will the Council become dependent on unelected groups who see themselves as having a ‘democratic right’ to influence council and who appear to have done just that by sparking the transition of funding and a high level policy responsibility from Tourism Noosa to Noosa Council which now regards tourism as a ‘core business’?
By way of a point of clarification in this article, I’d like to start by quoting from my recent article:
“In the end, the Chair, Steve McFarlane, asked the four resident groups represented to put forward a draft accord (SEE BELOW) on a way forward. After many meetings we did, only to have our statement rejected by both the industry and the peak environment group, the NPA. The latter was big on limiting day visitors to Noosa and concentrating on high value, low volume visitors.”
Just to reiterate, the four major resident groups were asked by Tourism Noosa to present our version of sustainable tourism. Elected representatives from the four groups had many meetings to come up with what we thought was a workable way forward. To be clear, the NPA was not involved, and while named at the end of the final draft, it was made plain to the resident groups by NPA, once we sent them a draft of this document, that they were not going to sign it. The powers that be at Tourism Noosa did likewise.
Ms Jackson goes on to say:
“From April 2019, the STSRG struggled to gain agreement for a draft joint declaration. In May a version was tabled by Gloster and a self-appointed subgroup of allies – Cooroy Area Residents Association, Heart of Pomona Inc, NRRA, Peregian Beach Community Association and NPA.”
There was no version “tabled by Gloster and a self-appointed subgroup of allies…” In fact, the resident groups’ proposal on sustainable tourism disappeared into a black hole and was never debated by STSRG. There was zero feedback until I received notification from NPA that they would never sign the resident document, then notification from TN that there would be no agreed communique on sustainable tourism. I remember thinking, 18 wasted months.
And more:
“The document had no standing and went nowhere, so it was a surprise to see it recently reappear on Open Noosa as if it had some legitimacy. An accompanying suggestion in the same article that tourism industry members were deliberately blocking progress is untrue and disingenuous.”
The resident association’s document went nowhere, because those with the STSRG power trashed it without debate. Not sure Ms Jackson was at the meetings I attended, because the tourism industry was ambivalent to real sustainability from the outset as far as I could ascertain.
And again:
“In fact the STSRG was having great difficulty in reaching agreement and the self-appointed subgroup had tried to hijack proceedings.”
Pure fiction. How could resident groups have had any hope of hijacking proceedings that we were marginalised from?
Of course, hopes the new council might come on board with a sustainable tourism strategy were dashed when sustainability was briefly achieved after the country went into lockdown. Tourism Noosa immediately pivoted to the drive market, and the rest is history.
Herein lies the basic problem. While Noosa residents are stuck with a potentially dysfunctional tourism sector ruled by changing market forces, none of the major institutions are prepared to tackle a plan for the future.
Ms Jackson’s revisionist history of STSRG is an attack on resident groups that did nothing other than stick up for the rights of their members. .
In my opinion interested persons should not underestimate the involvement of the recently retired Council CEO (BTW What happened to his replacement?).
The so called ‘Old Guard’ which includes NPA and Dr Gloster and of course the inimitable former Mayor Playford were instrumental in arranging Noosa’s De-amalgamation and are as inferred are trying to reignite Fortress Noosa.
NPA and their affiliates want to promote Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation (another select group without community representation) as reflected by ‘Enter the Biosphere’ from Tourism Noosa and the ‘Noosa Biosphere Trails Network’ from Council.
As also stated former Mayor Wellington was spokesperson for a select group of tourist operators who seemingly wanted to control tourist numbers.
In my opinion the ‘Old Guard’s’ agenda is divisive and may not be in the best interests of Noosa.
MY REPLY TO ROD RITCHIE’S COMMENT
In his comment Rod Ritchie calls me ‘revisionist’ – by which I assume he means my article reinvented or reframed the events I wrote about. That is not the case. To assist Mr Ritchie’s memory, I provide here a chronology of relevant events of the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholders Reference Group (Reference Group).
Rod Ritchie commented: “To be clear, the NPA was not involved.”
To begin, I need to explain that in my article I only quoted extracts from a document circulated to the Reference Group in May 2019 by Dr Gloster and four resident groups, including Cooroy Area Residents Association (CARA) of which Mr Ritchie is president. Mr Ritchie’s comments about my article appear to conflate that document with a later one by ‘the combined Residents Sub-Group’ circulated in November 2019, which did not include Dr Gloster or NPA as signatory.
The chronology that follows, along with comments of my own, has been drawn from documents which show Mr Ritchie’s memory to be faulty on some important matters. Much of his comment on Open Noosa is therefore flawed. The historical record is important. It needs to be as correct as we can make it, to avoid misinterpreting and misinforming.
In my role as a Councillor, I was a member of the Reference Group and I have copies of documents from the period relevant to Mr Ritchie’s comments, including draft declarations and accords, meeting agendas, recorded meeting outcomes, and emails.
The Reference Group had members from a range of community organisations and was intended to work as a group and reach conclusions as a group. There was no expectation or indication that members should form alliances within the broader Reference Group. They had each been appointed to represent the views of their particular associations or entities.
The matters to which Mr Ritchie refers in his comment flow from meetings of the Reference Group between March and November 2019. For the record, I can reassure Mr Ritchie that I attended all but one meeting.
25 MARCH 2019 – 8TH MEETING OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM STAKEHOLDERS REFERENCE GROUP
The agenda of 25 March 2019 asked members to consider Mr de Chastel’s second version of a draft document titled ‘Sustainable Tourism for Noosa: A Joint Declaration’.
For various reasons the Reference Group was dissatisfied with Mr de Chastel’s second draft and his meeting record states it was finally agreed that “the best way to finalise this document is to allow it to ‘lie on the table’ for individuals and groups to work on improving the wording for discussion at the next meeting. This will allow different groups around the table to network offline to develop the next version of the document; and updated versions can then be considered at the next meeting.”
The task was to revise and refine the ‘wording’ of the draft to form a document to which the whole Reference Group could agree. A number of members worked individually on this task, plus it turned out there was also work done by a self-appointed subgroup formed by Noosa Parks Association president Dr Michael Gloster and four representatives of resident associations.
20 MAY 2019 – EMAIL FROM MICHAEL GLOSTER TO ALL REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS
Rod Ritchie commented: “There was no version “tabled by Gloster and a self-appointed subgroup of allies…””
Seven days before the May meeting of the Reference Group, Dr Gloster emailed to all members a document titled ‘A Joint Draft Declaration and Commitment’. The signatories to the email were Barry Cotterell (PBCA), Adrian Williams (NSRRA), Rod Ritchie (CARA), Brian O’Connor (HOP) and Michael Gloster (NPA).
In the email Gloster said that ‘A Joint Draft Declaration and Commitment’ had been “endorsed” by the Peregian Beach Community Association, Noosa Shire Residents and Ratepayers Association, Cooroy Area Residents Association, Heart of Pomona, and Noosa Parks Association.
Gloster’s email was a surprise because it had not been envisaged a separate group would be established within the Reference Group.
This is the document that I referred to in my article ‘Tourism Gloster’s Way’ and also the one that Mr Ritchie recently published on Open Noosa in his article ‘Reforming Tourism Noosa: A failure to communicate’. Perhaps he has been under the misapprehension that it was a later document circulated in November 2019, entitled ‘The Noosa Sustainable Tourism Accord’ by the combined Residents Sub-Group. It gives the impression that Mr Ritchie has conflated the two documents and their timing.
22 – 25 MAY 2019 REPLIES TO MICHAEL GLOSTER BY EMAIL BY REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS
Rod Ritchie commented: “The resident association’s document went nowhere, because those with the STSRG power trashed it without debate.”
This is not correct in relation to the ‘Declaration and Commitment’ document. Over the next few days, concerns and suggestions were responded to by email by a number of Reference Group members, not only by ‘tourism industry members’ as Mr Ritchie has incorrectly asserted.
Responses were emailed by Vivien Griffin (ZEN), Mayor Tony Wellington, Steve McPharlin (Tourism Noosa), Michael Tarrant (NPA), Drew Pearson (Tourism Noosa) and Cr Ingrid Jackson.
The document was also discussed at the subsequent meeting.
27 MAY 2019 – 9TH MEETING OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM STAKEHOLDERS REFERENCE GROUP
Rod Ritchie commented: “In fact, the resident groups’ proposal on sustainable tourism disappeared into a black hole and was never debated by STSRG.”
The May agenda included the item ‘Draft Sustainable Tourism for Noosa – A Joint Declaration’ which became a discussion of the Declaration and Commitment paper by Dr Gloster and the four residents groups, which had supplanted the initial versions by de Chastel.
Mr de Chastel’s meeting record referred to the Gloster/residents group paper: “The group was generally comfortable with the first page, noting some minor enhancements. […] The meeting spent a considerable amount of time working through the other actions making suggested changes to the draft document. […] At the conclusion of that discussion, it was agreed that Brett would rework the document to take into account the feedback from the group and then the next meeting would review the latest draft.”
11 JULY 2019 – 10TH MEETING OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM STAKEHOLDERS REFERENCE GROUP
For the next meeting in July, Mr de Chastel prepared a new version of ‘Draft Sustainable Tourism for Noosa – A Joint Declaration’.
The record of outcomes stated: “All members of the group identified that they supported the concept of a declaration but a number of the members identified specific concerns”. The record also included synopses of concerns raised by Emma Hull (Hastings Street Association), Tourism Noosa, Barry Cotterell (PBCA), Janet Kake (CCIQ Noosa), Joel Laventure (Noosaville Business Association), Vivien Griffin (ZEN). It was agreed to set up a sub-group to work on a declaration.
19 NOVEMBER 2019 – 11TH MEETING OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM STAKEHOLDERS REFERENCE GROUP
The agenda included an item, ‘Feedback from Subgroup Process’ and included separate Draft Accords by Cr Wellington and Mr McPharlin. In addition, before the 19 November meeting, an email containing ‘The Noosa Sustainable Tourism Accord’ by ‘the combined Residents Sub-Group’ was circulated, the signatories of this unofficial grouping being named as the “Cooroy, Pomona, Peregian Beach and Noosa Shire Residents Groups”. Dr Gloster was not a signatory to any of these documents.
Based on Mr Ritchie’s comment, it appears that by November 2019 the Residents Sub-Group had parted ways with Dr Gloster.
It is important to again note that the November 2019 ‘Draft Accord’ by the combined Residents Sub-Group’ was not the document recently published in Open Noosa by Mr Ritchie, nor the one I quoted in my article. Rather, both Mr Ritchie’s and my articles on Open Noosa refer to the Draft Declaration circulated by Gloster, Ritchie, Williams, O’Connor and Cotterell in May 2019.
FINAL NOTE
With the Noosa Council elections due in March 2020, no further Sustainable Tourism Stakeholders Reference Group meeting was held.
The Reference Group process was a failure. No Accord was reached and no Declaration made. But it is important to be accurate about these matters and it is also wise to check one’s facts before accusing others of being revisionist or resorting to any ad hominem allegations.