Noosa Council and its mates at Tourism Noosa may be quietly smirking after the deal they pulled off this month in which the Tourism body got a little less public money – now $2-million to be precise – for doing less work.  In other words – with Council taking over ‘events management’ – Tourism Noosa gets to carry on pretty much as it has been for another year at least on ratepayer money.

But underneath this Council sleight-of-hand, there are even deeper issues of concern from their recent Special Meeting to consider ongoing funding of Tourism Noosa. 

One area that rings alarm bells is the issue of performance measurement and management of council’s projects.

Cr Nicola Wilson’s speech opposing the deal to continue funding of Tourism Noosa correctly identified parts of the funding agreement were vague and contradictory and seem to work towards a pre-determined position that hasn’t yet been set by councillors.

She rightly questioned how meaningful KPIs (key performance indicators) could be set before work has been done to set Noosa’s future tourism focus. And she made the salient point that one could hardly expect council to make additional funding commitments in the absence of KPIs.

And this is the nub of the problem.

Council has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to performance reporting across a range of council programs and projects and not least of all its management of performance agreements with Tourism Noosa.

This does not bode well for the yet to be delivered Destination Management Plan (DMP).

The root of much of the problem lies in the poorly designed and executed 2023 funding agreement.

The failure of council to set meaningful KPIs in the 2023 funding agreement and then ensure there was regular reporting to council during the period of the agreement, has led directly to the shortcomings in the hastily tacked together 2025 funding arrangement.

The failure to provide appropriate documentation (financial statements, progress reports and the like) in support of the 2025 funding proposal, is particularly concerning. To expect councillors to make informed decisions in the absence of critical background documentation, is a significant failure of good governance.

There appears to have been no proper review and analysis of the outcomes from the 2023 funding agreement. Certainly, the absence of proper KPIs makes it difficult to evaluate the return on investment for ratepayers.

The shortcomings in the new agreement can be sheeted home to the lack of specific, timely and measurable KPIs. 

The requirement to provide regular reports on the progress and performance of the funding agreement appears to be “more honoured in the breach than the observance.”

The 2023 agreement barely rates a mention in council’s key reporting documents.

Council’s 2023-2024 annual report makes no reference to the agreement, let alone reporting on progress, despite commentary from councillors and staff that tourism is a key pillar of our economy. Council’s own quarterly performance reports are vague on the progress made by Tourism Noosa in developing their required strategic and operational plans. And the CEO’s “year in review” failed to reference what was otherwise billed as a landmark agreement.

The community can hardly be expected to embrace such agreements in the absence of meaningful and timely reporting. Ratepayers deserve better concerning the use of their rate money.

The structure of the 2025 funding agreement seems set to further exacerbate the problem.

In the absence of appropriate KPIs there is no way of evaluating performance or progress in determining alternative funding sources or progress in developing a framework and appropriate event funding mechanisms. A lack of specific, measurable, and timely KPIs will make it impossible to judge what progress will be made in meeting the objectives set down in the 2025 agreement.

Allowing “reasonable time” for the development of a roadmap with Tourism Noosa or for the transition of tourism events back to council, is too open ended and defies measurement.

One way to introduce some rigour into the process would be for Council’s Audit & Risk Committee to develop a program of performance audits. A good place to start would be the various funding and performance agreements Council has entered in recent years. And not just with respect to Tourism Noosa.

Councillors Wilson and Wegener voted against the funding proposal. As members of the Audit & Risk Committee, ratepayers could be assured that a forensic investigation of the funding agreement is appropriately executed.

Until such time as council develops meaningful KPIs that allows the community to measure the success or otherwise of such initiatives we will continue to have problems evaluating the performance of these investments and the return on ratepayer’s funds.   This is the very least we need to restore some faith in what appears to be a cosy deal for one industry with too few strings attached.