The Battle for Boggo Road

Almost a month in and there is no resolution of the Boggo Road Gaol fiasco. On a recent Boggo Blog post (written by Chris Dawson of the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society) [1] I raised the following point: "It would be more than interesting to hear a full account of what happened and why Mr. Sim was given the deed (and under a newly adopted business name)." Dawson's post had dealt with claims made by Mr. Sim that other potential operators (i.e. BRGHS) could not run the Gaol as they rely upon 'gold coin donations' and volunteers. It was stated by Mr. Sim that a commercial operation was necessary and implied that only a private business could achieve such. In showing that other major Gaols in Australia are run as commercial ventures by not-for-profit groups Dawson effectively rebutted Mr. Sim's assertions. What I meant to indicate through my comment is that an account, by those responsible for making the decision, outlining the reasons for Mr. Sim being granted the Deed of Licence would help to explain what happened and also potentially offer ways to constructively resolve the issue.


"The 'why' of all this is quite straightforward. Campbell Newman believes that the way to get Queensland "back on track" is through the private sector and a smaller government - despite all the national evidence showing that this is not how the low-profit heritage sector works. What we saw and heard suggests that the basics of this decision were made months before the BRGHS even found out about it: A private business model would be implemented at Boggo Road while trying to shoehorn community groups in there too. However, and as you point out, 'Ghost Tours' is hardly a successful business. Campbell Newman was convinced otherwise though, and here we are." [1]

Therein rests the crux of my comment: what evidence was there to show that Mr. Sim should be given the Deed of Licence? Even assuming the need for private business to guide the project, the question remains as to what grounds anyone had for selecting Mr. Sim. Leaving aside the why of the inverted commas, nothing seems "straightforward". By Dawson’s account it was down to political policy and personal evaluation on the part of Campbell Newman. I presume that Dawson is speaking of Campbell Newman in the abstract sense though, given that, as per Liam Baker's post on the matter, it was Bruce Flegg, and subsequently Tim Mander, who were directly involved [2]. If Mr. Sim was such an outstanding candidate that not even public tenders were deemed necessary then why not give the reasons? All I ask for is a degree of transparency in the matter.


In the second last sentence of the above quotation, Dawson alludes to the fact that I had noted my own reservations about Mr. Sim's capacity to run a commercial operation. That opinion is based on the fact that I would hardly consider his main venture, Ghost Tours pty ltd, to be a particularly successful one. Fiscal matters aside, I have seen more than enough to suggest that Mr. Sim has a rather lax attitude towards historical accuracy and would therefore be a poor choice of individual, to my mind, if the preservation of Brisbane’s heritage is part of the plan. In other words, there are neither self-evident nor obvious reasons for the decision hence warranting justification.


Perhaps the more salient part of Dawson’s response is its second paragraph which reads:


“There is a basic conflict of interest issue here, in that the private business has a financial motivation to stifle any 'competition' from community groups. The result is that third parties STILL have no access to Boggo Road (which was supposed to be a requirement of the Deed of License). Mr Sim still wants third parties like the BRGHS to pay him $100 per hour to access the gaol, and we understand that he is now arguing that he should have SOLE access rights, i.e. no other organisation can offer tourism services there. So much for this 'fair and equitable' access to a public asset we keep hearing about.” [1]


I would not deny Mr. Sim an equal opportunity to contribute or operate in the local history scene. However, I do think he needs to either meet the standards of historical study or present his work in such a way as to indicate plainly that it is not particularly useful in an educational sense. Excluding others (namely the Gaol’s own historical society – BRGHS) from running tours is not in the best interests of the site itself. In the end such action can, as Dawson remarks, only benefit the business side of things. Given that the BRGHS has shown that they wish to channel the proceeds of their work into the Gaol, and also the fact that their tours would attract different audiences (I, for one, would not be interested in tours involving costumed folk – Mr. Sim included – frolicking about the place) there is valid reason to open the doors to others.


Part of the causal structure behind Mr. Sim being in a position to get such access to historical sites and appear in the media is that there has yet to be an outright challenge of him in the public arena. While the deconstructions of his pseudohistorical pronouncements on this site as well as Haunts of Brisbane and the Boggo Blog are public in the sense that they can be freely and openly accessed, the audience for such challenges is limited. When I speak of the 'public arena' I mean to suggest that such a challenge needs to be articulated in the mass media. Perhaps the Boggo Road Gaol situation affords an opportunity for Mr. Sim to be held to account, and for his efforts to peddle questionable material as history and monopolise local heritage sites to be put to an end.


[1] http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/gold-coins-straw-men-who-really-runs.html
[2] http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/recipe-for-disaster-cocktail-1-rotten.html