History tells us that King Henry II once rewarded a man with 30 acres of land for performing one jump, one whistle, and a perfectly timed fart.
His name was Roland the Farter.
No, this isn’t satire. It actually happened. Roland held a manor in medieval England, free of charge on the condition that each Christmas he entertained the King’s court with what historians politely describe as saltum, siffletum, pettum—a jump, a whistle, and a fart, all performed in marvellous unison.
Thankfully, civilisation has progressed. Rulers no longer distribute valuable public assets using whimsical criteria like that.
We have tender processes. They are fair, objective, transparent, and professional…
Aren’t they?
Let’s get to the bottom of this… excuse the pun.
To assess whether modern tenders are any better than an arbitrary fart, I thought it best to define a few simple words relating to the modern tender process. We need to make sure we’re all on the same page.
Governments have an extraordinary talent for taking ordinary words and making them mean extraordinary things. So here are my three simple words: purchase, community and tender. Keep an eye out for them as I have highlighted them in the following paragraphs.
Recently, Bundaberg Regional Council sold the former Burnett Shire Council chambers at Hughes Road, Bargara. Bundaberg Council openly stated that the successful tender was assessed, not merely on the highest purchase price, but also on the “ongoing community use and benefit” of the site. The successful purchaser happened to be Port Curtis Coral Coast Limited (PCCC), with Council concluding the proposal represented the “best value for the community.”
PCCC represents the traditional owners of the First Nations Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang (FNBGGGTB) People Native Title Claim Group. The group’s programs focus on providing relief of poverty, sickness, distress and the special needs of FNBGGGTB people. PCCC derives the vast majority of its income from government grants, legally enforced contractual native title agreements, and cultural heritage services that businesses must officially obtain as part of the development approval process.
Now another significant parcel of public land—more than seven hectares of the old Bundaberg Showgrounds—is heading to tender. Once again, the highest offer won’t necessarily win. It is currently seeking proposals that include hotel accommodation, community housing, public space, heritage preservation, environmental restoration, new roads and other strategic outcomes.
Wow, that was a lot to get through!
Let’s begin our analysis with the word purchase. A purchase is the acquisition of something in exchange for money. Seems pretty straightforward. But dictionaries rarely ask the next question: where did the money come from?
Did it come from voluntary trade, or was it regulated and enforced? From private investment? From years of saving? Or did it originate through grants, government-owned corporations, legislated compensation, or compliance requirements forced on businesses?
Does the source of the money even matter? Maybe not. Or perhaps it matters more than we realise.
Then there’s the word community. It’s one of those comforting words that everyone uses, but few define. Is the community every resident of the Bundaberg Region? Every ratepayer? A single culture or ethnicity? Future tourists? Future homeowners? Or is “community” simply an elastic word that stretches just enough to fit whichever outcome is required at the time?
How do we decide what is in the best interests of the community? I’m glad I’m not a councillor.
Finally, consider the word tender. I had always imagined a tender was a competition where willing buyers submitted offers, and the seller accepted the best one. I’ve been to The Tender Centre in Bundy. So, I think I know a thing or two about a fair tender process. I’m quite certain the highest bidder over the reserve price walked away with the item. Yet if the highest price isn’t necessarily the winning price, what exactly is being judged? I thought the Council was strapped for cash. At least that was the premise of the tremendously unpopular rate rise. I’m confused!
After all that, I’m not sure I can come to a definitive conclusion as to whether modern tenders are any better than an arbitrary fart…
I’m simply left with more questions.
I apologise for failing to get to the bottom of it all. I don’t think Roland the Farter would have found the modern tender process as confusing as I did. He knew he was a shoo-in. The yearly farting act was just a formality to please the king.
Yesterday it was a jump, a whistle and a fart. Today it’s community benefit, strategic visions and something called the Cantillon effect (whatever that means).
Every age has its assessment criteria, I suppose. Is ours any easier to measure than Roland’s fart?
Written By John E Middleclass
Published August 2026 Chitchat Newspaper