Home » Domestic life » There is a storm brewing in the sunshine state

There is a storm brewing in the sunshine state

The evidence is clearly that a lot of bloggers, who could very well be described as being of the left, are working hard not to presumptively claim victory for Rudd at the yet to be called federal election. Well no one could deny that the polls are not looking good for the government at present, however the issue here that may well cost Labor Federal seats in Queensland, is an issue that is ostensibly a state matter,  namely the forced amalgamation of local governments by the Beattie Labor Government.

The Queensland government dramatically upped the ante in the amalgamation battle today, introducing to state parliament an amendment to its laws enabling it to summarily sack councils which carry out ballots on planned forced amalgamations.

The amendment was a defiant response to Mr Howard’s promise that the federal government would pay for ballots if councils wanted to go ahead with them, as he argued any mergers should be voluntary.

Mr Howard reacted angrily to Premier Peter Beattie’s move, telling federal parliament it was “a slap in the face for every Queenslander”.

“It’s an example of what this whole country would become if you had state Labor governments everywhere, untrammelled by the check and the balance of a coalition government at the federal level,” Mr Howard said.(Brisbane Times)

The thing that I see in my shire is a certain level of confusion as to what this amalgamation is all about. The state government certainly have not even tried to sell this unprecedented change to an unwilling public. Personally I put this sort of reform down to what I call an “accountant mentality”; the sort of mindset that just looks at the money costs without looking at the social costs of such things. I have not met any one in my locality who thinks that the amalgamations will be a positive thing, the costs of implementation are going to be huge and then lots of people in the more remote shires will loose their jobs, the level of services will subsequently decline. It is one almighty disaster as far as I can see.

For example take the libraries; I. and my family are members of both the Caboolture and Pine Rivers libraries and each actually run very different computer systems, which are not compatible. The cost of sorting this under the amalgamation will be very high. But what sort of service can we expect under the Beattie Plan? Sadly I expect that the over all budget for buying books for the amalgamated council will be less than the sum of what is being spent now (under the accountant mentality) and how long will it be before we see empty shelves or even libraries closed? It is issues like this, which concern the people I speak to about this matter.

Any one contemplating building a house around here have very good reason to be concerned because all of the three shires have slightly different expectations when it comes to planning permissions So which rules are to be the norm over the new “Super Shire”?

Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) president Paul Bell branded Mr Beattie a “dictator”, saying the threat of dismissal would not stop mayors and councillors.

”(Referendums) only going to give local communities a voice and the person who stops communities from having a voice, a democratic voice, slips into the ranks of a great dictator,” Mr Bell said.

The LGAQ is still in talks with federal authorities about legal loopholes to enable councils to go ahead with the ballots without penalty.

Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said the government’s laws were unprecedented.

“I think we’ll see mass civil disobedience and that’s what I think councils should do,” Mr Seeney said.(Brisbane Times)

Personally I hope that enough of the Mayors stick to their guns and front it out with Peter Beattie over the plebiscites, despite the fact that I think that Seeney is almost totally ineffectual as an opposition leader He is right on this occasion.

Given the clear requirement that seats have to be won in Queensland for Rudd to get the keys to the lodge, this is an issue for which Rudd can’t keep playing the small target game, and this is not an issue created by the coalition. It is a fight of Labor’s own making . Surely the Labor hopefuls all over the country must be thinking that the ghost of Mark Latham’s bully boy approach is again rampant and creating a political scenario which may once again allow the ALP to grab defeat from the jaws of victory….

About these ads

19 Comments

  1. Madd McColl says:

    What a bunch of turncoats some of you conservatives are this year. Such federal intervention in the states would’ve previously had many of you spitting abuse at the crafter of such a big government. Not only that but all the wasted money flowing toward marginal seats in an election year should have you all near to tears. What on earth has happened?
    Oh, Labor’s up in the polls that’s right, so out go the cornerstone beliefs.
    Beattie is the Premier, therefore it’s his job to assess his state and decide what will improve services for Qld. Howard is the PM in an election year who’s behind in the polls, hence the constant irresponsible interfering with marginals within states.
    The Mersey hospital is classic example, if it cannot be justified, and the Premier deems this so, then it should be downsized. Even the IPA are against him in all this.

  2. Iain says:

    What you don’t seem understand MM is that the amalgamations will have a significant effect on peoples lives because it is government at the local level that provides so many of the services that make life tolerable, like our roads, water and rubbish collection. You live in Victoria and to you this will be just “Queensland” stuff.
    As I tried to say in the piece this is an issue that could stop people voting for Rudd, so you lefties had better try to have a better response to the issue than to talk about Federal intervention in state issues.

  3. E says:

    Some random thoughts:
    * Local government is a creature of State governments’ laws. It has no constitutional standing.
    * The Commonwealth wants to eliminate the States. Financing local government directly will, over time, assist in creating the impression that the States are useless.
    * If this trick can be pulled off, the Commonwealth will control everything.

    Another thought I had recently. Since home ownership has been destroyed (the median income in Canberra will not buy the median house in Canberra – it’s not much better elsewhere) we might see disenfranchisement. How? If the States are crippled, then local governments will be the vehicle of service delivery. Only property owners can vote at local government elections.

  4. Iain says:

    Only property owners can vote at local government elections..

    Not correct E, all registered voters get to vote for local government even those who do not own property. :)

  5. MK says:

    “…the ALP to grab defeat from the jaws of victory…”

    You better hope that happens, otherwise it won’t matter whether Kevin Rudd stands up on behalf of you folks in Queensland now. Peter Beattie might back down now to avoid damaging the ALPs chances, but if you fall for that trick, it’s virtually guaranteed PM Rudd won’t be anywhere to be found once Premier Beattie pulls out his cudgel again after the election.

  6. Iain says:

    Sadly all too true MK :(

  7. Craigy says:

    Just to set you straight as usual.

    “The state government certainly have not even tried to sell this unprecedented change to an unwilling public.”

    The change has a precedent Iain. Your rightist mate Jeff Kennett did it in Victoria, forced amalgamations followed by years of unelected council managers. The amalgamations have turned out okay, but the unelected professional managers were, as could be expected, a disaster.

    At least in QLD you are getting to vote for this. The conservatives when in power down here just rammed it through with no concern for the voter’s opinion.

    Luckily Kennett got thrown out for his right wing arrogance. Something that’s about to happen to Howard’s dangerous lot.

    It is funny how you lot of extremists are criticising this. When it was first done by a right wing ding bat government, you were all in favour of the ‘tough’ stand Kennett was taking against the leftie biased local governments.

    Again the right (well those that come here) look like the hypocrites and dangerous extremists they truly are.

  8. Iain says:

    Craigy,
    In Queensland there is no precedent for this action by the Beattie Government, neither are the vast majority of local governments in financial difficulty or under the control of appointed managers.
    We don’t get a vote on this matter either, as you erroneously claim. In fact the Beattie government have threatened any mayor who seeks to hold a plebiscite with the sack, so much for democratic consultation or being responsive to the will of the people. So your comparisons with the Victorian experience is rather shallow and as
    I know absolutely Zip about the details of the Kennet reformations there you can take your inappropriate aspersions and stick them where the sun don’t shine.
    Cheers ;)

  9. Madd McColl says:

    ‘We don’t get a vote on this matter either, as you erroneously claim.

    But you do get to vote at the next state election.

    You never know Iain, you may like the changes as the amalgamations certainly had no adverse effects down here that I’m aware of. And Beattie’s proposal, from my knowledge, is the product of recommendations from an independant commision.

  10. Mark L. says:

    So your comparisons with the Victorian experience is rather shallow and as
    I know absolutely Zip about the details of the Kennet reformations there…

    If you know “absolutely zip” about what Kennett did, how can you declare Craigy’s comparison to be “shallow”? What Beattie is doing is actually very similar to Kennett’s move on urban local government in Melbourne, albeit for different reasons; it’s not a shallow comparison at all. I find it amusing that conservatives are simultaneously cheering Howard’s intervention in the states but cursing because the Beattie state regime is intervening in local government.

  11. Iain says:

    MM
    Sorry but Your knowledge of Beattie’s changes is worse than Craigy’s and the issue about voting in relation to this matter all revolves around Beattie trying to forbid plebiscites on amalgamations, not if we have a right to vote in a state election.
    Mark
    My comment was intended to point out that Craigy’s claims of hypocrisy about amalgamations was a load of crap; basically I had no knowledge of this chapter of Victorian history so there is absolutely no possibility that I am being inconsistent by voicing my concerns about the changes up here.
    As for federal intervention on “state Issues” that is as they say another kettle of fish entirely.

  12. Mark L. says:

    Yes, it is another kettle of fish.

    The states existed first and at federation agreed to cede some power to a national government; states’ rights are enshrined in the constitution. The Howard government has continually disregarded, manipulated and overridden the states, usually for his own political ends.

    Local government is a political construct of state legislatures which is primarily designed to deliver services. If a state government sees the need to reform or restructure local government, there is no legal or constitutional obstacles to it doing so.

  13. Iain says:

    Mark
    One thing that is clear is that in a democracy all legitimacy derives form the consent of the people and it does not matter that much from an ethical point of view what the evolution of or government system actually is. The fact of the matter is that a vast majority of the people in Queensland do not think that the amalgamations are either necessary nor do they think that these reforms will actually be in any way beneficial.
    While I agree with you that the local government does exist to provide services and I even agree that the state government does have the power to act in this matter that does not change the fact that this is a measure that does not at all appear to be justified by any lack of good performance by the councils involved (as has been cited in the example of Kennet in Victoria) nor by any other factor than the fact that the majority of local councils tend to be rather conservative and ideologically at odds with the Labor Government.
    When It comes to Howard’s interventions I think that they could all be seen as a necessary response to manifest shortcomings by state governments and therefore they are consistent with the justification that has been offered here for the Kennet reforms in Victorian Local government.
    The bottom line is that we are heartily sick of the endless reform for the sake of reform and many of us think that if it ain’t broke (and It ain’t) then why fix it? Even Rudd thinks that this is a bad idea…

  14. Madd McColl says:

    ‘the issue about voting in relation to this matter all revolves around Beattie trying to forbid plebiscites on amalgamations, not if we have a right to vote in a state election.

    Ummm…..I know that Iain. What I was saying is that you get to attack state Labor for it at the next state election if these amalgamtions turn out to be detrimental. I have read about it, I do know what Beattie’s done in response to federal meddling. ;-)

  15. Madd McColl says:

    ‘When It comes to Howard’s interventions I think that they could all be seen as a necessary response to manifest shortcomings by state governments…’

    You’re being far too partisan. They are irresponsible interventions in state affairs and if the coalition were to lose the next election they give Labor a precedent to intervene at will, would you like that?
    The Mersey hospital downgrade was not a manifest shortcoming it was the result of an overall assessment of the state’s hostitals. What Howard’s doing is dangerous as a precedent and blantantly opportunistic.

  16. Iain says:

    What I was saying is that you get to attack state Labor for it at the next state election if these amalgamations turn out to be detrimental. I have read about it, I do know what Beattie’s done in response to federal meddling.

    You have it around the wrong way MM, the timeline of events is important here. Beattie announced his plans for the amalgamations, and several mayors said that they wanted to hold plebiscites to demonstrate that their constituents did not want these changes, Then Beattie shifted the goal posts and amended the legislation to sack any who dared to seek a vote on this matter, Then John Howard offered to fund such plebiscites. Beattie was clearly responding to grass roots dissatisfaction with his proposals and he was trying to avoid the loss of face that would inevitably follow from resounding “no” votes in the proposed plebiscites. The problem is that he has resorted to Bully boy tactics to do so.
    As for expressing our dissatisfaction at the next election that is like trying to wake the dead once this thing is done there will be no easy way to go back. Add to that the fact that we have a thoroughly woeful opposition up here (even I can not bring my self to vote for them) and you suggestion that we could give the government a kicking latter becomes meaningless.
    Look even Rudd thinks that the amalgamations are a bad idea when the people affected don’t want it.

  17. Madd McColl says:

    ‘As for expressing our dissatisfaction at the next election that is like trying to wake the dead once this thing is done there will be no easy way to go back.’

    In the wake of the introduction of broadly unwanted IR laws you’re not inspiring much sympathy. ;-)

    ‘Look even Rudd thinks that the amalgamations are a bad idea when the people affected don’t want it.

    I think it might be important to keep the election in mind.

  18. Iain says:

    Need I remind you MM that I have never been a supporter of the “work choices” stuff as a perusal of my archive will demonstrate.

  19. Mark L. says:

    Iain, I am no expert on the situation in Queensland but I have had enough involvement with local governments to know that they are havens of wastefulness, inefficiency and petty corruption. I’m not sure about where you live but here in my town we pay exorbitant rates for nothing more than having the rubbish collected on a weekly basis, while councillors fly off on ‘study trips’ abroad and the mayor drives a publicly-leased BMW. Being elected has nothing to do with it; representatives will milk the system more than bureaucrats.

    Now I might just go read up on Beattie’s motives and if I find he is attempting to trim the fat from local government expenditure and to make services more cost efficient, I will be a long way towards supporting his changes.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 262 other followers

%d bloggers like this: