The reason local governments can be sacked, of course, is that they exercise delegated rather than sovereign power, delegated principally under s.17 of the Local Government Act 1993. They are not legislative in nature; rather they are executive bodies that look an awful lot like legislatures. By-laws passed by councils are effectively delegated instruments based on the constitutional power of the states.

To sustain the argument that they should never be sacked, would require constitutional amendment. The Hawke government proposed such an amendment in the 1988 referenda. It was supported by no state, and by roughly 30% of the electorate. To put this in perspective, it obtained only three quarters of the support obtained by the risible Preamble proposal in 1999.

State governments, on the other hand, cannot be sacked and cannot have their constitutions overturned - sections 106 and 107 of the Constitution forbid it.

Consequently it is pretty clear that the reason local governments remain subordinate to the will of the states, and the reason they can be sacked, is because that is what the voters wanted. It is therefore fallaciouis to cast these sackings in terms of the executive overturning the will of the voters. Perhaps the referendum voters made their own judgment about the competence of some councillors?

Anthony

As a long time resident of Johnstone Shire,I comment as follows. I shall not comment on constitutional/legality issues.
The Councillors, as their first act, raised their incomes dramatically. In a Shire with severe economic problems (contrary to the authors statement, this Shire is not expanding,) that went down like a lead balloon with the public. From then on it became a sequenceof poor and crude behaviour.
On March 20th 2006 category 5 cyclone Larry struck. There was terrible damage to property both private and public. Agriculture was ruined, all bananas gone, cane lodged and damaged, paw paw gone. The population fell by 700. Help poured in from all over the nation. People worked long hours in poor conditions to get some degree of normal life back. My emotion then was one of immense gratitude. At the Anzac parade the turn out of people from everywhere was immensely moving. Not a tearful man, even I was struggling to speak.

Very soon after that 5 members of the Council - a majority of one -moved a motion, without warning, summarily to dismiss the council Chief Executive Officer (CEO). When of all times we needed to hang together the Council acted in a startlingly divisive way. Now my feeling was one of betrayal. Whether the CEO deserved to be dismissed I know not. Certain it is that I have never seen any substantive reason given.

Even more certain is that to act in that way at that time was reprehensible in the extreme. To the vast number of people still with no roof, no power, no jobs and not a a lot of hope who were suviving in almost constant rain the Council action was at best irrelevant, at worst treachery.

The public shouting for sacking increased to a high level and remained so.

Legality and constitutional considerations aside, the Council (but not the Mayor in my opinion) had behaved badly and had stirred up so much impotent anger that sacking was really the only option. This was a boil that needed to be lanced.

Scott, The following statement you made about the DECISION would be able to be appealed right up to the High Court if we had a valid and honest judiciary with the slightest bit of integrity in Qld to deal with applications for review under the Judicial Review Act 1991.
The Supreme Court found against the councillors concluding that the minister was exercising parliamentary rather than administrative powers.
The problem the Councillors had was that I doubt that this matter ever went to a Supreme Court properly constituted by having the Originating Process SEALED with the statutory SEAL of the Supreme Court of Queensland, signed and issued by the Registrar and filed in the Registry of the Court.
If this matter was heard in Brisbane the stamp used, on the instructions of the Attorney-Generals Dept to induce the filing party to believe that the Application had been appropriately sealed and filed, is the Office stamp used under rule 978 of the UCPR, " The Queensland Supreme Court Office Brisbane" stamp. The statutory SEAL required and described in section 190 of the Qld Supreme Court Act 1995 is to be used under rule 968 and 969 when the process is properly filed and issued. The Qld Registries under this dictatorship in the Republic of Qld have a bad habit of forging and uttering these originating documents and if you accept them and invite the opposing party along to the jurisdiction fraudulently created, by way of service, only Govt policy prevails and that is why they got the sack.
The ORDER produced in the Registry then displays the same office stamp and this is never recognised by the High Court as EVIDENCE of an order of a lower state court, the decision of the individual, who is appointed as a Judge, can never be appealed outside of Qld. The conduct of these criminals is described in sec 43 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) obstructing, preventing, perverting, or defeating, the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth which is vested in the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

Dan, I'm sorry mate but that post reeks of balderdash.

If what you say is true then litigants should be lining up to engages the High Court's supervisory jurisdication on the grounds of denial of natural justice.

Can you point us to a recent case in which the High Court has refused to recognise the orders of a Queensland court because they were not properly sealed? And if that happened, wouldn't the party who lost in the Supreme Court be able to go t the High Court to resist execution of the orders on the basis that they were not properly made?

Either way all of that strays very far from Scott's initial points about whether, and why, local governments ought to be sacked.

Anthony

So many times, Young Dan, it seems the only protection against covert rule by administrative fiat is demanding adherence to manner and form. Few of us are ever in a position to see departure from manner and form as it happens. Speaking out against it frequently has the appearance of hair-splitting pedantry. Few have the courage or inclination to persist in revealing such departures. Those who seek to subvert our system of government count on this.

I have no way of knowing whether, in attempting to illuminate what you see as a departure from manner and form, your use of the words "The Qld Registries under this dictatorship in the Republic of Qld have a bad habit of forging and uttering these originating documents........." is a bit over the top.

If all is above board in any matter, DEMONSTRABLE adherence to manner and form in EVERY DETAIL should be no imposition upon executive government, but rather a badge of honour that can and should be openly worn with pride. All the more so in the particular relationship of local government to State government so convincingly effectively endorsed by the electors Australia-wide in one of those 1988 referenda, of which Anthony Marinac has so appropriately reminded us.

I recall a claim being made that all four of those 1988 referenda were rejected with record low 'Yes' votes. I would like to have been able to quote the precise results, but on perusal of the 1988 and subsequent Year Books I find, contrary to erstwhile historic practice, the results have not been published therein. I did note the then Governor-General's signed preface to the 1988 Year Book Australia, in which the Year Books were described, collectively, as "that faithful mirror of Australia past and present", and the disparity of the subsequent editions of the Year Book with that description.

I turned to the gazetted facsimiles of the writs for those referenda, thinking that the wording of the question in relation to the local government proposal was contained therein. It wasn't, but then I compared the five signatures.

Forrest,

Go here for starters:

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/referendums/index.htm

and then here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/elect/referend/results.htm

The best way to find out the text of the questions would be to go to the relevant referendum bills.

Cheers

Anthony