The problem with the "march of immigration and urbanisation" is that peak oil will soon throw this into reverse and then Queensland will be an even more difficult position to cope with the consequences.
Bad decision!!

The story is in the Stanthorpe Border Post newspaper this morning that the Stanthorpe Shire should secede from the Qld government to form a new State, after the decision to almalgamate Warwick and Stanthorpe shires. A local barrister who has practised in Washington, Tasmania and Queensland says although it is an act of desperation, it is definitely possible for Stanthorpe to secede and lists sections of the Constitution which prove it.
Although he admits the idea may sound ridiculous at first, he believes people will consider it.
The Mayor says the attempt would make Stanthorpe the laughing stock of the country. Perhaps he is the sort of fellow who will worry about what other people think, not consider what is best for the community.
While I haven’t had time to consider the viability of the proposal, I recognise that the history, geography, community and industries of the two regions are totally different.

As the owner of a tourist business - this district has over 60 wineries - I hope the proposal gains momentum as it will make all those other people in Australia ask “Where is Stanthorpe? What is there?” and may increase tourism to the region.
The old story – any publicity is good publicity.
My family have had a connection with the region since my Grandfather was born in Stanthorpe in 1876.

Ah, you're not far from me then CountryGirl.

It will be mighty interesting to see how the secession drama unfolds, though I suspect it will act as more of a delaying tactic.

Though that seems eminently reasonable, given the way the State has been handling these reforms...

Most of my thoughts on this process are in yesterday's amalgamation thread.

I do not agree that forced amalgamations are a good thing. If anything, the Queensland State Government's handling of the matter has all the hallmarks of bad public policy. And I suspect that Queenslanders will be paying the consequences of it for many years to come.

The State Government has comprehensively failed to consult Queenslanders - or, I believe, to be truly honest with them - at any step in the process.

First it removed the democratic right of Queenslanders to have a vote on any merger before it announced the reform moves. Then it called for public submissions but read almost none of them. And now it threatens to sack any Council that holds a referendum on the matter to get the views of its residents.

While the Government claims that its motive is to create Councils which are more financially sustainable over the long term - using a very dubious assessment scale from Queensland Treasury - many Councils will actually be financially worse off after the merger than they are right now.

In my own region, for example, one "Moderate", two "Weak" and one "Distressed" council (which has no debts but simply a short term cashflow problem) will wind up as one "Weak" Super Shire in need of extra State assistance.

And one of our local towns which is 50km from the new Shire capital will - instead - be included in an adjoining Super Shire where the capital is 150km away.

I also disagree with the author that the only real complaints are coming from Mayors and Councillors. This is a simplistic line the State Government has been peddling to cash in on the general loathing Australians have for our politicians.

I can assure you that in our own region the concern stretches right across all levels of the community. It's very real, very deep and - on initial data available to us - well-founded. The same applies through the rest of the State as well.

Well, I guess labor won't be recruiting from these new "SUPER" councils. However, with the larger councils, in SEQ, with whole of shire, [city?] elections, they will now have a handy place to park some of their dead head operatives. They should be able to get about 3 elected in each of these new entities.

What a nice retirement plan for them. They can sit for years, bludging on the rate payers.

Makes a change from having them in parliament, bludging on all of us, I suppose.

At least its not happening to me. My shire has had its heart ripped out to contribute to one of the super shires. We have lost over 60% of our people, but thats OK they have given us a bankrupt shire to replace our loss.

I can hear a car outside. It just might be Beattie. Excuse me, while I gow out & bury my wallet, he's probably after the last few cents

generally, i like to read ozzies whinging about the results of letting pollies rule them. "schadenfreude", is the german word that covers it well. or to put in another view:

"serves you right!"

but 'hasbeen' did me a favor recently, coming up with a perfect example of a principle i have, and was asserting. so, old mate, here's my suggestion for getting loose from beattie, and howard too: secede from oz. i bet a lot of people in your council would recognize you as 'duke of hazzard' if you just promised not to tax them. or start wars. or lock anyone up before they've done anything. it could grow big, and you in on the ground floor. no copyright, go for it!