James, interesting that you choose to comment on your own article but using a nom de plume, Daggett.

Please explain.

RobbyH,

Could you please explain what is wrong with authors reponding to comments made by others about their own articles?

James has no need to explain. He has quite clearly identified himself as the author if you look at his first comment.
Susan Prior - editor

Clearly I have utterly failed to get my point across.

Its all, and only, about electoral mechanics.

The very real issue of dictatorial conduct in suppression of local government, and consequent degradation of local representation, is utterly irrelevant. It is, no matter how reprehensible, nothing but a diversion. The objective of both Howard AND Beattie has been the creation of an excuse for the holding of what will have the appearance of being a referendum concurrently with the upcoming Federal elections.

Many identify the sort of governance Australia is experiencing at State and Federal levels as that of an oligarchy. Well, that oligarchy may well have got effective control of the ballot box itself! Indeed, that oligarchy may have covertly exercised effective control over the ballot box for over a quarter of a century. If that is true, then no amount of arguing the pros and cons of any particular issue will get you out of the woods. A different strategy is required.

There is a very real prospect that serious deficiencies in the capabilities of the AEC to close the electoral rolls in accordance with recent changes to electoral law are about to be uncovered. If such are uncovered, there is a risk (for the oligarchy) that searching inquiry into the structure and operations of that institution will be unavoidable. I believe that that institution, as presently structured, is the key to the maintainance of what many see as oligarchic control of Australian government and public policy.

Never mind the passage, just the holding of a referendum concurrently with the Federal elections offers the prospect of being able to conceal this likely defect in AEC capability from people and Parliament. This concealment is rendered possible if resort can be had to the loopholes in electoral legislation revealed in "The Method in the Referendum Madness" posts on this thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=881 . If resort to those loopholes can be orchestrated, the AEC may be able to take as many as six working days to effect a roll closure, negating the intent of electoral legislation.

Forrest Gump,

I have to admit, I don't follow your argument, even though I have read all the material you have provided links to. I do understand that closing off the electoral rolls so quickly after the announcement of the date of the election will almost certainly be to the advantage of the Government. The fact that the AEC may be able to take up to six days to close the electoral rolls may reduce that advantage to some extent.

I don't see why it follows from any of that that it would be bad for these referenda to be held on the same day as the federal election. Would you be able to explain it again, or could someone else who has understood your argument, try?

---

Westernred wrote: "If people don't like that then they can run against Beattie at the next State election."

This is a one-size-fits-all argument that is invariably trotted out when autocratic governments make decisions which harm those in whose interests they are supposedly governing. Those who advance this non-argument usually understand perfectly well that, because of the way our system is manipulated, Governments are unlikely to be held to account for many of their action at ensuing elections.

Look at how the 2004 elections were reported by the newspapers. Everything, but John Howard's supposed brilliant management of the economy was ignored in the last days of the election. His grossly immoral conduct in helping to start the war in Iraq was not raised. Telstra privatisation was barely mentioned even though, or more likely, because it was opposed by the overwhelming majority of electors. Very often, the opposition will refuse to put to electors the choice of repeal of the Governments legislation.

Beazley did not commit Labor to the repeal of the unpopular GST and I expect, in Queensland, the Nationals, who serve the same property developers and land speculators that Beattie serves, are unlikely either to firmly commit themselves to de-amalgamations should they win.

So I trust that those fighting amalgamations will have the good sense to continue that fight now.

James Sinnamon

What pegasus (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#90902) writes is typical of how people who should be on the same side have become needlessly polarised against each other. I have read similar letters every day in the Courier Mail.

If you are against John Howard it seems to necessarily follow that you must be in favour of the effective abolition of local government for many Queenslanders.

On the other hand, if you oppose amalgamations, it necessarily follows that you must support Howard and vote against Federal Labor, even though the latter has stated its opposition to forced amalgamations from the outset (of course, not as strenuously as I would have preferred) and the former has shown, at best, indifference to forced amalgamations in other states.

My point about the polices which Beattie has in common with Howard and the notorious propensity of state Labor governments, for cynical Machiavellian purposes, to undermine the election prospects of their Federal counterparts, appears to have been lost.

The apparent public brawl between Beattie and Howard may not be all that it appears to be.

---

pegasus, you are clearly not familiar with the adage that a government will never set up an inquiry without knowing in advance what its outcome will be. If there was ever such an 'inquiry', this was one.

If you don't believe me then I suggest you read Professor Brian Dollery's article "Counting the cost of mergers" of 31 July at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22159935-27197,00.html and http://candobetter.org/node/120.

Much relevant evidence, including evidence about the failure of forced amalgamations to solve the financial problems of local governments in other states, was ignored and no attempts to either quantify the cost of amalgamations or to evaluate the costs of alternatives to amalgamations were made.

---

westernred, (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#90899), It may be true that the majority of Australians tend not to actively participate in politics. Even so, those actively in favour of forced amalgamations would be vastly fewer than those actively opposed to it.

If we were to follow your argument to its logical end, we would not have stopped the Vietnam War or the damming of the Franklin River.

James Sinnamon