Scott,

Thank you for this timely, informative and comprehensive account of the forced local Government amalgamation saga.

Regular OLO user might have noticed that I have also had something to day about this, but not as one who understands the background as well as you.

My own contributions on OLO include:

"Dictatorial conduct", 21 August 2007 at
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6261 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6261

"Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide" 8 Aug 2007 at:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884

OLO users may also be interested to know that Paul Reynolds' defence of forced amalgamations "View article An end to big fish in small, shallow ponds" of 2 August 2007 is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6192

His views have been criticised, amongst others by myself, but he has not taken the opportunity to defend his views.

I have also place material on my own web site at: http://candobetter.org/NoForcedAmalgamations

It included a media release from former State member Cate Molloy who was expelled from the Labor Party for having opposed the Traveston Dam at http://candobetter.org/node/169

The media release shows that the amalgamations, or at least the enforced amalgamation of Noosa shire into the greater sunshine Coast Council, was planned by the Property Council of Australia in 2004. This is was because it saw the Noosa Shire Council as an obstacle to its plans to overdevelop Noosa.

Clearly there was no over-riding reason for Beattie and local Government Minister (now Treasurer) Andrew Fraser to amalgamate local governments, especially at such indecent haste, other than to serve the needs of property developers and land speculators who donate so generously to the Labor Party's coffers.

---

Scott wrote: "The fundamental issue is not whether some amalgamations were necessary. Justifications for amalgamations can always be found, but so too can alternative strategies."

Also, in some cases de-amalgamation would be warranted. Why shouldn't communities in the Blackall ranges be made to bear the consequences of seemingly ill-informed decisions made secretly behind closed doors down in Caloundra about, as examples, Obi Obi Parklands and, before that, the building of the ugly eyesore Woolworths supermaket in the Main Street of Maleny? (See http://www.malenyvoice.com/ http://obiobiparklands.com/ http://www.malenytimes.com/ http://candobetter.org/SaveObiObi http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15557.)

Scott,

You comment that "Why the Beattie Government embarked on amalgamation at this critical time in the federal electoral cycle is difficult to assess." Without seeking to detract from your excellent backgrounder to this seemingly perplexing bit of dictatorial conduct, I suggest the forced amalgamations were nothing but a 'causus belli'.

John Howard (or at least his advisors) needed an excuse for the issue of a writ under the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, at the time of the call of the upcoming Federal elections. Kevin Rudd (or at least his advisors) need the same just as much, if not more, for what will be seen to be the same reasons.

This need exists because it offers a way for the Australian Electoral Commission to effect a cover-up of a long-running act of deception directed against the voting public. With the passage of the 2006 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act that provided for roll closure at 6:00 PM on the day of issue of the writs, the AEC was faced with the prospect that the fact that its unlawfully centralized roll management system is incapable of effecting a scrutinisable roll closure within that time would become public knowledge. The implications of this revelation would be immense, for both Howard and Rudd: Rudd because this deception was introduced under Labor in 1983, and Howard because he has known of the problem for many years, and failed to fix it.

Because the electoral amendments of 2006 were not accompanied by matching amendments with respect to roll closure in the Referendum Act, the AEC can purport to legally get away with not closing the roll across the Commonwealth at the upcoming elections for at least the seven days previously provided. (See my posts headed "The method in the proposed referendum madness" in this thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=881 )

Time for emplacing names.

The Plebiscites Bill, provoked by Beattie's actions, proposing the AEC be given power to conduct such plebiscites provides the vehicle with which to effect the necessary cover-up.

Scott makes the statement that "the real issue in our system of democracy is whether one level of government should be able to sack another government that is democratically elected. It is this issue that lies at the heart of community reaction against enforced amalgamations and until it is resolved then local government’s very survival is questionable".

The people of Australia were consulted in respect to this specific issue of one level of government being able to sack another government that is democratically elected in 1988. They rejected the recognition of local government in the Constitution that was proposed, rejected it with a record low "yes" vote since Federation. If there is one thing that is really starting to get up peoples' noses, it is this seeming ironclad determination of governments to circumvent the provisions and mechanisms set out in the Constitution.

Howard's attempt to muscle in with his Plebiscites Bill is nowhere near as popular as it may be presented as being, notwithstanding the immense community anger at the attempted denial of the right of local governments to conduct their own plebiscites regarding these amalgamations. It will be even less so when its real nature is realised by all of the public.

Whether Howard knows it or not, the Plebiscites Bill proposal is an empire building exercise for the Australian Electoral Commission's Central Office. This body is a law unto itself with respect to electoral matters. One reason that the question of one level of government being able to sack another 'democratically' elected government could be of concern to that body is that an electoral result IT effectively oversees (or even determines?) can be set at nought.

As OLO contributor plerdsus says on another current thread "They obviously do not appreciate the contempt the people have for the political class, and how they love to see them dismissed, ....".

I note that this article was a paper presented to the Democratic Audit of Australia. As a matter of interest, how does one get elected to this body? What qualifications must a person have to be a candidate?

Here is your chance to say NO to amalgamating, which will cause a big mess and people who know nothing about our communities.

The process to get Labor and Co to put an end to this nonsense is with people's votes.

By buying a No Qld Don't ALL Want Our Councils Amalgamated. we can collectively give Qld ALP the result they don't want or dread

Go to : www.qldpcs.com.au Next to: Add to cart then press Order then View Cart then Checkout.

Fill in the info marked with an asterix and this will be used ONLY for the NO votes to land on Beattie's desk.

Please remember to hit Place Your Order to get the vote to my secure server.

Beattie's little "sledgehammer moment" on local government amalgamations was a turning point. Any mayor or local councillor in regional Queensland who does not, now, fully understand why they must form their own regional states, must have had their heads in a paper bag. What they thought were their rights to spend their own rate money on their own priorities have now been proven to be nothing more than a convenient concession from the metropolitan warlords.

They need to recognise that regional communities are now a minority community that can be dispossessed of even the most basic of rights by a government they did not elect, in a system where their own interests are rarely likely to prevail.

The existing state constitution can strip away fundamental rights at the whim of a single parliamentary chamber. There is no requirement for referenda, no inviolate set of principles and no system of checks and balances. And those who think regions can have a sustainable future without all of the above are seriously deluded.

It is a very stark truth. If your existing state will not, and cannot, deliver the core elements of a sustainable future then you must form a new state that will.