Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr expressed it thus in his own diaries on 6 November 2001, quoted on pages 305-306 of "The Latham Diaries":

"Published polls and the Party's polling starting to show Federal Labor edging up. Can't believe it. ... (Michael Egan, NSW State Treasurer said,) 'We'll be the ones weeping if Labor wins.' Yes - the secret agenda: State Labor wants to run against a rotting hated Coalition Government in Canberra. A Labor Government there only makes a third (State) term harder."

Mark Latham commented: "People used to get expelled from the Labor Party for this sort of treachery. Yet when it appeared in Marilyn Dodkin's book on Carr last year, no-one batted an eye-lid. Has it become part of the system? Everyone now expects Carr Labor to selfishly look after itself, cheering for a Howard victory, ..."

And certainly Bob Carr, together with his Victorian and Tasmanian counterparts did just that, as Latham abundantly illustrated, and we have them largely to thank for Howard's victory in 2004, together with "Work Choices" and all of his other policy abominations.

Which brings us to the forced council amalgamations in Queensland. There are no sound reasons derived from Labor principles to justify Beattie's current plans to abolish so many local governments which are in tune with the needs of their constituents. Indeed, it was a former Queensland Hanlon Labor Government which gave local government the powers they have enjoyed up until recently (see http://candobetter.org/node/140).

The only possible motives that I see are:

1. To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers, and

2. A cynical political stunt, in emulation of Bob Carr, to use the perpetuation of John Howard's rule to ensure the survival of his Government at the next State election.

(tobecontinued)

You blew your arguement when you said there were no sound reasons for amalgamations in Queensland, get real. I can only presume you are a councillor or work for a council to make such comments. In the Townsville area they can't wait for amalgamation the only difference to many other areas is that the incumbents have accepted the gravy train ride is over.

"To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers"

From a Gold Coast perspective that is plainly a joke.

While I disagree it's about sabotaging the federal reasons, I agree it's not about the economics.

noreeblue, he's right in that the economic reasons are being manipulated. The reasoning is there for those who wish to look at the reports. Consider the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report the State has been using to justify the process. In its conclusions it states quite clearly that amalgamation will not be a panacea. If you like, I can direct you quite clearly to the paragraph. Also, a federal government report (the hawker report) completed in 2003 found that the problem local government faces is due to cost shifting from higher levels of government. I can point you to that too.

You may also wonder why so many councils which are in fine financial condition are being amalgamated. Many of them rank as 'strong' and have been found to be quite capable of handing their financial affairs well into the future.

No, I'm not a local government employee. Besides, that's a hollow argument, and I can just as easily accuse you of being a State employee noreeblue.

For my two bob, I believe the motivations are more complex.

Firstly - local government has the least power under the constitution and is largely an arm of State government - thus, when efficiency gains are required, it's much easier for higher levels of government to foist changes on lower levels, instead of getting their own house in order. The problem is, local government collects much less than even 7 per cent of taxes, yet looks after more than 30 per cent of infrastructure, meaning it's reliant on upper levels of government.

Another reason, is that the State has been making inroads into planning legislation. Planning and local government Acts are far more encompassing than they were many years ago - these amalgamations will mean more decisions have to be made by delegated authority, meaning bureaucrats trained to follow state legislation will decide, rather than local elected members.

A more likely reason has been put forward by the LGAQ.

http://www.lgaq.asn.au/portal/dt?action=content&provider=JSPTabContainer

Actually, I don't think the LGAQ's quite right either, though I dare say that was part of it.

noreeblue when you wrote, "You blew your arguement when you said there were no sound reasons for amalgamations in Queensland", you only betrayed your own ignorance about this question of local Council amalgamations. ...

(See discssion thread in respose to article "An end to big fish in small, shallow ponds" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15411 for more)