The Australian politics thread

[Matt79]

****ing Peter Beattie & the QLD Government. The man is nothing less than a power mad dictator, and it's quite ironic that today, when the Local Govt. Minister addressed all the local govt. representatives from around QLD, was also Hitlers birthday. His forced amalgamation of local councils is absolute bull****, and he's continuing to ruin Queensland. Many small country towns are going to suffer no end because of it if they're merged with a larger council.

I can almost guarantee that the Council i'm in, Pittsworth Shire Council, is going to be amalgamated with Toowoomba City Council, and it's an absolute ****ing joke. It'll be the worst thing possible for the Pittsworth town (also where i work), and it will suffer immensely from it. The Local Council provides numerous jobs, and so many services for the community that will no longer happen in a larger "Toowoomba Shire Council".

****

Aren't the stats that the average level of debt for each local council is 700k, and projected to be two or three times greater in ten years time? It might be nice for a shire of 1500 people to have its own local government, but it isn't necessarily sustainable or sensible.

[Johnners]

Fact is that the vast majority of councils in QLD aren't in any danger of being unsustainable (i know this because my father was at the conference representing the pittsworth shire, and thats what he was told by the Govt.)

A shire of 1500 people is perfectly sensible, and sustainable, if it covers a wide rural area which is a fair distance away from any major towns. Deciding whether or not a shire is sustainable depending on the population is the wrong way to go about it. Pittsworth Shire council has only around 4000 people in it, but it covers a wide rural area. Should it be amalgamated with Toowoomba Shire Council (Toowoomba is a city of 100k+ population), the further reaching parts of the once pittsworth shire, are going to be robbed of basically everything barring a rates bill.

Theres basically no chance that those in the rural area (and the majority of the land in a new Toowomba shire would be rural) are going to have a representative when 75-80% of the citizens live in toowoomba, and really couldn't careless about what happens to the west of them.

With no rural representatives on the council, you can almost guarantee that those in the rural area are going to benefit from a very small amount of the council serivces, despite the fact, that those in the rural areas are going to be paying the bulk of the rates.

[Burgey]

Thought on Rudd's speech today?

[luffy]

Thought on Rudd's speech today?

It was crap.

[Mister Wright]

Thought on Rudd's speech today?

I only saw the 'highlights' on the news, but he certainly looked confident and up to the task of taking on Howard. Certainly far better than Beasley or Crean. Our best chance in a long time against the Liberals, with Rudd at the helm.

[howardj]

My name's Greg.

I'm from Queensland.

And I'm here to help.

[Matt79]

Gotta love Dean Mighel - he's like a soft, cuddly version of Fuller...

Nice to see that even in these days of Rudd-smooth, friendly new ALP, there's still a bit of the Keating, Latham invective left in the left.

[social]

Fact is that the vast majority of councils in QLD aren't in any danger of being unsustainable (i know this because my father was at the conference representing the pittsworth shire, and thats what he was told by the Govt.)

A shire of 1500 people is perfectly sensible, and sustainable, if it covers a wide rural area which is a fair distance away from any major towns. Deciding whether or not a shire is sustainable depending on the population is the wrong way to go about it. Pittsworth Shire council has only around 4000 people in it, but it covers a wide rural area. Should it be amalgamated with Toowoomba Shire Council (Toowoomba is a city of 100k+ population), the further reaching parts of the once pittsworth shire, are going to be robbed of basically everything barring a rates bill.

Theres basically no chance that those in the rural area (and the majority of the land in a new Toowomba shire would be rural) are going to have a representative when 75-80% of the citizens live in toowoomba, and really couldn't careless about what happens to the west of them.

With no rural representatives on the council, you can almost guarantee that those in the rural area are going to benefit from a very small amount of the council serivces, despite the fact, that those in the rural areas are going to be paying the bulk of the rates.

a. I'm sorry, but 4000 population is hardly enough to sustain a council - ratepayers will be bled dry on overheads alone leaving nothing for the provision of services

b. Under amalgamation, you'll have divisions, each of whom will be represented by a councillor

c. Toowoomba WILL pay majority of rates

For example: 100,000 pop = 35,000 households

Assume rates of $1000 p.a. (very cheap) = $35 million

Pittworth Shire = say 2000 households

There is absolutely no way each household is paying remotely close to $17500 p.a. in Pittworth

Added to the fact that the vast majority of rate-paying businesses and development will be in built-up areas and it's clear that Toowoomba will pay more than its' fair share

The city subsidises the bush all over Australia

Unfortunately, we have far too many layers of govt in Oz and the more councils etc that are scrapped the better

[Burgey]

The good old days.....

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/special/keating.html

[Mister Wright]

The good old days.....

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/special/keating.html

Australian politics is worse off for not having Keating around. Loved how he made the recession sound like it was something we had to have.

[FaaipDeOiad]

The good old days.....

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/special/keating.html

Best site on the net, hands down.

[Johnners]

a. I'm sorry, but 4000 population is hardly enough to sustain a council - ratepayers will be bled dry on overheads alone leaving nothing for the provision of services

b. Under amalgamation, you'll have divisions, each of whom will be represented by a councillor

c. Toowoomba WILL pay majority of rates

For example: 100,000 pop = 35,000 households

Assume rates of $1000 p.a. (very cheap) = $35 million

Pittworth Shire = say 2000 households

There is absolutely no way each household is paying remotely close to $17500 p.a. in Pittworth

Added to the fact that the vast majority of rate-paying businesses and development will be in built-up areas and it's clear that Toowoomba will pay more than its' fair share

The city subsidises the bush all over Australia

Unfortunately, we have far too many layers of govt in Oz and the more councils etc that are scrapped the better

Given that fact that a majority of rural QLD shires have operated perfectly fine with small populations for many years. It's not the size of the population that you take into account, but the area. It's stupid to decide the boundaries of a shire by using the size of the population. The town of pittsworth relies upon it's surrounding rural community, just

In a perfect world there will be divisions, and the representatives of those divisions will voice their concerns, and those concerns will receive equal priority. But when the majority of the councillors will be from the city, you'd have to be dreaming to think that those outside of toowoomba will receive a fair go.

I honestly don't see your point in comparing the number of households in toowoomba to the households in pittsworth? If you're comparing what the ratepayers of the pittsworth shire would pay in comparison to those in toowoomba, no, the households in pittsworth won't be paying 17,500 P.A, but a majority of the farmers in pittsworth shire would be paying that much, and sometimes more.

Yes i know the majority of the rates will come from toowoomba, and admittedly it was a rash statement i made earlier, but there would still be a significant amount of rates being paid from the former pittsworth shire, and i could guarantee they wouldn't receive their fair share of the services in return.

I'll admit i came so close to blowing my top at your ignorant "the city subsidises the bush" statement. I suggest you come for a drive out this way one day and check out the great condition of our roads, telecommunication services, and how often we lose power (thats just a start). The government services rural Australia receives intern for the amount of taxes it pays is dire. But moving on from Australia as a whole, to just Queensland, it's quite obvious here that the rest of the state subsidises the south east corner. I'd suggest that the farmers of the cecil plains area alone (where i live) payed more tax to the state government this year than the population of a residential block in brisbane ever would in their lifetime.

EDIT: I forgot in my anger to add that yes, i do realise that cities, and urban areas produce a lot for Australia, and Rural Australia couldn't survive without their services, but to suggest that they subsidise rural australia, get a grip.

As for abolishing more local governments, it would be the worst thing possible that could happen. I agree that we have to many layers of govt. but why on earth would you want to rid of the most effective, and efficient level of government. Local Government is the level of Govt. most in touch with population and it's community, and is easily the most efficient level. If any level needs to be abolished it's the state government. Theres nothing the state government does that the federal government couldn't do.

[social]

Given that fact that a majority of rural QLD shires have operated perfectly fine with small populations for many years. It's not the size of the population that you take into account, but the area. It's stupid to decide the boundaries of a shire by using the size of the population. The town of pittsworth relies upon it's surrounding rural community, just

In a perfect world there will be divisions, and the representatives of those divisions will voice their concerns, and those concerns will receive equal priority. But when the majority of the councillors will be from the city, you'd have to be dreaming to think that those outside of toowoomba will receive a fair go.

I honestly don't see your point in comparing the number of households in toowoomba to the households in pittsworth? If you're comparing what the ratepayers of the pittsworth shire would pay in comparison to those in toowoomba, no, the households in pittsworth won't be paying 17,500 P.A, but a majority of the farmers in pittsworth shire would be paying that much, and sometimes more.

Yes i know the majority of the rates will come from toowoomba, and admittedly it was a rash statement i made earlier, but there would still be a significant amount of rates being paid from the former pittsworth shire, and i could guarantee they wouldn't receive their fair share of the services in return.

I'll admit i came so close to blowing my top at your ignorant "the city subsidises the bush" statement. I suggest you come for a drive out this way one day and check out the great condition of our roads, telecommunication services, and how often we lose power (thats just a start). The government services rural Australia receives intern for the amount of taxes it pays is dire. But moving on from Australia as a whole, to just Queensland, it's quite obvious here that the rest of the state subsidises the south east corner. I'd suggest that the farmers of the cecil plains area alone (where i live) payed more tax to the state government this year than the population of a residential block in brisbane ever would in their lifetime.

EDIT: I forgot in my anger to add that yes, i do realise that cities, and urban areas produce a lot for Australia, and Rural Australia couldn't survive without their services, but to suggest that they subsidise rural australia, get a grip.

As for abolishing more local governments, it would be the worst thing possible that could happen. I agree that we have to many layers of govt. but why on earth would you want to rid of the most effective, and efficient level of government. Local Government is the level of Govt. most in touch with population and it's community, and is easily the most efficient level. If any level needs to be abolished it's the state government. Theres nothing the state government does that the federal government couldn't do.

Clapo,

I dont begrudge people their life in the bush but to say "it's quite obvious here that the rest of the state subsidises the south east corner" is plainly nonsense.

Your talking about millions of rate payers being supported by a few hundred thousand - that's crap.

Unfortunately, it's the other way around and has been for decades.

As for local government - "if you cant get a job, become a councillor." They're freakin useless

[social]

One more thing about the "influence" of local government - if you think that the provision of services to your electorate has anything to do with your council, you're seriously kidding yourself!

A few years ago, the Gold Coast had 400,000 residents as opposed to Brisbane's 1.2 million.

Naturally, you'd think that the GC would receive 1/3 of the budget of Brisbane.


Naaaah! Try 8.5%!

Then, when the GC became a "swing" area, the percentage "mysteriously" increased to 40%.

Your local council has about as much to do with the equitable provision of services as I do, i.e. nuthin.

In other words, get rid of them

[Matt79]

Hmmm... I don't know whether we want the drones and self-promoters who are drone to local government out there in real jobs where they could actually cause society harm though, do we?