Huge changes to Queensland local government areas
The Queensland government’s bulldozing through of major changes to local government boundaries around the state has taken a big step forward with the release of the report containing all the proposed council amalgamations. The issue of whether or not various amalgamations and boundary changes should occur is very important, but regardless of views on that, the process which the Queensland Labor government has used to decide these changes has been totally atrocious.
As has become common place with governments both state and federal, the Beattie government is trying to cover up its blatant abuse of process and contempt for democracy by using taxpayer funds to run a misleading, spin-dominated publicity campaign to try to justify what they are doing. The fact that some amalgamations and changes are desirable does nothing to negate the hopelessly inadequate, contemptible process used to decide what happens. One of the big arguments used by the state government to justify their actions was that many of the local government boundaries in Queensland were drawn up in the 1920s. I find this somewhat ironic, given the boundaries the Queensland government operates under were drawn up in 1859.One amalgamation I’d like to see is the amalgamation of the states (that is, abolishing them), in conjunction with constitutionally formalising and strengthening local/regional government. Making these changes would need a referendum of course, as it would be changing our nation’s Constitution. This also ensure changes aren’t made without public support, which contrasts with the Queensland Labor government, which has made it very clear that it will block any efforts at a referendum in regard to the local government boundary changes.
The boundary changes that have been put forward are far reaching, and the Beattie government has already stated they will adopt them “lock stock and barrel” (which is another way of saying they will use their Parliamentary majority to ram them all through regardless of any objections or problems raised).
For reasons which aren’t clear to me, Brisbane City was exempt from the review, which is a shame as I think there are valid arguments for some changes at the city fringes. I don’t really feel qualified to express strong views on places I don’t live, although I must say the shifting of Beenleigh and surrounds out of the Gold Coast and into Logan City is something I’ve long felt should happen. It is also welcome to see that fears that some of the stand alone Aboriginal Shire Councils such as Cherbourg, Woorabinda, Palm Island and Yarrabah might be merged into surrounding areas have not been borne out.
Leaving aside the appalling process for a moment, some of the boundary changes seem to me to make some sense – such as merging Townsville and Thuringowa, and merging some of the ‘doughnut’ councils that surround old established city councils such as Burnett surrounding Bundaberg or Livingstone adjoining Rockhampton. But others, such as forcing Noosa to join with Maroochy and Caloundra, or even worse Douglas Shire with Cairns City, appear to be likely to do little more than open up more areas for rampant coastal development.
Apart from the boundary changes, there are a number of other recommendations put forward in the report which merit attention and which I understand the state government has yet to decide on. One of these is a proposal that all councillors be elected as a group, rather than as members of individual wards. Given that many councils will now cover much larger geographic areas, this could alter the dynamic of a council’s composition even further. There are arguments both ways, but for me the crucial thing is if you are to have a multi-member electorate of any sort, let alone a whole council elected as one group, the voting method should be a proportional representation one.
Currently many councils in Queensland which elect councillors as a group use a first post the post model (which used to be used in the Senate for the first half of the twentieth century). This method is profoundly undemocratic and can often lead to one team or group gaining 100 per cent of the seats, while the rest get nothing – as did occur many times in the Senate until proportional representation was introduced. Given that the amalgamations are being justified as updating Queensland’s local government system into the twenty-first century, it would be another irony if we were to more widely adopt an outdated, undemocratic voting system as part of the process.
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
Stuart Fenech
Hmm, the reform was not happening by itself… too much self interest involved by local councilors with hands in the till…
The change to the boundaries around Beenleigh and Jimboomba areas are probably going to go down badly. I am to be part of the proposed extended Logan City Council and think it makes sense. I think most objection will be based on the natural human dislike of change. The saddest part for me personally is that there are a number of good Beaudesert Shire councillors, and there is not room for all of them in the proposed Logan City Council.
I spoke with a Labor state MP yesterday about the voting system for councilors. I was, embarrassingly, not familiar with this election process proposed. At the moment, I lean strongly against it, in favour of a Senate like process, except optional preferential, based on quotas. Yes, some may end up elected at the end without full quotas (last candidates remaining after elimination from the candidates with the least votes), but I think that is far more democratic in nature…
Jul 29th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Its true the reform wouldn’t have happened completely by itself Stuart, but it wasn’t totally stagnant either. There had been a fair bit done by many Councils, even though some were dragging the chain, although no doubt there weren’t going to be as many mergers – and certainly not so big – as the Qld government obviously wanted.
In any case, I think there were many things the Qld government could have done to cajole things along without taking such extreme and undemocratic action.
Still, the bigger and stronger regional government is, the easier it will to make the case for abolishing the states.
As for the voting system, I presume it is suggested it be kept as a whole of electorate, group first past the post system because its easiest.
Given the rushed time frame, drawing up boundaries for wards or electorates within each council area would be difficult in the available time. And first past the post is certainly easy to understand and to count – simplicity is about its only good point. But there is the minor problem that it’s grotesquely undemocratic.
Jul 29th, 2007
yendis
Government is centralist in its nature. The Commonwealth is grabbing, slowly but surely, all it can to increase its influence. The states are left with little. Most ratepayers only see councils as an organisation having its hands deep in the taxpayers pockets. The death of local government is slow, painfully so. But the states have to have something to do. And many will be glad to see the back of local government corruption…..
Jul 29th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
It depends what you define as corruption Yendsi, but I’m not sure larger councils will of themselves mean less corruption. It may mean more professionalism though.
I am not alleging criminality, but I am very worried about the increased power developer interests will have in some of these new mega-councils. Noosa will be at much greater risk of dodgy development, and I am extremely worried about what handing over Douglas Shire – which includes the Daintree – to Cairns City Council will mean for environmental protection in that area. Excessive and inapproriate coastal development is already one of the most serious environmental and biodiversity threats in Queensland. Favours for developer mates is a key reason why, and I don’t see these changes helping that much, and in some areas such as Douglas Shire I think there is a real risk of things being worse.
Jul 29th, 2007
Stuart Fenech
I have to second the good Senators comments on developer interests in the larger councils… things are pretty scary in Gold Coast City Council… the relatively recent http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10839>CMC report into the council is nice for an introductory taste.
Jul 29th, 2007
Lynette2
Thanks for the link Stuart. I suspect most Gold Coasters have gone beyond suspicious and moved onto fear and loathing of the council here. And for good reason.
That’s why I can’t go along with the argument that the states should be abolished. Local councils seem to be the least transparent of governing bodies and, for reasons I don’t understand, the least vulnerable to public criticism. Something to do with local media maybe?
I can’t imagine anything more frightening than being caught between a Howard federal setup and a Clark local setup with nothing in between. And the fact that they don’t have to declare their party affiliation is a huge problem.
Go the Elvis impersonater. I’d rather have amusing ineptitude than organised corruption.
Jul 29th, 2007
philip travers
I was living in Malvern Vic. when Kennett amalgamated that council with others,that council in the suburbs had already been decimated by a freeway.This council area has changed boundaries and names in a very short time from Nymboida, to Pristine Waters to Clarence Valley in N.S.W.The garbage or tipsite was set alight last week or so,and someone dropped a match in the removable bin on the back of a truck.The council is in a debt and covers large areas,and, has been a training ground for politicians.Plenty of everything including spending a $1ooo bucks for each singular staff member on computers..really giving me a reason not to vote.Then last week or so the Electoral Commission wants more dough out of the Council for services to be rendered.I think its all very cheeky indeed.I still have a couple of uteloads of rubbish that needs to go unseparated at a site that doesnt have a complete fence around it backing onto a high wind road,not even a sign that it is a transfer station and penalties.The all too hard basket of government neglect..to raise rates for services to be rendered.I use to bag all the beer bottles,now I just clean the site up a bit around the transferable bin.Paid employees raked up some litter in the last two weeks..I laughed ,a sad disillusioned long laugh..The knobs of Clarence Valley will save the river but nothing will save them if they dont open the Council doors and have a bloody look at what they are supposed to be responsible for.I think it was A University of New England Egghead who wrote up a master plan of amalgams for council areas in N.S.W. It is likely the duffers in the Queensland Government stole the advice.You would think, that by now,labor would of learned..and now will the hard way.
Jul 29th, 2007
Niall
One wonders just how badly this boundary shifting and amalgamation has impacted on Labor’s chances in the Federal poll? The perfect opportunity to deliver a message from the disgruntled.
Jul 29th, 2007
cam
Also raises the question why the state government is deciding these things for the councils. The local councils should have home rule and the authority to decide these things for themselves.
Jul 30th, 2007
red crab
councils have come a long way since they were origionaly only govt road gangs
the only reasion that they want bigger councils is the fact that there will be less acountability.
in small councils all the councilers are known well buy the comunily and are held to acountable .in a super council the councilers can reak havok and get away with it because they are very hard to aproch.
only a few ppl will go to the effort of trying to get some problem solved and the govt knows the bigger the council the harder it is.
in the west wa have some big metro city councils and thats where the corruption has been.
just like daylight saving its not about quality of life for the comunity its about power and wealth for a few.
Jul 30th, 2007
jeanie
I agree that in some instances this has been warranted, but in many it has been not so.
The process Beattie has used (abused) is absolutely deplorable. At first he mentioned consultation – but there has been absolutely none, and it has been pushed through so hard and fast that everyone should be up in arms.
Whether it is warranted (as in my shire, where $3 million was recently spent on new chambers and the local mayor is on the front page of state newspapers for various charges of naivity) or not (as in the shires of many people I know, where there is local accountability and knowledge and financially viable budgets every year), this should send a shudder to all voters.
The people this decision affects most are those who seem most likely to not protest, as they tend to not wish to stir pots – I am sure that the powers that be find that in their favour – but this decision and the process it has taken should be sending alarm bells ringing.
Thank you for actually posting on it.
BTW – not sure if it is your editing or my feed, but parts of the post were repeated – maybe deliberately – but did not scan well and seemed a mistake?
Jul 30th, 2007
Dean
Hi Andrew, thoughtful article. In the Burnett we had a shot at resisting the charge, here it seems people are now quite shocked. You can see some videos of our protest against forced local government amalgamation by clicking this link
Jul 30th, 2007
TINMAN
As I have not been a Councillor for 25 years I have not had much of an opinion on the amalgamations, being well aware that the local government is an arm of the state gov’t and it was inevitable therefor.Now it is being mooted that voting will be for groups, read political teams, as it was 25 years ago..I say hold on! WARDS mean that people know who is their appointed representative and speaks for them and is voted in by them- not by their political membership in a group DEMOCRACY should start from the ground up, we don’t want a return to the days when the self styled “power broker” of the team told me ” I have the numbers, you vote yes or no when I give you a nod at the general meeting!” I rebelled and was out at the next election at the plebiscite. PLEASE, LET’S START AN ISSUE WITH THE COMING FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. That way grass roots local people will have a say, their ward rep.will represent their wishes and not the political groups.
Jul 30th, 2007
Nina
I agree that the process has been deplorable. i’m connected to local government and the consultation process that had been initiated to help facilitate change was a good one. why does state government continually makes promises about listening to the people, organisations and businesses of this state and consistently break their word? People are sick and tired of it.
How do governments know what is really needed and what will work well if those at the coal-face don’t get a say….?
Jul 30th, 2007
Sam Clifford
This is another part of Beattie’s power grab and wanting to hand the state over to developers (must be trying to beat Joh as the worst Premier ever).
I’m dead against these forced amalgamations and we certainly need something in the federal constitution guaranteeing freedom from the violence of states by enshrining the need for referenda to change council boundaries and duties.
From the psephological point of view, these new councils need an electoral system like New Zealand’s. Parties receive seats commensurate with their share of the party vote but local wards ensure that people have a local member they can talk to. This system also takes independents into account when they’re elected by removing a seat from the share to be allocated to the parties.
Jul 30th, 2007
red crab
PLEASE, LET’S START AN ISSUE WITH THE COMING FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
now theirs an interesting statment
THE RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
question to anyone who mite be able to tell me just how legal is any council in australia if they are not recognised in the constitution .
Jul 30th, 2007
Sam Clifford
There’s plenty of stuff that’s not in the constitution that is part of Australian law. “All law must not be unconstitutional” is not the same as “the constitution contains all laws”.
Jul 30th, 2007
red crab
dos the fed govt recognise councils rite to collect fees and charges under australian law.
Jul 31st, 2007
ken
God dont go theer Sam our consitutional expert might reappear.
Red -local gowernment exists by virture of Staste legilslation, all states woul dhave a Local Government Act which establishes Council, detemines how they afre to be elected etc and confers powers and authorities on Coucnils, so theres nothing illegal about counicls.
Councils themslevs have ogften rasied the “recognise us in the constituion” as a bit of a holy grail – mainly to escape from the control of State Governments, and to exist in their own right.
Jul 31st, 2007
Fay
I am concerned about the process and the apparent lack of review process (no upper house in Qld!).
Andrew pointed out the voting system adopted for the new amalgamations is ‘first past the post’ in an undivided LG area (currently Councils themselves can choose to use this option, eg Livingshire Shire in the 90’s decided on an undivided area, returning 12 councillors by ‘first past the post’ counting).
In reply to 13 & 15 posts:
Suggest that LG areas be be divided into 3 subdivisions/wards returning 3 councillors (5 would be better) using the ‘Quota Preferential” system to count votes. The order of candidates could be rotated on batches of ballot papers (system now in use in lower house in Tasmania); there would be no ‘above the line’ voting for groups (to allow voters to choose the person not a group); no ‘how-to-vote cards’ (also law in Tasmania).
I’m not sure how the NZ system would apply – perhaps Sam (no.15) could elaborate.
An example of my concern is that in the proposed Nth Moreton Reg Council (NMRC)a councillor could live in Redcliffe but have to represent someone from Woodford (hardly local – as someone has said Mr Beattie has taken the ‘local’ out of Local Government). Using the subdivisions/wards with PR outlined above would help to lessen the impact of this problem.
With NMRC only having 6 councillors to cover a very large area they will probably end up being full-time in order to do the job properly – will they then need to be paid as a full-time worker?s I am not necessarily against this idea – it might lead to a more professional operation!
A ‘Discussion in the Pub’ on ‘Political Participation in a Democratic Society’ will be held on Tuesday and the LG amalgamations could well be a suitable topic to discuss as an example of the lack of democracy. [Event is auspiced by SANDBAG and will be held on Tuesday, 7 August, 7pm at Full Moon Hotel, Sandgate (enq 3869 3244 or
Jul 31st, 2007
Verdad
For a long time Far North Queensland has wanted separate statehood.
This regionalisation by it’s nature suggests that denial of statehood is no longer warranted.
So a push from the north could cause these changes affect the projection of power being sought by Bisbane-centric politicians to be reconsidered.
The real intent is to diminish the opportunity for special-interest or even impede the growth of the minor parties.
Unless there is a political cost, Labor will seek to extend it’s influence whilst the conservatives are divided.
This represents a major alignment in long existing power structures in the areas where parties are less relevant that family and community relationships.
The cultural consequences ought to be studied.
Jul 31st, 2007
hughesy
The thing that concerns me the most about this is at a civil society level.
I have a hunch that this is a way to curtail the activiy of the Small Parties.
The Greens have a model of local organisation, and they’ve been doing exceedingly well in council elections because obviously, on a local tier of government, green issues are foremost and pertintent to residents – ie, do I really want the Moonie Pipeline leaking into my front yard?
This whole thing is about crushing small, local interest groups who think they have the right to some control over their immediate environment, ie their own back yard, and how it will be administered, watered, garbage collected, developed etc, in favour of large vested interests who can convince the majority that for the greater good, it’s perfectly acceptable that your community has to have a cyanide tailing opperation, or a nuclear plant next door to you – not where the majority lives.
Aug 1st, 2007
wilful
with no comment on the process in QLD, the reforms Kennett undertook in turning ~270 councils in Victoria into 78 were just about the best thing he ever did.
Aug 1st, 2007
Sam Clifford
Fay, I’m quite happy to elaborate on NZ’s electoral system.
There are a number of single member electorates which return a local member (using FPTP but STV/IRV can definitely be used). Voters get two ballot papers, one for their local electorate and a “party list” vote where voters place a tick next to their preferred party.
Once the local members are returned, extra seats are allocated according to the party vote to restore proportionality to parliament so that a party gaining 43% of the party vote get 43% of the available seats. If an independent is elected, their seat is taken into account and removed from the pool of seats on which to base the proportionality.
In NZ, any party that gets 5% of the party vote or wins an electorate seat is eligible for a share in the parliamentary seats.
If you’re still not sure about the details, I’ve posted an analysis of the 2004 Federal Election in my blog.
Hughesy, I think you’ve got something there. Local opposition to infrastructure projects can be silenced if the local council and its citizens aren’t able to organise themselves and use their resources to effect change. Devolution of power to local councils (which there should be plenty of) is necessary to ensure that decisions affecting localities are endorsed by the people who live in the area.
Removing the small parties by increasing the size of the electorate from which votes come and implementing voting systems that require quite sizable votes across the entire council area means that only those with large votes (i.e. the major parties with the money to run a campaign) are eligible for seats, thus entrenching the two-party system we see in BCC and Federal parliament.
Aug 1st, 2007
CORAL
I don’t believe that bigger government is better government – whether we are talking about the amalgamation of Councils or abolishing the States.
There are some areas that need to be addressed at a Federal level, including a universal education system, which will accommodate the vast number of interstate transfers – in particular, families from the Armed Forces. But this is finally being addressed, at least to some degree.
Last night on the news, John Howard was behaving like a hero – preventing the closure of a Tasmanian hospital. Who do people think is responsible for the lack of funding in the first place?
The further we move towards BIG government, the closer we come to a global takeover by those pretending to have a “Green” agenda.
We also need to do away with free trade agreements and the importation of foreign workers (also exportation of work), which all threaten the jobs and lifestyles of our own population.
Aug 2nd, 2007
paul walter
This council thing has hovered just beneath my radar until this very day, when it drew closer detailed attention on the ABC.
Tend to agree with Sam Clifford, Coral, Hughsie and others. It is about developer “mates” and their whims being put above local concerns.
I think Rudd and Beatty would do well to heed Kerry O’Brien’s implied warnings by way of his questions on 730 Report and have a SERIOUS rethink as to the country and themselves and what the REAL relationship between the two is.
So, to a curious point raised by Andrew. State governments need abolishing?
No. The system is under stress, but the failure is to do with the mentality of politicians and big business and the way political fortunes have panned out specific to the last decade, against the backdrop of globalisation. Eg the “culture”.
The control freak micro management of states over the last year or two relates to our unique current political situation and the system would work well enough usually, if Howard wasn’t so insecure surrounded by ALP state governments.
He’s felt paranoid enough to start playing destructive, imbecilic games on the states. But the theory of “co-operative federalism” contexts the transient nature of the particular situational adversariality- it need not be this way.
Rudd’s theory is only a restatement of what worked before people starting playing politics with it ( before they all had to go all neolib pathological and invent “competition policy” and like claptrap).
Labor WON’T get its act together. Where is the mentality there? And with such an opportunity for them and such a need for them!
It’s true the country has hit stasis, with globalisation and its underlying affects the cause. Neither symtomatic Howard or “Howard Lite” seem prepared to grapple with the country’s needs and put it before their own hyped schemes. Else. why would Beatty, following on Lennon’s footsteps, produce such a disruptive electoral “crocka” with a fed election due
Aug 3rd, 2007
ken
One should never underestimate the driving force behind these sorts of changes, without exception it is usually central bureaucrats & Local Govt Depts who are primarily concerned with the economic efficiency of the system. There is no doubt that council needs to be a certain size, at least serving a population of around 100,000 to be sustainable & to have the capacity to provide the range of services expected by residents. The major resistance to this comes from those with most to lose – council officials first, & they coerce elected officials who are convinced that every little Council must have every service for itself. Councils falling over create problems for central bureaucrats; they have to do something hence they seek to create units that won’t fall over. Local Govt ministers are happy to go along as they get the required brownie points in cabinet.
However as noted the political role of elected officials is very much related to local communities, & shaping development etc. So while unarguably larger units are more efficient & sustainable, unless they are created within in an environment of localised representation, decision making, & planning, the issues that many of the shadow jumpers here are raising come to the fore. Such models are possible; the neighbourhood partnership model in the UK is a good example.
Similarly a model proposed by Percy Allen in NSW, former Treasury boffin, is useful – where local representation & planning was coupled with viable regional service providers.
The premise is that Councils play two vital but not necessarily connected roles – one is planning for & managing development & the nature of the place of the local community, & the other is providing basic services. The former needs local democracy – the latter needs to be driven by efficiency – they don’t have to be provided by the same body. Such an approach as this would see real reform of Councils. Smaller representative units & large service providers
Aug 3rd, 2007
CORAL
That’s right Ken.
Fay makes an excellent point about Queensland’s unicameral government – no upper house of review at all!
The Pine Rivers Shire Council which adjoins north-western Brisbane is currently mounting a legal challenge against Telstra to prevent them putting mobile phone towers anywhere they choose.
Apparently Telstra says it may put them ANYWHERE without the consent of the landowner – even if the landowner is as big and financially strong as our local Council.
A meeting was called to discuss the matter with residents and the local Councillor at the proposed location of the new tower.
Telstra moved the meeting place at the last moment without telling anyone.
Aug 4th, 2007