Behave or else

The clear message is that executive government rules.

Of the three levels of governments in Australia, only local councils, despite being directly elected by the people, can be sacked by another government, namely the states.

Earlier this month, new Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser sacked the Johnstone Shire Council in far north Queensland - the first time a council has been sacked in this state for 19 years. And to show he means business, Fraser also told the Douglas Shire to show cause why it, too, should not be sacked.

The Government, under legislation, can initiate a dismissal of a local authority for approval by Parliament on the grounds of corruption, a council's "capacity to exercise properly its jurisdiction of local government" or its perceived incompetence.

The new minister seems to have genuinely sought to avoid the sackings and had a meeting with the Johnstone Shire last year. Instead of compromise Fraser was confronted with further internal dispute and threatened with legal action.

Fraser had little option but to proceed with the sacking once the legal issues had cleared. That his decision is supported by the Opposition indicates that the minister has no covert political motivations.

Nevertheless, there are several aspects of these council sackings warranting attention.

First, there is no allegation of corruption, although the Johnstone Shire was having some financial difficulties. Rather, based on advice from external investigators, the grounds for dismissing the Johnstone Shire and the impending sacking of the Douglas Shire, are largely because of the councillors' inabilities to work together and with shire staff and their undesirable behaviour that was deemed to be adversely affecting effective decision-making.

While such behaviour may be unpleasant, it is hardly unique to the Johnstone Shire as any observation of Queensland's sometimes stormy parliamentary proceedings testify. Other mechanisms could have been invoked to handle such behaviour.

Second, the sacking of the Johnstone Shire was delayed by six months as two councillors took the Government to court questioning whether the decision was an administrative one and therefore subject to the Judicial Review Act.

The Supreme Court found against the councillors concluding that the minister was exercising parliamentary rather than administrative powers. In effect this court decision means there is no accountability of executive government to the courts on such issues. Given Queensland's history of executive dominance over Parliament it also means greater power to executive government in Queensland on these matters.

The clear message to local government is that executive government rules, so behave or else.

The third issue is that the Douglas and Johnstone shires appear to have been treated more harshly compared with other local governments whose actions appear far worse. For instance, last year the Crime and Misconduct Commission found that some members of the Gold Coast City Council during the 2004 local government elections had corrupted the electoral process by accepting payments from developers without their full declaration. Despite this, the Government did not initiate any intervention or sacking of the Gold Coast council or any councillor.

While the Local Government Association of Queensland was strongly opposed to Government intervention in the Gold Coast, it has been quiet in relation to the Johnstone and Douglas shires debacle.

This may reflect the LGA's apparent close relationship to the State Government.

Also, given that local government boundaries are under consideration, the sacking of a couple of councils does make amalgamation in north Queensland easier.

Then there is the issue as to whether democratically elected governments such as the Johnstone and Douglas shire councils should ever be removed by ministerial fiat regardless of the circumstances. It is a dangerous precedent. State governments do not suffer the same censure.

Surely, the performance of elected officials should be assessed by voters, not other politicians or public servants. That the matter was resolved in State Parliament in a brief 30-minute debate is inadequate. The issue should have been referred to a parliamentary committee for more informed discussion.

Fraser's decisions signal a more interventionist approach to local government than has occurred since the Goss government amalgamated numerous local governments amid some controversy.

It is interesting to note that these problems are occurring in small councils undergoing rapid growth. Such councils need additional resources and support before they implode.

Given Queensland's ongoing growth watch this policy space for further developments.