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.