Queensland's burning - local government amalgamations Beattie-style

Nor is amalgamation needed, as the Queensland Government contended, because local government boundaries have not changed for 100 years. This is a fiction as there have been many alterations over the years including some major ones, as noted made by the Goss Labor Government a decade ago.

Others have suggested that community of interests have been undermined in some of the new larger amalgamated councils in rural areas. Recent amalgamations may also be about payback given the way local government forced the Beattie Government to back down on some major policy initiatives in the past and in other cases, how local government has upstaged State Labor members.

The recent amalgamations are about the exercise of power by a state government anxious to gain control over land, water, housing, and environment issues now so politically important in Queensland’s burgeoning urbanised southeast corner and coastal regions. This, and the creation of larger and fewer local governments provides a possible means for the state government to manage more effectively these now urgent issues.

Conclusions

The Beattie Government’s amalgamations of local government, like those in other states, highlight the vulnerability of local government in our system of government. Unless amalgamation can be better resolved in the future by a more collaborative and democratic process then local government can never aspire to becoming the third tier in our federal system. Its place in Australian government remains tenuous.

The fundamental issue is not whether some amalgamations were necessary. Justifications for amalgamations can always be found, but so too can alternative strategies. Rather, the real issue in our system of democracy is whether one level of government should be able to sack another government that is democratically elected. It is this issue that lies at the heart of community reaction against enforced amalgamations and until it is resolved then local government’s very survival is questionable. Certainly, local government around Australia should take heed and alarm at the recent Queensland experience.

But there are even wider ramifications of these events. We understand that trust in government is declining and there is growing cynicism in government actions and consequently disengagement by some community members in the political processes. This will continue while governments eschew democratic processes as occurred in Queensland.

At the very time when the Queensland Government was threatening to sack local governments holding referendums on amalgamations, it was advertising for members of advisory bodies on youth, seniors and domestic violence to provide opportunities for an “exchange of information and views between members and the Queensland Government”. Given recent events who would now believe in these processes or would bother to join such advisory bodies? The real damage to democracy by the Beattie Government’s enforced amalgamation of local governments and the processes it employed is the loss of belief by citizens that their views count.

As postscript to this whole issue was Beattie’s resignation as premier on September 10. Although Beattie has previously hinted at retiring, it may not be coincidental that his resignation has been made before the calling of the federal election. Beattie’s actions in relation to local government were proving to be potentially damaging to Kevin Rudd’s federal election plans, both in terms of its direct impact on particular communities and several key federal Queensland regional seats and the embarrassing way it was done.

Although the new premier, Anna Bligh, has endorsed the local government amalgamation, the Local Government Minister, Andrew Fraser has now been moved to Treasury. The former Minister for Communities, Warren Pitt, a person from north Queensland with well known interpersonal skills, has now taken over the local government portfolio and will oversee the implementation of amalgamation.