In August 2007, the Queensland Government introduced legislation to bring about forced amalgamations of many local governments in Queensland.
Extensive argument was responded to by Premier Beattie, who proposed the introduction of ‘iconic legislation’ to afford protection to the particular characteristics of distinctive places, particularly from the councils-to-be-subsumed of Noosa and Douglas.
One month has been offered (from mid August 2007) for stakeholders to suggest the form and intent of the legislation prior to the government commencing to draft the legislation. It will then be introduced into parliament in late October/early November 2007 and brought into effect by 15 March 2008, prior to Council elections.
‘Iconic’ has been described as including areas of state or national significance, areas of historical significance, areas of unique natural environment and World Heritage areas like the Reef, Daintree & Sandy Straits. It may be an area where development growth is restrained and sustainability is more important than growth.
The stated intent of the proposed legislation is to give the force of state law to already existing planning schemes in environmentally significant and important areas, to ensure those planning schemes now have more grunt and the clout to ensure icons are even more protected, to allow appropriate development to continue but with the new laws, planning schemes in these areas become more powerful than ever.
I can only imagine that the underlying motive of this exercise is to extract political capital from the illusion of parliamentary concern. In the Daintree, for example, World Heritage is already quarantined from development. The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is enabled domestically under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. Queensland’s Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993, provides statutory authority to ensure Australia’s international obligations, as defined within the World Heritage Convention, are met. The Integrated Planning Act 1997 provides another level of protection and local government is utterly subordinate to state interests in the adoption of planning scheme amendments.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
My understanding of the motive behind the forced amalgamation of local government bodies is to protect the state government from being subsumed by the federal government. Apparently there is a move to amend the constitution to include reference to local government, which is not recognised by the constitution in its present form.
Once local government is recognised in the constitution, the federal government can act directly to bypass state governments and deal directly with local governments.
I understand that Victoria has already acted this way with amalgamations, and NSW is planning for it to happen soon.
The rationale given by the state government for amalgamation is that the present distribution is not economically viable.
BHowever, if the same question was put re states being economically viable, they would fail the test. They all need federal funds to keep operating.
Interesting.
The sad result of amalgamations is that more people will be stripped from the bush, and state population, and hence votes, will be increasingly focussed on Brisbane. Eventually, the premier will no longer be troubled by the problem of rural electorates.
PP
Neil,
Welcome to Socialism.
Lets not forget QLD healthcare, another iconic ALP milestone