Yes! If they would then leave us alone. :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: Brilliant. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
Printable View
Yes! If they would then leave us alone. :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: Brilliant. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
We dont?????:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
I'm stuck fair in the middle of this, as we live in Crows Nest shire, one of 7 to be amalgamated with Toowoomba. We'll see how it pans out, but the numbers aren't good for the original rural shires. Toowoomba shire jumps from something like 117sq.kms to nearly 13,000, but has almost 100,000 people, with only 50,000 in all that other area. Can they cope with the increased workload, given the political speak of "no forced redundancies", which I read to mean natural attrition will be enough to decrease the workforce.
I doubt very much if local issues will really get a priority, with regard funding and infrastructure...except where Toowoomba's interests are involved. A classic example is the fact Toowoomba CC has always had control of the 3 main water supply dams, which happen to be in Crows Nest shire. Fat lot of good that's done them in this drought!!
I think the best outcome for the rural ex-shires, is that somehow a representative from each of the now defunct councils is appointed directly to the new amalgamated board so they get some say. When the next elections come about that option will probably be null and void, so the bigger voice, ie. the city, will get an overwhelming hearing. Maybe yet another subcommittee, with a rural focus, is the next best outcome.
I'm sure there are advantages, like streamlined salaries without all these councils, and hopefully a unified approach to building approvals (although the smaller rural councils, in their bid to attract ratepayers, have always been more lenient, by allowing: temporary shed living for owner builders; waterless toilets; and removal houses that wouldn't get a guernsey in the city with building covenants/snobbery).
I hope I don't come across as some reactionary country bumkin, crying "Aargh, I don't like change!" I'm all for progress in many ways, like the touted wind farm for Crows Nest, and recycling water, which would seem essential up here. I'm yet to be convinced the forced amalgamations will help deal with the increased population base, as Peter Beater uses as leverage. Less administration for more people? I can see building permits, approvals and such being adversely affected. Prove me wrong!!
Cheers,
I my shire there has been a minor change in boundries.
I think the amalgamation should a good thing. Our council has trouble getting staff, due to the mining boom in the area.
With regard to the councilors, the majority of them are paid a meager amount, they need to be full time to have the time to look after the issues they face.
I disagree with Biting Midge - on implementation rather than principle.
Most people feel we are over-governed with the three tiers.
We need a Federal Government unless we want the States to become separate countries.
That leaves thinning out or eliminating either State or Local governments. In Victoria I feel that the State Government amalamated the Councils to take the pressure off thinning out the State Government. Like some others have already said, didn't make much difference to rates or services and in some cases the rates increased and the services decreased.
There is a model to wipe out both Local and State Governments and replace them with a tier of government possibly based on the Federal Electoral boundaries. Perhaps the boundaries should be altered so that similar industries and interests are represented fairly. I think this model has some merit.
BM for King. :2tsup:
I'll vote for anyone who gets me closer to 300 drivel free posts. Opps was this drivel?