Beattie is quite comfortable with the lack of organised opposition to his new legislation.

Mayors and councillors are timidly running around in circles when Howard has given them a chance to test the will of the people in a referendum.

Warroo bravely bit the bullet and counted votes already in despite Beattie's threats and has had a 100% of votes received objecting to amalgamation.

The way the majority of mayors and councillors have caved in without a fight must allow Beattie to sleep soundly at night.

Leadership by consensus has a tinge of "Bob Hawke", surely not.

Andrew Fraser will - yet - develop abiding & utter respect for what constituents say.

Once he always heeds the will of Queenslanders - what a mover & shaker he will have become.

That will be great as it will play right into the hands of the anti-amalgamation lobby!

You think you ahve good legal advice and that you have a good chance of success.

Well, I for one would like to call your bluff.

As for your call for referenda on nuclear power stations and work choices, they are just red herrings. Those subjects are not involved in the amalgamation issue no matter what you say.

Your amalgamation Bill, Mr Beattie, contested in the Supreme court has an extreemly high chance of being made null and void!

As I understand it, there are several areas where it could be contestable in the Supreme Court. Division 2 S41 of the Local Government Act states: "Before the Governor in Council exercises power under this part, the Minister must consult with the local governments that would be affected by the exercise of the power and take any views expressed by them into account."

There was no consultation regarding the banning of referenda or plebiscites in the legislation.

Furthermore, the Queensland Constitution states as follows:

PART 3—SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR PARTICULAR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILLS

77 Procedure for Bill affecting a local government

(1) This section applies for a Bill for an Act that would—

(a) be administered by a Minister who administers a provision of the Local Government Act 1993; and

(b) affect local governments generally or any of them.

(2) The member of the Legislative Assembly who proposes to introduce the Bill in the Legislative Assembly must, if the member considers it practicable, arrange for a summary of the Bill to be given to a body representing local governments in the State a reasonable time before the Bill is introduced in the Legislative Assembly.

This Bill does affect local governments generally and a summary has not been given to a body representing local government in a reasonable time before being introduced into parliament.

Even stronger arguments can be developed for the Supreme Court under Section 78 of the Queensland Constitution, the excerpt of which is reproduced below.

78 Procedure for Bill ending system of local government

(1) This section applies for a Bill for an Act ending the system of local government in Queensland.

(2) The Bill may be presented for assent only if a proposal that the system of local government should end has been approved by a majority vote of the electors voting on the proposal.

(3) The Bill has no effect as an Act if assented to after presentation in contravention of subsection (2).

(4) The vote about the proposal must be taken on a day that is more than 1 month but less than 6 months before the Bill is introduced in the Legislative Assembly.

(5) The vote must be taken in the way prescribed by an Act.

(6) An elector may bring a proceeding in the Supreme Court for a declaration, injunction or other remedy to enforce this section either before or after the Bill is presented for assent.

(7) In this section— “elector” means a person entitled to vote at a general election for members of the Legislative Assembly.

It can be argued on two points that the Bill passed by the Queensland Parliament is an Act which “Ends the System of Local Government”.

1. The system of local government as it stands at present consists of 156 local government areas. This is to be reduced to 72, thereby ending the system of 156 shires.

2. The shires that are being amalgamated can be considered as “Ended” having ceased to exist. This can also be construed as “ending the system of local government” as it currently stands.

In regard to S78 (2);

In my view, as it can be deemed that the system of local government has ended, it is incumbent on the government to comply with S78 (2) and hold a referendum!

If this is tested successfully in the Supreme Court, S78 (3) will take effect nullifying the Bill and a referendum will have to be held.

Also, it may be in the best interests of Queensland as a whole, for you to disseminate this information to all of the councils of Queensland.

Another avenue that should be followed up on is the possibility for Mr Howard to pass a retrospective Bill that requires State Governments to hold a referendum on council amalgamations and the amalgamations cannot go ahead unless the majority of voters in the majority of shires are in favour.

If this is done, there will be no need for a Supreme Court action as under Section 109 of the Australian Constitution, Federal law takes precedence over State law.

Go ahead Mr Beattie, make my day.

If he is any indication, this is what we will see if the union-owned Labor Party win the next Federal election.

The unions will use lily white Rudd to enforce not dissimilar actions.

Why does the will of the people never need to be considered in the important decisions?

Is it because politicians are frightened or ashamed of their electorate?

Or is it because of pride and arrogance?

They have a track record of non-consultation and have abused their power on many occasions.

Failing to consult the majority and those affected by their decisions has already resulted in the devaluation of Qld's social standards.

The results have been an escalation in crime and attacks on the aged and even on the authority of the police.

I am very wary of Kevin Rudd's position too, because I believe that if his party had the luxury of a large national majority that it would act in a similar fashion.

Indeed, the modus operandi of Rudd’s prospective front bench, with their unionist backgrounds would probably be the same as the Qld Govt's.

I do not believe Rudd's response to the question about him requesting that the Beattie Govt delay council amalgamations until after the federal election ... it is very likely that he did make that request, and that the amnesia he claims to suffer is just political spin ... Paul.

A PIC# relating to Taroom Shire prior to 16.3.08 will be relative to that Shire.

Should Taroom Shire be no longer from 17.3.08, where is the life time traceback for cattle on our property -- property is in NSW -- for NLIS PIC# from Taroom Shire, or for that matter all shires that are removed from the LGA?

Will be panic stations at the auction yards from 17.3.08.

Post a reply Peter.

Oz

How can isolating communities from local government do anything but deprive these people of services?

The vote is in the big centres, as are the councillors.

All the regions are going to be is a milking cow for revenue to be squandered in the population centre.

Why oh why does the Prime Minister have to come into Queensland politics?

When he can speak publically without slurring his speech, I will sit up and take notice.