Tuesday 24th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

how depressing...

councils
Genuine council reform will fail unless the NSW government takes a plan for forced mergers to the next election, former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett says.
The architect of Victoria's sweeping reforms that shrunk its 210 councils to 78 said similar changes would be beneficial for NSW but should not be undertaken in a ''bits and pieces'' approach.
''It won't be achieved on a voluntary basis - it's got to be properly co-ordinated,'' Mr Kennett said.
''I'm sure most of the community in NSW, particularly the business community, would support that.''
Mr Kennett's comments follow the release of the latest report by the Independent Local Government Review Panel, which proposed Sydney's 43 councils be reduced to 15 and the state's 152 councils to fewer than 100.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/take-forced-mergers-to-poll-kennett-tells-premier-20130425-2ihik.html#ixzz2RZAE5SHy

give the super councils idea the flick

 


A new "independent panel" review comes under the title of "Strengthening Local communities" and according the the SMH "The roles of mayors would also be expanded. They would be granted more authority and expected to have a greater grasp of strategic and financial issues.
Councils would be encouraged to consolidate through financial and other incentives – the panel has not called for forced amalgamations.
The chairman of the panel, Graham Sansom, said the reforms would transform local government's "culture, structure, finances and operations, as well as its relations with the state government".
The panel believes the system of rate-pegging in NSW has created political and financial difficulties for councils and has recommended the system be streamlined.
NSW is the only state in which rate-pegging applies. Each year, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal sets a cap on how much councils are allowed to increase their rates.
The proposed changes would allow councils to make small rate increases more easily. The panel will seek comment on the proposals before it makes its final recommendations to the government in September.
------------------------------
The title of the project is telling:
"Strengthening Local communities..."

by diluting them into bigger agglomerations? Do you see a BIG CON here the size of a WestCONnex project?... 
I do, already some councils are TOO BIG to deal efficiently with some "local Issues" and the local communities are strong enough as they are... To the contrary, amalgamating councils would dilute the present strength of communities — and that's what I believe the purpose of this project is:
— Reduce the right of the local people to vote or decide on local affairs and be shafted by what Bazza O'Feral is trying by increasing the ministerial powers to approve big construction projects while having to deal with less and weaker (bigger) councils 
— Stop the councils being nurseries for budding politicians of Socialist, Labor and Green tendencies.... (Liberals politicians tend to come from law firms, right wing charity clubs and inheritance of a seat...)
— Help Mr Murdoch sell the same "local" paper in a greater area... without having to change cover...
----------------------
People have the right and the option to debate "local" issues, like a park or a swimming pool or a library in a local area at a local level... Councillors are elected to represent the wishes of the local communities... Should a "local" issue be a sore point., councillors of a greater council may not have any clue about the what of the matter and decide erroneously...
As we try to encourage diversity, why agglomerate councils? to save money? So they can use the same reduced number of trucks to remove the rubbish from your street?... Rubbish...
The amalgamation of councils is a sad political move designed to reduce the voice of the people...

 

keep it local and beautiful...

As the O'Farrell government lays the groundwork to slash the number of councils in NSW, the question has been asked: are we getting rid of the wrong layer of government?
The person posing the question, former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett, says that in an ideal world, it's not the mayoral robes that should disappear.
The man who transformed Victoria with a suite of big-picture reforms in the 1990s, including cutting the number of councils by almost two-thirds, says state governments should be abolished and replaced by larger, more professional local government units.
His comments follow calls by an independent panel reviewing the state's 152 councils that called for an urgent municipal makeover, including widespread mergers and the creation of three Sydney ''mega councils''.
It has reignited debate about whether Australia's federalism system is outdated, and triggered questions about the relevance of the state government after the proposed council changes.In 1994, during his first term of government, Mr Kennett cut Victoria's councils through mergers from 210 to 78, slashing administrative costs enabling more to be spent on services such as roads.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-governments-should-be-layer-to-go-says-kennett-20130426-2ik1v.html#ixzz2RcQeFoHp

Gus says: keep the councils as they are... The administrative cost-savings are not worth the candles, compared to the quality of services provided.
Get rid of the states government? Now we are talking... But how are we going to manage this duality of state versus federal thingies... In Europe, Even a country like Switzerland has 26 Cantons, which are like mini states... Germany is made up of sixteen Länder (states). The USA has 50 States.... Even the UK is somewhat divided : England, Wales, Scotland (demanding autonomy) Northern Ireland... In Spain, regions like Catalogna are near autonomous... So states are a way to manage a greater whole...

jeff kennett bets that he was wrong...


In an uncharacteristic act delivered with characteristic candour, Jeff Kennett has admitted culpability for the spread of corporate bookmakers to the point where they are now "a cancer in our society".
The former premier of Victoria expressed his condemnation in a swingeing address to a major Racing Victoria Limited function packed with industry leaders and participants.
He also savaged his host for its "unbelievable" lenience in punishing champion jockey Damien Oliver for betting on a rival horse in one of his races.
Kennett admitted making "an admission I don't often make", conceding that one of his reforms on winning office - privatising the TAB in 1994 - was wrong. He said he had not predicted the negative implications of the change, as it paved the way for betting competition from privately owned bookmakers that pay a lot less to the racing industry.
"If I had known 20 years ago that in privatising the TAB it would bring an influx of corporate bookmakers to Australia, I would not have privatised the TAB," he said on Monday.
Kennett's main gripe with corporate bookmakers was that they lower royalty rates, which imperils the financial future of racing.
"Their one objective at the moment is to destroy the major contributor of revenue to RVL - and they'll be able to do it if they're allowed to run unfettered as they are at the moment. They are a cancer in our society," he said.
"They don't give a bugger about you guys, they don't give a damn about the horses. They see it as stock for which they dribble out a small amount of money."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/jeff-kennett-savages-damien-oliver-ban-calls-corporate-bookmakers-a-cancer-20140818-105dvw.html#ixzz3BUwalmwA