Comments on: What should your local council do with Rudd's money?

By: Peterc

Peterc — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:47:22 +0000

Local Councils could also use some of the money take local action on reducing their carbon emissions and other means of tackling climate change.

Since the Rudd Government still has Australia on a trajectory to increase emissions at least until 2015, probably longer – “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” not withstanding.

By: mick

mick — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:50:50 +0000

Mark – I’m pretty sure I know the type. Correct me if I’m wrong but if they were American (and not from one of the coasts) they’d probably be wearing cowboy boots and trying to sound as folksy as possible?

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:42:25 +0000

Just on the dodginess factor, the story on the 7 30 report last night made me think they’d picked the weirdest looking and broadest accented of our nation’s fine crop of mayors for interviews!

By: mick

mick — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:33:54 +0000

I would guess that in many cases the money will be used for:

1. Paying bribes to property developers (hard hit by the collapse of the housing bubble etc) or,
2. Facilitating meetings in fancy places so that property developers can pay the councilors bribes.

By: wbb

wbb — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:09:07 +0000

On the Gold Coast I think the money would be well spent on demolition.

By: Steve D

Steve D — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:35:01 +0000

On the Gold Coast I think the money would be well spent on a witch hunt.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:30:28 +0000

Thanks, David.

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:11:17 +0000

Mark, re: Emerald local council and TV, it seems that none of the digital television conversion plans took locally owned analog retransmission sites into account (since they were neither owned nor run by the ABC or any of the commercial channels). Emerald was probably eligible for satellite delivery of TV as are most bits of Australia that can’t receive terrestrial TV transmission (not unusual in Australia).

So – it’s a silly bit of grandstanding by the local council who just robbed their constituents of subsidised access to satellite delivery of TV. I’m sure somebody thought it was a good idea.

There isn’t much on the web about it, although this details a bit of their federal submission.

It’s basically why a lot of people hold their local councils in contempt – so prone to being co-opted by idiots with strange agendas.

By: Florence Howarth

Florence Howarth — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:02:27 +0000

Getting rid of State Governments seems to be popular at this time. II would like to know who would run and be responsible for:- Hospitals, police, schools, child protection, local courts, roads and transport, etc. I cannot see councils filling these roles.

Maybe we should look at why the Constitution was created the way it is. I see the problem as the Federal Governemnt entering fields that rightly belong to the States. This rot stsrted after the States relinguish their right to raise personal taxation as a war measure.

The result the States are responsible for providng services, which they were created for. They no longer responsible for raising the bulk of the money.

The states should be given back the power of raising the taxes need to provide the basic services they are responsible for.

The Federal government should stick to what they were created for. That is:- Defence, foreign affairs, immigration and matters, affect the whole country.

I see no reason for local government to be ackowledge in the Constitution.

The present tax enquiry should start their review by first looking who should raise tax.

By: jane

jane — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:52:39 +0000

Our mob would probably build another f*cking marina nobody wants. I wouldn’t give them two bob.