What else would you expect them to say under the circumstances. There's no mention here of the huge Rates increases for some parts of the Coast. There's also no mention of the democratic rights of the people.

Let's just think about what has happened here. We were told that the amalgamations were necessary to "reduce costs" and to create "stronger councils". Has either of those things happened? How do they rate in terms of the two key objectives?

Stronger Councils? - I don't think so.

Reduced costs? - No. The Government is refusing to accept responsibility for the huge costs associated with the amalgamations and hence are feeling warm and fuzzy that they might save some themselves some money but guess who is paying for it all in huge Rates and Levy increases and government charges.

Do we at least have the comfort of knowing that our services are improving as a result of all of this. You've got to be joking.

So what was the point of putting everyone through all that misery and enormous expense?

As someone who has had and will continue to have a close interest in this country's political system whether it's federal or state, the Sunshine Coast's mayor must remember that councils do come and go and; is he telling the people of the Sunshine Coast that he will ignore the policy position of the LNP leading up to the next state election on council amalgamation? The positions of Mr Springborg on this issue including the LGA was known prior to the council elections. Perhaps we should also consider that there wasn't widespread support from the Queensland community for councils to merge. We should also consider that this pathetic ALP government imposed its will on us by a flawed inquiry process. The voters of the Sunshine Coast and elsewhere, will have the next 12 months or less, to decide on which side will have the best policies. When I look at the amount of damage that the government has done across this state over the years; could these super councils also go down the same path to that of the Queensland government where the needs of the community are ignored? The members of the Sunshine Coast Council must realise that they operate under state legislation and that can be amended. Perhaps this paper could ask Councillor Griffin re what benefits have been brought to the coast since the last council election?

Agree with bubble. I'll put my hand up to going back to our reasonable Caloundra Shire rates for services rather than having to subsidise the ridiculous spending of the Maroochy Shire Council. Why does it cost so much more for contractors 'over the bridge' when the Caloundra Shire were able to run the show on a much more realistic budget? I know of a few contractors that are now rich and buying up investment properties from lucrative Maroochy Shire contracts at the expense of starving out pensioners from their homes because they can't afford the rates.

I was surprised to see the wages bill of the 12 new councilors in comparison to the 36 or so “old” councilors, there seems to have been an unprecedented wage rise, more than double??
As a ratepayer, I am not that happy with the large rate rise, particularly in the light of not much in the difference of delivery of services , which in all probability will diminish as time marches on , due to the “streamlining” of staff numbers and plant and equipment because “do we really need all of those machine shops and offices??”

It happened in Victoria and the local roads grew potholes and the service delivery dropped by half.

That being said, at least there will be a coordinated overview of the Coast's infrastructure. that can only be a good thing. As long as BOB treats all of the Coast as he would Noosa, and not get sucked in by the developers and their plethora of Mc mansions and high rise , even if they try to ‘grease his palm”
Public transport is high on the list, maybe a light rail up the centre of the Sunshine Motorway as in Perth? From Caloundra to the “New Maroochy Station’, and from there to Tewantin??
I did say overview of the Coast's infrastructure.

I wonder what Bob's view on de-amalgamation would be had Joe Natoli been elected super mayor....

If Cr Russell Green really feels that way his only honourable course is to resign his chairmanship of the General Committee and from his portfolio responsibility for Regional Planning on the Council's Strategy & Planning Committee.

This whole offer from the LNP is a vote grabber only. I would absolutely guarantee that if they got in on that promise they would find a way to get out of it because it will cost even more money to de-amalgamate. As to Cr Green, you have shown your true colours and they are Noosa green.

De-amalgamation is probably unlikely. However, I hope that this issue will at least see the end of the last vestages of the Beattie Government. But maybe I should have said the Bligh Government. Same thing really.

I hope that once the people of QLD have fully absorbed what a con job has been pulled on them they will decide not to give the Labour Government another four years to continue on their path of destruction. I believe that even no government could be preferable to what we have been subjected to for the past 5-6 years.

If this newspaper has any credibility it will call for Cr Green's resignation from council in tomorrow's editorial.
Abbott's position is ethically defensible. Green's is not and he now has an unresolvable conflict of interest. He must step down immediately.

This one seems to be a real polariser.

It's still early days and for any of the knee jerkers who weren't paying attention earlier, it was clearly stated that the flow on benefits of amalgamation would not appear for several years, but they will come nonetheless.

Small town mentality is quite a drawback yet Bob has proven that he is BIG in name as well as nature.
He has conducted himself in an honorable way as have most of the Councillors who have now moved on. They remain steadfast, focussed and continue to keep their eye on the ball despite the wowsers.

The uninformed continue to demand seamless integration of large technically differing IT systems after a relatively short time. Keep in mind the CEO was only appointed recently and many processes would be in a holding pattern until the appropriate structure was put in place.

Wake up and smell the roses Shatton, all rates in all Councils have risen somewhat aligned with rising costs, the world is still turning.

The real problem with budgeting was the loss of water revenue ( a huge hole to fill), even though SCRC will get compensation it will only go directly back to treasury straight on to loan payments, and thus still T-bone Council's operating budget.

Perhaps NewsWatcher could use his contacts to find out if the LNP would dismantle the SEQ Water theft and return the pot of gold.....now that would be interesting.

Russell Green has the right to represent his constituents as they were the only ones who voted for him; not all SCRC residents. Having said that being on the planning committee and showing his old leopard spots does make him a target for criticism.

Jeremiah Boast got it right in outing this manouver as a vote grabber. It's almost laughable if it wasn't so sad and feeble and I cringe that there is an ongoing weakness in the opposing party that allows the Brisbane-centric Labour party to continue to do as they please unabated.

My2cents, yes the salary package has risen considerably, and so has the expectation and the number of constituents to service per councillor.
Just what are you embarrassed about ?
36 into 12 or thereabouts means logically that the salaries could have tripled, but not so.

We can only hope that many GENUINE independents run in the comming state election and that many of them get to hold the balance of power.

The Opposition offers de-amalgamation which COULD be attractive if we could redraw the boundary in a north south direction ie carve off the Hinterland.

BUT the Opposition also said they would overturn the SEQ Regional Plan approach AND the decision on Links Montville.

?????

Isn't democracy great ! Freedom!

Freedom from hunger freedom from oppression, freedom of choice?

The borg once again confirms his status as yesterdays
man
If hes the saviour of conservative politics in queensland maybe the patients dead

No Eugene. It is impossible to only represent those who voted for you . An ethical requirement of all councillors, according to the Act, is that they:

"must conduct themselves in a way that promotes and maintains the public’s trust and confidence in the local government and the good rule and government of its area".

Cr Green's comments that "given the opportunity he would grab it with both hands and run with it" is evidence enough that he will undermine this council at the first opportunity. He is in fact doing that by making todays statement.

http://www.lnp.org.au/ http://www.springborg.com/ On forwarding these links; perhaps it would be interesting for readers to put their concerns re Mr Springborg's position via the contact links at the enclosed websites. We have members of the LNP on the Sunshine Coast and their electoral offices are also a avenue. As the LNP is still to have the Liberal Party's federal executive give its support to the merger, it's still early days to get a proper picture re what's on offer by the Queensland Opposition.

Nice to see that there are some up there ^^^^ who now acknowledge (they did not, back then) that my strident criticism of Big Bob is now proven correct.

Big Bob wanted and got the Big Dollar, and left his loyal constituents behind.

Some really good points up there, especially from the former staunch and erstwhile loyal Big Bob supporters.

Naughty that Bob.

"must conduct themselves in a way that promotes and maintains the public’s trust and confidence in the local government and the good rule and government of its area".

If that statement was worth the disk oxide it's written on then we would all be voting for all Councillors in every Division across all of Council.

Think about the implications of your vote (representative) having only 1/12th of the say as it has across many issues rammed home by numerous past majority votes in council.

Yaroomba high rise is the classic example.

The truth is that each Councillor is there to represent the constituents of their divison as a part of the Council vote in it's totality.
"the Local Government" is not Russell Green.
He is just one cog on the whel.

I'm sure that Russell Green (I don't personally agree with his stance) has the trust and confidence of those who he currently represents. He has as much if not more duty to act in the best interest of those who have the democratic right to vote for him. (a lot more didn't)

Equally Big Bob has certainly not left his loyal constituents behind.

Clearly he has a foot in either camp and whilst not supporting de-coupling he will continue to show due care with all thing Noosa related whilst looking at the bigger picture.

I'm not sure just what Bob Bates is trying to say ???

Bob had two choices, 1 to bunk out and fade away or 2 to run on a viable platform of slowing development and remain in a position of strength to protect the interests of the Noosa Community.

What was the alternative, lay down and let Joe impose numerous "Yaroomba high rise" like decisions from Lagoona Bay to North Bribie ?


It's not about the bucks .....
Astute politicing in my book.

Fortunately Council is a business run by a board of directors who were spawned out of a democracy.

There have been rogue Councillors in the past and there will be more in the future. That is not to say that Russell is or isn't a rogue councillor.

His point is that they were forced into a position that the majority of voters didn't want. In the event that LNP (highly unlikely) were to roll back, then Russell seems to be saying he'd run with it;
with out reservation.

That is not what I'd consider as rogue behavior, but rather supporting his constituents and the general consensus.

Reality is we won't be putting humpty dumpty back together and there is yet to be seen any evidence that Russell is not a SCRC Team player when push comes to shove.

Anyhow with the current voting and representation system he is quite within his right to have a divergent opinion. He is just one vote of many and clearly could not have any undue influence without attracting close scrutiny.

So for mine, it's close scrutiny

not mutiny.

Bob Bates. Bob Abbot left his loyal constituents behind?

95% of Noosa voted for him!

How many voted for your mates Hulett and Natoli? (Both associated with the L and NP) Perhaps you just want to join with Russell Green and his LNP mates who want to protect Noosa for political reasons but leave Coolum south to the white shoe brigade... A vote for the LNP is a vote for high rise and poor planning... Always has been ..... Funny how the champions of the gerrymander now scream democracy.