I compliment Paul Bradstreet on his well considered response (November 25) to your editorial “Seven months an icy age in shire politics” (November 20), and look forward to your responses to the points and questions he has raised.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The state government created local government. I understand that it is losing $400-500million pa. Such aggregate losses are not acceptable to the “state government, which wants local government to change in order to drive better outcomes for ratepayers” - the profoundly key point being made by Mr Constance.
You point out the IPART have found ESC “fit for the future and able to stand alone”. Queanbeyan and Palerang Shires were found to be “not fit for the future”. They are the contiguous shires through which the Kings Hwy runs from Canberra and the coast to Batemans Bay.
To use this fact in any contemplation of amalgamisation is “nutty logic” according to Cr Burnside (BP/ME 20/11/15). I can recall some visionaries promoting it to be a dual highway - it was highly supported.
Yet Cr Burnside in his same letter points out: “The reasons we don’t have rapid development here are nearly all attributable to a lack of state infrastructure - no rail service, poor quality highways and an expensive passenger air service.”
But surely, with ESC having the ‘capital’ of ‘fit for the future’ of these three, why isn’t ESC talking with the state government about “taking over” the other two. It would create oportunities for attracting more investment from government for building State infrastructure, providing it was administered and managed properly.
Neville Hughes
Surf Beach
