Ipswich City Council

[#Metro]

So if Jo-Ann leaves her seat, who replaces her in State Parliament?

[aldonius]

So if Jo-Ann leaves her seat, who replaces her in State Parliament?

Why would she do that?

Anyway: Bundamba is heartland Labor territory, but it's also plausible that it could flip to One Nation.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/qld_times/status/999136742178467845

^

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/999140216119021570

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/999317469511663617

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/1001496992260878337

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Court slaps new bans on Ipswich mayor Andrew Antoniolli

Suspended Ipswich mayor Andrew Antoniolli has been released on bail with extra conditions after he was arrested and charged by the state's corruption watchdog.

The latest development in the controversy surrounding Ipswich City Council has prompted its longest-serving councillor, Paul Tully, to call for the stood-down mayor's immediate resignaton.

Cr Antoniolli, 47, was arrested by the Crime and Corruption Commission on Tuesday, charged with breaching his bail conditions.

Speaking in Ipswich Magistrates Court on Wednesday, his lawyer, Dan Rogers, said Cr Antoniolli was alleged to have spoken to a number of close colleagues as he was returning his property after being suspended, pursuant to the Local Government Act.

"He [Cr Antoniolli] was described as being upset at the time ... and if that breach is proven, it is contact with colleagues, not persons named as witnesses in the prosecution list."

Mr Rogers said the fraud charges had impacted on his client's mental health.

"Understandably, being charged with criminal offences as a sitting mayor has impacted on his mental health," he told the court.

"[Cr Antoniolli] has sensibly and proactively engaged with health professionals to manage that, he has a treating doctor and a treating psychiatrist."

Mr Rogers said if his client was released on bail, he would visit his treating psychiatrist on Tuesday afternoon, "in order to ensure his welfare is managed during this difficult time".

Police prosecution objected bail, however bail was granted with the matter adjourned until June 20.

Cr Tully said, regardless of the outcome, Cr Antoniolli should resign. Cr Tully unsuccessfully ran for mayor against Cr Antoniolli last year, in the wake of former mayor Paul Pisasale's resignation.

Cr Tully said Cr Antoniolli's political career was "clearly over" and it was time to "clear the decks and allow the city to move on".

"He cannot make a political comeback and should do the right thing by the city and his council colleagues,"he said.

Cr Tully ruled out standing again for mayor if the position became available in the future.

"I had one opportunity, I won't be standing again for that position," he told media outside his office in Goodna.

At a court mention in Brisbane on May 16, Cr Antoniolli was given bail conditions that he have no contact with Ipswich City Council chief executives James Lindsay and Carl Wulff, both former council chief executives charged by the CCC.

Cr Antoniolli was also to have no contact with Troy Dobinson and Lindsey Denman and not attend or speak to staff at Trek Cycles at Ipswich.

He was ordered not to have any contact with any Ipswich council employees or councillors in relation to matters before the courts.

On Tuesday, those conditions extended to include Cr Antoniolli not go within 100 metres of any Ipswich City Council premise and not speak to any council employee or councillor.

The CCC charged Cr Antoniolli with seven counts of fraud on May 2.

He was accused of using of council funds "for his own use" to purchase items from charitable organisations between 2011 and 2017.

The day after he was charged, Cr Antoniolli stood down from his mayoral duties and resigned as a member of the Labor Party after being asked to show cause why he should not be expelled.

In a statement at the time, Cr Antoniolli said it was in the best interest of the city and his family to stand down and he intended to fight the charges.

At the same time, the state government moved to appoint administrators to take control of the council.

The CCC has laid more than 70 serious charges against 15 people linked with the council in the past 11 months, including former mayor Paul Pisasale, who is facing several allegations including corruption and misconduct.

Deputy mayor Wayne Wendt has assumed the duties of mayor.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> One week since council's response, minister prepares to move

TIME is ticking before the State Government reveals the future of Ipswich councillors.

Today marks seven days since the deadline for councillors to provide Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe with a response to his show-cause notice.

Mr Hinchliffe previously indicated he would take at least one week to make a decision about whether he would sack the council.

The Crime and Corruption Commission has charged 15 people with more than 70 charges during its investigation into the Ipswich council.

Mr Hinchliffe has read the council's notice response.

"I need to consider the advice I'm receiving as well," he said.

Mr Hinchliffe said he was conscious the residents of Ipswich "want to know what's going on, going forward".

He did not rule out reissuing a new show-cause notice under the new, more powerful Local Government Act.

It was also revealed an independent body to toughen up the investigation of complaints and nab bad behaviour "before councillors reach the watch-house door" will be operational this year.

The Office of the Independent Assessor will work alongside the Crime and Corruption Commission and have the power to seize documents and compel people to attend interviews, with stiff penalties applying for non-compliance.

"The CCC will continue to investigate corruption, while the Independent Assessor will focus on official misconduct," Mr Hinchliffe said.

"The new system is designed to put the brakes on bad behaviour long before councillors reach the watch-house door.

"What we have now is not up to the job. It is convoluted, lacks teeth, and - given recent events - clearly fails to act as a sufficient deterrent for some councillors."

If complaints are not genuine, the assessor will have the power to dismiss them and impose a hefty penalty.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Public want more hearings about council investigation: MP

THE Crime and Corruption Commission will not hold more public hearings into local government, despite a 'community call' to do so.

A fresh $1.8 million has been given to the CCC to investigate Queensland's local government sector.

Member for Bundamba Jo-Ann Miller said constituents had asked her if the watchdog would again hold hearings.

"Many people have said to me they want more public hearings," Ms Miller said.

The CCC said there were "no plans" to resume hearings.

Yesterday Opposition leader Deb Frecklington said "corruption and criminality are tolerated at the highest levels of government" in Queensland - a claim the government denies.

Ms Frecklington then said she would not ask the CCC to investigate her claims.

Ms Miller said the Crime and Corruption Commission's focus on local government did not mean it was not also investigating the state.

"The CCC has to decide its priorities internally but it appears the general public are grateful of the work they're doing in relation to local government," she said.

"They are required by law to at least look at complaints and then make a decision as to whether they will investigate or whether they will refer it back to the council or refer them to the ombudsman."

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Miller urges minister to reveal councillors' fate

THE Ipswich community wants certainty about whether or not elected representatives will keep their jobs, MP Jo-Ann Miller has declared.

It has been almost six weeks since Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe issued Ipswich City Council with a show-cause notice to consider why they should not be sacked.

The council's response to the notice was lodged with the minister on May 24.

Ms Miller, the Member for Bundamba, said her constituents wanted to know whether or not they had a council.

"People are saying they want the government to make up their mind one way or another," she said.

"It's been several weeks since the council response and they want the minister to make a decision."

The Bundamba MP, who said she had spent 14 years raising allegations of corruption in Ipswich, had not had a call from Mr Hinchliffe.

"I haven't discussed the matter with him because it's his decision and the government's decision," she said.

"He hasn't at this stage asked my views."

The Crime and Corruption Commission's investigation into Ipswich council has resulted in 15 people facing more than 70 charges.

Ms Miller did not pre-empt the outcome of Minister

Hinchliffe's consideration but said he had the power to remove councillors.

"I think with the number of charges, from various people, the minister has to take into account the public's viewpoint and that's why the legislation was changed," she said.

"It was changed so he can act in the public interest."

While Mr Hinchliffe considers the fate of Ipswich councillors, the State Government will focus on selling its first budget of the new term.

Treasurer Jackie Trad will deliver her first budget on Tuesday, which will increase debt to pay for Queensland infrastructure projects.

Sources within the Labor Party believe it is unlikely Mr Hinchliffe will dismiss councillors during budget week.

He has indicated he will make a decision before June 22.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Deadline looming on council dismissal decision

ONLY four days remain before Ipswich residents will learn the fate of the council.

Thursday marks the deadline for Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe to decide whether or not to dismiss the Ipswich City councillors.

Councillors responded to the minister's show cause notice on May 24, arguing against being dismissed saying many of the charges levelled by the state's corruption watchdog were unrelated to local government, the council or the councillors.

Since the Crime and Corruption Commission began its investigation, 15 people associated with Ipswich City Council have been charged with offences ranging from official corruption, perjury, fraud, money laundering and attempting to pervert justice.

That includes two mayors and two CEOS.

In its response to the Minister, the councillors pointed out that no individual charged had entered a plea or been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

"No individual has entered a plea to any charge, no statements have been provided, no indictments have been presented, no trials have been conducted and no jury, properly instructed by a judge, has yet to reach a verdict whether the prosecution had proved a case beyond reasonable doubt," Acting Mayor Wayne Wendt said in May.

"The removal of innocent, and democratically elected officials, from their positions is not the right move.

"In fact, it would take away people's representation at the grass-roots end of politics.

"Despite a vocal minority, feedback from the majority of people we're hearing from want us to continue to represent their voice in the council chambers."

Two petitions were launched in relation to sacking the council; one in favour of dismissal, the other fighting to "save" the council.

The petition to dismiss the council secured 1096 signatures while the petition to save the council secured 791 signatures.

Not confident as to which way this will go.  Early, I thought the Council would probably be dismissed but as time has passed, I think it is now 50/50.  Could go either way.   There certainly is a political risk in dismissing the council (Labor) although there is a lot of local sentiment that would support a decision to dismiss.  Very interesting political dynamics. 

I do feel a tad sorry for Stirling Hinchliffe - landed with #railfail and now this! 

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/haydenjohnson94/status/1009226359472734208

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/PatrickCondren/status/1009239792024842240

Going ... going .. gone?

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/NewsTalk4BC/status/1009243440708587520

[ozbob]

  

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> 'Gravely concerned' minister gives councillors one week

THE Ipswich City Council will have until June 29 to again respond to why they should not be dismissed by Stirling Hinchliffe, who remains "gravely concerned" about the matter.

Mr Hinchliffe, the Local Government Minister, has requested the council respond "to further matters in my consideration of whether they should not be dismissed or suspended".

"In the wake of multiple charges by the CCC against both councillors and staff, I remain gravely concerned that the people of Ipswich are being short-changed by their council," he said.

He pledged to not "shy away from using" additional power, handed to Mr Hinchliffe after changes to the Local Government Act last month, to dismiss or suspend a council "in the public interest".

"I am giving the council and its councillors until Friday week, June 29, to respond to a further show-cause notice that I have issued today using the new public interest provisions," he said.

"The council and the residents of Ipswich have my commitment that any further material will be considered quickly, but thoroughly, and a decision made shortly thereafter."

[Stillwater]

It makes sense to put in administrators from the start of the new financial year - nice and clean.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> EXPLAINED: New show cause notice, what happens now

IPSWICH residents face another nine days wait to find out the fate of the embattled council.

Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe has issued Ipswich City Council with a new show cause notice, again asking elected officials why they should not be dismissed.

This is the second time councillors have been issued with such a notice and the same process will apply.

Councillors have been given until June 29 to respond to the new notice.

Should the councillors decide not to respond to this notice, Mr Hinchliffe can exercise his powers to dismiss the council, without further consultation.

If the councillors do respond, but the submission does not persuade the minister not to exercise his power, he can dismiss the council without further notice.

At the end of the show cause period, the Minister can recommend the Governor in Council dissolve the Local Government and appoint an interim administrator to act in place of the councillors until the conclusion of a fresh election.

An administrator could be one person or a small group of people, selected by the State Government.

The administrator/s would act in place of the councillors and normal processes of council officers preparing reports for councillors will continue, with the administrator/s acting as the decision makers.

There will be little impact, if any, on ratepayers, regarding basic services such as rubbish collection, dog registration and maintenance of public facilities.

The Minister may also decide not to exercise his power to dismiss the council, in which case it will be business as usual.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Residents called on to 'have their say' on council dismissal

IPSWICH residents should take the opportunity to have their say on whether or not the council should be dismissed, an MP says.

Bundamba MP Jo-Ann Miller has urged Ipswich residents to write to the Local Government Minister, the Premier and the Deputy Premier in the next nine days.

At 11am, Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe announced he would issue Ipswich City Council with a second show cause notice, giving the council nine days to respond.

She said this second show cause notice had been issued in the public interest and the public should have their say.

"The Minister has made a considered decision but it's only another nine days," Ms Miller said of the new show cause notice.

"Now I am calling on all the residents in Ipswich to write to the Minister, the Premier and the Deputy Premier, to let them know their views.

"This show cause notice is in the public interest and the people have the right to have their say."

Meanwhile, Jim Dodrill, president of the Ipswich Residents and Ratepayers Association said the Minister already had sufficient information to sack the council and that the people of Ipswich had lost faith in the council.

Since former mayor Paul Pisasale resigned in May last year, 16 people associated with the council have been charged with more than 70 offences ranging from fraud, to money laundering, perjury, attempt to pervert justice and official corruption.

All intend to fight the allegations against them.

Contact your leaders;

    Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe

Email: lgrma@ministerial.qld.gov.au

By post: PO Box 15009

CITY EAST QLD 4002

    Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk

Email: thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au

By post: PO Box 15185

CITY EAST QLD 4002 

    Deputy Premier Jackie Trad

  Email: deputy.premier@ministerial.qld.gov.au   By post: GPO Box 611   BRISBANE QLD 4001

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/1010923782796529664

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> BREAKING: Council takes Minister's notice to Supreme Court

THE Ipswich City Council will take the State Government to the Supreme Court to overturn the show-cause notice.

The council is seeking orders "that the Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe does not have the jurisdiction to dismiss or suspend council".

Acting Mayor Wayne Wendt will hold a press conference this morning.

  "The orders would restrain the minister from acting any further, and allow councillors to get on with the job of managing the city," a council notice said.

"Council is of the view that ministerial powers must be exercised lawfully, and this move is to protect Queensland councils into the future by ensuring that, from the outset, these ministerial powers are appropriately applied."

The council is due to respond to the second show-cause notice by Friday.

Mr Hinchliffe has previously pledged to quickly consider their response and make a decision.

[ozbob]

Poor Stirlo ....  it's a horror movie !

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/6/27/statement-on-ipswich-city-council

Media Statements

Minister for Local Government, Minister for Racing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs
The Honourable Stirling Hinchliffe

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Statement on Ipswich City Council

Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said:

"It's gravely disappointing to see Ipswich City Council hiding behind new legal proceedings that clearly aren't in the best interests of the city.

"Residents, ratepayers and businesses deserve transparent and accountable leadership - they want a Council they can have confidence in.

"I am more determined than ever to address any governance shortcomings at Ipswich City Council, which is why I've issued a show cause notice that includes a right of reply.

"Council's delaying tactics in seeking to circumvent the legal process already underway will only create more uncertainty and confusion for the people of Ipswich.

"I will not hesitate to use any powers at my disposal, or seek new powers if necessary, to ensure Council is able to serve the Ipswich community and its best interests.

"I will monitor tomorrow's proceedings closely, and any actions I take will be focused solely on restoring transparency and accountability at Ipswich City Council."

[verbatim9]

If I lived in Ipswich I would want an administrator appointed, until the next council election.

I have talked to friends that live in that council area and they haven't been happy and the recycling debacle was the icing on the cake. The council doesn't consult with the people especially on major changes such as refuse and recycling. Very sad!

[ozbob]

If I lived in Ipswich I would want an administrator appointed, until the next council election.

I have talked to friends that live in that council area and they haven't been happy and the recycling debacle was the icing on the cake. The council doesn't consult with the people especially on major changes such as refuse and recycling. Very sad!

I am an Ipswich resident and ratepayer.  Not amused as it will be the rate payers left with the bill for this very costly legal stuff.

In my view the Council should have simply accepted the final decision from the Minister.  I would be surprised if the action taken by the Council will succeed.  They are not the first council to be dismissed.  It was possible that the Minister may have not dismissed them, but I think now there is very little option left.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/abcbrisbane/status/1011791385811288064

[ozbob]

 

https://twitter.com/haydenjohnson94/status/1011792621939802112

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/qld_times/status/1011799385691381760

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/1011801192979054592

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/qld_times/status/1011804010758721536

==================

Queensland Times --> Police protect councillors as protesters surround meeting

PROTESTERS crashed an Ipswich City Council press conference, forcing Queensland Police to provide protection to councillors inside. 

Acting Mayor Wayne Wendt called a press conference for 11.30am at Market Square to announce the council would take the State Government's show-cause notice to the Supreme Court. 

After a smattering of protesters arrived the meeting was moved into the Ipswich Civic Centre, which the council claimed was due to "wet weather".

Security barred the protesters from entering the centre before Queensland Police arrived. 

When the conference was over Cr Wendt made a dash to the administration centre across the road, followed by several people with placards.   

With Cr Wendt inside the administration centre, the handful of protesters began chanting   

"Ipswich has had enough, please resign now," they sang.

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> 'Dismissal will send Ipswich broke': Council's dire warning

"GLOVES are off" in the city versus state battle with the Ipswich City Council starting a legal fight to have Stirling Hinchliffe's dismissal notice overturned in the Supreme Court.

In another extraordinary day in the City of Ipswich, councillors revealed they would challenge the legality of Mr Hinchliffe's notice in court.

A hearing is set down for tomorrow at 10am.

The council wants the Supreme Court to "restrain" Mr Hinchliffe from acting on his second dismissal notice which was given to councillors on June 20.

Acting Mayor Wayne Wendt said the council would challenge the minister's new power that he could dismiss the council in the "public interest".

"What we're challenging now is that there is this new public interest test and we want to make sure that the public interest has been served," he said.

"That's something we need to test, not only for this council, there are other councils who may have to face this music again in the future.

"Should it all be proven in court that it's the correct way to go, we will happily walk away."

The council argues their "hands have been forced" with Mr Hinchliffe only giving them seven days to respond to a second show-cause notice.

The acting mayor said the council had already responded to questions about why it should not be sacked.

"We have seen the evidence which his decision could be based and we believe that we and the people of Ipswich have been backed into a corner," he said.

"We have asked for the opportunity to discuss the situation and work out the best way forward for our city and we make that request to the minister again today."

Cr Wendt said evidence was provided in the council's first show-cause notice to address the minister's concerns.

"To then receive a second show-cause notice which has an extra test of public interest, which is not an easily defined test, it's made it very difficult to come up with within five or six business days," he said.

"This second show cause notice is deficient in our perspective.

"Our advice is this second show-cause notice is as deficient as the first."

Cr Wendt said a "dangerous precedent" would be set across the state if the minister dismissed the council.

"This is not about declaring war on the State Government, to the contrary, it is about seeing sense in the situation," he said.

Despite the council arguing it had acted to "protect Queensland councils into the future", Cr Wendt said he had not discussed the challenge with the Local Government Association of Queensland.

The council is still working towards making a second submission to the State Government before tomorrow's deadline.

In the past 24 hours the council received legal advice that a legal challenge was "something we needed to explore".

Division 2 Councillor Paul Tully backed the move and said it was about providing a transparent decision for residents.

"There can be nothing more accountable or open in Queensland to have it tested in public in the Supreme Court rather than a decision made in the back offices of the government in William St," Cr Tully said.

"We will be satisfied with any legal judgment."

Cr Tully said the council had been respectful of the process, but the council was now taking a stand.

"It's gloves off in respect of this particular matter," he said.

The longest-serving councillor, who is due to soon rack up 40 years in local government, said he would stand at an election again.

While the Supreme Court considers the challenge, councillors painted a grim picture for the region if they were dismissed.

"It will send the city broke, it will send the city backwards there will be job losses," Cr Wendt said.

Note this article from yesterday, hearing is 10AM today.

First #railfail now #ICCfail.  Stirlo's run must get better eventually hey?   

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/haydenjohnson94/status/1012162021943439360

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> Premier questions Ipswich council's legal challenge

PREMIER Annastacia Palaszczuk has questioned Ipswich City Council's use of ratepayer money to fund a legal challenge against the State over its plans to sack the council and bring in administrators.

The Supreme Court is today hearing the council's application for an injunction against the State's show cause notice.

"I do not think that the ratepayers of Ipswich would be wanting their money to be going towards legal challenge," Ms Palaszczuk said.

But she said the State had no choice but to defend its actions in the court.

"This has been an issue that has been ongoing with the CCC now for many, many months," she said.

"I think the residents of Ipswich want this matter dealt with."

Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe issued the council with a second show cause notice last week, giving the council until Friday to respond before he is expected to dismiss councillors and bring in administrators.

[red dragin]

ABC -> Ipswich Council loses $80 million through secretive development arm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-28/ipswich-council-loses-$80m-through-secretive-development-arm/9914484

Time to move to Moreton Bay Region OzBob, our Council isn't shaky  (although rumours exist  )

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Queensland Times --> MP urges creation of new 'special power' to sack council

SPECIAL legislation to dismiss the Ipswich City Council is an option the State Government should consider using, one of its own members has urged.

Member for Bundamba Jo-Ann Miller said Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe had the option to introduce new powers to sack the council.

The move would be similar to a Bill rushed through the Queensland Parliament last month that gave Mr Hinchliffe additional power to sack a council "in the public interest".

The Ipswich City Council secured a small victory yesterday when Mr Hinchliffe agreed not to progress a decision about the show-cause notice while a challenge was before the Supreme Court.

With the council now set to remain in place until at least July 31, Ms Miller said the State Government could act through parliament to dissolve the council.

Any new legislation would not progress while the matter was before the court, but could be used if it finds against the government.

"The State Government legislated in May to give the minister powers to issue a second show-cause notice in the public interest," she said.

"The State Government has the power to legislate again if it so chooses."

The Queensland Parliament is not due to sit again until July 24 for Estimate Committee Hearings.

A special sitting could be called by the government to push through legislation.

Ms Miller said new legislation "could include amendments to the Local Government Act or it could include a stand-alone Bill just in relation to Ipswich City Council".

The council claims the Minister does not have the jurisdiction to dismiss the council and, through its legal action, claims it is protecting Queensland councils by launching a challenge.

Ms Miller said a separate Bill to remove the council would quash that claim.

"In this instance, the parliament would be giving the minister the power to act only in relation to Ipswich City Council and no other Queensland council," she said.

"The parliament is in charge of its own destiny and if the parliament so chooses to pass this type of legislation, it would then become law upon assent or upon proclamation."

Cogs in the process to sack the council started turning on May 3, one day after Mayor Andrew Antoniolli was charged with seven counts of fraud - which he intends to fight.

Since then Mr Hinchliffe has received a response from the council before issuing a second show-cause notice on June 20.

The council is due to respond to the minister by today's deadline, but the nine-day timeline for a response was one reason the council challenged the notice.

Ms Miller has previously called for people to make their views about the council known to the State Government.

It comes as Cr Wendt claimed on Tuesday that "80 per cent" of the public supported the council.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/1012224334130176000

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/HelenSpelitis/status/1012230378243874816

[ozbob]

Total fuking delusion.  The majority want the council gone.  The State will certainly dismiss them now.  If the Council's actions today are subsequently upheld the Government will simply further legislate. 

[#Metro]

Total fuking delusion.  The majority want the council gone.  The State will certainly dismiss them now.  If the Council's actions today are subsequently upheld the Government will simply further legislate. 

I think one of the issues here is that people who didn't have a hand in the mess are going to get punished. Stirling wants to make a symbolic statement by firing everyone en masse.

There needs to be a justification for punishing innocent parties - what is it?

The other view is perhaps the entire council should resign en masse. I don't know the specifics of the Local Government Act, but perhaps a sudden mass resignation would trigger a byelection which the ECQ would run, and deny the minister the opportunity to appoint an administrator. It would also give local ward residents the say in the matter.

[ozbob]

Even the LGAQ can see the writing on the wall ..

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/1012368796231712768

[ozbob]

A selection of letters to the Ed in today's Queensland Times

IPSWICH City Council is a dysfunctional circus.

Such a culture within the council is never going to be eliminated by the removal of just a couple of political figureheads like Paul Pisasale and Andrew Antoniolli.

If Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe isn't of the opinion that a fresh election must be held in Ipswich sooner rather than later, he ought to be.

He also should be of the view that starting immediately there needs to be a total, clinical, virtually forensic audit undertaken by his department to identify any impropriety which has been going on within Ipswich City Council.

Ipswich residents deserve nothing less after what has happened to their council over the past year.

They deserve the right to have confidence that the Palaszczuk Government and Stirling Hinchliffe's measures to root out corruption within the council isn't just another typical "lick and a promise" you expect from Labor, especially in a Labor stronghold like Ipswich. TIM BADRICK Laidley

WE now have to pick up the tab for the council's Supreme Court challenge.

They have the nerve to put our rates up. Maybe the money spent on all our council's legal fees could have been used on us, the ratepayers?

If we went to court we would have to pay our own costs.

Most people these days are struggling just to put food on the table, lights on and water to keep us clean.

We are now being treated as idiots. Just keep paying for our council's alleged bad behaviour.

Sack them all. We are now a laughing stock. Come on and do the right thing, GAYLE SALMON

IT'S disappointing that the remaining Ipswich City councillors are challenging in court the State Government's authority to dismiss the council and appoint an administrator. Presumably, this year's $50 rates rise for every household will be used to pay their legal bill for the challenge. Why can't they use their own money?

The criminal charges laid against the two former mayors and sundry council employees over the last year shows there was something wrong over the long term with the administration of this city and it needs a fresh approach to be dealt with. PHIL GREENHILL Bellbird Park

I WILL put up my hand and say I do not want Ipswich City Council sacked. I don't like what has happened; and I don't know if I am in the minority or majority; but I do know it is difficult, if not impossible, to know the majority view of residents unless a formal vote is taken.

I don't want that either, purely because of the expense.

The whole thing is indeed a mess, but I don't see government dismissal of the elected representatives as the way forward. KEV PEARCE Raceview

I think is probably very representative of the locals opinion out west.  About 3/4 want the Council removed and a new lot voted in.

Problems have been going on for years.