Despite the extremely careful explanation of the process and an equally careful presentation of the factors involved, it is clear from your last issue that at least one person failed to grip the basic case for contemplation of a Hinterland Shire.

This person chose instead to attack a closing comment which, despite her inability to comprehend, was no more than a statement of fact. I feel that it is therefore appropriate that I re-state the case for those residents who may be interested in considering the viability of such a shire.

The Local Government Legislation (1996) provides that if a sufficiently representative number of residents from a given area express a desire to form a new shire, then the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning may ask the Electoral Commissioner to conduct a review of the circumstances affecting that community and determine whether or not a new shire is appropriate or indeed viable.

If it is found viable, the Commissioner must conduct a referendum of all affected residents and only in the face of majority support can he then recommend that the Minister declare a new shire.

As part of this process he would also determine the appropriate division of assets and liabilities between the newly established shire and the losing shire/shires.

The entire process is consultative and must have clearly defined benefits for the affected residents. To this end the Hinterland Shire Steering Committee have devoted considerable time studying available data and statistics in order to establish whether it would be at least viable to establish a shire of those hinterland towns and villages west of the Bruce Highway and presently contained within the Maroochy and Caloundra Shires.

After close examination of the structure of Kilcoy, Esk, Gatton, Maroochy and Caloundra Shires, their infrastructure and financial state it was determined that such a shire should at least be viable if not totally desirable. The remaining question was one of appropriateness.

Why should residents of Maleny, Montville, Palmwoods, Landsborough, Eudlo and similar towns and villages want to break away from the present shire structure. Perhaps because less than 60 cents in every rate dollar they pay is spent on providing services and facilities in their area. The more densely populated coastal areas make far greater demands on council for the provision of these services and facilities and as a result, both council expenditure and massive debt is reflected in those areas. Yet these communities continue to make unrealistic demands on council.

However, a majority of the hinterland residents embrace a philosophy of sustainable growth and employment opportunities based on rural industry which enhances and does not destroy the natural ambience of the area. Generally, they accept a more independent role and do not require council to resolve every problem that arises. Can two areas of such diverse ethic be equitably managed under one council or would the interest of both areas best be served by the creation of another shire.

Finally I would like to clarify my personal ‘aside’ to the hinterland shire proposal and repeat the Prime Minister’s statement for the benefit of the person who accused me of ‘tunnel vision’.

"Australia faces two dangers because we are not moving quickly enough on the (agri-food) export front. The first is that Australia will miss out on export opportunities. And the second is that Australia will become more and more reliant on imported foodstuffs". We must actively encourage and develop the agriculture industry and the preservation of its resources or become dependent upon a starving world for our own sustenance.

I apologise for the necessary length of this response but there were many important issues to address.