Regional councils began with Whitlam – enacted by Beattie

“The Leader”, Longreach,(Queensland) of July 06, 1973, carried the headline: “REGIONAL COUNCILS WILL SUPERSEDE STATE GOVERNMENTS”
The report went on to quote at length, the comments of the Queensland Labor Party’s shadow Minister for Local Government, Mr. Ted Baldwin, at the annual conference of the Western Queensland Local Government Association.
” The Fabian Socialist Society, a movement which since the days of its pioneers, the Webbs, George Bernard Shaw and others, have preached the Marxist objective of how the Socialist State can best be reached along a road of gradualism. Mr. Whitlam and his fellow Fabian Socialists are well aware of how most direct assaults on the Federal Constitution, ie-Dr. Evatt’s 1944, 1946, and 1948 referenda and Bank Nationalisation-were failures. A strategy had to be devised for by-passing the Constitution and of eventually making it appear irrelevant. “Regionalisation” is one of those concepts which has an attraction.”

Mr. Baldwin said: “the establishment of Regional Councils would result in the States being phased out”.
He said, “State Governments are a luxury which Australia can no longer afford”.
Mr. Baldwin’s statements were a frank outline of the Whitlam Government’s strategy of by-passing the Federal Constitution and destroying the States by the creation of ‘Regional Councils’ financially subservient to the Canberra bureaucracy.

At the 1973 Premiers Conference, Prime Minister Whitlam used the Commonwealth’s financial monopoly to deny the States the money they were entitled to receive, informing the Premiers quite frankly, he was withholding this money in order to use it to take over areas which were traditionally State responsibilities. (The States are constitutionally entitled to have their own bank/s, and create their own credit. Why dont they?)

The essence of Socialism is centralisation of all power.
The Communists proclaim Socialism as the first necessary step for the creation of the Communist State.
As a Labor Party candidate for Parliament, Mr. Whitlam, like his colleagues, was required to sign the pledge to “support and advocate at all times, the party’s objective: the socialisation of industry, production, distribution and ‘exchange’.

“The Sydney Morning Herald” of July 26, 1972, quotes Mr. Whitlam as having said: “It would be intolerable if a Labor Government were to use the alibi of the Constitution to excuse failure to achieve its socialist objective; doubly intolerable because it is just not true that it need be.”
Mr. Whitlam is a member of the Fabian Socialist Society.
If it is only looked at superficially, it enables a programme of gradual centralism to be fostered under the guise of decentralisation.
It shrewdly seeks to exploit the desperate financial situation of Municipal Government, increasingly burdened with both debt and inflation.

Following the defeat of Dr. Evatt’s 1944 Powers Referendum the Fabian-Socialists began turning to regionalisation as a major strategy for by-passing the Federal Constitution and eroding the powers of the States.

The great Lord Acton, famous for his axiom : all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, also observed : Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.”

The pedigree of the Whitlam Government’s regionalisation strategy goes back to the days when Dr. H. C. Coombs, a long-time Fabian Socialist, a product of the notorious London School of Economics, was Director of the Commonwealth Department of Post-War Reconstruction.
In 1949, just prior to the change of Government at Canberra, when the Menzies-Fadden Government replaced the Labor Government, the Department of Post-War Reconstruction issued a publication, “Regional Planning in Australia; a history of Progress and Review of Regional Planning activities throughout the Commonwealth”.

These and similar publications, some never publicly circulated, provide the blue-print for current Labor-Socialist strategy, which aims at replacing Local Government with centrally-controlled Regional Governments, which would be, in reality, Departments of the Commonwealth Government – and then vesting such regional bodies with the responsibilities currently belonging to the States .”