Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5368 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert;

1A  After paragraph 7(1)(fa)

Insert:

            (fb)    to conduct plebiscites in communities in which a nuclear facility is to be established; and

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4, (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:

     (1H)    To ensure that communities in which a nuclear facility is to be established have authorised that establishment and have consented to the health, welfare, safety and environmental impacts and risks of the establishment of the nuclear facility, for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(fb), a plebiscite must be conducted by the Commission in every federal electorate within 0.5km of the boundary of the nuclear facility seeking approval for the establishment of the facility.

I refer to the amendments on sheet 5368. I have asked that the chamber consider the conducting of non-binding plebiscites in communities in which a nuclear facility is to be established. The chamber would be proper in asking me: ‘Why would you need to do that when the bill itself is not specific as to plebiscites that may be conducted? Any plebiscite can be conducted.’ But, of course, the explanatory memorandum is specific, and we know that the explanatory memorandum has weight in these matters. The explanatory memorandum refers to local government amalgamations, and the purpose of this bill is, in fact, to allow for plebiscites on local council amalgamations. If that had not been the case and if the explanatory memorandum had simply been left open-ended, I would have expected that plebiscites on nuclear facilities, or any other plebiscite that a local council or anyone else wanted to conduct, could occur.

These matters are particularly sensitive. I am not prejudging the matter; there may well be shires and councils that would like a nuclear facility. I seem to recall that in my own state of Western Australia there is a shire that is happy to store nuclear waste for its state. People are not automatically against these things, but there are people who are very sensitive about nuclear waste dumps and nuclear reactors being sited near them. I think it is appropriate that, in view of the sensitivity of this issue and the very strong feelings many members of the community have about it, we make it explicit that plebiscites will be conducted in communities in which nuclear facilities are to be established.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting these amendments primarily because it is consistent to support amendments that give effect to the view we expressed in our second reading amendment, which is that we believe that communities ought to have the right to have a say on nuclear facilities, be they nuclear reactors or locations for nuclear waste—particularly the 25 nuclear power plants that the Howard government wants to impose on the Australian community. We believe that the location of nuclear facilities will have a long-lasting and possibly irreversible impact on communities and that these special and quite extraordinary circumstances raise questions of public policy that are certainly out of the ordinary and warrant this attention.

Labor believe that if the Howard government were fair dinkum about empowering local communities—and we have heard a lot of comment about that in the context of this bill—they would empower them to have a plebiscite on this matter. We think this stands as quite a strong test for the government as to the credibility of their sincerity on this issue. It certainly came up, along with many other ideas about what a plebiscite could be used for, in the course of the Senate inquiry. This issue was a particular standout because, after all, the Howard government has placed it firmly on the agenda for local communities. For the record, we know that many government backbenchers are opposed to the location of nuclear facilities in their own electorates. I would expect that many of them would indeed support the prospect of allowing those communities to have a plebiscite.

We have good reason to be concerned, because there is a great deal of history of coalition governments considering sites for nuclear reactors, dating right back to 1969, when the then Liberal government considered a number of sites, including Jervis Bay, which is part of my electorate, on the coast close to Nowra; the Murrumbidgee River between Williamsdale and Tharwa; Paddys River in the ACT; Bass Point in the electorate of Eden-Monaro; and the Hawkesbury River site at Spencer, which is in the electorate of Robertson. In 1981 the coalition government’s National Energy Advisory Committee considered sites in Perth, Adelaide, Tasmania and Darwin to be suitable for nuclear reactors. In July 1997 a cabinet submission signed off by the then Minister for Science and Technology, Peter McGauran—now the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—considered sites in Goulburn; Holsworthy; the Mount Lofty Ranges, in the electorate of Mayo, in Adelaide; the river and lakes region of South Australia; Olympic Dam, in the electorate of Grey, in South Australia; Woomera; the electorates of O’Connor, Pearce, Brand and Canning, in Western Australia; Broken Hill; Mount Isa; and Darwin.

On ABC radio on 5 June 2006, Ian Smith, the head of ANSTO, considered sites for four to five nuclear power plants on the east coast of Australia. A feasibility study by the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia for the Fraser government considered Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to all have suitable sites. In May 2006 the Australia Institute identified Western Port Bay, in Victoria; Port Stephens, in Paterson, in New South Wales; the Central Coast of New South Wales; areas south of Wollongong, around the electorate of Gilmore; the Sunshine Coast, in the electorate of Fairfax, in Queensland; Port Phillip Bay, in the Corangamite electorate, in Victoria; and Portland, in the electorate of Wannon, in Victoria. On 16 October 2006 Clarence Hardy, the Vice-President of the Pacific Nuclear Council, identified the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Gladstone, Townsville, Newcastle, Cessnock and Perth.

We know the coalition has four decades of form when it comes to advocating nuclear reactors. There have been four decades of determining to impose them on local communities. I call on the coalition to be consistent and to at least allow these amendments. I concur with Senator Murray’s interpretation. While the bill itself is not specific about its application to amalgamations, that is certainly the appropriate interpretation, which therefore justifies inserting these particular amendments into this bill. As I said, Labor will be supporting these amendments and we commend them to the chamber.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendments. The legislation is to allow plebiscites to take place and also to stop state governments—in this case, the Queensland state Labor government—from legislating against plebiscites. There has been some focus from the opposition on plebiscites on nuclear facilities. I think they were almost successful in naming every electorate in the country—obviously, as part of a scare campaign. The Prime Minister has quite clearly said that there will be plebiscites on nuclear facilities and I think it is quite reasonable for that to occur. The Prime Minister has quite clearly put that on the table. The AEC now has the legislative ability to conduct plebiscites on any issue on a fee-for-service basis, so there is nothing to stop plebiscites of that nature going ahead. The government will not be supporting the amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Murray’s) be agreed to.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I was just getting some advice from the esteemed Senator Boswell, who said that local government need this bill and we must get on with it. I will do that. I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5375 revised 2:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A  After paragraph 7(1)(fa)

Insert:

            (fb)    to conduct plebiscites in Aboriginal communities and townships in the Northern Territory.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:

     (1H)    To ensure that Aboriginal communities and townships in the Northern Territory in which the Commonwealth is to undertake activities authorised by the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 have the opportunity to express their views, for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(fb) a plebiscite must be conducted by the Commission in every Aboriginal community or township in which the activities are to be undertaken to ascertain whether the members of that community or township approve the Commonwealth carrying out those activities.

These amendments from Senator Bartlett arise from the extensive debates that have been had on the emergency intervention in the Northern Territory with respect to Indigenous matters. What I am arguing for here, on behalf of Senator Bartlett, is that, if you accept that it was an emergency and an emergency intervention had to occur, nevertheless there is strong community feeling about this matter. Senator Bartlett has advised me that he sat next to a very senior member of the coalition who advised him that he had visited seven Indigenous communities and all seven were strongly in favour of the government’s intervention. That being the case, of course, a plebiscite such as is being suggested here would not automatically have a negative result; it may well have a positive result. So I do not necessarily presume that a plebiscite would have a negative result—unlike local government plebiscites in Queensland, where I do expect many of them to express a contrary view to what the state government has proposed.

This matter arises really because, if it is the view of the coalition that communities and shires and councils in Queensland are entitled to have their say with respect to a matter which affects their local government, the Democrats think that the same principle should apply with respect to Aboriginal communities and townships in the Northern Territory. It would simply be unacceptable for the principle to apply in one and not the other.

Once again, the government may argue: ‘Yes, a plebiscite could be held. There is nothing in the legislation which prohibits it.’ Again I say that this has been put forward by us deliberately because, unfortunately, the explanatory memorandum only refers to the plebiscites in the context of local government amalgamations. We wish to make it clear that in a matter of high contention, of great drama and of the granting of very considerable powers, we believe that the Aboriginal communities and townships in the Northern Territory should be aware, through legislation, that they can run a non-binding plebiscite with respect to the National Emergency Response Act 2007.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will not be supporting these or the remaining amendments. We believe that Senator Murray’s initial amendments relating to nuclear facilities effectively encapsulated the view put forward by Labor in our second reading amendment, but these other amendments do not. Our policies and approach to a form of cooperative federalism, we believe, will lead to great benefits, through working together with local communities and effectively empowering them, along with the general right of the AEC to conduct plebiscites. But, for the purposes of the remaining debate, we will not be supporting these amendments.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the amendments. I again note Senator Murray’s insight into the thinking of the government. The government does not believe it is appropriate for the Electoral Commission to have its core functions extended to require it to conduct specific plebiscites on specific matters that are not related to the core business of the AEC. The government does not support the amendments.

Question negatived.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5385:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A  After paragraph 7(1)(fa)

Insert:

            (fb)    to conduct plebiscites in localities where major infrastructure projects are proposed.

Note:   Examples of major infrastructure projects include a dam, a desalination plant, a pulp mill, a nuclear facility and harbour dredging.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:

     (1H)    To ensure that communities in which a major infrastructure project is to be established have authorised that establishment and have consented to the health, welfare, safety and environmental impacts and risks of the establishment of the major infrastructure project, for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(fb), a plebiscite must be conducted by the Commission in every federal electorate within 0.5km of the boundary of the major infrastructure project seeking approval for the establishment of the facility.

       (1I)    A major infrastructure project may not proceed unless a plebiscite has first been conducted in accordance with subsection (1H).

(3)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:

1A  After section 7A

Insert:

7AB  Preparation of arguments for and against an infrastructure project for which a plebiscite is to be conducted

        (1)    A plebiscite may not be conducted in accordance with paragraph 7(1)(fb) unless an argument in favour of the proposed major infrastructure project (the project) and an argument against the proposed major infrastructure project has first been prepared in relation to the plebiscite for that major infrastructure project.

        (2)    The argument for and the argument against the project must include a statement consisting of not more than 2,000 words, which includes:

             (a)    an analysis of the costs and benefits of the project;

             (b)    an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project;

             (c)    a consideration of alternative options to the project.

        (3)    The argument in favour of the project may be submitted to the Electoral Commission by the chief proponent or proponents for the project.

        (4)    The argument against the project may be submitted to the Electoral Commission by the chief opponent or opponents of the project.

        (5)    The Electoral Commission must cause to be printed and to be posted to each elector within the area in which the plebiscite is to be conducted a pamphlet containing the arguments for and against the project.

A legislative note says that examples of major infrastructure projects, which are the subject matter of these amendments, include a dam, a desalination plant, a pulp mill, a nuclear facility and harbour dredging. That is not an exhaustive list, obviously. The intention is to indicate to the community at large that issues which the community, any community, considers to be of great importance to them should be capable of being subject to a non-binding plebiscite so that the community as a whole can express their opinion about such matters.

I know, for instance, a desalination plant will produce different reactions in different cities. In Perth our desalination plant is really strongly supported; I might add that I am one of the supporters. It acts in a reserve capacity and it is powered through wind power. Once that wind power argument was made, the community was happy, because the thing they were most concerned about was not the conversion of seawater into potable water but the excessive energy use involved in that conversion. I am well aware that in other parts of the country desalination plants which do not have that background are highly controversial.

There is a similar situation with pulp mills. Personally, I am a supporter of pulp mills being established in Australia, but I am a supporter of those pulp mills which have the lowest energy use, the least environmental impact and which are accepted in the community they are in. I have been intrigued by the arguments in Tasmania. I have found the argument against the pulp mill that is proposed in the Tamar Valley persuasive on my reading of it. I have found the arguments for a different sort of pulp mill in Braddon much more persuasive. I do not claim to be an expert, but the point is that I think a desalination plant in Sydney or a pulp mill in Braddon or Bass or harbour dredging in Melbourne are all the kinds of topics and subjects which should be open to plebiscites. Once again we raise this not because we think the bill excludes them. On the face of the bill, any plebiscite is possible. We raise it because the explanatory memorandum seemed to be exclusive. That is why we are proposing these amendments, based on the precautionary principle, you might say, but also to make the point that we would like to encourage communities to have a more direct say in matters of great moment, such as infrastructure projects.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government notes the intention of the Democrats with respect to the amendments but, again, will not be supporting them. I think we have made our position clear on the previous amendments, but I note with respect to the pulp mill, for example, there already has been one electoral plebiscite that has been held and I am aware of another one that is being planned. There quite clearly exists the capacity for these types of plebiscites to occur at the moment. In that circumstance, the government does not support the amendment.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a problem here because Senator Colbeck is saying that he supports municipal councils in Queensland being given assistance by the Electoral Commission but he opposes municipal councils in Tasmania getting that assistance, which is quite extraordinary for a Tasmanian senator. Of course the amendments deserve support. If, as in this legislation, the government says that the people ought to have a say in amalgamations of councils in Queensland, which is about governance and people’s right to decide on governance, then surely the people ought to be able to decide whether they will have a dam which is going to totally eliminate their property or a desalination plant which is going to radically change their environment or a pulp mill which, in the case of the Tamar Valley, according to the Australian Medical Association, is going to increase the death rate of the 100,000 people living in that valley. According to the vineyard owners and many other small businesses, it is going to impact negatively on their businesses. According to the people fishing in Bass Strait, it will threaten their livelihoods and, according to many other people, it is going to be a negative for Tasmania. This includes the business roundtable report showing a $3 billion hit on other businesses. Shouldn’t people have a say about that? Senator Colbeck and the government say no. We say yes, under the same circumstances.

Then there is the government’s proposal—indeed, the Prime Minister’s proposal—for 25 nuclear power stations coming down the line. Should people not have a say on that? Senator Colbeck and the government might say: ‘No, citizens shouldn’t be supported in deciding that. On governance, yes, but on the safety of their neighbourhood, no.’ Then there is harbour dredging. Clearly the case in point at the moment is Port Phillip Bay, where there is a remarkable marine environment at stake. There is not just that but the potential for toxic metals to be lifted off the floor of the harbour and put into the bay environment. I have to part company with the government’s feeling that that is not a matter people should have a say in. It is as important as their municipal boundaries.

It is important to the people of Queensland to have a say, but it is important to people in these other cases to also have a say. This is a patent hypocrisy. It draws the political impulse that is behind this legislation right to the fore that the government can say, ‘Yes, on the matter of governance, people should be assisted to have a referendum, but when it comes to their livelihoods, neighbourhoods, businesses, wellbeing, health, ability to stay alive and so on they should not have a say.’ What nonsense. Of course we will support these amendments.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 is not about whether you can have a vote on amalgamations, nuclear reactors or anything else; it is about the Queensland government deciding that if you want to have a say on local government futures you will be thrown in jail. That is what it is about. The proposed Commonwealth legislation that we are debating—and the previous contribution bears no relationship to the bill whatsoever—simply says that the Queensland government was going to legislate to make it a criminal offence to have a say on local government boundaries. You could have a say on nuclear reactors, power stations or anything in Queensland, but if you had a say on local government futures you would be thrown in jail. That is what the bill is about.

As we deal with these amendments it is important that we keep in mind the reality of what this bill is about. At the risk of repeating myself—we are not on broadcast—it is very important to understand that a government in Australia has said that if you want to have a plebiscite, if you, namely the council that is going to be abolished or amalgamated, want to have a say or if you have the temerity to even suggest that the people involved should have a say then you will be fined and if you do not pay the fine you will be thrown in jail. Indeed, Senator Bob Brown, the Prime Minister has clearly stated that there will be a binding plebiscite on nuclear reactors when it happens in 30 or 40 years time—and it will not happen before then. But this bill is about a government taking away a right. This bill overrides a state government that has said that you cannot have that right on pain of being thrown into jail. That is what this bill is about; not about the matters that the previous speaker spoke of.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Tasmania—if I am not wrong, supported by the Liberals—there is a law which says you cannot have a plebiscite on the fluoridation of water. The government has let that one go by. By law in Tasmania, if you hold a plebiscite on the fluoridation of water you go to jail. I ask Senator Macdonald whether he will support an amendment if I put it up now overriding that stricture in the law books of Tasmania. Logic says he will have to.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Murray’s) be agreed to.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf of the Australian Greens, I move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 5386 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A  After paragraph 7(1)(fa)

Insert:

            (fb)    to conduct a plebiscite about the ratification by Australia of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Kyoto Protocol).

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:

     (1H)    To ensure that the electors of Australia have the opportunity to express their opinion a national plebiscite must be conducted by the Commission on whether or not Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(fb).

       (1I)    The plebiscite mentioned in subsection (1H) must be conducted in conjunction with any general election held in 2007 or 2008.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:

1A  After section 7A

Insert:

7AB  Preparation of arguments to be put in a plebiscite to be held regarding the question of whether the Kyoto Protocol is to be ratified by Australia

        (1)    A plebiscite may not be conducted in accordance with paragraph 7(1)(fb) unless an argument in favour of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and an argument against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has first been prepared and provided to all electors.

        (2)    The argument for and the argument against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol must include a statement consisting of not more than 1,000 words in support of each case.

        (3)    The argument in favour of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol may be submitted to the Commission by the Commonwealth government.

        (4)    The argument against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol may be submitted to the Commission by the Opposition.

        (5)    The Commission must cause to be printed and to be posted to each elector a pamphlet containing the arguments for and against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

        (6)    Except as expressly provided by this section, the arrangements for the plebiscite are to be conducted in accordance with provisions relating to a referendum provided for in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

These amendments provide for a plebiscite to be taken at the next election on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We know that the Howard government has determined to not ratify this global treaty, which is the first step towards further global moves to protect the planet from the imminent catastrophe of climate change. We are also aware from opinion polls in this country which have been funded by Greenpeace and other organisations that 80 per cent of Australians want the Kyoto protocol ratified by this nation and that the government has less than 20 per cent support for its refusal to take this country with the rest of the community of nations in ratifying the Kyoto protocol; although in 1997, when Senator Hill was Minister for the Environment, Australia agreed to sign the protocol in Kyoto.

The protocol came into being in 2002. I was in Kyoto for the ceremony marking that. It has simply been a travesty of the democratic system we have that the government shut its ear to the vast majority of Australians, who want this protocol ratified by our country. We have the ability to test that public opinion at the forthcoming federal election. It would involve the government being able to write a submission in support of not signing the Kyoto protocol and the opposition writing a submission in support of the Kyoto protocol. We have put that into amendment (3) because the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, has made it clear that the opposition is in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol, as are the Greens and the Democrats. It can be done rapidly. It would be perhaps the first use, if a Queensland local government entity does not get there first, of the powers that are paraded in the legislation and would show the bona fides of the government in wanting this to be a Democrat plebiscites bill on a matter which affects every Australian, their children and their grandchildren.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the amendments. The people of Australia will obviously, as Senator Brown has indicated, get the opportunity to cast their votes in respect of this at the election, given that there is a difference of policy, so the government does not see the need, as we have said before, to inject specific uses or specific tasks to the Australian Electoral Commission that are not its core business.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is, of course, the policy of Labor to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and these amendments do not change that in any way. We will not be supporting these amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the issue of constitutional recognition, which was also the subject of a second reading amendment and is intimately linked to the issue of the right of communities to have a say through plebiscites for amalgamations.

Before I do that, I take Senator Ian Macdonald’s exhortations to the Senate this evening about the Beattie government and just remind Senator Macdonald, as I know he already knows, that of course the Beattie government overturned the provisions which sought to penalise councillors engaging in plebiscites. That is clear. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, it means that the original motivation for this legislation is relatively moot. Nonetheless, Labor feel strongly about this issue, and that is why we support this bill.

But there is one issue I want to place on the record—because in moving a second reading amendment last week Labor very clearly expressed the view that all parties ought to collectively support the push for the constitutional recognition of local government. Senators opposite were given the opportunity to vote on that in our second reading amendment. They chose to oppose that second reading amendment, once again formally stating the coalition’s view that they do not support the constitutional recognition of local government. Yet last Friday Mr Vaile reportedly told a local government conference in Queensland that he supported constitutional recognition. So I think he ought to explain to the House and perhaps convey to his representatives in the Senate his explanation for voting against that motion again—they did last year as well on 17 October.

Just last week in this place the government voted against constitutional recognition, and yet government members go out into the electorate and say that they support it. I know that the National Party is quite famous for saying one thing in the electorate and doing another in parliament, but this is a very obvious and classic case of being a lion in the electorate on the issue of the constitutional recognition of local government and a complete sheep to the Liberal Party, which obviously opposes this policy, in the parliament. So I think we are all, particularly local councillors in Queensland and around the country, owed an explanation as to why the National Party says one thing in parliament and another thing out in the electorate. This seems to be a perfect opportunity to provide that explanation.

I suspect that Mr Vaile was not aware that we had not concluded this debate when he made those public statements. I know it was the expectation of local government that this bill would have managed to traverse the challenges of the scrutiny of the Senate last Thursday. Nonetheless, that did not happen. So I now invite National Party representatives—perhaps Senator Macdonald can assist given that he is most vocal this evening—to describe for the Senate exactly what the National Party’s position is on constitutional recognition for local government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not a member of the National Party, so I cannot speak for them. But let me put on the record—and normally I would do it much more fully than I will tonight, because time is against us and we have been asked to be very brief because there is a big program to get through—that I have always supported the constitutional recognition of local government, as have, I think, most of my party; and I know that my colleagues in the National Party are the same. However, we all know how a referendum works in Australia: if you have any state government opposing it then it will not get through. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, if you want constitutional recognition of local government then that can be achieved very easily today. All you have to do is get every state government to sign up to it. If you can get every state government to sign up to it and you can get a bill that works—that is the challenge for the Australian Local Government Association, but I am sure that they could come up with that—then we will have constitutional recognition.

As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, addressing members of the party to which the previous speaker belongs—which happens to control every state government in Australia at the present time—if you believe in constitutional recognition, get me a document that every state Labor government will support and then we can move forward. But I guarantee you, Madam Temporary Chairman, and the previous speaker that the state governments will not support it. The state governments, regrettably, are comprised of Labor Party majorities in every state in Australia. So that is where the block lies. I just wanted to put that on the record.

I have taken two minutes now and I know that the government whip is not keen on this but I would like to refer to Senator Brown’s amendment. The motion we are dealing with—

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have your say. You are entitled to have your say.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but I respect my colleagues’ convenience—and we do not want to be here on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, so we do want to get this over and done with. But it needs to be said that the substantive part of the bill before the Senate says:

(1E) A law of a State or Territory has no effect to the extent to which the law in any way prohibits a person or body from, or penalises or discriminates against a person or body for:

(a) entering into, or proposing to enter into, an arrangement under subsection (1); or

(b) taking part in or assisting with, or proposing to take part in or assist with, the conduct of an activity (such as a plebiscite) to which an arrangement under subsection (1) relates.

Senator Brown, if any council in Australia wants to have a plebiscite on Kyoto or anything else then it can do that. But if you are a council in Queensland and want to have a plebiscite on your own future then you would be thrown in jail. It is this federal legislation that overrides the Queensland legislation to that effect. So if a council wants to have a vote on Kyoto then it should go ahead and do it. It is free to do it. But if you want to have a vote on the future of that council then you would be thrown in jail. That is the difference.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, whose party opposed the recognition of local government back in the eighties and stymied the referendum outcome there—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They didn’t in Queensland and they didn’t in the Brisbane City Council, which was controlled by Sallyanne Atkinson.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is, it was your party—through you, Chair—that stymied local government getting recognition in that referendum, full stop.

On the matter of the Kyoto protocol, which is the subject of this amendment whereby the Greens would offer the Australian people a yes or no on whether our nation should join the rest of the community of nations, save President Bush, in ratifying the Kyoto protocol, the amendment is not about local governments doing that, because that would have no effect; it is about the federal government doing that, because it would have very great moral effect. A plebiscite is not going to dictate what a government can do but it is indicative of how the people of Australia feel.

I can understand that Senator Macdonald, Senator Colbeck and the government do not want that requirement, to give the Australian people a say on ratification of the Kyoto protocol, put on their shoulders. They would face a tirade and potential cuts to funding from the mining industry if they were to do that, so there is no way they are going to do that. I would have thought the Labor Party would support this and I would be very pleased to hear from Senator Lundy why the Labor opposition opposes this.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already said. You were not in the chamber.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I was here, Senator Lundy, but you did not—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said it earlier on, when I addressed all the amendments.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Lundy—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She did. You weren’t here, Bob. Sorry.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have Senator Macdonald coming to the aid of Senator Lundy, which is apparently required. I do not want to put you in a spot, Senator Lundy. The fact is that it is extraordinary that the opposition opposes the Australian people having a say at the forthcoming election on this critical matter, because it affects all Australians and all future Australians. Nothing could be more important than for us to give Australians a say on this matter where, for a decade now, this country has been stymied in joining the international community by the Prime Minister and the government. I am amazed that Labor does not support this amendment.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry? Senator Lundy is not speaking quite loudly enough for me to hear what she says. That does not matter. The Greens support the amendment. We think this is a vital matter which Australians could have a say on and we are very proud to put this amendment before the chamber.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier, Labor has a policy of ratifying the Kyoto protocol and, if we are elected at the next election, we will be able to put that policy in place. That is the way we will be approaching this. We have had that on the record now for a very long time.

I feel provoked by Senator Macdonald, who stood up in this place and said that he has always supported constitutional recognition. Indeed, the Liberal Party, I thought I heard him say, has always supported constitutional recognition. In fact, that is not the case. I ask senators opposite: what does the Prime Minister say about constitutional recognition of local government? In 1988 the Prime Minister said that it would unbalance the Constitution.

Minister Lloyd was incapable of offering the coalition’s support to constitutional recognition when he had ample opportunity to do so at the Local Government Association of Queensland conference just a few weeks ago. Whilst National Party and now Liberal senators run around professing support for this, it is not a policy of the coalition government, and the Labor Party calls on the coalition government to make it a policy. You cannot mouth those words and expect the electorate to have respect for the party if you do not then make it a formal policy. We all know that the way to get constitutional recognition to become a reality in Australia is not through this pathetic blame game on the states that Senator Macdonald offers—the idea that somehow the Labor states do not support this policy.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, do they?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh! That’s interesting.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I can tell you something else, Senator Macdonald: the Liberal Party does not support this policy. For you to stand up and say that tonight shows, firstly, that you are operating on your own; and, secondly, that you are incapable of delivering the support of the Liberal Party for constitutional recognition. With regard to the issue of state support for constitutional recognition, it is a policy of the Labor Party to support constitutional recognition, and that extends to the Labor Party both state and federal.

Let us have a look at what Senator Macdonald said tonight. He said that the Liberals supported constitutional recognition of local government. Where is the public statement from the minister responsible for the portfolio and from the Prime Minister saying that the government will support a referendum on constitutional recognition once we have the issues of the question before us resolved? Labor has a plan for this. We have a policy, we have a time frame and we have offered to the local government sphere our support for them to work towards this outcome. Please use this opportunity to tell us what the coalition government’s policy is on this matter. You had the opportunity in 1974; the coalition opposed it. You had the opportunity to support it in 1988; the coalition opposed it. The question is: if we are in a position to put a referendum in the future, which will only happen if Labor is fortunate enough to be successful at the next election, will the coalition support that referendum? If the answer is yes then let us see the Prime Minister stand up and say that; otherwise, you are just misleading the people of local government and the sector that cares so deeply about this issue.

Senator Macdonald, I put it to you that it is not your party’s policy at all and that you have decided to come in here this evening and mouth off about your view and purport that the Liberal Party’s policy is to support constitutional recognition when in fact it is not your party’s policy at all—no more than it is the National Party’s formal policy. Unless you can point to formal statements from your leaders that contradict what I am saying, then I think that is the reality. You ought to stand up now and clarify what is going on.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lundy for confirming to me that every state Labor government will support constitutional recognition. I intend to take her at her word. I shall write to every premier tomorrow and seek their assurance on what Senator Lundy has said, and then the whole debate can really move on. Thank you, Senator Lundy.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask the minister whether he understands that, firstly, these amendments are not about local government but about having a plebiscite at the forthcoming federal election on support or otherwise for the Kyoto protocol; and, secondly, that this legislation will indeed override the 1968 legislation in Tasmania prohibiting local government from having a plebiscite on fluoridation.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do understand the intent of the amendments, and that does not change the government’s position. With respect to the 1968 legislation in Tasmania, my understanding is that if the plebiscite is conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission then, yes, this legislation will override the 1968 legislation with respect to fluoridation.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.