Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would have to agree with the last statements that the member for O’Connor made in relation to funding and certainty. I think that they are big issues for local government. Like the member for O’Connor, I have history in working for local government: I was on Lake Macquarie City Council for a term, for four years, and I experienced many of the problems that have been raised in this debate on the minister’s statement.

Before I get to the bulk of my contribution to this debate, I would just like to home in on the health issues. The member for O’Connor spoke about some of the initiatives that local councils have taken in the area of health. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, of which I am a member, were in Western Australia earlier this year and we had councils come along and give evidence to the committee. They detailed for us how they had built houses for doctors, dentists and physiotherapists, how they  were supplying them with cars and how they were giving them a guaranteed base income just in case they did not manage to earn the required amount.

I was very impressed with the initiatives of these councils; I thought they showed a true dedication to their community. But that also raised some questions in my mind as to why local governments are having the cost of providing health care shifted to them when this is actually a federal government responsibility. The federal government should ensure that these towns—the people who live in these towns, these local government areas—have access to health services that they need. Local government is a very important level of government. People do not realise and respect the contribution that local government makes to the functioning of our nation. It is the level of government that is closest to the people, it is the level of government that is most accessible to the people and it is the level of government that deals with the everyday basic issues that make people’s lives bearable.

The member for O’Connor mentioned the three Rs: roads, rates and rubbish. Yes, they have always been the core responsibility of local government. But over the years it has really diversified. Throughout the country you will find that in different states the responsibilities of local government are very different. Quite often local governments are asked to perform these duties and provide these services with inadequate funding. Yes, the main source of income is rates, along with financial assistance grants—which, I might add, have steadily declined as a percentage of the budget since 1996. At that time, 0.9 per cent of FAGs were provided by the Commonwealth; in 2007 it will be a bit over 0.7 per cent, and by 2010, if it continues to go this way, it will be 0.5 per cent.

Both federal and state governments—I do not want to leave the states out in my contribution—need to make bigger contributions to local government. They need to recognise the importance of local government and the issues that it deals with on a daily basis. Whilst I was sitting here I quickly jotted down a few of the issues that local governments have to deal with. More and more, welfare is becoming a role of local government. My colleague the member for Holt, in Victoria, noted that local government in that area provides aged care, myriad health services and myriad other welfare type activities. I think it is even a direct provider—correct me if I am wrong—of home and community services.

That is very different from New South Wales. In New South Wales local governments are still responsible for providing services for youth and elderly people. All councils support and promote sport and sporting activities; they ensure that there are proper playing fields and that there is access to those playing fields for young people. They are constantly providing facilities in the community for the use of community members: halls, public toilets, you name it—the little things that people tend not to think about. And of course there are libraries. Libraries are one of the real responsibilities. They are very important within the communities that we all represent here in parliament. I should quickly mention initiatives that have been taken in both the local government areas that fall within the Shortland electorate—Wyong shire and Lake Macquarie. They have programs where parents can come along and read to their babies. This is creating a love of books and learning that will follow those children through life. I am sure that also happens in other areas.

The role of planning the kind of community that we live in falls to local government. For example, the decision about whether a certain area will be developed, whether an aged-care facility will be built or whether there will be sufficient parks belongs with local government. They are planning issues. In the electorate I represent in this parliament, those planning issues are often the subject of a lot of focus within the community because there is a tension between development and the protection of the environment. That is something that local government has to evaluate and study. Once those studies are completed, they have to be put out for community consultation and, when they come back to the council, it makes a decision as to whether or not a particular development will go ahead. That has an enormous impact on the lives of the people living in that community.

Recently within my local government area there has been a move towards urban consolidation, so the height level of buildings has been increased from four to six storeys along the waterfront areas of Lake Macquarie. There was concern within the community, and after due process, including consultations, the local government had to make a decision about the type of development that would be permitted. My speech today is not critical of local government; rather it puts on the table the kinds of issues that local government has to contend with.

A very sensitive development proposal came across both councils, and the councils rejected that because it was going to lead to wholesale clearing of pristine bushland. As Sydney and Newcastle are very much joined together, it was felt that some green areas were needed, so both councils rejected this development and the developer took the councils to the Land and Environment Court. That is another issue for councils because, when they make these decisions, quite often they are subject to legal action. The councils were successful in their bid to reject that development.

All the time, local government is dealing with the tension between development and the need to protect the environment. Councils always need to be very mindful that, if their decision is rejected and the developer takes them to court and they lose, it will cost the ratepayers a lot of money. It is a very important role of local government. Both Wyong Shire and Lake Macquarie are high growth areas. Wyong Shire has had a number of issues associated with water and infrastructure. The councils grapple with those issues. Lake Macquarie City Council has always had responsibility for Lake Macquarie, which is the largest salt water lake in the Southern Hemisphere. Over the years there have been problems with siltation as a result of the development around the lake, as well as a number of other problems—once again, tension between development and the environment.

I think that the approach that has been adopted there, where an agreement was reached between the state government, the local council and relevant departments to fund remediation work in Lake Macquarie, could be used as a model for levels of government working together. Generally speaking, at the local government level those people involved are interested in working with federal and state governments and forming an ongoing partnership with them and with local communities. Unfortunately, when it comes to both the Commonwealth and the state, there tends to be a blame game—the silo mentality. I encourage the minister to look at really working in partnership with local councils—not moving a motion like this, which I think is really an attempt to have a go at the states, but truly acknowledging the role that local government plays and the benefit to Australia as a whole of working with local government.

I would like to acknowledge the success of the Lake Macquarie City Council in winning an award for Over 55 and Understood. Both local government areas have fairly elderly populations. The Shortland electorate has a high proportion of people over the age of 55. In this project, businesses met with the council to look at ways of recognising the significant contribution of older people and at how businesses can work with older people, embracing them not as a burden to their communities but as an opportunity. They looked at how older people’s contributions could be used as an opportunity and how businesses could link into the opportunity that having an elderly population could provide.

This is an important motion, as is the amendment. I support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. One of the biggest problems I as a councillor found was that the bureaucracy and the elected body were nearly one. I believe that if local government were to become a true level of government then it would have a different approach. The bureaucracy and the elected body would be separate and there would be proper recognition of the role of local government and the contribution that local government makes to Australia. The question I asked the member for O’Connor really reflects my own position on that matter. I think that Australia would benefit greatly by having stronger regional bodies and a stronger role for local government. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.

See this speech in context