Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the previous speaker for her eloquent speech in support of local government. The motion before us recognises the essential role played by local government in the delivery of services. However, important as the motion is, it does not go far enough. In essence, local government needs actions which support actual recognition, not just motions of support. Labor’s amendment to this motion calls for a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government. That recognition is an important precursor to a better deal with the other recommendations made in the 2003 Hawker report into local government.

Local government is an established tier of government, yet it is not recognised in Australia’s Constitution. This is an anomaly that needs correction. Labor’s amendment would move to remedy that. To not support that amendment is to deny the legitimate role of local government in our society. Local government should be constitutionally recognised as a partner to state and federal governments in ideas and development. The constitutional change that we propose heralds an opportunity for a new vision for local government—to recognise local government as part of the governance of Australia and enable it to play a bigger role in determining essential infrastructure needs in our communities. So I support the member for Grayndler’s amendment that was moved in the House and also moved in the Senate by the shadow minister for local government, Senator Carr. It is a motion which proposes a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government. We support constitutional recognition of local government and we call on the federal government to embrace it.

The problem is that the government has not given a clear reason for its nonsupport of a motion that would argue for constitutional recognition. The government says, as I understand it, that the time is not right. Well, when will it be right? Back in 1988 the then opposition, the Liberal-National Party, opposed a referendum that, amongst other things, would have given the recognition that we seek today. That referendum was tied up with a number of other issues in the context of terms of the parliament, and the opposition of the day, the Liberal-National Party, took a blanket decision to oppose all aspects. It is almost 20 years on, and it is time for a bipartisan position in support of constitutional recognition. Clearly, it failed on the last occasion because there was not that bipartisan support. Labor are proposing that we develop a commitment to that bipartisan support and take the issue on. Bipartisan support would give the electorate confidence to vote in a referendum to support the recognition that we have been outlining.

The government has rejected this new vision for local government and, in doing so, has failed to address the key challenges facing this sphere of government that it has now had more than 10 years to address. The motion we have before parliament is in part a response to the 2003 report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration chaired by Mr David Hawker, who is now the Speaker. Around the traps it is called the Hawker report. It is noteworthy that many submissions to the inquiry did call for the constitutional recognition of local government. This motion does not go far enough in responding to those calls. But, worse, the response by the government to that report, handed down as it was in 2003, also is inadequate. Not only did the government not respond for almost two years to the recommendations contained in the Hawker report, but of the committee’s 18 unanimous recommendations—so here was bipartisan support: of the 11 committee members, six represented the government and five represented Labor, and there was good cross-representation of the parliament and the politics involved—the government has only implemented seven in full. The recommendations that it has adopted were essentially those which do not have any cost implications for the government or which fail to address any of the financial issues and structures for financing local government into the future.

It is important to remind the House that the report was unanimous in identifying a range of solutions to support local government, including ensuring appropriate funding for local government from the Commonwealth, saying that there was a need to address such issues as vertical fiscal imbalance and recognising the need to revisit the model used for the allocation of financial assistance grants. Those were all unanimous recommendations from the committee. They are issues that must be responded to. In our view, constitutional recognition would open up new opportunities to address the underlying financial difficulties, structures and parameters that surround the way in which local government is financed in this country. The fact is that councils raise revenue essentially through rates. They cannot access other direct sources of revenue from the Commonwealth. Constitutional recognition, on the other hand, would enable a review of financial arrangements and, if it were proven necessary, a streamlining of Commonwealth financial support to local government. It would also mean that continuing issues such as the fiscal imbalance and cost shifting could be properly considered and debated, and options to resolve those issues could be developed.

What I am pointing to is that recognition within the Constitution lays the basis for addressing the structural reform that is so sorely needed in this area of local government. Constitutional recognition would also enable the structure of Commonwealth-local government arrangements to be reviewed to ensure greater cooperation between the tiers of government. For example, it would enable local government to take part in discussions on critical infrastructure needs for their communities. Local government cannot currently take part in many national programs critical to their communities.

Local government in fact continues to plug many gaps in service delivery where other service providers have left town. This is particularly true in rural and remote areas. Local government has also taken a leadership role in fostering and coordinating regional development. In visiting many regional areas over many years, one cannot help being impressed by the tireless work undertaken by local government, often voluntarily, to drive their regional areas forward. It is time that we cement and recognise that role.

It is interesting to see that the President of the Australian Local Government Association, Councillor Paul Bell, has argued that parliamentary recognition in the motion is ‘largely symbolic’. Councillor Bell, speaking on behalf of the local government sector, said that the motion is only one step in the right direction and that the government must go further and acknowledge the value of formal constitutional recognition of local government. Labor’s amendment does that and I urge the government to consider adopting it.

As important as the role of local government is, it is also critical that there be a Commonwealth role in regional development. The remoteness of some regions and the diversity of others demands Commonwealth leadership and commitment. It is a role to not only address market failures and to provide services but also essentially empower regions to more fully realise their potential. The Commonwealth cannot work for the benefit of our regions in isolation. It must be done in partnership with local communities, with the stakeholders and with leaders in other levels of government.

Local government has already proven itself to be a driver of regional development in this country. It is often done, as I said before, voluntarily, with creativity and enthusiasm by local councils. We can point to many good examples of best practice, including the Cradle Coast Authority, which was created to coordinate and drive regional economic development across nine local government areas in north-west Tasmania. That was a great example of initiative taken by a range of local governments in that area. The Cradle Coast Authority is actually identifying the needs of its region and has developed agreements with both the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments to develop positive outcomes.

Local industry is also being driven by local government in examples such as the proposal for the Ararat renewable energy park. The proposed park has the potential to establish the region as a centre for excellence for manufacturing components for the renewable energy industries, not only creating jobs—up to 700 of them—but also attracting significant new investment into the regions. Without that creativity, without that enthusiasm of local government, these new initiatives quite frankly would not be taken forward. So local government must be given the encouragement and support to continue to play that role by drawing on the commitment and expertise of their leaders. Constitutional recognition would legitimise that role, following through on the other recommendations contained in the Hawker report.

My colleagues and I have been engaged in consultation with regional and local stakeholders for a considerable period of time. What is clear is that regions themselves know what is best for them and how to make the most of their opportunities. The role for the Commonwealth is to support local enthusiasm and local solutions—but solutions which stack up. I support a broader mandate and wider role for the area consultative committees. They are ideally placed to develop strategic economic plans and regional priorities in partnership with local stakeholders including, significantly, local government. The ACCs are also ideally placed to build the networks and partnerships with all sectors, including local government, which are invaluable to meet regional development goals. It is not about creating another level of government but about supporting local government to participate in the development of their regions. It is about empowering local communities with access to national programs and implementing regional and local solutions and strategies without creating an extra tier of government. Local government is an invaluable resource, and the opportunity must not be wasted. Who better to know what the local needs of their communities are than those at the coalface?

So, in the context of a broader approach that could be developed in terms of regional development, this amendment that we are moving, in our view, is critical to move us forward. It is long overdue. It requires bipartisan support, but it lays the basis for genuinely involving more effectively the three tiers of government. That is the solution to regional economic development. It is a plan and a strategy that Labor will develop. This is but one component of developing that agenda.

See this speech in context