Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Can I commence by associating myself with the remarks of condolence made by the member for Lyons and by you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, on the passing of Harold Weir. The federal opposition support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. I will be moving a second reading amendment somewhat later in this speech. We broadly support the bill because we have been supporting the principle for months that the people of Queensland should be consulted before decisions are made about the amalgamation of local councils. The Leader of the Opposition and other Labor Party members have made it clear that we believe in the importance of communities and the importance of local government in representing communities, and we believe in local voices being heard and local choice being made.

We have consistently argued that local communities should be consulted. The origin of this bill is a very interesting phenomenon and is part of a series of instances of enthusiasm for confrontation with the states which have coincidentally emerged after Crosby Textor gave a research briefing to the government that their best chance of rescuing their electoral fortunes was to do battle with the states. That was on 21 July. Since that time, we have seen a series of confrontations. But well before that—before any Crosby Textor briefing, before any government-proposed legislation, before the Prime Minister or the minister for local government had said anything about these things—the Leader of the Opposition consistently supported local democracy. At a doorstop interview on 17 May—almost four months ago—the Leader of the Opposition said that ‘local voice and local choice is critical when it comes to the future of local government in Queensland and in the rest of Australia’. On 17 May, the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, said:

... if there’s any proposal for an amalgamation ... it should be tested by the local people through a referendum.

That was on 17 May. You could not have a clearer commitment than that. It was a demonstration of leadership at that time, something about which the Prime Minister and responsible Howard government ministers were silent. But, three months later, in the hope of finding electoral advantage, they have come forward with this piece of legislation. We indicated from the start that we would be supporting this bill because it reflects the position that we have held for over three months. The government have done a backflip and taken the position which we have held for over three months.

We believe that the local community should be consulted before the whole structure of local government in Queensland is changed. Decisions about the fundamental structure of government are important questions for community participation. We cannot make every public policy decision. We have to have the capacity to make hard decisions in the national interest that in the short term might be unpopular. But the decisions that go to fundamental questions of the structure of government such as local government amalgamation are ones where the facilitation of a local vote is desirable. I do not think we are always in all circumstances going to need it done by the Australian Electoral Commission and, as a result, federal legislation. Nevertheless, it is a thing that ought, as a matter of principle, be adopted if we are to go through with compulsory amalgamations.

When you look at the fundamentals of this question of the role of local government in our Constitution and our federation, the Prime Minister’s approach over the years when he was a senior member of the Liberal Party and a former Leader of the Opposition has reflected the most profound double standards. The interest in local government is belated and opportunistic. When the Leader of the Opposition was out there arguing for a vote for people in Queensland, the Prime Minister was silent. When former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett was proposing amalgamation of councils in Victoria, the Prime Minister—the then Leader of the Opposition and, at some point, senior opposition frontbench member—was silent. The Prime Minister only entered the debate in Queensland after Crosby Textor reported that it was necessary—after Crosby Textor said, ‘Political confrontation with the states is a key to the political survival of the government.’ If the Prime Minister believed in local democracy and the legitimate role of local government in our federation, he would support constitutional recognition for local government. In 1988, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, campaigned against a referendum put forward by the ALP to recognise local government in the Constitution.

The then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, outlining the no case on local government said, ‘We oppose the third question’—that is, the question for constitutional recognition of local government—‘because it is only right and proper that local government, having been created by the states, be entrenched in and protected by the constitutions of the states and not the Constitution of the Commonwealth.’ He said that his opposition to recognition was based on ‘a strongly held view that it will distort the natural order and constitutional balance of our federal structure’. He asked the audience—and this is very interesting in the light of this legislation: ‘Do you really want a constitutional clause that might allow a massive Canberra meddling in local affairs?’ Golly! And then he went on to say that recognition ‘might allow future federal governments to intervene in local affairs’. Well, wouldn’t that be terrible! What a stunning example of double standards.

See this speech in context