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

We are supporting the bill but we are pointing out the monumental double standards of the Prime Minister—but apparently not of the member for Moreton, who indicated that he had the good wisdom to oppose at that time the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister. That was a very wise choice. No comment about current circumstances will be entered into. It was a wise choice then, I say to the member for Moreton.

In October last year the Labor Party moved an amendment to a motion in the parliament to call for recognition in the Constitution of local government. The Prime Minister again opposed it and the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads opposed it. Now we are supposed to believe that the government has an open mind on that question; it has had a closed mind on it for 20 years.

What we are concerned about here is not this piece of legislation, which simply reflects a position that the Labor Party have had for three months. We are concerned about how we can use this belated recognition as a vehicle for advancing the broader interests of local government in our federation. The current Prime Minister does not believe in the significant role of local government; he has campaigned against it in the past. His intervention in this dispute is simply a reflection of the pollster’s advice that his best bet for staying in power is to capitalise on voter discontent with state governments. In matters like this you need a principled, clear, consistent position.

I am very proud to say that my party has had a long history of supporting local government. In 1974 and 1988 federal Labor sought constitutional recognition of local government. On both occasions the now Prime Minister was a candidate at those elections. On both occasions there was a referendum. In 1974 it was in conjunction with an election, and in 1988, when Mr Howard was Leader of the Opposition, there was a separate referendum. On both occasions the coalition refused to provide the bipartisan support necessary, and the referendum on each occasion failed.

Two weeks ago my colleague the shadow minister for local government, Senator Lundy, confirmed that an incoming Rudd Labor government would move to recognise local government in the Constitution. Constitutional recognition will redefine the relationship between Commonwealth, state and local governments and guarantee that communities have an effective local voice in decision making. We followed up on that announcement by indicating, at the Local Government Association of Queensland’s annual conference, that an incoming Labor government if elected would, in its first term of office, establish a council of Australian local governments. The reason for this is to make the voice of local government more effective at COAG.

There is an Australian Local Government Association representative on the Council of Australian Governments. The current one is an effective representative and, as far as I know, his predecessors have been as well. I do not directly have evidence in regard to that, but as far as I know they have been. However, they do not come with the same brief and capacity to act on behalf of the people that they represent as do the state premiers and chief ministers. That cannot be totally overcome—the character of local government is so fundamentally different to the character of state and territory governments. But we hope, through this proposed council of Australian local governments, to move a substantial way in that direction by having the person who represents local government at COAG go forward with clear backing from a representative group of local governments—not just the Local Government Association but also the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors and other similar local government bodies—to take their input into COAG and also to use the proposed council, set parallel to COAG, as a vehicle for getting local government views effectively into the federal government.

Our support for constitutional recognition and for the establishment of a council of Australian local governments shows a fundamental commitment to local government and to the idea of cooperative federalism. The government, by contrast, has been tricky and opportunistic, seeking to exploit the short-term difficulties that local government is facing, after totally ignoring this issue for 11 years. I will be moving a second reading amendment at the conclusion of this speech to deal with this question of the constitutional recognition of local government, as well as another matter.

We support this bill for the reasons that I have outlined. I now would like to talk about some of the practical problems with it that I hope the minister might be able to address in summing up the second reading debate. The bill shows signs of having been drafted in haste and certainly without the consultation that we would usually expect on what is a reasonably substantial measure. This was confirmed at the hearings of a Senate committee in Cairns when officials confirmed that drafting instructions were given to the Department of Finance and Administration only on the Thursday before the bill was introduced to the parliament. Officials were unable to point to any consultation with any state or local government bodies or even with the federal department responsible for local government. Witnesses at the committee hearings in Queensland expressed puzzlement at the mechanics of how plebiscites were to be constructed and put to the people of Queensland. For example, we have not yet heard the minister explain whether plebiscites will cover the existing local government boundaries, the proposed new boundaries or communities with an interest in the outcome of the local government changes.

Some interested members would be aware that, for example, in its submission to the Queensland Local Government Commission the Noosa Shire expressed a preference for remaining independent not on its present boundaries but on the expansion of its boundaries to include adjacent communities like Eumundi, Doonan, Verrierdale, Weyba Downs and Perigian Springs. The commission recommended that Noosa Council be amalgamated with Maroochy and Caloundra councils. We are interested in knowing how plebiscites will be conducted in these circumstances. If the Noosa Council seeks a plebiscite on the question of amalgamation, will the people of Maroochydore and Caloundra also have the opportunity to express a view on the plebiscite or not? What is the structure? Who makes the request? Who votes? It is all terribly unclear. You get the vague feeling it might have been rushed a bit. We need to know how these plebiscites are going to work; that is, if they are ever going to be conducted. There are many outstanding questions. Who will decide that the questions have been framed clearly? In terms of a plebiscite or referendum that goes through this parliament, the law is very clear about how the question is determined and how the ‘yes and no’ case is communicated to potential voters. There is a structure. What is the structure for this?

In evidence to the committee in Cairns last week, witnesses from the Electoral Commission were not able to offer much clarity on these questions or point to a process by which they would be resolved. In addressing the question of how the plebiscites would be conducted, AEC witnesses said, ‘There are all sorts of other issues of confusion: boundary differences, voting differences, different ballot papers, higher informality possibilities,’ in holding an attendance ballot in conjunction with the federal election. The witness pointed out that even the simpler option of postal ballots would require perhaps 2½ million envelopes that the AEC does not currently have. The AEC was able to say, however, that with all the uncertainties to be sorted out any early plebiscite was ‘out of the question’. In a summary of their remarks by the minority report to the Senate committee, arrangements for the conduct of plebiscites on local government amalgamations in Queensland have not been determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. In relation to the timing of the plebiscites the minority report noted evidence from the AEC that:

We would be very reluctant to tie up considerable AEC resources in the next few weeks given that it is quite possible that the Prime Minister may call the election after APEC.

And:

We are not even considering the possibility of having an attendance ballot in conjunction with the federal poll.

With that sort of evidence before us we would be very interested to hear from the minister who, I am sure, must have thought all these things through. He would not bring in a piece of legislation without fully understanding all its implications. What are the answers to those questions? The officials before the Senate committee could not provide the answers. It is not a criticism of the officials. They are diligent public officers giving honest answers to questions put to them before a parliamentary committee. The reason they could not give the answers is that at the moment the information, I assume, does not exist. But the minister must know, and we would be interested to hear the answer.

Neither the minister nor the government seems to have any clear idea about how the bill will work, because they are not seriously in support of the matter; it is simply confection for a short-term political purpose. The government has run out of ideas. It is no longer governing but concocting stunts to try and exploit divisions in the community for short-term electoral advantage. But this particular stunt is one that has, as I say, landed the government in a position in which, since May, we have been consistently calling for people to have a voice on Queensland council amalgamations. So we are supporting this bill because we support local democracy, notwithstanding our reservations about the lack of detail in the bill and the government’s motivation in putting it forward.

I want to go on to the other matter that is reflected in the amendment which I will move. If the Howard government wants to call plebiscites, let us have a plebiscite on another issue that will shape local communities—which is the question of the location of nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities that the Howard government wants to impose on the Australian community. The second reading amendment will go to exactly those questions. I also seek the minister’s response to some constitutional concerns that were raised before the committee by Professor Carney and Associate Professor Orr. No advice was given to the committee in response to these concerns. I personally do not believe there is a constitutional problem with this legislation. That is my assessment. But, serious people having raised serious concerns, the parliament is entitled to an answer. I hope the minister, in his response to the second reading debate, will provide it, although my personal view is that there is constitutional power and there is not a constitutional problem. But the House is entitled to have the minister’s response to serious matters that were raised before that Senate committee. The matter was also raised by the Senate committee, and I think the House is entitled to have a serious answer to it.

I refer now to another question about this legislation: the long-term implications of an initiative which, if allowed to run free, might cause us to wind up having plebiscites across a plethora of issues around difficult public policy questions. The House, the government, my side of politics, the parliament overall and the community should reflect soberly on the question of the use of plebiscites to resolve all manner of issues. That is not to say I am against any, but the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks on this has been very careful. I quote one occasion when, in my view, he said it most clearly:

The underlying principle is this: this is a structure of government question. There’s Commonwealth Government, there’s State Government, this goes to the whole structure of local government in Queensland. And my view, pretty basic view, is that local communities should be consulted.

I think we have here a broad question that goes to how we are governed, and it is therefore one on which a plebiscite has more standing. But to take this as a vehicle for advocating a plethora of plebiscites about every issue is, I think, endangering some fundamental strengths of our Westminster system of government. The Leader of the Opposition also said on another occasion:

... when it comes to this particular set of measures in Queensland which go to the structure of government, the structure of government, not the individual policy decisions of a government, but the structure of a government itself, I believe you cross a threshold where local people should be consulted.

He went on to say:

When it comes to the structure of government … and you are seeking to re-engineer the entire structure of government, I think there are more fundamental democratic processes which should be engaged.

I am comfortable with that. That is something I am happy to support and have advocated.

The special circumstances—the one-off, extraordinary circumstances—relating to nuc-lear power stations and nuclear waste raise questions that are not ordinary public policy questions. But let us not move down the path of favouring government by plebiscite. One of the great benefits of the West-minster system is that it gives executive gov-ernment the capacity to take hard decis-ions. There is no capacity to plan long-term and to take hard decisions if other tiers of government are going to pick the eyes out of those hard decisions, as has been the case with the Mersey hospital, or if we are going to wind up with government by plebiscite, where hard decisions are shirked in a ‘not in my backyard’ atmosphere because there might be a short-term political advantage for one side or the other over time. I think both sides of politics and the Australian nation will be poorly served if we go too far down the path of government by plebiscite. But the fundamental questions about the structure of government, such as how we change our Constitution, are matters on which it is appropriate for there to be an individual citizen’s right to vote and express a view.

I want to conclude by saying that, while I support this legislation and I support the right of people to have a say on these fundamental structural issues, we should not back away from the view that we do need to gain some efficiencies in the manner of delivery of government services and, in this in-stance, local government services in Queens-land. But there are ways to get them other than by compulsory amalgamation without giving people the right to vote on the outcome.

This is a bill conceived out of political opportunism and executed in a rushed and un-satisfactory manner. But, as I said, the backflip the government has undertaken on this matter has landed the government where the opposition has been standing all along since May: in support of local voices and local choices. I therefore move a second read-ing amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its support:

(a)

for a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia; and

(b)

for the Australian Labor Party’s belief that steps should also be taken to allow communities to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and the nuclear waste facilities that the Government wants to impose on the Australian people”.

Subject to the amendment being agreed to, I indicate the opposition’s support for the bill.

See this speech in context