Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, and he supported it back in May when he suggested an alternative process, well before the announcement by the Prime Minister on this particular matter. I think it is also important to note that gauging the community’s concerns is important, and that is why we put forward the amendment. If the government is fair dinkum on these things, it will accede to our amendment.

We also say that the government should be very clear about the consequences of the legislation. As I understand it, the government is seeking to suggest that, by enacting this bill, it will somehow have a binding influence upon the government of Queensland to not change the boundaries. I do not think that is exactly the case. Indeed, the minister made the point in his second reading speech that the bill is not designed to provide an avenue for citizen initiated referenda. It was important that the minister made that point in his second reading speech because, without that reference in his speech, it would have been very difficult to glean from the text of the bill. As we know, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 allows a minister’s second reading speech to be an aid to the interpretation of a bill. But, as the minister unequivocally made clear, this is not actually a referendum that would bind the Queensland government. So you have to wonder, really, what assistance the federal government is providing for the local community other than to provide a capacity to express their view.

The Prime Minister was very emphatic in stating that the issues of consultation and participation of local people in political processes were at the centre of his intervention. At his press conference of 19 August, he said:

It should be remembered that the Government is not expressing a view as to whether or not an individual merger should occur. Rather, the Commonwealth believes that people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government without threat of penalty.

He went on to say:

However, if there is a strong expression of opinion in local government areas that choose to go ahead with the ballots, the Queensland Government may be forced to reconsider those amalgamations.

There is no binding dimension to the bill, as I understand it, and the minister’s second reading speech has made it very clear that, indeed, a plebiscite would not bind the state government; it would allow for the views of the community to be expressed. I think that is important. Any government that fails to listen to the people about any particular public policy matter will rue the day. Equally, and the member for Fraser touched upon this, we have to be very careful about whether we want to have responsible government—the Westminster system—affected unduly by having plebiscites on every particular matter. I think it is a difficult balance.

In the end, Labor support this bill. We suggest that the government accede to the amendment proposed by the member for Fraser and allow for constitutional recognition of local government and allow for expressions of interest about where nuclear plants may be located if the government wins the election. If they are fair dinkum about providing some say, the government will accede to the amendment. We support the bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context