Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I continue my speech from earlier today. This is particularly clear, given that it is plain from the previous two referenda on the issue that at least half the population are opposed to this change. This is Australia's fundamental document, the Constitution, and it should not be a political plaything. Furthermore, being the Constitution, both sides of the argument must be fairly and equally supported in funding and that must be seen to be the case. Yet, as we know, so far $21.6 million of public funds have been dedicated to the yes campaign, with zero dollars at this stage committed to the no campaign.

This referendum is bad for local communities. Funding will be given based on Canberra's priorities, not local community need. Councils may well be worse off. More Canberran funding means less state funding. Canberra's funding arrangements will mean extra regulations and bureaucracy which can only be paid for through local service cuts or rate increases, neither of which will help the many thousands of people and many businesses doing it tough in my electorate. Neither measure will make our country more competitive—not a single jot.

This debate is about the biggest question of all, the role of government. At its epicentre is a question of trust: does Canberra trust local councils, and can local councils trust Canberra? If we go by the track record of this government, the answer is no. We the Australian people cannot trust a single word they say. The issue of trust is also at play in the question of Canberra illiterati—disdainful and distrusting of the 'feral plebs' in the bush. Local government itself is created and maintained by state government legislation. The geographic extent of local government districts is determined by state governments; the powers of councils are determined by and conferred by state governments; the authority to make regulations is delegated and supervised by state governments; and the establishment of new councils and amalgamation of existing councils are matters for state governments. On both previous occasions the voters firmly rejected the proposals. Local government falls outside the range of matters appropriate to establish and maintain Australia's federal structure and, while very important, local government is a matter for the states and the state constitutions but not for the federal Constitution.

The discussions of the Constitutional Convention concluded that local government is a domestic responsibility of individual states and really has no significance for the proposed federation. Local government is recognised in the state constitutions of all six states. Despite the occasional problem and dissatisfaction among ratepayers and electors, local government has operated adequately for more than 110 years since Federation, as it did in the colonies before Federation when there was no Commonwealth Constitution. Local government would have performed no better even if it had been recognised in the Commonwealth Constitution. If the state government decides to handle rubbish removal, sewerage, water reticulation, road repairs, local transport, parks and gardens, planning issues and libraries itself, it should not be forbidden by the Commonwealth Constitution.

In 1974, the yes vote was only 46.85 per cent. In 1988, that dropped further to only 33.61 per cent. Note the trend was the unambiguous will of the people. Senator Bob Brown and Tony Windsor had given written, unconditional support to the idea of change prior to any hearings. David Mitchell, the former Tasmanian barrister and Tasmanian delegate to the 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention, says:

It is not possible to foresee the full implications that might arise in the future if the Constitution were to be changed in this way.

Constitutional law expert Professor Cheryl Saunders believes that too little time has been allowed for effective public debate—indeed, only eight weeks instead of 27 on the issue—in particular because there has been absolutely no public consultation on it. Western Australian Premier Barnett stated that the amendment goes well beyond the symbolic recognition that the WA government has indicated it would support.

The 16 May announcement of the wording provided for just two weeks of community consultation. Consultation on the bill did not need to be this perfunctory. The government's expert panel on constitutional recognition of local government made its recommendations in December 2011 and a specially convened parliamentary committee indicated as early as January this year that it would recommend the referendum go ahead.

The expert panel's consultation findings are revealing: 43 per cent of submissions came from local councils supporting the plan and 42 per cent came from private individuals opposing it. Public consultation takes on additional significance when a referendum is constitutionally mandated to win confidence in any planned change. Constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey argued that the government's release of the proposed wording has misled the press, which republished it everywhere understandably presuming it was accurate. Professor Twomey argues the Constitution already provides the Commonwealth with a power to make grants to the states on the condition that all money is passed on to local government. That is the way Commonwealth funding has worked since the 1920s. Each state already has the necessary information about each of its local government bodies.

If local government were to be funded directly from Canberra instead, a new bureaucracy would be needed to collect and assess the information. It would need to develop a single funding formula to fit local government bodies across the country. It would also increase the administrative burden on local government bodies as they would have to provide different information dependent on two different funding formulas for two different levels of government. Let us protect the Commonwealth we have today and focus on the real issues of competitiveness, cost of living and protecting our borders.

See this speech in context