Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I see the Leader of the House there, who has transport in his portfolio. I think we can see a lot more bridges and roads in shires and towns. I think the direct funding would be a great fillip to local authorities.

The other thing this will do—and there will be an element of symbolism in it—is that it will say to people that local government deserves to be, if not in a controlling position, respected. I know my Labor colleagues will not like this, but I think the Beattie and Bligh governments absolutely emasculated local government in Queensland. They did things like not allowing councillors to stand for state government elections without resigning. In fact, they tried to apply it to federal elections, but the High Court overturned it. The High Court said, 'None of that; you don't touch the feds.' They took away things like a 40 per cent subsidy on sewage and water and put that back onto local government. That became a huge impost on the rates of, at that time, 150 local authorities in Queensland. It was a huge impost.

Had those sorts of moneys, and perhaps a refinement of the Federal Assistance Grants, been considered part of this the local authorities would have greater authority in where they put their money. They, too, would get better bang for their sewage and water bucks, which are big components of a country town or a provincial city. In fact, they are sometimes the key to unlocking industry and residential development. So, while I am critical of the fact that this has taken a while to come about, I think it is a good measure, and I support it for the reasons I have given.

See this speech in context