Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013, and I would like to start by acknowledging the very recent comments and contribution made by the member for Greenway. Local government is the real lifeblood of Australian politics. It is without doubt the level of politics closest to the people. That is not just a slogan; those words sum up a patently obvious reality. I make this observation as someone who has spent many years as a local councillor and member of civic cabinet in Australia's largest council, the Brisbane City Council. Being in this place emphasises the importance of local government, because the reality of federal and state politics is that parliamentary responsibilities take you away from your electorate so often.

So it is against this experience that I have made my judgement about this matter. Happily, my judgment coincides with the coalition's policy on this issue. This bill includes the official wording to be put to the Australian people to amend section 96 of the Constitution. The referendum to be considered at the federal election would amend section 96, to read:

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to a State, or local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

This bill has been a long time coming during this session of parliament. In August 2011, the government formed the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, the 'expert panel', to identify options for the Constitutional recognition of local government and to report on the level of support for such recognition among stakeholders and in the general community.

I was honoured to be the coalition representative on that expert panel and to hear many submissions from people all over Australia. The expert panel's final report in December 2011 stated:

The majority of panel members support a referendum in 2013 subject to two conditions: first, that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option; and second, that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by ALGA necessary to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of this report on the concerns about a failed referendum. Steps include allocating substantial resources to a major public awareness campaign and making changes to the referendum process.

As such, the expert panel was supportive of a 2013 referendum on financial recognition of local government through a change to section 96 of the Constitution, provided two conditions were met. The first condition was negotiation with the states to achieve their support for the government's proposed question and, secondly, to take steps as recommended by Australian Local Government Association to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue.

And what did the federal Labor government do? They did nothing. They sat on their hands. They did not engage with the states and they set this referendum up to fail. Then in November 2012, the government dallied and delayed further and then formed the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. It took this government until 29 May 2013—17 months after the expert panel's report—to finally introduce a bill to allow a referendum on the Constitutional recognition of local government at this year's federal election.

What are the issues that underpin this debate? Firstly, there is no doubt that there are issues with funding for local government. Indeed, the constitutional challenges to federal funding in the Pape and Williams cases demonstrated that there are issues going forward. As it stands, the door is open to legally challenge funding programs such as Roads to Recovery, Regional and Local Community Infrastructure, Pathways to Adaptation, Regional Partnerships and the Regional Development Australian Fund. This is, therefore, an important referendum. By including local government in the Australian Constitution it will confirm the federal government's ability to provide funding directly to councils and give local communities certainty about funding for vital infrastructure and community services.

More generally, as Professor AJ Brown said in his comments to the hearing held in Sydney earlier this year, this constitutional change should not be seen as anything more than a new conduit for funding to local government. It is not about taking away the rights of state governments; it is more about funding local government to provide specific services on the ground. Professor Brown's report states:

... this is a mechanism for local government to get a larger agreed share of the total financial pie. That is what local government is legitimately looking for and that is what it should be looking for.

State governments are incrementally allowing local government a larger share of responsibility and resources in the federal system as a whole, as is the federal government. When anything major happens, the first thing that both federal and state governments agree on, (once they have agreed that they need to do something,) is who is going to do it, and more often than not local government plays a huge role.

I think we have all seen that over the years. We have seen the shifting of responsibility from state and federal governments down to local government. Because local government is closer to the people, because it does have that community contact, they are in a place to deliver programs and projects more efficiently, more effectively and, quite frankly, with better financial value than many of the state and federal governments. Dare I say it, if local government had delivered the pink batts scheme, it would have worked. You are never going to achieve something like that from the federal government level.

Speaking to local government representatives in Queensland, they are very aware of the disparate relationship between revenue and service delivery. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has previously confirmed that Commonwealth government taxation revenue represents 80 per cent of taxation revenue for all levels of government. Approximately 16 per cent of revenue is collected by the states, with a mere four per cent going to local government authorities. If we talk about actual service delivery, those figures are reversed: the vast majority of services are provided by local governments.

Once again, it is all very well shifting the jobs onto local government, but we need to be able to fund them so that they can do it effectively. Local governments now do everything from running the bus and transport system to providing libraries and child care. Councils are responsible for making their regions better places to live through arts and cultural programs, recreational facilities, events and festivals, youth development programs, and healthy environments.

Through economic development initiatives, councils help create jobs in their communities. In fact, local government is one of the largest employment sectors. In Queensland, more than 40,000 people work for councils as full-time, part-time and casual employees and apprentices and trainees. Because they are closest to the people on a day-to-day basis they pick up the need in the community because they see and understand it. They know what their communities want. We need to be able to fund them effectively.

Federal funding for local government projects has been particularly important. The Roads to Recovery program has delivered $356 million in roads funding to Queensland communities since 2009; the Regional and Community Infrastructure Program has delivered more than $146 million since 2008-09; and the Regional Development Australia Fund has provided $54.1 million since 2011 to Queensland communities and councils.

In recognition of these successful programs, it is no surprise that local government organisations, including ALGA, LGAQ and the myriad of individual councils across this country, support financial recognition of local governments. They have worked constructively with federal governments in the past, but they need certainty that our Constitution will allow the federal government to continue this cooperative relationship. It is therefore crucial that we discuss how to supplement local government revenue, given the inherent constraints they face in raising revenue. As Professor Brown said during the committee hearings:

So we really need to recognise that this is about increasing, in a planned, sustainable way, the financial flows of resources to local government—growing them, even though that should occur necessarily as a result of both federal government and state government being prepared to share those resources with the third tier of government more effectively. That is what this is about.

The other issue that Professor Brown highlighted, and with which I agree, is that any change that could possibly pass as a referendum would need to leave regulatory control over local government with state governments, as it is currently. Once again, I highlight that this is not a conspiracy to wipe out state governments. We all agree that regulatory control over local government should be left with the states.

Constitutional recognition will not change the status of local government, its powers, or its relationship with the state government. Councils will remain the responsibility of state governments. The states will still be able to amalgamate councils, de-amalgamate councils, change council boundaries and dismiss nonperforming councils.

However, it is true that Commonwealth funding via state governments is inefficient, ineffective and can result in a reduction of the money flowing to local government. The referendum will simply formalise what has already been happening for more than ten years. This is about providing a more effective and efficient conduit for financial delivery for the states.

The coalition supports this referendum. A successful outcome will provide local governments across Australia with the financial security that allows for proper and sensible planning. That planning will, quite simply, provide for more effective local government with better outcomes for local communities. It will also reflect the reality that the implementation of most decisions regarding our nation's infrastructure are carried out at a local level. This reinforcement of the role of local government will provide for better, more informed decision making as local government's role is constitutionally recognised and legal certainty as to funding and the role of the Australian government's support of local government is provided.

This is a win-win situation. Local government will work more effectively. The states will retain their role. The federal government can provide financial support in response to the needs identified by those closest to the people. Most importantly, the real beneficiaries will be the people of Australia—better served, better represented and with better outcomes through more informed local input through effective local government.

See this speech in context