Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise here this afternoon to speak on this bill, Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013, and to add my support for the referendum to recognise local government in the Constitution. In February 2008 when I made my very first speech in this chamber, I mentioned local government and the important role that it plays in local communities and the relationship between local government and the federal government. It was my involvement through local government that found me leaving my former occupation as a farmer and coming down here. While local government is the government closest to the people, quite often it is the decisions that are made here and in different state capitals around the country that impact on local communities. So that relationship between federal, state and local governments is very important.

I would like to say from the outset that I am disappointed about the process. I believe that we are undertaking this process at five minutes to midnight. Indeed, going back to the hearing of the committee that was set up to look at the success of this referendum, back in January the Electoral Commission said that they believed that optimally they would need six months to conduct a referendum. I will not go into the reasons why that was delayed, but to have it announced when it was, four months out, is going to make it that much harder. But, having said that, the decision has been made to have this referendum, and therefore the Australian people need to get behind it.

I represent 17 local government areas in the electorate of Parkes. One of the issues is that in regional areas the relationship between the federal government and the local entity is more important than in the larger metropolitan areas, because a lot of the services that are taken care of by either state or federal governments or, indeed, private enterprise in a large metropolitan area are left to the local councils in regional areas. Professor Anne Twomey, back in January when she addressed the committee of which I was a member, spoke in opposition to this referendum. One of the reasons she gave was that she believed this change would unfairly favour local governments in regional areas. Indeed, that would be one reason why I would be supporting it. But I think that this is minimal. In some ways I believe we should be going further, because what we have here is a minimal change.

It has been very frustrating that some of the state governments and some quite well-known commentators and ex-members of this place have been very vocal in their opposition to this. Their position in opposition was before the wording was even known. I wonder how you could be strongly opposed to something when you do not even know what was being proposed. When the wording did come out, this was seen as a minimal change. The previous speaker, the member for Parramatta, indicated that this is a minimal change. It is basically fixing up the loopholes that would make direct funding vulnerable to a High Court challenge. I believe the Williams case on school chaplaincy and the Pape case on the stimulus program, which are well-known challenges in the High Court, have put the relationship between the Commonwealth and local government in jeopardy, and I do not believe that we can be sure that we can continue on with the programs we do if we are subject to another High Court challenge.

This is not a change to the relationship between state and local government. Local government is the creature of the states; it is pretty well wholly and solely owned and controlled by the states. This change does not alter that. Some of the website comments I have seen—that this is some sort of power grab from Canberra—are nonsense. The great conspiracy theorists of our country are coming out and speaking about Agenda 21 and a whole range of other quite bizarre movements as being behind this. I find that a nonsense. This is a bit of housekeeping—a minimal change—and should be seen as that.

Historically, some successful programs have come out of this place. In the previous Howard government my predecessor in the now abolished seat of Gwydir, John Anderson, was very much involved in the Roads to Recovery program. It has been a very successful program right across the country. All but maybe three of my councils would be unviable without that program. In more recent times, there has been the rollout of funding under the stimulus programs during the global financial crisis. There has been a lot of discussion about how some of those programs were disasters—look at the pink batts program and at the mismanaged school halls program. But I can tell you there is one program that was rolled out under the Rudd government which you do not hear any complaints about, and that is the funding for regional infrastructure that went out to every local government in the whole 500-odd local government areas in Australia. I have not heard any complaints that that funding was not spent in a timely manner; and it also leveraged other funding in those communities. That funding, which came from the federal government during that period, was multiplied to great effect. I can take you right around my electorate to see programs that were rolled out under that program at that time; programs that were a success because they were under the management of local government. We should acknowledge that.

During the time that I was a former mayor of Gwydir Shire Council, the council ended up having two medical centres—one in Bingara and one in Warialda—that were partly funded by the federal government. Indeed, when I was mayor, the Warialda centre was, I think, funded under the health infrastructure fund under the Regional Partnerships program. That was a program that was very well regarded in regional Australia, despite the attempt by the current government during 2008-2009 to try and destroy the reputation of that program, and Regional Partnerships was a very effective program. Indeed, if you go right around Australia you will see some magnificent pieces of community infrastructure funded by that program. But going back to the medical centre, towns like Warialda now have doctors—because we have a community-owned medical centre that was funded by the local council with assistance from the federal government. In many regional areas, the local healthcare facilities are owned by the council. I have quite a few of those in my electorate. That is another relationship where the federal government directly funds local government through health care. I could go on and on about how that is needed. I find it very frustrating that we seem to be getting into a philosophical argument on this without an understanding of the practical ramifications. One of the positives of the programs that go straight through to the local government is that they do not have to deal with the state bureaucracy; the local government can target the money to where it is needed. I am not sure what the Roads to Recovery program involves now but I understand that when it was established there was only a handful of bureaucrats that managed that program, and pretty well every cent of the money ended up being laid out as roadworks, and not gobbled up by state bureaucracies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Australian people do have a decision to make on 14 September: as well as deciding who is going to be the government of the day, they need to decide where they stand on this. I believe that due to the short time frame, every council right across Australia should be campaigning to make their residents aware of the importance of this referendum. They need to calm down—hose down—the conspiracy theorists and they need to point out to people that the sporting fields that they train on, the local pool that they use, and the local medical centre that they attend have all been possible because of a relationship between their council and the federal government. This is a bipartisan referendum, and I will acknowledge that it is the policy of the coalition, as it is of the government, that we support this referendum. Indeed, I believe that all members in this place should be doing that.

Australia does have a poor record when it comes to supporting referendums. I would just ask that the Australian people look at this and realise that it is a minimalistic request; realise that it is not going to change the balance of power or the relationship between the three levels of government; realise that it is just going to give certainty to programs of which they would be aware and from which they are gaining benefit in their communities; and get in and support this referendum. Dismiss the nay-sayers, dismiss the conspiracy theorists and dismiss those who may be trying to find their time in the sunshine again and get a public profile over an issue. This is basic housekeeping, it is not major reform, and not only should this House get behind this referendum but, indeed, everyone in Australia should support this. It is just common sense.

See this speech in context