Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013. It is quite frightening to listen to some of the Labor Party's backbenchers, including the member for Throsby, and their lack of sufficient understanding about our Constitution and why it is structured the way it is—and, indeed, the role of local government in that Constitution.

It is not accurate to say, as he said, that in New South Wales there is a financial problem with councils, and therefore the Commonwealth has to step in and fund them. It is accurate to say that the viability of very small councils is what is at stake, and the purpose of that report was to provide for mergers and acquisitions of two small councils, two small political units, and the mismanagement of those finances. The member for Throsby bells the cat when he says: 'It's just money. It's just finances. What's everybody worried about?' That is the attitude of a government that is heading towards $300 billion of debt, where money does not matter, because money always matters and who controls the money controls the power. It has always been thus. Changes to our Constitution that affect financial arrangements between our Commonwealth and state systems very much affect the power balance between the Commonwealth and state governments, and to imply differently is to either be disingenuous or hide a broader agenda.

I oppose this change to our Constitution because I believe it is another attempt to change the political conversation that this government has put forward, to mask from the Australian people what is really going on. I note the dissenting report from coalition members and senators, which particularly noted that the preconditions for success of this referendum, highlighted by the expert panel and other stakeholders such as the Australian Local Government Association, have not yet been met. I also record that this is the third time this referendum will be put to the Australian people. The governments that have put it before are: the Whitlam government in 1974, which saw a 53 per cent 'no' vote in all states except New South Wales; and the Hawke government in 1988, when 66 per cent said no and every state voted against it.

Bad governments that are nearing an election should not distort our politics by trying to change our Constitution in this shameless way. I agree with Peter Reith, who says that the yes case will saturate the airways in the week before September 14, and the no case will be silent for lack of funds. The process is the ultimate constitutional fix and besmirches Australia's record of clean elections—more on that later. This is certainly a referendum that the government has set up to fail, and that the Prime Minister has set up to fail. Indeed, constitutional lawyer and vice-chancellor Professor Greg Craven said:

This will be a rushed referendum on words drafted in haste for political purposes.

I also turn today to the real essence of why I oppose this referendum. It goes to the heart of why I am a Liberal, and an argument we hear too little about in debates on modern governance—that is, correct political structure and how political structure is vital to providing the checks and balances inherent in protecting rights and liberties limiting the power of government. Any change to our Constitution should be made rarely enough to allow careful consideration and due thought. This is the inherent view of the Australian people, who have rejected the vast bulk of referendum proposals. An inherent scepticism of government politicians and requests for additional power is an essential precondition of a free society. It is a great virtue that Australian people have this understanding inherent in them, and it is something that I commend.

I point to Isabel Paterson and her treatise on structure in government, The God of the Machine. She wrote about the importance of a society being correctly structured to balance power between levels. The balance was important, and must function correctly for the intended impact—in this case, the limitation of power—to function correctly. Simply put, in an Australian context what that means is that the balance between the state and the Commonwealth—that is, our federal compact—must be maintained. The reason I oppose this constitutional change is that it will alter the balance between the state and the Commonwealth. The balance will shift, again, towards the centre, this time through a level of government that can directly deliver services, duplicating that already available in our states in so many ways. That is why several premiers have argued against this referendum. It shows the threat that this constitutional change represents to state reform. Barry O'Farrell said directly:

We do not support local government getting a financial power in the federal constitution because that can fundamentally change the relationship that local government has …

Local government across Australia is set up by state parliaments, this financial recognition essentially changes the relationship, gives it a more direct relationship with the federal government.

He is correct about that. Cheryl Saunders AO, a constitutional lawyer, said:

Even more importantly, this proposal would increase not only Commonwealth power but executive power, exacerbating what already is too prevalent a tendency for the Commonwealth to regulate through the expenditure of public moneys, using executive schemes.

This goes to the heart of why we need this proposal now to change our Constitution. We had a national government, and our national government was formed for particular reasons—particularly the defence of our nation. Given that Defence expenditure—the reason for us having national government—as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest level since 1938, I find it disingenuous for members of the Labor Party and the government to say we should be fixing potholes in local roads when we are starving our nation's Defence forces of funds. I find it furthermore wrong that our diplomats overseas are starved of the funds they need to do their vital jobs at the moment, and that posts are closing. They do not have the funds they need to adequately provide for Australia's interests in trade. Free trade agreements are not being conducted. Billions of dollars are being wasted in debt and deficit. And yet the priority of this parliament is to expand the ability of the Commonwealth to spend money on local roads and local issues—is that seriously the priority of this national government? Is now really the time to say: 'Let's loosen the purse strings of the Commonwealth. Let's let them spend money more easily. Let's let them spend it in more ways'? The pink batts scheme would indicate we need more limitations on the expenditure of Commonwealth funds. The disasters this government has mismanaged would indicate we need more limitations, not more openings for the Commonwealth to spend more money.

This argument by members, which is essentially 'Let's get our federal government into matters that are not its domain', is hardly compelling to me. It is, essentially: 'Let's fix the state government's potholes. Let's fix the local government council's potholes. Let's not focus our national government on its real purposes—defence, administration of the federal law, diplomacy, trade—all of the things our federal government has done.' I accept that it might be a naive statement of many members here when they say they have no intention to wipe out the state powers of so many MPs in this place, but the intention here is not the same as the effect. MPs in this place saying that it will not do something bad to our political structure is not a sufficient protection. Changes to the Constitution which act to limit power in Australia must, of necessity, be checked for impact against that imperative.

I would like to point out that local government is a creature of the state subject to state laws and governed by state ministers and state acts, and I believe it should remain so. There has been no case made by members today about why that should change. Why shouldn't local governments be the purview of state governments? Why shouldn't they be funded by state governments? What is the problem that exists such that the Constitution needs to be altered today? In fact, all of the projects that member after member have listed have occurred. The money has reached them. The Commonwealth has funded them. The objectives have been met already. There has been no articulate, cogent case made about why the Commonwealth needs to more easily send money to this layer of government.

Certainly I also believe that, as Professor Anne Twomey stated:

Funding would also most likely become tied to conditions that impose uniform Commonwealth policies on local government bodies, reducing their autonomy and their capacity to serve the particular interests of their own communities.

We have local government because it is local, because it responds to local voters in local electorates. To then tie these local government decision-making bodies to a Commonwealth grant which, as we heard from the changes that are proposed, will be subject to the decision of the executive on what, how and why they can spend money will remove that direct distinction of local government and why we have local government in the first place.

It is certainly the case that I agree with the view of our nation's second-longest-serving Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister John Howard, who said 'even a casual reference to local government in the Constitution would end up having legal implications far beyond what might be advocated by the proponents of such a change.' 'The Constitution is, of course, the founding document of our nation. It is unacceptable that politicians can abuse public money to change the Constitution that limits their power'—that was Julian Leeser.

We have seen what has happened in this debate. We heard from the member for Greenway. I do not believe that the member for Greenway, in chairing her government panel, has convinced states, convinced stakeholders or made a public case for change to our Constitution. Instead, the member for Greenway listed the items of pork-barrelling that she thought were good in her electorate. But, if Australians had any doubt about what this is about, they should listen carefully to the contributions of members here. What is this really about? She did not list one project in her electorate that has gone unfunded because of the current arrangements. She did not cite where a local government would have done something if it had access to this constitutional provision.

It is of course ridiculous for many members to go forward and say, 'If you learnt to swim, it was in your local pool and funded by a local government authority.' Surely our debate about constitutional change has not reached such a low juncture that we are debating local swimming pools. This is about the structure of the Commonwealth and states and balancing and limiting power, providing for the checks and balances that our nation needs to ensure we have limited government in Australia.

I am also very concerned about the public funding of this campaign. Currently, $21.6 million of public money for the 'yes' case has been allocated and zero has been allocated for the 'no' case. That is very concerning. Even before the campaign the 'yes' argument has been allocated three times the public funding of the 1999 referendum. If we are talking about spending public money, it does not seem this government has any problems already. No constitutional change is needed.

It is certainly the case that, even with the High Court cases in relation to Pape and Williams, the federal government has now conceded that these cases do not justify a referendum. The case was not even referenced in the Attorney-General's second reading speech of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) bill. If you do not even reference the case and do not need to make a case about it then why again are we pursuing this constitutional change? The Attorney-General cannot come forward and reference why we are doing it.

It is certainly the case that, when you look at this proposal before us, we have perhaps the worst government in Australian history. This is a government that spends money like it is going out of fashion. We have government members who in this debate have said, 'Why would money provide power?' I have to say to those members of parliament that this is not just about the money but it is 'just about the money' because who controls the purse strings makes a big difference to the power of government. It is a ludicrous argument for the members of the Labor Party to suggest that money does not mean power. Governments function through expenditure. One of the prime functions of a government is to deliver a budget which outlines its expenditure and incomings. And yet we have members of the Labor Party saying: 'Hey, don't worry about this. This is just about a few bucks—just so we can send some bucks down to the local government to spend.'

We have a constitutional structure. We have a federation, and that federation has been critical to the success of our nation because it does balance the roles of government. It balances the role of states, it balances the role of the Commonwealth and it allocates to them different purposes and functions which, if they got on with and fulfilled themselves instead of trying to shift, would produce a better compact in this country.

Look at what will happen if this referendum does not get up. What would be the consequence if this referendum failed, if what I am saying comes to fruition—that a 'no' case wins the popular vote and the vote in the states? There is no consequence. The federal government would still be able to fund local government. The condition, of course, would be that the money is paid by state governments as currently allowed by the Constitution and as has happened since the 1920s. Nobody can point to any other consequence that may happen, so why again are we changing the Constitution?

I think we should listen to the voices of so many experts in this field. I think we should listen to the voices of former federal minister Peter Reith, a Liberal minister, and former federal minister Gary Johns, an ALP Special Minister of State. Too often today there is a push in our nation to centralise power in Canberra. Too often there is a lack of understanding in this place of why a balance of power between states and the Commonwealth matters to the success of our society. But political structure matters. It matters in Australia as our federation hinges on a correct balance of power vested in states against the centre, the Commonwealth. Voting 'no' to this referendum will ensure that we retain that balance, we retain the best elements of federation and that competitive federalism continues to deliver great benefits. Local government can keep on doing the work it is doing beholden to the people it should be beholden to: its own local ratepayers.

See this speech in context