James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed, the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 was brought before the last parliament largely by the previous government. Maybe everyone recalls that the bill didn't pass the parliament and that the opposition at the time had an issue with it regarding the FOI exemptions to the National Cabinet process. We now find the new government bringing almost the exact same bill back, but, indeed, this bill doesn't have the protections for deliberations by National Cabinet from that process. What is said in opposition must be honoured in government, indeed. We hold that view, at least on this side of the House, in all matters. The government is seen to be honouring something that perhaps, now they're in government, they might regret having set such an unnecessarily significant precedent for while in opposition. I do believe very strongly that cabinet processes and indeed the National Cabinet should benefit from that frank ability to communicate without absolutely everything that goes before cabinet being subject to public disclosure. It's fundamental to the Westminster system, to be honest. The National Cabinet is almost exclusively a Labor gathering now, so I don't necessarily indicate an issue with them honouring what they said in the last term in that regard. Nonetheless, that is the position that is advanced in this bill and the only difference in this bill from the bill that came before the last parliament.

I just want to add something quickly and briefly on our federation. Frankly, because we're talking about the way our governments work together, this is an opportunity. I think most people would agree that, if anyone in another country want to understand how our federation works and what levels of government does what, the last thing they should do is read the Australian Constitution. If you did that and you saw what the responsibilities of the federal government and the state governments are, it would bear no resemblance to the reality of what happens. That's because, effectively, as a Commonwealth government, we have enormous revenue-raising capabilities and, slowly but surely, over the decades, it has become the reality that areas that used to be the exclusive responsibility of states now very much are partnerships between the federal government and state governments. I'm not criticising that; I'm just pointing it out.

There is perhaps an efficiency question around the way in which the federal government and state governments deliver services together and whether that is or isn't ideal. It wasn't until the early 1960s, for example, that there was a federal education minister. I think John Gorton, in the Menzies government, was the first education minister. It was certainly that government that stepped in in a significant way to the Commonwealth funding private school education, which I strongly support us doing. If you look at the early cabinets of federal government, they were small and they didn't have anywhere near the sorts of portfolios that we now have. Again, without criticising, I'd like to make the point that there are enormous non-party political, non-partisan opportunities for reform. Having worked in state government and federal government, I certainly would be a willing and eager supporter of ways to make the way we deliver government a little cleaner and a little more efficient. Certainly, governments need to talk to each other and work together on a whole range of things, and this bill is essentially about a new framework for that and about making some small changes to facilitate it around other legislation et cetera.

I'd just briefly make the point that I think we should consider federation reform as something that is a significant opportunity and something that is possibly a way in which both sides of politics could work together. It so happens that the Labor Party—good luck to them!—are in government almost everywhere at the moment, and I wish that wasn't the case and hope it not to be the case at every opportunity we have to change governments from red to blue at state and federal elections. The reality is that over the decades about 50 per cent of the time one side will be in government and, likewise, 50 per cent of the time the other, no matter what jurisdiction you're in, if our democracy is functioning as well as it should. Having our different levels of government working in a more efficient way and perhaps reconsidering some of the duplication that we have is, I think, worthy of reform. It won't happen through partisan political fights, and I'm not advocating for that or seeking that, but I do think we should reflect on opportunities that are there for us to have some agreement around whether or not parts of how the federal government interacts with state and territory governments could be more efficient and reflect on the way in which major reforms could achieve significant impact in efficient service delivery, which we all surely want to see.

With those comments, I just reconfirm the position of the opposition. We're looking for this to go to a Senate inquiry to reflect on some elements of the bill. We have no issue with it passing through this chamber and may not, depending on the outcome of a Senate inquiry, have any issues or any changes to suggest. With that, I commend the second reading to the House.

See this speech in context