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

I wish to speak on the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. I will say from the outset that I agree with the proposal and the words being proposed for a possible referendum, but I have been disappointed and somewhat frustrated at the way this has been handled. It is nearly 12 months since the expert panel, set up by the government to look at the constitutional recognition of local government, presented its report and we are still in the position that we are in today.

I was alarmed to read in the national presson Monday of this week that the minister is going to spend another six weeks negotiating with the states before a final decision is to be made. One of the witnesses to the inquiry in Sydney in January, the Australian Electoral Commission, indicated that, to run a referendum efficiently, you need approximately six months. Of course, we are past that point and we are getting into a narrow margin of time.

It is well known that some states are in favour of this referendum and some are opposed, but the states that are opposed made their position clear long before the words of this referendum question were made known and long before they realised what this proposal actually meant. As someone who comes from a local government background, to an extent I do not believe that this referendum goes far enough. On the other side of that, what is being proposed is basically to close up a loophole. It is to enable the federal government to directly fund local government in some programs. It is not a major overhaul of the federal-state relationship; it is not going to undermine the states' relations with local government. The programs that the federal government—sometimes on an ongoing basis, but sometimes on a temporary basis—fund for local government are very important to the people in those local government areas. The obvious one, the one that is discussed a lot, is the Roads to Recovery program. This program is seen, particularly in the bush, as the signature program. It is the ongoing legacy of John Anderson, the former member for Gwydir, that the program has been put in place. It has already had one challenge in the High Court. I believe that if the program were lost then most of the 17 local government areas in my electorate would be not viable.

The other program, if you cast your mind back to 2008, is the stimulus program implemented by the Rudd government. Many of those programs turned out to be a debacle—the insulation program and the BER program in many cases turned out to be a poor use of money.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

I am going to give you a pat on the back in a minute, so settle down. I guarantee that the money that went to local government through those local infrastructure programs was used to good value. The money given to every local government area I am aware of that got funding directly from the federal government during that stimulus program was money well spent. Other dollars were leveraged so that the dollars that came from federal government to local government were magnified several times over. If the Rudd government at the time had given more money to local government and less to ill-thought-out and ill-conceived green programs like the pink batts program, the Australian economy would be a lot better off.

So where are we now? The government says that it wants a referendum, and there is a bit more negotiation to go through. The coalition has said that it supports the concept of recognition of local government, but there are some reservations as to the timing and the preparedness. I personally believe that, if the minister gets his skates on and gets around the states to explain to them that this is not an affront to their sovereignty but merely housekeeping to close a loophole, this is possible. I had some frustration at the Australian Local Government Association's initial input into the hearing in January, but I was somewhat relieved to see them come to a firmer position in the later hearing. Right across Australia local government bodies are prepared to come into action to fight to see this referendum succeed.

I do not know whether the reluctance of the minister to commit to doing more on this is to do with a lack of finance for the case. It is interesting that the referendum to recognise the Aboriginal people in the Constitution has now been delayed. It was given a considerable amount of funds to present the case for and against, yet at this stage there has been no promise of any funding to move on this local government referendum.

In closing, there is still time. I have told the minister that if he goes ahead with this I will do my level best to make sure that this referendum is a success. The Australian local government bodies rely on this, particularly in regional Australia. In regional Australia the local government bodies rely on direct funding, so the minister needs to bring the states into line and get this referendum underway. If he does not do that pretty well immediately then I feel that the success of the referendum would not be great. The real tragedy would be to put this referendum up in a half-baked way. It needs to happen in a way that is going to be successful.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Parkes. When I serve on committees with him he always makes a positive input and I know that in this inquiry he also had a positive input. He comes from a regional area that relies heavily on the council and on funding from both state and federal government and he works hard for anything that would assist his council areas with more streamlined funding. If you have ever been to Parkes you will know that it is also now known as 'Coultontown'. He has a high presence there and I know he is enthusiastic to see that this referendum, if it goes ahead, is successful. This whole debate has been like that: everyone wants to see a successful referendum proceed.

However, I feel that, because of the lack of time we are faced with to run a successful campaign, there might not be success. During the inquiry I questioned one of the witnesses giving evidence around the earliest time any legislation could be introduced to proceed with a referendum. Under the current time line, the earliest time it could be introduced would be about budget week in May. That would leave a very short period of time for a successful information campaign about this referendum to be made public so that people could be informed. The witnesses said they did think that short-term propositions had been successfully advocated for, but I cannot think of any. At this point in time, we think that maybe we need more time to have a successful referendum.

The government has demonstrated extraordinary lack of action to put in place the preconditions that were recommended by the expert panel and other stakeholders such as the Australian Local Government Association. As a direct consequence, the time remaining between now and 14 September is likely to be insufficient to put in place the necessary mechanics, education campaigns and other measures highlighted by expert witnesses as necessary to ensure an informed outcome of the referendum question.

Coalition members are of the opinion that the referendum should only be considered once the preconditions identified by the expert panel have been met. The coalition acknowledges the constitutional uncertainty that recent High Court cases have created with respect to direct funding of local government programs by the Commonwealth. The coalition is committed to restoring funding certainty to local programs and has indicated support for the appropriate limited financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution as a way to achieve this. Coalition members of the committee also note that the evidence received by the committee highlighting that the program's specific funding, which is currently provided directly to local government, may still be provided in full via existing avenues that are constitutionally valid. Coalition members consider that the existence of valid alternative funding pathways to address the funding uncertainty introduced by the recent High Court cases reduces the imperative to pursue constitutional change in the face of the fact that preconditions for success highlighted by the expert panel and other stakeholders such as ALGA have not yet been met. The coalition members are mindful of the inquiry terms of reference, which called for an assessment of the likelihood of success of the referendum. They remain of the view that the recommendation of the main report, to proceed with a 2013 referendum, despite the preconditions for success not being established, places at risk many millions of taxpayers' dollars. This risk, together with the risk of a lack of informed and positive public engagement with the issue, appears to be unnecessary given the alternative pathways to ensure ongoing local government program funding should the direct model in fact be successfully challenged in the courts prior to the referendum question being put.

Regarding the lack of action by the government, the coalition's support for action to address funding issues through constitutional change has been provided subject to consideration of the specific change to be proposed by the government and the change being limited to remove the question of constitutional validity in relation to direct Commonwealth funding of local government. Similarly, it was offered in the expectation that the government would approach the consideration of any such referendum question on the basis that all practical and reasonable steps were taken to ensure the Australian population made its decision on a fully informed basis.

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 amongst stakeholders in the general community. The expert panel's final report 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 (see page 16). 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 the 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 the second was to take steps, as recommended by ALGA, to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue.

The expert panel's final report was delivered in December 2011, almost two years prior to the latest possible date for the next federal election. As at that date, the government had plenty of time to ensure it took the blueprint for a referendum on financial recognition of local government as provided by the expert panel, put it in place and proceed to put the question to a voting public equipped with the benefit of a full public education campaign on the issues. As noted in the majority decision Final report on the majority finding of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government: the case for financial recognition, the likelihood of success and lessons from the history of constitutional referenda, we now have the benefit of a nominated election date, 14 September 2013. This date is some 10 weeks earlier than the latest possible date the election could have been held.

At the first hearing of this committee, reservations were expressed by ALGA with regard to timing, were a referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2013 general election. They noted that they did not consider the question should be put to the people before a number of preconditions have been met. These preconditions reflected the conditions recommended by the expert panel in their report. Coalition members note the supplementary submissions by ALGA, received after the second hearing, in which ALGA indicate they will actively support the 2013 referendum, but accept wholly the argument put by ALGA in earlier evidence of their advisability of first meeting the stated preconditions.

As at the date of the first hearing in mid-January 2013, evidence was received that, even given the latest possible date for an election being late November 2013, the prospect of meeting those preconditions in time to hold the referendum at the same time as the election were not high. Given the nominated date for the election and the time that has since elapsed, the prospect of these preconditions being fully met by 14 September this year has only reduced. As such, the prospect of a referendum held in conjunction with this year's federal election raises serious risks that it will be held in an environment where potential consensus of stakeholders, including the states, has not been met and where the opportunity to fully inform the voting public through public education and other avenues has not been fully realised.

There has been a lack of engagement with the states and, as yet, I do not think some of the states have even responded to the minister in regard to where they stand or whether they will support this referendum. The coalition members of the committee were strongly of the view that the meeting of both of the expert panel's conditions is vital before any referendum on this issue is put to the people. Australia is a federation of states and, as the evidence attests, the support of state governments can make or break referenda. If state governments are largely opposed to change, history proves it is very difficult for referenda to pass. In the view of the coalition members, the recommendation by the expert panel that the government negotiate to achieve the states' support for financial recognition is an essential precursor to the committee being able to make a recommendation on the likelihood of the referendum being supported by the Australian people. A number of witnesses reinforced the view that, for the referendum to be successful, states either had to be actively supportive of the measure or at least run dead on the issue.

I quote the conclusion to our dissenting report to the report of the inquiry:

Coalition members noted that the Chair’s Preliminary Report recommended action be taken immediately to put in place the necessary steps to hold the referendum in conjunction with the 2013 Federal election.

We held concerns that the time was insufficient but remained open to the prospect that such immediate action may address those concerns. However, it is clear that such urgent and immediate action has not occurred and seven weeks has passed with little if any progress.

Coalition members are now of the opinion that the time remaining between now and the nominated election date of 14 September 2013 is insufficient to put in place all the necessary mechanics, formal, informal and partisan education campaigns and to otherwise ensure an informed outcome for the referendum question.

We acknowledge concerns regarding the impact of further High Court cases that may impact on the constitutionality of direct payments to local governments by the Commonwealth and that delays in granting constitutional financial recognition may come at a cost to the many valuable services provided at a local government level.

As noted, the Committee received constitutional evidence that clearly demonstrates that avenues exist for funding currently provided directly to local government, to still be provided in full, even in the face of (potential) judicial findings that direct payments are not constitutional.

The most obvious avenue is through grants through the states, tied on the basis that they must be both passed on in full and subject to use for the programs currently funded (or as directed under future Commonwealth-local government programs).

Coalition members acknowledge that this is a less clean avenue than direct payment, but accept the evidence that options such as this are available and that, accordingly, there is likely to be no potential risk of loss of funding to local government, eventuating from further developments following the Pape and Williams cases.

As such, we consider there to be little financial risk to local government in delaying the holding of a referendum on financial recognition of local government in the Constitution, until such time as the conditions previously discussed have been met.

As such, Coalition members of the Committee recommend that a referendum on the issue of financial recognition of local government only be held after the pre-conditions posed by the Expert Panel and those previously promoted by ALGA, have been met.

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

I rise to speak on the final report of the majority finding of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, the case for financial recognition, the likelihood of success and lessons from the history of constitutional referenda, including the dissenting reports.

The coalition has committed to support the appropriate financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution—that is our policy. Back in December 2011, the expert panel produced—and I was very honoured to serve on that expert panel—its recommendation. The final report said, and this was back in December 2011:

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—

the Australian Local Government Association—

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.

That was December 2011. They were very clear recommendations with a very clear way forward—and what did the government and the minister do with those recommendations? Zip. Absolutely nothing. Once again, they are either setting this up to fail or they are just not interested in this program. They made an election promise to have a referendum on this issue, but they have done nothing to support it in any way.

There are a whole range of thoughts and views out in the public arena. Some people think that this is all an undercover plot to take over state governments; I assure you, it is not. But, unless we run an informed public awareness campaign, those are the sorts of messages that are going to get up in the public arena. That is why the expert panel—and, indeed, this second committee—came up with the same conclusion: we need to talk to the states and we need to run a public awareness campaign.

That was the recommendation in 2011. It is now the recommendation two years later, and the government has done nothing. The minister is reprehensible in his lack of action on this issue. Where is the funding for ALGA? Where is the funding for this campaign? The government was quick to give the Indigenous community $10 million to help them with their public awareness campaign, but to show its lack of interest and lack of support for this particular issue it has given nothing, committed nothing, to the Australian Local Government Association for their public awareness campaign, which was a recommendation that came out of the December 2011 report and again in the report from the committee that we have just had—because if you do not want to do something, form another committee and take the time to do nothing. That is the hallmark of this Labor government.

There is no doubt that we have issues with funding for local government and, indeed, the Pape and Williams cases show that there are issues going forward. But as Professor AJ Brown said in his comments to the hearing that we 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 looking at funding more money to local government. His 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 batt scheme, it would have worked; but you are never going to achieve something like that from the federal government level.

So, 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 system and the transport system to running libraries and child care. Basically, they pick up the need in the community because they see it, they understand it and they know what their community wants. So we need to be able to fund that effectively.

As Professor Brown went on to say:

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 he highlighted, and which I agree with, is that any change that could possibly pass as a referendum would need to leave the 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. This is about providing a more effective and more efficient conduit for financial delivery for the states, as has been successfully challenged recently in the High Court. As I said, the federal government, by not doing anything, is setting up this referendum to fail.

In the first round of hearings, ALGA raised their issues about not being prepared and not being ready without having the funding to run an effective public campaign. However, at the last hearing they said they believed that if they were funded appropriately they could run that campaign. So this is why my colleague Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes, and I made the additional comments that we believe that of all people, ALGA, the Australian Local Government Association, is best positioned to know whether it can or cannot deliver the public awareness campaign in the time frame and is best positioned to know through its members whether this referendum will succeed.

They came to the last hearing and said yes, they are ready to go. But, once again, what has the minister done? Has the minister got any further with his negotiations with the states? We have not heard back. This is something he should have been doing, quite frankly, from before the expert panel started meeting. Why hasn't he raised these issues with the states? This is of vital interest. Why hasn't he reassured the states that this is not about taking power away from them, that this is just a conduit, as Professor Brown said, for more efficient and effective funding methods? But, once again, the minister has done nothing. The minister is not interested in seeing this referendum succeed, and I am very concerned that the funding they allude to—the funding they gave the Indigenous referendum supporters—is not going to be there for ALGA. And, quite frankly, that funding needs to happen today if ALGA is going to be able to effectively run a public awareness campaign for this referendum to succeed.

We all know the importance of local government in the community, because they are there on a day-to-day basis. If ALGA tells us it needs funding to run an effective campaign, then that is what we should be doing. Once again, tragically, we are not getting that support from this federal government. I call on the minister to act immediately to reassure his state ministers that this is a campaign to make funding more efficient, to bypass the problems we have had with our successful challenge in the High Court and to move forward with the campaign for a referendum.

I would also like to place on record my appreciation of the many local government areas and associations and indeed individuals who contributed over 140 submissions to the inquiry, as well as to those who attended the public hearings, which helped with our deliberations. There is a genuine interest in this area, and there is a genuine interest in facilitating the right outcome. But, once again, it is the government that is dragging the chain. It is the government that is setting this up to fail. In February this year, ALGA gave further evidence to the committee that they recommended that we continue with a referendum. But, as I have said, unless the government is genuine, unless the government funds that campaign and unless the government works with the local government associations and bodies, we are not going to see this referendum succeed. And if they go ahead on that flawed basis they are setting it up to fail, which I believe is completely reprehensible.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. I do so from a position of having a little bit of experience in these matters, having served on local government for six years. A saying that goes around amongst some councillors—and perhaps the previous speaker, the member for Ryan, is aware of it—is that if you do any more than a decade in local government you are immediately declared criminally insane! So I am sort of glad that I went on to bigger and better pastures—but I am not sure how long the member actually served in local government!

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

A decade.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A decade—you may be just under the limit! But, to go on to the report, I am pleased to see that the report has recommended the adoption of financial recognition. It is the minimalist recognition, I think it is fair to say, and it is through the constitutional financial powers that are extended to the Commonwealth government—simply that the words 'local government' be inserted into that financial head of powers. That is, as I said, a minimalist position, but it is a very important one. As many people around this place would know, we had the Pape case in the High Court, which came up with a ruling that direct funding by the Commonwealth government to schools being state controlled was not constitutionally valid. So there is speculation, and I suppose it is well founded in local government circles, that that same ruling could essentially be used to negate some of the federal funding that goes direct to local councils.

One of those programs which have been quite successful was that introduced by the former Liberal-National coalition government and continued under the current government—that is, Roads to Recovery. Roads to Recovery has had immense benefits for local governments all around Australia and in local communities. It is delivered directly from the federal government to local governments to assist them in their road construction budget.

I think that in the Mackay region in particular it has been somewhat of a godsend. I know that roads are the No. 1 issue for nearly all residents in my area; it is certainly in the top 3. I learnt that in the first week of being a local government councillor. I think it was probably three days after I had found out I was elected to then Mackay City Council. At 5.30 am I got a knock on the door—I was actually living in an area which is now in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore—from someone who wanted to complain about a road. I thought, 'Wow, this is a good initiation into local government: 5.30 am knocks on the door by constituents.' His complaint was about a local road, which we got upgraded through the Roads to Recovery program eventually, McColl Street, which is in Walkerston.

There are so many roads that get upgraded through this program. Currently, over the last period of this term of parliament, we have had Roads to Recovery funding going to Casey Avenue in South Mackay; they are doing a bridge upgrade there. We have Connors Road in Paget, Archibald Street in Paget, Grasstree Beach Road—again, down in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is also Eversleigh Road in Sarina, Paradise Street in South Mackay, Mount Martin Loop Road—in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker—along with Armstrong Beach, Paradise Street in South Mackay, and on and on it goes. If this funding were not there, or if there were a High Court challenge to that funding, it would be to the detriment of all of those residents and motorists who use those roads. I can tell you from the point of view of the ones in my electorate—Connors Road, Archibald Street, Paradise Street—these are very well-used and, up until recently, well-worn roads. So, if we did not have this funding in place or if it were subject to a High Court challenge, that would be to the detriment of not just the local government but to the local communities.

I know that there is an argument that we can direct that through the states. Certainly, through the financial assistance grants, funding does go from the federal government through the states to local government. But the report has given some indication as to why that is not such a good methodology for distributing that funding. They give three reasons. The first is a little bit of a superficial reason but it does say here that that indirect route through the state governments 'lessens the ability of the Commonwealth to implement and to be seen to be implementing its own policies at a local level'. The other two reasons are probably more important. The second reason the indirect route is not good is that 'it fails to recognise local government as a legitimate third tier of government in the Australian system.' It says:

Although this is an issue of status, it is clearly of great significance to local councils throughout Australia.

I am going to come back to that point in a second. The final and probably the most important one is:

… local government and its advocates raised concerns that Commonwealth funding via State governments is inefficient, ineffective, and may result in a reduction of the money flowing to local government by reason of deductions for administrative expenses.

It is always a major concern when you have got double handling or triple handling of finances that you are going to see less of the dollar actually get down on the ground. You are going see less of the money actually going into bitumen, less of the money going into the work crews that actually build these roads. So that is the reason why the financial recognition is extremely important.

The No. 2 point that was raised on the issue of the validity of local government is also a key point. Obviously we had local government amalgamations. I went through that. I was on a bigger council that, most people would have thought, stood to benefit from amalgamations at the time with Mirani Shire Council and Sarina Shire Council. I was opposed to that even though there were some benefits. At that time I represented a rural division in which there were a fair few residents who felt that because they were in rural division they missed out on a lot of the funding that went through Mackay City Council at the time.

The unfortunate reality is these amalgamations were just done by the stroke of a pen really by the then Beattie government. What it saw was reduced representation for residents in Mirani shire and Sarina shire. They had councils that were about seven members strong with their own elected mayor. Now, on the Mackay Regional Council, I do not think there is one representative—if I am not mistaken—from the old Mirani shire, which, as I said, had its own mayor and six councillors; and there is but one representative from the old Sarina shire.

I think that reduced representation is a very sad thing because if you have your own council and your own mayor collecting your own rates, then you are spending all that money back in your own area. You have got people on the ground in these little townships. I know in places like Netherdale, Yongala and Grasstree Beach their say is completely watered down now. So some of the projects, as a fact of life, get overlooked now because there is not that representation there.

I know the report states that there could have been another view in the recognition of local government in the Constitution, a democratic recognition, which may have gone one step better in giving local government a true position and not just making it a creature of the state governments. Unfortunately, it is at the moment. The reality is tomorrow we could see other councils merged. We are currently seeing de-amalgamations across the state and that too can be done at the stroke of a pen although they are giving a vote at this stage. I know it is causing some concern again, particularly in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Being in your part of the world, I read the newspapers and know that there is some concern about that. The fact is local government now is simply the creature of state government. If I was to vote on a particular option, it would be for a full democratic recognition. However, I accept that that may not be amenable to a lot of people, particularly to state governments. The financial recognition as a minimalist position is probably the best way for us to go.

What a good job all of the local governments in my local area do in trying circumstances as well. Mackay Regional Council is powering ahead under the leadership of Mayor Deidre Comerford. Certainly the council is extremely united. It is getting things done. Local government is always subject to complaints. Some of them are legitimate, but I think that on the whole there is a great deal of respect for the work that Mackay Regional Council is doing.

Mayor Jenny Whitney of the Whitsunday Regional Council is having a very trying time at the moment because of the massive amount of debt that was left by the last administration. She is doing what she can to fix that up. She is powering on and getting results. I know that there is lot of support in the Whitsunday community for her and for what she is trying to do with the council.

Further north, the Burdekin Shire Council under Mayor Bill Lowis is a common-sense council. Bill is a common-sense mayor. A lot of the things that he says are probably outside the square of what a lot of even the council bureaucrats think. But it is very common sense. It relates to a lot of people in the Burdekin. They are going to go great guns over the next few years.

Finally, in Townsville, representing some of those southern areas, is Councillor Jenny Hill, the Mayor of Townsville; and my local councillor, Councillor Les Walker. He is a good councillor by all reports of the local residents. Again, they are doing a good job up in Townsville, I would say. They are dealing with financial issues.

Getting back to the report, I commend it. I am not actually sure whether this year is the right time to be holding a referendum. Perhaps having a referendum outside of an election period may be more beneficial. It would be more costly, I know, but it might be more likely to see the result get up that we on all sides of the House want. Whenever it is, I will be a strong supporter, having been in local government. I know the benefit that the constitutional recognition of local government will have. Thank you very much for letting me address the chamber.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I compliment the member for Dawson on his remarks. He has given a lot to local government in his area. It is one of the reasons why he is now serving his electorate as a federal member. I also acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the member for Greenway, who headed the committee that looked into constitutional recognition of local government. She has done a thorough job—she wants me to say an excellent job, and I will: an excellent job—of compiling this report. I also note that there has been a dissenting report to the final report on the majority finding of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, The case for financial recognition, the likelihood of success and lessons from the history of constitutional referenda. That dissenting report was submitted by Senator David Bushby, Senator David Fawcett and the member for Swan, Steve Irons. There are also additional comments from coalition members the member for Parkes, Mark Coulton, and the member for Ryan, Jane Prentice. They also need to be taken on board in this debate.

I represent a large electorate, the Riverina in south-west New South Wales, which takes in 13 local government areas. They are: Bland, based at West Wyalong; Carrathool, based at Hillston; Coolamon; Griffith City; Gundagai; Junee; Leeton; Murrumbidgee, based at Coleambally and Darlington Point; Narrandera; Temora; Tumbarumba; Tumut; and Wagga Wagga City. There are two cities among those 13: Griffith and Wagga Wagga. The other 11 are shire councils. They are all good councils. They are all run by people who want to do the best for their local communities. Local government is grassroots representation at its very best. I am proud to say that all 13 shire or city councils within my electorate are doing an earnest and admirable job.

I would like to draw on some reflections made last night by the member for Makin, who is a former mayor of the City of Salisbury in South Australia. He made some very pertinent points to this particular debate. He indicated that there were propositions in both 1974 and 1988 to change the Australian Constitution in order to give local government the recognition it, as he put it, quite rightly deserves. I certainly agree with him on that point. In 1974 the proposal was to change section 51 of the Constitution, related to the ability of the federal government to borrow money on behalf of local government. At the same time there was a proposition to amend section 96 in very similar terms to what are being proposed currently. This would have enabled the federal government at the time to fund local government directly. As the member for Makin provided us last night, the 1974 proposition failed.

The 1988 proposition was slightly altered. It was about inserting a new section 119A into the Australian Constitution, which effectively gave recognition to local government as a legitimate level of government in Australia; perhaps in a similar way to the state constitutions. And again, as the member for Makin pointed out and as we all know, it also failed.

Only eight of the 44 referenda since Federation have actually succeeded, and that is why this is too important to put to the people and allow it to fail now. The member for Makin also pointed out the court case of Pape v Commissioner of Taxation in 2009. That court case found that the Australian government did not have the authority to fund local government directly. As the member for Makin pointed out, this is not simply about doing what we think is morally right; it is also about ensuring the way this government and this country has operated for decades continues.

He pointed to Roads to Recovery, which is a wonderful program. We all know how important Roads to Recovery is in fixing up those local and regional roads to the state which we should have in this country of ours. Safety is of paramount importance and, unfortunately, we all know from the road toll statistics around our nation that the—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10 : 52 to 11:07

For a constitutional question to succeed, as the member for Makin pointed out last night, it not only needs to be passed by a majority of states but also needs to be passed by a majority of voters across the whole of the country. As he said, it is not easy—and indeed it is not easy.

I spoke to four mayors just this morning about this particular piece of legislation, and certainly about constitutional recognition of local government—firstly, the mayor of the largest council in my electorate, that being Wagga Wagga City Council. The mayor there, Rod Kendall, said that it is extremely important that local government be granted funding directly from the Commonwealth. He pointed out that local government is a highly respected level of government. He said that this is such an important issue, certainly when you consider that Wagga Wagga at the moment is negotiating with New South Wales for funding for a levy bank to protect the 63,000 population city from future flooding by the Murrumbidgee River. We experienced an evacuation of the central business district last March when the Murrumbidgee River came within centimetres of flooding the central part of the city. That would have been absolutely disastrous. The devastation in sheer dollar terms, let alone the human cost, would have been extraordinary. It just makes good sense that Wagga Wagga City Council receive the funding it needs to heighten, to lengthen, to strengthen the levy bank that has existed in the city since the early 1960s.

But at the moment it would be difficult for the Commonwealth government, if it did wish to fund that particular piece of infrastructure, to ensure that the full amount of money went straight to that particular project. As most mayors alluded to when I met them this morning, any money that is directed through the states to local government invariably gets creamed off. I also spoke to the general manager of Wagga Wagga City Council, Phil Pinyon. He talked about Roads to Recovery. He talked about the funding that local government receives under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, and of course that is always contingent on the states actually saying that there is enough damage for the Commonwealth to fund it.

The then Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, in her capacity as the Minister for Emergency Management, was fantastic last year when it came to funding local government areas within my electorate after there were devastating floods in February and March. She even allocated funding as a special one-off payment—grants of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child under the Centrelink program—to a village called Ungarie, in the Bland shire. The New South Wales government overlooked this particular community because there was not enough widespread damage throughout the Bland shire for it to actually get the state tick-off for Commonwealth assistance. Ms Roxon provided that funding and it was very much appreciated; it was tremendous.

The member for Greenway, the chair of this committee, wanted me to point out that the planning director of the city of Wagga Wagga, Andrew Crakanthorp, believes that there is enough time and enough will—I certainly agree with him there—and that it is way too important for us not to proceed with a referendum. Whether now is the time, whether there is enough time between now and 14 September to be able to do that given the fact that it is now six months to the day to the election—and certainly whether this legislation actually passes—we will see, but we need to be ready to say, 'All systems go,' if indeed it does. I know the member for Greenway thinks there is time enough; I know the government thinks there is time enough. Certainly this has bipartisan support, but whether or not we can convince the public, educate the public, and get the states on board in those six months remains to be seen.

John Dal Broi, Mayor of Griffith City Council, said that it is a big issue for grants to go straight to a local government rather than be filtered through the state. He said that by the time they get the funding from the Commonwealth via the states, it is watered down—and he is quite correct. Ian Chaffey, Mayor of Tumbarumba Shire Council, has been serving in local government, on and off, since 1977. He is a long-time mayor; he is a wonderful advocate for local government and for common sense. He talked about the states raking off money; he said, 'They will always take off a tidy slice, generally through bungling, incompetent bureaucrats.' He said that one of the biggest hurdles—to use his word—to get this through was to convince the public that it is necessary. He said, 'It's not a grab for power, but an opportunity for reform.' He said that local government in New South Wales is a wonderful thing and that his shire is doing its best to be able to use the money that it gets—and certainly there are a lot of road projects within Tumbarumba shire which do need fixing—but that the resistance, through all forms of reform and through all forms of change, is always difficult. He actually quoted Alvin Toffler's Future Shock from the 1970s to say that people just do not like change, they resist change. Certainly the states are resisting change. As I understand it, at the moment we are still talking and trying to work it through, but they are resisting this change because they see it as taking away some of their power.

I spoke to Rick Firman, who is the mayor of Temora Shire Council, and he said that he was quite nervous—'quite nervous' were the words he used—about whether there is sufficient time to be able to convince the public and to be able to get the states on board to get this referendum, if goes ahead on 14 September at the next federal election, passed. All councils have contributed to a campaign fund through their state shire associations and other organisations, overseen by the Australian Local Government Association, to try to get this particular referendum passed. I know there is a project in Temora Shire Council at the moment that they would love to get Commonwealth funding for—that is, a heavy vehicle bypass through that beautiful town of Temora. There was no better demonstration of the fact that a heavy vehicle bypass is needed than when on Friday, 23 November last year, at the opening of the Temora medical centre, some heavy duty, heavy-wheeled stock trucks—semi-trailers—passed through Hoskins Street at the time of the opening. Not only could we not hear ourselves think, but the slosh coming out of those cattle trucks, and the stench that it left, left something to be desired. There are some wonderful little cafes in Temora's main street and alfresco dining. It is difficult to eat a meal after a cattle truck has passed just metres away and you get the odour—

Honourable members interjecting—

You understand where I am coming from! It is difficult. Rick Firman and the general manager, Gary Lavelle, have been working tirelessly on getting environmental impact statements and plans drawn up and doing everything they can to get a heavy vehicle bypass. I have raised this with the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, Simon Crean. He is interested in the project. Temora is a great town and it needs this to happen. But if it happens under the current arrangements, and New South Wales takes its share, then the money that hopefully the Commonwealth would provide to such a vital piece of infrastructure would, unfortunately, as the Griffith mayor said, be watered down. Temora shire, like many councils in New South Wales, is at the moment facing the prospect of amalgamation. Resource sharing is a good thing and councils certainly do it at the moment. I know that Bland, Temora and Junee shire councils work hand in hand on so many things. But these are big areas and they do not need to be amalgamated. One of the reasons Bland Shire Council did not get funding from the Commonwealth last year is that it was so big, and Ungarie was so small that the devastation caused to it was not big enough for the whole shire to get that tick off.

This is an important piece of legislation. The mayors of my 13 local government areas are very keen to ensure that there is constitutional recognition of local government. However, with regard to whether this is the right time, this is too important a change to the Constitution to get wrong by not having public support and state support. That is why there was a dissenting report by coalition members. However, I do commend the member for Greenway for her report.

Debate adjourned.