Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue my speech from earlier today. This is particularly clear, given that it is plain from the previous two referenda on the issue that at least half the population are opposed to this change. This is Australia's fundamental document, the Constitution, and it should not be a political plaything. Furthermore, being the Constitution, both sides of the argument must be fairly and equally supported in funding and that must be seen to be the case. Yet, as we know, so far $21.6 million of public funds have been dedicated to the yes campaign, with zero dollars at this stage committed to the no campaign.

This referendum is bad for local communities. Funding will be given based on Canberra's priorities, not local community need. Councils may well be worse off. More Canberran funding means less state funding. Canberra's funding arrangements will mean extra regulations and bureaucracy which can only be paid for through local service cuts or rate increases, neither of which will help the many thousands of people and many businesses doing it tough in my electorate. Neither measure will make our country more competitive—not a single jot.

This debate is about the biggest question of all, the role of government. At its epicentre is a question of trust: does Canberra trust local councils, and can local councils trust Canberra? If we go by the track record of this government, the answer is no. We the Australian people cannot trust a single word they say. The issue of trust is also at play in the question of Canberra illiterati—disdainful and distrusting of the 'feral plebs' in the bush. Local government itself is created and maintained by state government legislation. The geographic extent of local government districts is determined by state governments; the powers of councils are determined by and conferred by state governments; the authority to make regulations is delegated and supervised by state governments; and the establishment of new councils and amalgamation of existing councils are matters for state governments. On both previous occasions the voters firmly rejected the proposals. Local government falls outside the range of matters appropriate to establish and maintain Australia's federal structure and, while very important, local government is a matter for the states and the state constitutions but not for the federal Constitution.

The discussions of the Constitutional Convention concluded that local government is a domestic responsibility of individual states and really has no significance for the proposed federation. Local government is recognised in the state constitutions of all six states. Despite the occasional problem and dissatisfaction among ratepayers and electors, local government has operated adequately for more than 110 years since Federation, as it did in the colonies before Federation when there was no Commonwealth Constitution. Local government would have performed no better even if it had been recognised in the Commonwealth Constitution. If the state government decides to handle rubbish removal, sewerage, water reticulation, road repairs, local transport, parks and gardens, planning issues and libraries itself, it should not be forbidden by the Commonwealth Constitution.

In 1974, the yes vote was only 46.85 per cent. In 1988, that dropped further to only 33.61 per cent. Note the trend was the unambiguous will of the people. Senator Bob Brown and Tony Windsor had given written, unconditional support to the idea of change prior to any hearings. David Mitchell, the former Tasmanian barrister and Tasmanian delegate to the 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention, says:

It is not possible to foresee the full implications that might arise in the future if the Constitution were to be changed in this way.

Constitutional law expert Professor Cheryl Saunders believes that too little time has been allowed for effective public debate—indeed, only eight weeks instead of 27 on the issue—in particular because there has been absolutely no public consultation on it. Western Australian Premier Barnett stated that the amendment goes well beyond the symbolic recognition that the WA government has indicated it would support.

The 16 May announcement of the wording provided for just two weeks of community consultation. Consultation on the bill did not need to be this perfunctory. The government's expert panel on constitutional recognition of local government made its recommendations in December 2011 and a specially convened parliamentary committee indicated as early as January this year that it would recommend the referendum go ahead.

The expert panel's consultation findings are revealing: 43 per cent of submissions came from local councils supporting the plan and 42 per cent came from private individuals opposing it. Public consultation takes on additional significance when a referendum is constitutionally mandated to win confidence in any planned change. Constitutional expert Professor Anne Twomey argued that the government's release of the proposed wording has misled the press, which republished it everywhere understandably presuming it was accurate. Professor Twomey argues the Constitution already provides the Commonwealth with a power to make grants to the states on the condition that all money is passed on to local government. That is the way Commonwealth funding has worked since the 1920s. Each state already has the necessary information about each of its local government bodies.

If local government were to be funded directly from Canberra instead, a new bureaucracy would be needed to collect and assess the information. It would need to develop a single funding formula to fit local government bodies across the country. It would also increase the administrative burden on local government bodies as they would have to provide different information dependent on two different funding formulas for two different levels of government. Let us protect the Commonwealth we have today and focus on the real issues of competitiveness, cost of living and protecting our borders.

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

Now you are about to witness the great difference between this side of the parliament and that side of the parliament because, while I respect the member for Tangney and his no case, I am now going to give you the yes case in favour of constitutional recognition of local government.

On this side there is a great variety of ideas. Often we disagree and we express our differences of opinion in the parliament. However, on that side of the parliament, unfortunately, you have to toe the party line or you get expelled from the Labor Party. That is the way it is.

Local government is the closest arm of government to the people. It is because of this that many of my coalition colleagues—and I stress 'many'—and I support the recognition of local government in the Constitution. Such a recognition will allow the federal government to foster a more direct relationship with local councils in order to better manage funding of critical infrastructure projects within local government areas.

I am pleased the government has announced there will be a referendum held on election day, 14 September 2013, which will allow the nation to decide if local government should be recognised in the Constitution of the nation and thereby make federal-to-council funding a much easier process. However, whilst I am pleased that the government has done this I do question the government's motives in doing this. I will refer to that later.

In discussing the local government referendum with the mayor of the Temora Shire, Councillor Rick Firman, he told me that it is of paramount importance that this bill and this referendum pass. If it is not passed, Councillor Firman argues, there will be one group which suffers most: the community—the citizens who this parliament and our counterparts in local government and, indeed, those in state parliaments are elected to represent. Critical infrastructure projects such as the Roads to Recovery projects, from which the Temora Shire was able to receive more than more than $2 million in funding, will be managed much more easily with the recognition of local government in the Constitution.

Councillor Firman says the direct funding of projects by the federal government would simplify the process and would mean that councils can focus on delivering the critical infrastructure upgrades rather than complicated, bureaucratic involvement with the states. He also believes that such a recognition would mean that well-performing councils such as his in Temora will be rewarded. He supports a move which will simplify the process.

Temora council is in surplus, thanks to due diligence of its nine councillors and the staff capably led by General Manager, Gary Lavelle.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

Councillor Firman does share some of the coalition's concerns. I hear the member for New England hear hear-ing the Temora Shire Council's due diligence, because he visited Temora in the wonderful electorate of Riverina only recently and he knows the wonderful work that Temora Shire is doing. He also knows the wonderful work that the shadow minister for local government, Senator Barnaby Joyce, is doing in this portfolio area. Chief amongst the concerns that the coalition has is the fact that the government only announced this referendum on 9 May, a mere four months before the election. Is that time to press the case for 'yes'? Time will tell. But it is, as the member for Tangney noted in his speech, perhaps not enough time. The Australian Electoral Commission would have preferred more time.

Mr Windsor interjecting—

The member for New England can disagree with me there but the AEC said that more time should have been allotted. I wonder, was this just another distraction by the Gillard Labor government? Time will tell.

As members are aware, of the 44 referenda since Federation, only eight have passed. If the Labor Party was genuine about this change it would have announced a referendum much earlier and would have ensured that there was a proper community-wide education campaign to demonstrate why the Constitution needs changing. The Electoral Commission agrees, warning Labor that there is 'a range of risks' in announcing a referendum so late in the electoral cycle. Referenda will only pass with a double majority—that is, a majority of people in a majority of states and with bipartisan support.

This change does have bipartisan support, even though we have heard the member for Tangney disagree and even though there are other members of the coalition who disagree and who are putting the 'no' case forward. But, overall, there is bipartisan support. This change does have that support. We all know that Labor has not properly consulted with the states, particularly my state of New South Wales.

In essence, the Labor Party has set up this constitutional change to fail. It is using it as a wedge issue, a distraction. Labor is using the constitutional recognition of local government to divert our attention from what this election should be all about—a referendum on the disastrous six years of government from this broken Labor Party. It is the responsibility of the government to demonstrate that this referendum proposal has a reasonable chance of succeeding at a general election. The coalition—or many members of the coalition—and I will be trying to help this get through. But there is not much we can do about the timing of its announcement by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, Minister Albanese—he took over, as you will recall, from Minister Crean during that recent failed spill.

At the federal council of the Nationals, held in Canberra just last Saturday, the party voted overwhelmingly in favour of supporting the constitutional recognition of local government.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

'Hear, hear!' I hear from the member for New England. It was a good federal council, too.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name them!

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

Name them? I will. I could name the many people who were there. Certainly the Nationals held a great council and they certainly look forward to change in New England! But I digress.

This motion was supported by my colleague Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes, and attracted some passionate debate from other National Party members, including the person who sits right next to me, the member for Hinkler, who spoke in favour of constitutional recognition of local government. I am pleased that this received overwhelming national support and I look forward to supporting the constitutional change when it is put to the people in September.

I am disappointed, however, that the Labor Party waited so long to announce it. As I say, I think that was certainly a distraction and I am disappointed that such an important change has all the tarnished hallmarks of the haste for which this Labor government has become so famous—or, should I say, infamous. Local government is the closest level of government to the people. It is important that this referendum passes. I support the recognition of local government and I commend it to the House.

In December 2011, the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government—and I understand the member for New England was part of this process—produced quite a tome as its final report.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was a senior member of it.

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

I am sure you had a worthy contribution to make, too, as you did to the regional Australia committee. That certainly benefited from your wisdom, even if the Australian people have not benefited from your support of this tarnished Labor government.

In this final report of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, there were some very interesting graphs and pie charts, one of which was titled 'Support by Regional/Urban (Percentages)'. Regionally, there was overwhelming support for the yes case—even more so in the remote areas. Interestingly, in the urban areas of Australia, the no case received the majority of the votes. The chart suggests it was somewhere near 60 per cent. That leads me to believe that a lot of people in city areas, in metropolitan electorates—I do not like saying this—just seem to exist. They just live their lives. They are good people and they contribute to tax revenue and all the rest of it. But they do not always know who their local councillors are. They do not get involved in local councils unless they really have to. A lot of them do not even know who their state members are, let alone their federal members.

When you come to the bush, so many more people are aware who their federal member is and who their state member is—and they get involved in local councils. There is a lot more media attention. The local newspapers, radio stations and television stations talk about the parish pump stuff of potholes in roads, garbage services and all those great local services which we know our local councils do such a fantastic job of delivering. In my Riverina electorate, there are 13 local government areas.

Ms Hall interjecting—

I hear the member for Shortland agreeing with me. She is certainly agreeing with the—I do not know what she is saying, but I am sure she is agreeing with the yes case

She is hand signalling she has five in her electorate.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted you to finish up.

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

I am not going to finish, because I really think it is important that we push on with the yes case debate. While the member for Shortland would like me to finish, and while she would like to gag me as Labor did with the education bill earlier today, silencing me and nine of my colleagues, they are not going to silence me on this. I really want to emphasise the yes case.

I know that my colleague Senator Barnaby Joyce, hopefully the next member for New England after the 14 September election, very much supports the yes case. When he did a doorstop interview at Parliament House on 16 May he said that local government must stand up and mount their very best case. He is right. The Australian Local Government Association has put a lot of money into pushing the yes case. That money has come from councils and that money could have been, some might argue, better spent on the delivery of local roads, fixing potholes, and doing all the great things such as providing childcare services that local government does. Local government knows that it is so important to get recognition in the Constitution that it has spent a considerable sum of money pushing the yes case. As Senator Joyce said, it is now for local government to take up the cudgels, because it is about the future of local government. And he is right. Senator Joyce said:

I don’t know whether political involvement on a grand scale from Canberra is going to be of the sort of assistance that local government wants. I think the Australian people are going to be very interested in the discussion local government has with the Australian people on why they see this, what I even say, a form of housekeeping, is brought into place so you can continue with funding such things as Roads to Recovery, Black Spot and future Coalition policy, such as Bridges to Recovery.

They are all important things for local councils.

I know in Gundagai shire at the moment they have a huge problem with Gobarralong bridge, and they are lobbying for state funding for the repair of that bridge. Many of the farmers in that district are having to go the long way around because B-doubles are no longer able to traverse that piece of vital infrastructure. I know that Gundagai shire and certainly the mayor there, Abb McAlister, would very much appreciate receiving federal funding for Gobarralong bridge. Unfortunately, they will have to rely on either their own funds, of which there are not many, or state financial assistance to rebuild that hundred-year-plus bridge to a state where it can be used—

Ms Hall interjecting—

I only have a minute and 43 seconds to go. It is hard to read a bit of scribble when you are trying to push the yes case for something that is so important.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to show some passion.

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

Yes, show some passion for local government areas and local councils. Of the 13 local government areas in my electorate, 13 are supporting the yes case. It is vital for them.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

I know the local government areas within New England are also very supportive of local government recognition. I know of the work the member for New England has done in this place and I do acknowledge that. I also acknowledge the work that Senator Joyce has done as shadow minister for local government. He also said it is very important that we note that within the coalition there will be a no case mounted—we heard that from the member for Tangney—but it is crucial that we get this through.

Local governments have spent money to push the case for the yes vote. That expenditure needs to be recognised in the context of the need to get people to vote in favour of this proposal. It is going to be a tough ask. Federal Labor has not allowed enough time to mount a good, educational campaign sufficient to get this across the line. We know that the success rate of referenda is not high, but may I again emphasise to the people of Australia—certainly those who rely on good, grassroots representation—that there ought to be constitutional recognition of local government.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very aware of the fact that we have very little time to speak in this debate and I will keep my contribution extremely short. The reason that I seek to speak on this particular piece of legislation is, firstly, to express my support for it and also to share with the parliament a letter I have just received from my local council, which I will seek leave to table after I have completed my contribution to this debate.

My local council, Lake Macquarie City Council, has contacted me by mail—I received a letter from the mayor—requesting that I support this legislation. The mayor pointed out to me that it is critical for the city of Lake Macquarie and communities around Australia. She goes through and highlights the reasons this is so important. She highlights that the council made a number of submissions to the joint select committee and the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government and that they passed resolutions through council confirming their support for financial recognition by the change to section 96 of the Constitution. She concludes by asking me to vote in favour of the bill, saying that it is a crucial step and vital for local government.

I strongly support the legislation for all the reasons that have been highlighted by the Mayor of Lake Macquarie and for many other reasons. It is about ensuring the viability of local government and better services for the people that I represent in this parliament. I seek leave to table the letter from the mayor of Lake Macquarie.

Leave granted.

I thank the House.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak briefly to the bill before the House, the Constitution Amendment (Local Government) 2013. As most people would know, it was part of the agreement in the formation of a minority government that a referendum be held on the financial recognition of local government in the Constitution, so I am personally very pleased that the government is proceeding with this. I am pleased to a certain extent about the bipartisan support that exists in this chamber and in the other place, but I am a little bit disappointed in the sort of dual attitudes that the coalition seems to have in relation to this—almost expressing the view that they hope it fails even though they are supportive of it, or they say they are supportive of it.

There is an argument out there that there needed to be more time. The quite simple amendment I think embraces nine words in the Constitution. It is a very simple phrase that is going to be placed in the Constitution. It is being put there because of various High Court challenges and legal advice that local government, if it is not recognised, will not, in certain circumstances, be able to receive direct funding from the Commonwealth government.

This is not about eroding the powers of the states; it is about ensuring the viability of very good programs. The coalition should be right on this and full of enthusiasm and not just leaving it to local government to promote itself. All of us in this building should be promoting this. The coalition's original program of Roads to Recovery is an excellent program. It is very fair, it gives local government areas the capacity to determine where the money is spent, everybody knows how the formula works and everybody gets a fair share. That is direct funding from the federal government to local government. That is under threat—with the High Court challenges and the legal opinion that is out there, the capacity of the Commonwealth government to fund Roads to Recovery, for instance, and many other programs, would be under threat.

The financial recognition is solely about that. It is solely about allowing what we have taken for granted in the past to occur in the future, because there is very real legal opinion that a challenge could be upheld if we do not in fact change the Constitution. I was on both the committees—the Jim Spigelman committee and the parliamentary committee—that looked at this particular issue. I have never been involved in local government, but I think it is a very, very important aspect of governance in this country, particularly in country areas. The member for Riverina talked about the 13 councils in his area. He is quite right to say that in my electorate all the councils are very, very supportive.

There is another reason for the support of the financial recognition of local government. I am not sure whether others in the debate have actually addressed this. If you think back to the Rudd years and the global financial crisis, there will be varying opinion in this building as to the response to that crisis. Personally I think one of the great things that did happen was in relation to the stimulus payments. The decision was made to stimulate the economy financially, and do it quickly and with some degree of largesse. I think most economists would agree with that process. Other countries in the world did it quickly and were able to come through the global financial crisis reasonably well, but none of them as well as Australia did. How do you apply stimulus payments to an economy to actually get the money to flow through the economy and have all the economic impacts when the private sector is stalling? People may remember that the mining boom was in fact stalling. There is a rumour running around the parliament that we got through the global financial crisis because of the mining industry. That is not correct. There was a gap there that needed stimulus payments and the government, the parliament, actually acted upon those payments.

The reason I mention that is that one of the most successful avenues for stimulating the economy was local government. There were massive payments made. Local government spent that money fairly quickly. It had an impact on the regional economies. It had an impact on the capacity of local government to update itself in terms of some its infrastructure et cetera. But the money was spent right across the nation so there was a successful injection of funds. I do not think anybody from any political persuasion would argue that the money was wasted in any shape or form. It was part of a legitimate process between the Commonwealth government of the day and local government.

The reason I raise that is that there are strategic reasons why we need to recognise local government in a financial sense in the Constitution. If we ever had the need to stimulate the economy again and state governments were of varying political persuasions, the argument some people would put up is, 'Look, you can do all this through the state governments anyway; if there is a need to do something you can do it through the state governments.' If you want to run Roads to Recovery after it has been challenged successfully in the High Court, you can do it through state governments, besides the political implications that would engender in terms of fairness et cetera.

I think there is a very simple reason for it: if you need the Commonwealth government to stimulate the economy, or the federal government of the day has to have a direct input into local government in a non-political sense, if you go through the states and the states have different political persuasions, you run the risk of all of the politics that we see between state and Commonwealth governments coming into play. So there are very strategic reasons why that needs to be done.

If, in fact, the arrangements that we fear in terms of the legal challenges had been in place when the global financial crisis occurred, the Rudd government may well not have been able to stimulate the economy through local government. It may have been blocked and played with in terms of various state political persuasions. The success of those stimulus payments was that a decision was made quickly and an injection of funds occurred. We were one of the few countries in the world that were able to get through without a recession.

Many people in here will still argue that there was too much, too little, too this or too that. The fact is that it worked and one of the reasons it did work it was that the federal government of the day had the capacity to have a direct and quick relationship with local government. That is a strategic reason that we need to look very closely at. I think all of us, irrespective of who is going to be the federal governments of the future, need to be part of that particular process.

I would like to thank a lot of the people who participated in the various committee processes that did take place and Jim Spigelman, in particular. I think he did an extraordinary job. I thank ministers Crean and Albanese for the way in which they have conducted the processes. Once you start thanking people obviously you leave people out, but I thank the member for Parkes who has been involved in this process as well. From a country perspective, he has been a sounding board and judge because of his local government background. He has been a judge of the need for this to happen.

I encourage all political parties, particularly the coalition who say they are on side—but are sort of hedging their bets as, if it fails, it will be because of the Labor government and because we did not have time to explain what nine words meant. I have a little more faith in the capacity of the voter to actually understand more than one line. I know we have had the politics of bumper stickers run in this place—stop this, stop that, no to something else. But I think the average voter really does understand, particularly in country areas where they have seen the benefits of some of the direct relationships between Commonwealth governments and local government. Hopefully all of us of various political persuasions will get out there and actually say this is not something to be afraid of—this is putting in place what you have expected and what you thought was there. It is to make sure that a legal challenge cannot take away what we all believe to be the status quo.

Rather than looking at arguments such as, 'I wish we had more time', I think there is plenty of time to develop these arguments and get them into the community. The Australian Local Government Association and the state based organisations have money that has been put away for over a year that is ready to go in terms of promoting the yes campaign. So I would encourage all of us to get behind this program.

Finally, I thank the Prime Minister, who was a signatory to the arrangement that a referendum on this issue would occur. She signed that document with the member for Lyne and myself. I thank her for adhering to the agreement, as she has done very diligently on many of the other programs that were within the agreement.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on this Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) 2013 or, as it has been popularly called today, the constitutional recognition of local government. I would just like to make a statement at the beginning to clear my conscience on this. I am not here to snarl or degrade the states. I am very much a states man. I think we have a unique Constitution. We had six colonies or states. They spent 10 years putting the Constitution together. It has worked very well and its bastardisation over time has been at the hands of non-constitutional measures that all of us politicians have had a hand in. Periodically, you have to go back to the public and get those things straightened out.

I do not want it said that Paul Neville was setting up something to denigrate the states; quite the contrary. I am an advocate for the removal of overlap and duplication, and we have heaps of it under governments of both political persuasions, state and federal, and it has been going on for far too long. As a young man in the National Party—it might even have been called the Country Party at the time—I saw Charles Cutler, the then Deputy Premier of New South Wales, and John McEwen have a blazing fight over, when it really got down to the short strokes, whether the corridors at the Dubbo high school should be four feet six inches or four feet nine inches wide. That was the sort of duplication that came into many of these measures.

I would quote my leader and colleague Warren Truss especially for those people who are seeing all sorts of devious people behind trees in this exercise. He said that in Australia local government authorities are created under state legislation and the proposed referendum in question will have no impact on this status. The wording of the proposed changes specifically restricts the Commonwealth to making payments only to local government bodies formed by the law of a state. I think that is critical; it nails it right from the beginning.

If you want to go back to earlier referenda, you will note back in 1974 the wording was different. It talked about the Commonwealth's powers to borrow money and make financial assistance grants to local government, which was quite a different proposition in 1974. In 1974, 46 per cent voted yes and only one state voted yes, so it did not get up. And when you come to the last time this was put before the Australian public, in 1988, the question was around the wording of 'full constitutional recognition of local government'. The public on that occasion were even more definitive. That referendum went down 66 per cent to 33 per cent, with no state giving the majority. So you can see the Australian public want to see local government empowered, but they do not want to create a third monster. They want local government to stay within the bounds of the laws of the states.

I would like to congratulate some members and some former colleagues—I see the member for New England with me here today, and elsewhere are the member for Ryan and the member for Braddon and former members Senator Bob Brown and Ross Cameron—who participated in the Spigelman report. I think the Spigelman report is a very interesting document and I recommend everyone, assuming this is passed today, to have a good look at it before this referendum. It is not going to be an easy ask because of those who put submissions to Spigelman, it was 53 to 45 in favour of doing this—53 to 45 is not a big majority.

Another interesting thing was that the capital cities were not all that terribly enamoured about it. You can understand why. Why would they want more power for local government? They have highways and expressways and motorways and opera houses and art galleries and beautiful harbours and all sorts of facilities—beautiful hospitals and tourist attractions, opera houses and the like. People in the country do not have that, and it is what their local councils provide that become the foundation for the quality of life in those towns. That is sometimes forgotten. So when you go back to Spigelman and look at what happened there, in submissions that came from regional areas about 60 per cent were in favour of this measure; in remote areas, which have even less still, up to 70 per cent were in favour.

But when you look at the submissions from the cities, the urban areas and the larger cities, only about 30 per cent were in favour. So you can see there is a cry out there from regional and remote Australia for a better quality of government, and you can understand that. Local government is dismissed sometimes as the third tier of government, but it is the form of government that is closest to the people. And if you go back in human history, it was the first form of government that regulated the tribes, that regulated the small communities, before nations even formed and played significant roles in the running of great nations of Europe, for example.

The other interesting thing, and parliament needs to be on its toes about this, is that if you again go back to Spigelman and look at the support state-by-state, you will find that Queensland and Victoria are not in favour—they are two big states not in favour—and the majority in Western Australia and Tasmania are not all that flash either. What you can assume from that is this is going to be no pushover. And I am somewhat critical of the government in that I think they did not recognise how important it is to get this thing launched earlier. It should have been launched three or perhaps even six months ago so that people would have a good chance to understand the dynamics of what was happening. A lot of people, and even members in this House, think that this is an erosion of states' rights, that we are doing it for the wrong reasons and it is not really financial, it is going to be other things.

But, again, we go back to Spigelman, and we find that overall 46 per cent of those who put in submissions said it should be recognised on the basis of financial matters; 30 per cent said for symbolic reasons; and 11 per cent said for democratic reasons. On taking the councils out it went up even higher: 64 per cent said financial; 21 per cent said symbolic; and 25 per cent said democratic. There is a dynamic there that could easily push this overboard. I think the government was unwise not to get into the explanation of this earlier.

We all know from the history of referenda in Australia that if the Australian public has the least doubt then they will not abide it. If one major party opposes it they will not abide it. If one or two states become virulently against it they will not abide it. And, as we see from the last two referenda on this subject, although the arguments were reasoned they went too far, and out of those two referenda only one state carried it in one referendum—not a very convincing result. That is the first thing I wanted to say.

There is adequate evidence that this could be brought in on a financial basis only and not to empower local government beyond that point. It will still be the child of the state government. What it will do is streamline the system of payments and since the Keating and Howard governments, in particular, a lot of money has supposedly gone directly to local governments. But when it has been filtered through the states it does not always get there in the best order.

I will tell you a little story: it is not quite on local government, but it illustrates a point I want to make. The federal government during the Howard years made a grant available to country high schools for assembly blocks. It was a great idea because a lot of these high schools developed over time; they were grade 10 high schools and then they became grade 12 high schools. This particular school got a full Commonwealth grant of half a million dollars. I was handed the paperwork for that. About $110,000 of that half-million dollars went into design and architecture and about $130,000 went into—would you believe—QBuild, which is effectively the Queensland state department of works. In other words, on that half-million-dollar job the state took $240,000. But the sad thing about it was that it was not something built in that town with local tradesmen; it was a prefabricated building that came off the shelf of a factory in Brisbane or the Gold Coast, travelled on the back of seven trucks, was put on a simple slab and was put together like a meccano set. The state government took $240,000 out of half a million dollars.

We come now to this local government thing. There is a facility for the Commonwealth to take moneys like this direct to local government. I think we can get a bigger bang for the taxpayers' bucks—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see the Leader of the House there, who has transport in his portfolio. I think we can see a lot more bridges and roads in shires and towns. I think the direct funding would be a great fillip to local authorities.

The other thing this will do—and there will be an element of symbolism in it—is that it will say to people that local government deserves to be, if not in a controlling position, respected. I know my Labor colleagues will not like this, but I think the Beattie and Bligh governments absolutely emasculated local government in Queensland. They did things like not allowing councillors to stand for state government elections without resigning. In fact, they tried to apply it to federal elections, but the High Court overturned it. The High Court said, 'None of that; you don't touch the feds.' They took away things like a 40 per cent subsidy on sewage and water and put that back onto local government. That became a huge impost on the rates of, at that time, 150 local authorities in Queensland. It was a huge impost.

Had those sorts of moneys, and perhaps a refinement of the Federal Assistance Grants, been considered part of this the local authorities would have greater authority in where they put their money. They, too, would get better bang for their sewage and water bucks, which are big components of a country town or a provincial city. In fact, they are sometimes the key to unlocking industry and residential development. So, while I am critical of the fact that this has taken a while to come about, I think it is a good measure, and I support it for the reasons I have given.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise as the local government minister to support the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013. Local governments provide services and facilities which play an invaluable role in the daily lives of all Australians, and yet it is currently not mentioned in the Constitution. Recognising the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and local governments simply recognises an existing reality. Drive around any suburb or town and we will see there is almost certainly a town hall, a sports oval, a new wing to the local library or a rejuvenated main street that was built with Commonwealth help.

In December 2008, I was at the Local Government Constitutional Summit, which was convened by the Australian Local Government Association. The conference resolved:

to ensure the quality of planning and delivery of services and infrastructure provided to all Australians, and the ongoing sustainability of local government, any constitutional amendment put to the people in a referendum by the Australian Parliament … The power of the Commonwealth to directly fund local government should be explicitly recognised …

The idea that this referendum has been sprung on anybody is, quite frankly, absurd. That constitutional convention was in 2008. It was attended by me and the relevant shadow minister, who I think was at the time Mr Truss. But it was certainly a bipartisan event, and from that point we provided funding. In June 2010, at the Australian Local Government Association national conference here in Canberra, I made an announcement of seed funding to go out and consult about constitutional recognition of local government with all the local government bodies around the country.

The Attorney-General has gone through and outlined the bill in some detail. The government proposes a modest amendment which would add 17 words to section 96 of the Constitution. This amendment will recognise local government by allowing the Commonwealth parliament to grant financial assistance directly to local government bodies. This reflects the fact that the Commonwealth has partnered with local governments to deliver local roads, sporting fields, libraries, child care, community services and much more. Importantly, the proposed change to the Constitution does not diminish the role of the states with regard to the administration of local government. Recognition in the Constitution does not alter the fact that local governments are created by and accountable to the states. We do not propose to alter those relationships. What we do propose is to recognise the reality that in Australia we have three tiers of government.

In the last five years the Commonwealth has partnered with local government to deliver over 6,000 community projects such as libraries, indoor and outdoor sporting facilities, pools, walking trails, roads and bridges. I take up the point that was made by the member for Hinkler. I give a very practical example which reinforces the view that he holds that there are some circumstances whereby local governments can deliver infrastructure cheaper and more efficiently than state or territory governments.

I give the practical example of the Ironsley River bridge in Far North Queensland. The Ironsley River bridge was an issue that was campaigned for by the member for Kennedy not just for years but, according to the member for Kennedy—and I never doubt him—for decades. At each opportunity, funding was knocked back. The Ironsley River bridge, which went under when there was flooding, meant that communities around Normanton and Karumba in the Gulf Country were isolated and had to have food, supplies and medical assistance choppered in at enormous expense, but no government at any level had made the tough decision to invest and fix the problem permanently at this particular site.

The state government had costed it at $31 million. Through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program—this grant was criticised by the National Audit Office, by the way—we received a submission from the relevant council that sought, from memory, in the order of $17 million for that project. It was almost half what the state government said it would cost. They built the bridge, fixed the problem and then came back and said: 'We've got money left over. Do you mind if we build another bridge with the money that's left over?' And they did that efficiently, employing local labour and making a difference to that local community. There were no political votes in it in a party political sense. It was the right thing to do by those communities that have been isolated when there have been events such as floods.

So I certainly confirm the views of the member for Hinkler that this is particularly important to people in regional Australia. There is no doubt that the relationship between local government and regional communities is absolutely vital. Sometimes it can be the main employer, and it is the link that holds a community together—much more so than in an inner-urban community in a city such as where I live in Sydney. So it is a vital role. I acknowledge the fact that many of the strongest supporters of this referendum are people such as Senator Barnaby Joyce, the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Hinkler and other National Party representatives. They are very strong in their support of this referendum.

The Commonwealth Roads to Recovery Program alone has delivered $1.75 billion in funding over the last five years. That is supporting safe and efficient roads right across the country. It is important that the modern reality of governance in Australia be recognised. I have heard a lot of completely false arguments against the common-sense piece of housekeeping that this piece of constitutional change represents. It is surely common sense that the Constitution, our most important legal document, should actually represent the reality of modern Australia, including our governance structures, and that is what this referendum will do.

So I urge all members to campaign in their local communities. Local government will certainly be campaigning itself for a yes vote in this referendum. There will be all sorts of nonsense arguments that come up, I am sure. I have not seen any valid ones yet. I have seen one legal academic, who clearly had not even bothered to read the bill that is before the House and the proposed changes, jumping at something that was a nonissue. Common sense tells you this should be supported, and I ask all Australians to say yes on 14 September.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions to this important debate, and in particular my colleague the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government. The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 will make a small but important amendment to the Constitution by including an express statement that the Commonwealth can grant financial assistance to local government. This would include assistance for community and other services.

Local government bodies play an increasingly important role in our system of governance. From their establishment in providing basic services such as rubbish and roads, local governments now deliver a range of services that make our communities so livable. From local swimming pools and water parks to libraries, book loan vans, aged-care hostels, disability programs, arts festivals, galleries and tourism promotion, local governments are an essential facet in our lives. That they receive no mention in the Constitution and that there is no express provision for local government bodies to receive financial assistance directly from the Commonwealth is increasingly difficult to justify.

As speakers have pointed out, many of these council services are provided in partnership with the federal government. This has been common practice for decades. As I made clear in my second reading speech, and as the explanatory memorandum to the alteration bill also makes very clear, this proposed change will not diminish the role of the states with regard to the administration of local government. Recognition in the Constitution does not alter the fact that local governments are created by and are accountable to state governments. This is about saying yes to important community benefits from the partnership between federal and local spheres of government.

Of course, history shows that a referendum has the best chance of success when it has bipartisan support at the federal level. I thank the opposition for its support for the bill and encourage coalition members to join the campaign for a yes vote in September. It was very strange to hear the member for Mitchell imply that supporting recognition for local government somehow contradicts Liberal philosophy. He should try to explain that to the leader of his own party, who supports this change to our Constitution. We have heard considered and thoughtful contributions from across the chamber: from the member for Parkes, the member for Ryan and the member for Riverina. Of course, they represent the position of the federal opposition, which is to support this amendment. We have also heard a measured and helpful contribution from the member for New England and a like contribution from the member for Hinkler. The member for Hinkler rightly pointed out the significant differences in the process which has been followed in relation to this proposal to amend the Constitution compared with the previous proposals which related to local government, in 1974 and 1988.

It is only when members try to drag this debate down into party political attacks that we see the no case emerge. The member for Hughes, for example, labelled the proposal that has been brought forward by the government 'deeply flawed'. I would remind the member that this wording was first proposed by the 2012 expert panel led by the Hon. James Spigelman AC, QC, and subsequently endorsed by a parliamentary joint select committee comprising members from across the political spectrum. It has been drafted by the First Parliamentary Counsel and reviewed by the Solicitor-General. I prefer to pursue an amendment considered by these experts and informed by broad-ranging community consultation, rather than any alternative proposal from the member for Hughes.

The member for Mitchell also made the claim during debate that the government has committed $21.6 million to a campaign to support the yes vote at the referendum. This is simply not true. What the government has committed to—and this is set out in the budget papers—is $10 million to fund a neutral, non-partisan civics education campaign. That campaign will provide the community with information about the Constitution and the process for considering any change in the roles of the Commonwealth, the states and local government, and about the terms of the proposed alteration. This education campaign will not advocate either a yes vote or a no vote but will help ensure electors are aware of the issue and in a position to make an informed vote—which brings me to the contribution of the member for Tangney. He is not content to simply call this change 'anti-Liberal'; he calls it 'un-Australian'. I quote from the member:

That is not the Liberal way and that is not the Australian way. This bill in essence is un-Australian. This bill would enable the diminution of local sovereignty and democracy, and no Liberal member should, or can, respectably support less democracy.

That the member is so willing to question the love for country and support for democracy of anyone supporting the referendum question, including members of this parliament, gives a clear indication of the feverish no campaign that is planned by some. Of course, the member for Tangney is completely wrong to suggest that the bill would diminish local sovereignty or democracy. Local government is free to reject any offer of assistance from the federal government.

In stark contrast to these isolated voices, when I introduced this bill I noted that it is actually part of a truly democratic process. There is no better way to honour the democratic society in which we live than to engage in constructive discussion and decision on the structure of our government. The referendum will give the people of Australia the opportunity to decide whether 17 words should be added to the Constitution. These words will recognise the modern reality that the Commonwealth grants financial assistance to local government for a variety of important community and other services. I thank the House for its support for this important proposal for constitutional amendment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.