Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

There has been a lot of bluster in both the conduct of the inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 and in the debate that we have had today. It is a lot of feigned anger and a feigned defence of this thing that we call democracy. It has been interesting for those of us in Queensland to watch the behaviour of some of the coalition senators, first of all, in the conduct of the inquiry—I think Senator Moore very eloquently put that on the record—but also during the debate that we have had today. Can I say, as every other Labor senator in this debate has said, that we support this legislation. We announced that support for this legislation when the legislation was proposed, because it actually reflects Labor’s position on the issue of forced amalgamations.

We need to go back over the history that brings us to this point. Late in 2004 the Local Government Association of Queensland adopted a policy to promote discussion on the need to consider reform to local government in our state to ensure long-term sustainability of Queensland’s local government. That resulted in what is called the Size, Shape and Sustainability process, which was agreed to by the Local Government Association of Queensland, supported by the state government and actually funded by the state government—funding of, I think, $25 million over five years. That was strongly supported by local government itself and also by constituents who live in those various local government areas. The reason for that support was that that process allowed for analysis of the financial situation of each council, it looked at opportunities for boundary realignments and for cooperative arrangements that would cross local government boundaries in order to save much-needed ratepayers’ funds. But, most importantly, there was strong community engagement at each step in the Size, Shape and Sustainability process. That process then progressed.

It is extremely unfortunate in my view that, on 17 April of this year, the government of Queensland abandoned what is called the SSS process. That engendered real concern in the community and real concern from local government that the process they had originally embarked upon was being shelved. Then, as we know, the Queensland government established the Local Government Reform Commission which was made up of a range of individuals from all walks of political life—people who had been in the state government from the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party—all of whom had some interest in local government. They brought down their report and recommended a considerable number of amalgamations in Queensland. The Queensland government, as we know, then adopted almost all of those recommendations and the process of forced amalgamations began.

On 17 May of this year, Mr Rudd, the leader of the federal Labor Party, made it clear that he did not support the process as adopted by the Queensland Labor government. He went to Townsville and spoke very clearly and very openly about why federal Labor was not supporting forced amalgamations in our state. Mr Rudd said, ‘I said to Mr Beattie it would be good if he reviewed his approach to this amalgamations process and put forward other ways in which economic and financial efficiencies can be achieved. My view broadly is that local voice and local choice is critical when it comes to the future of local government across of Australia as well as here in Queensland. My other view is this,’ he said:

If we are going to come up with any amalgamation proposals, the important way forward is then to test them through the democratic process of a local referendum. I think that is a further second test which should be applied.

I remind the Senate that that statement was made on 17 May of this year. So, federal Labor has been consistent in its position in opposition to forced amalgamations. We then had, I think, a very unfortunate position where the Queensland government actually did bring in legislation to say that if any local government undertook a plebiscite, their tenure as a local government would cease and they would then not be involved in any of the preliminary and pre-amalgamation discussions, clearly to the detriment of their local government constituents.

So that is why we are here. The federal government said that they would bring in legislation that would ensure that plebiscites could be held and that they would be funded by the Commonwealth government so that a local voice would be known. We reiterated our support at that time for that process to go forward. We also supported the establishment of the inquiry that was undertaken, and that was a useful thing to do. But I found it somewhat intriguing that this piece of legislation—a piece of legislation which is very simple, clear and not complex at all—warranted a three-day inquiry, whereas the intervention in the Northern Territory, which was a hugely expensive and life-changing proposal, warranted a one-day inquiry. We understand and support the need for the intervention in the Northern Territory to be quick and to happen quickly, but it is intriguing to note that the intervention in the Northern Territory, for example, warranted one day of inquiry, whereas this legislation of three full pages warranted a full three-day inquiry. But, having said that, I support the fact that we did it. I was pleased that the inquiry was able to travel to my home town of Cairns and we were able to hear evidence, particularly from people in the Douglas Shire, and people from the Northern Peninsula Area and the Torres Strait.

I was somewhat disappointed, though, that we only had a very short time to question the Australian Electoral Commission and the Department of Finance and Administration. Because other witnesses went over time, and that is fine, we did not have very long at all to speak with the AEC and to get an understanding of what their processes were, and would be, once this legislation has been passed. I was concerned in the short time that we did have to question the AEC that they indicated that the previously announced date for the plebiscite of 20 October was, to paraphrase the AEC, not achievable—essentially Mr Dacey said that that was certainly not going to be achieved. He indicated that, subsequent to the passage of this legislation through the parliament and royal assent being given, they would then wait for requests for ballots from various local authorities in the state of Queensland. Mr Dacey said very clearly that his priority was going to be the conduct of the federal election—that the federal election had priority. Whilst we are all very comforted by that, and we would not want to see the federal election processes compromised in any way, I am a bit concerned that people who live in the affected local government areas have an absolute expectation that this plebiscite will be conducted in a reasonable amount of time. There is no clarity—maybe Senator Fifield might be able to provide us with some—about when these ballots will be conducted. Mr Dacey did indicate that he expected, and it was his preference, that the most economical way and the way that he would like to conduct the ballot is through a postal ballot rather than an attendance ballot.

The other concern that I have is that I am unsure of what the process is going to be for the writing of the yes/no cases. Who is going to be asked to undertake that piece of work and how will they be vetted? We had some very good evidence from a past president of the Australian Local Government Association about the work they did for an amalgamation in his area. I hope that the AEC takes that advice on board.

I will now go to the effects of amalgamation and my concerns for my communities about what they might be. I will first turn to the Douglas Shire and quote from Councillor Mike Berwick, who is the Mayor of the Douglas Shire. He said to the committee:

Part of Australia’s heritage is regional and rural communities. Let’s look after them. Let’s keep them empowered. They have their own character; they are all different. Once you start joining us all together into big governments we start to lose our identity—and we are upset about it.

I concur with Councillor Berwick when it comes to the question of the Douglas Shire, but I need to place on the record that I am not opposed per se to amalgamations of local government. In fact, in February and March of 1995 I stood for local government and was elected to the amalgamated Cairns City Council. The reason that I stood for that election was that I live in the former Cairns City Council area but the concerns I had about development and the impacts of development in my community were in fact happening in the old Mulgrave Shire. Once those two councils were amalgamated, there was an opportunity to influence the direction of development in my region. I supported the amalgamation of Cairns City and Mulgrave shire, stood for election and was in fact elected. So I am not opposed per se to amalgamations, but I think we have to be careful about what we do and the areas that we do pull together in amalgamations of councils.

When the Local Government Reform Commission looked at the Douglas Shire I think they made a mistake. In every principle, every respect and every one of the terms of reference that the Local Government Reform Commission was given, the answer should have been that Douglas Shire should not be amalgamated with the Cairns City Council. It is geographically isolated. I think many of us have driven the road from Cairns to the Douglas Shire. It is not connected and never will be—I hope—connected by an urbanised area. It has a completely different catchment area. It has pressures on potential development not experienced by the Cairns City Council.

I was so concerned, once the Local Government Reform Commission brought down its findings, that I wrote on 3 August this year to the Premier of our state—and I am happy to table the document. I gave a number of reasons that supported my position that the Local Government Reform Commission had erred in recommending the amalgamation of Cairns with the Douglas Shire. I reminded the Premier that the Douglas Shire’s planning instrument and the processes used to achieve it won the Planning Institute of Australia’s Queensland planning award. I reminded the Premier that the shire is home to a number of land uses which, if not treated appropriately, could be seen as conflicting. ‘It is a credit’, I said, ‘to the councils and its officers that the planning instrument has received the support of the community and the recognition of the institute.’ I made the point that the Douglas Shire has successfully promoted community engagement with its constituency.

The residents of the Douglas Shire are a very diverse group of people. We have a very important sugarcane industry and we have an extraordinarily important tourism industry. We also have the reality that the Wet Tropics World Heritage area of both the Daintree township region—which is the Daintree National Park—and the area north of the Daintree River, which is listed as a World Heritage area, require consistent and vigilant planning instruments to ensure that we do not lose the goose that laid the golden egg. The Douglas Shire, with all those seemingly conflicted constituencies, has been able to come up with a planning instrument which everyone agrees with—and that is no mean feat.

The final point I made to the Premier was that, if the ratepayers of the Douglas Shire were paying more for their basic services—for their roads, their rubbish collection and their water supply—it would diminish my argument. But the ratepayers of the Douglas Shire pay less than similar land users in the Cairns City Council area. I was concerned and I wrote to the Premier about it and I am still of the view that the Local Government Reform Commission erred when it came to the Douglas Shire.

I was pleased to see Queensland respond to the pressure from both the Noosa Shire and the Douglas Shire and to the concerns in their communities about the loss of their iconic status. The Queensland government has spoken with Mayor Berwick and Mayor Abbot of Noosa Shire requesting them to input into what is going to be, as I understand it, legislation that will protect the iconic nature of both of those areas. But I can also say that I was fairly disappointed to read in the Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette last week that four of the councillors of the Douglas Shire have decided not to support involvement in this so-called iconic legislation. That is very disappointing, but it is interesting to note—given Senator Joyce’s very welcome defence of the environmental values of the Douglas Shire—that most of those four councillors who voted against involvement in the iconic legislation are aligned with the conservative side of politics, particularly the Liberal Party.

In the short time I have left I want to go to issues affecting the outer islands of the Torres Strait and the Northern Peninsula Area. There is strong opposition to amalgamation in that area, and I acknowledge that. I say, though, that there is a piece of work that has to be undertaken and undertaken quite quickly before amalgamations will occur, and that is to deal with the question of the ownership of enterprise. I am concerned with the loss of CDEP in the northern peninsula area that we have got two processes running in tandem that could end up in a disaster. Currently the five local government shires based in the Northern Peninsula Area all own enterprises and those enterprises are essentially staffed by CDEP workers. CDEP, as you know, is going to be taken away from those communities, and there is a real concern that those enterprises, viable only because of CDEP, will fold.

Finally, I commend Senator Kate Lundy for her work on constitutional recognition. In my first speech in this place I called on the government to recognise local government in the Constitution. I might see it happen if we get a Labor government, and I think that would be good for local government in Australia. I also commend Jim Turnour, who took the trouble to write a submission to the inquiry. I compare him to the Liberal Party candidate for Leichardt, who came along and grandstanded at the end without identifying herself as the candidate, rather than doing the right and proper thing and writing a submission to the inquiry. (Time expired)