Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

It is, of course, the policy of Labor to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and these amendments do not change that in any way. We will not be supporting these amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the issue of constitutional recognition, which was also the subject of a second reading amendment and is intimately linked to the issue of the right of communities to have a say through plebiscites for amalgamations.

Before I do that, I take Senator Ian Macdonald’s exhortations to the Senate this evening about the Beattie government and just remind Senator Macdonald, as I know he already knows, that of course the Beattie government overturned the provisions which sought to penalise councillors engaging in plebiscites. That is clear. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, it means that the original motivation for this legislation is relatively moot. Nonetheless, Labor feel strongly about this issue, and that is why we support this bill.

But there is one issue I want to place on the record—because in moving a second reading amendment last week Labor very clearly expressed the view that all parties ought to collectively support the push for the constitutional recognition of local government. Senators opposite were given the opportunity to vote on that in our second reading amendment. They chose to oppose that second reading amendment, once again formally stating the coalition’s view that they do not support the constitutional recognition of local government. Yet last Friday Mr Vaile reportedly told a local government conference in Queensland that he supported constitutional recognition. So I think he ought to explain to the House and perhaps convey to his representatives in the Senate his explanation for voting against that motion again—they did last year as well on 17 October.

Just last week in this place the government voted against constitutional recognition, and yet government members go out into the electorate and say that they support it. I know that the National Party is quite famous for saying one thing in the electorate and doing another in parliament, but this is a very obvious and classic case of being a lion in the electorate on the issue of the constitutional recognition of local government and a complete sheep to the Liberal Party, which obviously opposes this policy, in the parliament. So I think we are all, particularly local councillors in Queensland and around the country, owed an explanation as to why the National Party says one thing in parliament and another thing out in the electorate. This seems to be a perfect opportunity to provide that explanation.

I suspect that Mr Vaile was not aware that we had not concluded this debate when he made those public statements. I know it was the expectation of local government that this bill would have managed to traverse the challenges of the scrutiny of the Senate last Thursday. Nonetheless, that did not happen. So I now invite National Party representatives—perhaps Senator Macdonald can assist given that he is most vocal this evening—to describe for the Senate exactly what the National Party’s position is on constitutional recognition for local government.