Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this discussion and perhaps to put on record a few of the facts of the matter. The department of local government is funding a $10 million non-partisan civics education campaign to ensure that people are fully informed of the basis of the amendment to the Constitution. Further, the Electoral Commission will spend approximately $40 million on preparing for the referendum. This includes disseminating the official yes/no campaign pamphlet drafted by the parliament. The Electoral Commission will also develop referendum-specific advertising, particularly dealing with informing electors how to cast a formal vote. The partisan funding campaigns, totalling $10.5 million, will form only a small part of the overall information going to voters on the proposal.

It is the government’s prerogative to fund campaigns. Contrary to Senator Brandis’s comments, it has always been the prerogative of the government whether, how and how much to fund partisan campaigns. This is separate from the official yes/no pamphlet. Mr Howard may well have equally split costs for campaigns, but at no point did he concede this was anything other than a decision of the government. And, importantly, members have voted in the House 133 to two in favour of including local government in the Constitution, and this should affect the funding.

Any voter or anyone interested in this matter, upon making a cursory investigation, will find some excellent resource work done by the Local Government Association of South Australia, in a very interesting document entitled 'Referendum myths':

Myth 1: This is Julia Gillard’s referendum.

This referendum is the result of six years of work by Local Government through the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). The concept was agreed formally in documents signed by the Greens and Independents as a part of arrangements to secure Government in 2010. An expert panel considered it in 2011 and a Parliamentary Select Committee set up in 2012 recommended it. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce have publicly supported it since 2011.

Myth 2: This referendum has been rushed.

After significant preliminary work the ALGA ran a Summit in Melbourne in 2008. Following the Pape case in the High Court in 2009 the ALGA formalised its position aimed at securing funding for communities through Councils. The LGA of SA formally endorsed the proposed wording change recommended by Professor George Williams in October, 2010 and all 68 SA Councils formally endorsed this position in the first half of 2011. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce gave a commitment to support financial recognition of Local Government in 2011 at the ALGA Conference in 2011.

Myth 3: There is no need for this referendum.

Specific legal advice indicates that since the Pape case in 2009, the High Court has no support for direct funding of Local Government. Programs such as the Howard Government’s “Roads to Recovery” program (worth $28m a year to SA communities) will fall at the slightest challenge. Even if not challenged directly, no Commonwealth agency will now recommend a direct funding model for fear it will be challenged.

Myth 4: The referendum is about “recognising” Local Government and entrenching it as a level of government.

No, this is about financial recognition. The ALGA sought specific legal advice in order to craft an amendment to the Constitution which would address the direct funding problem but not open the confusion surrounding the 1974 and 1988 referenda. The advice indicated that our objective could be achieved by amending Section 96 of the Constitution (a funding section). The High Court has previously found that Section 96 provides no power to make laws. As a result of the change, the Federal Government will only be able to offer funding to Councils, which may be refused. Indeed our advice is that the State, if it wished, would be able to prevent Councils receiving funding by passing laws to that effect.

Myth 5: It is a power grab by Canberra to control local Councils.

Through this amendment, the Commonwealth can not make laws about Local Government. The amendment makes clear that Local Government is created by, and accountable to State Parliaments. Indeed subject to requirements of State Constitutions, State Parliaments will continue to have the power to abolish Local Government without recourse to the Commonwealth. Myth 6: The Coalition is opposed to recognising Local Government in the Constitution.

There is bipartisan support for this referendum.

The vote was 133 to two in the House, so there is clearly bipartisan support for this referendum. The document continues:

Prior to the Hawke referendum of 1988, the Liberal Party adopted a position in support of recognising Local Government in the constitution—through a committee chaired by Bob Katter Senior. Liberal Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce have indicated their strong support for confirming the power of the Commonwealth to fund Councils directly as in the Howard initiated Roads to Recovery Program. Both gave a clear commitment to recognition in front of 900 Council delegates at the ALGA National General Assembly in 2011.

Myth 7: This question has been rejected twice before by the public . It's the same question as posed in 1974 and 1988.

In 1974 the Whitlam referendum proposed amending Section 51 of the Constitution—the Commonwealth's law-making powers. In 1988 the Hawke referendum proposed establishing a new section in the Constitution to recognize Local Government. Both created confusion about the extent of the change being sought and both were proposed by the Commonwealth. The current referendum has been sought and designed by Local Government only to confirm Federal funding powers.

There you have a very salient case put by the Local Government Association of South Australia, an organisation representative of the councils of South Australia. This question is wholly supported by all those councils. It is very clear that there is a lot of political mischief being played in this argument. I have been receiving emails quoting amounts of funding that I have no evidence to suggest are the actual amounts. I have received considerable numbers of emails that appear to be based on misinformation. They are consistent in form. The only thing that changes is the name and the address at the bottom, although you may get six of them at one time from the same address.

It appears as if, as usual, there is a touch of political mischief afoot, with people taking any opportunity to muddy the waters and malign the motives of those who are pressing forward with a fairly modest agreed position. The Local Government Association of South Australia say that all 68 of their councils are in agreement. I enjoyed a very fine meal with a number of mayors from South Australia on Sunday night. I detected no antipathy towards this proposal. In fact, it appeared as if they were going to get on with the job and disseminate the information necessary, Senator Joyce has said, to get the convincing position for the affirmative supported. That is going to be a matter for the electors, but the facts are quite clear.