Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The fearmongering is putting the proposal in jeopardy. It is simply not true that the bill diminishes the role of the states—which is what is being claimed. Recognition in the Constitution does not alter the fact that local governments are created by and accountable to state governments. This is in the documentation. It shows quite clearly that the law continues to apply. If a state government wishes to sack a council because of malfeasance, corruption or whatever, they will still be entitled to do so. State governments under the law are able to do that and what is being proposed does not put that in jeopardy.

As I said, what is being proposed meets exactly the criteria for support the coalition leader, Tony Abbott, set out. He said he would support the proposal if it were minimalist practical change which secured future federal funding without undermining a state's ability to create and sack councils. That is exactly what is on the table.

The allocation of funding for the yes and no campaigns reflects the overwhelming bipartisan support for the referendum in the House of Representatives. We understand that the Local Government Association will be driving the yes campaign and I look forward to getting out and engaging with the community to support that campaign.

Clearly it is time for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, to get out there and make a very clear statement. If he does not intend to support the yes case, he should get out there and tell local government and the community that he is not going to and he should explain why. He should not allow this murky mess—people hearing them say that they will not oppose the question being put. That is a very interesting way of putting their position. It will confuse people into thinking it means that they are backing the proposition—when clearly they are not. It is, in my view, sneaky language. We want clear language from the coalition on this matter.

The coalition have been talking about the proposed funding model as if there were some longstanding precedent for how referenda are funded. That is not the case. For the referendum on Australia becoming a republic, $7½ million was provided for each of the yes and no campaigns and $4½ million was provided for a neutral general education campaign. Before that, referenda had been funded by the Australian Electoral Commission. For the 1988 referendum on local government, parliamentary terms et cetera, the government of then Prime Minister Hawke tried to run a government funded advertising campaign, but the High Court found that this meant that the government was, in effect, running the yes campaign, so the advertising was stopped. There is a long history and various ways of managing the funding issue have been tried.

In this case, the expert panel had a look at all the ways previous referenda had been funded—or not funded, noting that there is not a long history of Commonwealth government funding of referenda. The expert panel recommended the funding model which is before the Senate. They did so on the basis of advice from submissions that, without a strong campaign, the risk of the referendum failing is high. The expert panel, on page 2 of their report:

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.

We also know that the Local Government Association proposed that the Commonwealth apportion the funds for the yes and no cases for each referendum based on those parliamentarians voting for and against the bill, and that this funding be equivalent to that provided for elections. That is the basis on which this funding has been determined; it is the recommendation by both the expert panel and the Local Government Association.

In my view it is critical that we clarify that this is not an excuse for state governments to beat up all these fake arguments. There is a lot of discussion around Australia about what a mess Commonwealth-state relations are in. There is a lot of criticism of the COAG process, and rightly so. I have said a million times that the COAG process is the big black hole that government shoves issues into to have them disappear off the political agenda. They stay in COAG forever and if they emerge, years later, they are nothing like what was put in there.

Around the country people are asking why is there such a poor relationship between the federal and state governments on a whole range of matters. That has come up recently in relation to fixing the mining tax, and many people said it was time we had a rewrite of Commonwealth-state relations, particularly in terms of financial engagement and relationships. State governments are panicking that, if local government gets recognition in the Constitution and local government and the federal government can negotiate directly and on their own terms for particular programs, state governments will be sidelined—they will have less of an ability to cost-shift and less of an ability to muddy the waters so that local government has to pick up the remnants of whatever programs are on offer. The states are feeling quite threatened by this process because it is going to put into the minds of people the question: what is it that state governments actually do in their constituencies? Rather than beat up scare campaigns, state governments have to prove their worth to their local constituencies, and that is a good thing.

Let us have the debate about Commonwealth-state relations, but do not let us mix that up with getting rid of the uncertainty that is already there about the Commonwealth and local government relationship. I am sure that, around the country, people are making it absolutely clear that into the future they want the Commonwealth to continue to be able to fund a number of services that local government regard as critical in the community. The community need to get the right information about the minimalist nature of the change and be reassured that it is not going to change a state government's ability to oversee how local government is being managed and they can sack a council if there is corruption or malfeasance. We can then have a vigorous debate around Australia.

If the coalition come out and sabotage this by running a no case, they will destroy this and the next federal government, of whatever colour, will be dealing with this very uncertainty and is likely to be facing the outcome of High Court challenges in relation to funding. Frankly, their actions are totally irresponsible and they show yet again that when the Leader of the Opposition says something, even when he writes it down in a speech, you cannot believe it—a couple of years later he will be back and changing that undertaking or abandoning it altogether. I urge the coalition to come out and be clear and front up with the Australian people. The Australian Greens are going to support the yes case. What is the coalition going to do?