Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 2013. It was not initially my intention to speak on this piece of legislation because there is a process that we all understand within our parties where consideration and discussion around pieces of legislation that come forward is held. We, like all other parties, conducted that process within our own party. But when I heard that the government had made the decision to gerrymander the case for the financial support of this recommendation I thought I had no choice. It is one of the more disgraceful actions that this government has undertaken—this government that in its initial incarnation in 2007 talked about more evidence based policy, this government that talks about consultation. I have to say that it talks about it a lot more than it actually practises it. For the government to make the decision to fund the yes and no cases based on the votes in the House of Representatives is, quite frankly, a simple disgrace, particularly given that nobody was given an indication that that might be the case before the vote was taken. In that context, it is the worst kind of gerrymander because it was completely and utterly hidden from everyone.

We know that there are a number of views in this place around the constitutional recognition of local government. We know that there has been a process of consultation and that there was an expert inquiry set up. We know that those discussions have been held. We also know what the recommendations of that process are. Like Senator Macdonald, the speaker before me, said, there will be a variation in views in relation to this. But for the government to sabotage the process in the way that they have is, quite frankly, disgraceful.

Last week, we had members of local government from all over Australia in town. They were very distressed at the circumstance that they found this debate in. They believed that the government had set them up to fail. They believed that this process would fall over because of lack of consultation and because of the way that the government was managing this. There was a resignation that this process to call for the constitutional recognition of local government would fail yet again. They believed that it had been set up by the government for that to happen.

That was exacerbated when the revelation came from Minister Albanese that the funding would be based on the votes in the House of Representatives. For two people, regardless of their political persuasion, to be deciding how that funding would be allocated, really destroys the fundamental tenets of democracy in this country. This is no way to go about amending our Constitution. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the foundation rules of the way this country is governed. Yet the government seem to want to use it as a plaything or a political wedge. Are they trying to set up the federal Labor Party against conservative states? What are they actually trying to do here? They ignored their own inquiry, which recommended giving this process significant consultation and discussion with the states. Their expert panel supported a referendum in 2013. That is not so much of a problem. But it was subject to two conditions: first, that the Commonwealth negotiate with the states to achieve their support for the financial recognition options; and, second, that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by the ALGA necessary to achieve an informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of the report on the concerns about a failed referendum. So the Local Government Association themselves wanted to see an informed process of consultation. The first time that the minister wrote to his state government counterparts about this was February of this year. Yet he failed to develop any comprehensive public engagement strategy or campaign, and then he tried to gerrymander the yes and no cases through completely and utterly disproportionate funding.

I spent time in local government before coming into this place. People often used to ask me whether I enjoyed it. My regular answer was, 'Yes, but I'm not sure if I should.' It really was an enjoyable part of our democracy to be a representative of. I enjoyed the interactions in my local community. I understood the importance and the value of the Commonwealth programs that interacted directly with local government. The Roads to Recovery program, which has been spoken of by many in this chamber, was highly regarded and valued by us at a local government level. So of course there was concern when the Pape and Williams cases cast doubts over that funding. We have seen legislation passed through this place and the other place quite quickly, to provide some foundation for the continuation of that funding. But it does not take away the fact that the government has a responsibility, when dealing with changes to our constitution, to deal with them honestly and fairly. There is no doubt in my mind that they are not doing that in this case. You cannot justifiably say that the funding for the yes and no cases, based as it is, is honest and fair. There is no way known that the case can properly be put on a fair and equal basis with funding at the level that it is.

That is what has drawn me into this debate, as someone who has sat around the table in local government and who has now spent a fair period of time in this place. My sense of fairness was clearly motivated by the disgraceful performance of the minister and the government in their management of this particular issue. They sprung this onto the Australian people so close to the election when their own expert panel had recommended full consultation over a considerable period of time. In fact, the Electoral Commission said that they preferred a 27-week campaign. They commented:

There are significant risks associated with campaign development in such a short timeframe. For example, the period for market testing included is too short to provide assurance that the advertising materials are fit for purpose (consistent with the Government’s campaign advertising guidelines) for mainstream and a range of special audiences.

The truncated timeline includes suppliers working across weekends and public holidays—estimated costs will increase as a result.

Even the Electoral Commission is saying that this process is flawed. No wonder the local government representatives who were here last week believe that they have been set up to fail. No wonder that is the view.

I said earlier that this government have talked about evidence based policy and their evidence based policy development. Under what circumstances does this legislation or the approach to the yes and no cases fit those criteria? On what basis does it fit those criteria? It cannot possibly. How can you possibly provide an adequate campaign for the no case based on the funding that has been offered? It is one-twentieth of that being offered for the yes case, let alone including what other interested parties might end up contributing.

Senator Macdonald, just prior to my presentation, talked about the potential negatives that might occur from constitutional recognition of local government. It does have the potential to upset the Commonwealth-state balance of funding because it is possible for the Commonwealth to go straight past state governments to local governments. Isn't it a responsibility of the government in that circumstance to provide the pros and cons for the potential implications of this change to our Constitution? That is the thing that really gets to me more than anything else. We are talking about changing our Constitution based on something that has been done at the last minute and is inadequately funded for the yes and no cases. The government seems to think this is all okay.

No wonder there are huge doubts around the way this government operates. No wonder there is such scrutiny. No wonder there is so little confidence in this government in the broader community. This approach to the changing of our Constitution actually summarises quite neatly the perspectives that are being put to me about this government when I go out into the community. That is that they consult but do not listen. When they do consult it is show and tell. It is not a two-way discussion. They are there to tell you what they are going to give you. They do not ask you what you want. They are going to give you what they want to give you. There is no consultation about it. Then they do not act on the process anyway.

The government set up an expert panel to investigate this process. It reported, the government sat on the report and, at the last minute, perhaps because they needed another issue to distract them from the leadership, they decided to trot this out. They dropped it on the Australian people. They talk about fair process. They talk about equal funding. They talk about the fact that people need to understand this. But, when it comes to the funding of it, the process completely fails. Then, after the debate in the House of Representatives, after that process had been completed, they decided to announce that they were going to fund the yes and no cases based on the votes in the House of Representatives. If it had been a true process, a fair process, perhaps they should have given that information out beforehand so people could make a judgement on that. There were discussions in this place and the other place around voting on the piece of legislation, because there are a range of views, but of course the government kept that bit secret so they could set up the gerrymander. That is an absolute disgrace and it is an insult to this chamber. Perhaps that is a reflection of what the government thinks about this place—I am not sure. But I have to say it is of great concern to me.

As I said at the outset, it was not my intention to make a contribution in this debate. I have my views, but my party had made the decision that the Australian people should have the opportunity to vote on this matter and I was comfortable with that. That was the decision that my party had made. But from the outset I have been personally offended by the way that this government has managed the process. This is no way to manage an alteration to our Constitution. Like Senator Macdonald, I fear that this process has been set up to fail. The further it goes, the murkier it gets, basically because of the way that it has been managed, as I have discussed during my contribution. The government sprung it on the parliament and the Australian people at short notice, did not follow the advice of the expert panel, ignored the advice of the Australian Electoral Commission and then gerrymandered the yes and no case funding debates. What can you find in this entire process that could be considered straight, as you might put it in the Australian context? What could be considered to give this a fair chance of being debated properly within the Australian community so they can make a considered decision, an informed decision? Isn't that what this ought to be all about?

The thing that really disturbs me is the approach that the Australian Greens are taking in supporting this, when we hear from them consistently about open politics, about democratic process. We even hear their former leader talking about one world government, where everybody gets an equal vote. Yet they are not prepared to support equal funding of this particular case in this particular debate—and we are talking about our Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The government wants to put a proposal to amend it through a completely and utterly rigged process. You could not call it anything else. You could not describe it in any other way at all. This deal is rigged. The unfortunate thing for people who might like to support the amendment of the Constitution in this place is that it is most likely set up to fail. I cannot describe my disgust at this process in strong enough terms, but I think anyone listening might get the gist. This is no way to treat the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.