Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Bill gives effect to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 7 August 2007 to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local governing body in any part of Australia.

The Bill does this by amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to authorise the Australian Electoral Commission’s use and disclosure of any information held by it, including information contained in an electoral roll, for the purpose of conducting an activity, such as a plebiscite.

Section 7A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 already allows the Australian Electoral Commission to enter into an arrangement for the provision of goods and services.  Section 7B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also allows the Australian Electoral Commission to charge reasonable fees for the goods or services supplied under section 7A. 

The Australian Electoral Commission has the necessary skills and expertise to undertake arrangements to conduct a plebiscite.  It presently conducts these arrangements for trade unions and employer organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and for other organisations and some foreign countries.

The Bill introduces new subsections 7A(1C) and (1D) to clarify that the use by the Australian Electoral Commission of any information held by it, including information contained in an electoral roll, is authorised for the purpose of conducting an activity, such as a plebiscite.

The Bill also provides that a law of a State or Territory has no effect if it prohibits anyone from, or penalises or discriminates against anyone for, entering or proposing to enter into an arrangement with the Australian Electoral Commission. This also applies where a person or body takes part in or assists with, or proposes to take part in or assist with, the conduct of an activity to which an arrangement relates. 

The imperative for a provision such as this arises from a law passed by the Queensland Parliament on 10 August 2007 that, unless overridden by this Commonwealth law, would prevent councillors in that State having any involvement with these plebiscites.

The Bill also refers to Article 19 and paragraph (a) of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Article 19 provides that people should have the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression.  Paragraph (a) of Article 25 provides that every citizen shall have the right and opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 

Finally, I note that the Bill is not intended to be an avenue for citizen initiated referenda.  The Bill is intended to give effect to the policy announcement of the Prime Minister.

I commend the Bill.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. My red shows that order of the day No. 1 is the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007. I understand the first two speakers on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 are not yet in the chamber. I cannot seem to find out who makes these arrangements—it is certainly an arrangement which has changed since last night. I appreciate you have no responsibility for this, Madam Acting Deputy President, but could someone explain to me why we are dealing with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 when the red clearly shows the trade practices legislation should now be brought on?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: what we are really discovering here is a government which does not know what it is doing or does not tell its backbench, or we have a backbencher who has no idea what he is doing in this chamber, quite frankly.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig, that is no point of order and you know that very well. Senator Macdonald, as you know, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate determines the order of government business and the red reads, under No. 3, ‘Orders of the dayCommonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007—Message to be reported—Second reading debate to proceed immediately’.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Certainly that one is first, but my red shows that No. 1—which I always took to mean that it would be dealt with first—is the trade practices legislation. Maybe Senator Ludwig has another red.

The Acting Deputy President:

The red shows that the Commonwealth electoral amendment bill, which has no number, is above No. 1 and because of that it will proceed.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, the unusual situation is the proposal that this debate proceed immediately with the minister not reading the second reading speech.

The Acting Deputy President:

Are you taking a point of order, Senator Brown?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order or otherwise I request a recommittal of the leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. I ask that the minister read the second reading speech. Otherwise, the chamber is not informed of the government’s proposed matters which are in the second reading speech.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brown, the minister has already been given leave to incorporate the second reading speech and it is not possible to recommit that leave motion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: it is possible. I ask leave of the Senate that the minister, having already been given leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard, now read the second reading speech.

The Acting Deputy President:

Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

(Quorum formed)

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

The federal Labor Party supports the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 because it supports the principle that the people of Queensland should be consulted before decisions are made about the amalgamation of local councils. Federal Labor believes in the importance of communities and the importance of local government in representing communities.

But let us be very clear about the government’s motivation in progressing this bill. The bill was introduced as a response to provisions in the Queensland Local Government Act 1993 that would provide for the dissolution of a council if it undertook action for the purpose of holding a poll about local government area abolition. The bill seeks to override that act by providing that any law prohibiting the holding of a plebiscite would be invalid and by offering Commonwealth assistance for plebiscites on local council amalgamations. The Prime Minister pretends to be the saviour of democracy, but the Australian Electoral Commission already has the power to conduct plebiscites on behalf of other bodies. This bill does not give the AEC power to conduct plebiscites; the AEC has been doing that for years. The Special Minister of State admitted as much in his second reading speech when he said in the other place that the AEC presently conducts plebiscites for trade unions, for employer organisations, for other organisations and, indeed, for some other countries. The Queensland government has introduced amendments in the Queensland parliament to repeal its provisions banning the holding of plebiscites. On 31 August, the Queensland government gazetted a regulation expiring regulations that imposed penalties on councils arranging plebiscites, so the conditions that the minister and those on the other side say prompted this bill no longer exist.

The minister yesterday accused Labor of a stunt for proposing that the AEC be allowed to conduct plebiscites on the location of nuclear facilities because the AEC already has the power to conduct plebiscites. The minister gave his game away. This bill is a transparent stunt by the Howard government. The conditions that gave rise to this bill no longer exist and all expert evidence supports the view that any plebiscites conducted by the AEC are not binding on the Queensland government. The AEC already has the power to conduct plebiscites on behalf of local councils, and the minister has admitted that this bill is unnecessary. But the Howard government perseveres because it wants to grandstand on an issue where it thinks it can gain some kind of short-term political advantage.

In contrast, Labor has consistently argued that local communities should be consulted. Mr Rudd and the federal Labor Party have been consistent in our support for local democracy. As early as 17 May in Townsville, Mr Rudd said:

My view ... is that local voice and local choice is critical when it comes to the future of local government across Australia, as well as here in Queensland.

My other view is this. If we’re 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.

You cannot have a stronger commitment or demonstration of leadership than that, and that has been our position all along. That is why we indicated that we would be supporting this bill when it was introduced. We believe that local communities should be consulted before the whole structure of local government in Queensland is changed.

Federal Labor has a policy on local government, and this stands in contrast to the Howard government, which is stale and has run out of ideas on the issue of local government. Mr Howard’s interest in local government is belated and opportunistic. Mr Howard was not out there with statements of support for Queensland local councils back in May when Mr Rudd was arguing for plebiscites, and we do not recall Mr Howard as a member of the then opposition taking a stand against Jeff Kennett’s forced amalgamations of councils in Victoria. Mr Howard only entered the debate in Queensland when he thought he saw a political advantage in dividing communities, and Mr Howard in this sense is holding out false hopes. He knows that plebiscites are not binding on the Queensland state government and he knows that the state government has withdrawn the legislation that the government says made this bill necessary in the first place.

If Mr Howard believed in local democracy, he would support constitutional recognition for local government, but in 1998 Mr Howard, as the Leader of the Opposition, campaigned against a referendum put forward by the Australian Labor Party to recognise local government in our Constitution. In a speech to the National Press Club on 23 June 1998, Mr Howard said his opposition to constitutional recognition was based on ‘a strongly held view that it will distort the natural order and constitutional balance of our federal structure’. He still believes that local government is somehow outside the natural order and balance of our federal structure. By contrast, Labor sees local government as a true partner in providing services for the Australian people and a vital part of local communities, and one of the three spheres of government that form part of our Federation.

In debate on this bill in the other place yesterday, the Special Minister of State accused Labor of insincerity. He said that we had had 11½ years to argue for constitutional recognition for local government and had waited for this bill to introduce the idea. That shows just how much interest this government has had in local government and how little interest the minister takes in what happens in the parliament and, indeed, the portfolio of local government. In October last year, Labor moved an amendment to a motion in the parliament to recognise local government in the Constitution. Mr Howard opposed it. His Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Mr Jim Lloyd, opposed it. Now we hear that he has an open mind on the question, yet Mr Lloyd voted against Labor’s amendment. He might like to talk to a previous Howard government minister for local government, Mr Tuckey, who said that he thought constitutional recognition was meaningless. The Special Minister of State voted against the amendment, though he, too, now seems to forget that the question was ever put. I should add that Labor has a very long and proud history of supporting constitutional recognition. That goes back to previous referenda held in 1974 and 1988 which, not least, form a substantial and consistent part of both our national and state platforms.

Senator Joyce has said that he supports constitutional recognition for local government. He voted against it last year, but he says that he supports it now. We welcome his change of heart, and we wish that more of his colleagues would also express that view. But what really matters with this government, as we all know, is not what Senator Joyce thinks but what the Prime Minister thinks. The Prime Minister does not believe in local government. His intervention in this dispute simply reflects the advice that he has received from his pollsters, which is that his best bet for staying in power is to capitalise on voter discontent with state governments. This approach is hypocritical and lacks principle.

The Prime Minister is running a giant con job on the people of Queensland. He is not interested in the results of any polls on local council amalgamations. The AEC have already told him and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration that they will not be able to conduct plebiscites in conjunction with the election. But he seems to have switched off. There is only one poll that counts for this Prime Minister, and that is the next opinion poll. He focuses on the next opinion polls and what he must do to get himself out of the mess that he has got himself into. He will not be listening to the people of Queensland and he will not be developing new policies or approaches toward dealing with the chronic financial situation in which local government finds itself after 11 long years of his government. No doubt the Prime Minister will be listening to his pollsters, particularly Mark Textor. We all know that it is Mark Textor who gives him his lines. An article by Sid Marris from 7 August says:

Mr Howard’s latest confrontation with the States follows the revelation this week of a warning from the Liberals’ pollster Mark Textor that the Coalition was unpopular and needed to capitalise on voter discontent with State governments.

It is plain to see that that is why he picked a fight with the Queensland government on this issue when he was so conspicuously silent when his friends in the Victorian Liberal Party restructured local government in that state in the 1990s. That is clearly why he grabbed at this bill. He was looking for an issue to distract the people of Queensland from the fact that he had run out of policy ideas and had no plan for working with local government to improve the services provided to the people of Queensland.

By contrast, Labor’s position on this issue has always been principled and clear. We have a proud history, as I mentioned, of supporting local government. It was in 1974 and 1988 that federal Labor sought formal constitutional recognition of local government at national referenda. On both occasions the coalition refused to provide bipartisan support and, not surprisingly, the referenda failed. Two weeks ago, I confirmed that an incoming Rudd Labor government would move to recognise local government in the Constitution. Constitutional recognition will redefine the relationship between Commonwealth, state and local governments and guarantee that communities have an effective local voice in decision making on the issues that affect their lives. We followed up on that announcement by indicating at the Local Government Association of Queensland annual conference that an incoming Labor government would in its first term of office establish a Council of Australian Local Governments. The Council of Australian Local Governments will provide a forum that will allow local and federal government to meet and discuss issues of national importance and will ensure that local government representatives have a more effective voice at the Council of Australian Governments, COAG.

Our support for constitutional recognition and the establishment of a Council of Australian Local Governments shows the strength of our commitment to local government and to the idea of cooperative federalism. The Howard government, by contrast, has been caught being tricky and opportunistic in seeking to exploit the difficulties that local government is facing. These difficulties have been partly created through 11 long years of neglect by the Howard government. We will be moving a second reading amendment to this bill to give effect to constitutional recognition of local government, and I call on the government to support it and, failing that, for Senator Joyce and those of his colleagues who declared their support for constitutional recognition to make good on their public statements this week by crossing the floor to support this important motion.

I also want to mention some practical issues and problems with the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. The bill shows every sign of having been drafted in haste and without the sort of consultation that we would expect of a responsible government. This was confirmed at the hearings in Cairns when officials confirmed that the drafting instructions were given to the Department of Finance and Administration only on the Thursday before the bill was introduced to the parliament. Officials were unable to point to any consultation with state or local government bodies or, indeed, with the federal department responsible for local government. In foreshadowing this bill, the Prime Minister said:

The Australian Government’s offer to fund the conduct of the ballots remains on the table.

In hearings in Queensland two weeks ago, the committee searched in vain for details of this funding. The AEC has apparently been given a wink and nod that funding for the plebiscites will be provided by the Department of Transport and Regional Services, but the government has given the Senate no conclusive advice on this question. This is not the kind of serious and thoughtful preparation that we would expect from a government that was serious about local democracy. It is further proof that this government has no strategy and no policy; it just makes it up as it goes along. Witnesses at the committee hearings in Queensland expressed puzzlement at the mechanics of how the plebiscites will be constructed and put to the people of Queensland. For example, we have not yet heard the minister explain whether plebiscites will cover the existing local government boundaries, the proposed new boundaries or communities with an interest in the outcome of the local government changes.

Senators will be aware that, in its submission to the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission, Noosa Shire expressed a preference for remaining independent but expanding its boundaries to include adjacent communities of Eumundi, Doonan, Verrierdale, Weyba Downs and Peregian Springs. The commission recommended that Noosa Council be amalgamated with Maroochy and Caloundra councils.

We are interested to know how it is intended that plebiscites will be conducted in these circumstances. If the Noosa Council seeks a plebiscite on the question of the amalgamation, will the people of Maroochydore and Caloundra also have the opportunity to express a view on the plebiscite? These are legitimate questions. Will the people in the other areas have the opportunity to express a view about whether they would like to be part of an expanded Noosa shire? Will the people of Coolum also be involved in this process? These are two more critical questions, and there is another: will the councils be left to somehow sort out this jigsaw puzzle in conjunction with the AEC at the time? And if not, if these communities do not have the opportunity to express a view on the new council boundaries just because they happen to sit outside the boundaries of the existing council, how will decision makers be able to assess the views of the community as a whole?

And so we go on with outstanding questions such as these. Who will write the questions and decide that they have been framed clearly and in an even-handed way, and who will write up the yes and no cases for the plebiscites? Or does the Howard government propose to leave this to be decided by the AEC? In evidence to the committee in Cairns last week, witnesses from the AEC were not able to offer much clarity on these questions or to point to a process by which they would be resolved. So in addressing the question of how plebiscites would be conducted, an AEC witness said:

... there are all sorts of other issues of confusion—boundary differences, voting differences, different ballot papers, higher informality possibilities—

in holding an attendance ballot in conjunction with a federal election. He pointed out that even the simpler option of postal ballots would require perhaps 2½ million envelopes that the AEC does not currently have. The AEC was able to say, however, that with all the uncertainties still to be sorted out, the possibility of an early plebiscite was effectively out of the question.

The Howard government has attempted a gigantic trick on the people of Queensland. The Howard government does not have a clear idea about how to make this bill work because it is not serious about local democracy. This is, as I said, evidence that the Howard government has run out of steam and run out of ideas. It no longer governs but concocts stunts that divide our communities. Federal Labor has consistently called for the people to have a voice on the Queensland council amalgamations, and we support this bill because we support local democracy, notwithstanding our reservations about the lack of detail in the bill and the government’s motivation in putting it forward.

If the Howard government wants to call plebiscites, let us have a plebiscite on another issue that will shape communities and on which the Howard government has failed to provide community consultation. Federal Labor believes that communities are entitled to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and the nuclear waste facilities that the Howard government wants to impose on the Australian community. To this end I move:

At the end of the motion, add: “but the Senate:

             (a)    expresses its support for a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia; and

             (b)    notes that the Australian Labor Party believes communities are entitled to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and the nuclear waste facilities that the Howard government wants to impose on the Australian community”.

This presents an opportunity for senators opposite, who claim to support constitutional recognition for local government, to vote in favour of Labor’s second reading amendment.

This is an issue that goes to the character of the Howard government and the Labor opposition. Our steadfast support for constitutional recognition for local government underpins our support for their right to have a say and express a view about the proposed amalgamations in Queensland. We know the mechanics of this bill are no longer technically necessary for those plebiscites to occur with the support of the AEC, but we will support this bill on the basis that it is an expression of that principle and that right. Further, I think the ultimate test for the Howard government will be how they will respond to this second reading amendment. If they support the second reading amendment they are acknowledging indeed that constitutional recognition is not only essential but the right thing to do to formally recognise that we have three functioning spheres of government in this country—not two, with one on the side, but three fully functioning and essential spheres of government that need to work more effectively together.

The way this motion is worded allows coalition senators to support it, because the second part acknowledges the Labor Party’s view but it does not necessarily force coalition senators to subscribe to that view also. The motion notes the Labor Party’s view with respect to plebiscites for the location of 25 nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities that the Howard government wants to impose on the Australian community, and we think that is a profound enough issue to warrant mention in the context of this bill and in facilitating local democracy. I commend our second reading amendment to the Senate and I look forward to hearing what government senators have to say. (Quorum formed)

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Democrats support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. This bill is a remarkable bill in two respects: it promotes direct democracy and it makes explicit inalienable civil and political rights in Australian law. The bill will therefore represent a milestone for Australia. The people of Australia regularly express their democratic will through elections and on rarer occasions through constitutional referenda, but, for the first time in its 106-year history, the federal government is supporting direct democracy initiated by the people in its legislation. The bill allows for plebiscites—the direct vote of qualified electors to some important public question—to occur under the aegis of the Australian Electoral Commission, and no state or territory law can gainsay it. The purpose of the bill is to allow the AEC:

… to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local government body in any part of Australia.

That is in the explanatory memorandum. But the bill appears to be open-ended in that it is for:

… the purposes of conducting an activity (such as a plebiscite) under an arrangement …

That is at item 1. Who knows what that could imply for future questions considered important by groups of citizens? After all, direct democracy means that it is initiated by the people, and their initiatives could surprise many.

That the conservative Howard government should be so democratically innovative is a surprise to most. Long term, it matters not a jot that the coalition’s motive is immediate and self-interested. They seek to make mischief between Labor leaders Beattie and Rudd over the Queensland Premier’s poorly timed desire to force through large-scale local council amalgamations. The resistance to this state Labor move is believed to threaten federal Labor’s campaign to win coalition seats in that state. What matters long term is that the precedent and process for the formal direct expression of popular will have arrived in Australia.

The second area of welcome democratic innovation is with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, otherwise known as the ICCPR. The ICCPR was ratified by Australia and came into force for Australia in 1980. The ICCPR was actually initiated and passed on 16 December 1966 but generally came into force on 23 March 1976. It is gratifying that the bill refers to the inalienable rights enshrined in the ICCPR in respect of article 19 and article 25(a). Article 19 provides:

... that people should have the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of ... expression.

Paragraph (a) of article 25 provides:

... that every citizen shall have the right and opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

This explicit reliance on rights comes from a coalition government whose resistance to a bill or charter of rights is legendary. Although there has been many a campaign for a bill of rights in Australia, there is stronger support for a legislated charter of political rights and freedoms. The Australian Capital Territory is the only Australian legislature so far to act on this front. It would be better if there were one Australian standard in this vital area.

Unlike citizens of a number of other countries, Australians do not have their rights and responsibilities reflected in the Constitution, nor mostly in legislation, which is why we have seen minorities such as Indigenous Australians, Australian women and homosexual Australians compelled to seek international help in addressing unjust treatment and discrimination. Antiterrorism security concerns in the United States resulted in the PATRIOT Act, which restricts a number of rights and liberties; however, that legislation sits amongst the United States constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights. These guarantees ensure that all citizens shall be secure in their persons and protect them against unreasonable search and seizure. The United States constitution provides Americans with the right to due process and the right to a fair and speedy public trial, among other things. These constitutional guarantees known as the United States Bill of Rights provide the background against which legislation like the PATRIOT Act is interpreted. In the United Kingdom, the Human Rights Act 1998 acts as a control measure against which the courts can interpret legislation. Australia has no human rights act to provide an equivalent safeguard.

If Australia is going to enact legislation which impacts stringently on its citizens’ human rights, as it presently does, it is essential that it makes it either constitutionally or legislatively clear that there is an overriding safeguard and respect for those human rights. The Australian Democrats have attempted to establish a comprehensive human rights standard for Australia and introduced the Parliamentary Charter of Rights and Freedoms Bill 2001.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats’ proposed charter of rights was an implementation of the ICCPR, which Senator Boswell does not seem to understand is an integral part of this bill. It sets out certain fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to equal protection under the law, the right to a free trial, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. From my perspective, five issues arising from the bill deserve further discussion: whether the ICCPR articles in the bill suffice for the purpose, whether the bill needs supplementing by appeal measures, the timing of plebiscites, a matter arising from the ICCPR, and how to further advance direct democracy.

I turn to the first of my concerns. The committee hearings in Queensland made something very clear to me. Although Australia prides itself on a larrikin culture, where there is a tendency to thumb your nose at authority and not to take things lying down, most Australians are very trusting. Most truly believe that their government would not do anything to impinge on what they regard as their basic rights. There was genuine astonishment from people of all political persuasions that the Queensland Labor government would have the audacity to remove their basic right to have a say on whether their local council should be amalgamated and to forbid them to conduct a local plebiscite on the issue. Trish and Nick Radge, in their submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, captured that feeling well:

As a democratic society we have a right to vote for whoever we want, to protest against things we disagree with and to speak out without fear of reprisal.

It came as a surprise to me that Australians have such a trusting approach to their governments, state and federal. The executives of all governments of all stripes have been steadily increasing the powers of the state over the people for decades. Those who were surprised by the actions of the present Queensland Labor government have obviously not been following the trend of the coalition federal government as it rides roughshod over civil liberties. For instance, its antiterrorism and immigration laws enable the authorities to search premises on suspicion, to hold some people indefinitely without charge and to generally discard other basic rights which Australians have always believed were part of being Australian.

It is clear that until a law impacts directly on a significant proportion of middle Australia, people in this part of the constituency do not believe they will ever be caught by the provisions of antiterrorism laws or by the extensive federal police and customs powers now enshrined in federal legislation. Their belief that their rights will be protected and promoted remains. It was clear from the evidence at the hearings that the Queensland legislation had shaken this belief but not unhinged it completely, because the federal government was riding to the rescue of their rights. In this instance, they were correct; in so many other laws passed in the last couple of years, that could not be further from the truth.

The bill makes provision for local and other plebiscites to be conducted by the AEC, but is that right sufficiently buttressed by articles 19 and 25(a) of the ICCPR? Proposed new subsection 7A(lE), intended to be inserted into the Commonwealth Electoral Act by item 1 of the schedule of the bill, provides, in effect, that a state or territory law is nullified if it interferes with the conduct of a plebiscite by the AEC under an agreement with the commission. Proposed new subsection 7A(1F) provides that, if subsection 7A(lE) is beyond the legislative powers of the Commonwealth, articles 19 and 25 of the ICCPR are to be called on to support the validity of the subsection.

There is doubt about whether the Commonwealth can validly legislate by adopting a particular interpretation of a particular provision of the covenant and then selectively apply that interpretation to override particular state laws. These doubts rest on passages in the leading High Court judgement in the Tasmanian damscase, particularly the warning by Justice Deane in that judgement that a law cannot be regarded as a law under the external affairs power if it fails to carry into effect the provisions of a treaty, or the treaty itself is simply a device to attract domestic legislative power.

These doubts about the validity of such legislation were raised by eminent authorities on the other occasion on which the Commonwealth selectively invoked a provision of the covenant to override a particular state law. The Commonwealth law in question was the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994, which employed article 17 of the covenant, relating to the right of privacy, to override Tasmanian laws about homosexual conduct. It was then pointed out that the then Commonwealth government was adopting a particular interpretation of the article, which might not prove to be the correct interpretation, and applying it to override particular state laws which might not be caught by the article on its proper construction. Partly on that basis, as expressed in a dissent by coalition senators to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, several members of the coalition parties voted against the bill. The doubts about the validity of the legislation were not resolved, because it was not litigated. In my opinion, the doubts of the coalition party senators were valid.

As with all questions of constitutional law, there is a corresponding question of constitutional propriety, and, regardless of how the High Court would ultimately resolve the question of law, that question remains. If the power to enter into treaties is a source of Commonwealth legislative power, and the Commonwealth is to rely on a treaty to override state laws, the constitutionally appropriate course, consistent with the principles of federalism, is for the Commonwealth to put into legislative force the whole of the treaty, and let it fall on state laws where it will, according to its nature.

It appears contrary to constitutional principle for the Commonwealth to selectively apply particular interpretations of selected provisions of a treaty to nullify state laws which the Commonwealth government of the day happens to dislike, while ignoring other laws which may well be contrary to the treaty. This principle gains added force when the treaty in question—in this case the ICCPR—is intended to safeguard what I and many others regard as inalienable individual rights, against the power of government, whether state or federal.

If the treaty is to have force in Australia, surely all of the human rights it encapsulates should have force against all of the laws of all governments, and selected bits of rights as interpreted by one of those governments should not be selectively applied only to state governments in particular circumstances. It is my belief, and the belief of my party, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be introduced in full into Commonwealth law, since Australia has ratified it.

I want to deal now with whether the bill needs supplementing by including appeal measures. During the committee hearings I had a useful interchange with the Hon. Bruce Scott MP, member for Maranoa, who is a particularly pleasant individual and seems very capable in carrying out his functions as a representative for that area. Subsection 92(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 Queensland used to provide for referenda plebiscites to occur but, with respect to these council amalgamations, the Queensland government expressly removed any right to appeal any decisions by the government or the Local Government Reform Commission on reform matters. In evidence, Mr Scott said on the Hansard:

I would be very happy for the Senate committee to review the right of appeal … Because of the parliamentary unicameral system in Queensland, I would think it would be beneficial in relation to the Queensland laws as are enacted by the state government. That does not mean everything they do is wrong.

The repeal of the right to conduct referenda plebiscites in the Local Government Act of Queensland is a blatant denial of procedural and natural justice. The Local Government Reform Commission makes a decision, which may be in error but on which the Queensland government relies in good faith, and the people and the entities affected by that decision have no right of appeal. If a commission recommendation for amalgamation is not relevantly evidence based, it should surely be open to appeal. One of the real problems that were identified in evidence was that the amalgamations were consistently not evidence based. They were based on general propositions, not specific propositions relevant to the councils concerned.

The question is whether there is any constitutional basis for the Commonwealth enacting a right of appeal or process of review to be available where an error of judgement has been made and where no possibility of appeal exists in state law. The advice I have had is that this is difficult but not impossible. The question of the Commonwealth making such a catch-all provision involves various constitutional areas of law, including section 51 powers, the separation of powers, the complexity of federal and state court/tribunal cross-vesting laws, intergovernmental immunities and chapter 3 considerations with respect to the judicature. There is also the jurisprudence on administrative law involving judicial review on merits and questions of law. One point of note probably worth bearing in mind is that much of administrative review and appeal law goes to the review or appeal of a decision of a decision maker made under an act. A recommendation to a decision maker becomes relevant when review is being sought of a decision as to whether relevant considerations, irrelevant considerations and errors of questions of fact were taken into account.

The incidental power under section 51(xxxix) of the Constitution permits laws incidental to judicial matters and is the power behind legislation such as the Judiciary Act 1903. Chapter 3 of the Constitution governs the High Court and other federal courts which the parliament creates. The Commonwealth has created bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and others which exercise federal jurisdiction and which must abide by the principles of Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1995, namely the difference between judicial and administrative functions.

Matters of state and territory law are interpreted by state courts and tribunals. States and territories can refer matters to the Commonwealth under section 52(xxxvii) of the Constitution but usually, if there is a high level of cooperation, other forms of legislative schemes are preferred. Cross-vesting laws were struck down in the case of Re Wakim ex parte McNally 1999.

There is no clear and easy way for the Commonwealth to have a role in or legislative power over matters that are the jurisdiction of state and territory courts and tribunals. The states and territories—and the Commonwealth, for that matter—can legislate as to the vesting of jurisdiction, appeal and review rights, and also the curtailment and limitation of appeals and review rights. The privative clause provisions are a good example of this.

My view is that the federal government should report to the parliament prior to 31 December 2008 on ways in which review processes can be guaranteed throughout Australia where they are lacking in state or territory legislation in defined circumstances such as these. Where the Senate inquiry, I think, failed was in not making that recommendation. It is outrageous that a plebiscite could be conducted—it is non-binding—and an opinion against the local council amalgamation could be registered, and yet the amalgamation could still go ahead where it might be based on an error of judgement or fact and where there is no appeal process. And that is a fundamental weakness which is still apparent in these circumstances.   

Finally, I want to deal with the timing of plebiscites. The question of timing has been discussed. Should it be before the federal election, on the same day as the federal election or after the federal election? These are matters entirely for the AEC, in my view. They are the independent authority and their independence should be respected. There should not be any prohibition on what day they can be held. I would remind the chamber that section 394(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states:

On the day appointed as polling day for an election of the Senate or a general election of the House of Representatives, no election or referendum or vote of the electors of a State or part of a State shall, without the authority of the Governor-General, be held or taken under a law of the State.

In theory, the authority of the Governor-General could override that provision, but in fact it is a virtual prohibition of elections, referenda or votes of electors which cover plebiscites being held simultaneously.

If the Americans can conduct simultaneous elections on the same day, involving everyone from dog catchers through to presidents, it is not beyond the wit of Australians to do the same. I would have no objection whatsoever to a plebiscite being held on the same day as the election. It is my view, as it was the view of the 1988 Constitutional Commission, that the provision of section 394 should be repealed. It is our view as a party that Australians are in frequent election mode, with nine governments holding federal, state, territory and local government elections, as well as referenda and plebiscites at all three levels of government. The issue is one of cost and convenience. If greater efficiency can be achieved in other countries where simultaneous elections are a longstanding, regular and unexceptional feature of their election system then there is no reason why they should not occur here. This provision came into place only in 1922 and it is about time it was done away with. I conclude by foreshadowing that I will be moving the following second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 “and the Senate is of the view that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be introduced in full into Commonwealth law”.

(Quorum formed)

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get into my contribution, I would like to acknowledge in the chamber the Mayor of Tambo, Dougal Davidson, and the Mayor of Aramac, Gary Peoples. These two mayors have come down all the way from far western Queensland in a last, desperate attempt to stand up for their shires. The two of them are here but they represent many, many mayors and local government representatives who do not have the chance to come down. I welcome them to the gallery and I welcome them to listen to this debate taking place, because I know the effort that both of these well-respected mayors have put into their local towns and the success they have had. I know that they feel passionately that their citizens—I think there are 700 people in Tambo and roughly the same number in Aramac—are going to be very seriously affected.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 will allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local government body in any part of Australia. The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to authorise the AEC’s use and disclosure of any information held by the AEC, including information contained in an electoral roll, for the purpose of conducting an activity, such as a plebiscite, under subsection 7A(1). Additionally, the bill seeks to override a state or territory law which prohibits, penalises or discriminates against a person or a body who has entered or proposes to enter into an arrangement with the AEC or who takes part in or assists with, or proposes to take part in or assist with, an arrangement with the AEC.

I call this bill the ‘Restore Democracy to Queensland Bill’. The Beattie government legislated to stop Queenslanders expressing their opinion over local council amalgamations. It was a shocking thing to do, a grave error of judgement. We in the National Party and the Liberal Party had to act, and this bill is the coalition government’s response. Thanks to this bill, the Queensland Premier realised he was on a hiding to nothing and was forced to back down. However, there are still questions as to the legality of his backdown, so it is important to pass this bill to be absolutely sure that Queensland councillors are safe from penalty in organising plebiscites seeking their citizens’ opinion of amalgamations. It will also act as a deterrent to any state or territory government trying to do the same thing ever again.

The extent of the Queensland Labor government’s deceit on this issue continues to be revealed. This week we saw the rejection of an FOI request for the state government’s polling on council amalgamations. This polling was heavily relied on by the Labor government to prosecute their case for amalgamations, saying that their polling proved most people wanted it. The Local Government Association of Queensland put in an FOI request for the polling but, lo and behold, it was refused.

What is obvious to anyone is that the polling was not overwhelmingly positive, as Premier Beattie indicated. There was something to hide so they hid it, as Labor hide so many things, behind the cabinet paper defence. Then we have the issue of union involvement, which perhaps lies at the very heart of these amalgamations. Unionists are stacking the transitional committees which pave the way for the amalgamated identities. Unelected unionists now have these positions of power. Some unionists are on more than one of these committees, some are on one, some are on eight, and one is on four. They are affecting the dynamics of the way the current councils will come together in new merged entities. They are in the position of being able to make or break decisions that favour one group or another. They have the power to block or advance policies but they are unelected. They should not have that power, especially when democratically elected local councillors are forced to the sidelines of their own communities.

Despite a low level of union membership in the council workforce, union officials constitute almost half the committees and are in a position to determine the outcome of major decisions. One shire council has more union reps on their transitional committee than they have union members. Those members and their workforce do not represent the community. Half the union reps actually live more than 500 kilometres away from the shire, because they just have not got any union members in that shire; they have got to import them. Union organiser and failed ALP member for Burdekin, Steve Rodgers, has been appointed to no fewer than four council transitional committees: Townsville, Cassowary Coast, Cairns and the Tablelands. There are just not enough unionists to go around. How is it that Steve Rodgers, rejected by the electorate in 2001, is now better qualified than democratically elected councillors to make major decisions for Queensland communities? These committees have been established to make all the structural, financial and operational decisions for the new regional councils. And who is dominating these committees? None other than failed Labor politicians and union hacks. They are determining the future of communities where they have never lived and they have never been elected.

Labor could not care less about council workers. All they are interested in is handing power to their union mates. Their agenda is not about building stronger councils; it is about building stronger trade unions and entrenching union power in the council workforce. That is why Bill Ludwig has been so silent on the thousands of local jobs that Labor are destroying in Queensland. Why speak up when there is a cash cow of workers’ pay packets coming your way? But the union involvement goes much further. This week there have been reports of threats made to council workers that they would get the sack under amalgamation unless they paid up and joined a union. This is nothing but blackmail and union standover tactics legislated for by a Labor government—a leopard that does not change its spots. State or federal, it is the same leopard.

Reports have surfaced that union representatives have told council workers that those who are union members will retain their jobs and those who are not will not have a job. Of the 37,000 council employees currently in Queensland, only 10 to 25 per cent are union members. That is thousands of council workers who could be threatened into paying union membership of more than $400 each, because they are being told by militant union bosses that it is the only way that their jobs will be safe. The unions stand to gain millions of dollars by threatening council workers into becoming members. Council employees are expected to soon be dragooned into a statutory body for the AWU to feed on. That question was asked in the state house, and Mr Beattie refused to say that it was not the case. He skated around it. This is the type of ‘let’s reward the unions’ strategy that comes into play whenever Labor is in power. Look at who is being touted as the next member for Beattie’s seat: Queensland union chief Grace Grace. It does not matter that the frontman smiles; it is who stands behind and gets the power that matters; and, in Labor in Queensland, unionists have the power and the ordinary people do not even get a say. That is what it would be like under a Rudd federal Labor government. People should be warned, because this is a preview of what it will be like if the government changes.

Today, because the coalition is in government federally, we can restore the democratic rights of Queenslanders to have their say. If we were not here, that would never happen. Thankfully, today we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to do something about rogue state Labor governments. The federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, knows that what Beattie did was wrong; he said so. But did he do anything about it? No, because ultimately he is not the one with the power. He is the smiling frontman, essentially weak. Did Labor come up with this bill before us today to restore democracy in Queensland? No. If federal Labor are really so concerned, where is their bill to right the wrongs of their state Labor colleagues? It is nowhere. Mr Rudd can talk the talk but he cannot walk the walk. When the Beattie government decided not to allow a referendum or plebiscite on the amalgamation issue, The Nationals were very concerned. This led to the Prime Minister offering funding for the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake plebiscites on local amalgamations. As the Prime Minister said:

It is a total travesty of democracy to not only refuse to consult with people about what you are going to do that affects them, but, having refused to consult, threaten to punish them if they dare to express their opinion in a vote.

This government is not expressing a view as to whether or not individual mergers should occur. Rather, the Commonwealth believes that people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government without threat of penalty. Surely this is a fundamental democratic right, a fundamental Australian right—one that Labor tried to abolish. The majority of evidence before the Senate committee was critical of the actions of the Queensland government and expressed strong support for this bill. Subsequent to The Nationals championing of the democratic rights of Queenslanders, the Queensland Premier has introduced a bill to amend the ban on plebiscites. Premier Beattie is reported as saying:

Perhaps we were a bit heavy-handed in relation to that—

the question of holding plebiscites—

and we got that wrong… That part of it we stuffed up. But if people want the right to protest we should allow that. I obviously got that wrong.

Well, he got that right. The new Premier, Premier Bligh, now has the opportunity to put it all right by revisiting the whole process of forced amalgamations.

The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration was of the view that there remains a degree of uncertainty surrounding the status of the punitive provisions. It also noted that it was unusual for subordinate legislative instruments, such as a regulation, to amend primary legislation. The committee further noted that, at the time of writing, the amending bill remains listed on the Queensland parliament Notice Paper and is yet to be debated. As a result, the committee was reluctant to assume that the punitive provisions of the Queensland legislation have been withdrawn until it receives confirmation that that is actually the case. The passage of this bill will provide protection in the event those provisions are not repealed or similar legislation is again introduced.

The extent of the lack of consultation with affected communities was felt hardest in the Torres Strait. As one witness told the committee, and I think this is very important:

There was no proper consultation throughout our region. It really distresses me. We are talking about a region that looks after more services than any other shire in the region, because we also deal with an international treaty right throughout our region. I would love to see how the Mayor of Cook Shire or the Mayor of Douglas Shire would deal with 10 canoes sitting on the beach with people with diseases ranging from TB and dengue to HIV.

That is what these people do in the Torres Strait. They are the back door to Australia.

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

It’s the front door, thanks.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, whichever way you look at it. The witness at that committee continued:

These are real issues that are happening throughout our region. It has been stated that our region is the eyes and ears of Australia. With the amalgamation process, the only thing left is the bare skull. There is a passage through that skull to Australia that no-one has really given any answers to.

Erosion of cultural identity was also cited as a consequence of the amalgamations by Mr Joseph Elu, Chairman of the Seisia Island Council. He said:

We are a different race of people to any other in this world. There are only 30,000 of us on this planet. This amalgamation will throw us together in a sense that we do not want to be. It will throw us, on the tip of Cape York, together with Aboriginal people. We feel we will lose our identity.

He continued:

We believe that God gave us part of the country that we are sitting in. I plead with this committee to come up with some answers for us. Otherwise, we will be lost to everything in this world.

No-one can doubt his sincerity. He is a strong man, a man that has the Torres Strait community in his heart. The committee strongly supported the passage of this plebiscite bill in order to provide certainty to councils wishing to enable their communities to express a view on the amalgamations. Labor senators on the committee also supported the passage of this bill. They stated in the report that they regretted the failure of the Queensland government to lodge a written submission. That is all they can do, of course: to ‘regret’. What would they say if they came to power federally and interest rates soared again, and youth unemployment skyrocketed to 34 per cent like it was under them last time. Would they only say, ‘We regret that’? The Labor senators on the committee were Queenslanders—Senators Moore, McLucas and Ludwig. No doubt they will ‘regret’ the loss of jobs and they will ‘regret’ the loss of community viability and identity flowing from forced council amalgamations. Labor ‘regrets’ the loss of democratic rights. They ‘regret’ that they have to stack committees with unionists. But they cannot help it—they are Labor, and after all that is what they are all about. The true message out of all of this is: no Rudd, no regrets. (Quorum formed)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007, which is before the chamber today, is straightforward. It is short; it is 3½ pages of text. We consistently made that point throughout the committee process. We had almost more sitting days on this bill than there are pages of the bill for people to understand. That was a point that needed to be made consistently through the three extremely interesting days of hearings that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration took to consider this bill, which had full cross-party support before we actually went to any process of consideration. Given that process, given it was a decision that was supported when the government decided to have a committee on this process, it would have seemed churlish for people to have rejected that opportunity. We raised the issue that it could well have been not the most effective use of time on a bill that is 3½ pages long.

The bill is effectively in two parts. One part is to allow the use of Australian Electoral Commission facilities for plebiscites—not just plebiscites that talk about local government amalgamations. The second component is to overrule decisions that the Queensland state government had made about punitive provisions if local government decisions were taken to have a plebiscite or any form of discussion about this at the local level in Queensland.

Given that we decided as a government to take the process of having a committee inquiry on the 3½ pages of legislation, the important thing in dealing with the wide interest in Queensland in the issue of local government amalgamations was to ensure that the people who gave their effort, their time, their energy to come and talk to the committee about the issues that were important to them, and to express their genuine pain about the decisions that were impacting on them and their local government, understood the situation. It was so important for the people who were involved in that process to be absolutely clear with those witnesses and to work with them to ensure that there was absolute understanding about the role of the finance and public administration committee’s inquiry and, most particularly, about the impact of the legislation we were discussing. That did not always occur.

I do not have the experience in this place that Senator Boswell has, and the depth of understanding that he has of issues around Queensland local government and the way the Senate operates should be respected. I do not have that length of experience in this place, but I do have a clear understanding about the role of a committee when we work with the community on a piece of legislation. We are there to talk about the legislation and how it will operate and what impact it could have on the community. That did not occur through the process of this finance and public administration committee inquiry.

Among some senators who attended—there were senators from the Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party—there seemed to be the misunderstanding that the debate point was the local government amalgamation process in Queensland. That was indeed an overwhelming issue for the people who came to give evidence, and it did trigger the decision to bring forward this piece of legislation about the role of referenda and overturning the punitive elements of the state government ruling. The debate, the concern and the expectation of so many of the people who came to see our committee were about the local government amalgamation process, the impact on their communities, and their hope that we would be able to overturn the state government’s decision. That was expressed on a number of occasions.

I encourage people who are interested in this process, and who are interested in particular in the operation of the Senate, to go to the Senate committee page, to look through the Hansard, to see the discussions that occurred and to actually hear people express their hopes that, somehow, the federal government would be able to overturn what the state Labor government had decided to do through their processes. That is not something that is possible under our Constitution.

One of my deep concerns about the process in which we have been taking part is that we somehow strayed from the process, through a political decision to raise awareness and exert pressure. While these are goals that are perfectly reasonable, they are not the intent of the Senate committee process and they are not the intent of the legislation that we are considering, which is quite simply titled the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. In terms of what we have heard so far in contributions and in this place, and in terms of what I expect to hear more of throughout the rest of this debate, we will continue to have this range of confusing issues in people’s views about the role of the Queensland state government and about the various actions that were taken. All that is worthy of discussion and debate but it is not the point of this legislation. I think that needs to be put clearly on the record.

Throughout the process we had what I consider the most unedifying process of senators working with witnesses and trying to make political statements. I quote from the hearing that we had in Emerald when Senator Joyce was talking with one of the local mayors and these words were said:

How do you solve a political problem?

Then came an ongoing question that Senator Joyce asked witnesses throughout the process of the committee:

Can you see any pressure points coming up on the horizon that may be exerted that may encourage people to be a bit more active in trying to support your cause, and where—

do you suppose—

those political pressure points—

could—

be?

The sad part is we had coming to our inquiry witnesses who had genuine concerns about local government amalgamations—and we share those concerns and we respect those concerns. But you had senior members of the community being somehow perplexed by the line of questioning and saying: ‘What do you want me to say, Senator? What is the response that you’re seeking me to make?’ To me that certainly lowered the impact of the process in which we were involved.

We know that we are involved in a political process. We know that we will use opportunities to advance particular causes. But I believe that when we clearly use people’s pain so as to exert political pressure over an issue, an issue over which the committee has no ability to make change, that is a misuse of the process. That disappoints me and it makes me angry because I think that we have a responsibility to the people who seek to have their political representatives support them.

I think my favourite moments of the three days of hearings was when Senator Joyce—and I am not trying to single out Senator Joyce in this process, but he actually attracted my attention by the way he was asking these questions—was asking my particular favourite series of questions of a number of witnesses. He was asking them if they knew who made up the Queensland Labor government: ‘Do you know who makes up the Queensland government and what party they belong to? Do you know who they are?’ Leading on from these he came to his second point, which was to ask the political question: ‘Do you know who is the Leader of the Opposition at the federal level?’ I am not making this up, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I refer you to the Hansard of these hearings. My point is that we had been able to come to a consensus across the members who attended these hearings. We agreed that allowing a plebiscite process which would be able to be triggered where necessary would be a useful way for people to express their opinion. We actually shared the view through the committee process that we thought that the role of the Queensland state government on this issue should have been questioned. We felt that it was of a ‘punitive’ nature—and we used that adjective, and I think ‘punitive’ was used several hundred times over the three days of this process—and we shared the view that any attempt to punish local government elected officials for trying to find out what their people felt at the local level was wrong and that we should be exerting pressure to ensure that that was overturned.

One of the people who were asked the questions was the opposition spokesperson on local government and I am happy to report that Mr Hobbs did know who was in the Queensland government. I think it was a great relief to all of us in the committee that he was able to respond to that question. However, that reflects the way the process degenerated over the three days.

What we can do as a Senate is express the views of people at the local level. We can express concern and we can try to ensure that we expose things that we think are wrong. However, on the issue of state government and its role as to local government under the Constitution, at this stage we cannot intrude. No government—and it does not matter what flavour they are—can direct a state government about what it can do on decisions about local government. When we led into discussion in the committee about the role of local government, which is a really important issue, one which has been discussed previously in this place and we trust will be so again, we were talking about looking at constitutional recognition of local government. That was discussed quite openly by people. Then there was an attempt by some members of our committee to ask the question as to whether that would be of any use in the current debate—again, an attempt to misuse the process and to confuse people. I do not think that is our job. I think our job is to listen. I think it is our job to see where we can develop better policy and it is very much our job to see where we can work effectively to develop good legislation.

The legislation in front of us will serve a purpose. How many times it will be used we don’t know. There has certainly been an impact at the Queensland state level where the second elements to which Senator Boswell referred, the aspects of punishment for local government officials who would be looking at running any form of survey or local plebiscite about this issue, have been removed. That is a good result. I think that trying to continue to question whether or not that has occurred misuses the process and continues to confuse.

As to the use of the AEC element, one of the points in the process in which I was interested was to look at the whole constitutional debate about how we impact as a federal government in making decisions about what can be done at the local government level, how we can do that and what is the best way of doing that, particularly as at the moment there is no status for local government in the Constitution as to just how it works. There was a very useful discussion. I think one of the more useful elements of the whole three days was the discussion with AEC representatives while looking at exactly how it could operate, finding out from them how they felt about their role, because there had been questions raised earlier in the hearings about whether it was the best use of the AEC. So I think it was useful to have that discussion. It would have been very useful to have been able to see the legal advice on which the federal government relied when it pursued this choice of going down the legislative process. We were assured by the public servant who travelled with us and was able to provide professional support to our process that the government had taken legal advice when it determined the drafting of this very short piece of legislation. We know it would have. It would have been particularly useful for us on the committee to have seen that legal advice, particularly when we had had evidence from a couple of very senior constitutional experts questioning whether in fact this particular legislation was effective under the current Constitution. Where you have people who have a genuine interest in and knowledge of our Constitution raising points, expressing concerns and attempting to work towards a clear result, I think it would be very useful if then, through the committee process, you would be able to see the legal advice, look at it and see exactly how it responded to the various points.

Again, that was not made available. That was certainly not the decision of a public servant; it was a government decision that the legal advice would not be made available. I think that is disappointing. I think that there was goodwill in this committee towards the process at times. We started out those three days mostly in agreement about the legislation. It would have been useful when we walked away at the end of the three days if we could have had all our questions answered, particularly those on the legal aspects. I raise that for further consideration.

This is a particularly complex area of constitutional law. Senator Boswell expressed some concern about what a federal government—he was actually referring to a possible federal Labor government—could do in this situation. I think it is really important that we understand exactly what any federal government of any political persuasion could do when we are looking at decisions being made by state government on local government. That has been an ongoing question that is still in front of us at the end of this process.

I think there was some value in having the process because it gave people in Queensland local governments the opportunity to express their concerns. I never think that is a wasted process. What I continue to be concerned about is raising any false hope about our ability at the federal level to change decisions that are being made on the local government area. I thank the representatives from local government and also the people from local communities who came to the meetings in Noosa, Emerald and also Cairns and handed in submissions about their views on the way the local government decision would affect everything they are doing. However, I do not think that very many of those people who came before us fully gave information about the three-page legislation in front of us. That information was able to be drawn out during the process.

I express some worry about what will happen next, because one of the things that has occurred because of the time frame in which we are operating is that there has been a great degree of expectation created around the fact that plebiscites will be able to take place as a result of this legislation. In fact, plebiscites probably could have taken place anyway except that now we have it made clear by the legislation that the AEC will be able to use the electoral roll for that and also the Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be no cost to local government. There are no details on this in the legislation in front of us. There is no detail about how a plebiscite would operate or how much it would cost. I think Senator Murray raised the point very clearly that when you say, ‘We’ll have a plebiscite,’ people have very different views about what exactly that means. It certainly means that people will have an opportunity to respond to a question, but I do not think the very significant details about how that question will be phrased, what the process will be and on what date the plebiscite will take place are any clearer at the end of the committee process than they were at the start. There is an understanding that plebiscites may take place, but how they will act was not made clear.

I think one of the things that we did find out from information from the AEC on the last day was that the hope that had been fanned in the media that there would be imminent plebiscites in the next couple of weeks or months is something that the AEC is not prepared for at this stage. We are not sure whether anyone could be directed to do that, but the AEC’s evidence—which, again, is in Hansard for people to consider—indicates that at the moment they are clearly focused on working through the very significant processes around a federal election across the whole country. They are mechanically and in a budget sense not able to look at running plebiscites in the next few weeks. Because of the political nature of the way this committee was formed and also the very rapid way in which the legislation was put before us, the media was running around in Queensland—I am not sure whether it got coverage outside our state—throwing dates around, throwing questions around and raising that sense of false hope. I think that has been said a few times. I think our role must continue to be to explore what we are able to achieve rather than to create hope, for whatever purpose—and it could be for a very strong purpose.

One of the clear issues that were raised in the three days by some of the contributions we heard, which are in the Hansard, was the role of unions. We heard evidence from one of the unions about what they see as their role in the process, which is to look after the conditions, jobs and futures of their members and employees in local government. That is where they see their role. I was interested to hear some of the people from the Liberal Party and Nationals on our committee calling for more activism from the union movement in Queensland. I was excited by that call and I think it was interesting in many ways, but I wonder whether it was actually the role of the committee in this process. Once again, I refer anyone who is interested in these points to the Hansard. I think they will find the contributions of the local government people who came to us particularly confronting because they do have concerns about the future of their communities. We should see what we can do to support them through that.

We support the legislation. There has never been any question about whether Labor would support the legislation or not. We do not support the process that surrounded some of the questioning in the committee process.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. As the very name of our party indicates, democracy is our core business and legislation that increases the prospect of direct democracy for the people is something that we support. That has been a longstanding and, indeed, founding principle of the Democrats. I think this is an example—in fact, it is a perfect case study—of where people need to look at what legislation actually does first and foremost in determining a position, regardless of what the motivation is for the legislation. The motivation behind the legislation coming forward may be cynical, hypocritical, breathtakingly dishonest and as misleading as possible. This is probably a good case study and example of that. It is hard to think of a more cynical, hypocritical piece of legislation, but nonetheless the practical application is a positive—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you agree with Beattie’s legislation?

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just do not have a clue, do you, Senator Ian Macdonald. You do not understand the idea that you can support this legislation and also think that Beattie’s approach is appalling. I do not know why that is so complex for you. But I guess it comes down to the total inability of some here—probably in all major parties but particularly in the government at the moment—to see anything outside of any prism other than your mind-blowingly narrow, laser-like focus on what might get you re-elected, to the complete contempt of due process, honesty and what actually might be in the public’s interest. All that matters is your spin, your line, and any connection to reality is obviously irrelevant. Perhaps if you listen, Senator Macdonald, you might actually increase your understanding of what you are doing. You probably do not even realise what you are doing. I would not be surprised.

The Democrats are very pleasantly supportive of this legislation because it puts in place a mechanism to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to directly assist with plebiscites on any matter around the country. There is not enough detail, of course, on how people can actually make use of that new right that they will have, but we have a precedent being set where the parliament is saying that the Electoral Commission should have a role in being able to assist communities around the country to hold plebiscites on matters of importance to them. That is a huge step forward, and I am very pleased that the parliament is going to unanimously sign off on that basic principle. But what has clearly been demonstrated by the contributions to date from the government side is that this is being brought forward in an atmosphere of total cynicism and complete hypocrisy. So we will not have any details of where people can exercise this right; it will be plebiscites only when it suits the political point-scoring opportunities of the government of the day. That is certainly not ideal, but it at least provides that initial principle and right.

There are only two components to this legislation. The first part is to allow the Australian Electoral Commission and all its resources—its electoral roll, facilities, expertise, independence et cetera—to be brought to bear to assist with the holding of plebiscites. The second part goes to relying on the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights—which in itself is another monumental piece of hypocrisy from this government, who have spent most of their time in office trashing the UN conventions. I welcome any opportunity where any federal government seeks to validate and implement a component of international human rights laws, particularly on such a fundamental issue as democratic participation. The second part of the legislation relies on using that convention to ensure against the absolutely disgraceful, draconian, outrageous and, indeed, punitive provision of the Queensland government in trying to fine and potentially therefore imprison any local council for even asking their electorate what they think—mind-blowing authoritarianism from the Beattie government!

What I think we have at the moment is a very sad competition between the state Labor government and the federal Liberal government about who can be most contemptuous of democracy, who can be the most cynical and who can be the most driven in circling each other looking for the best short-term grab to dominate the next 24 hours of the media cycle. But the simple fact is that the legislation that passes is what becomes the law. All of the political posturing surrounding it, including three days of Senate committee inquiries, is all part of the entertainment and political heat but, at the end of it all, that will all fade away—we will have the election and life will go on—and this law will remain. And that is what matters.

The precedent set in this law is a good one. It is hard to imagine circumstances where a state government might in the future do what the Beattie government initially proposed—although they have now stepped back from threatening and putting in law the ability to fine people in local governments for holding a plebiscite of their own constituency—but who would have thought the Beattie government would have done it? It is quite extraordinary. Thankfully, even they have realised that they went far too far in that regard and are stepping back from that proposal. Having a protection in law at the federal level against it ever happening again is a good thing. Having the precedent in law of the Electoral Commission’s resources being able to be used to enable people locally to express their views about an issue of concern to them is also a good thing.

We as Democrats unequivocally support the legislation; however, there is that wider issue of people not being misled about what is in the legislation—people not being misled into thinking that this legislation can actually reverse the local government amalgamations in Queensland. I am on record both in this chamber and in a number of public statements as being strongly opposed to the process that the Beattie government followed. Indeed, you have been in the chair—and are again—Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, having to endure me slagging off your state Labor colleagues vociferously about their terrible approach to local government amalgamations in Queensland. Of course, as we all know, that is not taking the position that no amalgamations should take place. Indeed, processes were in place—perhaps occurring slower than they should have been but nonetheless definitely occurring, and quite adequately in many places—to move in that direction.

It also needs to be emphasised that improving the efficiency and effectiveness at a local government level in Queensland or elsewhere is not just about amalgamations. Unfortunately, that seems to be all it has boiled down to from the state government’s point of view—smash everybody together, tell them they have a few months to sort out how it is all going to work and on you go. It is about a lot more than just the boundaries of the local government area; it is about how local governments work together—maximising efficiencies, sharing resources across boundaries, developing regional plans and all those sorts of things. That has, I think, been lost. That was a key part of the size, shape and sustainability process that was in place before the Beattie government rolled in over the top and blew it out of the water.

Certainly some amalgamations are desirable—and there will often be some resistance—but the process followed by the Beattie government, which is still being followed, is a disgrace, particularly after letting them go through two years or more of working with people locally to explore the best way forward. To just sweep all that aside without notice—completely misleading people right up to the last second that the process was still supported by the state government and then smashing something over the top of them—with a completely inadequate time frame and no meaningful opportunity for participation and clearly with a pre-determined agenda is a disgrace. There is no other word for it. The Beattie government should be condemned for it—whilst it is still the Beattie government—and, if the Bligh government does not reverse some of its measures, it should be condemned for it as well. But this legislation will not change that, of course.

We had Senator Boswell calling this the ‘Restore Democracy to Queensland Bill’. It is a grand name, and I like the sound of that. As a Queenslander I think we could certainly do with a lot more democracy. We will test how solid Senator Boswell is about that commitment to restoring democracy with some of the amendments in the committee stage. I should at this stage also foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment that I have circulated. If the National Party is so keen on restoring democracy to Queensland, let us genuinely support democracy. Let us put it in place, let us lock it in and let us make sure that it is not just a grand-sounding statement as part of pre-election pontification.

But let me remind the Senate of my experience of the National Party in Queensland, which is certainly not a party which, in my experience, has ever been committed to democracy. In the period from when Senator Boswell first got in—which was in 1983, from memory—a certain Joh Bjelke-Petersen had then been in office for about 15 years and was, at that stage, about to become Premier for the National Party, governing in its own right. I never saw any moves through any of that period to restore or increase democracy to Queensland. Indeed, I recall that even the basic matter of the electoral system that determines government was grotesquely corrupt, notoriously corrupt in Queensland. Now, of course, it has to be so in the interests of balance and partisanship. The disgraceful malapportionment and gerrymander that was put in place and distorted by the National Party in Queensland was initially put in place by the Labor Party, so I think it is more a matter of major parties in general liking to grab power for themselves and taking it away from the people. That is what we are seeing at the moment, of course, both at state level with the state Labor government and at federal level with the federal Liberal government—more and more power grabs taking away power from the people.

So it is a grand statement to talk about restoring democracy to Queensland, but I would like to see some evidence. I would like to see some policies put in place by the National Party-led coalition at state level in Queensland to restore democracy. I can tell you that the last time we had a National Party government in Queensland it was led by Mr Rob Borbidge, who got into government on a pledge to the people of Queensland that he would hold a referendum to restore the upper house to Queensland—to us, the people of Queensland. It was not even to be a plebiscite but a referendum—where their say would be binding—to restore an upper house to Queensland. We have less democracy in Queensland than in any other state in this country because we do not have a house of review—we do not have an upper house. It is often forgotten—in fact, I think it is almost totally forgotten and certainly rarely mentioned—that Mr Borbidge’s pledge was not an insignificant part of the reason he got into government. We all know that he got in only by one seat after the Mundingburra by-election in 1996. That was after the 1995 election, where a significant number of seats were won by the coalition from the Goss government. That involved preferences, particularly from the Greens, going to the coalition but also, in some cases, from the Democrats, who ran in that 1995 election. Certainly, from the Democrats point of view, the key reason we thought that was worth considering—and I can definitely assert this because I was part of the decision-making process within the Democrats—was because of the pledge, even though there was a lot about the coalition we did not like. There was obviously a lot about the Goss government that we did not like either. But for any government to actually put in place a pledge to restore an upper house and increase democracy in Queensland would be a massive boon for the people of Queensland.

I was young and naive in those days and I thought, ‘This is a clear, signed pledge in writing from the alternative Premier and his party, the grand National Party’—which Senator Boswell assures us is thrilled with the news that we are about to restore democracy to Queensland. I thought: ‘Of course, they will keep their promise; how could they not? They are only holding a referendum; they don’t have to campaign in support of it. They just put in a pledge saying, “We’ll put in place a referendum and let the people decide whether or not they want an upper house.”’ So it is no exaggeration at all to say that a key factor of why The Nationals ended up in government was because of their pledge to hold a referendum to see whether we could strengthen democracy in Queensland by having an upper house put in place. It was taken away by the Labor Party, from memory, 75 or so years ago. It was not elected in those days, so there was plenty wrong with it. But, as usual, it is better to improve things rather than to just scrap them.

But what did we see when Mr Borbidge got into government? The pledge was broken. We heard: ‘No, we don’t think we should have a referendum anymore; people probably wouldn’t support it anyway, so we won’t even ask them.’ Suddenly when they were in government the idea of having an upper house, of having some sort of check and balance on the government, which was them, did not seem to be a very good idea anymore. Who would have thought that? The grand irony is that if they had gone ahead with it and we had had an upper house back in Queensland we would not have had legislation amalgamating local councils in Queensland, because there is no way that an upper house, if elected in anything like a proportional system and doing its job, would allow it. Even this chamber, now that it is controlled by the coalition, occasionally does not allow grotesquely ridiculous draconian legislation through without making at least some meek attempt to modify it. I think it is a very sure bet that if we had had an upper house in Queensland we would not have had this sort of ridiculous, outrageous antidemocratic local government amalgamation process forced upon the people of Queensland and on local councils by the Beattie government.

So you had your chance, and you blew it because you were interested in hanging on to power for your own sake when you had it, and now, when somebody else has it and is using it to keep hold of power, you do not like it. That is why you are supposed to have checks and balances. That is why strengthening democracy so the people actually have more control is a good idea. That is why all of your protestations now are nothing more than cynical pre-election hypocrisy. If you want to prove me wrong, you can support some of the amendments that we will be putting forward in the committee stage.

The other point that has to be made here is not just about Queensland. I think the worst example of all of the amalgamations that I am aware of is Douglas shire and forcing it into Cairns. I am terrified about what that will mean for the people, particularly for the environment and the Indigenous communities around there. There are many other shires as well. Noosa has received a lot of attention but there are many other shires out west. I was in Eidsvold a few months ago, just after the Beattie government had announced this process. They were very concerned about what would happen, and what happened is what they predicted would happen. There are plenty of others. Tambo has been mentioned, and there are a lot of others that are quite right to be concerned.

Here we have three pages of legislation. The government were so concerned about democracy and about the people affected having their say, and Mr Howard had been saying in the other chamber that it was outrageous that people should have these sorts of things foisted on them without the opportunity to have a say, that they were going to give them the opportunity to have a say. We had a Senate committee inquiry—and good on them. We had three days of inquiry in Noosa, Emerald and Port Douglas for three pages of legislation—to give them the opportunity to have a say.

Straight after that we had this government bulldoze through over 500 pages of legislation affecting Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. This legislation did not just amalgamate some of their councils or some of their townships; it gave this government power to completely take over their townships, their councils and their land. And you did not allow them one day to have a say. Hypocrites! Do you think people do not notice this? Just because you live in a plastic bubble inside Parliament House and blow hot air at one another do you think the community does not notice this sort of hypocrisy? You are not giving Aboriginal people a plebiscite. If you want to let them have a say then support our amendments. Let them have a say about whether or not they want their towns taken over. Maybe they do. I have heard Senator Scullion repeatedly say that the federal government’s actions are being welcomed with open arms in the Territory. I know they are in some communities, but in others they are not. Let them have a say. If you have a plebiscite you will get a 100 per cent vote. We love it. There will be cheering in the streets. Let them have a say if you are that confident that they support it.

That is what is happening: they are having their townships taken over, and maybe they love it. But they did not even have a say on the legislation. You would not have even one day of hearing in the Territory. Begrudgingly, you gave us a one-day hearing here and, as we know, half of the people who wanted to have a say were not even allowed to have a say. Yet we can have three days around regional Queensland to look at a three-page piece of legislation. What hypocrisy! Don’t come in here with this sort of doublespeak and try to pretend you have got any commitment to anything other than trying to protect your own political hide. You do not give a rat’s about democracy. Everybody can see that. Everybody knows that, including the people in Queensland who are most outraged by what the Beattie government is doing. The fact that they are outraged about the Beattie government does not mean they are not also outraged about the federal government. People are capable of thinking of more than one thing at a time.

This approach here will just increase community cynicism, but as I said at the start it will, nonetheless, put in place the precedent of the Electoral Commission’s resources being made available for the people to have a say, and that is a very good thing. The fact that you have set that precedent just to try to protect your political hide as part of pre-election cynicism is neither here nor there. I welcome this precedent. I welcome this legislation and I welcome trying to build on the precedent set here to try to return some genuine democracy to Queensland. If the coalition senators want to work with the Democrats on doing that or if the Labor senators do as well I welcome that, but let us actually do it. Let us shift away from some of the disgusting, cynical, empty posturing that will not make one jot of difference to the very genuine concerns that the people throughout Queensland have. (Time expired) (Quorum formed)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The duplicity of the Labor Party knows no bounds. It was the Labor Party that introduced into Queensland legislation that took away from people the right to vote. No matter what posturing some of the opposition speakers might do they cannot escape from the fact that it was the Australian Labor Party that introduced legislation that threatened councillors and councils with fines, and councillors with jail, should they have the temerity to even request a poll on the future of their particular local authority.

The duplicity of the Labor Party continues. The Queensland Labor Party is one group of people. It is a group of people that elect the members to the state parliament, and it is the Premier of the day who chooses his advisers. I well remember when a Mr Kevin Rudd was the principal adviser to the Queensland Premier and got us into all sorts of messes with health, water and betting and gambling, but the duplicity now is that they are all moving to the other side. You only have to have a look at the minority report of the Australian Labor Party senators on the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Administration into this bill before us, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007, to see again the duplicity of the Labor Party. In one of the paragraphs in the Labor Party’s report, they claim that they support this bill, but, if you read their report, you understand that they are obviously only doing that—they hate the thought of doing it; they hate the thought of denying their Queensland colleagues—because the focus groups that so much direct the federal Labor Party these days gave an indication of the outrage of Queenslanders over the undemocratic legislation of Mr Beattie.

The report, in an abject insult to everyone that came to give evidence at the inquiry, said:

Many witnesses appeared to be under the misapprehension that the committee could adjudicate on local government amalgamations ...

That is simply an insult to all of the witnesses that came along. All of the witnesses understood what this was about. They understood without equivocation that the federal government could not do anything about amalgamations. In fact, the federal government does not have a view about amalgamations. I do, but the federal government does not, and to suggest that the people who came to give evidence did not understand what they were giving evidence about is an outrage to them and an insult of the highest degree.

The minority report on this bill suggests that government senators were trying to foster in witnesses’ minds uncertainty about Labor support for this bill. Hang on—it was the Queensland Labor Party that actually introduced, enforced and rammed through the Queensland parliament the bill denying Queenslanders the right to have a vote. The minority report says:

Labor Senators commend witnesses who rejected repeated attempts by government Senators to elicit responses to contrived lines of questioning.

That is simply fanciful. The Labor members must have been asleep. It says that Labor:

... regret the belligerent questioning by government Senators of expert witnesses who questioned the constitutional validity ...

I certainly questioned one of the so-called expert witnesses, a so-called professor of law—heaven forbid—and some of his propositions simply would not make elements of ‘Law 101’. I was surprised at his approach. I do not think I was belligerent. I did as any lawyer or former lawyer, as is my case, might do: I tried to elucidate the strange argument that he had.

The minority report then goes on to criticise the Department of Finance and Administration for not giving more evidence and not being available. As I recall—and I was at the meeting on the last day when the AEC and the department appeared—the questions to them were pretty limited. I am sure we finished early. So for the Labor Party to suggest in this duplicitous minority report that there was not time simply belies the facts. Labor senators were there—or were they? I know a few of them had flitted off and did not seem to have much interest in it. But those that were there had the opportunity to question people.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw that comment about lack of interest and flitting off.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a reflection.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a reflection on the senators who were there, one of whom was me.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could argue with you and your ruling, Madam Acting Deputy President, but I will not; I will withdraw. Let me rephrase it. Labor senators left before the end of the hearing. Now challenge that, Senator Moore. And if my colourful language of ‘flitting off’ offends you then I am sorry I used the term, but obviously those who left had a lack of interest in questioning the AEC, and yet the minority report makes so much reference to it.

This report was no doubt written by the senior member of Mr Rudd’s staff who followed around and kept an eye on Labor senators, riding shotgun with them for the whole of the hearings. No doubt this was written by that staffer from Mr Rudd’s office. Tell me I am wrong on that, Senator Moore.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the Hansard, there is silence on that.

The Labor senators’ report then goes on to talk about plebiscites and their mates in the Queensland Labor Party. The Labor Party in Queensland is one and the same Labor Party; there are not two Labor parties in Queensland. The union heavies who control state preselections are the same union heavies who control federal preselections. They all meet at the one conference; there are not two different conferences. It is one political party, and yet half of them are saying: ‘We didn’t agree with this. Look what we’ve done—we’ve introduced legislation to repeal the draconian legislation we just passed two weeks previously.’ Come on—the people of Queensland understand duplicity when they see it, and they will not forgive the Labor Party for the duplicity and the attempt to remove democratic freedoms from Queenslanders.

As of two days ago, when I inquired, the Labor Party in Queensland had still not dealt with legislation to repeal this. All the way through the hearing, we had Labor senators telling us: ‘The Queensland government have seen the error of their ways. They’re going to introduce legislation. They are going to remove the legislation that has been introduced.’ But here we are several weeks later and it has still not been dealt with by the Queensland parliament—unless it happened this morning and I have not caught up with it. It was certainly not on the top of the legislative agenda for the Queensland parliament—controlled by the Labor Party—when parliament resumed after the break. Then they have the stupidity—I would love to get a lawyer’s view on this—to pass a regulation to amend the principal bill. It defies any logic of the law. It is absolutely amazing.

This is the sort of duplicity that the Labor Party go on with. Heaven forbid that the Labor Party should control every state and the federal government in Australia as, if you believe the opinion polls, is going to happen. Can you imagine what would have happened if the federal government had not been around to say to the Queensland government, ‘We are going to override your legislation to remove this antidemocratic piece of legislation’? If the Labor Party were in power federally, they would not have done it and we, the people of Queensland, would have been thrown into jail had we had the temerity to ask for a poll.

I am disgusted by the attitude of Labor Party people at the hearing, in their speeches today, and in this minority report suggesting that we should have a poll on nuclear power plants. If any council wants to have a poll—on nuclear power plants, for example—they can, unless the council is in Queensland and it happens to be a poll on the right of people to vote at a local government election; in that case, they cannot. Any council in Australia can have a poll tomorrow. They can have a poll on whether Senator Conroy should remain the deputy leader, or whatever he is, of the Labor Party in the Senate. They can have a poll about anything if they want to. Any council in Australia, except any council in Queensland, has the right to have a poll about anything. The people of Queensland would have been thrown into jail if they had asked for a poll on the future of their local authority.

As I said before, the duplicity of this report and of the Labor Party speakers knows no bounds. The suggestion that the Labor Party has had a second thought about this is just preposterous. If it had not been for the Howard government using fairly unusual circumstances and relying on the external affairs power to override Queensland legislation, things would not have changed in Queensland and the bill would still be as it is. The Labor Party—the one Labor Party there is in Australia and in Queensland—pushed this bill through the Queensland parliament in double-quick time. There was never a committee hearing in the Queensland parliament.

Senator Bartlett—one of the lackeys of the Labor Party in Queensland—came along and said: ‘The federal government are duplicitous in this. They are horrible; they only allowed a three-day hearing. They didn’t allow us time.’ How many days of hearing did the Queensland parliament, run by the Labor Party, allow for looking at this bill before it was rammed through the Queensland parliament? I hear no response from the other side. Well, let me give the response: there was no committee hearing in the Queensland parliament.

The question of amalgamations in Queensland is a matter for the Queensland government, not for the federal government. We have never pretended and have never suggested that it is a matter for the federal government. All we have said is that we would restore to Queensland the right to vote on the future of local government. We understand that the polls that will now be conducted in Queensland will have no impact on an arrogant, out-of-touch Labor Party government in Queensland. In the federal Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition displays the same sort of arrogance. Can you imagine his arrogance when the Labor Party control every state and territory government in Australia and the federal government?

The arrogance displayed by Mr Rudd yesterday in that cheap political speech in front of a foreign dignitary will be multiplied. The arrogance displayed by Mr Rudd yesterday in pre-empting a gift by the Canadian people to the Australian people, with some ridiculous self-centred story about his people coming out in the First Fleet, will be multiplied when the Labor Party controls every government in Australia. Mr Rudd’s arrogance and the hubris he exhibits now—just relying on opinion polls, as he does—will multiply 10-fold if the Labor Party hold every government in Australia. I do not believe it will be the case, but the opinion polls are there.

Under our leader, John Howard, we will be fighting a very determined campaign to save for Australia all of the benefits that Australians have received over the last 11 years of good government in this country. I shudder to think what might be the case in Australia if the Labor Party wins in the federal election. Mr Beattie’s arrogance and the way he has dealt with this undemocratic issue would be multiplied 10-fold. I suppose it is against standing orders to have a bet, but let me make this prediction: should the Labor Party win federally, the GST will be the first thing to go up, because the Labor Party cannot pay for the promises they have already made. They have promised to give everyone dental health care.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. I wonder if you could draw my attention to where, in this bill, it mentions the GST.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Macdonald is allowed to make remarks that border on the political, as the Labor Party does. I will allow him to proceed but I am monitoring it carefully.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a certain sensitivity on this issue—a real sensitivity. Perhaps I have let the cat out of the bag! Perhaps it is Labor Party policy to increase the GST, because they will not get any obstruction from the states. Further, on duplicity, you will see in the Labor senators’ report and in the second reading amendment moved by the Labor Party that they are calling for a referendum on constitutional recognition of local government. Let me ask anyone who put this report together and put their name to it—as I say, I know it was a staffer from Mr Rudd’s office, who followed the committee, riding shotgun on Labor senators to ensure that they toed the line, but I will not ask him—how many state governments, all of which are controlled by the Labor Party, would support this referendum? Not one. Labor state governments will not do it, so now we have this divide again: a federal Labor government would have this constitutional recognition for state government but the state Labor Party simply would not. Is it one Labor Party or are there two Labor parties?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I know this disturbs you because this is the truth of the matter. Some focus groups have told Mr Rudd: ‘We can perhaps talk about an amalgamation and talk about constitutional recognition, so let’s put that in as an amendment to this motion.’  But that is the federal Labor Party; it is not the state Labor Party. If the state Labor Party believe that, you do not need to agree to a federal constitutional referendum. They could do it tomorrow. But where are the state Labor governments? They will totally oppose this, but it gives Mr Rudd a bit of kudos. It lets him do what the focus groups tell him he should be doing and it allows the Labor Party to, again, confuse the Australian public. Will whoever is going to speak after me tell me which state Labor government supports constitutional recognition of local government? Also, can they tell me, if there are any—and I guarantee that there are not—why they are not doing it today? They could do it if they wanted to. We have this duplicity yet again of the Labor Party saying one thing and meaning something else. This report is duplicitous in its words, its paragraphs and in everything except the recommendation that the bill should proceed.

There is no confusion about this bill. It is a very simple bill. All of the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquiry understood what the bill was about. They did not really talk about plebiscites or amalgamations. It gives the Australian Electoral Commission the ability to use some information they have about electoral rolls in any plebiscite and, insofar as the Queensland law stated that you could not have a democratic right to vote, that was overridden by the Commonwealth act. Aren’t we as a nation and as Queenslanders grateful to the Australian government and John Howard for making this happen?

I am not sure whether anyone who is listening to this debate understands the draconian nature of the bill that the Labor Party rammed through the Queensland parliament. I never cease to be amazed by the Australian media, but imagine if the Howard government had done something like that. It would not have got off the front pages for five months. Yet here was a piece of legislation introduced by the Labor Party which stated that not only can you not vote in a poll on your future as a council but, if you have the temerity to even suggest it, you will be thrown into jail. That is unheard of in the annals of Australian parliamentary history. It is the sort of thing—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The jackboot!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the jackboot sort of thing that people go to war over. And here we had the Labor Party in Queensland—which is the same as the Labor Party in Australia—putting forward that legislation until they were prevented by John Howard, his government and the Senate when we passed this law. I commend the bill to the Senate.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been invited by the previous speaker in his speech on the second reading to address some of the issues that he raised. He appeared to use the theme of duplicity in his speech. I am delighted that Senator Ian Macdonald has taken time off from undermining his leader, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, to speak about one of his other pet hates, the Australian Labor Party.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair, he hates Howard more than he hates us!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is in the eye of the beholder.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. To suggest undermining was a real reflection on me. That sort of thing is foreign to me, as anyone who knows me would understand, and I ask that Senator Faulkner be directed to withdraw that imputation.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That does reflect on Senator Macdonald, Senator Faulkner.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, if you take the view that it is a reflection, I will withdraw. I am surprised to hear that—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your apology, John!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just withdrawn; I am not apologising for anything. We all know how embittered Senator Macdonald has been since Mr Howard dumped him from the ministry. He is very embittered, and the result of that is that he comes into the chamber and simply raves. We have just heard ravings from Senator Macdonald—‘red faced and belligerent’, to use his own words. I am not surprised that he was described as ‘belligerent’ during the committee hearings into this bill. We have seen an example of it in this chamber today. As I said, not only do the internal affairs of the Liberal Party seem to get Senator Macdonald worked up—we all know what he is about in relation to that—but from time to time he even gets worked up about what happens in the Labor Party.

We are dealing here with legislation that is very unusual. It is unusual because most often—usually—the Howard government’s amendments to the Electoral Act have nothing to do with enhancing the democratic rights of Australian citizens. This piece of legislation, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007, would be the first time the Howard government has actually supported people voting. This would be the first time we have seen an attempt by the Howard government to enhance the democratic rights of Australians. Usually, the Howard government spends its time, in relation to electoral legislation, trying to make it harder for Australians to exercise their vote, to exercise their democratic rights. We have seen this government force through a number of regressive and undemocratic changes to electoral laws in this country, including early closure of the electoral rolls, greater identity requirements—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. My point of order relates to relevance. This is a bill designed to secure a specific legislative outcome—that is, to overrule the Beattie Labor government’s prohibition of the exercise of democratic choice by plebiscite by local authorities in Queensland—and remarks about prior legislation under amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act are, with respect, irrelevant to the subject.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Brandis, I have allowed speakers to range far and wide across the subject matter. I consider that you are debating the point and, therefore, I am ruling that there is no point of order.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course the government minister in the chamber does not want to hear the truth about the way this government has forced undemocratic changes on electoral laws in this country. I will go through them: early closure of the electoral roll; greater, and unnecessary, identity requirements for those wanting to enrol; new requirements for provisional voters to prove their identity; and increasing the declarable limit for the disclosure of political donations from $1,500 to $10,000. Of course, another one of the Howard government’s attempts to restrict the democratic process in Australia, by taking the vote off all prisoners—not just those serving serious sentences but all prisoners—has just been found by the High Court of Australia to be unconstitutional.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Faulkner, you are pushing against the boundaries of this bill while talking about another bill.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not talking about another bill. With respect, I will take a point of order. Madam Acting Deputy President, historically, many speakers in this chamber for years and years have provided this sort of context in second reading debates. It would be absolutely unprecedented to suggest that anything I am saying in relation to this bill is not utterly appropriate and consistent with longstanding practice and precedent in this chamber. I would ask you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to respect that. But I will be careful in what I say. I intend to talk about electoral laws and the context of this electoral legislation. It is critically important because the point I want to make is that all these changes make it harder for ordinary Australians to vote while, at the same time, making it easier for big business to donate to the political parties, particularly the Liberal Party, in secret. That is critical.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I do not ask you to revisit your previous ruling, but I do draw to your attention the issue of the relevancy of the question of political donations to a bill that is specifically limited to local government plebiscites in Queensland.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order, Senator Brandis, but thank you for that comment. This is a bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the Senate that I am well aware of what the bill is about, and I intend to provide context in relation to how the Howard government has dealt with the electoral laws in this country. I am not surprised, of course, that the minister at the table does not want this information on the public record. I am not surprised that the minister intends to try and stop this sort of information—not ravings like we had from the previous speaker, but important information—being presented to the Senate in this second reading debate.

In relation to these electoral law changes that I have spoken of, increasing the declarable limit for disclosure of political donations from $1,500 to $10,000 is a massive jump in the limit required before donation details must be made public. Think about what happens here. Massive sums of money go into party coffers without the public knowing. Over 80 per cent of donations would disappear from public view. In 2003-04, over $12 million across all major parties could have vanished from public scrutiny with this threshold. Think of that: $12 million in 2003 would have vanished from public scrutiny, and this government has the hide, in relation to debate on this bill, to say that it is proposing a measure that enhances democratic process in this country. Look at the record of this government. Of course, there is more. The Howard government has also increased, by 1,500 per cent, tax deductibility for political donations. That is a massive windfall to coalition donors, who no longer need to worry about their donations being open to public examination. This is the record of the government that now starts to beat its breast about democratic process.

While all this is happening, ordinary Australians are finding it harder than ever before to actually get onto the electoral roll and exercise their vote. There has never been a case where false enrolment has affected the outcome of an election in this country. Everyone knows that. Nevertheless, the Howard government has made it much harder to enrol to vote. This affects young people the most, as the minister knows, because they move more often and are more likely to change their enrolment. It affects renters more than it affects homeowners. It affects lower income Australians more than the wealthy. It hits Indigenous Australians in remote Australia especially hard, disadvantaged as they are by the distances they have to travel to register their vote and the time involved for them in the political process. So this change potentially disenfranchises thousands of Australians who cannot afford $9,999 to buy access to the political process through donations which are covered up—thousands of Australians whose voice is heard through the ballot box, not through the boardroom.

The same is true of the new requirements for Australians needing to cast provisional votes to provide additional proof of identity. If they are unable to do so, their vote will be excluded. More than 180,000 Australians cast provisional votes at the last election. That is more than 180,000 Australians whose right to cast a vote, whose right to have their voices heard, is imperilled by decisions of the Howard government. In addition, and for no good reason except partisan politics, the Howard government plans to close the electoral roll for most new enrollees on the day the writs are issued and to give people who are currently enrolled only three days to correct their details. We all know that, when an election is called in Australia, that is when people who are not enrolled usually take action to ensure they go on the rolls, and that is when people who are enrolled at an old address take action to ensure that their enrolment is corrected. A lot of people are just not like the senators in this chamber. They are not so obsessed with politics that they live and breathe it every day of their lives, and the calling of an election makes sure that they undertake this sort of action. If these new laws introduced by the Howard government had been in place at the time of the last election, 80,000 Australians who voted would not have voted at all, and up to 280,000 people in total could have been affected by having a substantial fault in their enrolment. This is the record of the Howard government in relation to electoral laws—the bread and butter of the democratic process in Australia.

We know that these enrolment changes massively increase the administrative burden on the AEC, and so does this legislation that we are debating now. Mr Paul Dacey, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, told the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration:

... we would be very reluctant to tie up considerable AEC resources in the next few weeks ... we are not even considering the possibility of having an attendance ballot in conjunction with the federal poll ...

The government, of course, has failed to detail the funding implications of these plebiscites. They just have not been detailed at all.

As Professor Brian Costar pointed out in his evidence to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into the bill, the bill has the potential to undermine the independence of the Australian Electoral Commissioner. By saying publicly that the services of the AEC will be made available for the conduct of these plebiscites, the Prime Minister and other ministers are in effect saying that the AEC will be directed by the Special Minister of State to do so, infringing the status of the commissioner as an independent statutory officer. This underlines the fact that this bill is a hastily cobbled together political stunt from a party that has done nothing, in the whole time it has been in office, to enhance electoral law or the democratic process in this country. This government has never shown an interest in giving Australians more and better opportunities to vote. The Howard government does not give a damn about enhancing our democracy; all it has ever cared about is the quick and dirty political fix, which is part and parcel—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The masters of.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true; that is the way the Howard government does business. It is all very well for the government to tout this bill and for us to hear ravings like we have just heard from Senator Ian Macdonald about it. This bill, after a partisan and contrived committee inquiry, is meant to provide a fig leaf to cover the Howard government’s complete lack of interest in and, indeed, contempt for the democratic rights of Australian citizens. The government is trying to make this a wedge. The Leader of the Opposition suggested plebiscites back in May this year, before these amalgamations. But the government is not fooling anyone. Its record of attacks on Australians’ ability to have their say by casting a vote at the ballot box cannot and will not be erased by a hasty, badly drafted, opportunistic bill like the one we are debating now.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are probably a lot of people in the gallery today who are wondering what this is all about, so we should cut to the issue. What happened in Queensland is that the Labor government brought in a piece of legislation that was going to put local government officials in fear of criminal prosecution, and possibly jail, if they tried to bring about a democratic reflection of the aspirations of their community. This is what the Labor Party brought about in section 159ZY of the Local Government Act 1993:

(2)

If ... a local government had resolved to conduct a poll the conduct of which is prohibited under subsection (1), the local government—

(a)

must take all necessary action to ensure that the poll is not conducted; and

(b)

must give public notice that the poll is not to proceed—

(i)

by advertisement in a newspaper ... and

(ii)

in any other way that is reasonably appropriate for making the information publicly known.

This also comes from the Labor Party:

(3)

A person who is a councillor of a local government must not take any action for the purpose of the conduct of a poll that the local government is prohibited from conducting under this section.Maximum penalty—15 penalty units.

(4)

All persons who contravene subsection (3) in relation to a particular poll, whether or not they are prosecuted under subsection (3), are jointly and severally liable for the total poll amount, which may be recovered by the State, in action as for a debt for the amount, and reimbursed to the existing local government, or the successor of the existing local government, less the costs of recovering the amount.

That is a piece of legislation passed by a Labor government not in Zimbabwe but in our nation. That was passed by a Labor government in this nation. It is a complete and utter abhorrence to the democratic process. We have heard about being contrived and duplicitous; the approach of the Labor Party on this is both of those.

This is a ridiculous position. We have 59 people from the Labor Party in the state of Queensland who support this sort of legislation, and then we have six people from the state of Queensland in the federal Labor Party, including Mr Kevin Rudd, Mr Wayne Swan, Ms Kirsten Livermore and Mr Ripoll, who apparently do not. Some sort of epiphany happens to them as they go through the lounge at Brisbane Airport and they all of a sudden change their views from those of all their colleagues. And that is supposed to be accepted by the Australian people. This is a duplicitous and contrived position to cover up a complete abomination of the democratic process in our nation.

What is this about? What are we actually trying to do? Council amalgamations are going to destroy the identity of areas and the identity of the state of Queensland. It is arbitrary nastiness to destroy local towns. What happens in these local towns when the council leaves? What is left behind are the people who cannot move because their qualifications or their education are not at a certain level, because their age is beyond when they can go into other parts of society in Brisbane or because their capital base is insufficient. Who are left behind? The most marginalised and the most impoverished are persecuted, left behind in poverty traps throughout the state. And this comes from a Labor government that is supposed to be extolling the virtues of a wider horizon. We have areas where people’s democratic right is going to be removed and where their numbers are going to be completely walked over by incorporation of big regional centres. This situation has come from the Labor Party; the Labor Party have brought this about.

There is another example of the duplicitous nature of the Labor Party—this time, the federal Labor Party. When they moved their amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007, they put that the Senate expresses support for ‘a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government’. That is probably an admirable cause, but they had to tack on this ridiculous part: that the Senate ‘notes that the Australian Labor Party believes communities are entitled to express a view’—and on they go about nuclear power plants. They have to try to once more pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people with another contrived, duplicitous amendment that talks about two completely different issues and bangs them together for us to swallow.

I support the idea that in the future we will have to look at the constitutional recognition of local government. When we do, we should be doing that on behalf of the Local Government Association in my state, Queensland, and listening to their recommendations. There is one font of knowledge that you will not be listening to when it comes to the support of local government and that will be the Labor Party, because it is the Labor Party that brought this all about. This is a creature that they have brought into life. The reason they have this duplicitous approach is that they think it might affect them at a federal election. That is the issue. It is a political problem for which there is only a political solution. The political pressure point is the upcoming federal election, and the people of Noosa, of Port Douglas, of Taroom and of Redcliffe know this.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is why they get upset; this is the problem. This is where it is hurting. What happens with the Labor Party is that they think they can do this little pas de deux, this little two-step, that it might not really affect them that much in Queensland and that they will pick up the seats somewhere else in any case. But, if this really and truly does become the straw that can break the Labor Party’s back at the federal election, they will change. I do not believe for one moment that an organisation that immediately expels members of their own who dare dissent, who dare cross the floor, does not have the power in that structure to change this. The last person in the Labor Party to dissent was Senator George Georges in 1987, and they immediately kicked him out. That is the sort of democratic organisation the Labor Party is! That is the absolutely tyrannical approach they have to their own colleagues, and now it is the tyrannical approach that they have brought upon the people of Queensland. That is it; it is in their culture. It is what they are. They hate dissent: you must walk in unison; you must walk to a tune. Then, when they are there for long enough, they say to the people that they are supposed to be governing for that they too must follow the culture that ‘if you dissent, you will be squashed; you will be completely and utterly suppressed’. How dare they dissent to the aspirations of the Australian Labor Party! This is what this is about. I would say that this is one of the most fundamentally important pieces of legislation we have had.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why they get upset. It is good to see them come out. They send their chargers in here because this is a pressure point that hurts. They know that they have crossed the line, and they are trying to play this funny little game. We will see Mr Rudd with an earnest look on his face, saying, ‘Oh, they are just so shocking back in Queensland. Hang on—that is where I come from.’ That is where Mr Rudd is from. The Queensland Labor Party? Hang on—that is Mr Rudd’s family. His party in his state brought this legislation into existence.

Let us go to more technicalities. In the Labor Party legislation, which is a complete affront to the democratic process and which reflects the culture of the Labor Party, three union delegates are appointed to the transitional committees. Most of these union delegates are not even from the same region, yet they have the right to be on the transitional committee regarding how these amalgamations go forward. Once more, it is an affront to the democratic process. It is a complete walking over of the fundamental voting liberties of people in the area. Not only do they have to deal with the insult of having their first form of democratic representation ripped out from underneath them; they then have to put up with this affront where the person who is going to deliver the remedy is appointed by the Labor Party and is from somewhere else. It verges on pathos. Everything about the Labor Party on this issue is contrived, duplicitous and a complete affront to where this nation should be.

How are we going to deal with the inherent nastiness of the Australian Labor Party? How are we going to deal with those towns that are going to be left behind in a pool of poverty because of the actions of the Labor Party? Let us say that a pensioner lives in a town. All of a sudden, the main employer leaves and the value of the pensioner’s house goes from, say, $120,000—because generally these are not rich people—down to $40,000, down to $10,000 or down to unsaleable. It represents their life savings. What are we going to say to that pensioner? How are we going to deal with that? What is the Australian Labor Party’s policy for that? What are they going to do on that issue?

What are they going to do when the doctor leaves and the chemist leaves and people do not have access to medical supplies? What are they going to do when they do not have access to a doctor and when the whole infrastructure of a town is taken up and moved away? Are they going to provide a support package so that we can get them into Ipswich? Are they going to buy them another house? Are they going to buy them another life? Or are they just going to allow this process to go forward?

Here is another example of the duplicitous and contrived nature of the Labor Party. They have said, ‘We’re going to repeal this legislation.’ They have not. It is not up for debate; it has not happened. They talked about it three weeks ago and I thought: if the Labor Party thought that it was such an affront, you would think that Mr Rudd would have the conviction to get on the phone to his colleagues in Queensland and say, ‘Look, you’d better get on with that piece of legislation. It is kind of important.’ But they do not. It is not even worth a phone call from Mr Rudd to try to move this issue on—and this is the person who aspires to lead our nation.

This is the person whose mantra was that he would be able to work with all the Labor governments under cooperative federalism. This is the first major test and he has utterly failed. The reason he has utterly failed is basically that Mr Beattie thought he was weak. Mr Beattie does not get along with him: he thinks he is weak. They are all absolutely perplexed as to how he has got into the position that he is currently in. They are happy with how the polls are running for them, but they are absolutely flummoxed as to how a person whom they see as completely lacking oomph has got into the position he is in.

But, putting all that aside, we should be dealing with this inherent nastiness and unfairness and asking the Labor Party now how they are going to deal with these towns that they are going to leave destitute. What is their program for these townspeople who are going to be left destitute? Aren’t they the party that used to believe in the people who had been left behind? But now they are inspiring the policy that will leave them behind. What are you going to do in the town of Taroom? What are you going to do in the town of Isisford? What are you going to deliver to those people? What is your program? Look at when they go down to the coast to campaign. We have got their aspiration for the coast of Queensland: it is going to look like a mini-Los Angeles and it will start north of Byron Bay and go all the way to Noosa. We will have multiple-storey high-rises festooning the beaches of Noosa so their property developer mates can chuck some money into their campaign. That is the reality, and that is why people are so abjectly frustrated, annoyed and furious over where the Labor Party has gone with us. They will fight. They are talking all of the time about how they are going to fight. They are going to pick out your federal Labor Party members in Queensland as the targets because the Labor Party brought this about.

What is going to be the cultural identity of Port Douglas when Port Douglas looks just like Cairns? What is going to be the identity of Noosa when Noosa looks just like the rest of the Sunshine Coast? Why does Redcliffe have to be part of Pine Rivers? Why does the Labor Party manifestly bring these nasty, arbitrary decisions? They come on the back of such other things as the decision on the Traveston dam. What a joke! They do not rule for all. They do not even rule for most. They rule for those in the Labor Party club. Those are the only people who get a look in. That is the quid pro quo for their having to deal with this culture of ‘you will do exactly what we tell you to do’.

This legislation is supported by all; otherwise what is their other alternative? That is the reason the Labor Party are supporting it. But the legislation is a clear indication of what is in front of Australia. It is a siren call. It is also a bell that is ringing for Australians that says: ‘Watch out! Look at who is coming to town. If this is the way they deal with their own, watch out as to how they will deal with you.’ I hope that every time people go to vote in the federal poll—and we will make sure this is known everywhere during the federal poll—they will see us holding up section 159ZY of the Queensland local government reform implementation bill. We will say: ‘This is the Labor Party. This is whom you are voting for. They say, “Dissent and we’ll send you to jail.”’ That is going to be what we will use.

I can assure you that these people are not going away. These people are well organised. These people are resourced. These people are persistent. These people are ready for the fight. I can quote the fact that even in places like Noosa we have had people come up to us and clearly say, ‘I’ve always voted Labor and I’ll never vote for them again till this issue is dealt with.’ I am clearly making a political issue out of this because it is a political problem that can only be solved with a political solution, and the political solution is this: you have to remove this process. You have to reverse it right back to where it was. Go back to the SSS process and do something decent and fair, not something arbitrary and nasty. Think about the destitution you are going to cause and deal with it, or come up with a package of how you are going to pay these people out and help them out. Have Mr Rudd propose the package that he is going to use to pay for the compensatory rights of the lives that are going to be destroyed because of the Labor Party’s policy. Let’s see some sense of fairness.

This is the issue that we must concentrate on; otherwise we are going to have this ridiculous proposition of Mr Rudd, with his earnest smile and a little bit of a cheeky grin, trying to make us swallow the fact that he has not got control of this situation. The only way that this is going to be dealt with, the only way that we can reverse this situation, is to take it to the federal election and make sure that the people of Queensland get their right to a plebiscite on this, to reflect their intentions about council amalgamations at the next poll that comes to their favour, which is the federal election. We do not have to convince them all; we just have to convince five or 10 per cent to change their minds—and you will remain on the opposition benches. That will be the game, and so there it is. We are not hiding behind it. We are going to make it a political issue. We do not have to convince them all. We only have to convince five or 10 per cent and then you will remain on the opposition benches. The only way you can resolve that is to deal with this. And if you ever come up with another amendment, do not try this ridiculous notion of tying nuclear power plants to referendums for acknowledging local government associations. Even when you brought this thing in, you said, ‘We’ve got an amendment,’ but you had not even tabled it. That is how much thought went into this. It was not even tabled when Senator Lundy was giving a speech. We have had to wait for it. Now it has turned up with ‘nuclear power plants and local government recognitions’. That is the duplicitous nature of it—and this has come from Mr Rudd’s Labor Party. There is not cross-party support for this bill. There is support from the National Party. There is support from the Liberal Party. There is support from the Democrats. There is support from the Greens. But as for the Labor Party, 59 out of 65 elected members in Queensland want this to remain the way that it is.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Forshaw interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, an ad hominem statement is all that Senator Forshaw can go to because he has lost this debate. But we are going to have another debate. That debate will be the federal election. It will be decided in Queensland and this legislation will provide ample fodder for us to use against you.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate and to once again state absolutely clearly, so that it will even penetrate between the ears of Senator Joyce, that the Labor Party is supporting the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. Indeed, the Labor Party leader, Mr Rudd, was on the record well before the Prime Minister to state that there should be plebiscites in Queensland on local government amalgamations. Let us cut to the chase: Senator Joyce has just outlined precisely why this legislation was introduced. It has nothing to do with upholding or restoring the democratic rights of Queenslanders. Let us remember that Senator Joyce comes from the party of the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who rode straight over the top of democratic rights in Queensland.

During the inquiry into this bill we were told about the thousands of people who marched in the streets to oppose the Queensland state government’s legislation, and I applaud them for marching. But do not forget that when Senator Joyce’s party was in power, if three of those people decided to get together on a street corner they would have been arrested and thrown into jail for talking to each other. So do not come in here and talk to us about restoring democracy and electoral integrity. This is the party that presided over the greatest gerrymander probably in the history of the world—other than perhaps in Boston back in the great Tammany Hall days. You presided over the biggest gerrymander that ever existed in Australia. Do not lecture us about democratic rights or electoral reform.

In all of Senator Joyce’s 20-minute speech, I do not recall him actually once mentioning the bill. I do not recall him on one occasion actually speaking to this piece of legislation, which is what this three-day inquiry was about.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I think you will find from the Hansard that I did mention the bill. In fact, I started off by mentioning the bill.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, you know that is not a point of order but you have it on record.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In your introduction you mentioned the bill and then you completely forgot about it for the next 19 minutes and 45 seconds. What Senator Joyce has just done is to make absolutely clear what we all know is the real purpose behind this legislation—that is, to give the coalition parties in Queensland an opportunity to conduct a Senate inquiry, a three-day public inquiry, and go around and try to drum up support for their candidates in the next federal election. Senator Joyce has just admitted what he was constantly doing in the inquiry: trying to make this an issue at the next federal election. He did not run away from that, and I applaud you, Senator Joyce, for acknowledging it.

But the real duplicity here occurred only a few moments ago whilst Senator Faulkner was making a speech on this bill and on the Electoral Act. When he tried to place this government’s legislation in context in relation to the Electoral Act, it was objected to on a number of occasions by the minister at the table, who said, ‘That is not relevant.’ It was apparently not relevant to the government to talk about the Electoral Act but apparently it is relevant to government senators, such as Senator Joyce, to spend their entire time talking about the next federal election and about how they are going to campaign on this issue. Of course, what actually happened here was that we had a three-day inquiry into a piece of legislation—which I accept is important—that is supported unanimously by senators in this parliament, which we know is going to go through and which could have gone through as non-controversial legislation. But no, the government had to have its three-day inquiry. They took us to Noosa, Emerald and Cairns. I was pleased to go because I was willing to hear the views of the people there. I have never opposed the idea of Senate committees undertaking inquiries and listening to the people, but this government does.

There are five pieces of legislation that we pointed to in our report which are some of the most significant legislation to be dealt with in this parliament in the last year or two. There was the recent legislation affecting Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill; the legislation regarding the excising of the radioactive waste dump, pursuant to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill; legislation to amend the Electoral Act, which dealt with all those issues that Senator Faulkner drew attention to; the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill; and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill. How many days of public hearings were there for each of those five pieces of legislation? One day on each—one single day each for those very significant and complex bills, some of which ran into hundreds of pages and with hundreds of pages of explanatory memoranda. This government allowed a one-day inquiry on each of those bills. The public had virtually no time to put in a submission, they had one day to appear before the inquiry and the hearings were held in Canberra. They did not go to the Northern Territory to hear what the people in the Northern Territory communities thought about this government’s legislation.

But when the electoral amendment bill comes up for Queensland, which we are supporting, the caravan gets on the road, capably led by Senator Fifield as the chair and ably assisted by myself as the deputy chair. We made it possible for those hearings to go ahead because we cooperated with the facilitation of those inquiries, and I pay tribute to the secretariat for the excellent work they did in a short space of time. So let us not have all this hypocrisy about denial of democratic rights and so on. This was a political exercise. Let me go to the Hansard. Senator Joyce was there on the first day, but I am reminded that Senator Ian Macdonald did not attend on that day. I understand that in his earlier speech he tried to have a go at some Labor senators apparently because they may have left 10 minutes before the finish of the last hearing in Cairns to catch a plane. That is the sort of cheap shot that you get from Senator Macdonald—a person who did not even bother to attend a whole day’s hearing at the start. But I digress. Let us go back to the Hansard.

Senator Joyce started off with the very first witnesses, the Friends of Noosa, by saying:

Some have suggested that it is an infringement on a state’s rights for the federal government to insist on local governments having a plebiscite.

And then he went on to say:

My final question is this: if Mr Beattie and Mr Fraser—

the state minister—

do not listen to the views of Noosa, do not listen to the views of a demonstration of 10,000 people—which, I read in your submission, went to Brisbane—and do not listen to the views expressed in a plebiscite that is held in the Noosa shire, do you know of any other pressure points on the Australian Labor Party that you can use to try to get them to listen?

So Senator Joyce started off by asking witnesses about what possible political pressure points might be coming up in the near future that might have some influence on this debate.

We all know what he had in mind: it was the federal election—and he has now acknowledged that. But the witnesses did not take the bait. They were not going to be dragged into a political point-scoring exercise by Senator Joyce, but Senator Joyce kept trying. He asked the next witness:

What would be the likelihood of the current position being maintained if there was a strong belief or, in fact, if it was proven that it was going to affect a federal election? Do you reckon that that could be the impetus for Mr Beattie to change his mind?

Again, the witness declined to take the bait. That was the tone in which Senator Joyce went on all through the hearing. Every witness was asked a question about what sort of political pressure point might exist that could influence the Queensland government. So let us not have all this palaver about this being a big debate about democratic rights in Queensland. This is all about the last desperate attempt by National Party senators and members and Liberal Party members and senators to find an issue in Queensland to help them hang on to a few seats at the next federal election.

At one point during the committee’s hearing, Councillor Brown, the Mayor of Peak Downs Shire Council, was asked a question about this political pressure point, and his response was something like: ‘What do you want me to say? You want me to say that this is going to have an impact on the federal election.’ Senator Joyce had the lead carriage for the coalition at the committee’s inquiry—with no disrespect to either Senator Fifield or Senator Ian Macdonald—and right through the inquiry he talked about issues like the possibility of changing state boundaries and having referendums and plebiscites for that. He talked about the relationship between the state branch of the Labor Party in Queensland and the federal Labor Party—and we have had all that again today. He talked about the internal rules of the ALP. He did not go to this legislation at all.

Senator Joyce is trying to attack the Labor Party because we actually happen to have a position at the federal level which is different to the position at the state level. We have never tried to hide that. It is a fact. It is something that the Prime Minister encourages. He thinks it is healthy for democracy that state governments, federal governments, federal parties and state parties have healthy disagreements. I am sure that it is something that occurs occasionally in the National Party. I have some recollection of Senator Joyce disagreeing with Mr Scott—the President of the Queensland Nationals—over Telstra, or at least he said he disagreed. Senator Joyce did not want to sell Telstra, or he said that he was not going to sell Telstra. He said that he would not support it but, in the end, he rolled over and gave in.

Senator Joyce has made a virtue of trying to make a name for himself as being different to his colleagues—of being an independent maverick and not always following the party line. Yet he stands up here in the parliament today attacking members of the Labor Party—and he did this right through the inquiry—because they actually have a disagreement at the state and federal level on what the party’s position should be on this issue. We have made it very clear that we support plebiscites for local government in Queensland.

The issue of constitutional recognition of local government came up during the inquiry. It has been pointed out by earlier speakers that the Labor Party has had a long history of supporting federal constitutional recognition of local government—and the coalition parties have had a long history of opposing it. Indeed, Mr Howard was on the record during debate on the referendum amendment bill saying that he did not support changing the Constitution. The report says at page 40:

1.33 Launching the ‘no’ case on 23 June 1988, Mr Howard said his opposition to constitutional recognition was based on ‘a strongly held view that it will distort the natural order and Constitutional balance of our federal structure’.

1.34 Mr Howard said ‘Australians will not take a leap in the dark by giving Canberra a chance to interfere in local government and to by-pass state governments’.

That was Mr Howard’s position then but apparently that has not quite filtered down to the members of his coalition. During the inquiry, both Senator Joyce and Mr Scott told the witnesses and the inquiry that they fully supported constitutional recognition of local government—despite the fact that they had voted against it only 12 months ago, and that is on the Hansard record. We pointed that out to them during the inquiry, and they were stumped. They actually did not know that that was their position.

Debate interrupted.