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

It is late in the day, late in the week, late in this session of parliament and, indeed, late in the term of this parliament of Australia. There have been a lot of important issues discussed by the Senate and by the parliament this week. But I want to again highlight an issue about which I have spoken already twice this week, and that is the action of the Labor Party in Queensland in attempting to ban free speech in that state. I raise the issue again because the Labor Party in Queensland consists of people like the would-be Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Kevin Rudd, and the would-be Treasurer of Australia, Mr Wayne Swan. It consists of people like Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh. The actions of the Queensland Labor Party contained in their legislation are a grim forewarning of what might happen if every government in Australia were controlled by the Australian Labor Party.

Mr President, you and senators would recall that, in Queensland, there was a process called Size, Shape and Sustainability for local governments to look at their structure and to amalgamate where appropriate. It was a five-year process. After two years of that process, where councils had worked very well and very closely with each other in looking at ways to save money, Mr Beattie, for some reason, lost patience with the councils and decided that he would implement amalgamations and force them on councils even if councils and people did not want them. The legislation in the Queensland parliament provided that there would be no appeal of the decision of the Labor Party in Queensland and no right to contest any of these determinations by the Queensland government.

As a result, the Howard government indicated that, if local communities wanted to have a say in what Mr Beattie was proposing, then the Australian Electoral Commission would be made available—in fact, it was available under the existing provisions of the Electoral Act. Mr Howard advised that the Commonwealth would fund the AEC to conduct plebiscites into amalgamation for any council that wanted to do that. It was not compulsory but, if any council in Queensland wanted to let their residents have a say in the future of their council, the Commonwealth would fund the bill. As a result of that, Mr Beattie amended his legislation to make it a criminal offence for any council, any councillor or any official in a council to seek to have a poll or to attempt in any way to understand the views of their residents. It became a criminal offence with a fine and, if a fine were not paid there would be a jail sentence for any person whose council had had the temerity to ask its citizens what they thought of proposed amalgamations being thrust upon them by the Queensland government.

This Labor government in Queensland included Mr Beattie; the new Premier, Ms Bligh; and the new Treasurer, who was at the time the minister for local government. The Labor Party in Queensland made this deliberative decision to abolish councils and then to throw into jail anyone who had the temerity to seek a democratic view on the amalgamation of councils. As a result of that, the Howard government determined to override that Queensland legislation, using the foreign affairs power, or the international treaties power, under the Commonwealth Constitution, to say, ‘If you want a say, then you can have it.’ That bill fortuitously passed through federal parliament this week and now becomes law.

Subsequently, the Queensland Labor government decided that, since the Commonwealth was going to overturn the bill anyway, they would announce to the public that they would amend their legislation. Why they would bring it in one week and amend it the next week, one can only guess. But it was the same people involved. Whilst Ms Bligh is trying to distance herself from Mr Beattie’s action, she was one of the people who rammed it through the Queensland parliament, allowing no discussion, no committee reports and no investigation. She was one of those who rammed it through.

That is the greatest affront to democracy in Australia that this country has ever seen. No other government at any time in Australia’s history has attempted to prevent the people of Australia from having a say on a particular issue—and one as important as the governance at local level of particular Australians in the state of Queensland. So I raise this matter yet again, because it is difficult to imagine in a country like Australia, which cherishes its democratic ideals, that a government—it is a government that spawned Mr Rudd, Mr Swan, Mr Beattie and Ms Bligh—would deliberately legislate to make it a criminal offence to have a say on an issue. I think that is an issue that has not been well enough understood by Australians. My fear is: if that has happened under a Labor government in Queensland, what would happen under a Labor government of Australia, when every government in Australia is controlled by the Australian Labor Party, that is led by Queenslanders—Mr Rudd and Mr Swan—whose colleagues were the very people who introduced that legislation?

There are other unnerving aspects to this whole incident. The Labor Party in Queensland determined that the way these forced amalgamations, where councils are being forced together, would operate—the transition rules—would be determined by a transitional committee of the council. That is fair enough—councils are elected, they are being forced together, but you pick a couple of people from each council and get them together and say, ‘Right, how are we going to implement this?’ That would be fair enough, if that is where it went, because they would be elected councillors from each council. I use the example of Tambo, Blackall, Cairns, Port Douglas, Townsville and Thuringowa. It would be fair enough to have two from each council. But that was not good enough for the union dominated Labor Party government in Queensland, the same union dominated Labor Party that spawned Mr Rudd and Mr Swan. They determined that, in addition to those elected councillors, they would throw on three unionists—three unionists, not elected by anybody, to come in and determine the future of councils in Queensland. In the cases I mentioned you have four elected councillors and three non-elected unionists who are going to determine the future of these amalgamated councils in Queensland.

Of the 20 candidates being sponsored by the ALP in the Senate election coming up within a couple of months, 15 are former union officials, union hacks, and four of the other five were actually staffers of Labor party politicians. When you see the impact and the influence that the unions have on the Labor Party demonstrated in this chamber you can clearly understand why the Labor government in Queensland has put in, to determine the future of councils in Queensland, three unelected Labor unionists in that state. To make matters worse, these unionists, in most cases, are not even unionists from where the councils are being forced to amalgamate—they are unionists from Brisbane or from some town well down the road. It is a disgrace and it is something that I wanted to raise in this late session. (Time expired)