Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, I have just been talking with Senator Murray about this. I think that, maybe for reasons that were not entirely consistent with the outcome I am about to describe, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 could be the greatest contribution to democracy the government has made in its time in office. The democratic process has been very much wanting over the last 11 years, but here we have a piece of legislation which is going to facilitate local government being able to determine the will of the people on issues which state governments have in the past been able to proscribe. The fluoridation prohibition in Tasmania is an example of that. This will now exercise the minds of many Australians, working through local government, to apply for some degree of determination where that has not been available in the past. So the Greens will be supporting this legislation—not because we do not see the political motivation in the run to the election that saw the Prime Minister suddenly embark on this course but because in the long run, for other reasons, it could be a positive innovation for democracy in Australia.

The Greens have not supported the enforced amalgamation of municipalities and shires—local government—in Queensland. We have more respect for the people of, for example, Noosa and Port Douglas than that. They ought to be able to make some determination in the matter. The government has seen that it is indeed popular—and why should it not be—for people to be able to make a determination on that matter. We are supporting this government legislation. We hope it will lead to people at the local government level being able to determine their future in other ways yet unseen as this legislation passes this House, which may be quite important for people safeguarding their own interests in their own localities in the future.

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

I wrote some extensive supplementary remarks to the Senate report into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007.I concur that it is a remarkable bill and a great democratic innovation, and I again compliment the government for bringing it forward. But my purpose is not to revisit my party’s support for this bill but to again request through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the minister have regard to the fact that these plebiscites will be non-binding and that, even if the popular will is very strongly expressed in Queensland against local council amalgamations, the review and appeal process is still proscribed. I think that is a great problem for us in terms of natural justice and due process. I would urge the government to look again at that issue and see whether they could find some way to ensure that reviews and appeals can be carried out where people such as local government wish to challenge a ruling—because there is no provision for them to do that in Queensland with local council amalgamations.

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

There was never any suggestion in this bill that the Commonwealth could interfere with the local government process in Queensland. This bill is about the Commonwealth government overriding a decision of a state government to ban free speech in that state. It was not meant in any other way. Councils can have a poll on anything at all in Queensland, except on what their future as a local government might be. That was the underlying, core outrage of this particular decision.

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

It has been changed.

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

Legislation has been introduced. When I last looked, I found it had not been voted on, although the state parliament has been sitting for two weeks. Perhaps it happened today and I have not caught up with it. They certainly did not rush to it. The whole point of it is that a government of Australia decided that if a council had the temerity to have a plebiscite on its own future it would be fined; if it did not pay the fine it would be thrown into jail. That is what this legislation overrides. I am very proud that Mr Howard and our government took this particular issue on and, hopefully, in doing that, we forced Mr Beattie and Ms Bligh to change their minds. I think they changed their minds because, after threatening to take it to the High Court, they knew that, it did not matter what happened, we would do it. So they said: ‘We’re done for a penny. We’re done for a pound. We might as well roll over.’ They introduced the bill and rammed it through state parliament in one week and they changed their mind the next week. Why? Because the federal government said it would override it. That is what this bill is all about.

I am delighted that for once we have had words of praise from the Greens. I acknowledge that this particular bill has the support of the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens, and, of course, that this is a Liberal Party and a National Party bill. It is a delight to see this going ahead. I think it is a major step forward for the freedom of speech in our country.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.