Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a response from the former Premier of Queensland Mr Beattie to a resolution of the Senate of 13 August 2007 concerning Queensland local government.

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

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response by the former Premier of Queensland that has just been tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This response from the now former Premier of Queensland Mr Beattie responds to the Senate resolution of 13 August, which was supported by the Democrats and the coalition. It was actually originally moved by Senator Boswell, The Nationals senator for Queensland. It criticised the Beattie government for its forced amalgamations of Queensland local government; expressed concern at the decision to impose fines on councillors who put the amalgamation policy to local citizens by referendum; and noted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that every citizen should have the right and opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs. The Democrats supported that resolution, which was opposed by the ALP. I was particularly pleased to see the government and indeed Senator Boswell draw on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the importance of people having the right and opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs, particularly affairs that affect them directly.

The response from the Queensland government is redundant partly because the Senate has now passed legislation addressing the issue of the potential for people to have fines imposed on them for putting a question about the amalgamations to referendum and also because the state government subsequently reversed its position and will no longer take action against local governments which wish to hold a plebiscite. That aspect of the resolution has basically been made redundant by the actions of the Senate and the actions of the Queensland government. The response itself from Mr Beattie says that the state government in Queensland has reconsidered its position and is no longer going to take such action. It does still leave the issue of forced amalgamations unresolved. The Queensland government is still pressing ahead with these—I believe without any change in its stance at all—despite a new Premier, Ms Anna Bligh, coming into the position.

There are a couple of aspects of the Premier’s response therefore that do merit comment. Firstly, the response says that the so-called ‘reform’ of Queensland local government amalgamations occurred in light of reviews conducted by the Queensland Treasury Corporation which ‘demonstrated that a significant number of local governments are in a financially precarious position’. I note, firstly, that that assessment, at least in part, is seriously disputed by some councils and by the Local Government Association of Queensland and, secondly, that I think it is less than the full story, if not misleading, for the former Premier to state that the decision to implement reform came about solely because of these reviews conducted by the Queensland Treasury Corporation. There was already an ongoing and comprehensive reform process that was about a lot more than just amalgamations and that covered a wide range of issues going specifically to improving efficiency and increasing the opportunities for financial stability through a range of measures beyond just amalgamations. That process was already underway, and that has not been mentioned.

The response from the former Premier also states that the Queensland state government had to act immediately to strengthen the local government system because elections were due in March next year. It was widely acknowledged and floated that, to ensure sufficient time to bed down any amalgamations, it would be feasible to postpone those elections until later in 2008. The Local Government Act could have been quite readily amended by the state government to allow that to happen in the same way that it amended the Local Government Act to allow amalgamations to be forced through without a referendum—a requirement that previously existed under the law. Indeed, that requirement under the law was used to reassure people at the local government level around Queensland that there would not be forced amalgamations. That requirement was removed precipitously by the Queensland parliament, which only has a single chamber. It does not have an upper house and is controlled by the government of the day. This shows what happens when a government controls a parliament completely, whether it is a single house or two houses—whatever is in the law one day can be removed the next day when there is a political opportunity or political points to be scored. That is what happened in Queensland. I think the response from the former Premier is less than complete and somewhat misleading. It still leaves open the fact that there is significant community concern in Queensland about these forced amalgamations and there is a real question mark about how adequately they will operate.

Another point I want to emphasise is the noting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Queensland National Party senators drawing upon it, which of course the Democrats support. I have not noticed National Party senators in Queensland drawing on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights terribly often in the past, but it is always good to see them moving in that direction. It is worth noting, with disappointment, two aspects. One is that, although commentary was made in the resolution and by many in the coalition about the need for referenda and the importance and benefit of them, the National Party in Queensland did not take the opportunity to fulfil its pledge to hold a referendum in Queensland when it was last in government. A key pre-election pledge of the then Borbage opposition was to hold a referendum to reinstitute an upper house in Queensland. That key pre-election pledge was broken, despite the fact that it was a not insignificant reason various preferences flowed to the coalition and made the National Party the senior party of government in Queensland, probably for the last time ever. They did not fulfil that pledge, they did not hold that referendum and they did not ask the people of Queensland their views. Therefore, the Queensland parliament is still without an upper house. It is no small irony that if there had been an upper house after that referendum had been held, the local government amalgamations would probably not have gone through.

The other point I want to emphasise is that another key right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also dovetails with the resolution passed by the Senate, is the right to self-determination. Part 1 of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that all peoples have the right to self-determination. Again, whilst the Democrats supported the resolution put forward by the coalition and by Senator Boswell and have expressed our dissatisfaction with the inadequate response from former Premier Peter Beattie, it is hard not to see the double standards because just last week the federal government refused to support the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They gave as a key reason their concern about the article which recognises the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, floating the completely false and misleading suggestion that that might lead to some form of separatism even though there is a clear indication in the declaration that that is not how it should be interpreted.

It seems that demanding and celebrating the right of people to have the opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs and decisions directly affecting them is okay when it comes to local councils in Queensland but is not okay when it comes to Indigenous Australians. This is about not only the refusal to support plebiscites for Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, an amendment which again the coalition voted against with regard to this issue when the legislation was being debated last night, but also the refusal to support some of the basic components of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—when it comes to other parts that old position of refusing once again resurfaces.

It is unfortunate when you get that double standard because it does undermine the strength of the argument that is put forward. Nonetheless, the Democrats will maintain our consistent position. We will continue to express our strong concern at the Queensland state government’s ongoing insistence on forced amalgamations. I think the key issue from here on is maintaining the focus on what does actually happen and trying to maintain the pressure so that, whatever happens from here, there is maximum opportunity for people to have more potential to genuinely take part in the conduct of public affairs as noted in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and celebrated and supported by the Senate and the coalition via Senator Boswell’s resolution.

Question agreed to.