Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, Senators Fifield and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Fifield:

"The failure of the Gillard Government to commit to equal resources for a "YES" case and a "NO" case for the proposed Referendum question on the Constitution and Local Government."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In one of the more difficult times for dealing with such a contentious issue as a constitutional referendum, when people are rightly questioning and wanting to make sure that they get a fair hearing and have the capacity to ensure that the views that they earnestly hold are able to be ventilated in a way that is not inhibited to an extent by problems of the other side, it is very important that fair funding is given to both sides of the debate. It was a disappointing but great surprise to me when I found out on Monday that the two sides to this issue had vastly different access to resources to mount their cases.

It might be that the circumstances of next week mean that there is no referendum. If Mr Rudd challenges Ms Gillard, as we believe he is going to, and becomes the new Prime Minister and we go off to an early election we will not get to the prescribed period. You then have to ask the question: what is going to happen to the $75 million or so that was put aside for this referendum? Or will that be another fiasco of this current government? But on the presumption that this manic approach to this referendum is pursued then there has to be a fair capacity for both sides to engage with the Australian people on their well-held views as to why there should or should not be support for this referendum.

It is also worth noting that at a time when the contentious views for and against this referendum can live happily side by side in the same chamber and at a time when the Taliban is negotiating with the United States, we still cannot get a proper negotiation between Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd as to who will be the Prime Minister of Australia. Why that is pertinent to this is that it is extremely relevant to this referendum and how it goes. If we head to an election early then there is no need for any money because we will not have the proper passage as prescribed by section 126 of the Constitution.

In making sure that we have a vessel to hold the funds for the yes and the no cases, we need proper and transparent mechanisms to ensure that organisations on both sides have the capacity to be audited so that when the funds turn up we feel they are going to the appropriate purpose. That would stand to reason. We also acknowledge that in the constitutional referendum debate there were two well-established camps—the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Republican Movement. They both had well-respected organisations where money could be delivered and spent. But, most importantly, they each received equal funding. So I think it is incumbent somewhat upon the government that on the delivery of an organisation that passes the audit test for the no case—and that is a hair's-breadth away; it could happen tomorrow or tonight or it might already have happened, I am not sure—there should be parity of funding between the two. Otherwise you will build up a natural form of suspicion amongst the Australian people as to exactly where this funding is going.

For me, the overwhelming frustration is that the local government representatives who have been continuously, one after the other, coming into my office are really talking to the wrong person—because I am on side. They have to start lobbying the people who are not on side. Convincing me of a requirement I agree with is probably a waste of time. But I am happy to see them anyway. I think it is extremely pertinent that one of them said, 'This issue only raised itself up in the last couple of days.' I said, 'No, this issue has been on the boil for about a year.' In fact, one of my good staff members, Samantha, informed me that it has been going for longer than that. That just goes to show that the transparency and ventilation of the debate is not wide. If those in the centre of the debate do not know about it, then what hope do we have for those on the periphery of the debate? What hope do we have for those in Johnson Street, Smith Street or Betty Street knowing about the debate? We know what happens if they do not. If there is a sense of suspicion or they do not have a complete comprehension of the issues, they will do what most people do—when in doubt, vote out.

If we want to succeed with this—and obviously I am pushing the barrow that I want it to succeed—then we have to have four things. We have to have a diligent process, which is not in place. We have to have time, which we do not have. We have to have key stakeholders on side, which are not there. And we have to have a sense of fairness. If there is not a sense of fairness in the delivery of the proposition then people will think—and most of the time they would be right—that there is something tricky going on and they will move away from it. For the yes case to prevail, I plead that the no case be equally funded because it helps both cases.

I have said that I want a referendum to win on its merits, not on its finances. The merits of the case will be well thought out with well-instructed camps from both sides. You will have two different views within this chamber. You will have state governments that are overwhelmingly against it and you will have local governments that are overwhelmingly for it. In that environment, the nation will go to a referendum on the same day as an election that will be sucking the oxygen out of any possible ventilation of this issue.

This also goes back to the fact that supporting a case on either side is going to require a campaign like anything else. Just as there are 150 seats that will determine the outcome at a general election, there are 150 seats that have to be lobbied and that have to participate in the appropriate politics throughout the nation for the referendum. For that process and coordination to take place, it is going to require substantial funds. It will require substantial funds just to get one mail-out to one electorate. If you are looking at 110,000 to 120,000 voters in an electorate, it is going to cost you around $110,000 or $120,000. When you think of the cost of an envelope, a stamp and the other bits and pieces that go with it and the content, you would be doing very well to get out of it for less than a dollar a letter. That means that, with the $500,000 there at the moment, you would probably get about four electorates done, and there are 150 electorates. This is where the costs rack up. Any person who has ever been engaged in a marginal campaign will understand that concept perfectly well, will understand the actual cost of running a campaign.

The people whose views are evolving now on both sides of the debate seem to be people who are immensely decent and driven by views that are ardent but well thought out, including former Senator Nick Minchin and others for the no case and other people for the yes case. It would seem peculiar that I would stand up and say this, but I think it is a vitally important issue. The Australian people will naturally be suspicious if they think the fix is on. They have an inherent desire to always support the underdog. Especially of late, they have held that the verdicts—(Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this discussion and perhaps to put on record a few of the facts of the matter. The department of local government is funding a $10 million non-partisan civics education campaign to ensure that people are fully informed of the basis of the amendment to the Constitution. Further, the Electoral Commission will spend approximately $40 million on preparing for the referendum. This includes disseminating the official yes/no campaign pamphlet drafted by the parliament. The Electoral Commission will also develop referendum-specific advertising, particularly dealing with informing electors how to cast a formal vote. The partisan funding campaigns, totalling $10.5 million, will form only a small part of the overall information going to voters on the proposal.

It is the government’s prerogative to fund campaigns. Contrary to Senator Brandis’s comments, it has always been the prerogative of the government whether, how and how much to fund partisan campaigns. This is separate from the official yes/no pamphlet. Mr Howard may well have equally split costs for campaigns, but at no point did he concede this was anything other than a decision of the government. And, importantly, members have voted in the House 133 to two in favour of including local government in the Constitution, and this should affect the funding.

Any voter or anyone interested in this matter, upon making a cursory investigation, will find some excellent resource work done by the Local Government Association of South Australia, in a very interesting document entitled 'Referendum myths':

Myth 1: This is Julia Gillard’s referendum.

This referendum is the result of six years of work by Local Government through the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). The concept was agreed formally in documents signed by the Greens and Independents as a part of arrangements to secure Government in 2010. An expert panel considered it in 2011 and a Parliamentary Select Committee set up in 2012 recommended it. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce have publicly supported it since 2011.

Myth 2: This referendum has been rushed.

After significant preliminary work the ALGA ran a Summit in Melbourne in 2008. Following the Pape case in the High Court in 2009 the ALGA formalised its position aimed at securing funding for communities through Councils. The LGA of SA formally endorsed the proposed wording change recommended by Professor George Williams in October, 2010 and all 68 SA Councils formally endorsed this position in the first half of 2011. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce gave a commitment to support financial recognition of Local Government in 2011 at the ALGA Conference in 2011.

Myth 3: There is no need for this referendum.

Specific legal advice indicates that since the Pape case in 2009, the High Court has no support for direct funding of Local Government. Programs such as the Howard Government’s “Roads to Recovery” program (worth $28m a year to SA communities) will fall at the slightest challenge. Even if not challenged directly, no Commonwealth agency will now recommend a direct funding model for fear it will be challenged.

Myth 4: The referendum is about “recognising” Local Government and entrenching it as a level of government.

No, this is about financial recognition. The ALGA sought specific legal advice in order to craft an amendment to the Constitution which would address the direct funding problem but not open the confusion surrounding the 1974 and 1988 referenda. The advice indicated that our objective could be achieved by amending Section 96 of the Constitution (a funding section). The High Court has previously found that Section 96 provides no power to make laws. As a result of the change, the Federal Government will only be able to offer funding to Councils, which may be refused. Indeed our advice is that the State, if it wished, would be able to prevent Councils receiving funding by passing laws to that effect.

Myth 5: It is a power grab by Canberra to control local Councils.

Through this amendment, the Commonwealth can not make laws about Local Government. The amendment makes clear that Local Government is created by, and accountable to State Parliaments. Indeed subject to requirements of State Constitutions, State Parliaments will continue to have the power to abolish Local Government without recourse to the Commonwealth. Myth 6: The Coalition is opposed to recognising Local Government in the Constitution.

There is bipartisan support for this referendum.

The vote was 133 to two in the House, so there is clearly bipartisan support for this referendum. The document continues:

Prior to the Hawke referendum of 1988, the Liberal Party adopted a position in support of recognising Local Government in the constitution—through a committee chaired by Bob Katter Senior. Liberal Leader Tony Abbott and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce have indicated their strong support for confirming the power of the Commonwealth to fund Councils directly as in the Howard initiated Roads to Recovery Program. Both gave a clear commitment to recognition in front of 900 Council delegates at the ALGA National General Assembly in 2011.

Myth 7: This question has been rejected twice before by the public . It's the same question as posed in 1974 and 1988.

In 1974 the Whitlam referendum proposed amending Section 51 of the Constitution—the Commonwealth's law-making powers. In 1988 the Hawke referendum proposed establishing a new section in the Constitution to recognize Local Government. Both created confusion about the extent of the change being sought and both were proposed by the Commonwealth. The current referendum has been sought and designed by Local Government only to confirm Federal funding powers.

There you have a very salient case put by the Local Government Association of South Australia, an organisation representative of the councils of South Australia. This question is wholly supported by all those councils. It is very clear that there is a lot of political mischief being played in this argument. I have been receiving emails quoting amounts of funding that I have no evidence to suggest are the actual amounts. I have received considerable numbers of emails that appear to be based on misinformation. They are consistent in form. The only thing that changes is the name and the address at the bottom, although you may get six of them at one time from the same address.

It appears as if, as usual, there is a touch of political mischief afoot, with people taking any opportunity to muddy the waters and malign the motives of those who are pressing forward with a fairly modest agreed position. The Local Government Association of South Australia say that all 68 of their councils are in agreement. I enjoyed a very fine meal with a number of mayors from South Australia on Sunday night. I detected no antipathy towards this proposal. In fact, it appeared as if they were going to get on with the job and disseminate the information necessary, Senator Joyce has said, to get the convincing position for the affirmative supported. That is going to be a matter for the electors, but the facts are quite clear.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Gallacher, for your contribution, but I think you spent about the first minute actually addressing the subject matter of the MPI—the failure of the Gillard government to commit to equal resources for a yes case and a no case for the proposed referendum question on the Constitution and local government—and the remainder of your time arguing for the yes case. I guess that is your prerogative, but that is quite a separate issue to the matter that we have raised here today. Senator Gallacher said—and this was about the extent to which he got into it—that the funding should reflect the vote in parliament. If he is correct, I think that would have very interesting results for all other areas of government funding, when you look at the proportionality of the votes that take place here. Senator Gallacher pointed to the $10.5 million that has been allocated by the government for the partisan campaigns. He said that all the rest would be equal—the yes/no booklet and all that would be funded equally. But the $10.5 million is the partisan part, and that is where the disproportionality exist.

The decision to disproportionately fund the yes and no campaigns and the extent to which it will be done is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinarily appalling decisions of this Labor government. Given the litany of broken policies and disastrous policies of this government, that is really saying something. In an almost inexplicable decision, this Labor government has decided to provide $10 million to the yes side yet just one-twentieth of that sum, $500,000, to the no campaign. This is despite the fact that, during the cross-party discussions, there was no mention whatsoever of a disproportionality in funding or, further, that it would be based on the parliamentary vote.

All Australians, whether they were born here or chose to live here, are incredibly lucky to have inherited an incredibly robust and balanced document in the form of our Constitution. We are one of only a handful of nations which remained democratic throughout the 20th century and into this one, one of the very few nations whose citizens have continuously enjoyed the liberties and freedoms that we now take for granted. We are incredibly lucky. But that luck has been greatly assisted by the fact that the document we now refer to as the Australian Constitution was thoughtfully and carefully drafted over 110 years ago and delivered exactly what we needed as a young nation to survive in our early years and mature into what is now one of the world's oldest democracies.

As such, Australians are rightly very cautious when it comes to changing this document fundamental to our democratic success. I acknowledge that, despite its great robustness, the Constitution does need to be changed from time to time to reflect circumstances our forebears could not or did not foresee, but it is right and correct, given the importance it plays in underpinning our democracy and the balance it achieves, that such change is approached carefully, cautiously and in a considered manner by Australians. Past practice shows it is usually also approached in the same manner by governments when putting up proposals for constitutional change. But, to the great shame of this government, that is not what we are seeing here. Ignoring for the moment the motivating factor behind Labor's decision to proceed with this referendum—that is, the deal done with the Greens and Independents after the last election to retain government—the process followed by Labor has shown a total disregard for a suitably careful, cautious and considered approach to this change. In the end, it is the people who should decide on change and, in doing so, it is right that they should fully understand the issues and the arguments for and against the proposed change.

I do not support the proposal, but I would not necessarily have been opposed in principle to the passing of the enabling bill if steps had been taken to ensure that the Australian people were as well prepared as possible to make a fully informed decision. This clearly will not be the case, both because of the failure of the government to act in a timely manner over the past 2½ years and, now, because of the government's attempt to make up for this failure by what looks awfully like trying to buy the outcome through grossly disproportionate funding of the two sides of the question—a partisan campaign, as Senator Gallacher referred to it.

As deputy chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, I enjoyed the opportunity of hearing from constitutional experts, bureaucrats, local governments and other interested parties throughout the inquiry process, which ended earlier this year. What was patently obvious to me from that inquiry is that the government has seriously mishandled the process leading up to the announcement of this referendum. I would have thought it obvious that no proposal to change our Constitution should be put to the people unless all practical and reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the Australian people are as equipped as possible to make their decision on a fully informed basis.

Witnesses at the joint committee's hearings all supported that position. I suspect many who are opposed to the passage of the bill to enable the referendum would be far less stridently opposed if the process leading up to its consideration had been properly handled by the government. As it was not properly handled, I have far less confidence that the Australian people will have the necessary exposure to, or the necessary understanding of, the arguments for and against to allow them to make a fully informed decision on 14 September—or any earlier date which may transpire.

The government's failure to act on the recommendations of its own expert panel, particularly the recommendation for early engagement with the public on the issues, is only exacerbated by the decision announced this week to grossly disproportionately fund the yes case relative to the tiny amount made available for the no campaign. This can only be an attempt to skew public information and engagement towards an understanding of the issues from the yes perspective and away from the no. Such a move is entirely unprecedented, is dishonest and is unfair to all Australians.

The chamber is aware that the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, has written to the Prime Minister on this subject. I associate myself with the remarks he made in his letter. He said:

The Coalition believes that it is not up to the Government of the day to pre-determine the outcome of any referendum question: a referendum is a decision for the Australian people to make.

…   …   …

Any bid to change the Constitution should succeed on the strength of a fair and well-argued case, not on the weight of advertising. We should not lightly change our Constitution. Argument, not money, should determine the outcome.

…   …   …

It is the first time that any notion of public funding based on parliamentary votes has ever been raised with the Coalition, or publicly.

That is the dishonest aspect of what the government are doing. The letter goes on to say:

The fact that this grossly disparate funding split was never raised with the Coalition at any time during a process where bipartisanship was sought makes a mockery of so-called consultation.

You will recall that at the last referendum, the Government funded both the 'yes' and the 'no' case on the question of a Republic equally. Rightly, Mr Howard determined that the choice to support a change to the Constitution was a choice for the Australian people and government's role was to merely put up a sound question and ensure that the arguments could be put and a genuine community debate could be conducted.

He then calls on the Prime Minister to do the same and concludes:

Anything less than equal funding for the 'yes' and 'no' cases puts at risk the fairness of this process.

It is bad enough that the government has entirely inappropriately decided to fund the yes and no campaigns disproportionately, but what does it say about the minister's—or indeed the government's—view of the Senate when he says that the decision made was to fund the campaigns in accordance with the vote on the floor of parliament? Here is some news for the minister: the Senate is part of the parliament. (Time expired)

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Constitution Alteration (Recognition of Local Government) Bill, which is what today's MPI is about, originally came up, I intended to support it. Generally, the DLP and I support any call for a referendum, because there is no better example of democracy than giving the people a direct voice in the running of their country and the shaping of their Constitution. It is for this reason I introduced the Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill, which is currently before committee. A democracy cannot function properly if the political representatives of the nation usurp all power to themselves. Quite frankly, we have seen some incredible examples of that with recent governments.

Unfortunately, I find myself in the position of not supporting this call for a referendum, because to do so would be to become complicit in eroding the democratic rights of the Australian people. How can we accept that the funding of the yes and no cases for this referendum should be determined by how many parliamentarians voted for it in the House of Representatives and by how many local councils support it? The only people who are entitled to change the Australian Constitution are the Australian people. It is not up to local government, it is not up to state parliaments and it is certainly not up to the Senate or the House of Representatives.

If you are trying to say that we are the people who were elected to represent the Australian people and are therefore capable of deciding everything for our constituents, you are kidding yourselves. If you want to argue that, why not go back and count what percentage of the vote each parliamentarian and councillor received and apportion the funds according to that? Yes, that is a nonsense argument, but it is infinitely fairer than the undemocratic and, more to the point, despotic attempt to skew the debate we have before us. If the funding were fairly apportioned as it should be, I would support the call for a referendum. But, with this unbelievable infringement of the democratic process as the only option, I simply cannot accept it and will vote against it.

However, if the government were to decide against this ridiculous position and grant equal funding I would gladly support the democratic process of putting the question to the people. That should not be misconstrued as my support for the intention of the referendum. Neither I nor the Democratic Labor Party agrees with the constant attack of successive federal governments on the rights of the states. This deliberate attempt to further undermine the powers of the states should be seen for what it is—one step further along the road to the removal of state governments and the consolidation of all power in the federal government. This has been a platform of the ALP since the 1960s and is one that the DLP has never agreed to.

I will not vote in favour of this referendum at the election, and the DLP will campaign against it. But the question here is the fairness of the funding and, as I have said, I cannot support the bill unless that is improved. The only people who can change the Australian Constitution are the Australian people, and we are kidding ourselves if we think it is up to us. We had better stop eroding the rights of the Senate and the job it is supposed to do as the true house of review that represents the States.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the important referendum question of the constitutional recognition of local government. Again, unfortunately, we have seen in this matter of public importance discussion in the Senate a misrepresentation of the facts by those opposite in an attempt to score political points. As those opposite would be aware, the Department of Regional Development, Local Government, Arts and Sport is spending $10 million on a non-partisan civics education campaign to ensure that people are fully informed of the basis for the proposed amendment. The Australian Electoral Commission will spend around $40 million in preparing for the referendum. This includes circulating the official yes/no pamphlet, which will be drafted by the parliament. The AEC will also develop referendum-specific advertising, particularly to inform electors on how to cast a formal vote. So the partisan or yes/no campaign funding, which totals $10.5 million, will only form a small part of the overall information campaign on the proposed referendum change.

It is worth noting that the constitutional recognition of local government did enjoy bipartisan support at the federal level. I am not sure of the current position of those opposite, but of course we do know that Mr Abbott did indicate his in-principle support, I think was the term he used, for the yes case but that appears not to be the position of his party any more. Whether it is still his own personal position I do not know. The recent vote in the House of Representatives was 133 to two in favour of the proposed amendment to include local government in the Constitution. This vote formed the basis of providing funding for each of the cases. It reflected the proportion of members in the other place who voted for and against this constitutional change. Over 98 per cent of members voted for the change and less than two per cent voted against the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill. In fact, the no case actually attracted proportionally less compared to the $500,000 the government is providing for proponents of the no case. The two members who voted against constitutional change will be asked to determine the distribution of this funding.

Let us examine what the proposed constitutional change is and what impact it will have. The proposed change to the Constitution is quite small and involves the addition of 17 words to section 96. The Constitution would be updated to read:

96 Financial assistance to States and local government bodies

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or local government body formed by a law of a State ...

The insertion of these 17 words does not diminish the role of the states in the administration of local government. This is a practical change to the Constitution that recognises what is the modern reality of the way the Commonwealth and local government already interact. The Commonwealth already partners with local government on a range of programs, including road funding under the Roads to Recovery Program, which is a highly successful program. Together the Commonwealth and local government have been able to work together to upgrade and repair 16,000 road sites across the country. The Commonwealth has also partnered with local government to deliver other local roads, sporting facilities, libraries, childcare and community services. This is already taking place and the constitutional change will do nothing more than acknowledge this fact.

This strong partnership is already delivering significant benefits in my home state of Tasmania. In particular, the Glenorchy City Council in the electorate of Denison, one of 29 councils in Tasmania, is benefiting from Commonwealth funding through the KG5 sporting precinct redevelopment, the CCTV cameras program, the Glenorchy Art and Culture Park stages 1 and 2, and many other infrastructure projects. I will take a moment to talk about these projects to demonstrate exactly how this relationship between the federal government and local government is already working.

Under the Regional Local Community Infrastructure Program—from memory a $250 million program—each council across the country has received funding. From the funding Glenorchy City Council received in that first round, we saw irrigation systems upgraded at Montrose Bay and Claremont recreational grounds, childcare centre upgrades, electric barbecues installed at Tolosa Park, landscaping at Tolosa Park and landscaping at the Katoomba Crescent reserve. Also, we also the upgrade of the Glenorchy skate park, work done at the Wellington Park mountain bike trails and the Barossa Creek stormwater litter traps. Just in one council area in the first round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program we saw eight projects that benefited the local council and the residents who live in that area. It was a very successful round of that program.

In Hobart city, where my office is, the Hobart City Council has received Roads to Recovery funding as well as support to replace old lighting around the city with LED lighting, upgrade the soccer pitch for the South Hobart Soccer Club and upgrade the Lenah Valley RSL community hall. So we can see that a strong working relationship already exists between the federal government and local governments. As I have demonstrated, that relationship acknowledges that local government is the tier of government closest to the community and it provides many of the services and infrastructure projects that affect the local community.

This level of support being provided to local government has been reiterated today with the announcement of $150 million to be shared between all local councils and shires across Australia to help build and renew community infrastructure. This funding has been delivered through round 5 of the Regional Development Australia Fund and the Liveable Cities Program as part of the federal government's commitment to supporting jobs and growth as well as investing in regional and local communities. This boost will mean councils and shires will share in funding based on the current financial assistance grants distribution.

Protections will be put in place to ensure that the smaller councils, of which there are many in Tasmania, will receive a base payment of at least $30,000. Seventy per cent of the funding, about $105 million, will be directed to rural and regional councils through the Regional Development Australia Fund. The other 30 per cent of funding, $45 million, will be delivered to urban councils through the Liveable Cities Program to make our cities more productive, liveable and sustainable. The funding is for councils and shires to build and renew community infrastructure with sporting facilities, town halls and playgrounds. Essential community services are expected to benefit from this funding. Back home in Tasmania I know local councils will be very happy with Minister Albanese's announcement today. I have read out some of the projects that were funded through a similar program that was delivered through— (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a great deal of sympathy for Senator Brown from Tasmania and Senator Gallacher from South Australia. To have been dragged into this chamber to defend the indefensible this afternoon took great courage. I have never heard a more lacklustre, more lazy, more lame or more loose defence of any government decision than this decision—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I raise a point of order. I object to Senator Smith's comments. He is misrepresenting my contribution today.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never heard a more lame, lacklustre, lazy or loose defence of any government decision in the 13 months that I have been in this Senate than I have heard this afternoon. Unless I heard incorrectly, I do not think I heard the words 'fairness', 'fair go', 'democratic values' or 'integrity' from any of the speakers on the other side with regard to this matter. That was a shameful exercise in our democracy. We heard Labor senators talk about the government's prerogative to fund the campaign. I want to hear about the government's responsibility to fund the campaign equally. We heard about Labor senators defending the decision to allocate funding based solely on the decision of the House of Representatives. Labor senators could not even defend their own role in the democratic process.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true. That is a misrepresentation.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Collins, you are aware that under standing order 197 it is disorderly to interrupt except to call attention to a quorum, privilege or a point of order.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor senators also talked about facts and myths. Let me share one fact and it was reported in The Australian on Tuesday, 18 June, by Christian Kerr. It said:

The row erupted as a brief by the West Australian Local Government Association emerged, containing the admission that 'Refining the Constitution will create a slightly broader head of power for the federal government' but omits to mention grants would be tied.

Let me share another myth. The first chapter in this deceit is the decision not to fund equally the yes and no campaigns. The second chapter in this deceit is to set up the referendum task force unit using $1.6 million of Australian taxpayers' money—not a secret, it was in the Senate estimates process. When I challenged the government to give me a guarantee that this $1.6 million sub-branch of the yes campaign would not be used to promote just one side of the argument, this is what I was told. The official said:

We would be providing the normal support to the minister on a range of tasks.

I said:

But you are the referendum taskforce unit. To an outside observer it could look like you are becoming an advocate for the referendum proposal. Is that true? So is $1.6 million being allocated to advocate for the referendum?

The official said:

The taskforce is there to provide support to the government to deliver the referendum.

She said, further on:

The taskforce, as I said, is a part of the department, so in the same way as the department is established to serve the requirements of the government, so is the referendum taskforce. We in the taskforce will implement government policy, which is to facilitate the running of a referendum.

This deceit does not have one chapter; it has two. That is what we know today. What will we know tomorrow?

I think it is worth considering for a moment what the government's decision earlier this week means. We know there is $10 million for the yes campaign and $500,000 for the no campaign—and I add that money does not necessarily mean you have the most convincing argument. If we look at the 1974 referendum on the same issue and at the national vote that was achieved for both the yes and no campaigns, we see the funding allocation looks much fairer, with $4.6 million for the yes campaign and $5.3 million for the no campaign. If we look at the 1988 referendum result, we see there was $3.3 million for the yes campaign and $6.6 million for the no campaign. Integrity and fairness must be integral to this process. But, when I asked the government at Senate estimates, 'Can you guarantee that the process will be fair,' this is what Senator Lundy had to say:

It is certainly our intention to have a fair process. I cannot be any more specific than the officers, but we will do what we can and make it as fair a process as possible.

I said:

Great, so fairness means that you will guarantee that the activities of the referendum taskforce—

Senator Lundy interrupted:

No, I will not say anything specific, but I am telling you it is the intention of the government to make this a fair process.

This was the exchange at estimates on 30 May. It continued:

Senator SMITH: So you cannot specifically—

Senator Lundy: No.

Senator SMITH: You cannot specifically guarantee fairness?

Senator Lundy replied that she was happy to take that on notice. So she took it on notice on 30 May and, at the beginning of this week, Australians found out that what the government was doing was not enshrining fairness but damaging the fabric of our democratic process.

There is much for this Labor government to be ashamed of, but surely this must be the most shameful moment of all. But there is a redeeming feature. This particular element of this particular debate means the referendum secret is no more, and Australians will now be forced to examine the facts, which speak for themselves: Labor cannot be trusted to govern our country; Australians should not trust them to change the Constitution. That is as clear as it can be, as clear as it can get.

The bipartisanship that has often been talked about is close to being in tatters, and it should be. The good faith of many people has been breached, including the good faith of the Leader of the Opposition and the good faith of the Senate. I think it is time for the Australian Local Government Association and the Western Australian Local Government Association to distance themselves from this particular element of the campaign and call for equal funding of the yes and no campaigns. That is the right thing to do, that is a fair thing to do and it is in keeping with the Australian character.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to contribute to this matter of public importance this afternoon, I want to reflect on one point that has not been touched on during the debate, and that is: of the three levels of government we have in this country, who should be the beneficiary of the outcome of the referendum proposed for 14 September this year? As a Queensland senator I can say, hand on heart, that from my travels around the state and my consultations and involvement with local councils I know there is great need out there. The care of our roads, parks and all those services that are provided by local councils need some recognition. There needs to be greater transparency and the delivery of some funds to those areas without the ordeal of going through state government processes. Fundamentally, I think that is the purpose of this referendum—to deliver for those councils around the country that require funding in the right place. I think they are the best level of government to consider where that funding should be delivered.

I was privileged to be the deputy chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation. Senator Back was also a very active participant in that committee as well and knows the evidence we as a committee received, having heard it firsthand. There are a number of parts in the report of that committee that I wish to refer to—because there is no doubt that one of the roles of the Senate, and it does it very well, is to report on matters for consideration and of importance, and this is an extremely important issue. It is an issue that has been taken to the Australian public on two occasions now but, unfortunately, has not been accepted. But, as with most referendums, we know that that is the case historically: most referendums are rejected by the Australian public. The government has set out the question that is to be put on 14 September in a manner that ensures that most people will understand not only its importance but also why this referendum is required. I refer to paragraph 6.21 of the select committee report, which states:

Evidence was presented to the committee arguing that the Commonwealth's constitutional authority to fund local government rested on two heads of power. First, Section 96 of the Constitution—

and we have heard deliberations and evidence on that today in the chamber from both the opposition and the government—

which allows the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the States 'on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit.'

We know that is the process at present. Also, it was in evidence provided by Professor Brown in this particular area that assistance to the states was on such terms as seen fit. They are examples of such funding. The committee's report states:

As the Hon. Christian Porter MLA, Western Australian Attorney-General, noted, section 96 grants cannot go directly to local government as the section 'requires Commonwealth funds to be provided only to the states…

This is where the hurdle is. This is where there needs to be acceptance of local councils recognised in the Constitution. Surely they have a right to have an opinion and have a say in the manner that funding is delivered to them as local councils. The report went on to refer to further evidence in regard to the history of local government referenda. As I have indicated, a proposal has been made twice for the Constitution to recognise local government. On both occasions it has been rejected. We go back to the first occasion in 1974 when the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Act proposed to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies. That referendum considered a proposal for additions to the Constitution and suggested a new section 51(IV)(a) to provide that the Commonwealth may make laws for the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth for local government bodies.

The main issue that is being debated this afternoon is equal funding. The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is funding a $10 million nonpartisan civics education campaign to ensure people are fully informed of the basis of the amendment. This is an example of the appropriateness of ensuring that people have the understanding and the education to make their democratic choice on 14 September—when they go to the ballot box for the election of the next federal government—to also make a decision on this referendum about the Constitution. They will decide on whether this aspect of the Constitution should be amended. This is a particularly important area and one where education is to be provided so those who are making their choices at the ballot box can make an informed choice in deciding which way they vote, whether it be yes or no—that is the democratic process we have in this country. It is an amazing process; it is a process that many countries would envy. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, that in your travels around certain parts of the world you would also have been informed that it is process that makes us the envy of many countries. We have an amazing Constitution. We have an amazing democracy under which people can have a choice in deciding to vote yes or no in an amendment to their Constitution.

The Australian Electoral Commission also will spend approximately $40 million preparing for the referendum. This amount includes disseminating the official Yes/No pamphlet drafted by the parliament and developing referendum-specific advertisements informing electors how to cast a formal vote. We know, when it comes to the AEC, of the wonderful task they do and the wonderful role they perform at times of an election, preparing for those elections in an orderly and informed manner. People can turn up to the ballot box on the day being fully aware of what they are doing when making an informed and democratic decision.

The partisan funding campaigns totalling $10.5 million will form only a small part of the overall information going to voters on the proposal. We must reflect and remind ourselves that it is a government's prerogative to fund campaigns. Contrary to Senator Bernardi's comments, it has always been the prerogative of governments as to how and how much they fund partisan campaigns. This is separate to the official Yes/No pamphlet case. Under the Howard government, John Howard might have had an equal split cost for campaigns but certainly did not concede that this was anything other than a decision of government. It falls back to the decisions of the government of the day when it comes to a referendum to amend the Constitution. It falls back on our decision-making persons to decide as a government whether that is the case.

We also need to reflect that when this matter was before the other House, members voted 133-2 in favour of including local government in the Constitution. That should affect the funding. That sort of substantial vote clearly demonstrates that members of the House of Representatives—I am only assuming this—have regular contact with their local councils and understand the importance and the need for this type of funding to assist those local councils. I know for certain that the local council where I reside—the Moreton Bay Regional Council—is 100 per cent supportive of this referendum.

If those opposite and others who have made contributions here today would have some sort of involvement with their councils, I am sure they would form the same opinion if they consulted with them. Only about four or five weeks ago I was in Gladstone discussing matters that the Gladstone Shire Council raised with me. No doubt they are supportive of this type of assistance for a referendum to make sure, for the first time in its history, that this matter is corrected so that local councils can have a say in how their funding is delivered. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has expired.