Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on this motion in support of local government which was moved by the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. I think that the motion is—apart from the proposed amended part—a worthy motion to be debated in this House. Local government is a very important tier of government, and I think it is correct that the parliament consider local government not only in its own right but also as a government that the Commonwealth must deal with at the local level. But I think it is important for us to note the failings of this motion as well. The most obvious failing is the inability for the government to consider recommending that the House recognise local government in the Constitution of Australia.

It was not so long ago in historical terms—almost 20 years ago—that the Australian people had an opportunity to make a decision about whether they wanted to recognise local government within the Constitution. As we know, the result was a resounding no—unfortunately, from my point of view—and, as a result, local government still is not properly recognised by the Constitution.

There are reasons why the population of Australia chose not to support that particular question as listed in the referendum. Perhaps the most obvious reason is that the opposition at the time, the coalition, was strongly against not only that question but all four questions that were put in that referendum. So one major political party effectively scared the population by saying that constitutional recognition of local government would be bad because it would be a cost upon the Australian people. There was no evidence of this put forward by the federal opposition at the time. However, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, as is the case in many referenda, if in fact one of the major parties opposes a particular proposition, it is more likely than not that the people of Australia will choose to reject the question as outlined on the referendum paper, and that was the case in that instance.

Whilst I applaud the minister for local government for placing this motion on the Notice Paper for debate, he is somewhat duplicitous in saying on the one hand that this House should recognise local government while on the other hand taking no responsibility as a member of an executive government and as a member of the Liberal Party who have spent as much energy as they have in preventing its constitutional recognition. I refer in particular to the comments made by the minister when he said that, although he was conscious of the fact that the majority of local government authorities were supportive of the tier of government being recognised under the Constitution, he believed that there was very little chance of the referendum being successful. In fact, he said:

... the government and I as minister are not convinced that another referendum at this stage would have a different result.

Of course it would not have a different result, because Minister Lloyd and his executive government—indeed, the Liberals and The Nationals—would oppose the proposition, as they did nearly 20 years ago. That is very duplicitous.

It is important, therefore, that the many hundreds of local government authorities across this nation should be very clear on the difference between, on the one hand, the Labor Party’s view with respect to the recognition of local government in a proper sense via a referendum and ultimately its incorporation into the Constitution and, on the other hand, the view of the coalition parties, who resist and refuse to accept the rightful recognition of the very important local government of this country. So I think it is important for us to put that on the record. It is important for the government not to get away with the duplicitous argument that they could not recommend a constitutional change because it was unlikely to get up when the prime reason it would not get up is because of their own opposition to that proposition. I think that is very important for us to note.

However, some aspects of this motion are worthy of discussion. It is important to mention the report that was prepared in 2003 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, chaired by David Hawker, who is now the Speaker. That report was informally titled the Hawker report. There were many decent submissions received by the inquiry, as is the wont of an inquiry looking into local government. It was not surprising that that inquiry received many submissions supporting the constitutional recognition of local government. I also note that the committee report contained 18 unanimous recommendations. There were 11 committee members and 18 unanimous recommendations and, to date, only seven of those 18 recommendations have been implemented in full by the government.

This motion before the House today provides us with an opportunity to talk about the importance of local government. As a former councillor at Whittlesea yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, you share, like many federal members, a history of involvement in not only Commonwealth government but also local government. Probably the most famous example of this would be Ben Chifley. He was a councillor of the City of Bathurst at the same time that he was Prime Minister of this country. Clearly there has always been a particular nexus between this place and local government, and I think it is important that the government goes on to look at the remaining committee recommendations with a view to implementing them.

The report was a bipartisan report. The submissions were made in good faith and were comprehensive in the main. The 11 members, six government and five Labor members, found very little disagreement in terms of those particular recommendations. It would be worthwhile for the minister to take up the remaining recommendations that have not been implemented and to pursue them with some vigour. That would not hurt the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads at all.

While I am speaking on this particular matter, I would like to refer more locally to my own municipalities. I have two municipalities within the boundaries of the electorate of Gorton: one is almost entirely within, the municipality of Brimbank, and the other is the municipality of Melton. One of these two councils has recently reconstructed the way in which councillors are elected insofar as they are now multimember wards rather than single-member wards. Despite all the nay-sayers, that has been a relatively successful reform.

Only recently I was speaking directly to Brimbank City Council. I spoke to a full sitting of the council about their views on the Work Choices legislation. Whilst I understand that the Work Choices legislation is a Commonwealth matter and the legislation can only be regulated by the Commonwealth houses of parliament, the fact is that, as a local government, as an elected government, the Brimbank City Council has every right, in my view, to reflect—favourably or otherwise—upon a piece of legislation that will affect the residents within that particular municipality. They considered the Work Choices legislation and reflected that it would not be anything other than adverse to the interests of the majority of working people in the municipality of Brimbank. I will seek to present the same case to the municipality of Melton and hope that, at some point, they will move a motion raising in-principle concerns about the legislation.

In conclusion to my comments with respect to this motion, unfortunately the minister has only succeeded in symbolically recognising local government no more or less than is currently the situation. The minister has failed to convince the Prime Minister and indeed senior members of his party and the coalition to accept that local government would wish to be recognised under the Constitution. Therefore, it is high time that, at the next referendum or whenever it may be put to the people, the Australian people are asked again whether they would like to see proper constitutional recognition of local government. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that that question failed because the people disagreed in any violent way with the question. I am of the view that it is more likely that the reason for opposition to the question was, in the main, the scaremongering of the then opposition, particularly the former member for Flinders, Mr Peter Reith.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

See this speech in context