Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just ask the question: what are the police inquiring into? I think that answers itself.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007and I will come to some of the other statements made by the honourable member in a little while—was introduced as a response to provisions in the Queensland Local Government Act 1993 that would provide for the dissolution of a council if it undertook action for the purpose of holding a poll about local government area abolition. The bill seeks to override the act by providing that any law prohibiting the holding of a plebiscite would be invalid and by offering Commonwealth assistance for plebiscites on local council amalgamations. The Special Minister of State pretends to be the saviour of democracy—the member for Moreton clearly thinks that of himself, but he is the opposite—but the Australian Electoral Commission already has the power to conduct plebiscites on behalf of other bodies, which I would have thought would be properly understood by the government and certainly by those people who put this bill together.

The minister, of course, admitted as much in his second reading speech when he said that the AEC presently conducts plebiscites:

… for trade unions and employer organisations … and for other organisations and some foreign countries.

It is worth noting that the Queensland government has introduced amendments in the Queensland parliament to repeal the provisions banning the holding of plebiscites. On that note, the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest is quite instructive because it tells us that the Premier, Mr Beattie, said:

I obviously got that wrong.  When it comes to giving people a vote, John Howard and Kevin Rudd got it right and I didn’t.

He then moved to reverse the decision. I would have thought that was game, set and match. It is very appropriate behaviour by the Premier. He took an action which would have prevented people having a plebiscite. He then turned around and admitted he was wrong and moved to amend the legislation to allow for those plebiscites.

It is very important that we understand the reality of that and recognise the purpose of this legislation, which the opposition supports. After all, as the member for Fraser pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, made it very clear in May this year that we supported the idea that people should have a right to express a view about amalgamations of councils. It is in that context that we discuss this legislation. You do not have to be too bright to work out the political context—that is, that the federal government was looking for a diversion. It was looking for a way to create a bit of a wedge within the Queensland body politic to divert attention away from its own inactivity and to garner support over the issue of local government—which, of course, is not a federal government responsibility—to try to take the gloss off support for Labor in Queensland. But what this bill does, and let there be no doubt about it, is highlight the absolute hypocrisy of both this government and its supporters in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia.

I want to particularly advert to the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory and those people in this parliament who represent its interests here and who represent this government in the Northern Territory—that is, the member for Solomon and the CLP senator from the Northern Territory. There is to be local government reform in the Northern Territory. Amalgamations will bring down the number of local government authorities from somewhere in excess of 60 to nine. There has been a great deal of concern expressed in some quarters about these proposals. It should be no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, that, totally consistent with his views expressed in May, the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Labor Party would support the idea of plebiscites for amalgamations in the Northern Territory. In relation to amalgamations in the Northern Territory, I have expressed my concern, especially as a result of discussions I have had across the community, about the impact of the federal government’s intervention in Indigenous communities, what that means for these amalgamations and what it has the potential to do. My view, as expressed publicly, has been to say that they ought to let the whole thing shake out before moving any further on the question of amalgamations.

Nevertheless, it is important that, when people are opposed to an idea, they be able to give expression to that opposition. They should be able to give expression to that opposition, as we know now, through a plebiscite—those plebiscites which this bill purports to support. But as we know, and as was pointed out by the member for Fraser, this is really part of a political exercise rather than a long-term commitment to or support for local government in Queensland or anywhere else in Australia. As the member for Fraser pointed out, the Prime Minister in particular has historically shown his antipathy towards the issue of local government and recognition of it by the federal parliament and in referenda that have been put to the public for decision. The government opposed those proposals in the past.

We have also heard over recent weeks concern from CLP politicians, such as the member for Solomon, that there has been a lack of consultation in relation to local government reform in the Northern Territory. The member for Solomon made the following comments just over a week ago, on 3 September:

I can’t understand why the Martin government thinks it doesn’t have to ask the people how they want their local governments to be reformed.

          …            …            …

The Martin government is acting like a petty dictator on this matter and needs to recognise that people have a right to have a say in local government reform.

This is ‘a slap in the face to local democracy’, said the member for Solomon. Of course, when it comes to interference in the Northern Territory by the federal government, when it comes to the federal government overriding the laws of the Northern Territory, there is no such defence of the rights of Northern Territory citizens to have a vote, a plebiscite, on the overriding of their rights and the rights of their legislative assembly by this parliament. We do not hear the member for Solomon coming to the defence of the Northern Territory community and calling the federal government’s actions ‘a slap in the face to local democracy’. We do not hear him say anything about that. That is clearly where the hypocrisy lies.

An apt demonstration of that is the failure of the CLP to support the idea that there should be plebiscites to determine whether or not people in the Northern Territory would support the imposition of nuclear waste dumps on the Northern Territory, as is proposed by the government here in Canberra. Three sites have been arbitrarily chosen across the Northern Territory: one at Fisher’s Ridge, south of Katherine; one at Harts Range, north-east of Alice Springs; and one at Mount Everard, to the north-west of Alice Springs. These three sites were chosen arbitrarily by the government. The Northern Territory is told, ‘Forget whatever you think; we’re going to choose a site and one of these three will be it, regardless of what you think, regardless of what you say, regardless of what your parliament thinks, regardless of what your citizens think.’ And the member for Solomon talks about ‘a slap in the face to local democracy’! He was quite happy to sit in this chamber and see the federal government introduce laws which override the rights and interests of the parliament of the Northern Territory, the legislative assembly, and the rights and interests of residents of the Northern Territory and which absolutely deny them any capacity for input into this decision.

I also remind the House of a comment which was made by the Prime Minister when referring to the issue of local government in Queensland:

It should be remembered that the Government is not expressing a view as to whether or not an individual merger should occur.

Rather, the Commonwealth believes that people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government without threat of penalty.

There are two aspects to that. Firstly, there is the penalty. I agree; there should be no threat of a penalty when people want to express a view, but people should have the right to express a view on the actions of a government. I know we do not support citizen initiated referenda in Australia but you cannot, on the one hand, argue that people in the third tier of government—local government—should have the right to determine, make decisions, reflect the views of citizens or have a plebiscite with regard to matters to do with local government and yet, on the other hand, deny people in the second tier of government—states and territories—the right to have a say when the federal government proposes to impose changes upon the way in which the land for which they are responsible is being administered. It is absolutely inconsistent and the hypocrisy should be evident to all of us.

Of course, we are all aware of the schizophrenia that exists on the government benches. They can say one thing one day and an entirely different thing the next day. It does not matter to them; it does not worry them. They can say one thing to one group of people and the opposite thing to another group of people, as they are doing here. It does not worry them. They can say to the Northern Territory community, ‘You have no right to have a say in whether nuclear waste facilities are in your backyard, but we will make sure you have a right to say whether or not there should be local government reform.’ There is an absolute inconsistency there.

I speak up for the people of the Northern Territory, and I know that they argue vociferously that they ought to have the right and the responsibility to have their voice heard. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure we hear that voice. But there has been no mechanism for them to have their voice heard in relation to these nuclear waste facilities, which have been imposed arbitrarily, simply because the government said it could and it would—and it did, with not so much as a ‘by your leave’. The cant we hear in this place from the member for Moreton about engagement with the local community ought to be seen for what it is.

When we see the member for Solomon get up on his scrapers in this place and try to defend the actions of the federal government in overriding the rights and interests of the people of the Northern Territory in any number of ways over the last few years, we remember one thing: he does not represent their interests and he does not speak on their behalf, because he seeks to deny them the right to have a voice. That is despicable. He has denied them the right to have this voice in relation to nuclear waste facilities, and no doubt, when the time comes, he will take every opportunity to deny them their right to have a say about whether a nuclear power plant is built in the Northern Territory.

I am someone who believes in the fundamentals of democracy. I am someone who believes that, if you are going to change things structurally and people are opposed to it, you should seek their views. I am someone who believes that, if you are going to interfere in the way in which a place is governed, if you are going to override their laws, then as a matter of conscience, a matter of justice, a matter of fairness and a matter of democracy you must talk to them and ask them: what is your view? You must give them the opportunity to express a view either indirectly through their government, as in the case of the Northern Territory government, or directly through a plebiscite. I have to say that, in the Northern Territory, that has just not happened. We will be debating in this place in the next day or so other bills about alcohol. This parliament is seeking to override the capacity of the Northern Territory government to make laws about alcohol. There is no attempt to have a plebiscite of the Northern Territory community to see whether they think this is a good idea—there is no attempt at all.

This is a very serious matter. Whilst I have strong views—in fact, I think the local government reforms in the Northern Territory by and large are good—I know there are people, particularly people who live on the outskirts of Darwin or across the harbour on the Cox Peninsula, who have grave reservations and I say they have a right to have their voice heard if they want to have their voice heard. If they express a desire to have their opinion gauged through a plebiscite then that should happen. It is very important that that does happen.

The member for Moreton in his diatribe about the wickedness of the Beattie government and all that it entails talked about the fact that he was required to get permission from the education department to visit schools in his electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, you are a person of some sophistication and awareness. You know about the Northern Territory and you are aware that there was a CLP administration in the Northern Territory for 24 years. Even when I asked permission they would not give it to me. I was excluded by the CLP government from visiting schools in my electorate in the Northern Territory. I asked permission and often permission was denied. Just recently, whilst I was on Christmas Island, I asked permission to visit the new detention facility there. The minister for immigration denied me the right to visit. (Time expired)

See this speech in context