Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Before I go to the substance of this particular bill I would like to congratulate the member for Cook, fellow parliamentarian and fellow republican. It is true to say that he has had a formidable parliamentary career both here and in the New South Wales parliament. He is well regarded across the chamber and I wish him well in his future endeavours.

I now turn to the specific bill at hand, which is the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. This bill being debated in this place this evening, I would suggest, is not particularly necessary. It is one born of politics and the desperation of the Prime Minister, who wants to play games in Queensland.

The reason that I suggest there is no particular requirement for this bill to be legislated—although, can I say from the outset that I support the bill and indeed the amendment moved by the member for Fraser—is that it is clear now that the Premier of Queensland has agreed that there should indeed be plebiscites, if the locals wish to have them, on the matters going to the municipal restructuring in Queensland. So I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister acted in haste and acted improperly in requiring this legislation to be enacted given the very frank admission made by the Premier of Queensland when he said only very recently that he got it wrong. It is not easy for a leader of any government to admit that they have made an error in public policy. I think that shows how big a man the Premier of Queensland is. He said, ‘The Prime Minister and Kevin Rudd got it right, and I didn’t.’

As a result, there is now a capacity for locals to express their opposition to or their support for proposed municipal restructuring in Queensland. I think that should be sufficient. Of course instead the government has sought to intrude by passing legislation that I do not think is necessary. Nonetheless, because the Leader of the Opposition as early as May supported an alternative approach to deal with the matter of municipal restructuring, I think it is important that the opposition support the bill. It is consistent with our clear view, a view we held prior to the announcement made by the Prime Minister on this matter, that locals should have a say in the matter. Given that the bill is before the parliament, it is important that Labor make our position very clear. Therefore we support the bill, albeit that in my view the bill is unnecessary. It is not necessary for it to be put and debated in this place because the matter it was attempting to respond to no longer exists.

I also want to stress that we support the amendment moved by the member for Fraser. We seek support for that amendment from both the Special Minister of State and indeed the government. We say in that amendment that if the Prime Minister and the government are genuine about recognising the primacy of local government to at least involve itself in its future then it should support a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia. That is the first part of the amendment moved by the member for Fraser.

The second part of Labor’s amendment says that, given the government’s intention to consider the construction of 25 nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities, there should be a capacity to allow communities to express a view on the location of those proposed nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities. We suggest that those two amendments would actually give this bill some relevance because, as I say, the Premier has withdrawn his opposition to the capacity for local communities in Queensland to have a say over the municipal restructuring.

What is now at play, now relevant and should now be debated, given the fact that this bill is proceeding, is whether the government supports in any true sense the constitutional recognition of local government. We know that the coalition and Mr Howard, the member for Bennelong, who was the Leader of the Opposition in 1988, have historically opposed the recognition of local government being placed in the Constitution. We know that in 1988 the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bennelong, and the rest of the coalition opposed the referendum that would have provided some level of recognition of local government in the Constitution. We know that that attempt by Labor to allow for that tier of government to be referred to in the Constitution was resisted by the coalition.

We know how difficult it is to change the Constitution of the land when you do not have bipartisan support. I think that is a reasonable thing. I think it is a large step and a big move to make amendments to the Constitution and that, therefore, it should not be easy, but it is also true to say that it is very difficult to change the Constitution without the support of the two major parties. That is the political reality. The government now—the opposition as it was then—resisted and managed to defeat the opportunity for local government to be recognised in the Constitution.

Here is an opportunity this evening for the government, by acceding to the amendment being proposed by the member for Fraser and the Labor Party, to support the view that local government should be recognised in the Constitution by way of referenda. That is to say that, in any future referendum, there would be support from both major parties to recognise local government in the Constitution. We would welcome that. We would also therefore think that the government were not just playing around tactically and playing politics with this particular matter in the shadow of an election. We would believe that the government were serious about the rights and the standing of local government in our nation. They have an opportunity tonight to change the position they have held on preventing any form of recognition of or reference to local government in the Constitution by accepting that amendment.

The other part of the amendment being proposed by the member for Fraser and the Labor Party is our belief that steps should also be taken to allow communities to express a view on the location of 25 nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities that the government wants to impose on the Australian people. We do not know whether those plants will be constructed tomorrow and we do not know when they will be built if the government has its way. We do know that the nuclear plants option is under consideration by the Prime Minister and the government. Indeed, if this government were to be re-elected, that option would be clearly on its agenda.

We argue that the people of Australia would be more concerned about the possibility of living in the proximity of a nuclear plant than about whether they were in one municipality or another. I think it is likely that people in this country would be more concerned about living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant than about whether they were on one side of a municipal boundary or not. Given the fact that there is a bipartisan position supporting locals having a say on the actual municipal restructuring in Queensland, allowing for a local plebiscite to express their view, it would seem fitting that on a fundamentally more challenging issue, one that would potentially create more anxiety in the community, the government would consider acceding to Labor’s proposal to allow for a plebiscite on that issue.

I have been informed that the Surf Coast shire in the electorate of Corangamite have it on their books to consider a referendum on this particular matter on Tuesday next week. As I understand it, the council will meet to discuss whether they will propose a referendum. As I understand it, the mayor of that municipality has written to the Prime Minister seeking funding to support a referendum in Surf Coast. I would have thought that, given the comments made by the Prime Minister, he would indeed assist that municipality in having such a plebiscite to consider or at least gauge the views of residents. We will wait and see on that. We will wait and see whether in fact the Prime Minister was fair dinkum when he said he might have such referenda for people concerned about proposed nuclear plants and their locations. I think accepting this amendment tonight in this place is an opportunity for the government to assure municipalities such as the Surf Coast shire, their councillors and, more importantly, the residents of municipalities that they will be able to express their views with the assistance of the Commonwealth. I therefore think it would be apt for the Prime Minister to provide the resources for them to undertake such a plebiscite.

There has been a level of hypocrisy in the way in which the government has dealt with this matter. There has been quite a high level of hypocrisy in the way in which the Prime Minister has chosen to deal with this matter. In fact, on 7 August, at a press conference he held with the Treasurer, the Prime Minister said on this matter:

I think it is a total travesty of democracy to ... refuse to consult people about what you are going to do that is going to affect them ...

That is a big statement coming from a Prime Minister who, on 28 September 2004, announced the government’s industrial relations policy and did not mention Work Choices once. He did not mention one significant element of Work Choices when he announced their industrial relations policy prior to the election. Not only did the Prime Minister not consult with anybody; he did not even notify the voters of this country during the election campaign that he was going to impose Work Choices after the election. It is the height of hypocrisy for the government to think they can make statements like this about the Premier of Queensland when they quite flagrantly abused their position by not announcing in any sense whatsoever the elements of Work Choices prior to the 2004 election.

I think that this government have to consider that they are on very thin ice indeed to lecture others about consulting with people or even notifying them of policy that might affect them. Indeed, it is true to say that, with the abolition of penalty rates, with the removal of unfair dismissal rights for more than five million workers and with the other pernicious provisions of Work Choices, people have been adversely affected. There was no notification, no consultation and no plebiscite at all. That really highlights the fact that this has been a political game exercised by the Prime Minister to intervene in Queensland politics and to intervene on matters to be dealt with between municipal and state governments. The Prime Minister knows that the Premier has now provided the opportunity for locals in Queensland to have a say. They will have a say, and the Leader of the Opposition supports that—

See this speech in context