Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I speak to this motion. I thank the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Mr Lloyd, for introducing it in the House because I think a number of points raised in the motion do need some elaboration and, in my view, raise some concerns and some positives in the area of local government generally. There are a number of problems that I am sure most of us see in local government from time to time, but I would like to spend a few minutes particularly on the subject of the impact that the Australian Local Government Association has or could have on policy that is emanating from the federal sphere.

As we all know, local government is in a sense a plaything of state governments, but the federal government does help in a number of ways through federal assistance grants and, more recently, through initiatives such as the Roads to Recovery program and a number of other programs. So the federal government does have a role. I have never been a councillor on a council. I have been in two tiers of government, but I have no desire to be in the third, even though I think the local level is probably the most important in a lot of ways to people on the ground, particularly country people, whose numbers are spread out and whose service requirements are significantly different in some ways to those of city people. However, the federal government does play a role in funding arrangements through the Commonwealth Grants Commission and other agencies.

It is a pity that the referendum that was carried out some years ago did not constitutionally recognise local government. I think it is a shame. Because of the way in which that referendum was conducted, most people really did not know what was being asked. I would encourage the Australian Local Government Association and other people in the political parties in this place to revisit that issue. Perhaps in the election after next or whenever possible that issue could be revisited, because there is absolutely no doubt that the cost pressures that local government are under are, in many cases, actually eroding the localism that local government was essentially put in place to deliver.

Localism is being eroded in the name of economic efficiency, cost shifting or economies of scale and under the guise of eradicating two or three general managers because you then only have to pay one general manager et cetera. We have seen all of it happening across Australia, and there are always very good reasons why it would be better to eradicate the localism from local government. However, I think the great strength of local government is that it does have the capacity to represent local people at a local level on local issues. Quite obviously, with technology et cetera now you could, theoretically at least, run the business of local government from the top of Ayers Rock. But that misses the point of some of the major things that local government provides—that is, a local voice for local people on local issues.

I am very much in support of local government being maintained and that we do not just look at this business of how you can most efficiently deliver the services to people at the cheapest possible cost. I have said in this place before that, in terms of that sort of economic rationalist thinking, the most efficient way to deliver the greatest number of services to the highest number of individuals at the lowest possible unit cost is to put those people in a feedlot, and that is exactly what we have done in terms of some of our major cities. I was absolutely disgusted in recent days to see the Prime Minister in this place scoring what I considered to be fairly cheap political points against the opposition. I do not think the opposition has been right in terms of its stance on this issue either, but the Prime Minister has maintained a view that we should be opening up more and more land around our major cities and that, in some sort of convoluted fashion, that would cheapen the price of housing.

That is an indication of where the government is going in terms of policy, and it is a very strong indication to regional local government that the two major parties here, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, essentially stand for a centralisation of the population—the feedlot mentality, which is the issue that I was talking about a moment ago. The most efficient way to deliver the greatest number of services at the lowest possible unit cost to the greatest number of people is to put them in a feedlot. We can look at the geography of the Sydney basin, the pollution impacts of the Sydney basin and the health impacts of the Sydney basin in the future, yet the Prime Minister stands up in this parliament day after day and says that we should release more land in our major cities and that that in some way will have an impact on the cost of housing, in a nation the size of ours. The Prime Minister quoted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today regarding some very similar statement that she had made. So the feedlot mentality is in fact the policy of both sides of this parliament, and the cheapest way of providing services to people is to put them into major cities and ignore the regional consequences.

On the other hand we have this debate about the need for greater infrastructure inland. The two issues tend to run at a tangent, in a sense, and somebody might be able to explain how you can run both those agendas when on the one hand you have the policy mix that is saying, ‘Proceed to the nearest feedlot and, if possible, use gravity to some sort of physical advantage,’ while on the other hand we have people saying that we need such things as inland rail networks and that we need to develop regional Australia.

Whenever regional Australia issues are mentioned—for instance, the development of the ethanol industry—we have this argument going back the other way: ‘No, unless the market can dictate the terms, it is not possible—we can’t foster the advent of new industries; we can’t assist in any meaningful fashion to encourage the development of those industries.’ But with respect to the building industry—and I am not opposed to this, but I think the House should be aware of it, and I have raised it a few times when the drought has been raised—if you look at drought assistance, about $300 million over four years has actually been spent on business assistance to the farming community. Some would say, particularly those at a local government level, that that is not sufficient for the worst drought in 100 years. The Treasurer and others would suggest that you cannot prop up industry; that over time they have to learn to stand on their own two feet. But look at what has happened to the building industry over that period of time—or for one year longer than the worst drought we have ever had. The goods and services tax came out. The government recognised a political problem—and a real problem—in that the 10 per cent imposition of the goods and services tax would have an impact on the price of a house. The building industry cried foul and said that this would decimate this particular industry. They said, ‘You can’t do this to us. You have to help us through this particular period.’

The First Home Owners Scheme was born to assist our young people into housing. I am not suggesting that is a bad thing, but in a real sense it is a direct subsidy of the building and construction industry. I think at last count somewhere between $5.6 billion and $6 billion has been spent on that program, with the employment impacts that that obviously has for the industry. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of that, but I do argue that the $300 million spent on business assistance during the worst drought in living memory should not be viewed as a massive subsidy to a few peasant farmers when assistance of the order of $6 billion is offered by the same government, in the main to the western areas of our major metropolitan areas where, coincidentally, most election results are determined. I will leave that issue at that point.

I have spoken about the constitutional issue of local government and the recognition of local government. The other point I would like to make is that, in my view, the Australian Local Government Association do very little to promote their cause in this place. I would suggest that, rather than come to this place with last year’s 150 motions determined at their conference, they come to the government, the opposition and the crossbenches with one, two or three major issues that they see of importance. If those major issues happen to include the constitutional recognition of local government, they could actually drive that debate. I do not see that happening in here. Maybe they do not come and talk to me; they probably talk to some of the other members. But I do not see it and I do not read about it happening.

I have absolutely no doubt that local government has a problem with its income stream. That is mainly state induced; I am not blaming the federal government for all of this. If there is not enough income to deliver the services that local government is required to deliver and there is very little growth in federal assistance grants and other sources of revenue that local government is able to garner, the 450 local government bodies across the nation could weld together on two or three specific issues and demand what they want of the government and the opposition of the day, be it one per cent of income tax, so much of the goods and services tax or whatever else. It may well be a proportion of the fuel excise to reconstruct the country bridges on local roads across the nation or a variation of that theme. But I do not see the Australian Local Government Association setting the agenda in this place. I see it more as receiving the agenda of the government of the day and almost saying ‘Thank you very much’ for any little bit extra that it gets.

To the credit of the federal and local governments, I have seen an initiative where, when they came together, they were able to set an agenda and have it delivered by government. That was the Roads to Recovery program—an excellent program. It actually cut the head off the state governments on the way through and delivered the funds to local government. They made the decision locally about how the money was going to be spent and the federal government was able to deliver. I think that funding comes to about 1c of the excise from each litre of fuel bought at the bowser. It has had a massive impact, but, if all the country bridges on local roads in Australia are in a dreadful state, perhaps it is time to look at a ‘bridges to recovery’ program that uses some of the fuel excise. I am against the concept of energy tax as it currently exists, but, if it is to remain, perhaps some of it should be targeted towards some of the infrastructure needs that people have.

I say this to the Australian Local Government Association. Don’t come in here with an agenda that is 150 motions long. Determine what is important. Get your people behind it. Determine what you agree on, not what you argue about. And set the agenda within this place. I am sure that in terms of those major issues, if you need an income stream, constitutional recognition or having bridges fixed, then, if you come as one and are prepared to get behind those issues and not go to water when the heat comes on, you will have enormous success in achieving a policy outcome not only at this level but, most importantly, at local community level.