Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

You just do not have a clue, do you, Senator Ian Macdonald. You do not understand the idea that you can support this legislation and also think that Beattie’s approach is appalling. I do not know why that is so complex for you. But I guess it comes down to the total inability of some here—probably in all major parties but particularly in the government at the moment—to see anything outside of any prism other than your mind-blowingly narrow, laser-like focus on what might get you re-elected, to the complete contempt of due process, honesty and what actually might be in the public’s interest. All that matters is your spin, your line, and any connection to reality is obviously irrelevant. Perhaps if you listen, Senator Macdonald, you might actually increase your understanding of what you are doing. You probably do not even realise what you are doing. I would not be surprised.

The Democrats are very pleasantly supportive of this legislation because it puts in place a mechanism to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to directly assist with plebiscites on any matter around the country. There is not enough detail, of course, on how people can actually make use of that new right that they will have, but we have a precedent being set where the parliament is saying that the Electoral Commission should have a role in being able to assist communities around the country to hold plebiscites on matters of importance to them. That is a huge step forward, and I am very pleased that the parliament is going to unanimously sign off on that basic principle. But what has clearly been demonstrated by the contributions to date from the government side is that this is being brought forward in an atmosphere of total cynicism and complete hypocrisy. So we will not have any details of where people can exercise this right; it will be plebiscites only when it suits the political point-scoring opportunities of the government of the day. That is certainly not ideal, but it at least provides that initial principle and right.

There are only two components to this legislation. The first part is to allow the Australian Electoral Commission and all its resources—its electoral roll, facilities, expertise, independence et cetera—to be brought to bear to assist with the holding of plebiscites. The second part goes to relying on the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights—which in itself is another monumental piece of hypocrisy from this government, who have spent most of their time in office trashing the UN conventions. I welcome any opportunity where any federal government seeks to validate and implement a component of international human rights laws, particularly on such a fundamental issue as democratic participation. The second part of the legislation relies on using that convention to ensure against the absolutely disgraceful, draconian, outrageous and, indeed, punitive provision of the Queensland government in trying to fine and potentially therefore imprison any local council for even asking their electorate what they think—mind-blowing authoritarianism from the Beattie government!

What I think we have at the moment is a very sad competition between the state Labor government and the federal Liberal government about who can be most contemptuous of democracy, who can be the most cynical and who can be the most driven in circling each other looking for the best short-term grab to dominate the next 24 hours of the media cycle. But the simple fact is that the legislation that passes is what becomes the law. All of the political posturing surrounding it, including three days of Senate committee inquiries, is all part of the entertainment and political heat but, at the end of it all, that will all fade away—we will have the election and life will go on—and this law will remain. And that is what matters.

The precedent set in this law is a good one. It is hard to imagine circumstances where a state government might in the future do what the Beattie government initially proposed—although they have now stepped back from threatening and putting in law the ability to fine people in local governments for holding a plebiscite of their own constituency—but who would have thought the Beattie government would have done it? It is quite extraordinary. Thankfully, even they have realised that they went far too far in that regard and are stepping back from that proposal. Having a protection in law at the federal level against it ever happening again is a good thing. Having the precedent in law of the Electoral Commission’s resources being able to be used to enable people locally to express their views about an issue of concern to them is also a good thing.

We as Democrats unequivocally support the legislation; however, there is that wider issue of people not being misled about what is in the legislation—people not being misled into thinking that this legislation can actually reverse the local government amalgamations in Queensland. I am on record both in this chamber and in a number of public statements as being strongly opposed to the process that the Beattie government followed. Indeed, you have been in the chair—and are again—Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, having to endure me slagging off your state Labor colleagues vociferously about their terrible approach to local government amalgamations in Queensland. Of course, as we all know, that is not taking the position that no amalgamations should take place. Indeed, processes were in place—perhaps occurring slower than they should have been but nonetheless definitely occurring, and quite adequately in many places—to move in that direction.

It also needs to be emphasised that improving the efficiency and effectiveness at a local government level in Queensland or elsewhere is not just about amalgamations. Unfortunately, that seems to be all it has boiled down to from the state government’s point of view—smash everybody together, tell them they have a few months to sort out how it is all going to work and on you go. It is about a lot more than just the boundaries of the local government area; it is about how local governments work together—maximising efficiencies, sharing resources across boundaries, developing regional plans and all those sorts of things. That has, I think, been lost. That was a key part of the size, shape and sustainability process that was in place before the Beattie government rolled in over the top and blew it out of the water.

Certainly some amalgamations are desirable—and there will often be some resistance—but the process followed by the Beattie government, which is still being followed, is a disgrace, particularly after letting them go through two years or more of working with people locally to explore the best way forward. To just sweep all that aside without notice—completely misleading people right up to the last second that the process was still supported by the state government and then smashing something over the top of them—with a completely inadequate time frame and no meaningful opportunity for participation and clearly with a pre-determined agenda is a disgrace. There is no other word for it. The Beattie government should be condemned for it—whilst it is still the Beattie government—and, if the Bligh government does not reverse some of its measures, it should be condemned for it as well. But this legislation will not change that, of course.

We had Senator Boswell calling this the ‘Restore Democracy to Queensland Bill’. It is a grand name, and I like the sound of that. As a Queenslander I think we could certainly do with a lot more democracy. We will test how solid Senator Boswell is about that commitment to restoring democracy with some of the amendments in the committee stage. I should at this stage also foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment that I have circulated. If the National Party is so keen on restoring democracy to Queensland, let us genuinely support democracy. Let us put it in place, let us lock it in and let us make sure that it is not just a grand-sounding statement as part of pre-election pontification.

But let me remind the Senate of my experience of the National Party in Queensland, which is certainly not a party which, in my experience, has ever been committed to democracy. In the period from when Senator Boswell first got in—which was in 1983, from memory—a certain Joh Bjelke-Petersen had then been in office for about 15 years and was, at that stage, about to become Premier for the National Party, governing in its own right. I never saw any moves through any of that period to restore or increase democracy to Queensland. Indeed, I recall that even the basic matter of the electoral system that determines government was grotesquely corrupt, notoriously corrupt in Queensland. Now, of course, it has to be so in the interests of balance and partisanship. The disgraceful malapportionment and gerrymander that was put in place and distorted by the National Party in Queensland was initially put in place by the Labor Party, so I think it is more a matter of major parties in general liking to grab power for themselves and taking it away from the people. That is what we are seeing at the moment, of course, both at state level with the state Labor government and at federal level with the federal Liberal government—more and more power grabs taking away power from the people.

So it is a grand statement to talk about restoring democracy to Queensland, but I would like to see some evidence. I would like to see some policies put in place by the National Party-led coalition at state level in Queensland to restore democracy. I can tell you that the last time we had a National Party government in Queensland it was led by Mr Rob Borbidge, who got into government on a pledge to the people of Queensland that he would hold a referendum to restore the upper house to Queensland—to us, the people of Queensland. It was not even to be a plebiscite but a referendum—where their say would be binding—to restore an upper house to Queensland. We have less democracy in Queensland than in any other state in this country because we do not have a house of review—we do not have an upper house. It is often forgotten—in fact, I think it is almost totally forgotten and certainly rarely mentioned—that Mr Borbidge’s pledge was not an insignificant part of the reason he got into government. We all know that he got in only by one seat after the Mundingburra by-election in 1996. That was after the 1995 election, where a significant number of seats were won by the coalition from the Goss government. That involved preferences, particularly from the Greens, going to the coalition but also, in some cases, from the Democrats, who ran in that 1995 election. Certainly, from the Democrats point of view, the key reason we thought that was worth considering—and I can definitely assert this because I was part of the decision-making process within the Democrats—was because of the pledge, even though there was a lot about the coalition we did not like. There was obviously a lot about the Goss government that we did not like either. But for any government to actually put in place a pledge to restore an upper house and increase democracy in Queensland would be a massive boon for the people of Queensland.

I was young and naive in those days and I thought, ‘This is a clear, signed pledge in writing from the alternative Premier and his party, the grand National Party’—which Senator Boswell assures us is thrilled with the news that we are about to restore democracy to Queensland. I thought: ‘Of course, they will keep their promise; how could they not? They are only holding a referendum; they don’t have to campaign in support of it. They just put in a pledge saying, “We’ll put in place a referendum and let the people decide whether or not they want an upper house.”’ So it is no exaggeration at all to say that a key factor of why The Nationals ended up in government was because of their pledge to hold a referendum to see whether we could strengthen democracy in Queensland by having an upper house put in place. It was taken away by the Labor Party, from memory, 75 or so years ago. It was not elected in those days, so there was plenty wrong with it. But, as usual, it is better to improve things rather than to just scrap them.

But what did we see when Mr Borbidge got into government? The pledge was broken. We heard: ‘No, we don’t think we should have a referendum anymore; people probably wouldn’t support it anyway, so we won’t even ask them.’ Suddenly when they were in government the idea of having an upper house, of having some sort of check and balance on the government, which was them, did not seem to be a very good idea anymore. Who would have thought that? The grand irony is that if they had gone ahead with it and we had had an upper house back in Queensland we would not have had legislation amalgamating local councils in Queensland, because there is no way that an upper house, if elected in anything like a proportional system and doing its job, would allow it. Even this chamber, now that it is controlled by the coalition, occasionally does not allow grotesquely ridiculous draconian legislation through without making at least some meek attempt to modify it. I think it is a very sure bet that if we had had an upper house in Queensland we would not have had this sort of ridiculous, outrageous antidemocratic local government amalgamation process forced upon the people of Queensland and on local councils by the Beattie government.

So you had your chance, and you blew it because you were interested in hanging on to power for your own sake when you had it, and now, when somebody else has it and is using it to keep hold of power, you do not like it. That is why you are supposed to have checks and balances. That is why strengthening democracy so the people actually have more control is a good idea. That is why all of your protestations now are nothing more than cynical pre-election hypocrisy. If you want to prove me wrong, you can support some of the amendments that we will be putting forward in the committee stage.

The other point that has to be made here is not just about Queensland. I think the worst example of all of the amalgamations that I am aware of is Douglas shire and forcing it into Cairns. I am terrified about what that will mean for the people, particularly for the environment and the Indigenous communities around there. There are many other shires as well. Noosa has received a lot of attention but there are many other shires out west. I was in Eidsvold a few months ago, just after the Beattie government had announced this process. They were very concerned about what would happen, and what happened is what they predicted would happen. There are plenty of others. Tambo has been mentioned, and there are a lot of others that are quite right to be concerned.

Here we have three pages of legislation. The government were so concerned about democracy and about the people affected having their say, and Mr Howard had been saying in the other chamber that it was outrageous that people should have these sorts of things foisted on them without the opportunity to have a say, that they were going to give them the opportunity to have a say. We had a Senate committee inquiry—and good on them. We had three days of inquiry in Noosa, Emerald and Port Douglas for three pages of legislation—to give them the opportunity to have a say.

Straight after that we had this government bulldoze through over 500 pages of legislation affecting Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. This legislation did not just amalgamate some of their councils or some of their townships; it gave this government power to completely take over their townships, their councils and their land. And you did not allow them one day to have a say. Hypocrites! Do you think people do not notice this? Just because you live in a plastic bubble inside Parliament House and blow hot air at one another do you think the community does not notice this sort of hypocrisy? You are not giving Aboriginal people a plebiscite. If you want to let them have a say then support our amendments. Let them have a say about whether or not they want their towns taken over. Maybe they do. I have heard Senator Scullion repeatedly say that the federal government’s actions are being welcomed with open arms in the Territory. I know they are in some communities, but in others they are not. Let them have a say. If you have a plebiscite you will get a 100 per cent vote. We love it. There will be cheering in the streets. Let them have a say if you are that confident that they support it.

That is what is happening: they are having their townships taken over, and maybe they love it. But they did not even have a say on the legislation. You would not have even one day of hearing in the Territory. Begrudgingly, you gave us a one-day hearing here and, as we know, half of the people who wanted to have a say were not even allowed to have a say. Yet we can have three days around regional Queensland to look at a three-page piece of legislation. What hypocrisy! Don’t come in here with this sort of doublespeak and try to pretend you have got any commitment to anything other than trying to protect your own political hide. You do not give a rat’s about democracy. Everybody can see that. Everybody knows that, including the people in Queensland who are most outraged by what the Beattie government is doing. The fact that they are outraged about the Beattie government does not mean they are not also outraged about the federal government. People are capable of thinking of more than one thing at a time.

This approach here will just increase community cynicism, but as I said at the start it will, nonetheless, put in place the precedent of the Electoral Commission’s resources being made available for the people to have a say, and that is a very good thing. The fact that you have set that precedent just to try to protect your political hide as part of pre-election cynicism is neither here nor there. I welcome this precedent. I welcome this legislation and I welcome trying to build on the precedent set here to try to return some genuine democracy to Queensland. If the coalition senators want to work with the Democrats on doing that or if the Labor senators do as well I welcome that, but let us actually do it. Let us shift away from some of the disgusting, cynical, empty posturing that will not make one jot of difference to the very genuine concerns that the people throughout Queensland have. (Time expired) (Quorum formed)