Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I know this disturbs you because this is the truth of the matter. Some focus groups have told Mr Rudd: ‘We can perhaps talk about an amalgamation and talk about constitutional recognition, so let’s put that in as an amendment to this motion.’  But that is the federal Labor Party; it is not the state Labor Party. If the state Labor Party believe that, you do not need to agree to a federal constitutional referendum. They could do it tomorrow. But where are the state Labor governments? They will totally oppose this, but it gives Mr Rudd a bit of kudos. It lets him do what the focus groups tell him he should be doing and it allows the Labor Party to, again, confuse the Australian public. Will whoever is going to speak after me tell me which state Labor government supports constitutional recognition of local government? Also, can they tell me, if there are any—and I guarantee that there are not—why they are not doing it today? They could do it if they wanted to. We have this duplicity yet again of the Labor Party saying one thing and meaning something else. This report is duplicitous in its words, its paragraphs and in everything except the recommendation that the bill should proceed.

There is no confusion about this bill. It is a very simple bill. All of the witnesses who gave evidence at the inquiry understood what the bill was about. They did not really talk about plebiscites or amalgamations. It gives the Australian Electoral Commission the ability to use some information they have about electoral rolls in any plebiscite and, insofar as the Queensland law stated that you could not have a democratic right to vote, that was overridden by the Commonwealth act. Aren’t we as a nation and as Queenslanders grateful to the Australian government and John Howard for making this happen?

I am not sure whether anyone who is listening to this debate understands the draconian nature of the bill that the Labor Party rammed through the Queensland parliament. I never cease to be amazed by the Australian media, but imagine if the Howard government had done something like that. It would not have got off the front pages for five months. Yet here was a piece of legislation introduced by the Labor Party which stated that not only can you not vote in a poll on your future as a council but, if you have the temerity to even suggest it, you will be thrown into jail. That is unheard of in the annals of Australian parliamentary history. It is the sort of thing—