Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to contribute to this matter of public importance this afternoon, I want to reflect on one point that has not been touched on during the debate, and that is: of the three levels of government we have in this country, who should be the beneficiary of the outcome of the referendum proposed for 14 September this year? As a Queensland senator I can say, hand on heart, that from my travels around the state and my consultations and involvement with local councils I know there is great need out there. The care of our roads, parks and all those services that are provided by local councils need some recognition. There needs to be greater transparency and the delivery of some funds to those areas without the ordeal of going through state government processes. Fundamentally, I think that is the purpose of this referendum—to deliver for those councils around the country that require funding in the right place. I think they are the best level of government to consider where that funding should be delivered.

I was privileged to be the deputy chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation. Senator Back was also a very active participant in that committee as well and knows the evidence we as a committee received, having heard it firsthand. There are a number of parts in the report of that committee that I wish to refer to—because there is no doubt that one of the roles of the Senate, and it does it very well, is to report on matters for consideration and of importance, and this is an extremely important issue. It is an issue that has been taken to the Australian public on two occasions now but, unfortunately, has not been accepted. But, as with most referendums, we know that that is the case historically: most referendums are rejected by the Australian public. The government has set out the question that is to be put on 14 September in a manner that ensures that most people will understand not only its importance but also why this referendum is required. I refer to paragraph 6.21 of the select committee report, which states:

Evidence was presented to the committee arguing that the Commonwealth's constitutional authority to fund local government rested on two heads of power. First, Section 96 of the Constitution—

and we have heard deliberations and evidence on that today in the chamber from both the opposition and the government—

which allows the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the States 'on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit.'

We know that is the process at present. Also, it was in evidence provided by Professor Brown in this particular area that assistance to the states was on such terms as seen fit. They are examples of such funding. The committee's report states:

As the Hon. Christian Porter MLA, Western Australian Attorney-General, noted, section 96 grants cannot go directly to local government as the section 'requires Commonwealth funds to be provided only to the states…

This is where the hurdle is. This is where there needs to be acceptance of local councils recognised in the Constitution. Surely they have a right to have an opinion and have a say in the manner that funding is delivered to them as local councils. The report went on to refer to further evidence in regard to the history of local government referenda. As I have indicated, a proposal has been made twice for the Constitution to recognise local government. On both occasions it has been rejected. We go back to the first occasion in 1974 when the Constitution Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Act proposed to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies. That referendum considered a proposal for additions to the Constitution and suggested a new section 51(IV)(a) to provide that the Commonwealth may make laws for the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth for local government bodies.

The main issue that is being debated this afternoon is equal funding. The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is funding a $10 million nonpartisan civics education campaign to ensure people are fully informed of the basis of the amendment. This is an example of the appropriateness of ensuring that people have the understanding and the education to make their democratic choice on 14 September—when they go to the ballot box for the election of the next federal government—to also make a decision on this referendum about the Constitution. They will decide on whether this aspect of the Constitution should be amended. This is a particularly important area and one where education is to be provided so those who are making their choices at the ballot box can make an informed choice in deciding which way they vote, whether it be yes or no—that is the democratic process we have in this country. It is an amazing process; it is a process that many countries would envy. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, that in your travels around certain parts of the world you would also have been informed that it is process that makes us the envy of many countries. We have an amazing Constitution. We have an amazing democracy under which people can have a choice in deciding to vote yes or no in an amendment to their Constitution.

The Australian Electoral Commission also will spend approximately $40 million preparing for the referendum. This amount includes disseminating the official Yes/No pamphlet drafted by the parliament and developing referendum-specific advertisements informing electors how to cast a formal vote. We know, when it comes to the AEC, of the wonderful task they do and the wonderful role they perform at times of an election, preparing for those elections in an orderly and informed manner. People can turn up to the ballot box on the day being fully aware of what they are doing when making an informed and democratic decision.

The partisan funding campaigns totalling $10.5 million will form only a small part of the overall information going to voters on the proposal. We must reflect and remind ourselves that it is a government's prerogative to fund campaigns. Contrary to Senator Bernardi's comments, it has always been the prerogative of governments as to how and how much they fund partisan campaigns. This is separate to the official Yes/No pamphlet case. Under the Howard government, John Howard might have had an equal split cost for campaigns but certainly did not concede that this was anything other than a decision of government. It falls back to the decisions of the government of the day when it comes to a referendum to amend the Constitution. It falls back on our decision-making persons to decide as a government whether that is the case.

We also need to reflect that when this matter was before the other House, members voted 133-2 in favour of including local government in the Constitution. That should affect the funding. That sort of substantial vote clearly demonstrates that members of the House of Representatives—I am only assuming this—have regular contact with their local councils and understand the importance and the need for this type of funding to assist those local councils. I know for certain that the local council where I reside—the Moreton Bay Regional Council—is 100 per cent supportive of this referendum.

If those opposite and others who have made contributions here today would have some sort of involvement with their councils, I am sure they would form the same opinion if they consulted with them. Only about four or five weeks ago I was in Gladstone discussing matters that the Gladstone Shire Council raised with me. No doubt they are supportive of this type of assistance for a referendum to make sure, for the first time in its history, that this matter is corrected so that local councils can have a say in how their funding is delivered. (Time expired)