Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Well, there goes another coalition no—to the proposition that we should have a referendum to recognise local government in the Constitution. What a shame that is. There was so much hope when the Greens signed the agreement with the Labor government in 2010. One of the key parts of the agreement was that there be would be constitutional recognition for Australia's Indigenous people and constitutional recognition for local government. I am very proud of the work that has been done towards constitutional recognition of Australia's Indigenous people and I congratulate my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who has played a key role in advancing that, as a member of the expert panel that worked on the issue. We have respected the recommendation from that expert group to not proceed with a referendum on that matter at this time but to keep on working towards it—to delay it and in the meantime have the Recognise legislation. It is a really proud time, because it means that we have got one step further down the track towards Indigenous recognition.

The local government referendum is something that local governments have been campaigning for for a long time, and quite rightly. It is important that we recognise local government in the Constitution. The federal government provides grants to local councils to fund many programs. The one that the community is probably most familiar with is the Roads to Recovery program. Councils have warned that, without federal funding, residents will face either fewer services or higher rates. That is undoubted. Ratepayers are concerned and want to make sure that the federal government can work directly with local government and not have to mediate constantly through state governments. I will come to that a bit later.

The Australian Greens have listened carefully to those arguments and we are now standing with local government and the community to secure this important reform. Unlike the coalition, the Australian Greens are 100 per cent behind the yes campaign for the recognition of local government and will be campaigning for that. A yes vote in September, or whenever the election is held, would guarantee the federal government's ability to directly fund local government projects. As I mentioned before, everyone is well aware of the upgrade and repair work that Roads to Recovery has enabled to around 16,000 sites across the country. The federal government also helps to fund services like child care, sporting facilities, community facilities, swimming pools and libraries. The Australian Greens have pledged support for $10 million to fund and facilitate regional arts, many of those dollars to go towards assisting local government to employ cultural officers in their communities. A yes vote will guarantee those services, from which all Australians will benefit.

Why do we need this constitutional recognition? The 2009 High Court case Pape v Commissioner of Taxation, followed by the 2012 Williams v Commonwealth case, known as the school chaplains case, have created uncertainty around the ability of the federal government to directly fund local councils. Pape involved a challenge to the Rudd government's payment of bonuses to taxpayers in an attempt to stimulate the economy at a time of global financial downturn. As the Commonwealth has no express or implied power in the Constitution to directly fund local governments, the implication of Pape is that each instance of funding must be linked to a specific Commonwealth head of power. The Pape decision has cast sufficient doubt and restrictions on the ability of the Commonwealth to directly fund local government that a response to the High Court decision is needed. This bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013, makes a simple amendment to section 96 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to make specific provision in relation to the granting of financial assistance to local government bodies. The change was recommended by the expert panel, on which my former colleague former Senator Bob Brown was a member, and was also recommended by the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. It is based on extensive consultation with the community, with the states and with local councils.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that direct access to Commonwealth cash for ratepayers is what ratepayers want and is what the community wants. I have looked right around the country at the level of concern about the cost-shifting that goes on when the Commonwealth tries to fund things at the local government level and state governments get involved and the local council gets squeezed. One classic example is the Northern Territory, where the Commonwealth moved to try and provide money to Indigenous communities after the shire amalgamations. The Northern Territory government intervened and the result was that local government was left to fund the services that are necessary in those Indigenous communities, because no-one can sort out who is going to take responsibility and, while they are still arguing over it, local government has to actually deliver the services. This has to be sorted out, and the best way of sorting this out is not to leave local government having to explain which Commonwealth head of power the money relates to and therefore organise it in that way. Why don't we just make this straightforward and clear up this mess, get the state governments out of the way and directly fund what the Commonwealth chooses to fund or what local government and the Commonwealth negotiate? It is clear to me that that is what needs to happen.

This is a minimalist change to section 96 of the Constitution. But we all know that agreement from all sides of government is essential if a referendum in Australia is to succeed. The two previous referenda held on recognition of local government failed, in 1974 and 1988, in part due to a lack of bipartisan support at that time. As I have indicated, the Greens are 100 per cent committed to securing financial recognition of local government in the Constitution, but it is pretty apparent now that there is not going to be tripartite support. It is clear that the coalition is not going to support the yes case. I think it is totally irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, to play politics with the local government referendum. As he knows, as we know, referenda are notoriously difficult to pass and we need cross-party support to have the best chance of getting this up in the community and explaining the case.

When the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, addressed the general assembly of the Local Government Association in 2011, he made a solemn pledge to back constitutional recognition for local government, provided it was minimalist and practical change which secured future federal funding without undermining a state's ability to create and sack councils. That is exactly what is happening. This could not be made more minimalist if you tried. This is yet another example of the Leader of the Opposition going out and giving false hope to a peak body. Everyone knew getting constitutional recognition for local government was part of the agreement between the Greens and the government. The Leader of the Opposition went to speak to ALGA and said yes—but now he is backing off at a great rate. Why is he backing off? Because he cannot get unity in his team. That is why—because there is a rump in the coalition which does not support constitutional recognition.

This is a very interesting point and reflects what happened with the Tea Party and the Republicans in the US. When the Tea Party got control of some states, they had moved so far to the right that they could not maintain unity and there was massive infighting. We are already seeing that happening now in the coalition over this local government issue. Barnaby Joyce, the National Party senator, is telling the Local Government Association right now that, were it not for him, the coalition would be out opposing the referendum. In fact they are out there opposing the referendum in spite of him—or with him, who knows? But they are opposing it.

We saw that very clearly yesterday when Senator Brandis stood up in here and said they 'would not oppose the question being put'. That is a vastly different proposition. Do you support the referendum being held and the people being allowed to vote on it? That is one question. The second question is: do you support the proposition which is being put? Just lamely saying, 'Yes, we will support the question being put,' but not committing to actively going out and supporting the yes case is absolutely sabotaging the yes case. That is exactly what the coalition are currently doing. They are sabotaging the yes case.

I turn now to the fearmongering being done by Liberal state governments, supported by members of the coalition in some cases.