Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

():I rise in support of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013, and the reason is based on a range of issues. Our nation, which federated in 1901, is a vastly different place now from what it was at that period of time. Let us look at what would be presumed to be the activities of a local government at that point in time: we had horses and carts; we did not have telephones; and we did not have airports. The whole notion of how we saw the world at that point in time is so incredibly different from where we are now.

Now we live in a land of broadband, B-doubles, B-triples and rail. It is a completely different world. We live in an Australia now of 23 million people, whereas at Federation we had 3.9 million. One of the problems with Federation is the design of the Constitution made the creation of new states extremely hard. If we could have the creation of new states, then we would have a greater capacity to deal with the demographic variances apparent in our nation now. Because it is so difficult to create new states—and New England tried to create a new one in 1967; it was knocked out by the inclusion of Newcastle—quite obviously there is always going to be a greater role for local government.

Local government has evolved because it had to. The places where it evolved and became most prominent as a reflection of people's lives are the regional areas. It is now the case that we have seen, as has been alluded to before, programs such as Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot program and the future policy of bridges to recovery. In fact, there have been over 200 streams of funding that have gone from the federal government to local governments.

We have also seen that people are desirous of a greater reflection of their area in their lives. The people of North Queensland most definitely want to be thought of as North Queenslanders. There are over half a million of them up there now. The people of the Riverina call their area the Riverina because they believe in the Riverina. The people of New England call themselves New Englanders because they believe in New England. It is a belief in their area. They have the right to have government close to the people being effective in their lives.

The natural course of our nation was such that, when we had a nation of only 3.9 million people, there was no real cause for local governments because we were then dealing with a nation that was approximately the size of Brisbane and the Gold Coast. They were lucky to be thinking about states; they certainly did not have to think too much about local government because the population really did not require it. By default, states were forms of local government. They were very minor in some instances for the purposes of the new federated nation.

I probably come from a different philosophical viewpoint. I am not a centralist; I am completely the opposite; I believe in the diminution of power; I believe in getting it as low down as possible. I believe that people are just as capable in Townsville as they are in Brisbane. I do not think that any person in Brisbane is endowed with some sort of exceptional quality that it is not possible to find in some individual in Townsville. They can do just as good a job, given the opportunity.

But in this instance, though, on the philosophical argument, I believe that power that gets closer to the people is best for the people. We in this job at a federal level should be doing as much as we possibly can to remove power from here. If you want to send it to the states, send it to the states. Then the states should continue getting it down closer to the people. I do not believe that there is any sort of clandestine plot behind this. I think that it is something that basically takes into account what is actually happening, which is Roads to Recovery et cetera. More specifically, we have been through the Pape case and the Williams case, which were succinct in elucidating the problems.

We have to acknowledge that other nations did not have to deal with the problems that we have. In the development of United States of America, closer settlement was inspired by the arrival of the Mayflower in 1620. Closer settlement, after thousands of years of Indigenous oversight, in our nation started in 1788. So our history of closer settlement is about 225 years long. That would put us against the United States, which, in 1845, had a population of around 19.7 million. In 1850 I think it was 25 or 26 million. So we now have a population of that approximate stage. In 1845 Florida was the 27th state claimed. They have managed to evolve with the times, but we have not. We have the same ones we started with. That is a very hard argument to get past people in Cairns, Townsville, Tamworth, Wagga or Albury because they believe in their local area. They see that the political system is starting to become a manifestation of the status quo of the capital cities. To reflect that, they will take us to where senators reside. They will say, 'In some states all 12 out of 12 senators come from one town.' That is not a reflection of the demographic spread. That means they have all the lower house members and all the senators as well all in the one town. So where is their only form of greater demographic representation at some level of government? It is in local government.

Quite obviously you are always going to have a partisan view. A partisan view will come from state governments that specifically do not want to see this because there is a turf war between state and local governments. But this issue here is an amendment to section 96. The amendment to section 96 basically allows the granting of money to local governments as long as there is oversight and it is authorised by the state. The states will still retain the right to make local governments, break local governments, make them bigger, make them smaller, get rid of them or do what they like with them.

If you went to any state parliament and said, 'Put up your hand all those who don't support this referendum,' everyone would put up their hand. If you went to the local government constitution and said, 'Put up your hand those who do support this referendum,' they would all put up their hand. So we have diametrically opposed positions—both fervently held, but opposite. And that would be natural enough, because they are dealing, in some instances, with a cursory look over their shoulder at the other and with the cautionary principle.

The mechanism for this referendum and the process thus far are bad and, in some instances, appalling. I was affronted by the fact that we do not have an equal distribution for the yes and the no case. I wished in all things to engage in a debate on its merits and not have it clouded by the issue of disproportionate funding. I want it to win because it is right, not because we had more money, and I want to engage in a debate on that premise.

When you go out on a limb, you do so on the premise of trust. You trust someone to do the right thing. On Sunday night, after I had given my speech, Minister Albanese invited me to the stage to shake my hand. That is fine—there was probably a photo and it is good theatre for him. I was easy with that because I trust people. I work on the premise of trust. But when I woke up on Monday I found out that, with respect to the allocation of funding—because it was all supposed to be fair—one side had $10 million and the other side had $500,000. That is not trust; that is being sneaky, and it does not help the case. It causes problems, because you give people $9½ million worth of reasons to think that you are playing a game—and we do not need to play a game.

I like my position on the conservative side of politics because I believe in the liberty of thought, I believe in the jousting of debate and I believe in the separation of the desired acumen from the nastiness that can come into so many things. And might I say that one of those debates is going on on the other side, with the jousting over the leadership in the Labor Party. I wish them the best in working that out. But we have to make sure that we go into this debate with clean hands.

If I could run the show, I would have started this debate ages ago, and I think Spigelman asked the same thing. I would have made sure that we had the states onside. I would have said, 'You know what the problem is; give us the terms that you would live with,' but we have not done that. Most importantly, someone has to try to convince the Australian people, who are always suspicious of referendums, why this one, conducted at breakneck speed, with two months to go, should succeed. Under section 126 of the constitution—I might be corrected by Senator Smith—you have two months from the passage of a bill to the start of prepolling, and if you go a day before that this whole process is unconstitutional and therefore the whole thing will get thrown out. The way in which this has been foisted on us is very, very peculiar.

I am honest—I put myself forward as being honest; you can form your own opinion of what you think of me—and if a vote on the local government referendum were called now, it would be absolutely annihilated. It would not stand a chance. I am not into Pyrrhic victories; I am just into winning. We have to convince the Australian people of the justification of this in light of a leadership dispute in the Labor Party, which sucks out every bit of oxygen that ever existed, and then, in the frame of an election, which will suck out any oxygen that may be left over. So we are making it incredibly hard for ourselves. A wiser head than mine might suggest that we ought to truly consider whether going to a referendum will succeed—and it is on them. But I will shoulder my burden and do my job because I put up my hand and said I would, and I do not break my word. So that is what will happen.

Where does it go from here, who would know? There are 150 seats. One imagines that the only people that local government can now look to for support of this are themselves. It does not need to be said as a tactic; it is just the reality. I will be campaigning flat out to try to win the seat of New England—I can assure you of that—and Mr Albanese will be campaigning flat out to make sure that I do not win. Everybody else will be campaigning flat out to save their bacon or to take somebody else’s. There is only one group of people who can help this referendum succeed, and that is local government themselves. So, where are the campaigns? In which seat do they believe they have this wrapped up and are going to win? They should have 150 campaigns ready to go, but I do not think they have got any. I think there is a belief that, somehow, if you put an ad in the paper or on the television, that does it. No, you literally have to drag people across the line. You have to do what every other politician does: door knock, go to functions, go to town hall meetings. This all has to be done in the same time frame in which an election is going on.

I am being a realist. It is going to be incredibly difficult for this to succeed. But does it need to happen? Yes, I fervently believe it does, for a whole range of reasons, first and foremost that the Pape case and the Williams case have brought about problems that are totally unresolved—and more learned and wise people than me have basically brought that to my attention.

Secondly, it may be that I am indoctrinated, coming from a state and an area where there is a strong belief in local government. Queensland by its nature is a decentralised state and therefore people have a strong belief in their areas. That might not be the statement of the state parliament at the moment, but I assure you it is the statement of the people on the ground. I am the shadow minister, and I have not had one local government authority come and see me yet saying that they do not want it—and they are of all political hues. It is probably the only thing that draws them together. They all want this.

There is a fervent attachment to this debate in many areas. I am incredibly grateful and lucky that, in the coalition, this fervent attachment on both sides is presided over by a group of people who understand that there are differences of views. That is how the coalition operates. I totally respect those who have a different view to mine. I totally understand, to be honest, their bewilderment at times at my views. I have the deepest admiration for my good friend and former colleague former senator Nick Minchin. Nick is pathologically of a different view to me on this one, but I am sure that at the end of this debate we will remain as good friends as we were before it. Isn't that the nature of politics? Isn't that the wonder of Australian democracy? Isn't that the joy and the beauty of this chamber?

This chamber, more than anywhere else, has the capacity to conduct a debate where people have fervently-held, well-articulated and well-considered views from all parts of the spectrum. Isn't it a wonder that we have the respect that people can go forward with those views? This is the political football ground and out there is the recreation area, or whatever you like to call it. In conducting this debate, we hope to portray the merits of both our cases to the Australian people. It is going to be highly instructive to them as to how they vote. I will stand behind the position that I hold, and I know that others will stand behind alternative positions. I will respect absolutely the greatest arbiter of the lot, which is the Australian people at the ballot box, and their decision is coming.