The next referendum

[Rorschach]

EDITORIAL: Beware the agenda behind the local government referendum
by Peter Westmore
News Weekly, July 20, 2013

The next federal election will be accompanied by a referendum which would allow direct Commonwealth funding of local government, a proposal that seems positively good — that is, until one considers the consequences of what is proposed.

Despite government claims, it is not a referendum on “recognition” of local government in the federal Constitution.

It does not propose any form of direct representation of local government in the federal government of Australia, nor does it enhance local government’s low representation on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Neither does it deal with the real problems of local government, including the massive loss of population in rural Australia, which has made many local councils unviable, or with the drift to the cities by young people.

The proposal simply allows the Commonwealth to directly fund local government. more pork barreling come election time. more pinpointed political favouritism.

It is important to understand that local government has existed in Australia for about 200 years. Originally, local government was established within each of the Australian colonies. After federation in 1901, the legal responsibility for local government continued to be within the province of the states.

The history of Commonwealth funding for health and education, both primarily state matters, indicates that federal funding always comes with major strings attached.

With direct funding of schools, for example, the federal government wants to control class sizes, oversee schools’ capital expenditure, impose a national curriculum, and set up its own parallel bureaucracy for the delivery of services. The same applies in health. And universities.

Direct funding of local government by the Commonwealth will lead to greater control from Canberra over where local government can spend its money, radically undermining the authority of local government. Do you want bureaucrats in Canberra deciding when your rubbish will be collected?

This is not a trivial matter. Some of the most damaging impositions on local government in recent years have come from the federal government through its National Competition Policy, which radically undermined the authority of local governments to employ local businesses in the delivery of local services.

With expanded powers, the federal government would be able to impose land-use conditions on farmers, for example, as they have already done in relation to forestry.

It is further inevitable that the existing small federal bureaucracy involved in local government will grow massively, as federal bureaucrats duplicate what already exists in each of the states.

It is also likely that the cost-shifting, which currently bedevils state-federal relations in both health and education, will spread to local government.

At present, state governments strongly support local government attempts to access federal funds. Direct payment from the Commonwealth to local government will inevitably cause state governments to cut funding to local government, in the knowledge that the federal government — with far greater financial resources at its disposal — will step in.

There is nothing in present financial arrangements which compels state governments to support local government, so it is likely that state governments will reduce their financial commitment to local government as a consequence. Is that really of benefit to local government?

Supporters of the proposed change in the Constitution have also argued that recent High Court cases undermine the power of the Commonwealth to directly fund local government. Two cases are regularly cited: Pape’s case and the School Chaplains’ case.

However local governments were not parties to either, with Pape’s case involving a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Rudd Government’s $900 “tax bonus” in 2009, and the School Chaplains’ case involving federal funding of the Scripture Union (Queensland) for the provision of school chaplaincy services.

Despite claims to the contrary by some legal academics, there is no threat to funding of local government by or through the states.

Professor Anne Twomey of Sydney University noted recently that supporters of the change in the Constitution, mainly from local government, believed that it would empower local government and give rise to “rivers of gold” in new funding.

She dryly commented: “As for the rivers of gold, they might yet turn to rivers of tears for local government bodies in the more populous areas if an equalisation approach to direct funding was taken by the Commonwealth as a consequence of a successful referendum.

“Funding would also most likely become tied to conditions that impose uniform Commonwealth policies on local government bodies, reducing their autonomy and their capacity to serve the particular interests of their own communities.”

The Labor government’s decision to give $10 million to the “Yes” case, and only a 20th of that sum to the “No” case proves that it will accept only one outcome.

The Australian people should reject this proposal.

Peter Westmore is national president of the National Civic Council.

[Rorschach]

Gee look at that Mel's started a duplicate topic...
welcome back Mel...

[mellie]

Gee look at that Mel's started a duplicate topic...
welcome back Mel...

Link please.

[Rorschach]

and she's already forgotten what it is...
you started it on the 24th

Local Government referendum Y/N?

Postby mellie » Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:37 pm

Is the local government referendum as good as lost?
By ABC's Sabra Lane

attention deficit syndrome eh... along with all those other ones...

[mellie]

No sorry, I thought you meant I had started a prior thread titled Local government Referendum Y/N.


I wasn't referring to this one you yourself had created which clearly, I had not seen.


Also, the title suggests there will be a Local government referendum, isn't really asking what people think about the prospect of having such, and or whether or not they believe there will even be one.

Also, Labor have seemingly placed it on the back-burner, have gone quiet on the matter, it was originally to be held on the same day as the federal election, (When Gillard was leading the party) September 14.

Rudd however seems more interested in attending the G20 summit in Russia, (typical) to be assed with campaigning around the same time the original election date.

What is it with Labors leaders and their sleeper agents and their lust for constitutional change?

Keating, Turnbull, Gillard.... (just to name a few)...

............ Turnbull, the same man who made his name by holding the intelligence agencies up for ridicule in the Spycatcher trials.*choke*

http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referen ... esults.htm

Could it be that the public inevitably smell the rat?

And why is it that most of these Labor championed constitutional-change referendums inevitably fail?

[Rorschach]

What evs kev has dumped the local gov referendum...
gee couldn't have been that important after all eh.

[Aussie]

What evs kev has dumped the local gov referendum...
gee couldn't have been that important after all eh.

Yes, that is implicit in what he said without actually saying it. But, it reflects the reality that Referenda do not succeed without bi-partisan support, and Abbott has basically withdrawn support. That's that, for the moment. Maybe, if Rudd gets up, it will be revisited during his next term, as he said.

[Neferti]

Referendums are a waste of money. Most fail.

[Rorschach]

What evs kev has dumped the local gov referendum...
gee couldn't have been that important after all eh.

Yes, that is implicit in what he said without actually saying it. But, it reflects the reality that Referenda do not succeed without bi-partisan support, and Abbott has basically withdrawn support. That's that, for the moment. Maybe, if Rudd gets up, it will be revisited during his next term, as he said.

What evs Kev made the decision on the date Arsie... you can make all the excuses you like.

[Aussie]

What evs kev has dumped the local gov referendum...
gee couldn't have been that important after all eh.

Yes, that is implicit in what he said without actually saying it. But, it reflects the reality that Referenda do not succeed without bi-partisan support, and Abbott has basically withdrawn support. That's that, for the moment. Maybe, if Rudd gets up, it will be revisited during his next term, as he said.

What evs Kev made the decision on the date Arsie... you can make all the excuses you like.

No excuse made. A statement of reality made. Rudd made the obvious decision, given Abbott withdrew support for the Referendum issue.