The total record on getting referendums through is poor, just eight in 44, but Labor’s record is appalling, just one in 24.
And that one was a no-brainer for even the dullest Australian voter. It said do you agree that the Commonwealth should have the power to give you more money in social security payments. Yes or No? More money. Too easy.
So why is it that the Rudd Labor Government is fronting up again for more referendums? Will it learn the lessons of previous failure? Will it take heed of its iconic Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, who said that those who are for change are only ever lukewarm about it, whereas those who are against it are vociferously against it?
This week the Member for Corio, Richard Marles, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, indicated that the Government would support a referendum to give constitutional recognition to local government.
“The challenge for local government will be to establish broad community support for the form of recognition it wants for any future proposals to be successful,” he told an Australian Local Government Association conference in Shepparton. “The Rudd Government is committed to moving this process forward with local government.”
Two previous Labor attempts to give constitutional recognition to local government failed.
The first, in 1974, was to empower the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies.
It was lost. Never mind, the Commonwealth has since decided to hand out money to local government, through the states, and no-one has challenged it.
The 1988 attempt was a combination of symbolic recognition and to impose an obligation upon the states to establish and continue a system of local government.
Other forms of recognition include granting tax-revenue guarantees or a taxing power to local government and granting some general powers to local government. The trouble with these, though, is that they would likely be opposed by the states and therefore threaten the referendum’s success.
If local government really wants a guaranteed revenue base it would be far more likely to achieve it through federal legislation than a risky constitutional change. It would be within federal power now to grant a defined share of the GST, for example, to local government. It almost did this in 1999, but it was traded out with the food exemption.
The feds would pass the money to local government with tied grants to the states under Section 96 of the Constitution.
So it comes down to symbolism and a recognition that the Australian states should have a system of local government – which would mean that councils could not be arbitrarily dismissed. All states recognise that now, either legislatively or in their constitutions, but those recognitions are repealable and do not have the symbolic strength of a clause in the federal constitution.
One of the big hurdles for local government is not just to answer the question, “What sort of recognition?”, but to answer the question, “What sort of local government?”
For a long time, local government was not seen as having to role of providing “peace, order and good government” to the people in its constituency. Rather it was, and to a large extent still is, seen as a provider of services to property owners who pay for them through rates. Other services like libraries and swimming pools were still on the user-pays model.
More recently, states have given local governments power to provide human services which local government often embraced with alacrity only to be disappointed later when the funding did not come with it.
As a provider of services to ratepayers, local government is in a bind. The vote comes with property. The owner of several properties in several local-government areas might get several votes. In Victoria it was realised recently that people who had strata title of a storage unit had voted in the Melbourne City Council election and there were enough of them to make or unmake a mayor.
If the vote comes only with residency, however, you have the classic objection of taxation without representation.
In seeking constitutional recognition, local government will either have to change its democratic spots or have to persuade people that property-based voting deserves recognition in our democratic constitution.
Or if local government is concerned more about the practicality of security of reasonable funding it might be better off forgetting constitutional change and concentrate on persuading the feds to give them a slice of the GST.
If only symbolism is the issue, then constitutional recognition is crucial. Symbolism is important – ask supporters of a republic.
And therein lies a tricky question for local government. Republicans would very likely not want the referendum waters muddied with a question on local government. That would give succour to the manipulative argument, “If you don’t understand or have the slightest doubt, vote No for everything.” Incidentally, that is why I support voluntary voting for referendums: “If you don’t care or don’t understand, don’t vote.”
On the other hand, the republic process could be helpful to local government.
As with the republic, local government might want to go for constitutional change in stages. It might want to latch on to the plebiscite process and get a generally favourable answer to the questions, “Do you want a republic?” and, “Do you want recognition for local government?” without getting side-tracked or bogged down with questions about what sort of republic, or what sort of recognition or what sort of local government.
With Labor’s referendum record, the softly, softly, take-it-gradually, get-people-on-side approach has more chance of success.