Local Government Referendum

The federal government's proposed constitutional change to recognise local government now appears doomed to fail. At the eleventh hour Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition, has qualified his support, and as history demonstrates no referendum for constitutional change has a chance without bipartisan support. In this case, there appeared to be bipartisan support and, indeed, the Opposition (or most of it) voted in favour of the proposal in parliament, and the plan was that it would be taken to the people at the forthcoming election with wide, bipartisan support and only isolated voices opposing. Yesterday, however, Tony Abbott said that he had serious reservations about the proposal, and the way it had been handled by the government, and he thought that people should vote against it if they had doubts and reservations. He gave a stock standard conservative line: if you are unsure about a change, oppose it in the first instance. At the same time, Chris Pyne - Liberal frontbencher - called upon the Local Government lobby to "pull" the referendum because it was now heading for defeat.

This, for me, is cause for celebration, because I am opposed to the proposal. On this issue I am with the 'nos' - I am against the so-called recognition of local government in the constitution, and all that entails. I am opposed to it on philosophical and practical grounds. While it is presented as an innocuous change that only acknowledges an existing reality, I fear, rather, that it amounts to a fundamental shift in the nature of government in this country. As I see it, it is a proposal that would centralize and engrandize federal government power at the expense of regional and local government. This is anathema to me. In principle, and in practice, I am pro-regional and pro-local government and opposed to the continuing drift of power to Canberra. I always favour small-scale, local and intimate government. I am always opposed to large, centralized, remote government.

This puts me in the company of the ideological right-wing of the Liberal and National Parties in this case. The Opposition, under Abbott, supported this proposal, but a good handful of opposition members crossed the floor to vote against it and a larger number abstained. These Lib/Nats have the same philosophical objections to the Bill as I do. The proposal would sanction the direct federal government funding of local government bodies - this is a de facto takeover of local government by Canberra. The federal government would be able to by-pass the states and turn local government into an extension of federal power. It is already doing this. The proposal would make the process formal and constitutional.

What's wrong with that, you ask? What it means is that the federal government would be able to manipulate, cajole, blackmail and bribe local governments. It does this simply by attaching conditions to funding. For example, the federal government might say to local bodies, your road funding is conditional upon  you meeting carbon targets, or your health services funding is conditional upon you removing by-laws that prevent abortion clinics operating in certain areas, or your garbage and recycling funding is conditional upon the rezoning of medium-density housing in line with federal government housing targets. And so on. It is my long and bitter experience that every single cent of federal government money comes with strings attached. Sometimes those strings are good, and sometimes they are highly objectionable. It always involves dictating aspects of local government from Canberra.

Philosophically, I support the exact opposite. In the best of possible worlds, in my view, it would all be the other way around. I think that all taxes should be collected by local government and that local government funds regional and federal government. That is, a bottom up model, not a top down model. The very idea that federal government funds and dictates to local government is deeply abhorrent to me, in principle.

So too for the Coalition rebels who crossed the floor and took up the case for a no vote. What has happened here, though, is that this group have, in the last few weeks, led a deeper rebellion against Tony Abbott on this issue, and now it appears Abbott has lost. The issues exposes ideological divisions within the Coalition. If you had been reading conservative blogs in Australia over the last few weeks you will have found a tide of frustration and outright anger directed against Abbott. Why is he supporting this centralisation of power to Canberra? I thought we supported small government? In some posts there was real anger over this issue. The conservative journal Quadrant reported that Abbott had seriously underestimated just how pissed off is the conservative base about his support for this proposal.

In the end, it seems, Abbott has given in. This leaves him in the silly position of having spoken in favour of the Bill in parliament only a few weeks ago, and now having to say the opposite, and explain why he has changed his tune. This is another case of Abbott actually being out of step with the base of the Liberal Party - he's not a real Liberal. And nor is he the 'conviction' politician he claims to be. His pragmatism knows no bounds.

What is at stake in this issue, by the way, is the notion of subsidiarity. This is one of the foundation principles of what is loosely called "conservatism" in all its many guises. Subsidiarity is the principle that tasks should be done by the smallest unit of organisation equipped to do them. For example, parenting should be done by parents, not by the United Nations. Schools should be run by local communities, not by Canberra. The people best equipped to run local government are locals. Federal government intrusion into local government in all its forms violates the principle of subsidiarity. In terms of constitutional reform, I'd like to see the whole thing heading in the opposite direction than how it is; more localism, less centralism.

At this time, at least it seems the proposed change is a goner. This, in fact, is the third time that this proposal will have been put to the people by Labor governments, and the third time it will have failed. There is some evidence, too, that it was heading for failure anyway. Opinion polls report only 47% popular support for the measure even with bipartisan support. A referendum needs about 60+% support to get up under the Australian system. And a good thing too.