Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Final Report www.localgovrecognition.gov.au December 2011 ISBN 978-0-9870837-6-0
All material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/) licence.
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode).
The document must be attributed as Final Report, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Expert Panel Secretariat within the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government.
The views expressed herein are those of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth of Australia. Contents
Summary and conclusion...... 1 Financial recognition...... 3 Consequences of financial recognition...... 6 Specific amendments to the Constitution...... 8 Democratic recognition...... 8 Other ideas for recognition ...... 10 Symbolic recognition...... 10 Recognition through federal cooperation...... 11 Level of support...... 12 Federal attitudes...... 12 State and Territory attitudes...... 12 Local government attitudes...... 14 Concerns about federalism...... 15 Concerns about unintended consequences...... 16 Concerns about a failed referendum...... 16 Public attitudes...... 18 Prior research...... 19 The panel’s research...... 19 Appendix A Terms of reference and panel membership...... 23 Appendix B Summary of submissions received ...... 26 Appendix C Polling results...... 36 Appendix D Consultation strategy and implementation...... 84 Appendix E Local government as a constitutional expression ...... 91 Appendix F History of local government and referendums ...... 96 Appendix G Local government in State constitutions...... 101 Appendix H State and Territory views on constitutional recognition as presented in their written submissions to the panel...... 103 Appendix I List of submissions received...... 107 Summary and conclusion
The Expert Panel was asked to identify options for the constitutional recognition of local government and to report on the level of support for such recognition among stakeholders and in the general community. The panel was also asked to have regard to the benefits and risks of the options it identified and outcomes that could be achieved for key stakeholders by such recognition. Among the stakeholders identified in the panel’s terms of reference (Appendix A) were local governments and their representative bodies, State and Territory governments and federal parliamentarians.
The panel adopted three criteria to identify relevant options, which were that any proposal should:
• make a practical difference
• have a reasonable chance at a referendum
• resonate with the public.
In its public discussion paper, the panel identified four forms of recognition: symbolic recognition, financial recognition, democratic recognition and recognition through federal cooperation. These ideas were not mutually exclusive. No other options that satisfied the panel’s criteria were identified during the course of its consultations.
The panel appreciated from the outset that both symbolic recognition in the form of a preamble and recognition through federal cooperation gave rise to issues that extended well beyond local government and therefore the panel’s terms of reference. Neither of these forms of recognition featured prominently during the course of the consultations. However, representatives of local government indicated that, if any preamble were to refer to the democratic nature of our system of governance, local government should be identified in it. In addition, the New South Wales Government gave in-principle support to consideration of symbolic recognition, and the Western Australian Government indicated possible support for a very limited form of symbolic recognition, while the Victorian Government and some of the submissions, including from constitutional lawyers, saw some merit in pursuing the cooperative federalism option.
Democratic recognition received little support and considerable opposition from the political leadership of Government and Opposition at the State level. It was not supported by the Opposition at the federal level. The Commonwealth Government indicated that it would consider the panel’s report before deciding which option to support. Democratic recognition also received little support, and some opposition, at the local government level. In the judgment of the panel, notwithstanding a significant level of support from the general community suggested by polling, this option has no reasonable prospect of success at a referendum in the present circumstances.
Financial recognition has the broadest base of support among the political leadership at both federal and State levels, although much of this support is only ‘in-principle’ and subject to the precise wording of any referendum proposal. In particular, unlike democratic recognition, it has the support of the Coalition at the national level, a matter that is of critical significance when the prospects of success at a referendum are assessed. However, there is important opposition to any such proposal
Final Report 1 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
from the Victorian and Western Australian governments and others who made submissions to the panel. In addition, the New South Wales Government does not support financial recognition in the absence of clear evidence that existing funding arrangements are deficient. No other State expressed a specific opinion. However, in terms of the submissions and consultations with the panel, only the Western Australian Government stated that it would actively campaign against financial recognition.
A majority of panel members concluded that financial recognition is a viable option within the 2013 timeframe indicated by the terms of reference.
Recent Commonwealth programs have shown that the Commonwealth can deal effectively with issues of national importance through a direct funding relationship between the Commonwealth and local government. The decision in the Pape1 case created doubts about the constitutional validity of direct grants to local government and has potentially undermined the ability of the Commonwealth to act in the national interest in this way. All members of the panel consider that it is appropriate that the Commonwealth’s right to have a direct funding relationship with local government, when it is acting in the national interest, be acknowledged in the Constitution.
Financial recognition currently has the support of the federal Coalition, the majority of local councils and in-principle support from one State government. The polling undertaken by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), and by the panel, also indicates a substantial level of support for financial recognition in the broader community, although this support is no higher than for other forms of recognition; polling also suggests that such support may not carry through to a referendum. There is, however, an indication that the general community may support a form of limited recognition that addresses a perceived problem, such as the current uncertainty arising from the Pape case.
The members of the panel who support this conclusion take into account the commitment of the local government community throughout Australia to actively campaign in favour of any referendum, including by allocating substantial resources to such a campaign. They also recognise that the opposition of some State governments and of some political leaders may lead to a diminution in the level of support identified in the polling.
The majority of panel members support a referendum in 2013 subject to two conditions: first, that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option; and second, that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by ALGA necessary to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of this report on the concerns about a failed referendum (see page 16). Steps include allocating substantial resources to a major public awareness campaign and making changes to the referendum process.
At the same time, several members of the panel remain concerned that financial recognition per se does not currently enjoy sufficient support either among stakeholders or the general community to give a referendum a high enough prospect of success in this Parliament, even if the two conditions proposed by the majority are satisfied. They share a concern that proceeding to another unsuccessful referendum would damage rather than advance the interests of local government.
1 Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1.
2 Final Report These members consider that a more substantial effort is needed to build public understanding and establish widely based social and political cross-sectional support before change is attempted. Some members hold that this should also include continued investigation of a modified form of recognition, including but not limited to financial recognition, which may have a greater prospect of success. However, at least one member considers that, based on the historical record and information gathered by the panel, the prospect of success in the future may still be remote.
These members of the panel have a range of reasons for coming to this position. Factors in support of a modified approach include:
• the importance of ensuring that any change is publicly perceived as essential and sufficiently substantive, rather than simply ‘mechanical’ or easily misconstrued as self-serving on the part of local government
• the proposed negotiations with the States, and hence the need to address present State and other views that constitutional amendment to validate continued direct funding to local government is not necessary at this stage, or that alternatively, programs such as Roads to Recovery can be funded via the States within current provisions of the Constitution
• the need to ensure that the case for the proposed constitutional change is not left solely to politicians and local government representatives, and instead is also championed by other members of the community who can explain to the general public how it will benefit the whole community
• in the view of some members, the scope to build stronger State and public support for financial recognition if it is joined with other reforms for enhancing democratic principles and federal cooperation, as proposed in key State and expert submissions—especially in light of the panel’s research finding that financial recognition enjoys no greater public support than other forms.
Financial recognition
The Commonwealth has created a number of programs under which grants are made directly to local councils. Three programs are of particular significance for local government throughout Australia: the Nation Building Roads to Recovery program, the Regional Development Australia Fund and the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. A fourth program, Low Carbon Communities, will start soon. Many local councils, particularly in rural areas, consider these programs ‘crucial if local government is to remain financially sustainable in the long-term’2 and are concerned that the constitutional validity of the programs is now in doubt.
The Commonwealth has long asserted its ability to make grants directly to local councils, in effect, without restriction as to subject matter. That ability was called into question and, in the view of many constitutional lawyers, substantially undermined by the decision of the High Court in 2009 in Pape.
2 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 15.
Final Report 3 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
The basis for constitutional validity hitherto asserted by the Commonwealth was rejected by the High Court in that case. Some other basis must be identified to support each specific program of grants.
The Commonwealth’s legal advisers continue to assert a wide-ranging basis for the Commonwealth’s ability to make grants, as acknowledged by the Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation.3 At the request of the panel, the Commonwealth’s legal advisers were asked to set out an argument in favour of the constitutional validity of those programs by which the Commonwealth currently funds local government directly. Understandably, they declined to do so, because doing so would disclose the legal advice that they would give to the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, they drew the panel’s attention to the submissions recently made in other litigation in the High Court asserting the broad view of the Commonwealth’s powers.4
The panel consulted a wider range of constitutional law experts than was available to the Senate Select Committee. It is clear that many constitutional lawyers regard the Commonwealth’s position as aspirational and unlikely to meet favour with the High Court.5 Others assess the risk as small.6 For present purposes, it is sufficient that the panel express its view that there is a very real doubt about the constitutional validity of direct grant programs that do not fall under a head of Commonwealth legislative power.
It is constitutionally possible for the Commonwealth to replace direct funding by a system of grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution, subject to the condition that the monies be passed on to local government. This is presently the basis for the majority of Commonwealth funding of local government, particularly through the Financial Assistance Grants program. However, although this alternative route is constitutionally and administratively feasible, four arguments are advanced, principally by local government, as to why this is not a desirable alternative.
First, the indirect route lessens the ability of the Commonwealth to implement, and to be seen to be implementing, its own policies at a local level. Local government is, with some justification, apprehensive that it will be less likely that the Commonwealth will continue existing programs, or implement new programs to support the provision of local services, in the absence of direct Commonwealth involvement, with all the political advantages that entails. Furthermore, in response to those that emphasise the federal–State balance, in this and other contexts, the Commonwealth has sought to implement its own policies and priorities, which often differ from the policies and priorities of State governments. The Commonwealth may prefer to use local government as a means to implement its own priorities, even when those differ from State priorities.
The second reason against the indirect route is the fact that it fails to recognise local government as a legitimate third tier of government in the Australian system. Although this is an issue of status, it is clearly of great significance to local councils throughout Australia.
3 Senate Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, Parliament of Australia, Australia’s Federation: an agenda for reform (2011), 91. 4 Submission of the First to Third Defendants (the Commonwealth of Australia; the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth; and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation) to the High Court (11 July 2011). 5 Associate Professor Anne Twomey, Submission No 593, 8; Professor George Williams, Ms Nicola McGarrity, Mr Paul Kildea and Dr Andrew Lynch, Submission No 427, 2. 6 Dr Charles Lawson, Submission No 360.
4 Final Report Third, local government and its advocates raised concerns that Commonwealth funding via State governments is inefficient, ineffective, and may result in a reduction of the money flowing to local government by reason of deductions for administrative expenses.7 Although some local government representatives express this view, investigations by the panel do not suggest that it is a matter of significance.
The panel sought advice from local government associations throughout Australia to identify examples of such practices. The associations in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland indicated that they were unaware of any such problem. The Municipal Association of Victoria was ‘not aware of cases in which the quantum of grant funding has been significantly reduced due to the State distributing grants’.8 However, it noted that ‘most difficulties associated with Australian Government funding through the States are associated with urgent or new programs which lack existing processes and structures to distribute the funds to councils’.9 The association gave two examples of this, the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements and the Local Government Reform Fund.
The Local Government Association of South Australia referred to an example in the early 1990s in which the State earned interest on Commonwealth funds for several weeks, before passing them on, but the practice stopped and funds are now transferred electronically. The association also noted that there have been more recent delays between approval and receipt of funding but it is not clear whether those delays involved delayed transmission of funds received by the States. The Local Government Association of the Northern Territory referred to the retention by the Territory agency of funds for administrative purposes under the Local Government Reform Fund.
The response from ALGA referred to indications that additional Commonwealth funding has not resulted in benefits to councils when funds are transferred via the States. It referred to the Hawker report which noted that the growth of Commonwealth funding, particularly through Financial Assistance Grants, was associated with a ‘relative decline in State support’.10 That report also indicated that, in some States, payments under National Competition Policy [NCP] agreements were not passed on ‘despite local government’s key role in achieving NCP goals and requirements’.11
Furthermore, at one hearing in a regional centre, local government representatives indicated that one of the additional costs imposed by the indirect route was the need for the State to appoint a consultant to assess possible projects. The local government representatives indicated that this was unnecessary because the information was well known to the local council. The Northern Territory association also referred to deduction of costs for consultants in the Local Government Reform Fund.
Although there may be delays, nothing presented to the panel suggests that these are substantial. Nor was the panel able to conclude that there has been a significant diminution of funds by reason of State deduction of administrative charges.
7 Professor Dean Jaensch AO, Submission No 302, 1. 8 Letter from Mr Rob Spence, Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Association of Victoria, to The Hon. James Spigelman AC QC, 16 November 2011. 9 Ibid. 10 Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (2003), 36. 11 Letter from Mr Adrian Beresford-Wylie, Chief Executive, Australian Local Government Association, to The Hon. James Spigelman AC QC , 10 November 2011.
Final Report 5 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Fourth, as the experience of the Nation Building Roads to Recovery program suggests, the ability of the Commonwealth to directly fund local government can create a relationship that supports, facilitates and drives collaboration among all three levels of government. Grants to the States subject to conditions that the money is passed on do not necessarily lead to the same kinds of intergovernmental consultation, decision and timely action. Furthermore, the Commonwealth’s ability to fund directly can enable it to require a State to cease the practice of transferring responsibilities to local government without the required resources, sometimes referred to as ‘cost shifting’.12
Consequences of financial recognition
Local government sees Commonwealth funding as critical to its ongoing financial sustainability. The aim of financial recognition ‘is to formalize and secure what has been occurring for the past ten years to give financial security to communities.’13 Removing the doubt about constitutional validity of direct grants is advanced as the principal outcome of financial recognition.
The panel’s consultations revealed a widely held assumption that ensuring the Commonwealth can directly fund local government would result in increased funding for local government. It is widely believed that a constitutional mandate for direct funding of local government would provide the Commonwealth with a greater opportunity to influence and implement its own policies at the local level. However, while financial recognition of local government may provide a political motivation for additional funds in some circumstances, the level of Commonwealth funding to local government will always depend on Commonwealth political and policy decisions. The panel notes that, until the decision in Pape in 2009, the Commonwealth had long acted on the basis that it could make direct grants on any subject matter, and continues to do so.
The ALGA submission, supported by other submissions, notably almost unanimously by the local government community throughout Australia, articulated a case for the removal of the doubts surrounding the validity of direct grants. It emphasised the significant expansion over recent decades in the range of services delivered at the local level and the failure of the financial resources available for local government to increase accordingly. It also emphasised the expansion in the number of programs where local government is called on to assist in the delivery of services determined to be matters of national policy.
12 Ibid. 13 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 16.
6 Final Report This expansion was noted by the resolution adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament in 2006 as follows:
That the House/Senate:
a. recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally elected councils;
b. values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve;
c. acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation;
d. acknowledges the importance of cooperating and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities;
e. acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services; and
f. commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities.
Although the Parliament did not support constitutional recognition at that time, ALGA’s case turns on the subsequent decision of the High Court in Pape. There is a tension between accepting local government as an instrument of national policy in whichever manner the Commonwealth decides, on the one hand, and the traditional subordination of the activities and powers of local government to State decision-making, on the other hand. However, ALGA’s case is based, in part, on actual experience over many years of successful partnership among the three levels of government in a number of programs, the constitutional validity of which is now in doubt.
Furthermore, in addition to the effect of financial recognition on the availability of resources for local government, the very insertion of an express reference to local government in Australia’s foundational political and legal document, even of this limited character, provides recognition of local government as the third tier of government in Australia.
Final Report 7 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Specific amendments to the Constitution
In its discussion paper the panel identified alternative amendments to section 96. The first added the minimal possible number of words and the second sought to make it clearer that the establishment of a system of local government remains a matter for State and Territory legislation.
The first proposal may be more publicly acceptable because it is a minimalist alteration to the Constitution. Section 96 would be amended to read (proposed new words in italics):
the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State or to any local government body on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit.
The alternative is to expand the language to expressly acknowledge that local government bodies are created by State or Territory legislation.
In the discussion paper, the panel drew on the language of section 51(xx) of the Constitution, the corporations power, which has been interpreted by the High Court in a manner consistent with this objective. In submissions to the panel, a further alternative was suggested.14
The panel now accepts that the following would be a preferable formulation to achieve this objective. Section 96 would then, relevantly read (proposed new words in italics):
the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State or to any local government body formed by State or Territory Legislation on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit.
Democratic recognition
Democratic recognition—changing the Constitution to guarantee that local councils are elected bodies—was opposed by a number of key stakeholders, including the federal Opposition and several State governments and oppositions. It is not broadly supported as a referendum question by local government itself.
The panel notes the conclusion in ALGA’s submission that democratic recognition ‘would not succeed at a referendum. It would not be acceptable to State and Territory governments, it would not gain bipartisan support and it is questionable whether it would resonate with voters’.15
In fact, democratic recognition attracted the strongest support from the general public in the polling commissioned by the panel. The polling analysis indicates that democratic recognition appeals to ‘a higher-level concept than the institution of local government itself’16 and that this is a strong cause of the support. However, the panel recognises that the current state of political opinion may lead to a strong ‘No’ campaign at referendum that would see lower public support than currently indicated by the polling.
14 Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Submission No 427, 2. 15 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 11. 16 Newspoll report, Appendix C, 7.
8 Final Report Prior to the 1988 referendum for constitutional recognition of local government—one of four questions put to the people at that time—polling before the campaign suggested that 66 per cent of people supported the proposal, but in fact only 33 per cent did so at the referendum. Newspoll, the polling company commissioned by the panel, noted with respect to all forms of recognition tested:
[U]ltimately the outcome of a referendum will be heavily influenced by arguments expressed in the public domain. What all of those arguments will be, who mounts them, and how effective they will be, is impossible to fully predict.
In isolation, the research obtains initial reactions of support that appear to be quite strong. However it also indicates they are based on somewhat fragile underpinnings.17
Most opposition to democratic recognition focused on the supervision of local government systems by the States and the Northern Territory. State governments were concerned that democratic recognition would limit their ability to manage and reform local councils, which are established under State and Territory legislation. A particular concern was that States and Territories retain the power to dismiss a local government and appoint an administration in the limited number of cases where a council is corrupt or dysfunctional.18
Under existing State Acts, local governments are elected in each State and Territory and there is no immediate threat to this occurring. In most States this position is affirmed in the State constitution, in some cases in a manner that requires a referendum to alter it (see Appendix G).
The Victorian Constitution has the most robust provisions guaranteeing the democratic status of local government and only allows the dismissal of a council by the Victorian Parliament, not its Executive. The Victorian Government submitted that ‘there is nothing to be gained by including similar provisions in the Commonwealth Constitution’.19 To various degrees, other States could advance a similar view.
Should the Commonwealth proceed with a referendum using this option, the form of the amendment could minimise, but not eliminate, the degree of interference with State and Territory constitutions and statutes, by adopting the following formulation:
Each State shall, and each Territory may, provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State or Territory.
Under this provision, it is probable that State and Territory governments would not be able to exercise their executive powers to dismiss local councils, as they have done in the past. Nor could they pass legislation authorising themselves to do so either by legislation or executive order. To maintain the possibility of dismissing a local council, preferably by Act of Parliament rather than by ministerial directive, this amendment could be qualified by adding the following words:
The Parliament of a State or Territory may by Statute dismiss a local government body, and provide for the appointment of persons to perform its functions and exercise its powers until such time as a new local government is elected.
17 Ibid, 8. 18 Western Australian Government, Submission No 572, 2; Anne Twomey, Submission No 593, 13. 19 Victorian Government, Submission No 654, 2.
Final Report 9 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Other ideas for recognition
The two other ideas for constitutional change the panel advanced in the discussion paper were symbolic recognition and recognition through federal cooperation. Both would formally recognise the important role that local government plays in local communities and in the governance of Australia.
Symbolic recognition
Symbolic recognition—including local government in the Constitution in a way that is designed to have no real legal effect—was the second most popular option in submissions in favour of local government recognition. However, support for this option was almost always framed as a call for local government to be included in a preamble ‘if one is to be developed’.20 As a stand-alone option for recognising local government, symbolic recognition received little support from stakeholders or in public consultations.
Symbolic recognition is designed to have limited practical effect and this was seen to be its main weakness. In the words of one submission: ‘it would amount to little more than legal prose without any real, palpable impact’.21 Local government councils and associations made it clear to the panel that symbolic recognition was not their priority and that they were focused on achieving a practical form of constitutional recognition. The majority of individuals who made submissions indicated a reluctance, as one put it, to ‘clutter’ the Constitution with ‘platitudes’ such as symbolic recognition of local government.22 This position is reflected in research undertaken by local government which suggests that voters are far more likely to support a form of recognition with ‘demonstrable’ benefits.23 Similarly, the polling indicates that the general public responds positively to the idea until challenged by the lack of practical outcomes that would be achieved.
The New South Wales Government said that, subject to the wording, it ‘supports consideration of symbolic recognition as a way of enhancing the status of local government’.24 The Victorian and Western Australian governments both submitted that symbolic recognition would raise questions of constitutional interpretation. Other State governments did not take a position on this. A limited form of symbolic recognition was put forward as possibly acceptable to, although not advocated by, the Western Australian Government.
Any new preamble to the Constitution would probably cover a wide range of issues. Its consideration would require a broader process than that undertaken by this panel. The recognition of local government on its own does not provide a strong case for pursuing a preamble. The local government community, nevertheless, generally supports the inclusion of local government as part of the democratic Australian system of governance if a preamble were to extend to these matters.
20 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 4. 21 Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, Submission No 268, 3. 22 Leslie Kelety, Submission No 524, 1. 23 Local Government and Shires Association of NSW, Submission No 613, 9. 24 New South Wales Government, Submission No 694, 2.
10 Final Report Recognition through federal cooperation
Recognition through federal cooperation—changing the Constitution to explicitly encourage cooperation between governments—appeared to be a new idea for most stakeholders involved in the panel’s process and only a few offered comment on it.
The panel notes that amending the Constitution to encourage federal cooperation involves complex matters regarding the federal balance of power and technical issues arising from decisions of the High Court on particular cooperative schemes.25 A number of specific proposals have been put forward to overcome the effects of these decisions.
One idea is to insert in the Constitution an express reference to the desirability of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States. A reference to cooperation among and between all three levels of government could be included in any such provision. While such a provision would not be of direct operational effect, its inclusion could have significant influence on the High Court’s approach to interpreting other provisions of the Constitution in a way that enhances cooperative conduct.
A further step, with more direct effect, would be to insert a provision requiring the Commonwealth and the States to give each other an opportunity to comment on any proposed laws that would affect their status, powers and/or functions. Again, if such a provision were adopted, it would be open to include local government in the provision.
This option was seen, in the few submissions that considered it, to be a positive option that would ‘promote a new dynamic to the relationship between the three levels of government in Australia’.26 The value of partnerships and cooperation was recognised by three State governments in their submissions, and it may be that further consultation among all three levels of government would lead to some progress in this respect. While such an amendment raises issues beyond the scope of the panel’s mandate, some key stakeholders expressed interest in ‘further dialogue on how to encourage cooperation between all levels of government in Australia’.27
There was also some support for this option from those who saw it is as a way to lessen the risk that federalism would be undermined by constitutional recognition of local government. One submission suggested that constitutional reform to promote federal cooperation would complement financial recognition and that the two issues ‘would provide reforms directed to well-known problems in the Constitution that afflict all three tiers of government’.28
These ideas include matters that go beyond the panel’s terms of reference. Their consideration would require a more extensive process of consultation than the panel was able, or indeed qualified, to undertake.
25 Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 and R v Hughes (2002) 202 CLR 535. 26 Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Submission No 427, 3. 27 Victorian Government, Submission No 654, 2. 28 Victorian Government, Submission No 654, 2.
Final Report 11 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Level of support
Federal attitudes
Bipartisan support at the federal level is a key consideration in assessing the likelihood of future support for a referendum among the broader public. History has shown that bipartisan support is critical to the success of constitutional reform. No referendum has ever succeeded without it.29 As the voting public is generally cautious when voting on a referendum question, a concerted political campaign against constitutional change always has a significant impact on the outcome. Unusually, given the experience with past referendums, most notably with the two referendums in 1974 and 1988 on local government, in the present circumstances there is support for local government recognition across the federal political spectrum.
The Commonwealth Government is committed to support a referendum recognising local government. This commitment was part of the agreements with the independent members of Parliament and the Greens to form government. The panel understands that the Government is awaiting this report before determining which option will be put to referendum. Australian Labor Party policy has long supported recognition of local government in the Constitution.
The Opposition leader, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, and the Leader of the Nationals, the Hon. Warren Truss, have both publicly declared their in-principle support for constitutional recognition of local government. More specifically, the stated Coalition policy is to support financial recognition. The panel’s consultations indicate, however, that there are some members within the Coalition who do not support constitutional recognition.
The Australian Greens have indicated to the panel their strong support for constitutional recognition of local government and endorsed ALGA’s proposal to amend section 96 of the Constitution to ensure that local government has the same ability to access funding from the Commonwealth as the States currently have. Furthermore, the Greens have stated that they are committed to ‘working hard to win community support for the “Yes” campaign’.30
The panel’s consultations with federal parliamentarians, other than with the party leadership, was limited and not representative. Some indicated that they would be prepared to actively campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote. Some would actively campaign for a ‘No’ vote. Others indicated general support, without any suggestion of active campaigning.
State and Territory attitudes
State and Territory government support for constitutional recognition of local government varied. As outlined below, the Queensland Government submission offered in-principle support for financial recognition option. The submissions from the South Australian and Tasmanian governments
29 Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Submission No 427, 4; and George Williams and David Hume, People Power: The History and Future of the Referendum in Australia (University of New South Wales Press, 2010), 216. 30 Australian Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, Submission No 569, 2.
12 Final Report indicated that they would await the wording of a referendum proposal before deciding their position. The Victorian and Western Australian governments did not support any option. No State political figure suggested that they would actively campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote.
The Queensland Government indicated that it supported financial recognition in-principle. However, it expressed concern that any recognition ‘should maintain, not diminish, the State’s primary constitutional responsibility for local government’.31 The submission neither specifically endorsed nor rejected the formulation of financial recognition in the panel’s discussion paper.
The South Australian Government’s position was that ‘it welcomes initiatives to strengthen the relationships between governments, and provide clarity of powers between all three spheres of government’.32 It did not support or oppose any form of local government recognition but ‘remains open to consider, on its merits, any proposal put forward on constitutional recognition of Local Government’.33
The New South Wales Government submission differentiated between the options and focused on the potential unintended consequences of constitutional change. It ‘supports consideration of symbolic recognition as a way of enhancing the status of local government’34 but stated that ‘[d]emocratic recognition is unacceptable ... as the State Governments would not be able to exercise their executive powers to dismiss local councils’.35 The New South Wales Government did not explicitly oppose financial recognition but raised concerns about it, stating that ‘amendments to the Constitution should not be made in the absence of clear evidence that existing funding arrangements are deficient and there may be options for refining funding arrangements between different levels of government that do not require amendments to the Constitution’.36
The Tasmanian Government did not provide a formal comment on the constitutional recognition of local government as it ‘did not wish to comment on any proposals until such time as a final form of amendment is available for review’.37 The basis for this position is the potential for unintended consequences since ‘even minor changes to the Australian Constitution can have significant consequences for the nature of our Federation or how the Constitution is interpreted’.38 The Tasmanian Government further commented that a referendum on Indigenous recognition in the Constitution should take priority over local government if there is a risk that the local government question could affect the success of the Indigenous question.
The Victorian and Western Australian governments both stated that they did not support any of the proposed ideas. The Victorian Government was of the view that ‘constitutional reform should only be pursued if it offers certainty of improved outcomes’.39 However, it did express interest in further dialogue around federal cooperation. The Western Australian Government indicated that it might consider a ‘purely symbolic’ form of recognition ‘without the possibility of having any legal effect or being able to be utilized in litigation or judicial interpretation’.40
31 Queensland Government, Submission No 675, 2. 32 South Australian Government, Submission No 682, 1. 33 Ibid. 34 New South Wales Government, Submission No 694, 2. 35 Ibid, 3. 36 Ibid, 2. 37 Tasmanian Government, Submission No 683. 38 Ibid. 39 Victorian Government, Submission No 654, 1. 40 Western Australian Government, Submission No 572, 3.
Final Report 13 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Western Australia submitted that financial recognition ‘would both constitutionally and practically downgrade and circumvent the States’.41 Furthermore, any form of recognition would ‘weaken or detract from the Federal structure of the Constitution and federalism generally’.42
The Victorian Government submitted that financial recognition would exacerbate the blurring of roles and responsibilities in the Australian federation.43 The Victorian Government also expressed concern about how direct funding would be allocated between States and between individual councils within a State, in view of issues about horizontal financial equalisation between States and the ability of the Commonwealth to change the distribution of funding within a State if it secured an explicit power to make direct grants.
The Victorian Government also highlighted the scope for ‘sub-constitutional’ recognition, such as further strengthening, by agreement, local government’s involvement in COAG and other forums. The panel notes that the inter-governmental agreement on local government matters is currently under review. Discussions might extend, among other things, to whether all States would be willing to adopt the high level of protection of the democratic nature of local government as provided by the Victorian and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Queensland constitutions.
Local government attitudes
Throughout the panel’s process, local government bodies across Australia clearly demonstrated their strong support for constitutional recognition. ALGA has been instrumental in leading local government in this respect.
ALGA ‘strongly supports the constitutional recognition of local government’ and its ‘preference is for financial recognition of local government, with inclusion in a preamble if one is to be developed as well’.44 The panel notes that in coming to this position, ALGA has undertaken a thorough process of research and consultation over several years.
The overwhelming majority of local councils that made submissions echoed ALGA’s preference for financial recognition, many of them passed a resolution to this effect. ALGA indicated that 440 of the 560 local councils in Australia expressed such support. The panel received submissions from 259 local councils in support of financial recognition in accordance with ALGA’s position. Two local councils made submissions indicating reservations about constitutional recognition. The first suggested that there was not yet a ‘compelling case’ for constitutional change45 and the second raised concerns that financial recognition might ‘enhance Commonwealth dominance over the States, and future dominance over Local Government’.46
41 Ibid, 2. 42 Ibid. 43 Victorian Government, Submission No 654, 1. 44 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 4. 45 Shire of Beverley, Submission No 537, 2. 46 Shire of Dalwallinu, Submission No 497, 2.
14 Final Report However, there is no doubt that financial recognition is strongly supported throughout the local government community. Many councils throughout Australia would actively campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote, and many councils have pledged substantial resources to such a campaign.
Concerns about federalism
A number of submissions opposed recognition on the basis that it would disturb the federal balance by centralising power in the Commonwealth. This theme featured in the ‘No’ cases put forward at the 1974 and 1988 referendums on local government and will clearly be a central argument in any future referendum debate.47
The Australian Workers’ Union, Queensland Branch, submitted that financial recognition would allow the Commonwealth Government to use its ‘financial leverage with respect to local authorities and more importantly with respect to the prerogatives that should otherwise be solely retained by the States’.48 Another submission referred to a ‘gradual expansion of Commonwealth power’.49 The submission went on to say that if ‘the Commonwealth was given the power to make grants directly to local government, such provision would only encourage the Commonwealth to increase its involvement in the coordination and supervision of local government affairs, exacerbating the vertical fiscal imbalance [and] confusion of responsibilities …’.50 To similar effect another submission said that ‘recognition could significantly weaken one of the integral characteristics of our Federal system by disproportionately shifting the balance of powers between the Commonwealth and the States’.51
The potential risks of constitutional change were a consistent theme in the panel’s discussions with State governments. Of particular concern was the need to ensure the ongoing ability of State and Territory governments to oversee and regulate local government. Some submissions warned that the Commonwealth Government might attempt to interfere with State functions by directly funding local government to deliver infrastructure and services that are the typically the responsibility of State governments.
In contrast, others argued that it was indeed appropriate for the Commonwealth to have the power to fund local government in pursuit of national policy objectives. For instance, ALGA noted that the ‘use of direct funding allows the Commonwealth to not only target specific investment to achieve national objectives but also allows the Commonwealth to establish a direct partnership with councils and to engage directly with local communities rather than operating through the filter of State governments’.52 This sentiment was echoed by the Local Government Association of South Australia, which suggested that reinforcing the power of the Commonwealth to provide direct funding to local government would in no way disrupt the federal balance, but rather lead to an increase in ‘intergovernmental dialogue’ and ‘greater collaboration in the interests of the nation’.53 In taking this
47 Australian Electoral Office, Referendum Pamphlet, 3 September 1988; Australian Electoral Office, Referendum Pamphlet, 18 May 1974. 48 The Queensland Branch of the Australian Workers Union, Submission No 557, 2. 49 Professor Nicholas Aroney, Professor Scott Prasser and Mitchell Birks, Submission No 641, 10. 50 Ibid. 51 Professor Greg Craven, Submission No 606, 1. 52 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 39. 53 Local Government Association of South Australia, Submission No 636, 7.
Final Report 15 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
approach, local government refers to a number of successful collaborative projects through which the Commonwealth currently funds local government directly as confirmation that financial recognition would not result in excessive centralisation of power.
Concerns about unintended consequences
A risk that has been mentioned frequently in submissions to the panel is that any amendment to the Constitution may have unexpected and unintended consequences. In the discussion paper, the panel noted the potential consequences of the inclusion of an express reference to local government in a substantive provision of the Constitution. Such recognition could be held by the High Court to prohibit a State from altering the fundamental characteristics of the system of local government and the High Court could determine what those characteristics were. This conclusion was based on the High Court’s decisions, which, in a number of contexts, characterised the concepts appearing in the text of the Constitution as ‘constitutional expressions’. (See Appendix E)
It does not appear that there is any significant risk with respect to the panel’s majority proposal for financial recognition. If, in the future, the system of local government of a particular State were to be changed in such a manner that it no longer answered the constitutional concept of ‘local government’, the effect would be that the Commonwealth would not be able to make grants to the local councils of that State. Nothing in the existing jurisprudence of the High Court suggests that a State is obliged to create a system that complies with the constitutional expression. This conclusion would be reinforced by the adoption of the panel’s proposed text, which expressly states that the bodies to which grants may be made are those ‘formed by State or Territory legislation’.
Concerns about a failed referendum
Although the local government community has invested time and effort into constitutional recognition, many panel members accept that a third failed referendum would not be in the interests of local government in Australia.
As the Victorian Government submission notes, local government already enjoys a strong presence in a number of federal forums despite its lack of constitutional recognition, and it of course receives very considerable direct and indirect federal funding. If the electorate were again to reject formal recognition in the Constitution, what conclusions might the Commonwealth and State governments draw regarding local government’s place in the federal system?
There is a widely held view in the local government community that a substantial public awareness campaign is required before a referendum is held, and that in its absence there is a very real risk of failure for a third time. ALGA recognised that constitutional recognition is a ‘significant challenge’ and advocated a need for public awareness or ‘education’ process. The principal steps advocated include the following:54
• A Joint Select Committee of the full Parliament should be formed in early to mid 2012 for a six-month period to consider the recommended options put to the Government by the Expert
54 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 31–32.
16 Final Report Panel. The committee would further develop and refine proposals, and approve the draft of the bills to be submitted between March and June 2012.
• In accordance with recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Machinery of Referendums, and based on its research findings, a nationally funded education campaign on the Constitution broadly, ahead of any ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaign, should precede any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
• ALGA notes that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns should be overseen by the Parliament, with panels of members appointed to prepare both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ cases.
• ALGA supports the recommendation by the inquiry to remove the legislative limit on spending.
• ALGA proposes that the Commonwealth apportion funds for the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ cases for each referendum based on those parliamentarians voting for and against the Bill and that this funding be equivalent to that provided for elections.
The panel notes that changes to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 would be required before the Government could take the steps outlined above.
As already noted, the local government community throughout Australia is committed to investing its own resources in such public awareness and education. Since it appears that these resources may not be sufficient, ALGA proposes Commonwealth funding.
The panel has no information as to whether the Commonwealth Government would be prepared to adopt and appropriately fund the awareness campaign advocated above. In the absence of such a campaign, however, the panel is of the view that there is a very real risk that any referendum will fail and that the possibility of local government being recognised in the Constitution would be removed from the political agenda for decades. Moreover, failure may further entrench the public understanding that it is impossible to change the Constitution.
As already indicated, some members of the panel consider that the Government should support a longer-term process, which may lead to a more confident judgment as to the prospects of success at a referendum. Further, some consider that any process towards a referendum—whether at, before or after the next election—should be conducted on a broader and more inclusive basis than that proposed by ALGA. In particular, they consider that the ‘Yes’ (and any ‘No’) case should not be overseen only by a panel of federal parliamentarians, but rather by a more broadly based committee, including local government itself, and other community opinion leaders.
Final Report 17 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Public attitudes
The panel used several methods to gauge the general community’s level of support for constitutional recognition of local government. Through community consultations, online surveys and public submissions it was able to capture the views of interested members of the public. The panel also commissioned Newspoll to undertake a public polling exercise intended to measure the level of support in a way that was representative of the Australian community more broadly.
The panel held community consultations in every State. Attendance at these meetings was dominated by local government representatives. Of the 634 submissions received, 316 were submissions from private citizens (see Appendix B). These totals reflect a general lack of engagement on the issue beyond those for which it is a central concern, such as local and State and Territory governments. This finding, however, should be considered against independent research conducted by ALGA, which found that ‘a sizable proportion of the population has not had a positive experience of engagement in constitutional debate or reform’.55
The majority of submissions from private citizens did not support recognition of local government. Reasons provided for this position included the perceived ineffectiveness, inefficiencies, abuse of bureaucratic power and ‘corruption’ of local government.56
The responses to the online survey reflected a key trend in the submissions received, with greater participation from those directly involved in local government and those with a negative view of local government. As in the submissions, people with an association with local government who took the online survey were strongly in favour of local government recognition. A majority of the remainder of people who took part were opposed. The online survey and submissions support a finding that there are strong, motivated groups of voters both in favour of and opposed to recognition of local government in the Constitution.
The panel agrees with ALGA that amending the Constitution is a challenge and that Australians need to be prepared and educated for any change. ALGA, and the numerous supporting submissions from the local government community throughout Australia, recognised in their submissions the difficulty of achieving a successful referendum. The panel accepts that the polling results, which suggest that a majority of voters are in favour of recognition, may be fragile, not least because of limited public understanding of the issues involved.
ALGA reiterated a submission made to the House of Representative’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during its inquiry into the machinery of referendums:
ALGA recommended to the committee that before any proposal to amend the Constitution can be put to the Australian people, there needs to be a nationally funded education campaign on the nature of the Constitution and the process for constitutional change. ALGA’s preferred model is for a national program run by the Australian Electoral
55 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 5. 56 Phillip Stanley, Submission No 528, 1.
18 Final Report Commission which focuses on the role of the Constitution, the mechanism by which it can be changed and the role of individual voters.57
ALGA put forward a detailed proposal for such an education campaign. No such mechanism is in place. The panel does not know whether either local government or the Commonwealth is ready to undertake such an exercise on the scale required. In its absence, there is a real doubt whether the polling, which suggests that a majority of voters support recognition, could translate into a majority at referendum.
Prior research
Constitutional recognition of local government did not succeed in winning the support of a majority of voters in a majority of States when it was proposed in 1974 and 1988. However, as with other referendums in Australian history, those outcomes did not necessarily mean that the idea of national constitutional recognition lacked merit or majority popular support, in-principle. It is well established that party–political polarisation over the issue, likely combined with uncertainty over its relative importance, contributed to both outcomes.
Recent research shows high levels of ‘in-principle’ support for the idea—but again confirms that, depending on the nature of the proposed reform and the circumstances in which debate proceeds, in-principle support in itself does not necessarily translate into voter support. For example:
• ALGA commissioned research in 2009 and 2011 indicating that up to 68 per cent of adults might support financial recognition of local government in the Constitution, but the same research indicated that only 53 per cent or less of adults were inclined to support it when compared with other possible constitutional reform issues.
• Conversely, but similarly, Griffith University’s Australian Constitutional Values Surveys in 2008 and 2010 showed that only around 52 per cent of adults were inclined to support recognition as a general proposition; but that 75 per cent or more might support it if they understood it to deliver benefits such as ensuring there was always a system of local government, enhancing local government’s accountability, and ensuring a reasonable level of funding for local government.
The panel’s research
Through the secretariat, the panel commissioned Newspoll to conduct qualitative and quantitative research into the level and nature of public support, to gain the most current independent view and fill gaps in the prior research. Newspoll’s full report is in Appendix C.
The Newspoll research indicates that, at this time, only limited public support for a constitutional alteration to recognise local government can be relied on.
57 Australian Local Government Association, Submission No 334, 14.
Final Report 19 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
As with previous studies, the research shows high initial support among voters at large for the idea, but support drops significantly as soon as any challenge to the idea is introduced. An even lower proportion both supports the idea and sees a referendum on the question as having any importance. This result applies across all types of recognition investigated by the panel.
As a result, while up to 85 per cent of Australian voters indicated initial, in-principle support for at least one form of recognition on offer, fewer than 30 per cent of voters are supporters of recognition who feel a referendum is very important.
Consequently, fewer than 30 per cent of voters can be said to feel a sufficiently strong commitment at this time to the idea of recognising local government to provide high confidence they would support it at a referendum, all other things being equal. Queensland is the only State in which the number of voters who support recognition and believe a referendum has any importance is currently significantly greater than 50 per cent.
The panel considers that the only way support is likely to strengthen is if strong consensus emerges among political leaders, and other key (non–local government) stakeholders, as to the need for and benefits of the reform—along with strong efforts to communicate that consensus to the wider community.
The research also suggests that any general positive shift in the degree of value placed on local government across the community would contribute to this. In this regard, the apparent correlation between efforts to improve community recognition of the value of local government in Queensland, and shifts in support for constitutional recognition, give some cause for optimism.
However, absent these factors, it is very unlikely that any proposal put to the people in the foreseeable future—if presented as a proposal to recognise local government—would command a majority of voters in a majority of States and a national majority.
Of the four ideas about recognition tested by the panel’s research, symbolic recognition secured the least support as a referendum proposal.
Overall, democratic recognition secured the most support (85 per cent initial support, 66 per cent support after challenge, 52 per cent support along with a referendum having any importance, and 29 per cent support along with a referendum being very important). Among the respondents who supported more than one form of recognition, democratic recognition was also ranked the most important form.
Reforms to support better federal cooperation secured the next highest level of initial support (81 per cent), although this dropped to 69 per cent who believed local government should be explicitly included in such a change, 54 per cent who saw a referendum as having any importance, and 29 per cent who saw a referendum as very important.
Financial recognition secured somewhat lower initial support (75 per cent support, 64 per cent after challenge) and shared the same relatively low level of support in relation to the perceived importance of a referendum (52 per cent support along with a referendum having any importance, and 28 per cent support along with a referendum being very important).
20 Final Report The panel’s research findings are consistent with a broader conclusion that more voters are likely to express support if the form of recognition appeals to ‘higher-order’ concepts and appears to be of positive benefit to all citizens—whether democratically, or by strengthening local government accountability, or by increasing or improving local services, or by improving the entire federal system. This finding is in contrast to the view that sees reform as focused on supporting local government in isolation, or on recognising local government in the Constitution simply for the sake of it.
Final Report 21 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
22 Final Report Appendix A Terms of reference and panel membership
Final Report 23 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Expert Panel terms of reference
Context
The Government has committed to pursue recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution.
Purpose
The Government has decided to establish an independent Expert Panel to consult with stakeholder groups and the community on the level of support for constitutional recognition of local government and to identify possible forms that recognition could take.
The Expert Panel will report to Government in December 2011.
Terms of Reference
The Expert Panel should, report on and make recommendations regarding:
a. the level of support for constitutional recognition among stakeholders and in the general community; and
b. options for that recognition.
The Expert Panel will have regard to the benefits and risks of the different options as well as outcomes that may be achieved for key stakeholders through constitutional recognition of local government.
In conducting its inquiry, the members of the Expert Panel will consult:
• Local governments and their representative bodies, including the Australian Council of Local Government and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA);
• State and Territory governments;
• Federal parliamentarians;
• Subject matter experts, such as constitutional reform, local government and regional government experts; and
• Interested members of the Australian community.
The Expert Panel will be supported by a secretariat within the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government.
24 Final Report Expert Panel members
The Hon. James Spigelman AC QC (Chair) Mayor Genia McCaffery
Councillor Paul Bell AM Mr Greg McLean OAM
Professor A.J. Brown Mrs Jane Prentice MP
Senator Bob Brown Professor Graham Sansom
Father Joe Caddy Right Hon. Lord Mayor of Perth Lisa Scaffidi
Mr Ross Cameron Mr Sid Sidebottom MP
Mr Peter Clarke Mr Jim Soorley AM
Mr Rob Hudson Ms Lucy Turnbull AO
The Hon. Karlene Maywald Mr Tony Windsor MP
Final Report 25 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Appendix B Summary of submissions received
26 Final Report The Expert Panel received 634 submissions from a broad range of stakeholders. Of these, 316 (49.9%) were from private individuals, 275 were from councils (43.3%), and the remaining 43 (6.6%) were from advocacy groups, State governments, politicians, and subject matter experts.
The majority of submissions came from two distinct groups that each expressed a strong position: 271 (42.8%) submissions were from local councils that supported constitutional change, and 268 (42.3%) were from private individuals who opposed local government recognition.
Overall, the submissions provide a strong insight into the issues that resonate with groups in the community that are motivated to participate voluntarily in the process. Similar issues and arguments may be part of any future referendum debate.
However, as any submission process is self-selecting, the spread of submissions may not be representative of the broader voting population.
This summary focuses on the responses in the submissions to the specific questions asked in the discussion paper released by the panel in September 2011. As not every submission responded to every question, only those submissions that did respond to the relevant question are counted in each of the summaries below.
The summary is divided into four sections:
• Arguments used for and against constitutional recognition
• Support for constitutional recognition
• Support for the different options proposed by the panel
• Geographic spread of submissions
Arguments used for and against constitutional recognition
Respondents made a range of arguments for and against constitutional recognition of local government. The arguments were grouped into categories. Figures B.1 and B.2 show the proportion of responses for or against constitutional recognition according to types of argument.
The arguments in favour of constitutional recognition centred on the arguments for financial recognition and reflected the long-term campaign from local government for recognition (see Figure B.1). The arguments against constitutional recognition were more varied and tended to reflect a negative opinion of both local government and politicians in general (see Figure B.2).
Final Report 27 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Frequency of different arguments for CRLG
Reduce legal uncertainty over direct payments 52%
Recognise importanceFrequency of local government of different arguments for CRLG41%
Improve capacity of local government 22% Reduce legal uncertainty over direct payments 52% Increase funding for local government 21% Recognise importance of local government 41% Improve balance of power in federation 5% Improve capacity of local government 22% Increase citizens’ power/ responsibility 4% Increase funding for local government 21% Improve accountability of local government 3% Improve balance of power in federation 5% Prevent amalgamations 1% Increase citizens’ power/ responsibility 4% No argument advanced 26% Improve accountability of local government 3%
Prevent amalgamations 1% Figure B.1 Frequency of arguments for constitutional recognition of local government No argument advanced 26% Frequency of different arguments against CRLG
Local government does not deserve recognition 28%
Already enoughFrequency or too much government of different arguments against CRLG23%
Already tried before 20% Local government does not deserve recognition 28% Local government is illegal 15% Already enough or too much government 23% Undermine State authority 9% Already tried before 20% Referendum will not succeed 5% Local government is illegal 15% Too much Commonwealth power 5% Undermine State authority 9% Potential High Court interpretation 1% Referendum will not succeed 5% No argument advanced 18% Too much Commonwealth power 5%
Potential High Court interpretation 1%
No argument advanced 18%
Figure B.2 Frequency of arguments against constitutional recognition of local government
28 Final Report Support for constitutional recognition
Overall, a slight majority of submissions supported recognising local government in the Constitution, with 53% in favour.
Figure B.3 shows the proportion of submissions which were for, against or undecided about recognition of local government in the Constitution. Submissions were evenly split between those in favour and those against.
Do you support Constitutional Recognition of Local Government?
45% 53% Yes Undecided No
2%
Figure B.3 Proportion of submissions for, against or undecided about constitutional recognition of local government
Support was not evenly distributed across the different types of stakeholders who made submissions. Figure B.4 shows that submissions from local councils expressed almost unanimous support, while submissions from private individuals were strongly against.
Support by type of submission
350 300 250 Yes 200 Undecided 150 No 100 50
0 Final Report 29 Council Individuals Other Do you support Constitutional Recognition of Local Government?
45% 53% Yes Undecided No
2%
Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Support by type of submission
350 300 250 Yes 200 Undecided 150 Support by State/Territory (percentages) No 100
100%50 0 80% Council Individuals Other
60% Yes Figure B.4 Support by type of submission Undecided Note: ‘Other’40% includes academic bodies, political parties, State governments, businesses and think tanks No
20% Support varied depending on whether the submission came from an urban, regional or remote
area, based0% on the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Classification. Submissions from ACTregional NSW and remoteNT locationsQLD wereSA moreTAS likely toVIC support WA constitutional recognition, whereas submissions from urban locations were more likely to oppose constitutional recognition (see Figure B.5).
Support by Regional/Urban (percentages)
100%
80%
Yes 60% Undecided 40% No
20%
0% Regional Remote Urban
Figure B.5 Support according to location
30 Final Report There were also some variations across responses from States and Territories. A majority of submissions from New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and Western Australia (by a slight margin) were in favour of constitutional recognition, while a majority of submissions from Queensland and Victoria were against constitutional recognition (see Figure B.6). If these levels of support were reflected in a referendum, there would be the required double majority because a majority in four States and a majority nationally support local government recognition. However, the self-selective nature of submissions means that this prediction is not reliable.
Support by State/Territory (percentages)
100%
80%
60% Yes Undecided 40% No
20%
0% ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA
Figure B.6 Support by State or Territory
Support by Regional/Urban (percentages)
100%
80%
Yes 60% Undecided 40% No
20%
0% Regional Remote Urban
Final Report 31 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Support for the different options proposed by the Expert Panel
Support for the different options proposed by the Expert Panel varied among those who supported recognising local government in the Constitution. As Figure B.7 shows, the most popular options from all the submissions were financial and symbolic recognition, which coincides with the position held by the Australian Local Government Association.
Even if the submissions from councils are not included in the count, financial recognition remains the most popular option, and democratic recognition is the second most popular (see Figure B.8). The greater support from councils for symbolic recognition appears to be a consequence of many councils passing the resolution recommended by the Australian Local Government Association that supported financial recognition and included local government in a preamble, if there is one.
Geographic spread of submissions
As figures B.9 and B.10 show, submissions were received from individuals and/or organisations in each of Australia’s States and mainland Territories. The numbers of submissions were broadly proportional to their respective populations (Western Australia was slightly over-represented and New South Wales and Victoria were slightly under-represented).
32 Final Report Support for types of recognition
50%
46% 40%
30% 30% 20%
10% 11% 7% 0% Symbolic Financial Democratic Cooperative
Figure B.7 Support for types of recognition, all submissions Note: Total is not 100% because submissions could support none, one or more options.
Support for options - without council submissions
70% 60% 60% 64% 50%
40%
30% 20% 25% 21% 10% 14% 0% Symbolic Financial Democratic Cooperative
Figure B.8 Support for types of recognition, council submissions excluded
Final Report 33 Estimated Population (end Mar qtr 2011)
2% ACT 11% NSW Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government NT 32% QLD 25% SA TAS VIC 7% 2% 20% WA 1% While submissions were broadly proportional to State and Territory populations, in comparison to population there were more submissions from regional and remote areas than from urban areas. Figures B. 11 and B. 12 compare the submissions received from, and the population of, urban, regional and remote areas. The greater interest from regional and remote areas in the Expert Panel may be due to the greater role that local councils play in regional and remote communities in comparison to urban areas.1 The postcodes of those who made submissions were classified using the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Classification.2
Submissions Received by State
3%
ACT 14% NSW 30% NT QLD 21% SA TAS VIC 19% 8% WA 3% 2% Figure B.9 Submissions by State
Estimated Population (end Mar qtr 2011)
2% ACT 11% NSW NT 32% QLD 25% SA TAS VIC 7% 2% 20% WA 1% Figure B.10 Population of Australia, estimated, 30 March 2011
1 Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, House of Representatives, Rates and Taxes: A Fair Share for Responsible Local Government (2003) 6 –7. 2 See www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/0/0D204FD3DCD90564CA256F19001303A2?opendocument.
34 Final Report Submissions Received by State
3%
ACT 14% NSW 30% NT QLD 21% SA TAS VIC 19% 8% WA 3% 2% Submissions Received by Remoteness
8%
Submissions Received by43% Remoteness Urban Regional Remote 49% 8%
43% Urban Regional Remote 49%
Figure B.11 Submissions received by remoteness
Proportion of Population by Remoteness (2006 Census)
2%
Proportion of Population by Remoteness 29% (2006 Census) Urban Regional Figure B.12 Proportion of Remote Australian population by 2% 69% remoteness
Note: Population figures from 2006 census, Australian Bureau 29% Urban of Statistics. Regional 69% Remote
Final Report 35 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Appendix C Polling results
36 Final Report
ACT 2612 Level 5 Newspoll House 407 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 (02) 9921 1000 Tel Fax (02) 9212 5880 [email protected] ______Level 3 Parade 126 Wellington East Melbourne VIC 3002 (03) 9416 4100 Tel Fax (03) 9417 1800 [email protected] ______Street 27 Torrens Braddon (02) 6249 8706 Tel Fax (02) 6247 4359 [email protected] www.newspoll.com.au Prepared for Elizabeth Wilde Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Assistant Secretary, Australia, Regional Development and Local Department of Regional Government 2601 ACT GPO Box 803, Canberra Constitutional Recognition of Local Government: Summary report
Sept-Oct 2011 Sept-Oct 2011 110927/ 1004/ E1035 1004/ E1035 Job No: 110927/
Final Report 37 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 2
9 3 16 17 18 19 22 26 29 32 34 36 10 13 14 15
recognition
A: Telephone survey questionnaire B: ‘Have your say’ online questionnaire Attitudinal segments Support for recognition – an overview Symbolic recognition Democratic recognition Financial Support for guaranteed continuance of local government About the Australian Constitution and referenda The importance of local government Conceptual framework for the telephone survey Methodology Background and objectives Executive Summary
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.11 How important is a referendum about local government? 4.12 Overlaying support with the importance of a referendum 4.13 ‘Have your say’ online survey
4.4 4.2 4.3 Research findings 4.1 4.10 Co-operative recognition Appendices 3. 4. 2. 1. Table of contents
38 Final Report
3
‘voting’ for ‘voting’ What people were To change the Constitution To to guarantee that local councils can get direct funding from the federal government To change the Constitution To to make it easier for levels of different government to co-operate To change the Constitution To to guarantee that local councils must be democratically elected To put a statement in the To Constitution to symbolically recognise local government
The premise Federal governments have been giving direct funding to local councils for many years, but there is nothing in the Constitution to say they can always do that. So it might be possible for someone to challenge it in the High Court and stop direct funding Federal, state and local governments often try to co- operate to fix problems that require joint solutions. But, sometimes the Constitution for actually makes it difficult governments to the different work co-operatively The Constitution only covers federal and state government – it does not mention local government Technically, most state governments have the power to do away with local council elections and could appoint local councils instead Financial Co- operative Symbolic Democratic
initial initial therefore therefore online survey made online survey made ‘Have Your Say’ ) six group discussions with electors in i ) six group discussions with electors in . Executive summary This report presents findings of a qualitative and quantitative This report presents findings of a qualitative and quantitative The research comprised ( Survey results quoted in the Executive Summary are based on the Survey results quoted in the Executive Summary are based on research study into community views about recognition of local research study into community views about recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. regional and metropolitan covering Queensland and NSW locations, (ii) a representative national telephone survey of 1,478 electors, and (iii) the opt-in available to people visiting the Expert Panel’s community community Panel’s Expert the visiting people to available consultation website (completed by 529 site visitors). national representative telephone survey. ‘Have your say’ results are covered in the body of report. However for the telephone survey, resilience of peoples’ The outcome of a referendum is likely to be heavily influenced by The outcome of a referendum is likely to be heavily influenced by No research project could ever fully emulate the real world effect of not undertaken support for a given form of recognition was tested to some degree support for a given form of recognition was tested to some degree with a simple “challenge” question comprising basic argument. communication – including opinions expressed in the media, by communication – including opinions expressed in the media, by politicians and the “yes”/ “no” cases. project, this for Moreover referendum. a in communication prosecuting the case for recognition with a set of arguments “for” and “against” was beyond the scope of brief, In order to measure levels of support for the various forms of In order to measure levels of support for the various forms recognition, each concept was explained to respondents in terms of a particular premise, as follows: 1. The premise for the recognition concepts tested An important caveat
Final Report 39 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 4 the 24 5 39 12 70 SYMBOLIC OP BUT DK LEVELS ‐ changing overview - STRONGLY NOT SUPPORT SUPPORT CO 6 7 19 75 54 FINANCIAL Local govt. Local 6 7 operative for 24 12 and 69 49 OP FOR - ‐ OP FOR FED/STATE ONLY LOCAL ‐ CO FED/ STATE/ 6 12 81 55 7 Support Support co OPERATIVE TEND TO SUPPORT SUPPORT CO ‐ Federal / / Federal State CO “At a referendum would you support or not support – 4 BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ NATIONALLY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE (n= 1478) (n= VOTE TO ELIGIBLE ARE WHO NATIONALLY 18+ AGED ADULTS BASE: 6 11 85 65 DEMOCRATIC Support for Support change to the Constitution For Symbolic recognition, the challenge issue centred on the For Symbolic recognition, the challenge issue centred on The challenge question for Democratic recognition was based on The challenge question for Democratic recognition was based on the likelihood of a state government actually doing away with local the likelihood of a state government actually doing away with local the recognition, Financial for similarly and elections, council likelihood of anyone challenging direct federal funding through the High Court. possibility that it may have no practical impact.
Questions A4 / A8 / A11 / A13 Constitution to …” SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK 0 STRONGLY SUPPORT TEND NOT TO SUPPORT 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % all three all three (cont’d) believe it should apply to and also support (65 percent) than that for other strong support (65 percent) than that for other most important; operative (for all three levels of government) and Financial operative (for all three levels of government) and Financial recognition. almost 40 percent nominating Democratic recognition as almost 40 percent nominating Democratic recognition as very few (8 percent) nominating Symbolic; and, in-between these two, around 20 percent nominating Co- Executive summary So based on initial reactions, Democratic appears to be the So based on initial reactions, Democratic appears to be the For a significant majority of Australians, their initial reaction to each For a significant majority of Australians, their initial reaction to each Democratic recognition is distinguished by having a substantially Some of the 81 percent who support Co-operative recognition, The research design allowed for “pressure testing”, in a few The research design allowed for “pressure testing”, in a few levels of government, drops to 69 percent. strongest concept, and Symbolic the weakest. This is borne out by peoples’ own assessment about which is the most important change that should be made to the Constitution, with: – – – of the proposed changes to the Constitution is that they would of the proposed changes to Constitution is that they would Democratic supporting percent 85 from ranging it, support recognition down to 70 percent supporting Symbolic recognition. higher level of concepts, while Symbolic is characterised by a substantially lower level of strong support (39 percent). believe it should only cover federal and state governments, not local government. Consequently the number who support Co- operative recognition different ways, the resilience of peoples’ initial support for each different ways, the resilience of peoples’ initial support for each concept. The most direct was to ask respondents a “challenge” Financial and Democratic Symbolic, to relation in question recognition. (No challenge question was asked in connection with Co-operative recognition). 1. Initial reactions “Pressure testing”
40 Final Report
46 5 70 should Symbolic Symbolic Column1
69 No operative ‐ operative - operative question challenge Co Co (Fed/ state/ local) after “challenge” – Column5 64 75 Financial Financial After “challenge” Column3 BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ NATIONALLY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE (n= 1478) (n= VOTE TO ELIGIBLE ARE WHO NATIONALLY 18+ AGED ADULTS BASE: Initial support Support for recognition 66 85 Democratic It’s worth noting that the relevant survey question made no mention worth noting that the relevant survey question made no mention It’s A further qualifier on the results for Democratic recognition, is that of examples where a council might be dismissed, such as where a of examples where a council might be dismissed, such as The council is found to be corrupt or managing its finances poorly. indicates that there is strong support qualitative research, however, it seems clear that for dismissal powers in these cases. Either way, any attempt at achieving Democratic recognition also needs to allow for a provision concerning dismissal powers. close to 60 percent of Australians believe state governments close to 60 percent of have the power to be able dismiss local councils. Democratic % 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100
in mention (cont’d) your view? your view?
never take away local council elections anyone would try to take away direct federal The “challenge” question unlikely a state government would ever try to take Even if it doesn’t make any practical difference, local It’s worth changing the Constitution to make sure direct It’s Or, if it’s not going to make any practical difference, the , it’s unlikely Or , it’s , it’s Or , it’s It’s worth changing the Constitution to make sure a state It’s government still deserves a mention in the Constitution funding can continue away local council elections – so the Constitution shouldn’t be changed Constitution shouldn’t be changed funding to local councils – so the Constitution shouldn’t be changed government can Symbolic recognition would give local government a the Constitution, but , it may have no practical impact. Given that, which one of the following comes closest to your view? – Which one of the following comes closest to – – – – Which one of the following comes closest to – Executive summary After the challenge, support for each concept drops quite quite drops concept each for support challenge, the After substantially, to 66 percent for Democratic, 64 percent for Financial substantially, to 66 percent for Democratic, 64 Financial recognition, and only 46 percent for Symbolic. Symbolic Financial Democratic 1.
Final Report 41 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government not not 6 39 23 46 70 Symbolic Symbolic and do believe in its its in believe Column1 unimportant 29 54 strongly operative 69 ‐ operative - Co Co ‐ and (Fed/ state/(Fed/ local) Support Co operative referendum important Column5 taking importance into account – important and and important 52 28 64 75 Financial Financial Financial very very very referendum Column3 Referendum important important After “challenge” and
BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ NATIONALLY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE (n= 1478) (n= VOTE TO ELIGIBLE ARE WHO NATIONALLY 18+ AGED ADULTS BASE: Initial support After “challenge” 52 29 66 85 Democratic The survey also measured peoples’ general attitudes to local general attitudes to local The survey also measured peoples’ government, including the importance of its role and also the extent government, including the importance of its role and also extent to which people would support the guaranteed continuance of local government. There is a spectrum of beliefs ranging from those who feel local There is a spectrum of beliefs ranging from those who feel local government is is government continuance, through to those who feel it is support its continued existence. Preparedness to support the support its continued existence. Preparedness to the various forms of recognition is highly correlated with these general ideas for attitudes, though this varies according to the different recognition.
Support for recognition Democratic % 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 Key underlying dimensions ( i ) General attitudes to local government have a bearing (cont’d) also believe it is also believe it is of a referendum of a referendum and importance . This is also the case for Co- 1 believe a referendum is important, is and believe a referendum is important, important. An almost identical pattern is very important. An almost identical pattern is for the various concepts, provides another support for the various concepts, provides another Executive summary degree to hold a referendum about including local local including about referendum a hold to degree Overlaying peoples’ views about the For both Financial and Democratic recognition, about half support Consequently it’s fair to say that, at this time, fewer than 30 percent Consequently it’s fair to say that, at this time, fewer than 30 percent Other supporters, who see a referendum on local government as Queensland is the only state in which number who support At the 95 percent level of confidence and their worthwhile perspective on their commitment to the issue, and perhaps also their likelihood of actually supporting a change to the Constitution at the time of a referendum. each concept after the challenge question important to have a referendum about recognition of local local of recognition about referendum a have to important government. However less than 30 percent are supporters who feel a referendum is evident concerning support for Co-operative recognition covering all three levels of government. of Australians feel a sufficiently strong commitment to the idea recognising local government to provide high confidence they would support it at a referendum, all other things being equal. being a lower priority, are clearly less committed; probably more susceptible to external influences; and therefore there is less confidence they would actually support local government at the time of a referendum. Financial recognition significantly greater than 50 percent operative recognition incorporating federal, state and local local and state federal, incorporating recognition operative government. Although 65 percent of Australians believe it would be important to Although 65 percent of Australians believe it would be important to some government in the Constitution, it is only one-third who believe very important to do so.
1. The importance of recognition – a further “pressure test” 1.
42 Final Report 7 . It is a important to hold important to hold very positive change enforce co-operation. and leads to of any obvious beneficial change for the better of any obvious beneficial change for the better lack co-operating, and that putting something in the the in something putting that and co-operating,
makes a difference The most important is healthy cynicism about governments The most important is healthy cynicism about governments People struggle to see how the Constitution can make it People struggle to see how the Constitution can make it actually Constitution (particularly if it is worded in terms of ‘encouraging’ co-operation) will not actually ‘difficult’ for governments to co-operate. Connected with this, for governments to co-operate. Connected with this, ‘difficult’ people feel that changing the Constitution to make it ‘easier for lacks impact levels of government to co-operate’ different - and again the wording implies that co-operation could not be enforced. – – The fact that only one-third of people say it is a referendum about recognition of local government, as noted a referendum about recognition of local government, as noted is also consistent with ( i ) a lack of any obvious way that earlier, and/ or (ii) any recognition will lead to a change for the better, “threat” to either democratic elections or direct funding not being seen as serious or impending. The intrinsic appeal of Co-operative recognition has other other has recognition Co-operative of appeal intrinsic The Added to this is the fact that in group discussions, while people feel Added to this is the fact that in group discussions, while people feel Stemming from this is an underlying expectation or assumption that Stemming from this is an underlying expectation or assumption that fundamental that constitutes the key weakness for each of recognition concepts, perhaps apart from Co-operative recognition (though it has other shortcomings). certainly are funding federal direct and elections democratic desirable, the issue is raised about likelihood of a state government ever trying to do away with council elections, or anyone trying to challenge direct federal funding. drawbacks: if the Constitution is going to be amended, it will be for something if the Constitution is going to be amended, it will for something that
than than (cont’d) higher level concept Executive summary Consequently there is an unfortunate irony captured by the Consequently there is an unfortunate irony captured by the Yet when local government is explicitly included along with federal Yet when local government is explicitly included along with federal It’s fair to say the greater support for Democratic and Co-operative It’s fair to say the greater support for Democratic and Co-operative The qualitative research indicates that people believe a referendum The qualitative research indicates that people believe a referendum recognition is because they appeal to a the institution of local government itself. In one case it is the the institution of local government itself. In one case it is preservation of democracy, while the other taps into very appealing notion of governments working together to achieve idea this found research qualitative (the outcomes positive resonates very well with people). and state government in the mix for Co-operative recognition, some of those less positively disposed to local government retreat from the idea, and support drops. research that the further a concept is removed from relying on local research that the further a concept is removed from relying on local government itself, the better. should be reserved for issues that are of some importance – and certainly the cost of holding a referendum (whether in isolation or conjunction with a federal election) is key factor people take into account in coming to this view. The hierarchy in the level of initial support (Democratic, followed by The hierarchy in the level of initial support (Democratic, followed by Co-operative, then Financial and Symbolic) is connected with the Co-operative, then Financial and Symbolic) is connected with the respective concepts’ ability to garner support down through the is, That government. local to relation in spectrum attitudinal Democratic recognition is the most successful at drawing on support not only from those most positively disposed to local government, but also those less positively disposed. At the other extreme, Symbolic is the most dependent on those who feel positively about local government per se.
1. (ii) A referendum is for important things that make a difference
Final Report 43 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 8 system of system of total be delivered if that could only be delivered if : The unfortunate truth is that the The unfortunate truth is that the : This is a relatively weak concept relying This is a relatively weak concept relying : While the research provided some : While the research provided some tangible and popular initiative Moreover, people struggle with understanding how a phrase in people struggle with understanding how a phrase in Moreover, Consequently there is a piece missing from the investigation. If Consequently there is a piece missing from the investigation. If Financial recognition Symbolic recognition Co-operative recognition the Constitution is changed. opportunity to pressure test the concepts, at no time in either the qualitative or quantitative research was opportunity to “sell” any concept. afforded people were made aware of the specific types of local people were made aware of the specific types local infrastructure or services that have been provided by direct Whilst it wouldn’t federal funding, it may make a difference. address the lack of positive change for better (a significant issue), it may motivate people to take the potential loss of direct funding more seriously. local for community the in “goodwill” on entirely almost government per se, and support for it is easily cut to a low level with a simple challenge about lack of practical impact. government (which includes federal, state and local local and state federal, includes (which government as opposed to a referendum about government) more efficient, including local government in the Constitution. explicit inclusion of local government in the concept detracts explicit inclusion of local government in the concept detracts This means it would probably be from it rather than adding to it. better to pitch any referendum about Co-operative recognition Australia's in terms of an initiative to make the Constitution (especially one using a word like ‘encourage’) can actually achieve practical co-operation – and their inherent cynicism doesn’t help. Consequently it also appears that Co- operative recognition might be best built around the promise of a
- - -
(cont’d) - a concept that the qualitative - a concept that the qualitative accountability they place on it. So, thinking of local government as a they place on it. So, thinking of local government as a Executive summary value One potential route through this would be to express the issues One potential route through this would be to express the issues : The dual objectives of, on the one Democratic recognition : The dual objectives of, on the one in terms of hand ensuring democracy is protected against state state against protected is democracy ensuring hand government powers, while on the other hand protecting state and mixed a creates councils, local dismiss to powers potentially confusing message. research found resonates well with people.
– In isolation, the research obtains initial reactions of support that In isolation, the research obtains initial reactions of support that The strong correlation between general attitudes towards local The strong correlation between general attitudes towards local It’s clear that if a decision is made to proceed, it would be Other implications concerning individual concepts are as follows: government and preparedness to support recognition is important. government and preparedness to support recognition is important. If a referendum proceeds, local government will be effectively asking the Australian people to “go in bat for it” – and extent that people will do so be influenced by how positive or negative their general attitudes are towards local government, and how much “brand”, building and managing the general health of brand is an important consideration leading up to a referendum. preferable to do so in conjunction with a federal election rather than a standalone referendum. As stated at the outset, ultimately the outcome of a referendum will As stated at the outset, ultimately outcome of a referendum will be heavily influenced by arguments expressed in the public domain. be heavily influenced by arguments expressed in the public domain. What all of those arguments will be, who mounts them, and how effective they will be, is impossible to fully predict. appear to be quite strong. However it also indicates they are based on somewhat fragile underpinnings. 1.
Implications
44 Final Report 9 As part of the consultation process, the Expert Panel Panel Expert the process, consultation the of part As As part of this, the research was to explore the strengths and As part of this, the research was to explore strengths and commissioned research to determine the level of support for commissioned research to determine the level of support for constitutional recognition of local government amongst the views concerning including the community’s broader community, options for recognition. the different weaknesses of the respective concepts, and in doing so assist the Department in developing approaches that may encourage greater support for recognition of local government. Research objectives : the provision of a national national a of provision the : : a broad recognition of local local of recognition broad a : : providing Constitutional protection : providing Constitutional protection government’s role in the Federation; for the established practice of federal governments giving some direct funding to local government; Constitutional guarantee of democratic elections for local government; and, Symbolic Recognition Symbolic Constitution that allows the different tiers of government to the that issues to solutions on co-operatively work Constitution, in its current form, may prevent. Democratic recognition Democratic Financial Recognition Co-operative recognition : to implement a change the In September 2010, the Australian Government made a a made Government Australian the 2010, September In In August 2011, the government appointed the members of the In August 2011, the government appointed members of There are four options being considered: commitment to hold a referendum on the recognition of local commitment to hold a referendum on the recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. The referendum will be held either during the term of current government or at next Federal election. independent Expert Panel that will progress this recognition, and consult with stakeholder groups and the community on options for recognising local government in the Constitution. – – – – 2. Background & objectives
Final Report 45 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 1 0 a quota being set for each capital city and non-capital city a quota being set for each capital city and non-capital random selection of household telephone numbers within random selection of an individual in each household by a area, and within each of these areas, a quota being set for area, and within each of these areas, a quota being set for groups of statistical divisions or subdivisions; each area; "last birthday" screening question. – – – Respondents were selected via a random sample process Respondents were selected via a random sample process ensure the sample included those people who tend to spend To reflect the population distribution, results from total To which included: more time away from home, a system of call backs and appointments was used. sample of 1,563 people aged 18+ were post-weighted to Australian Bureau of Statistics data on age, highest level schooling completed, sex and area. Prior to full scale fieldwork, a small scale pilot (n= 24 24 (n= pilot scale small a fieldwork, scale full to Prior The telephone survey was conducted nationally over the period The telephone survey was conducted nationally over the period In total, 1,563 people aged 18 years and October 14-20, 2011. over were interviewed. Demographic information was collected from all respondents, as well their eligibility to vote. From this sample, a total of 1,478 qualified as eligible voters for the full survey. questionnaire the that check to fielded was respondents) functioned as intended and to identify any possible issues that needed to be addressed. Quantitative telephone survey
Sydney Brisbane Wagga Sydney Brisbane Toowoomba Over 40 Under 40 over 40), with each group comprising a mix of vs over 40), with each group comprising a mix of qualitative research; a national telephone survey; and, called ‘Have your say’, which online survey, an ‘opt in’ was available to visitors to the Expert Panel’s Panel’s Expert the to visitors to available was consultation website. industry (to exclude local government and market research eligibility to vote. employees); - - - - - The research program comprised three elements: The qualitative research comprised six group discussions discussions group six comprised research qualitative The undertaken in NSW and Queensland, covering both capital city undertaken in NSW and Queensland, covering both capital city and regional areas. Groups were segmented on the basis of age (under 40 males and females educational backgrounds. Participants were screened for: Fieldwork was undertaken over the period September 22 to 27, Fieldwork was undertaken over the period September 22 to 27, 2011. Qualitative research 3. Methodology
46 Final Report 1 1
are statistically significant at are statistically significant at the full scale results on a state by the full scale results on a state by 46 316 287 203 207 201 218 1,478 analyse NSW VIC QLD SA WA Tasmania NT / ACT Total . 1 In order to be able state basis, the sample was allocated as follows: All differences highlighted in the text of this report based on highlighted in the text of this report based on All differences comparisons between segments the 95 percent level of confidence. Two respondents were excluded from the sample before analysis of the results – respondents were excluded from the sample before analysis of results – Two one under the age of 18 and resident overseas. The online survey was available for visitors to the consultation The online survey was available for visitors to the consultation total of 529 A website from September 23 to November 4, 2011. Australia completed the people aged 18 years and over living in survey 1. Online ‘Have you say’ survey Online ‘Have you say’ 3. Methodology (cont’d)
Final Report 47 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 1 2 4. Research findings 4. Research findings
48 Final Report 1 3 To test aBtudes to other consequences of recogni+on Very basic test of how resilient the support is To inform/ unfold issues mean a state government may mean a state government ques+ons ques+on ques+on “Dummy” “Challenge” ques+on(s) Democratic recognition any form of recognition may result in guaranteeing the loses the power to dismiss a local council; continuation of local government. “Qualifica+on” Ini+al support - - Recognition may have consequences that are not immediately Consequently the survey also included questions to measure obvious: community attitudes about these issues – which we’ve called “qualification” questions.
Less obvious consequences important important even if it doesn’t make any practical difference’. . Conceptual framework for the telephone survey The issues surrounding recognition of local government in the The issues surrounding recognition of local government in the If a referendum is actually held, the outcome likely to be Recognition may have consequences that are not immediately Constitution are complex, and are certainly not issues most Constitution are complex, and certainly not issues most people have thought much about – if at all. opinions including – communication by influenced heavily expressed in the media, by politicians and “yes”/ “no” cases. obvious. The questionnaire used for the telephone survey was designed The questionnaire used for the telephone survey was designed In order to measure levels of community support for the various No research project could ever fully emulate the real world effect of No research project could ever fully emulate the real world effect of However for most types of recognition, the survey contained a taking the following considerations into account: forms of recognition, survey respondents were “educated” about, or taken through the issues, in a step-by-step manner. This involved asking one or more “dummy” questions, many of which were important, not because of the answers people provided, but question, the asking of process the in because information about relevant issues was being imparted to to imparted being was issues relevant about information respondents communication in a referendum – and indeed for this project, it was communication in a referendum – and indeed for this project, it was not even deemed desirable to prosecute the case for recognition using a set of arguments “for” and “against”. “challenge” question. This tested the resilience of peoples’ initial support for recognition, using a very basic argument. For example, asked question “challenge” the recognition, Symbolic on respondents if they felt local government should be recognised in the Constitution ’ 1. 2. 3. 4.1 Dealing with the complexity The influence of communication
Final Report 49 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 1 4 85% Yes / had heard ‘they should be ‘they should be . Had you heard of the referendum (PAUSE) Australian Constitution be changed by people voting at a only BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) Awareness of Awareness 15% Australia has a written Constitution, that sets out how our system of federal and state government works No / don’t know ‐ . The Constitution can (PAUSE) Question A1 Australian Constitution before now? In contrast, although the details of the 1999 referendum are In contrast, although the details of 1999 referendum are It is generally believed that since referenda are costly to organise receding, the outcome seems to have generated a degree of receding, the outcome seems to have generated a degree of cynicism about referenda in general. Some describe it as the referendum that was ‘set up to fail’ because of the wording question. That leads people to query whether the wording of referendum questions can always be manipulated and whether they can have faith in the fairness of any future referendum. (even when combined with a general election) about something important’. how we are how we are that Australia has a that Australia has a to have heard of the Australian to have heard of the Australian assumption claim There appears to be a fairly widespread belief that the There appears to be a fairly widespread belief that the confusion about whether the Australian Constitution some confusion about whether the Australian Constitution About the Australian Constitution and referenda The qualitative research also indicates most people concede they The qualitative research also indicates most people concede they There is It is only a small minority who know more, and can raise issues It is only a small minority who know more, and can raise issues Discussing the Constitution tends to trigger recall of some issues A few mention that referenda have been passed only where there Most Australians (85 percent) Constitution, rather than true awareness of its existence. know little, if anything about the Constitution. It’s generally believed or assumed the Constitution contains formal, legalistic, and old- fashioned language, and that it is hard to read understand. is like a “Bill of Rights”, though ultimately after discussion, most conclude it is not – but rather, a document about ‘ governed’. Constitution is difficult to change, and can only be done so by Constitution is difficult to change, and can only be done so by referendum – (which is generally accepted as ‘a good thing’). the and Federation with connection Constitution's the such relationship between the federal and state governments. known well fairly be to appears It referenda. surrounding (especially among over 40’s) that the success rate of referenda has been low and that most have not passed. has been a clear and unambiguous case for ‘yes’ vote. In this context, there are several mentions of the referendum ‘about aboriginals’ having attained a high degree of consensus, leaving particular that of benefits the about impression favourable referendum. Constitution, though based on the qualitative research, it’s likely Constitution, though based on the qualitative research, it’s likely that some claims are based on an 4.2
50 Final Report 1 5 % Statistically significant difference Higher than others Lower than others 100 - 64(357) 65+(340) 88 87 87 90 86 86 85 85 85 85 84 84 83 82 82 82 79 - 49(440) 50 80 70 - 34(219) 35 60 Somewhat important - 24(122) 25 56 50 53 53 52 52 52 51 50 49 47 46 44 40 44 42 41 37 30 Very important 20 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 10 0 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X 18 25 35 50 Female Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ Importanceof role of local government X SEX AGE AREA BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 very very 49% Very Important unimportant. 2% know Don’t that is, local councils. Overall, how important would you say the role – 5% government Very unimportant local BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) and 9% 36% is in Australia? Would you say local government is…?” Importanceof role of local government Somewhat unimportant “Now some questions about our system of government. As you probably know, Australia has three types of federal, state – – Somewhat important government; and, government than those in other states. women are a little more supportive than men of local women are a little more supportive than men of local people in South Australia place a lower value on local people in South Australia place a lower value on local The importance of Local Government local government Question A1 government of Attitudes are fairly consistent across demographic groups, though: Most Australians (85 percent) believe the role of local government Most Australians (85 percent) believe the role of local government – is important to some degree, and half see it as being important. Only a minority (14 percent) describe it as – 4.3
Final Report 51 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 1 6 % Statistically significant difference Higher than others Lower than others 100 - 64(357) 65+(340) 90 a system of local a system of local 82 81 81 80 78 - 49(440) 50 78 78 77 77 77 77 80 75 74 73 73 69 70 always - 34(219) 35 Tend to support 65 60 63 62 62 60 - 24(122) 25 57 56 56 55 50 54 53 53 53 51 50 48 40 30 Strongly support 20 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 10 0 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X 18 25 35 50 Female Five Cap city Five Cap City always always a system oflocal government ‐ X SEX AGE AREA BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 Consequently it was important to include a qualifying question in Consequently it was important to include a qualifying question in As it turns out, almost 8 in 10 would fact support a change to the Support is a little higher among women than men, and among Support is a little higher among women than men, and the survey to measure attitudes about the continuation of local the survey to measure attitudes about continuation of local government. Constitution that guarantees there is government - and over half say they would strongly support it. people living outside the five mainland capital cites. By state, support is higher in Queensland than other states, but lower among South Australians. Support forConstitutionalSupport change to guaranteeis there has a always 56% Strongly support the Constitution to guarantee Australia changing almost a certainty. 5% that any form of local government Constitutional that any form of local government Constitutional BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) Neither / Don’t know 8% 21% always always a system oflocal government Tend to support Strongly not support 10% government would be guarantee it, though it is still a remote possibility. For Democratic recognition, the continued existence of local For Democratic recognition, the continued existence of local At the other extreme, Symbolic recognition is unlikely to At the other extreme, Symbolic recognition is unlikely to Support for guaranteed continuance of local government possible “At a referendum, would you support or not support – Tend not to support It is It’s conceivable that someone who would otherwise support It’s conceivable that someone who would otherwise support recognition may mean the guaranteed continuation of local local of continuation guaranteed the mean may recognition government – though the extent to which this is likely depends on the type of recognition local government achieves. – – Democratic recognition may change their mind if they were told it Democratic recognition may change their mind if they were told it guaranteed the continuance of local government, and this was something they did not support. Support forConstitutionalSupport change to guaranteeis there Question A19 system of local government?” 4.4
52 Final Report 0 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 7 1 ‐ 7% Undecided Strongly not support 5% support continuance LG important / but don’t Critics continuance) 2 ‐ 10% and they place on it. they place on it. (Not important/ not support 5% value or continuance 3 ‐ 11% Moderate on importance continuance not important Strong on importance and Support continuance /but LG 4 ‐ 25% BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) continuance) Core supporters (Strong on importance 5 ‐ 37% Importance / continuance attitudinal segments Support for Constitutional change to guarantee there is always a system of local government Strongly support Very Very 6 ‐ important unimportant As will be seen in later sections of the report, preparedness to As will be seen in later sections of the report, preparedness to This has an important implication. If a referendum proceeds, local So, thinking about local government as a “brand”, building and So, thinking about local government as a “brand”, building and important an is brand the of health general the managing consideration leading up to a referendum. support the various forms of recognition is highly correlated with support the various forms of recognition is highly correlated with That is, “Core supporters” are the most likely to this segmentation. support any of the forms recognition, while “Critics” are always among the least likely. government will be effectively asking the Australian people to “go in to bat for it” – and the extent that people will do so be influenced by how positive or negative their general attitudes are towards local government, and how much government Importance of local
support recognition Least likely to Strongly not support support the idea of support the idea of Tend not support support guaranteeing its its guaranteeing support not strongly of local government and attitudes of local government and attitudes Tend to support and and continuance of local government importance it are two of possibly many ways of capturing the it are two of possibly many ways capturing the support recognition Support for Constitutional change to guarantee there is always a system of local government Most likely to important role, and Strongly support importance existence. 37 percent of electors who believe local government has a 37 percent of electors who believe local government has a very guaranteeing its existence); through to, would and unimportant what appear to be local government’s “Core supporters” (the what appear to be local government’s “Core supporters” (the “Critics” of local governments (only 7 percent), who feel it is preserving Very Very Attitudinal segments that people place on local government, and their overall that people place on local government, and their overall Important Important Somewhat Somewhat unimportant unimportant Beliefs about the These two dimensions were used to divide the community into – about value attitudes to it. seven segments, ranging from: – Preparedness support recognition to is underpinned by attitudes about government 4.5 Importance of local
Final Report 53 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 1 8 8 24 5 12 39 70 SYMBOLIC NONE / DON’T KNOW OP BUT DK LEVELS ‐ overview the Constitution to …” - 8 STRONGLY NOT SUPPORT SUPPORT CO SYMBOLIC changing 7 6 19 75 54 FINANCIAL important way in which the Constitution should be 20 most FINANCIAL Local govt. Local changed?” 7 6 24 and 12 69 49 - operative for OP FOR OP FOR FED/STATE ONLY ‐ LOCAL ‐ Based on total sample CO FED/ STATE/ OP ‐ 21 Support Support co CO TEND TO SUPPORT SUPPORT CO 6 12 81 55 7 Federal / State OPERATIVE ‐ CO (FED/ STATE/ LOCAL) of these would you say is the OP ‐ 27 CO one “At a referendum would you support or not support BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) – BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) “Which – 4 Most ImportantChangeMost to the Constitution 6 11 85 65 DEMOCRATIC 37 Question A16 DEMOCRATIC Support for Support change to the Constitution Questions A4 / A8 / A11 / A13 SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK STRONGLY SUPPORT TEND NOT TO SUPPORT 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % 0 100 100 80 60 40 20 % 100 strong strong all three all three believe it should apply to and also support (65 percent) than that for other strong support (65 percent) than that for other operative (for all three levels of government) and Financial operative (for all three levels of government) and Financial recognition. almost 40 percent nominating Democratic recognition; very few (8 percent) nominating Symbolic; and, in-between these two, around 20 percent nominating Co- Support for recognition – an overview For a significant majority of Australians, their initial reaction to each For a significant majority of Australians, their initial reaction to each Democratic recognition is distinguished by having a substantially Some of the 81 percent who support Co-operative recognition, Some of the 81 percent who support Co-operative recognition, Following sections of the report drill-down in greater detail on So based on initial reactions, Democratic appears to be the So based on initial reactions, Democratic appears to be the of the proposed changes to the Constitution is that they would of the proposed changes to Constitution is that they would support it – ranging from 85 percent supporting Democratic recognition down to 70 percent supporting Symbolic recognition. higher level of concepts, while Symbolic has a substantially lower level of support (39 percent). believe it should only cover federal and state governments, not local government. Consequently the number who support Co- operative recognition results for each form of recognition. levels of government, drops to 69 percent – roughly the same level levels of government, drops to 69 percent – roughly the same level of support for Symbolic recognition, though it retains a higher level of strong support than Symbolic. strongest concept, and Symbolic the weakest. This is borne out by people's own assessment about which is the most important change that should be made to the Constitution, with: – – – 4.6
54 Final Report 1 9 L.G. deserves mention support continuance of L.G. 5 52 27 43 and ALSO SUPPORT CONTINUATION impact. Given be changed any practical in the Constitution, difference, the difference, local government still Even if it doesn’t in the Constitution make any practical deserves a mention Constitution shouldn’t practical If it’s not going to make INITIAL STRONG SUPPORTER AND LG DESERVES MENTION mention of the following comes closest to your view?” after “challenge” question one - The “challenge” question: 4 it may have no 46 50 28 A5 “Symbolic recognition would give local government a but, that, which AFTER CHALLENGE TEND NOT TO SUPPORT STRONGLY NOT SUPPORT BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) 12 12 70 39 24 5 INITIAL SUPPORT STRONGLY SUPPORT TEND TO SUPPORT “The first idea is to put a statement in the Constitution that symbolically recognises local government. At a ‐ SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK Support for Symbolic for Support Symbolic 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % Question A4 referendum, would you support or not support putting something in the Constitution to symbolically recognise local government?” , this in the the in Symbolic Symbolic ‘If it’s not going ‘If it’s not going mention mention putting something in putting something in Even if it doesn’t make any Even if it doesn’t make any ; practical impact’ . On this basis: would also support the guaranteed continuation of and would also support the guaranteed continuation of practical difference, local government still deserves a a deserves still government local difference, practical mention in the Constitution’ to make any practical difference, the Constitution shouldn’t to make any practical difference, the Constitution shouldn’t be changed’. only 46 percent feel that ‘ while the bulk of remainder believe that Symbolic recognition The challenge question posed the possibility that while ‘ Although 70 percent say they would support “ A group mounting a case against Symbolic recognition might raise A group mounting a case against Symbolic recognition might raise It turns out that only slightly fewer (43 percent) would support drops substantially after the challenge question, to only 46 percent. drops substantially after the challenge question, to only 46 percent. a government local give would recognition Constitution, it may have no – the Constitution to symbolically recognise local government” – the objection that it could lead to the guaranteed continuance of the objection that it could lead to guaranteed continuance of local government. Consequently it is important to cross-check support for the idea against continuation of local government. practical any make doesn’t it if (even recognition Symbolic difference), local government. So the vast majority of those who believe local government deserves a mention in the Constitution, (even if it doesn't make any practical difference) are the same type of people who believe local government should be preserved. 4.7
Final Report 55 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government % 100 90 80 2 0 70 64 60 52 and lead to and lead to 46 50 42 49 40 35 30 23 AFTER “CHALLENGE” 30 28 20 15 6 10 13 12 8 0 2 Initial strong supporter and L.G deserves mention 0 Critics TOTAL Undecided Core supporters Moderate on both among segments among Preserve / not important Important / not preserve – % 100 523) STRONG IMP/ CONT (360) MODERATE BOTH (162) PRESERVE/ NOT IMP (85) 91 Strong importance or continuance 90 82 80 70 70 64 62 69 60 Tend to support 50 38 40 attempted Constitutional change for recognition – attempted Constitutional change for recognition –
IMPORTANT/ NOT PRESERVE (171) UNDECIDED (64) CRITIC S (113) TOTAL (1478) 40 27 39 30 INITIAL SUPPORT 20 any 10 19 18 10 Strongly support 10 0 2 1 Support for Symbolic for Support Symbolic Critics Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others TOTAL BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: n= CORE SUPPORTERS ( Undecided % 100 Core supporters Overall, the survey results indicate that Symbolic recognition is a Overall, the survey results indicate that Symbolic recognition is a There is also a very important message to take from this relatively weak concept, and support for it can be cut to a very low relatively weak concept, and support for it can be cut to a very low level quite easily with a simple challenge concerning its lack of practical benefit. concerning and that is people are far more likely to support something they can easily see and believe will make a difference positive change. Moderate on both 90 Important / not continue Continue / not important 80 Strong importance or continuance 70 60 51 50 50 48 48 48 47 50 47 46 46 46 45 45 44 44 41 40 30 (cont’d) 31 31 31 31 - 64(357) 65+(340) 30 29 29 29 28 28 28 27 27 25 24 20 23 AFTER CHALLENGE - 49(440) 50 10 reactions to the Initial reactions to the 0 WORTH CHANGING AND STRONGLY SUPPORT - 34(219) 35 24 34 49 64 SA Tas ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA 65+ QLD % Total NSW Male 18 25 35 50 100 Female - 24(122) 25 Five Cap city Five Cap City 90 ‐ X 78 80 74 74 74 73 73 71 70 70 70 68 68 68 70 67 66 63 60 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 50 Support for Support Symbolic 40 44 Tend to support 42 41 41 40 40 40 39 39 39 38 38 37 CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X INITIAL 36 35 30 28 20 10 Symbolic recognition BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 Strongly support form of support for the institution of local government. purest form of support for the institution local government. 0 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC Analysis by demography shows that after the challenge question, Analysis by demography shows that after the challenge question, There is a strong linear pattern across the attitudinal segments. WA support for Symbolic recognition is fairly consistent across groups, support for Symbolic recognition is fairly consistent across groups, though higher among women than men. concept are a little stronger among those living outside the five mainland capital cites, but comparatively low in South Australia. Although, as will be seen, there is also a strong correlation with the segments and other forms of recognition, it is the most marked for Symbolic. No doubt this is because Symbolic recognition also the Nonetheless, after the challenge question, even among “Core supporters” only two-thirds say they would support changing the Constitution for local government. TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male 18 25 35 50 Female Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ X 4.7 SEX AGE AREA
56 Final Report
2 1 ‘Hopefully, ‘Hopefully, but on the other but on the other as such, but rather a negatives as such, but rather a the most ambitious and most able candidates the most ambitious and able candidates ‘It’s bins and sewerage. It’s lower on the ladder’ bins and sewerage. It’s ‘It’s ). to anything. shonky people running for local council’), Is the move for recognition just a diversion or ‘smokescreen’ Is the move for recognition just a diversion or ‘smokescreen’ Local government may potentially receive less funding from Local government may potentially receive less funding from Would recognition ’freeze’ local government boundaries even local government boundaries even recognition ’freeze’ Would Recognition could backfire if it gave local government ‘too Recognition could backfire if it gave local government ‘too Would recognition of local government merely create another recognition of local government merely create another Would to attract attention away from other political issues? state or federal government after recognition. if some change to a boundary was necessary? much power’ or ‘more free rein’ than it currently has. much power’ or ‘more free rein’ layer of bureaucracy without much effect? layer of bureaucracy without much effect? On the one hand, some could see potential benefits ( When prompted with the idea that recognition may lead to councils When prompted with the idea that recognition may lead to councils There were not many perceived Nonetheless some read the following potential downsides into the Nonetheless some read the following potential downsides into will continue to be more attracted to state or federal politics than to will continue to be more attracted state or federal politics than local government ( hand it was felt that attracting better candidates and management, people found it attracting better candidates and management, people found it to judge. difficult fewer – – – – belief that the outcome of Symbolic recognition would simply be belief that the outcome of Symbolic recognition would simply be “no change” concept: –
(cont’d) aspect of Symbolic recognition was positive aspect of Symbolic recognition was ).
recognised because they have responsibilities to residents recognised because they have responsibilities to residents and rate payers, they understand the local area better than state or federal government. accountable and thus residents and ratepayers may gain accountable and thus residents ratepayers may gain that hoped was It council. their over control’ ‘more and uniformity greater ensure might accountability some presumably and councils all across consistency minimum standards of conduct. amalgamations if local people were opposed to that that to opposed were people local if amalgamations amalgamation. to the High Court. A view by some that local councils have a ‘right’ to be A view by some that local councils have a ‘right’ to be Recognition might somehow render local government more Recognition might somehow render local government more Recognition may help local councils fight against forced Recognition may help local councils fight against forced It would provide the opportunity to take contentious matters It would provide the opportunity to take contentious matters Symbolic recognition Reflecting the telephone survey results, generally the initial initial the generally results, survey telephone the Reflecting The main perceived research that it appeared simple and did not imply any over-promises. Other positives receiving mention included: – reaction of group discussion participants was that they would reaction of group discussion participants was that they would support Symbolic recognition. Motives varied from some who were concerned about a perceived neglect of local government, through to others who seemed support it without any particular conviction (‘sure, why not do it?’ – – – 4.7 Other feedback about Symbolic recognition from the qualitative
Final Report 57 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 2 2 7 34 49 60 support continuance of L.G. ALSO SUPPORT CONTINUATION Worth changing Constitution and take away local never take away local a state so the – take away elections local council unlikely local council Constitution government can never make sure a state the Constitution to It’s worth changing elections It’s government would ever try to take away shouldn’t be changed INITIAL STRONG SUPPORTER AND LG DESERVES MENTION a state government would unlikely a state government would after “challenge” question of the following comes - It’s one 28 7 53 66 The “challenge” question: while, must be democratically elected?” AFTER CHALLENGE closest to your view about that idea?” A5 “Which of a state government replacing local council of a state government replacing local council TEND NOT TO SUPPORT STRONGLY NOT SUPPORT BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) likelihood 6 4 85 65 11 INITIAL SUPPORT council elections’; make sure a state government can ever try to take away local council elections – so the ever try to take away local council elections – so the Constitution shouldn’t be changed’. It’s worth changing the Constitution to 66 percent believe: ‘ It’s worth changing the Constitution to 28 percent feel that: ‘ “At a referendum, would you support or not support changing the Constitution to guarantee that local councils STRONGLY SUPPORT TEND TO SUPPORT ‐ SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK 0 Support for Democratic 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 Nonetheless, again, after a simple challenge question based Nonetheless, again, after a simple challenge question based around the elections, support drops quite noticeably to 66 percent. That is: – – Question A4 % people 92% the To have all local councils democratically elected by governments could do away with local council elections altogether State Governments Deciding dont know 3% \ vs Neither BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) 5% up local councils decide who should make For state governments to “Technically, if they wanted to, most state – Democratic recognition and they could decide for themselves who the members of local councils should be. In your opinion, is it better...?” Democratic elections – Question A7 To provide context for Democratic recognition, respondents to the To provide context for Democratic recognition, respondents to the Consequently a large majority of Australians (85 percent) also say telephone survey were informed of the power of most state telephone survey were informed of the power most state governments to replace democratic local council elections by directly appointing members of local councils. The vast majority people (92 percent) are of the view that it is better to have local councils democratically elected. they would support changing the Constitution to guarantee that local councils are democratically elected – and two-thirds would strongly support it (a measurably higher level of strong than for any other recognition concept). 4.8
58 Final Report % 100 90 84 76 80 2 3 67 77 66 66 70 (85) 60 MP 60 50 53 49 40 31 28 30 35 AFTER “CHALLENGE” 20 14 22 10 9 8 the attitudinal spectrum. the attitudinal spectrum. Initial strong supporter and L.G deserves mention support across all strong support across all 0 Critics TOTAL Undecided Core supporters among segments Moderate on both – Preserve / not important Important / not preserve throughout % 96 100 92 Strong importance or continuance 86 86 85 90 87 80 70 62 69 60 53 53 65 Tend to support 63 50 40 47 IMPORTANT/ NOT PRESERVE (171) UNDECIDED (64) CRITIC S (113) TOTAL (1478) 30 35 INITIAL SUPPORT 30 20 24 10 Democratic recognition is far more successful than Democratic recognition is far more successful than Strongly support 0 Critics Support for Democratic Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others TOTAL BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: n= CORE SUPPORTERS (523) STRONG IMP/ CONT (360) MODERATE BOTH (162) PRESERVE/ NOT I Undecided Core supporters initial support is relatively low Interestingly it appears that strong initial support is relatively low Again support is clearly correlated with the attitudinal segments, Again support is clearly correlated with the attitudinal segments, among under 35 year olds. However it is more a case that this age among under 35 year olds. However it is more a case that this age group exhibits a fairly consistent level of the recognition concepts (apart from Symbolic), whereas people the recognition concepts (apart from Symbolic), whereas people aged over 35 are far more likely to strongly support Democratic recognition than other forms of recognition. however Symbolic at garnering support extends recognition Democratic because presumably is This beyond the institution of local government itself to higher order concept of democracy. Moderate on both Important / not continue Continue / not important Strong importance or continuance 80 68 68 68 67 70 66 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 63 63 60 58 57 57 56 56 55 50 54 53 53 52 52 52 52 50 46 40 43 30 - 64(357) 65+(340) also supporting a also supporting a 20 AFTER CHALLENGE and - 49(440) 50 10 - 34(219) 35 0 Initial strong supporter and L.G deserves mention 24 34 49 64 SA Tas ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA 65+ ACT QLD % Total \ Male 18 25 35 50 - 24(122) 25 100 Female NSW 90 89 90 Five Cap city 86 Five Cap City 86 86 86 85 ‐ 84 84 84 84 84 84 83 X 82 initial and after “challenge” 81 80 – 75 74 70 69 69 68 67 67 65 60 64 64 63 63 63 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 59 57 Tend to support 55 50 40 CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X INITIAL 30 Democratic recognition (cont’d) 20 Strongly support BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 10 As found for Symbolic recognition, support for Democratic Democratic for support recognition, Symbolic for found As A cross-check on supporters’ views about the continuation of local A cross-check on supporters’ views about the continuation of local government finds slightly fewer (60 percent) both believing that it is government finds slightly fewer (60 percent) both believing that it is worth changing the Constitution for this issue change which guarantees the continuation of local government. recognition after the challenge question is quite consistent across demographic groups. Initial support is higher among women, and strong support for the concept is higher in Queensland and Tasmania than in other states. Support for Democratic 0 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male 18 25 35 50 Female 4.8 Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ SEX AGE AREA X
Final Report 59 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 5 % 51 44 support After 2 4 “challenge” and continuance or should, 5 % 52 43 After “challenge” 6 % 55 39 Democratic Recognition Supporters Initially 6 % 58 36 Total Yes / should No Don’t know the power to dismiss local councils About half those who support democratic recognition ALSO think states should have Yes 58% a local council. Do you think a state government dismiss BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) 6% “Currently state governments can Don’t Know – be able to dismiss a local council?” not Question A20 should Shouldstategovernment be able to dismiss local councils? No 36% mention examples of situations where a council might be mention examples of situations where a council might be Democratic recognition (cont’d) not However, the qualitative research indicates that had the telephone However, the qualitative research indicates that had telephone An important qualifier to this is that close to 60 percent of An important qualifier to this is that close 60 percent of Importantly the dismissal question fielded in telephone survey Either way, it seems clear that any attempt at achieving Democratic Either way, it seems clear that any attempt at achieving Democratic One potential route through this is to express the issues in terms of Australians believe that state governments should have the power Australians believe that state governments should have the power to be able dismiss local councils – and even half those who support Democratic recognition have this view. did dismissed, such as where a council is found to be corrupt or managing its finances poorly. survey question mentioned these types of examples, support for survey question mentioned these types of examples, support for state government dismissal powers measured by the survey is likely to have been considerably higher than 60 percent. state that provision a for allow to needs also recognition governments retain the power to dismiss corrupt or badly managed councils. However, the dual objectives of, on one hand ensuring democracy is preserved and protected against state government powers, while on the other hand protecting state powers to dismiss local councils, creates a mixed and potentially confusing message. accountability. This is a concept that the qualitative research found to resonate well with people, particularly those who have heard about or experienced first hand claimed cases of council corruption or poor management.
4.8
60 Final Report 2 5 – they could – they could most were not in favour of this at all There was, however, a strong belief that state governments should There was, however, a strong belief that state governments should On the downside, people could not see any negatives with On the downside, people could not see any negatives with After being told about state powers to do away with local council understand there were risks involved (though a few suggested that understand there were risks involved (though a few suggested that more be actually may members council local appointed professional, efficient and ethical). Yet despite disagreement with the idea of a state government doing away with local council elections, people query whether this is likely to ever happen. continue to have the power dismiss councils found be corrupt or poorly managed. Democratic recognition, apart from the obvious shortcoming that, in Democratic recognition, apart from the obvious shortcoming that, in practice, it wouldn’t change anything. There were however a few mentions of concerns that Democratic recognition may impede worthwhile potential council amalgamations. elections, for for would would ’), and ’), and On the On the improve improve
‘It’s a safeguard “national Constitutional guarantees” , and a consistent theme in the qualitative , and a consistent theme in the qualitative
serve? (in the context of a local council where the mayor serve? (in the context of a local council where mayor was said to have retained power ‘for years’). Less corruption or cronyism in local government. More transparency about political allegiances. Possibly the ability to be able elect mayor directly? Maybe lead to a limit on the length of term mayor can Democratic recognition (cont’d) The premise for Democratic recognition given to group participants The premise for Democratic recognition given to group participants On the one hand Democratic recognition can initially be seen as a On the one hand Democratic recognition can initially be seen as a For example, some hoped that Democratic recognition may lead to: For example, some hoped that Democratic recognition may lead to: This is an important point research was that there were no local council elections, and that a change to the Constitution guarantee that local councils are democratically elected. Only guarantee that local councils are democratically elected. Only subsequently were participants advised of state powers to do away with local council elections. “motherhood” which is difficult to challenge ( worthwhile to formalise or legitimise the current situation. research. People tend to assume that if a change is going to be research. People tend to assume that if a change is going be made to the Constitution, it must be about something important and somehow connected with making a change that will something. None of the concepts (perhaps apart from Co- operative recognition) appeared to offer group participants any type of obvious, immediate benefit. Consequently, this can lead people to conjure up benefits, by projecting their own ideals or frustrations onto a concept. – – – – other hand, people seek clarification as to whether it would really other hand, people seek clarification as to whether it would really change anything because councils are already democratically elected. 4.8 Other feedback about Democratic recognition from the qualitative
Final Report 61 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 2 6 7 57 36 43 support continuance of L.G. Worth changing Constitution ALSO SUPPORT CONTINUATION and would so the – anyone changed strongly support it). make sure direct councils the Constitution to It’s worth changing funding can continue INITIAL STRONG SUPPORTER AND LG DESERVES MENTION try to take away direct federal funding to local Constitution shouldn’t be It’s unlikely of the following comes view about that idea?” after “challenge” question one - your 6 The “challenge” question: 64 29 48 closest to A5 “Which AFTER CHALLENGE TEND NOT TO SUPPORT STRONGLY NOT SUPPORT BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) 6 7 19 75 54 INITIAL SUPPORT “At a referendum, would you support or not support changing the Constitution to guarantee local councils can get STRONGLY SUPPORT TEND TO SUPPORT ‐ SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK Support for Financial 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 On this basis, 75 percent say they would support changing the On this basis, 75 percent say they would support changing the After a challenge question based around the likelihood of anyone 100 100 Constitution to guarantee local councils are able to obtain direct Constitution to guarantee local councils are able obtain direct funding (54 percent say they would ever actually challenging direct funding, support drops to 64 percent, and further again to 57 percent after cross-checking supporters’ preparedness to guarantee the continuation of local government. Consequently although initial reactions to Financial recognition are somewhat less positive than for Democratic, after a the about attitudes for allowing also and challenge simple continuation of local government, both concepts end up with much the same level of support, at about 60 percent. Question A11 direct funding from the federal government?” % 82% Good idea from the federal government? “ directly funding some some of which goes through state governments, and some – government federal dont know 9% \ Neither BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) 8% Bad idea “Local councils fund the services they provide from different sources, including council rates; funding from ‐ to local councils. Financial recognition Good / bad idea to have direct federal finance federal direct idea / to have bad Good governments, and, funding from the directly When told that direct federal funding is part of the financing mix for When told that direct federal funding is part of the financing mix for To provide context for Financial recognition, respondents to the local government (along with rates and state funding), most people local government (along with rates and state funding), most people (82 percent) feel direct federal funding is a “good idea” – few (8 percent) believe it is a “bad idea”. Although these views are unlikely to be based on any detailed awareness or consideration of the issues, result does at least show there is no widespread, inherit negative community sentiment about the idea of direct federal funding. (This was also found to be the case in qualitative research). telephone survey were told that direct funding was not covered by the Constitution and could therefore be potentially challenged in the High Court. Do you think it’s a good idea, or a bad idea for local councils to get Question A10 goes state 4.9
62 Final Report % 100 90 81 80 2 7 71 69 70 64 61 70 60 50 50 48 47 40 34 33 30 AFTER “CHALLENGE” 22 30 20 25 22 10 8 0 Initial strong supporter and L.G deserves mention Critics TOTAL Undecided Core supporters Moderate on both among segments Preserve / not important Important / not preserve – % 100 523) STRONG IMP/ CONT (360) MODERATE BOTH (162) PRESERVE/ NOT IMP (85) 90 Strong importance or continuance 90 80 80 77 75 80 70 77 60 Tend to support 50 44 56 56 43 54 40 40 IMPORTANT/ NOT PRESERVE (171) UNDECIDED (64) CRITIC S (113) TOTAL (1478) 30 35 INITIAL SUPPORT 29 20 22 10 Strongly support 11 0 Support for Financial Critics Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others TOTAL BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: n= CORE SUPPORTERS ( Undecided Core supporters Moderate on both Important / not continue Continue / not important Strong importance or continuance 80 72 68 68 70 67 66 66 65 64 63 63 63 62 62 61 61 61 60 56 50 54 52 51 49 48 48 48 47 47 47 46 46 44 40 44 43 (cont’d) - 64(357) 65+(340) 30 AFTER CHALLENGE - 49(440) 50 20 10 - 34(219) 35 0 Initial strong supporter and L.G deserves mention % - 24(122) 25 24 34 49 64 SA 100 Tas ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA 65+ ACT QLD Total \ Male 18 25 35 50 Female 90 NSW 83 Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ 80 79 X 77 80 76 initial and after “challenge” 75 75 75 74 74 74 74 73 73 72 71 – 70 60 62 61 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 57 57 57 55 50 54 53 53 52 52 52 50 50 49 47 40 Tend to support support is also higher in Queensland, and Initial support is also higher in Queensland, and CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X INITIAL 30 20 Financial recognition BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 10 Strongly support Support for Financial 0 Again support for Financial recognition after the challenge question Again support for Financial recognition after the challenge question In relation to attitudinal segments, like Democratic recognition is quite consistent across demographic groups, with slightly higher is quite consistent across demographic groups, with slightly higher support among women, and also in Queensland compared with other states. among residents outside the five mainland capital cities. (though not to the same degree), Financial Recognition is more the across support garnering at Symbolic than successful attitudinal spectrum. 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male 18 25 35 50 Female Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others 4.9 Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ SEX AGE AREA X
Final Report 63 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Some Some 2 8 ‘It would get ‘It would get – but again, people query how likely this is, – but again, people query how likely this is, removing any legal doubt could be important removing any legal doubt could be important The principle of direct funding is largely regarded regarded largely is funding direct of principle The Any threats to it are seen as being somewhat unlikely to Any threats to it are seen as being somewhat unlikely The fact that some people (without any prompting at all) positively, but Financial recognition per se does not offer positively, but Financial recognition per se does not offer any tangible promise of “something better”. eventuate. speculate about an underlying motive to diminish the power of the states, also suggests that any group wishing to attack the concept based on a furphy about “a grab for more power by the federal government” may very well be taken seriously. - - - When specifically probed on the idea of by-passing the states in When specifically probed on the idea of by-passing states in So stemming from all this, the qualitative research indicates that: Perhaps the main concern about direct funding is a perception that Perhaps the main concern about direct funding is a perception that Certainly when the cessation of federal funding is raised, it not given that direct funding has been happening for many years. More given that direct funding has been happening for many years. More specifically, people can find it hard to believe that doubts about the legality of direct funding are really a credible threat ( thrown out of court … .other lawyers would argue against it’). do say however that ( ‘It only takes one person to throw a very large spanner in the works’). relation to funding, it is more likely to be seen as a positive than a relation to funding, it is more likely be seen as a positive than negative – though some do query whether a federal government could understand local needs and allocate funds appropriately. the allocation of funds to a given area is open abuse because party politics. regarded as desirable
‘the thin ‘the thin (cont’d) ), but on the ), but on the
(‘It already happens, why not (‘It already happens, why not for reducing the power of the states, or even for reducing the power of states, or even more funding for local councils. ‘Who do we pay our taxes to? – we pay the federal ‘Who do we pay our taxes to? – the federal ;
resulting in less red tape, fewer delays and fewer fewer and delays fewer tape, red less in resulting opportunities for states to ‘take their cut’ out of it; and, government. more funding; possibly ‘cutting out the middle man’ (i.e. state government) more opportunities for local councils to seek direct funding; more opportunities for local councils to seek direct funding; more permanent or regular allocation of funds to local more permanent or regular allocation of funds to local Financial recognition Also similar to Democratic recognition, because people cannot Also similar to Democratic recognition, because people cannot Interestingly some people query the motive behind seeking seeking behind motive the query people some Interestingly The premise for Financial recognition given to group participants The premise for Financial recognition given to group participants Similar to Democratic recognition, on the one hand Financial perceive an immediate promise of “something better” stemming perceive an immediate promise of “something better” stemming from the idea itself, they conjure up benefits, by projecting their expectation of tangible change. This includes hopes for: – – other hand it can also be queried for having no practical benefit other hand it can also be queried for having no practical benefit unless it means – government so it should have more direct contact’ formalise it?’ research was that although direct finding had been happening for many years, it had not been included in the Constitution – so Financial recognition would mean that the federal government's ability to Only recognised’. ‘officially be would funding direct provide subsequently were participants advised of doubts about the legality of the practice raised by some legal experts. recognition can be seen as a ‘right’ – Financial recognition – they wonder if it is designed to be end the wedge’ dismantling the states altogether. 4.9 Other feedback about Financial recognition from the qualitative
64 Final Report 2 9 strong strong of government is somewhat of government is somewhat of government. all three levels without a challenge question. all three levels After also taking into account preparedness to support the the support to preparedness account into taking also After Patterns across demographics (overleaf) show that Co-operative Patterns across demographics (overleaf) show that Co-operative In relation to the states, Queensland again shows highest level Some people, however, feel the change to the Constitution for Some people, however, feel the change to Constitution for recognition is the only concept that finds stronger support among recognition is the only concept that finds stronger support among men than women – though this changes if local government is included in the mix. (As noted earlier report, males are less convinced than women about the value of local government). Co- operative recognition is also unique because of its relatively low level of resonance among people aged 65+ when compared with other age groups. This becomes even more pronounced when the concept embraces all three levels of government. of support, with Victoria being lower than other states – and also South Australia when it comes to implementing Co-operative recognition for support). guaranteed continuation of local government, support drops to 60 percent – as found for Democratic and Financial. However the difference is that support for Co-operative recognition dropped to 60 percent even improved co-operation should only cover federal and state state and federal cover only should co-operation improved government (not local). Consequently support for Co-operative recognition embracing lower, at 69 percent – much the same as initial support for Symbolic (though Co-operative still garners a higher level of Local govt. and operative for ‐ for different 7 6 easier 12 33 60 45 support continuance of L.G. Support co Federal / State and ALSO SUPPORT CONTINUATION OP BUT DK LEVELS - Local govt. TEND TO SUPPORT TEND NOT TO SUPPORT SUPPORT CO and operative operative for ‐ - 6 12 7 69 49 24 OPERATIVE FOR ‐ FED/ STATE/ LOCAL CO Support co Federal / State Support for Support Co BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) 7 6 12 81 55 OPERATIVE ‐ operate?” ‐ CO “At a referendum, would you support or not support changing the Constitution to make it Co-operative recognition OP OP FOR ONLY FED/STATE - ‐ OP FOR FED/STATE/LOCBUT NOT CONTINUANCE strong support (65 percent for Democratic vs. 55 Co- - SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK .... ‘Federal, For the telephone survey, respondents were told that .... ‘Federal, On this basis, a substantial majority of 81 percent would support state and local governments often try to co-operate to fix problems state and local governments often try to co-operate fix problems that require joint solutions, but sometimes the Constitution actually makes it harder for the different levels of government to co- operate’. changing the Constitution to make inter-governmental co-operation ‘easier’. This is only a little less than the level of initial support for Democratic recognition – but there is a larger difference in the level of operative). 0 STRONGLY SUPPORT STRONGLY NOT SUPPORT SUPPORT CO SUP. CO 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Question A11 levels of government to co 100 100 % 4.10
Final Report 65 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government % 100 85 90 3 0 80 74 70 69 66 (85) 70 MP 70 60 Tend to support 50 44 51 50 49 35 40 39 25 30 20 25 OP FOR FED / STATE/ LOCAL ‐ 10 Strongly support 15 14 CO 0 Critics TOTAL Undecided among segments Core supporters – Moderate on both % Preserve / not important Important / not preserve 100 91 88 90 83 82 81 Strong importance or continuance 80 70 62 74 operative - 57 60 Tend to support 50 57 44 55 53 40 44 IMPORTANT/ NOT PRESERVE (171) UNDECIDED (64) CRITIC S (113) TOTAL (1478) system of government more efficient, as opposed system of government more efficient, as opposed 30 34 20 23 23 INITIAL SUPPORT total 10 Strongly support 0 Critics Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others TOTAL BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: n= CORE SUPPORTERS (523) STRONG IMP/ CONT (360) MODERATE BOTH (162) PRESERVE/ NOT I Support for Co Undecided Core supporters This means it would probably be better to pitch any referendum This means it would probably be better to pitch any referendum Moderate on both about Co-operative recognition in terms of an initiative to make about Co-operative recognition in terms of an initiative to make Australia's the in government local including about referendum a to Constitution. Important / not continue Continue / not important Strong importance or continuance 78 80 76 75 72 71 71 71 70 69 69 68 70 66 66 64 (cont’d) 59 60 57 58 Tend to support 54 50 53 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 49 49 48 45 40 43 of Co-operative of Co-operative 40 - 64(357) 65+(340) 30 - 49(440) 50 20 Strongly support OP FOR FED / STATE/ LOCAL ‐ CO 10 - 34(219) 35 0 % - 24(122) 25 24 34 49 64 SA 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male 18 25 35 50 operative Female - 89 90 85 85 84 84 83 82 82 Five Cap city 81 Five Cap City 81 81 81 80 ‐ 80 X 80 76 73 70 60 63 60 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 59 59 58 58 57 57 56 55 Tend to support 54 50 54 53 52 51 Support for Support Co 46 40 INITIAL CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X 30 Co-operative recognition 20 Strongly support BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 10 In relation to attitudinal segments, the principle However when local government is explicitly included in the mix However when local government is explicitly included in the mix recognition is second only to Democratic recognition in having recognition is second only to Democratic in having better resonance among segments less positively disposed to local government – again, presumably because the principle of having governments working co-operatively is a higher order concept than local government alone. along with federal and state government, supports drops away in the segments less positively disposed to local government. 0 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male 18 25 35 50 Female 4.10 Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ SEX AGE AREA X
66 Final Report 3 1 co- (cont’d) tangible tangible enforce of governments of governments principle
that could only be delivered if the Constitution that could only be delivered if the Constitution co-operating, and that putting something in the co-operating, and that putting something in the
actually of terms in worded is it if (particularly Constitution ‘encouraging’ co-operation) will not actually operation. ‘difficult’ for governments to co-operate. Connected with this, ‘difficult’ for governments to co-operate. Connected with this, people feel that changing the Constitution to make it ‘easier for different levels of government to co-operate’ lacks impact - and again the wording implies that co-operation could not be enforced ( ‘It’s p ie in the sky’; ‘It only says it makes them able to cooperate, not make them … .. so is it worthwhile going to a referendum on that?’). The most important is healthy cynicism about governments The most important is healthy cynicism about governments People struggle to see how the Constitution can make it People struggle to see how the Constitution can make it Co-operative recognition The qualitative research found that the However Co-operative recognition has two critical drawbacks: Consequently it appears that a referendum about Co-operative Consequently it appears that a referendum about Co-operative research working co-operatively resonates very well with people and is working co-operatively resonates very well with people and is regarded very positively. It leads people to imagine outcomes such as Australia-wide uniform road rules, repairs, drivers’ licenses, speed limits, school education systems etc – or even more efficient and quicker flow of funds when dealing with disasters (e.g. the Queensland floods) or building much needed local infrastructure. – and popular initiative is changed. – recognition would be best built around the promise of a 4.10 Other feedback about Co-operative recognition from the qualitative
Final Report 67 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 3 2 2 21 21 77 54 SHOULD BE DOING WHAT WHICH LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 24 24 73 47 2 AUSTRALIA SHOULD HAVE WHAT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT NOT IMPORTANT 1 24 24 75 43 Griffith University, March 2010 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT CULTURE OF INDIGENOUS TO RECOGNISE THE HISTORY AND AUSTRALIANS IN THE CONSTITUTION important. Significantly, in the current in the current very important. Significantly, ADULTS AGED 18+ NATIONALLY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE (n= 1478) 1478) (n= ELIGIBLE VOTEARE NATIONALLY TO ADULTS18+ AGED WHO - VERY IMPORTANT 2 40 40 59 38 GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY: ADULTS AGED 18+ NATIONALLY UNIVERSITY: NATIONALLY AGED(n=1,100) ADULTS 18+ GRIFFITH BECOME A REPUBLIC comparison with other research TO DECIDE IF AUSTRALIA SHOULD - BASE: LOCAL LOCAL BASE: GOVERNMENT 4 31 31 65 34 IN THE CONSTITUTION LOCAL GOVERNMENT Among all these possibilities, a referendum about including local Among all these possibilities, a referendum about including local government in the Constitution has the lowest proportion of government in the Constitution has lowest proportion of Australians who feel it is survey, the importance of holding the referendum was only covered the importance of holding referendum was only covered survey, after respondents had been taken through the various potential forms of local government recognition – and therefore people were assessing importance based on exposure to the issues. Importance ofholding Importance a referendum on various issues IMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT NEITHER/ DK 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % ve a 34% Very important 31% 4% Somewhat important None / Don’t know 9% BASE: ADULTSBASE: AGED 18+ NATIONALLY ARE ELIGIBLE WHO TOVOTE(n= 1478) referendum about including local government in the Constitution?” Not at all important How important is a referendum about local government? “All things considered, in the next few years, do you think it is important, or not important for Australia to ha 21% – Although 65 percent of Australians believe it would be important to Although 65 percent of Australians believe it would be important to As a rough point of comparison, the importance holding some degree to hold a referendum about including local local including about referendum a hold to degree some government in the Constitution, it is only one-third who believe very important to do so in the next few years. referenda about a series of other issues was measured in 2010 survey conducted by Griffith University. This included referenda of recognition about republic; a becoming Australia about indigenous peoples; sorting out the levels of government Australia should have; and sorting out the responsibilities that different levels of government should have. Not particularly important Importance ofholding Importance a referendum on local government Question A18 4.11
68 Final Report 3 3 (cont’d) (cont’d) % 100 85 90 77 80 65 70 64 59 60 57 50 Somewhat important 40 523) STRONG IMP/ CONT (360) MODERATE BOTH (162) PRESERVE/ NOT IMP (85) 25 30 24 35 34 34 15 20 SUPPORT 10 Very Important 6 6 7 10 0 Critics TOTAL Undecided IMPORTANT/ NOT PRESERVE (171) UNDECIDED (64) CRITIC S (113) TOTAL (1478) Core supporters Moderate on both Important / not continue Continue / not important Strong importance or continuance Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others BASE: ADULTS AGED 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: n= CORE SUPPORTERS ( Importance of holding a referendum by segments by referendumholding a of Importance If nothing else, all of this indicates that it would be better to hold If nothing else, all of this indicates that it would be better to hold These figures on the importance of recognition are also telling in any referendum about local government in conjunction with a any referendum about local government in conjunction with a the As noted earlier, rather than by itself. federal election, qualitative research found that, particularly given the cost of holding a referendum (even in conjunction with an election), people believe referenda should be reserved for issues that are of some importance. They again point to ( i ) a lack of any obvious way that another way. and / or (ii) any recognition will lead to a change for the better, “threat” to the loss of either democratic elections or direct funding not being seen as serious or impending. % Statistically significant difference Higher than others Lower than others 100 - 64(357) 65+(340) 90 - 49(440) 50 80 76 75 70 68 70 65 65 - 34(219) 35 64 64 63 63 62 62 62 62 61 60 very important. 60 Somewhat important - 24(122) 25 50 40 40 38 37 36 36 34 34 30 34 34 Very important 33 32 32 32 31 important rises no higher than 40 very important rises no higher than 40 30 29 20 CITY(727) - CITY(727) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) 10 very important issue. 0 24 34 49 64 SA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ VIC WA TAS 65+ QLD Total NSW Male CAP CITY(751) CAP CITY(751) X 18 25 35 50 Female Five Cap city Five Cap City ‐ X SEX AGE AREA How important is a referendum about local government? BASE: ADULTS 18+ ADULTSBASE: 18+ ELIGIBLE TOVOTE: TOT(1478) MALE(730) FEM(748) 18 Importance ofholdingImportance a referendum on local govt It is also worth noting that among people who are tertiary educated It is also worth noting that among people who are tertiary educated support for the idea is highest in non-metro areas, Overall support for the idea is highest in non-metro areas, (and therefore probably more likely to be “opinion leaders” in the (and therefore probably more likely to be “opinion leaders” in the referendum a regard one-in-five about only community), concerning local government as being Queensland and among people aged 18 to 24 – though the Queensland and among people aged 18 to 24 – though the number who feel it is percent and this is in Queensland. Even among the “Core supporter” segment, only 57 percent feel a referendum about local government is a 4.11
Final Report 69 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 63 48 27 64 50 26 TAS TAS 3 4 67 52 23 66 50 24 WA WA
63 54 26 SA 63 50 24 SA 72 62 36 68 57 34 VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) WA(201) SA(207) QLD(203) VIC(287) QLD QLD NSW(316) 61 49 26 65 51 27 VIC VIC recognition after challenge question recognition after challenge question 62 49 28 67 51 29 NSW NSW worth changing Constitution & Referendum very important worth changing Constitution & Referendum somewhat important worth changing Constitution but referendum not important worth changing Constitution but don't know if referendum important worth changing Constitution & referendum somewhat important worth changing Constitution but referendum not important worth changing Constitution but don't know if referendum important ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ worth changing Constitution & referendum very important ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Financial Democratic Democratic overlaid with importance of withreferendum overlaid overlaid with importance of withreferendum overlaid 1 Financial 2. Financial 3. Financial 4. Financial very very important important 1 Democratic 2 Democratic 3 Democratic 4 Democratic important somewhat important somewhat Referendum important important Referendum Referendum Referendum Referendum Referendum not not BASE: ADULTS 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: TOT(1478) NSW(316) VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) WA(201) SA(207) QLD(203) VIC(287) NSW(316) TOT(1478) VOTE: TO ELIGIBLE 18+ ADULTS BASE: BASE: ADULTS BASE: ADULTS 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: TOT(1478) Support for 64 52 28 66 52 29 Total Total Support for % Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others % 0 Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 100 . This is also the . This is also the also believe it is also believe it is 1 and believe a referendum is is referendum a believe and
important. An almost identical pattern is very important. An almost identical pattern is for people to say a referendum on local government for people to say a referendum on local government to the Constitution. their commitment to the issue; and, perhaps also their likelihood of actually supporting a change only one, or more than one particular form of recognition; a general belief in the value of local government; or some combination of these factors. Overlaying support with the importance of a referendum motivation At the 95 percent level of confidence There are no significant differences by state for Democratic There are no significant differences by state for Democratic Queensland is, in fact, the only state which number who Consequently attitudes concerning the importance of a referendum Consequently attitudes concerning the importance of a referendum For both Financial and Democratic recognition, about half support The case for Co-operative recognition incorporating federal, state and case for Co-operative recognition incorporating federal, state and local government. important, is significantly greater than 50 percent important to have a referendum about recognition of local local of recognition about referendum a have to important government. However less than 30 percent are supporters who feel a referendum is evident concerning support for Co-operative recognition covering all three levels of government. recognition, but Queensland is above other states in relation to Financial and Co-operative recognition. Conversely support for Co- operative recognition is lower in Victoria and South Australia than other states. recognition Financial support cannot be specifically linked with any one particular form of cannot be specifically linked with any one particular form of the about view peoples’ combining Nonetheless recognition. importance of a referendum, and their view about supporting the various forms of recognition, provides another perspective on: – – each concept after the challenge question is ‘important’ may be based on: – – – 4.12 1.
70 Final Report 3 5 (cont’d) 70 54 31 TAS 69 53 26 WA State/ Local) State/ 59 46 24 SA 76 65 37 VIC(287) QLD(203) SA(207) WA(201) TAS(218) WA(201) SA(207) QLD(203) VIC(287) QLD NSW(316) recognition (Fed/ recognition 64 48 25 VIC 71 53 30 operative support for Fed/ State/ Local & Referendum very important support Fed/ State/ Local & Referendum somewhat important support Fed/ State/ Local but referendum not important support Fed/ State/ Local but don't know if referendum important NSW ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ - Co operative operative operative operative ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ overlaid with importance of withreferendum overlaid important 1 Co 2 Co 3 Co 4 Co very important somewhat Referendum important Referendum Referendum not Overlaying support with the importance of a referendum BASE: ADULTS BASE: ADULTS 18+ ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: TOT(1478) Support forSupport 69 54 29 Total Overall it’s fair to say that, at this time, fewer than 30 percent of Overall it’s fair to say that, at this time, fewer than 30 percent of Other supporters, who see a referendum on local government as Australians feel a sufficiently strong commitment to the idea of Australians feel a sufficiently strong commitment to the idea of recognising local government in the Constitution, to provide high confidence they would support it at a referendum, all other things being equal. being a lower priority, are clearly less committed; probably more susceptible to external influences; and therefore there is less confidence they would actually support local government at the time of a referendum. % Stat. significant diff: Higher than others Lower than others 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 4.12
Final Report 71 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 100 3 6 80 62 60 53 38 34 40 31 32 26 Unimportant 33% 25 22 20 16 15 20 15 14 13 11 11 10 7 6 (%) “Have your say” online respondents 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 5 7 9 12 10 20 Profile 18 18 20 24 25 28 40 36 34 Unimportant 14% 49 49 51 60 weighted electors 18+ – 80 100 Telephone Survey Male Female Victoria 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 Tasmania NSW/ACT 65 and over Very important Queensland Very unimportant Local government State government South Australia Federal government Some other capacity Western Australia Somewhat important Northern Territory Don’t know / cant say Somewhat unimportant member works in: ‐
Sex Age Area Self/family Importance of the role of local government vs 1 4 (33 percent unimportant important ; and, (compared with 14 percent for the population (compared with 14 percent for the population unimportant those with a personal / family connection with local local with connection family / personal a with those percent for the national telephone survey). government – 97 percent of whom regard the role local government as the balance of sample, whom 52 percent see local role as being important, and 46 percent feel it government’s is at large). a male bias; an under-representation in NSW and over-representation South Australia; and, a marked over-representation of people who believe that the role of local government is ‘Have your say’ online survey - - – – – Consequently the sample comprises two key groups who who groups key two comprises sample the Consequently Moreover about one-third of the ‘Have your say’ sample comprised sample comprised Moreover about one-third of the ‘Have your say’ people who either worked in, or had an immediate family member working in local government. fundamentally shape the pattern of survey results: ‘Have your say’ was an ‘opt-in’ survey available to those visiting the survey available to those visiting the was an ‘opt-in’ ‘Have your say’ consultation website. Expert Panel’s understand the nature of people responding, sample profile To can be compared with the weighted sample of electors obtained through the national representative telephone survey. sample exhibits: The ‘Have your say’ 4.13 Sample profile
72 Final Report 3 7 the the changing local councils can guarantee local councils can governments could do away with governments could do away with
the Constitution to
changing (incorporating two questions) Financial recognition concepts Financial recognition concepts all local councils democratically elected by the people referendum , would you support or not Democratic recognition concepts Democratic recognition concepts To have To Or , for state governments to decide who should make up local councils’ , there nothing in the Constitution to say they can always do that. So it but , there nothing in the Constitution to say they can always do that. So it – – local council elections altogether – and they could decide for themselves who local council elections altogether – and they could decide for themselves who the members of local councils should be. In your opinion, is it better...? ‘Technically, if they wanted to, most state ‘Technically, that local councils must be democratically elected?’ Constitution to guarantee that local councils must be democratically elected?’ survey Telephone ‘Federal governments have been giving direct funding to local councils for many years, might be possible for someone to challenge the federal government in High Court, and stop direct funding to local government. At a referendum, would you support or not get direct funding from the federal government?’ get direct funding from the federal government?’ Have your say ‘When the Constitution was written, idea of local councils getting any funding directly from the federal government was not even thought about. It was assumed that local councils would only get funding from rates and state governments. you personally support, or not support changing the Constitution to officially Would recognise that local councils can get funding directly from the federal government?’ 2. ‘So, at a Have your say Australia there are constitutional guarantees that members of federal and ‘Across state parliaments must be democratically elected by the people. In practice, although local councils are also democratically elected at council elections, there is no national constitutional guarantee of this. you personally support, Would or not support changing the Constitution to guarantee that local councils must be democratically elected?’ 1. survey Telephone : a lack of national Constitutional : a lack of national Constitutional : officially recognising the established recognising the established : officially Democratic recognition practice of local councils receiving direct funding from federal governments. a state government potentially doing away with local council a state government potentially doing away with local council elections; and, direct federal funding being potentially taken away by a High Court challenge. guarantees for local council elections; Financial recognition ‘Have your say’ online survey (cont’d) - - - - The ‘Have your say’ versions had less ‘bite’, and talked in terms of: The ‘Have your say’ The Co-operative recognition concept used in ‘Have your say’ was was The Co-operative recognition concept used in ‘Have your say’ identical to that used in the telephone survey – and Symbolic recognition concept was also much the same. However it is important to note that the Democratic and Financial versions survey telephone The differed. concepts recognition explicitly incorporated the potential threats of: 4.13 Recognition concepts surveyed
Final Report 73 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 3 32 65 2) SYMBOLIC =36 3 8 6 38 56 FINANCIAL 6 43 52 overview DEMOCRATIC - ‐ 8 35 57 CO member working in Local Government in Local working member Amongst those not work/have no family no family work/have not those Amongst LOCAL STATE/ FOR FED/ OPERATIVE ‐ 8 42 50 CO OPERATIVE SUPPORT the Constitution to …” NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK 8 4 88 SYMBOLIC changing 6 4 90 FINANCIAL 6 6 88 DEMOCRATIC ‐ 2 7 90 CO around 90 percent of those with a personal connection say around 90 percent of those with a personal connection say they would support each of the recognition concepts; while, only between about 30 percent and 40 of the balance would do so. LOCAL STATE/ works in Government works Local FOR FED/ OPERATIVE Amongst those work/havefamily member Support for change to the Constitution ‐ 4 93 2 CO - - OPERATIVE As might be expected, support for recognition divides sharply As might be expected, support for recognition divides sharply among those who do, or do not have a direct connection with local government: BASE: TOTALBASE: YOUR ‘HAVE SAY’ SAMPLE (n= 529); WORK/FAMILY MEMBER WORKS (n=167); IN LG WORK/NONOT FAMILY MEMBER WORKS (n IN LG 0 “At a referendum would you support or not support 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % 3 50 47 SYMBOLIC overview - 55 40 5 FINANCIAL 6 57 37 the Constitution to …” DEMOCRATIC changing accounted for by the difference in the in the partly accounted for by the difference BASE: TOTALBASE: YOUR ‘HAVE SAY’ SAMPLE (n= 529) 6 53 41 STATE/ LOCAL OPERATIVE FOR FED/ ‐ CO 6 ‘Have your say’ online survey (cont’d) 58 35 OPERATIVE ‐ Support for change to the Constitution CO Democratic and Financial recognition concepts used in the online Democratic and Financial recognition concepts used in the online survey vs the telephone survey. Consistent with the relatively high number of ‘Have your say’ Consistent with the relatively high number of ‘Have your say’ respondents who regard the role of local government to be unimportant, levels of support for the various recognition concepts were substantially lower than found through the telephone survey – ranging between 50 percent for Symbolic recognition up to 58 percent for Co-operative recognition. Reflecting the telephone survey results, support for Symbolic recognition is lowest in ‘Have your say’. However the online results in support between the remaining show relatively little difference This may be concepts. SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK “At a referendum would you support or not support 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % Levels of support for recognition 4.13
74 Final Report 2) =36 3 9 ‐ 2 37 61 & CO overview OPERATIVE FINANCIAL & DEMOCRATIC - ‐ 5 38 57 & CO OPERATIVE DEMOCRATIC 3 38 59 OPERATIVE ‐ FINANCIAL & CO member working in Local Government in Local working member Amongst those not work/have no family no family work/have not those Amongst concept in the combination. 3 concepts attract support levels concepts attract support levels 39 58 FINANCIAL & DEMOCRATIC weakest the Constitution to …” SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK combination changing changes to changes the Constitution ‐ 4 8 88 & CO OPERATIVE FINANCIAL & DEMOCRATIC ‐ 7 4 89 & CO OPERATIVE DEMOCRATIC combination 6 3 91 OPERATIVE ‐ FINANCIAL & CO works in Government works Local 4 7 Amongst those work/havefamily member 90 Consequently at an aggregate level, there is no real evidence of a Consequently at an aggregate level, there is no real evidence of a which are generally no higher than (and often lower than) the which are generally no higher than (and often lower than) the individual support level for the combination being able to deliver a synergistic effect in support. in support. combination being able to deliver a synergistic effect if anything, there is some evidence that a weaker concept in Rather, a combination is more likely to drag down the stronger concept. It’s worth noting that the It’s
FINANCIAL & DEMOCRATIC BASE: TOTALBASE: YOUR ‘HAVE SAY’ SAMPLE (n= 529); WORK/FAMILY MEMBER WORKS (n=167); IN LG WORK/NONOT FAMILY MEMBER WORKS (n IN LG Support forSupport 0 “At a referendum would you support or not support 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 %
‐ 3 53 44 OPERATIVE overview - FINANCIAL & DEMOCRATIC & CO OPERATIVE ‐ 5 54 41 DEMOCRATIC & CO the Constitution to …” OPERATIVE ‐ changing changes to changes the Constitution 54 42 3 BASE: TOTALBASE: YOUR ‘HAVE SAY’ SAMPLE (n= 529) FINANCIAL & CO combination 88 to 91 percent of those with a local government government local a with those of percent 91 to 88 connection would support each combination; while, only 37 to 39 percent of the balance would do so. 3 55 42 ‘Have your say’ online survey (cont’d) - - FINANCIAL & DEMOCRATIC Respondents to the ‘Have your say’ survey were also asked if they survey were also asked if they Respondents to the ‘Have your say’ would support changes to the Constitution which simultaneously embodied two or three of the Democratic, Financial Co-operative recognition concepts. Support for each combination varied within a very narrow range of 53 to 55 percent, and also varied in a very narrow range among the two key sample groups: SUPPORT NOT SUPPORT NEITHER/ DK Support forSupport “At a referendum would you support or not support 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % Support for combinations of recognition 4.13
Final Report 75 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 4 0 8 7 % 85 100 (114) (114)
Very unimportant Very 5 9 % 85 100 (55) Somewhat unimportant 3 3 % 93 100 (58) important Somewhat Importance of local government
local government connection % 10 52 38 100 Very Very (129) important without 8 % 75 18 100 Total Total (362) Among those Total Total power View of state government dismissal powers View Can't say No, should not Yes, should have Yes, (Sample size n= ) 2) =36 75 18 8 have the power not NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT LINK , or should should for example, if it found a local council was – 12 61 27 a local council LOCAL GOVERNMENT LINK dismiss Do you think a state government very i mportant role. found to be corrupt or managing its finances found to be corrupt or managing its finances 70 21 9 ‘Have your say’ online survey (cont’d) TOTAL HAVE YOUR SAY a local council? Unlike the telephone survey, the question concerning state state concerning question the survey, telephone the Unlike government dismissal powers in ‘Have your say’ was asked in the was asked in the government dismissal powers in ‘Have your say’ context of a council ‘ poorly’. Even a slight majority (61 percent) of those who have personal connection with local government are supportive of these powers, and this rises to 75 percent among the balance of sample. Among those without a local government connection, support for dismissal powers is very high among all but those who believe that local government has a BASE: TOTALBASE: YOUR ‘HAVE SAY’ SAMPLE (n= 529); WORK/FAMILY MEMBER WORKS (n=167); IN LG WORK/NONOT FAMILY MEMBER WORKS (n IN LG dismiss YES NO DON’T KNOW A7 “Currently, a state government has the power to corrupt, or was managing its finances very poorly. to 0 Shouldstategovernment be able to dismiss local councils? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 % State government powers to dismiss a local council 4.13
76 Final Report 4 1
5. Appendices
Final Report 77 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
that 4 2
READ READ guarantee , it may may it , have no
but
to your view? view? to your
the Constitution to the Constitution
A14) - A14)
not to support it? support to not s. Have you personally ever voted at a at voted ever personally you s. Have
in Constitution, the (A13
\ to support it? support to
tend ------
changing
A12) A12) tend - mention mention al government still deserves a mention in the in mention a deserves still government al of the following comes closest closest comes following the of (A10
support support \
UNFOLD one governments could do away with local council elections elections council local with away do could governments A9)
-
(A6 support that, or or support that, or that, not support
tical difference, the Constitution shouldn’t be changed be shouldn’t Constitution the difference, tical
strongly strongly GROUPS
don’t know don’t know don’t Do you Do you
don’t know don’t \ \ , would you support or not or support you would ,
\ be democratically elected? elected? democratically be
. Given that, which which that, Given . (PAUSE)
VERSION 1, 2 VERSION VERSION
nments to decide who should make up local councils up local make should who to decide nments
must must Neither Neither and they could decide for themselves who the members of local councils should be should councils of local members the who themselves for decide could and they
Neither
, if they most state to, wanted T
– impact
support
referendum . . isbetter...? it In opinion, your
local councils democratically elected by the people the by elected democratically councils local
to support to
t a don’t know don’t not all all
\
have not SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE RANDOMISE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE
don’t know don’t \
, if it’s not going to make any prac any make to going not , if it’s loc difference, practical any make doesn’t if it , even OUT practical NOTE: PROG - - Now a question about local council elections. As you probably know, local councils are democratically democratically are councils local know, probably you As elections. council local about a question Now 4 year 3 to every elections council local at people the by elected local council election? council local READ NOT DO Symbolic recognition would give local government a government local give would recognition Symbolic Technically So, a local councils IF SUPPOR IFSUPPORT NOT NOTE: PROG ------NOTE: PROG - READ OUT READ altogether altogether (PAUSE) PROG NOTE: PROG - \ , for state gover either Constitution Even if it doesn’t make any practical difference, local government still deserves a mention in the Constitution in mention a deserves still government local difference, practical any make doesn’t if it Even Or READ NOT DO changed be shouldn’t Constitution the difference, practical any make to going not it’s If Or READ NOT DO Yes No have To Or READ NOT DO support Strongly to support Tend Tend Strongly N
1 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 VERSION
------A6 A5 2 VERSION QUESTION OF ORDER RANDOMISE A7 A8
it
. – erall, how how erall, ------Ov ------.
------
(PAUSE) referendum (PAUSE) referendum
government in the Constitution Constitution the in government local local not to support it? support to not
ng to support it? support to
tend that is, local councils councils local is, that DO NOT READ NOT DO
- support putting something in the Constitution into Constitution the something putting support tend is in Australia? Would you say local government government local say Would you Australia? in is
PRESS ENTER TO CONTINUE ENTER TO PRESS
not
ENTS ELIGIBLE1 VOTE TO IE IN CODE Q6. , or be changed by people voting at a at voting people by be changed
. government government sets out how our system of federal and state government government state and federal of system our how out sets UNFOLD on before now? before on
support that, or or support that, not support that, or or that, not support
only support local local government local , that , (PAUSE) and and
strongly strongly state ,
Do you Do you
government government
federal
local local
. . can The Constitution - is to put a statement in the Constitution that symbolically recognises local government government local recognises symbolically that Constitution in the statement a put to is
PROG NOTE: NOTE: RESPOND PROG ALL ASK OTHERS GO TO NEXT TO SECT GO OTHERS
Don’t know
important
- support . At a referendum, would you you would referendum, a At .
ally recognise local government? local recognise ally mention un EAD
(PAUSE) to support to
don’t know don’t READ OUT OUT READ not
you heard of the Australian Constituti Australian you heardthe of important \ not had heard not and we’d like your opinion about a few ideas for that. that. for ideas few a about opinion your like and we’d SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE un
don’t know don’t \
Had works works important would you say the role of of role the say you would important is...? PROG NOTE: PROG - (PAUSE) ------idea first The It’s been suggested there should be a referendum about includi about referendum a be should there suggested been It’s did Australia has a written Constitution written Australia has a PROG NOTE: PROG ------government and state federal covered it only ago, 100 years over written was When Constitution the - Now some questions about our system of government. As you probably know, Australia has three types types three has Australia know, probably you As government. of system our about some questions Now government of IF SUPPORT – symbolic IF NOT IFSUPPORT NOT NOTE: PROG - \ Very important Very important Somewhat Somewhat Very R NOT DO Yes No support Strongly to support Tend Tend Strongly Neither
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5
A4 ------
------SECTION A A2 SCREEN INTRO NOTE: PROG
A3
A1
Appendix A : Telephone survey questionnaire : Telephone A Appendix
78 Final Report for
4 3 easier - 5 GO TO governments to to governments so the so the
–
so so the Constitution
– ------
local
- 23 IN A13. CODE and and READ OUT READ
for the different different the for
state
the Constitution to make it to Constitution the , not to support it? support to not
difficult t it? suppor to
tend READ OUT READ federal
tend –
changing overnments operate to fix problems that require joint solutions solutions joint require that problems fix to - operate g
view about that idea? idea? that about view
state - OPERATION 1 IE CODE UNFOLD your and and ay direct federal funding to local councils councils local to funding federal direct ay
support that, or or support that, not support that, or or that, not support
operate? operate? -
levels of government government of levels federal
s closest to to s closest strongly strongly
CHANGE FOR CO FOR CHANGE
all three all
don’t know don’t know don’t Do you Do you
\ \ would try to take aw to take try would
(PAUSE).
would try to take away direct federal funding to local councils councils local to funding federal direct away to take try would - 2 THEN 3 LAST
VERSION 1, 2 VERSION VERSION
SUPPORT , sometimes the Constitution actually makes it , sometimes Constitution actually the
Neither Neither
anyone
Don’t know
of the following come of following the operation between the the between - operation support anyone operatively - operatively one to support to t be changed changed t be
don’t know don’t operation between between - operation not
\
not cover co cover SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE 1 RANDOMISE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE RANDOMISE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE
, it’s unlikely , it’s unlikely continue can funding direct sure make to Constitution the changing , it’s worth And do you think that change to the Constitution should...? should...? the Constitution to change that think do you And PROG NOTE: PROG - - work co PAUSE). But ( PAUSE). Which ------co to try often governments local and state Federal, PROG NOTE: PROG - - At a referendum, would you support or not support support not or support you would a referendum, At different levels of government to coto of government levels different IF SUPPORT IF NOT IFSUPPORT NOT NOTE: PROG - It’s worth changing the Constitution to make sure direct funding can continue can funding direct sure make to Constitution the changing It’s worth Or READ NOT DO It’s unlikely Or READ NOT DO changed be shouldn’t Constitution shouldn’ Strongly support Strongly to support Tend Tend Strongly Neither Only coCover READ NOT DO
1 2 3 2 1 3
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
A15 A14
A13 A12 1 VERSION 2 VERSION ------IF NOTE: PROG ASK
l local
there’s there’s
, from the
but be possible for for be possible guarantee
directly so the
------–
take away local take away so the
take away local local take away
direct funding to loca might
– fund the services they they services the fund
funding funding
never stop never
. So, it READ OUT READ an some
the Constitution to not to support it? support to not
Local councils (PAUSE) to support it? support to UNFOLD
tend tend changing . (PAUSE)
some of which goes through state governments, and and governments, state through goes which of some view about that idea? idea? that about view
– support support your
(PAUSE). - support that, or or support that, not support that, or or that, not support
ng direct funding to local councils for many years, years, many for councils local to funding direct ng
government government
strongly strongly now federal to local councils councils to local governments
don’t know don’t k don’t nment would ever try to take away local council elections elections council local away take to try ever would nment Do you Do you
\ \ DO READ DO NOT
state state
VERSION 1, 2 VERSION VERSION directly directly
Neither Neither a state government would ever try to take away local council elections elections council local away to take try ever would a state government
(PAUSE).
of the following comes closest to closest comes of following the a state gover
support in the Constitution to say they can always do that do that can always they say to Constitution in the one
to support to
don’t know don’t know don’t not
unlikely
council rates funding from from funding the from funding and, some goes goes some \ \
NOT SUPPORT NOT not
SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE RANDOMISE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE unlikely
, it’s can government a state sure make to Constitution the changing it’s, worth PROG NOTE: PROG ------nothing Which finances government local about a question Now including sources, different from provide givi been have governments Federal someone to challenge the federal government in the High Court, and and Court, High the in government federal the challenge to someone government federal government? government? federal Do you think it’s a good idea, or a bad idea for local councils to get get to councils local a bad idea for or a good idea, think it’s you Do - PROG NOTE: PROG - At a referendum, would you support or not or support you would a referendum, At councils can get direct funding from the federal government? federal from the funding direct get can councils IF SUPPORT IF NOTE: PROG - - - - changed be shouldn’t Constitution council elections council elections It’s worth changing the Constitution to make sure a state government c government a state sure make to Constitution the changing It’s worth Or READ NOT DO It’s changed be shouldn’t Constitution Or READ NOT DO Good idea Good idea Bad Neither support Strongly to support Tend Tend Strongly Neither
1 2 3 2 1 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
A10 A9 2 VERSION ------A11
1 VERSION
Final Report 79 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 4 4 UNFOLD . (PAUSE) All things
important
important for Australia to have a a have to Australia for important
. Do you think a state government government think. a state you Do at all not UNFOLD not to support it? support to not
or
important? , to support it? support to
tend (PAUSE) has a system of local government? government? of local a system has DO NOT NOT DO READ
tend At a referendum, would you support or not support support not or support you would a referendum, At important
somewhat ways important, or not not or important, al a local a local council . (PAUSE) support that, or or support that, or that, not support
important or
particularly particularly dismiss dismiss very strongly strongly Is that Is that not
Do you Do you be able to dismiss a local council? council? to a local dismiss be able ONDENTS ELIGIBLE1 VOTE TO IE IN CODE Q6 ONDENTS
not
the Constitution to guarantee Australia Australia guarantee to Constitution the
support
port
, or should should or , to support to ndum about including local government in the Constitution? Constitution? in the government local including about ndum
don’t know don’t not
G NOTE:
\ don’t know
\ not should SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE
not \ particularly important particularly important at all
PRO - IF NOT IFIMPORTANT NOT NOTE: PROG - refere IF IMPORTANT should considered, in the next few years, it do few think in next the is you considered, idea another about you ask to like I’d just changing Currently, state governments can We’ve covered a few ideas for putting local government into the Constitution Constitution the into government local putting for ideas a few covered We’ve - IF SUPPORT IF NOT IFSUPPORT NOT PROG NOTE: PROG \ Very important Very important Somewhat Not Not None support Strongly to sup Tend Tend Strongly Neither Yes No Don’t know
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
PROG NOTE: NOTE: RESPPROG ALL ASK A19 A20 A18
READ READ . IF ONLY Is it...? CHANGES IN CHANGES
)
------of these would you you would these of - 4 IN A15
(PAUSE one CODE 1
READ OUT READ
THREE OR MORE THREE OR
TWO OR MORE SUPPORT SUPPORT
5 4 IN A15. IF NOMINATED MOST IMPORTANT MOST IMPORTANT NOMINATED IF IN A15. - 4 - operate - operate
AND
most Isimportant? it...? co co
CODE 1 CODE next elected elected
CHANGES IE
- 4 IN SELECT A16TWO CODES AND IN A15) AUTOFILL funding from the federal government federal the from funding funding from the federal government federal the from funding
direct direct
democratically democratically democratically democratically
TWO OR MORE THREE OR MORE THREE OR
4 PER A16 THEN 5- 4 LAST PER A16
2 IN A13) A13) - 2 IN
2 IN A8) - 2 IN know don’t know don’t ese would you say is the the is say you would ese
AND \ \ A11) - 2 IN 2 IN A4) - 2 IN 4 SUPPORT IN A15 AND NOT SELECTED NOT IN- 4 A15 SUPPORT IN A16 AND 4 SUPPORT IN- 4 A15 SUPPORT - 4 THEN 5 LAST important way in which the Constitution should be changed? changed? be should Constitution the in which way important
recognise local government recognise local government recognise local
None None 5 IN A4 AND A8 AND A11 AND A13) A13) AND A11 AND A8 AND A4 IN - 5 most local councils are
- RESPONSE 4 IN A16 - 4 IN A16 4 SELECTED THEN CANNOT SELECT CODE THEN CANNOT - 4 SELECTED 5 AUTOFILL CORRESPONDING CODE IN A16 AND GO TO TO IN GO - 5 CODE AUTOFILLA18 CORRESPONDING A16 AND
SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SHOW 1 ONLY 1 ORDER MAINTAIN MULTI IF 1 SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SHOW 1 ONLY 1 RANDOMISE You’ve said that you would support some changes to the Constitution. Which Constitution. the to changes some support would you said that You’ve say is the PROG NOTE: PROG - - - And which one of th of one which And PROG NOTE: HIDDEN STORE HIDDEN NOTE: QUESTIONPROG SUPPORTED AND COLLECT CHANGES NOTE: PROG - - OUT NOTE: PROG - - - OPERATIVE (CODE 1 (CODE - OPERATIVE symbolically symbolically SYMBOLIC (CODE 1 SYMBOLIC (CODE 1 (CODE DEMOCRATIC (CODE 1 FINANCIAL CO 3 (CODE NONE To are councils local guarantee To get can councils local guarantee To to government of levels different for it easier make To READ NOT DO To guarantee To get can councils local guarantee To to government of levels different for it easier make To READ NOT DO
------1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A16
ONE CODE 1 CODE ONE
AND SUPPORTAND TWO CHANGES (IE CODE 1 REMAINING CODE FROM A15 IN A17 AND GO TO A18. OTHERS AUTOFILL CODE 5 IN A17 AND GO TOGO TO AND 5 GO IN A17 A18. CODE OTHERS CODEFROM AND AUTOFILL A15 IN A17 REMAINING A18 A17 NOTE: RESPONDENTS ELIGIBLE1 VOTE TO IE INPROG ALL CODE Q6 ASK NOTE: IFASK SUPPORTPROG MOST IMPORTANT IF NOMINATED NOTE: PROG ASK ------A15
A15 1 IE CODE A15
80 Final Report
s no the of local
4 5 that local
the federal parliament , and some
------a local council? local council? a
from state state
existence guarantee the the and and
overnments to g
dismiss
)
directly A9 for example, if a local council a if council local example, for
: federal federal – (A8/ Constitution sources Constitution to officially recogniseConstitution to officially AND AND
------
) through state through
) the
A7 the
have the power to power the have
a local council just simply recognises ( A6/ ovided that membersthat of
not
receive some funding funding some receive that that
a few different a few dismiss some pr some
from GROUPS –
. (Select one answer one (Select support changing changing support , or should should or ,
guarantees support changing support (Select answer) one (Select
? Constitution
al .
not not the ted? ted?
its finances very poorly. very finances its the power to to power the should
in or that local councils councils local that
of this of
, or , government government government
in this way in this
onstitution s have c ouncils are also democratically elected at local council elections, there is there elections, council local at elected democratically also are ouncils
tement aware local governments;
support QUESTION OF QUESTION DER
support federal
to ; guarantee guarantee R
re are re
al the state he rates
were you you were insert a sta fund the services they provide provide they services the fund directly directly
corrupt, or managing managing or corrupt,
(Select answer) one (Select from
,
to
state government state
is
onstitution
,
c
not
RANDOMISE O
funding funding funding from from funding provided by char gingby idea
SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE should have the power to dismiss to power the have should aware would support would ocal councils
• • • would , , L councils must be democratically elec democratically be must councils PROG NOTE: PROG - government? PROG NOTE: PROG - Before today Before personally Would you existence of local of government local existence PROG NOTE: PROG - national must be democratically elected by the people. people. the by elected democratically be must c local although practice, In is found to be to is found government in Australia. in government personally Would you One One Currently (Select answer)one Do you think a state government government think a state you Do NOTE: PROG - Across Australia t , should not , should Yes, No, Can’t say support would Yes, not would No, Can’t say Yes No Can’t say Yes No ------
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
A5 NOTE: PROG A7 ------A 8
------A6
to
state local ideas, or or ideas, and
the question
these state , of federal and and federal local governmentlocal
------
Ultimately one
. federal The most recent referendum referendum recent most The . ederal and state governments state and ederal Constitution
he t focused entirely on entirely focused
click on the arrow below to continue. to below arrow onclick the
(Select one answer)
referendum
ution may be based on any on any be based may t . Now
put into put Constitution should be changed, in some way, way, some in changed, be should Constitution
rules for the way f way the for rules ng in a a ng in the Consti
important would you say the role of of role the say you would important
might be be might the
referendum
confidential , a
. main main Overall, how how Overall, a referendum in Australia? a referendum
. government that includes: that at
be held if to decide .
any other brief comments you would like to make. to like would you comments brief other any
cal specific issues; and, issues; specific may to continue. below arrow the on click e be changed by people voti people by be changed
of them of
Australia has a system of government with three tiers: tiers: three with government of a system has Australia Australia becoming a republic. a becoming Australia provide
ever voted ever some some asked to consider at
not mention local government at all. at government local notmention local government local
Pleas
only
id be
about
know, know,
it d (Select answer) one (Select referendum written over 100 years ago years 100 over written
PROG NOTE: NOTE: RESPONDENTS PROG ALL ASK
- (that is, local councils) could
for taking the time to give us your opinion. your us give to time the taking for
combination a number of ways lo ways of a number important
personally -
a
, and it can can it and , un it was are are A
like your view. your like
the opportunity to to opportunity the questions about about questions
rnments important ssibly
SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SE RESPON SINGLE important un at a referendum voted have
• • , PROG NOTE: PROG - gove was held in 1999 1999 held in was Have you you Have is Australia? in NOTE: PROG - recognise or include include or recognise In the future, a the future, In There po We’d ------government Please be assured your answers will re will answers your assured be Please Australians ------When Australia has a written Constitution setting out the the out setting Constitution a written has Australia operate ------Thank you is Say” “Have Your short survey a ------probably you As
Very Very important Somewhat Somewhat Very Can’t say Yes No
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 Appendix B : “Have your say” website survey questionnaire
------
A 4 ------SECTION A3 SCREEN INTRO NOTE: PROG
A1 A2 SCREEN INTRO NOTE: PROG ------
Final Report 81 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
4 6
: : : BOTH BOTH BOTH government, government, government, government, government, government, on joint solutions? on joint on joint solutions? on joint on joint solutions? on joint
federal federal federal federal federal federal Constitution in a way that a way in Constitution
the the
the operate operate operate
- - - , rom rom f f from the co co co
, Constitution in a way that that a way in Constitution Constitution in a way that that a way in Constitution that a way in Constitution
directly directly directly directly directly directly the the the support changing changing support
not democratically elected? democratically democratically elected democratically , or democratically elected democratically support changing changing support support changing changing support changing support ment can get funding funding get can ment
not not not support for different levels of government to to government of levels different for for different levels of government to to government of levels different for for different levels of government to to government of levels different for , or , or , or l government can get funding funding get can government l rt things: easier easier easier ------
three support suppo support it
does
makes makes guarantees local councils are councils local guarantees makes it it makes makes it it makes guarantees local councils are councils local guarantees
answer)
AND AND recognises that local govern local that recognises AND recognises that local government can get funding can get funding government local that recognises are councils local guarantees AND AND recognises that loca that recognises
• • • • • • • • • SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE GLE RESPONSE SIN GLE PROG NOTE: PROG - PROG NOTE: PROG - PROG NOTE: PROG - PROG NOTE: PROG - Would you personally personally you Would simultaneously ------Would you personally personally you Would personally you Would personally you would And, (Select answer)one (Select answer)one one (Select (Select answer)one Yes, would support would Yes, not would No, Can’t say support would Yes, not would No, Can’t say support would Yes, not would No, Can’t say support would Yes, not would No, Can’t say
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
A 14 PROG NOTE: RANDOMISE ORDER OF RANDOMISE NOTE: OF / /A16 ORDER A15 PROG A14 ------A 15 A16 A17
the local different different from that
for ------Constitution
joint solutions. joint
the which levels of of which levels lt for the for different lt , directly
easier easier
t require easily that
to make i make to any funding any lems made it difficu local things at once.
prob
and and (Select answer)one (Select
operate more more - operate fix ? actually three ate to Constitution
Constitution to officially recognise recognise officially to Constitution or st
assumed that local councils would only get get only would councils local that assumed
, the nment the
two
t was I - operate federal .
– co
achieves achieves ------
support the following types of changes to to changes of types following the support
try totry
federal gover federal he he Constitution has governments t
not support changing changing support support changing changing support allow governments to co to governments allow or the idea of local councils getting getting councils idealocal the of government
(Select answer)one , state
thought about
. not . where where of not ?
governments.
from the from
T and and
, or , or vels even even Select answer)one simultaneously (
state le
cases
support
of ideas of operate
- changed to to changed directly
that
- operatively federal from
support support to co
was not was and and all three all
2 THEN 3 LAS - 2 THEN work co
ution to rates
get funding get funding combinations s Constitution was Constitution was written,
between
can from government government
Constit the
operation between between - operation Constitution in a way in Constitution
the SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE 1 RANDOMISE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE
, would support , would to continue. below arrow the on click Please government Would you personally funding that involve involve that Would you personally personally Would you PROG NOTE: PROG - levels of of levels government - - PROG NOTE: PROG government should it it should cover? government However, there have been have there However, councils councils federal Please tell us if you would us if Please tell you would - PROG NOTE: PROG Federal, state and local governments often governments and local state Federal, ------When If OF IDEAS COMBINATIONS changing involve may a referendum at consider to asked are people that change the earlier, noted As the - operation ------o Yes, would support would Yes, not would No, Can’t say Yes not would No, Can’t say Only co C Can’t say
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 ------
A11 ------A 9 THERE IS NOTE: NO PROG A10 A12 SCREEN INTRO NOTE: PROG A13
82 Final Report
each 4 7 (Select “Yes” or “No” for or “No” “Yes” (Select
2 2 2 2
No
1 1 1 1 Yes , in...?currently work
o back to the Panel’s home page. home Panel’s to the o back g immediate family immediate government
government organisation government
overnment organisation overnment g government organisation government
The Expert Panel will take your feedback into consideration in reporting to the Australian Australian the to reporting in consideration into feedback take your will Panel Expert The ember 2011. 2011. ember . federal state local , or any members of your your of members any or , you Do of type Any of type Any of type Any with to do capacity other some In
item) B6 A B C D againThank you in Dec Government a “Make the via submission a written upload or type can you comments, detailed more to submit like would you If website. this on link submission” to below arrow forward the on click Please SHOW SHOW
)
ghly half a page half ghly
CHARACTERS IS ENTERED PLEASE CHARACTERS
rou -
1,500 (Select answer)one (Select
characters
o have “had their say”, could you please answer these last last these answer please you could say”, their “had o have you would like to make about the recognition of local local of recognition the about make to like would you (Select answer) one (Select
1,500 IE CODE 1 IN B1.CODE 2 GO TO B3 1TO IE IN2 CODE B1.CODE GO
characters allowed) characters
TS 1,500
comments comments (Maximum of COMMEN
brief brief CHARACTERS. CHARACTERS. IF MORE THAN
answer)
(Maximum of of (Maximum OTHER
ESPONDENTS 1,500
PROG NOTE: NOTE: RESPONDENTS PROG ALL ASK (If you have no comment to make, please type in “can’t say”) “can’t in type please make, to comment no you have (If
(Select one
-
ania
SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE SINGLE RESPONSE SINGLE MESSAGE MESSAGE IF NO TEXT IS ENTERED AND THE RESPONDENT TRIES TO CLICK FORWARD PLEASE FORWARD CLICK TRIES TO THE RESPONDENT AND IS ENTERED TEXT IF NO MAXIMUM OF MESSAGE SHOW OPEN TEXT FIELDOPEN
/ do
______wh people of types the understand us help To few questions about yourself? Firstly, where do you live? do you where Firstly, yourself? about questions few Which of these age groups do you fall into? into? fall you do groups age these of Which NOTE: PROG - Are you...? PROG NOTE: PROG - PROG NOTE: PROG - - - PROG NOTE: PROG - PROG NOTE: PROG - Please tell us your comments comments your us tell Please Do you have any other other any have you Do government?
ACT NSW Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasm Northern Territory Outside Australia Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 over 65 and Yes No Male Female
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 NOTE: R PROG ALL ASK B3
SECTION B IF NOTE: HAVE PROG ASK B4 B5 B1
B2
Final Report 83 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Appendix D Consultation strategy and implementation
84 Final Report Summary
This appendix reports on the Expert Panel’s consultation strategy and engagement outcomes. The panel carried out its national consultation process between 22 September and 4 November 2011.
Background
The panel’s terms of reference stated that, in conducting its inquiry, the members of the panel would consult:
• Local governments and their representative bodies, including the Australian Council of Local Government (ACLG) and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA);
• State and Territory governments;
• Federal parliamentarians;
• Subject matter experts, such as constitutional reform, local government and regional government experts; and
• Interested members of the Australian community.
The terms of reference set out two key matters on which the panel was to report to Government and which informed the stakeholder consultation:
• the level of support for constitutional recognition of local government among stakeholders and in the general community; and
• options for that recognition.
The terms of reference required the panel to have regard to the benefits and risks of the different options as well as outcomes that may be achieved for key stakeholders.
Consultation objectives, tools and timing
The panel developed a consultation program with two objectives: to capture views that were representative of the Australian community and to invite interested stakeholders and members of the public to have their say through self-selection. The panel’s consultation activities needed to be managed within the panel’s timeframe for carrying out its work and reporting to Government in December 2011.
Final Report 85 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
The consultation mechanisms included:
• community meetings in each State;
• face-to-face meetings with State premiers and Opposition leaders, federal parliamentarians and local government representatives;
• a roundtable with subject matter experts;
• surveys (focus groups, online, postcard and telephone); and
• written submissions.
The telephone survey was the sole mechanism designed to provide information that was representative of the broader Australian community.
In addition to direct consultation mechanisms, the panel reached a wider audience through advertising, a dedicated website, correspondence, an information kit and media engagement, including social media. The objectives of the panel’s communication were to:
• communicate the panel’s purpose and process to allow interested stakeholders and members of the public to participate;
• promote participation in the consultation process;
• elicit information and views from a broad range of stakeholders;
• inform Government and the community about the outcomes of the panel’s work;
• generate broader public interest in the relevant issues; and
• further a national conversation on the relevant issues.
Participation
More than 2,800 contributions were made to the panel’s consultation program (see Table D1).
In additional, many people came in contact with the process through the panel’s communication activities, as shown in Table D2.
86 Final Report Consultation mechanisms Number of contacts
Community meetings 127 people attended six community meetings
Face-to-face stakeholder meetings 45 people attended 26 meetings
Roundtable with subject matter experts 10 people attended one meeting
Survey (focus groups) Six group discussions, each with 6–8 electors, in New South Wales and Queensland
Survey (online) 529 respondents
Survey (postcard) 25 respondents
Survey (telephone) 1,478 respondents
Written submissions 634 submissions received
Total contacts 2,800+
Table D1 Contributions made through consultations, type and number
Communications mechanism Reporting details
Advertising (press) 57 advertisements in national, major urban and regional newspapers
Advertising (radio) 128 placements to promote the Wodonga, Townsville, Launceston and Murray Bridge community meetings
Advertising (social media) Daily messages through Twitter and Facebook
Information kits Approximately 230 kits distributed
Media reports Approximately 40 press reports
Approximately 20 radio and TV reports
Approximately 60 stakeholder media releases and news reports online
Letters and emails Over 700 to local governments and their associations and other stakeholders
Panel’s discussion paper Approximately 930 distributed (excludes downloads from website)
Panel’s website A total of 5,981 unique visits and 22,001 page views
The most popular pages were Make a Submission and Discussion Paper
Table D2 Contact with public, mechanism and reporting details
Final Report 87 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Community meetings
The panel invited the community to attend six community meetings, held in regional cities across all States, to:
• grasp the views of local communities in each State;
• provide an opportunity for members of the community to participate in the consultation process;
• allow panel members to personally encounter community views; and
• enable the community to clarify and expand on their written submissions.
The community meetings were widely promoted to maximise the opportunity for members of the community to participate.
In total, 127 people attended community meetings in Dubbo, New South Wales (30 September 2011); Karratha, Western Australia (5 October 2011); Wodonga, Victoria (13 October 2011); Townsville, Queensland (18 October 2011); Launceston, Tasmania (25 October 2011); and Murray Bridge, South Australia (31 October 2011).
Of these attendees, most were local council representatives.
Face-to-face meetings
Panel members invited State premiers and Opposition leaders, federal parliamentarians and local government representatives to face-to-face meetings to:
• allow panel members to personally encounter the views of these stakeholders; and
• enable the stakeholders to clarify and expand on their written submissions.
Panel members met with a total of 45 stakeholders in 26 meetings.
Roundtables
The panel invited two groups of subject matter experts to roundtable meetings to:
• allow panel members to personally encounter the views of these stakeholders; and
• encourage robust discussion from stakeholders with possibly diverse views.
88 Final Report The first roundtable meeting was held in Sydney and was attended by ten stakeholders from academia and constitutional law. A second roundtable (business focused), to be held in Melbourne, was cancelled due to a poor response from invited stakeholders.
Surveys
The panel engaged Newspoll, a reputable Australian public opinion company, to undertake a qualitative and quantitative research study into community views. Surveying was undertaken to:
• capture views that were representative of the community, enabling the findings to be extrapolated to the broader population; and
• provide an opportunity for all members of the community and stakeholders to have input and express their views.
Focus groups, online and postcard surveys
This part of the research included six group discussions with electors in New South Wales and Queensland, drawn from metropolitan and regional locations, and an opt-in survey made available on the panel’s website. In addition, the panel provided postcards, printed with elements from the online survey, at the community meetings and to other interested stakeholders through its information kit.
The online survey was intended to provide the opportunity for all members of the community and stakeholders to have their say and, in contrast to the telephone survey, was designed to be inclusive rather than representative. Therefore, the findings should be treated as stand-alone observations in the same way as other self-selected consultation mechanisms, providing a valuable insight into key stakeholder and community views.
In total, 529 visitors completed the online survey, and 25 people completed the postcard survey.
An analysis of views expressed through this part of the research is in Appendix C.
Telephone
The research also included a telephone survey of 1,478 electors, which provided a statistically valid representation of community views. An analysis of views expressed through this survey is in Appendix C.
Final Report 89 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Written submissions
The panel invited the community to make written submissions via post, email and on its website to:
• provide an opportunity for all members of the community and stakeholders to have input and express their views; and
• enable panel members to encounter views in written form.
The panel received 634 submissions, mostly via its website. Of the online submissions, nearly half provided their views in short-form comments using the website’s pre-prepared open text field. The others chose to upload a letter and other supporting documents.
An analysis of views expressed through submissions is in Appendix B.
90 Final Report Appendix E Local government as a constitutional expression
Final Report 91 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
An amendment to the Australian Constitution may have unexpected or unintended legal consequences. The addition of a term such as ‘local government’ in a provision in the body of the Constitution would create what the High Court has characterised as a ‘constitutional expression’. The High Court has identified the significance of the constitutional dimension of a number of different terms found in the Constitution in this way, including: ‘Supreme Court’ in s 73 (ii);1 ‘trial by jury’ in s 80;2 and ‘subject of the Queen’ in ss 34 (ii) and 117;3 and re-characterised the ‘prerogative writs’ referred to in s 75(v) as ‘constitutional writs’ with similar effect.
In its discussion paper the Expert Panel referred to the element of uncertainty that could arise if the identification of the ‘essential characteristics’ of local government as a new constitutional expression were left for future determination by the High Court. This could be a significant factor if the democratic recognition option were put forward. However, for the reasons set out in the body of the report, this is not a significant risk with respect to financial recognition.
As a constitutional expression, the meaning of the term ‘local government’ would be subject to interpretation by the High Court. This would generate uncertainty because the High Court would be able to determine the legal definition of ‘local government’. If the definition of local government were fixed by the High Court as a constitutional expression, it could not be changed by the Commonwealth and State parliaments. Consequently, the inclusion of ‘local government’ in the Constitution may, as a result of High Court judgments, prevent State parliaments from altering the essential characteristics of their respective local government systems.
The High Court may use the definition of ‘local government’ in existing legislation as the starting point for any judgment on the definition of ‘local government’ as a constitutional expression. It is therefore important to explore how the term ‘local government’ is presently characterised in the legislation of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.
References to local government (and other terms taken to be synonymous, and used interchangeably, with local government) appear in a great deal of State and Territory legislation, most notably in the various constitutions, local government Acts and interpretations Acts of the States and Territories. Where definitions of local government exist, they typically refer to bodies established under a jurisdiction’s local government act.
1 See Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531. 2 See Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278 at [7], [33]; Ng v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 521 at [9]. 3 See Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 218 CLR 28 at [14], [20].
92 Final Report Commonwealth Acts
The Commonwealth has provided a definition of the term ‘local governing body’ which it uses to determine eligibility for funding under a range of grants programs, most notably the Financial Assistance Grants program. The term is defined in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 as:
a. a local governing body established by or under a law of a State4, other than a body whose sole or principal function is to provide a particular service, such as the supply of electricity or water; or
b. a body declared by the Minister, on the advice of the relevant State Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to be a local governing body for the purposes of this Act.
The second part of that definition has allowed a number of organisations that are not formally established as local governing bodies under a relevant State or Territory local government Act to receive Commonwealth grant funding. Presently, these bodies include a number of Aboriginal community councils in South Australia (and the Outback Communities Authority, which provides limited support similar to local government support to the communities in the vast unincorporated lands of South Australia), the Trust Account in the Northern Territory and the Silverton and Tibooburra Village committees in New South Wales.
State constitutions
Provisions relating to local government are now included in the constitution of every Australian State.5 Australia’s Territories, including the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, do not have constitutions. Broadly, the constitutions of each State characterise local government in similar terms. They each:
• provide for the maintenance of a system of local government
• describe councils as elected bodies that are responsible for the good government of a specific area; and
• allow the relevant State’s legislature to make any laws it considers necessary for, or with respect to, local government.
It is worth noting that, while the constitutions of all States make reference to councils being ‘elected’, only the constitution of Victoria stipulates that local government is to consist of ‘democratically elected councils’.6 The constitutions of all other States provide for local governments to be elected (or duly appointed in the case of New South Wales7) and constituted in such a manner as its respective legislature may from time to time provide.
4 For the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, the term ‘State’ includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. 5 See Constitution Act 1902 (NSW); Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld); Constitution Act 1934 (Tas); Constitution Act 1975 (Vic); Constitution Act 1934 (SA); Constitution Act 1889 (WA). 6 Constitution Act 1975 (Vic). 7 Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), 51(1).
Final Report 93 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
There are a number of clauses in specific State constitutions that are unique. The Victorian constitution, for example, refers to local government as a ‘distinct and essential tier of government’ and prevents a council from being ‘dismissed except by an Act of Parliament relating to the Council’.8 In contrast to other State constitutions, the Constitution of Queensland specifies that its system of local government ‘consists of a number of local governments’.9
Local government Acts
The varied forms of the seven State and Territory local government Acts is a reflection of the unique ways in which local government has developed in each jurisdiction. Besides their complex and prescriptive nature, all the local government Acts share common features: the basis on which each constitutes its system of local government and the powers and legal status with which it endows them.
Establishment
In all jurisdictions, councils are constituted in respect of an area (or, variously, a district, local government area, municipal area or municipal district). That is, each council is established in respect to, and given powers for the government of, a designated parcel of land. In all jurisdictions, however, the powers assigned to a local government under its relevant local government Act extend beyond its area, subject to the various caveats that apply in each jurisdiction.
Powers
Under each jurisdiction’s local government act, local governments are given a range of specific functions, powers, roles, objectives and responsibilities. Although invariably subject to the limitations or restrictions imposed by that and any other Act in effect in that jurisdiction, these are not limited to the powers specifically conferred. That is, they have the full legal capacity and powers of either an individual or a body corporate, as the case may be, and are empowered to do anything necessary, expedient or convenient to perform their functions.
Legal status
The legal status of local governments varies between jurisdictions. In South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, local governments are bodies corporate with perpetual succession and common seals.10 In New South Wales, however, councils are bodies politic of the State ‘with perpetual succession and the legal capacity and powers of an individual, both in and outside the State’.11 The New South Wales Government is about to introduce legislation to convert the status of councils from bodies politic of the State to bodies corporate.12
8 See Constitution Act 1975 (Vic). 9 See Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld). 10 See Local Government Act 1999 (SA); Local Government Act 1993 (Tas); Local Government Act 1989 (Vic); Local Government Act 1995 (WA); Local Government Act (NT). 11 See Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). 12 See Local Government Amendment Bill 2011 (NSW).
94 Final Report Prior to 2008, all councils in Queensland were bodies corporate.13 In 2008, the Queensland Government passed legislation so that local councils in Queensland (except for Brisbane City Council) are no longer corporations.14 This was done to ensure that councils do not fall within the scope of the constitutional corporations power and therefore within the federal industrial relations system.15 In 2010, the Queensland Government passed legislation stipulating that the Brisbane City Council is a body corporate.16
This outline of the variations in practice with respect to the structure and functions of local government suggests that any future identification by the High Court of the ‘essential characteristics’ of local government is unlikely to inhibit future reform and experimentation.
Relevant current Australian statutes
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Constitution Act 1889 (WA) Act 1995 (Cth) Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) Local Government Act 1995 (WA) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Constitution Act 1934 (SA) Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) Local Government Act 1999 (SA) Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas) Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) Interpretation Act (NT) Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld) Local Government Act (NT) Local Government Act 2009 (Qld)
13 See Local Government Act 1993 (Qld). 14 See Local Government and Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2008 (Qld). 15 See Department of Local Government, Sport and Recreation, Queensland Government, Changes to local governments in the Local Government and Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2008, fact sheet, at http://www.dlgp.qld.gov.au/resources/factsheet/lg/factsheet-03.pdf. 16 See City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld).
Final Report 95 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Appendix F History of local government and referendums
96 Final Report Local government bodies have existed in Australia since the establishment of the Adelaide Corporation (now the City of Adelaide) in 1840. Across Australia, there are now about 560 local government bodies that promote local interests and deliver important services and infrastructure. These bodies are very diverse: the areas they cover range from less than a square kilometre to almost 380,000 square kilometres (approximately the same area as Japan), and their populations range from a few hundred to more than 1 million.
Local government is a legislative responsibility of the States and Territories and is recognised in the Constitution of each State. State parliaments determine the roles and responsibilities of local governments, and those responsibilities vary from State to State.
Over recent decades the role of local government has widened significantly. It now covers areas such as planning, environmental management, recreation, regional development and human services. Also, local government is increasingly being asked to contribute to national policy areas such as economic development and action on climate change, and to support improvements in public policymaking and service delivery at the regional level. Through these processes, local government is now directly involved in the development of national policy.
More and more, shared responsibilities require greater cooperation among the three levels of government. The peak Australian local government organisation, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), has been accepted for two decades as a member of the Council of Australian Governments, the highest forum for collaboration in our federal system. All levels of government have now agreed that they must take a cooperative approach to the reallocation of responsibilities and resources to minimise duplication and waste and to increase sustainability and accountability.
A good example of such cooperation can be seen in the Inter-governmental Agreement Establishing Principles Guiding Inter-governmental Relations on Local Government Matters. The agreement, signed in 2006 by Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers for local government and ALGA, sets out a framework for the funding and delivery of services to the community at the local level.
The Commonwealth Parliament formally acknowledged the role of local government in Australia in 2006. All political parties supported a resolution that:
1. recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally elected councils
2. values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve
3. acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation
4. acknowledges the importance of cooperating with and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities
Final Report 97 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
5. acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services
6. commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities.
While the resolution did not advocate recognising local government in the Constitution, it affirmed the integral part played by local government as the third level of government in the Australian Federation.
The Australian Constitution does not refer to local government; historically, local government was not recognised in State constitutions either.
Local government is now recognised in all State constitutions. The Commonwealth Constitutional Convention established by the Whitlam Government recommended at a number of the sessions it held between 1973 and 1985 that local government be given recognition in State constitutions and/or the Australian Constitution. As a consequence, all State constitutions were amended between 1979 and 1989 to acknowledge local government.
Proposals to recognise local government in the Australian Constitution have twice been put unsuccessfully to referendum: by the Whitlam Government in 1974 and by the Hawke Government in 1988.
The 1974 referendum
In 1974, four referendum proposals were put to the vote. One dealt with local government and proposed inserting two new provisions in the Australian Constitution. Both provisions addressed the issue of direct Commonwealth funding to local government:
• A proposed new section 51(ivA) would have provided that the Commonwealth could make laws with respect to ‘[t]he borrowing of money by the Commonwealth for local government bodies’.
• A proposed new section 96A would have provided that ‘[t]he Parliament may grant financial assistance to any local government body on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit’.
The proposed law was rejected twice by the Senate, and was put to the people only after being passed on two occasions by the House of Representatives.1 The national vote in favour was 46.85 per cent; only in New South Wales did a majority of voters support the proposal. None of the referendum proposals put to the vote in 1974 were successful.
1 The 1974 local government proposal and three other unsuccessful referendum questions put in 1974 are the only referendums conducted under the ‘deadlock’ provisions, which allow a referendum proposal to be put to the vote without the approval of the Senate. See George Williams and David Hume, People power: the history and future of the referendum in Australia (UNSW Press, 2010) 40.
98 Final Report The ‘yes’ campaign in the 1974 referendum focused on two issues:2
• Local government would have to increase rates and charges without Commonwealth funding, as State funding was insufficient.
• In the past, State premiers had insisted on financial assistance to local government being funded through the States.
The 1974 referendum ‘no’ campaign arguments included the following:3
• The Commonwealth could already fund local governments through the States under section 96, so change was unnecessary.
• The Commonwealth (‘Canberra’) would have new power to control local government.
• It would be expensive to have a new administrative system in Canberra for distributing funds to local government.
The 1988 referendum
In 1985, the Commonwealth Government set up a Constitutional Commission to replace the Constitutional Convention and instructed the new Commission to report by 1988.4 In its final report, the Constitutional Commission recommended a new section 119A to recognise local government. Its reason was that there was a ‘need to accord [local government] the status of an established part of the structure of government’ to restrain arbitrary State abolitions, though not temporary lawful suspensions or amalgamations.5
Four referendum proposals were put to the vote in 1988. The local government proposal largely followed the Constitutional Commission’s recommendation, and proposed a new section 119A in the following terms:
Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of a State and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State.
The Constitutional Commission had recommended using the phrase ‘local government bodies’ rather than ‘a system of local government’. This proposal would have provided a form of democratic recognition to local government, as it ensured that local government bodies were elected.
2 Nicola McGarrity and George Williams, ‘Recognition of local government in the Commonwealth Constitution’ (2010) 21 Public Law Review 164, 168; Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, House of Representatives, Constitutional Change (1997) 101–2. 3 McGarrity and Williams, above n 2, 168; Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, above n 2, 101–2. 4 The replacement of the Australian Constitutional Convention by the Constitutional Commission was opposed by the federal Opposition and by most of the States: see Cheryl Saunders, ‘Constitutional recognition of local government’ in Nico Steytler (ed) The place and role of local government in federal systems (Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2005) 56. 5 Constitutional Commission, Final report of the Constitutional Commission 1988 (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1988) [8.39].
Final Report 99 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
The national vote in favour of this proposal was 33.62 per cent, and the proposal did not get majority support in any State. As in 1974, all four proposals were defeated.
The ‘yes’ campaigners in the 1988 referendum argued that:6
• constitutional recognition was the only way to guarantee the continued existence of local government
• the amendment would recognise the important role played by local government
• the amendment would strengthen the system of decentralised community based government.
The ‘no’ campaigners in the 1988 referendum argued that:7
• the language of the proposal was vague and uncertain
• it would not stop arbitrary dismissals or amalgamations of local government bodies
• it would result in further centralisation of government in Australia, controlled from Canberra.
6 McGarrity and Williams, above n 2, 169; Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, above n 2, 101–2. 7 Ibid.
100 Final Report Appendix G Local government in State constitutions
Final Report 101 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Every State constitution was amended between 1979 and 1989 to acknowledge the role of local government. The provisions in all of the State constitutions except Victoria’s are very similar. They each describe local government as:
• a body that is elected1 or ‘is duly elected or duly appointed’2
• having powers as provided by the State parliament or legislature
• responsible for the good governance / better government of a particular area of the State.
The Victorian Constitution has stronger recognition in the form of guarantees that local councils must be democratically elected, and must have both a ‘governing body’ and an ‘administration’. It also lists the areas relating to local government about which the State parliament may make laws explicitly.3
The Victorian and Queensland constitutions are the only State constitutions that have a description of the due process for dismissing a local government body. In Victoria, a local government body can only be dismissed by an Act of Parliament; in Queensland, dismissal requires ratification by the Legislative Assembly.4
Some observers suggest that these provisions provide little protection for local government.5
Local government advocates have argued that the protections for local government in State constitutions are further weakened because State constitutions can, as a general rule, be changed in the same way as an ordinary Act of Parliament. A referendum is not required, as it is for changes to the Australian Constitution. The only exception is that some State parliaments have ‘entrenched’ some provisions regarding local government in their State constitutions. By entrenching a provision, a State parliament determines the way that the provision can be changed in the future. According to some, however, there remains a legal question over whether any entrenched provisions, particularly those dealing with local government, would be upheld under a legal challenge.6
Three States have entrenched provisions that deal with local government. The South Australian Constitution requires that a Bill to end the system of local government be passed by an absolute majority. The Queensland Constitution requires that a referendum be held to end the system of local government. The Victorian Constitution requires a referendum to change any of the provisions currently dealing with local government.
Of these, the Victorian Constitution has the strongest protection for local government, as the chances of the whole system of local government being removed in any State have been rated as exceptionally unlikely.7
1 Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld) s 71(1); Constitution Act 1934 (SA) s 64A(1); Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) s 45A(1); Constitution Act 1889 (WA) s 52(1). 2 Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) s 51(1). 3 Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) ss 74A(1) and 74B. 4 Ibid s 74B(2); Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld) s 72–76. 5 McGarrity and Williams, above n 5, 167; Saunders, above n 7, 54. 6 McGarrity and Williams, above n 5, 168. 7 Saunders, above n 7, 56.
102 Final Report Appendix H State and Territory views on constitutional recognition as presented in their written submissions to the panel Full submissions can be viewed at www.localgovrecognition.gov.au/content/submissions-received
Final Report 103 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government General comments General Has offered in-principle support but awaits the panel’s findings as to whether constitutional amendments are ‘the best way to achieve financial sustainability and enhanced status for local government’. Concerned about constitutional creating uncertainty: any reforms should offer certainty of outcomes. improved Highlighted robust democratic recognition under State constitution. opportunities Notes for strengthened ‘sub-constitutional’ recognition. Federal cooperation No specificNo comment, but ‘wants to see competent local government partner a as participating with the Commonwealth and the States…’ Support for further discussion. Considers the vertical fiscal imbalance to of be key concern but ‘…supports the ideas expressed by the Expert Panel in relation to further dialogue on how to encourage cooperation…’
Democratic* Opposed. Considers that this amendment would prevent State governments from theirexercising ‘executive powers to dismiss local councils’. Substantial reservations but not explicit opposition. Considers that ‘there is nothing to be gained…’ and notes that such an amendment may potential‘generate legal uncertainty’.
an 1 Financial* Reservations but not explicit opposition: may be options‘…there for refining funding arrangements that ... do requirenot amendments theto Constitution’. Opposed. Considers that this would exacerbate ‘the blurring roles, responsibilities and accountabilities in the Australian Federation’ and notes that the Commonwealth does considernot Pape impediment to direct funding. Symbolic In-principle support ‘In-principle the NSW Government supports consideration symbolic of However, recognition’. ‘care should be taken to ensure that unintended legal and practical consequences not do arise’. Opposed. Considers that this form recognitionof ‘presents risks constitutional of uncertainty, whilst at the same time providing little to local government’. Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1. In the cases of financial and democratic recognition, States generallypanel’s discussion responded to paper.particular Modified options formswere not tested.of words suggested in the NSW VIC 1 *
104 Final Report General comments General Awaits specific proposals. Highlighted the strong recognition that currently exists under the Qld Constitution. Provided in-principle support but will give careful consideration to any specific proposition. Stated any that form ‘... recognitionof must be purely symbolic, without the possibility having of any legal effect being or able to be utilised in litigation judicial or interpretation’. Federal cooperation No specificNo comment. specificNo comment but ‘welcomes initiatives to strengthen the relationships between governments ...’. Opposed. Considered such constitutional amendment ‘unnecessary and potentially harmful’. Democratic* No specificNo comment. specificNo comment. Opposed . Considered democratic unnecessaryrecognition Financial* In-principle support. Notes that any amendment must not diminish the State’s primary constitutional responsibility for local government. specificNo comment. Provided in-principle support but will give careful consideration to any specific proposition. Opposed. Considered that this amendment would ‘downgrade and circumvent the States Also…’ suggested that no obvious problem has been created by Pape Symbolic specificNo comment. specificNo comment. but ‘welcomes initiatives to strengthen the relationships between governments ...’. Concerned about potential constitutional uncertainty, but ‘may give favourable consideration to a limited express provision that the States may create local governments and may make laws in regard to their form and functions’. In the cases of financial and democratic recognition, States generallypanel’s discussion responded to paper.particular Modified options formswere not tested.of words suggested in the QLD SA WA *
Final Report 105 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Welcomed ongoing and open dialogue and will seek detailed guidance the on merits a specific of proposal once developed. Noted even that minor ‘... changes to the Australian Constitution can have ...’ significant consequences Concerned if any process detracted from ability to secure Indigenous recognition. ‘Given the role that Local Government plays within the Australian Federation, the ACT supports the constitutional recognition Localof Government.’ General comments General No specificNo comment. In-principle support. Noted that it is appropriate to ‘cooperation acknowledge across and between all levels government’ of that ‘will only become more important …’. Federal cooperation No specificNo comment. specificNo comment. but noted that the ACT has endeavored to ‘ensure the democratic nature localof representatives is acknowledged and protected …’ in the Australian Capital Territory (Self- Government) Act 1988. Democratic* No specificNo comment. In-principle support. Supported ‘removing any ambiguity that may exist’ regarding the Commonwealth’s ability to fund local government directly. Financial* Symbolic specificNo comment. specificNo comment. submissionNo provided to this process. In the cases of financial and democratic recognition, States generallypanel’s discussion responded to paper.particular Modified options formswere not tested.of words suggested in the ACT NT TAS *
106 Final Report Appendix I List of submissions received
Final Report 107 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
ID Name ID Name
5 John Howard AC 55 R.J. Koerner
6 Shire of Dardanup 56 Lee-Kaye Tonkin-Jones
7 Upper Lachlan Shire Council 57 Shire of Carnarvon
8 Louise Hoan 58 Kingborough Council
9 Town of Kwinana 59 Bob Tatnell
10 Huon Valley Council 60 Alan Nelson
11 City of Queanbeyan 61 Richmond Valley Council
12 Max Burr 62 Amy-Rose West
20 City of South Perth 63 City of Stonnington, Victoria
21 w Council 64 Jon Albiez
22 Central Goldfields Shire Council 65 Tweed Shire Council
23 Upper Hunter Shire Council 66 Port Adelaide Enfield Council
24 Katherine Town Council 68 Peter Blundell
25 Moorabool Shire Council 69 Aseet Patel
26 Shire of Broome 70 Barry Lennon
27 Rural City of Wangaratta 71 Mike
28 Hylda Rolfe 72 Phil Hainsworth
29 Commonwealth Local 73 Paul Williams Government Forum 74 Steve and Jacqui Cornwell
36 Goulburn Mulwaree Council 75 Mark Taylor
37 City of Playford 76 Meg Howe
38 Shire of Cranbrook 77 Nicholas N. Chin
47 Fintan Hamilton 78 Mike Palmer
48 Tilak Dissanayake 79 John Gallo
49 Ron Munro 80 Allen Gotts
50 Karen 81 Martin Dygut
51 Steven Patterson 82 Andrew Moyle
52 No Way 83 Corey
53 Ray Hayward 84 Jan Fijolek
54 Dr Gregory Mark Carson 85 Allison McMaster
108 Final Report ID Name ID Name
86 Michael Vidal 117 Kris Best
87 Dennis Hipperson 118 R.D.
88 Neville 119 Roland
89 Raymond Martin 120 Ira Quirke
90 Dr Mark Dixon 121 Ferdinand Henricus Lucienne Baijens
91 Soulore Solaris 122 Jan Summers
92 Andy Spencer 123 Roger Hooper
93 George Der 124 F.C. Yates
94 Robert James Davies 125 Rob
95 Paul Judd 126 John Cornelis
96 John O'Grady 127 Peter Kash
97 Douglas Nidzovic 128 Steve Pasfield
98 Stephen Brown 129 Jodee Carter
99 Andre Vlok 130 John Vanderzee
100 Ray Jinks 132 John Wyke
101 Ivor Thompson 133 Sarah Stewart
102 David Prentice 134 Ralph Cerminara
103 Anthony Schepis 135 John Alexander
104 Graham Carman 136 Kerrie Evans
105 Peter Burrett 137 Brett Harding
106 Mogens Pedersen 138 Robert Czosnowski
107 Glenn Hando 139 Allan Carrick
108 George Harley 140 Heath Cruz
109 Gary Laming 141 J.A.
110 Mariane Miller 142 Jeff Hillman
111 Ian Collett 143 Alexander Schell
112 John Williams 144 Adriana Schell
113 Peter Callil 145 Greg Pace
114 Hugh Mackey 146 Andreas Widenbauer
116 Bernard Wylie 147 Paul Weston
Final Report 109 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
ID Name ID Name
148 Mark Liddle 177 Sandra Duncan
149 Dr. Colin D. Locke N.D.,D.C.,D.O. 178 Peter Gladman Fellow ANTA. COCA 179 Greg Townsend 150 Anton van de Zandt 180 Glenn M. Roberts 151 Nathan Nostaw 181 Kim Pollock
152 Peter Kelly 182 Leanne Stares
153 Anthony Geerkins 183 Angus Mckiggan
154 Michael Loughnan 184 David Bawden
155 Jerry Zawada 185 Gary Oraniuk
156 Tim Armstrong 186 Larry Brigden
157 Noel Roberts 187 Dan Ryan
158 John Samphier 188 Carol Norgate
159 Doug Phillips 190 Hartmut Gunzel
160 Larry Mortell 191 Doug Rogan
161 John Jones 192 Justin Hindle
162 P. Carabot 193 Karl
163 Denis Baker 194 Tom Kunek
164 Maggie Jarvis 195 Mark Redpath
165 Mark Bottrell 196 Stan Amanatidis
166 Isak van Heerden 197 Janet Roberts
167 Mark 198 Chris
168 Ian Kentley 199 Adam Brereton
169 Dr. Colin D. Locke N.D.,D.C.,D.O. 200 Michael Wood Fellow ANTA. COCA 201 Pat Formston
170 Michael M. Jabman 202 Ken
171 Peter Olney 203 Simon Shields
172 Michael Cooper 204 Wolfgang Lerchner
173 Raymond Spaul 205 David Hall
175 Debra Bentley 207 Ken Stephens
176 Joe Papez 208 John Sousamlis
110 Final Report ID Name ID Name
209 Tim Armytage 239 Leigh Price
210 Linda Wood 240 Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc. 211 Tony Bann 241 Cheryl and Klaus Kaulfuss 212 Lindsay Page 242 Karl 213 Robert McKenzie 243 Alison 214 Serena Moeau 244 Gary Powell 215 Benny Menczer 245 Ex Facie 216 Ian Polhill 246 T. Hopkins 217 Frank Breckon 247 Craig - Andrew: of the Lyons family 218 Shane Ralston 248 John Halliday 219 A.L. Zandegiacomo 249 Luba Lichtnauer 220 Peter Gilet 250 Robert Mitchell 221 Edward Clyde Andrews 251 Peter Hevesi-Nagy 222 Adam John Herbert 252 Rowan Higgs 223 Glenn Sinclair 253 Damien Rogers 224 Frank Davis 254 Elizabeth Perez 225 S.D. 255 Peter W. Nolan 226 Colin Winlaw-Powell 256 Susan Saunders 227 John Hutchinson 257 Town of Bassendean 228 Charles Hoal 258 James Warren 229 Blake Wood 259 Olaf Koenders 230 Luke Lantman 260 Terre Humphries 231 Debra-Margaret 261 Greg Robinson 232 Robert Czosnowski 263 Byron Holmes 233 M Adams 264 Carmela Bortolini 234 Taco's 265 Jeremy Dowzer 235 John and Rae Puchy 266 Blair R. Andrew 236 Alan Webster 267 Matt Krause 237 Grant See 268 Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, The Centre for 238 Terb Independent Studies
Final Report 111 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
ID Name ID Name
269 David Mills 299 Randwick City Council
270 Adrian Owen 300 Don Hansford
271 Gary Robertson 301 Peter Russell Gouws
272 Andrew 302 Dean Jaensch AO
273 City of Burnside 303 Quilpie Shire Council
274 Gosford City Council 304 James Fulton
275 L. J. Milligan 305 Robert Mitchell
276 Bayside Ratepayers' Association Inc. 306 Ralph Prestage
277 West Tamar Council 307 Christine Randall
279 Somerset Regional Council 308 Erik Reh
280 City of Joondalup 309 Shire of Halls Creek
281 City of West Torrens 310 Steven Mcghee
282 Corangamite Shire Council 311 Pamela Medcalf
283 Lockhart Shire Council 312 Ararat Rural City
284 Clarence City Council 313 Campbelltown City Council
285 Paul Anquetil 314 Cardinia Shire Council
286 District Council of Mount Barker, 315 Cassowary Coast Regional Council South Australia 316 City of Greater Bendigo
287 Ralph Weiss 317 City of Lake Macquarie
288 Theresa Weiss 318 Murray Shire
289 Pat Thornton 319 Narrabri Shire Council
290 Bayside City Council 320 North Sydney Council
291 Bill George 321 Shire of Pingelly
292 Denis Auberson 322 Wollondilly Shire Council
293 Raelene Auberson 323 Yarriambiack Shire Council
294 Denis Auberson (snr) 332 City of Boroondara
295 Marie Auberson 333 Bega Valley Shire Council
296 Peter Austin 334 Australian Local Government Association
297 Cabonne Council 335 Fraser Coast Regional Council
298 Ashfield Council 336 Alexandrina Council
112 Final Report ID Name ID Name
337 Toowoomba Regional Council 371 Paul Weston
338 Lismore City Council 372 Frankston City Council
339 City of Mitcham 373 Orange City Council
340 Coolamon Shire Council 374 Bathurst Regional Council
341 City of Greater Dandenong 375 Junee Shire Council
342 Northern Midlands Council 376 Marrickville Council
346 Peter Andrew 377 Mitchell Shire Council
348 Klaas Woldring, Republic Now 378 City of Palmerston Association Incorporated 380 Bundaberg Regional Council 350 Julie Head 381 South Gippsland Shire Council 351 Scott Kennedy 382 Forum of Federations 352 District Council of Franklin Harbour 383 Goondiwindi Regional Council 353 Tatiara District Council 384 City of Vincent 354 Coffs Harbour City Council 385 Redland City Council 355 Boulia Shire Council 386 Hornsby Shire Council 356 City of Gosnells 387 Greater Shepparton City Council 357 Ricky-John Flanagan 388 Weddin Shire Council 358 Terry- Dean Clarke 389 Lane Cove Council 359 Michael Dominic Sita 390 Wentworth Shire Council 360 Dr Charles Lawson, Griffith University 391 Gundagai Shire Council 361 Brett Goymour 392 Nambucca Shire Council 362 Melton Shire Council 393 Upper Lachlan Shire Council 363 Campbelltown City Council 394 William J. Fraser 364 Central Desert Shire Council 395 David Mitchell 365 David Kuiperslloyd 396 Kyogle Council 366 Shire of Irwin 397 The Institute of Public Works Engineering 367 Mornington Peninsula Shire Australia (NSW Division)
368 Brent Price 398 David Thompson
369 Roper Gulf Shire Council 399 Russell Hill
370 Kevin Hicks, Australian Tea Party 400 Gary Hutz
Final Report 113 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
ID Name ID Name
402 Shoalhaven City Council 436 Torres Shire Council
404 Antonia Anning 437 City of Unley
406 Peter Wood 438 Clarence Valley Council
407 Michael Sobb 439 B. and N. Cleary
408 Christopher Parris 440 WALGA – Kimberley Division
409 Len Archer 441 Shire of Ashburton
410 Brian Gray 442 Rural City of Murray Bridge
411 Tony Robinson 443 Hinchinbrook Shire Council
412 Maurice Alexander 444 Greater Hume Shire
413 Anne Doran 445 Cootamundra Shire Council 414 Stuart McRae 446 Hobart City Council 415 Port Augusta City Council 447 City of Marion 416 Wellington Shire Council 448 Corowa Shire Council 417 Liverpool Plains Shire Council 449 Cowra Shire Council 418 Balonne Shire Council 450 Alison Walpole 419 Cootamundra Shire Council 451 Whitsunday Regional Council 421 Yarra Ranges Shire Council 452 Don Auchterlonie 422 Ku-ring-gai Council 453 ALP – Shortland Day Branch 423 Andreas Antoniou 454 Brisbane City Council 424 Desmond R. Olin 455 Alice Springs Town Council 425 Gunnedah Shire Council 456 Ballina Shire Council 426 Warwick Carter 457 Shire of Gnowangerup 427 Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law 458 Gregory Howley 428 Robert Mitchell 460 Shire of Goomalling 429 Shire of Derby/West Kimberley 461 Ian H 430 Eurobodalla Shire Council 462 Bryan Campbell 431 Gloucester Shire Council 463 Brewarrina Shire Council 432 Greater Taree City Council 464 Adelaide City Council 434 Mackay Regional Council 465 Sally Davis 435 Local Government Association of Queensland 466 Shire Of Merredin
114 Final Report ID Name ID Name
467 Wam Moir 497 Shire of Dalwallinu
468 Shire of Wyndham / East Kimberley 498 Walcha Council
469 City of Perth 499 Blackall–Tambo Regional Council
470 Boorowa Council 500 Flinders Ranges Council
471 Armidale Dumaresq Council 501 Glenelg Shire Council
472 Australian Trucking Association 502 Gunnedah Shire Council
473 Maroondah City Council 503 Hawkesbury City Council
474 Shire of Lake Grace 504 Kiama Municipal Council
475 Shire of Manjimup 505 Launceston City Council
476 Business SA 506 Liverpool City Council
477 Town of Port Hedland 507 District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula
478 Kent Bayley 508 Mid Murray Council 509 Port Stephens Council 479 Shire of Wagin 510 City of Victor Harbor 480 The Barossa Council 511 Wakool Shire Council 481 Darren Kay 512 Waverley Council 482 Gabor I. Hamory 513 Western Downs Regional Council 483 Wendy Bitans 514 Willoughby City Council 484 DontCopIt Australia 515 Yass Valley Council 486 Ray Levick 516 District Council of Yorke Peninsula 487 Albury City Council and City of Wodonga Council 517 Jeffrey Butler
488 Daniel Taylor 518 Mario Cachia
490 John Salmon 519 Latrobe City Council
491 Signe Westeberg 520 N.H. Jackson
492 Michael Wadsley 521 Penrith City Council
493 Borough of Queenscliffe 522 E.J. and E.T. Lowe
494 Burdekin Shire Council 523 Sunshine Coast Regional Council 524 Leslie Kelety 495 Regional Development Australia Moreton Bay 525 Moreland City Council
496 Mosman Council 526 City of Wagga Wagga
Final Report 115 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
ID Name ID Name
527 Leslie Orton 556 Helen Nicholls
528 Philip Stanley 557 Australian Workers Union – Queensland Branch 529 City of Port Phillip 558 West Arnhem Shire Council 530 Maranoa Regional Council
531 Mid-Western Regional Council 559 Rockdale City Council
532 Moreton Bay Regional Council 560 Fiona Ogilvy-O'Donnell
533 East Arnhem Shire Council 561 Gympie Regional Council
534 Shire of Donnybrook–Balingup 562 C.B.
535 Parkes Shire Council 563 Etheridge Shire Council
536 Port Macquarie-Hastings Council 564 S.W. Knott
537 Shire of Beverley 565 City of Sydney
538 Local Government Association of the 566 Townsville City Council Northern Territory 568 Martin Reynolds
539 Moira Shire Council 569 Senator Lee Rhiannon, Australian Greens
540 Holroyd City Council 570 City of Mandurah
541 Shire of Busselton 571 Shire of Bridgetown–Greenbushes
542 Leeton Shire Council 572 Government of Western Australia
543 Banyule City Council 573 David Turner
544 Shire of Capel 574 Manningham City Council
545 Colac Otway Shire 575 Nillumbik Shire Council
546 City of Greater Geelong 576 Central Goldfields Shire Council
547 George Town Council 577 Glen Innes Severn Council 548 Leichhardt Council 578 South Burnett Regional Council 549 Local Government Association Tasmania 579 City of Darebin 550 The Hon. Warren Truss MP, National Party 581 Anthony Nicholas 551 Woollahra Municipal Council 582 City of Whittlesea 552 Ian MacBean 583 Western Australian Local 553 Municipal Association of Victoria Government Association
554 Litchfield Council 584 Leigh Price
555 Manly Council 585 Paul Rumpf
116 Final Report ID Name ID Name
586 City of Greater Geraldton 614 Rockdale City Council
587 Thomas Patrick O'Connor 615 Riverina Eastern Regional Organisation of Councils 588 Helen Nichols 616 City of Onkaparinga 589 City of Bunbury
591 Hindmarsh Shire Council 617 Temora Shire Council
592 Towong Shire Council 618 Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd 593 Assoc. Prof. Anne Twomey, University of Sydney 619 Knox City Council
594 Alpine Shire Council 620 Anna Day
595 Central Highlands Regional Council 621 Graeme Gibson
596 Strathfield Municipal Council 622 Golden Plains Shire Council
597 Litchfield Council 623 Corporation of the Town of Walkerville
598 Blacktown City Council 624 Oberon Council
599 City of Cockburn 625 Moree Plains Shire Council
600 Law Council of Australia 626 Dr Andrew H. Kelly
601 Lesley Pocock 627 Richard Clowes
602 Ressinda Flower 628 Whitehorse City Council
603 District Council of Grant 629 Central Coast Council
604 Blue Mountains City Council 630 Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) 605 Russell Hamstead 631 City of Ryde 606 Professor Greg Craven, Australian Catholic University 632 Mendo Kitanovski
607 Steven F. 633 Hunter’s Hill Council
608 Ranjan Ray 634 Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Incorporated 609 Council for the National Interest 635 Council of Capital City Lord Mayors 610 Mildura Rural City Council 636 Local Government Association of 611 Tony Crook MP, Federal Member South Australia for O'Connor 637 District Council of Loxton Waikerie 612 Kevin Thompson 638 Chan Cheah 613 Local Government Association of NSW and Shires Association of NSW 639 North Burnett Regional Council
Final Report 117 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
ID Name ID Name
640 Shire of Chittering 669 Charters Towers Regional Council
641 Professor Nicholas Aroney, Professor Scott 670 Glenorchy City
Prasser and Mitchell Birks 671 Mount Alexander Shire Council
642 Charles Rees 672 City of Ipswich
643 Wellington Council 673 Bellingen Shire Council
644 City of Cockburn 674 Victorian Local Governance Association
645 Shire of Murray 675 Queensland Government
646 Gold Coast City Council 676 Barcaldine Regional Council
647 Wollongong City Council 677 City of Belmont
648 Town of Narrogin 678 Cessnock City Council
649 Uralla Shire Council 679 Town of Gawler
650 Auburn City Council 680 Shire of Narembeen
651 Alia Ragsa 681 Northern Areas Council
652 Banana Shire Council 682 Government of South Australia
653 Gladstone Regional Council 683 Tasmanian Government 684 Tenterfield Shire Council 654 Government of Victoria 685 Alfred Walker 655 Maitland City Council 686 Wingecarribee Shire Council 656 Regional Development Australia Far North 687 Hon. Dr Bob Such MP, Member for Fisher
657 Catherine Moore 688 Kogarah City Council
658 Bankstown City Council 689 Lithgow City Council
659 Inverell Shire Council 690 Pittwater Council
660 Urana Shire Council 691 Sutherland Shire Council
661 Shire of Broomehill Tambellup 692 Tablelands Regional Council 693 Wyndham City 662 Cobar Shire 694 New South Wales Government 664 ACT Government
665 Pyrenees Shire Council
666 Darwin City Council
667 West Wimmera Shire Council
668 Kangaroo Island Council
118 Final Report Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
Final Report www.localgovrecognition.gov.au December 2011