Mr KING (11:53 AM) —The Supreme Court of Queensland, in the decision of the Local Government Association of Queensland and the state of Queensland, recently held invalid section 224A of the Queensland Local Government Act 1993 in its 2001 amendment, which provided:

... ... ...

The majority of the Supreme Court acting on a referral or, as it is sometimes called, a `remitter' from the High Court, where the action had been commenced because it raised a constitutional question, held that the state parliament did not have the legislative power to enact such a law and struck it down pursuant to section 109 of the Constitution.

It might have been thought that that decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland was sufficient to end the matter and that there was no further need for this parliament to act and clarify any pre-existing situation relating either to Queensland or to the right of local government members anywhere across this country to stand for federal parliamentary office. However, there were two queries arising from the decision which has led to the need for this legislation and given rise to some further concerns. The first was that the Queensland decision does not prevent any other state or territory from trying to pass a law similar to that which was enacted in Queensland. That would leave the Commonwealth or another party, such as a local government representative body, to have to launch a similar action along the lines of that launched by the Local Government Association of Queensland, which is both expensive and, one would have thought, inexpedient.

The second related reason is that the Queensland Supreme Court judgment has been called into question. There have been a couple of interesting academic comments, one by Anne Twomey in particular, who has criticised the decision and the reasons for it. She said that the law was characterised as one relating to the conduct of federal elections because it imposed a burden on candidates for federal office. Ms Twomey commented that it is difficult to see how a law that simply decrees that a councillor ceases to be a councillor if he or she nominates for federal office imposes any such burden. On the other hand, it is fair to say that it is a burden on any person, in this case a local councillor, who wishes to nominate for federal office, to undergo and suffer the concern that he or she may lose their office simply because they nominate for federal office. However, one other point that Ms Twomey made was that the principle frequently applied is that people who hold high statutory or elective office should resign from that office before running for a different elective office. This either prevents people from using the mantle of one office unfairly to get elected to another or avoids any potential conflict of interest, or apparent conflict of interest, in relation to the use of the office or any facilities in respect of it.

I take the view that the legislation ought to be supported because basically it grounds a fundamental principle relating to representation in this place—that is, that we should encourage as many people as we can in this country, especially those who have experience in local government, to stand for federal parliament. We just heard from the member for Cunningham that he is looking for an extension, by referendum, of section 44 of the Constitution. By that, he means a referendum that would substantially limit the scope of that provision which disqualifies anybody holding an office of profit under the Crown from standing for federal parliament. With respect to him, it is far better to focus on precisely what this piece of legislation proposes to do. The legislation meets the criticism that he put forward against it. It actually confers a right to stand for federal parliament—`a privilege' is probably a better way to put it—upon anybody who is a member of a local authority anywhere across this country.

I would encourage that because it seems to me that those who have experience in local government are more likely to contribute as elected representatives in this parliament. They are more likely to do so because they have the experience, albeit at local level, of representing ordinary people and their concerns through the planning processes and through the local legislative processes and hence understand what government is all about. They therefore serve an apprenticeship, if I can put it that way, that would qualify them and give them experience before they come into this place. That might sound a little pragmatic and a little expedient for those who are more concerned about the precise legal concerns relating to the operation of this particular piece of legislation, but there are some other arguments for the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Members of Local Government Bodies) Bill 2002 which I briefly want to address.

It is fair to say that this parliament should have exclusive control over the qualifications for federal office, subject, of course, to the Constitution—in this case it is section 44 which deals with it. It seems to me, therefore, that the bill is appropriate for us to consider, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, because it ought to be for this parliament to state clearly through the relevant electoral laws the qualifications and limitations upon those who stand for office.

Also, we should be declaring for, not against, increasing the pool of talent available for this place and protecting the diversity of choice for members of parliament. The member for Cunningham, who spoke just before me, appeared to take a contrary view. With the greatest respect to him, I suspect his views may be coloured somewhat by his own experience and the difficulties that he obviously faced. He referred quite frankly in this place to the fact that he had had to seek legal advice about his own position in relation to section 44. I have already spoken about the fact that local council experience gives a prospective candidate not only a legitimate track record—not an unfair advantage—but also the potential to make a contribution in this parliament that enhances the place and improves the level of representation of those who elect him or her.

As for concerns about the abuse of the resources of local government, I do think there is a basis for the appropriate parliamentary committee giving some thought to protecting against such abuse—not indiscriminately restricting the ability of councillors to become candidates but rather ensuring that when they stand they do not get any unfair or unequal advantage in coming to this place.

At the end of the day, voters should be trusted to decide whether it is right for a local councillor to stand for office or any other tier of government. It might be said against the legislation that it is ironic that similar laws do not apply to state parliamentarians. But the difference is obvious: a state parliamentarian already is a representative in a parliament; it would be absurd to elect a state parliamentarian to another parliament—namely, this parliament. That same disqualification does not arise in relation to local government, which, in truth, is not a parliament at all.

I respectfully support the legislation. I urge the department to give careful consideration to my recommendation that administrative procedures be put in place to ensure that members of local authorities do not unfairly access facilities in standing for federal parliament. But apart from that—and those matters can be sorted out through administrative measures—the legislation is a valuable and important addition to those provisions which determine the qualifications for and limitations upon those who stand for public office.