CHAIR —Welcome. We appreciate the opportunity to be in your patch, Mr Scott. Would you like to make an opening statement?

Mr Bruce Scott —Thank you for this inquiry and thank you for coming to Emerald. I will firstly outline the area that I represent in the electorate of Maranoa. Within the existing boundaries of Maranoa there are some 35 local governments. The electorate of Maranoa is 4½ times the size of the state of Victoria, so local government at a local level is very important to me and it is very important for the local leadership in those rural shires.

Under the proposed forced amalgamation by the state government here in Queensland, you would see a situation where 35 local councils become 16 local councils. You have a copy of my submission, and I will not talk directly to the submission but rather about the submission and about a couple of other aspects that I have seen and witnessed as the local member. I have seen enormous cooperation between the local governments in my area at a regional level, with the road alliance group, the regional cooperation group and the regional groupings of councils. I have witnessed sharing of resources through the regional road alliance group and through regional tourism bodies. From my point of view, there has been no case made for the amalgamation of shires in the electorate of Maranoa. In fact, there is no evidence, either here in Australia or overseas where amalgamations have occurred, that amalgamation of shires would bring about efficiency. In fact, efficiency is not a function of size; it is more about cooperation.

If you look at some past state governments, I would witness Victoria as a state that was financially weak. Its credit rating had been downgraded, yet it was not required to amalgamate with New South Wales or Tasmania because it was financially weak at that stage. Other structural things occurred, including a change of government, which changed some of the financial structures of states. Size does not mean efficiency; efficiency is not a function of size.

One of the concerns I have in relation to local governments in my are, if this proposal were to proceed, is the fact that there has not been a social impact study conducting in relation to the amalgamation of shires. There has not been an economic study of the impact that would occur as a result of forcing amalgamation against the will of the people. There is no consideration of the tyranny of distance and what that would mean with amalgamation and more centralisation of shires. I would be very happy to expand on that, if you wish, when you ask questions.

Finally, in my submission you will find the examples of the Tambo, Aramac and Waroo shires, small community councils with great local leadership, which are very sustainable and financially strong, being forced into a situation where they would have to amalgamate with other shires, against their will, without any social or economic impact study being conducted. That is a huge concern for me. I believe that without any further studies being conducted, we will see a situation in many smaller communities where local government has been the business facilitator and provider of a range of services that would be lost under amalgamation. I see a situation where people would become landlocked, similar to in the Northern Territory where there are dysfunctional communities with limited job opportunities and all the social ramifications of a situation that would inevitably flow from the forcing of amalgamation of shires against the will of local people and against them having a say. At the end of the day, we should draw on the collective wisdom of those communities to see what would be best in the long term for those communities.

CHAIR —The theme that came out through the evidence we heard yesterday is the concept of localism and that local communities are looking towards themselves to provide solutions. At a time when localisation is a significant trend, people have a yearning for local solutions to identify with their local area. An instance of that in your submission, which I found interesting, is Tambo shire, which provides rent subsidies for the local pharmacy, operating two days a week, which would not operate otherwise. Tambo shire has a very small population. One of the arguments put forward for council amalgamations is that you can have better services. Would you concede that a merged entity, a larger council area, would provide that sort of service, to subsidise a pharmacy service? I have not heard of larger councils anywhere providing that sort of service.

Mr Scott —Can I expand on the Tambo Shire Council and what they have done in relation to that pharmacy. The federal government’s Regional Partnerships program, in partnership with the local council, provided the building in which that pharmacy is located. Also, through our rural pharmacy initiatives as a federal government we provided the initiative and support financially for that pharmacy to be located in Tambo.

It goes back to local leadership. The local community believed that for the health of their community they needed a pharmacy like every community needs a doctor. It is about essential services. That pharmacy is there because of the local council and the funds that it is providing and the funds that federal government is providing under the rural pharmacy initiative to provide support for a pharmacy in a place where it would otherwise be uneconomic to provide a pharmacy. It would not be there if the process was administered by council that governed a larger area. Evidence from anywhere around the world, as I said earlier, is that efficiency is not a function of size. Local communities and local solutions are all about local people and local decisions. The other thing about that pharmacy, which is a very good example, is that the nearest town is 100 kilometres away. If you need prescription drugs, sometimes you might not have the time to use the next mail service to bring those prescription drugs to you. That provides a local service for that community. It is working very well.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —You also represent Warwick and Stanthorpe. What is the impact likely to be if these small councils around Toowoomba are joined into one huge council?

Mr Bruce Scott —If you look at the Warwick-Stanthorpe scenario, the Warwick shire is already the result of an amalgamation of four other local rural shires that were considered to be marginal in the past. They were amalgamated, and that was going to make them strong, because the smaller shires would be amalgamated with the regional town of Warwick. Warwick is now rated as one of the weaker shires. If that rating has credibility—and we have to use that material—it was not strengthened as a result of the amalgamation of the shires around it. I was talking to some of the community people in that part of Maranoa this week in Allora and Killarney, which were part of separate shires. I asked them, ‘How much attention do you get now from the local shire?’ They said, ‘Not the sort of attention that we used to get.’ Warwick is growing and has problems of it own that have to be addressed at a local level in Warwick. The outside regions are the ones that are suffering. ‘Suffering’ might not be the word, but they are not getting attention paid to the local detail of community need.

Looking at the proposal to bring Stanthorpe—a strong shire in its own class at the moment—into Warwick, that will not make it a stronger community. In fact, they are two distinctly different geographic, social, economic, business—

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Ethnic.

Mr Bruce Scott —and ethnic communities. In fact, Stanthorpe would be the shire in my electorate that has the greatest ethnic diversity. There are people from a large number of Eastern European countries there. They are two totally different communities. Stanthorpe shire is able to deal with the ethnic diversity, business incubation and attracting businesses to the community because they are a shire that stands alone. It is strong in its rating and there no evidence has been provided to show or business case made that Stanthorpe should be part of the Warwick shire.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Very quickly and finally, getting back to the leadership question that you were talking about, from your long experience in Western Queensland, you would be more aware than most of the role councils play not only in getting pharmacies there but in getting doctors there and sporting teams away. How do you think that sort of local leadership for a smaller community will be impacted? Knowing your interest in local government and your wife’s interest in local government, do you have a view about FAGS grants and what they have done?

Mr Bruce Scott —Firstly, where you have a community with good local leadership, you have a very vibrant community. The businesses’ opportunities may not be like they are in the city, but the businesses are still small businesses that are helped along the way by the local leadership of the local council. It even breaks right down to, as you mentioned, the local football team, the local oval or the memorial in the town that is maintained by the council. Without that local leadership and those local councils, those things would not happen. There is no doubt about that. Take Aramac Shire. They provide Home and Community Care packages, and that comes out of the local hotel, which provides a business opportunity. Who is going to administer that if you do not have a local council there? So many of those social services that are provided—services for the aged in their community—are provided by the local council.

Some might say, ‘Oh, they’re subsidised.’ They believe in their community and they want a healthy community, a vibrant community, a community that does not have social problems—and these communities do not have crime problems, alcohol problems, dysfunctional families. I know these communities very well. If you go to these communities and go to their school, you see all the children turn up to school. Because you have good local leadership, you have a community that has a great sense of pride. Many of these small communities have won Tidy Town competitions, where everyone gets out because they believe in their community. If you take leadership away, you end up, as I said earlier, with a situation, slowly but surely, over time, of the problems we are confronting in the Northern Territory: dysfunctional communities, communities dependent on welfare.

The other thing that concerns me is the loss of value of housing—the value of the home—that I think we are already starting to witness because the fear of the impact of this on their community is quite significant. That is where you get the people landlocked. The small business of the pharmacy in Tambo, the pharmacist who comes down there once a week for two days—it just will not happen. What happens to that business? It is devalued. Who is going to pay compensation for the corner store, the little rural supplier? All of those things will be impacted upon. In the case of Tambo, I think—and they will be giving evidence later this afternoon—Tambo has something like 52 people employed.

The bank: the rural transaction program of the federal government has brought banking services for the first time in many small communities. Why? Because we facilitated—as you would remember, Senator—opening in one-school places like Surat, where the Queensland Teachers Credit Union is the bank in the local town. It came there because the council put all their finance through that local bank. In that case, it was the Teachers Credit Union. In Aramac it is one of the larger banks.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Pioneer.

Mr Bruce Scott —Pioneer. Tambo is the same. I was in Tara the other day. Tara Shire is proposed to be amalgamated with a larger area. Something like $7 million or $8 million of council revenue goes through that bank each year. They provide the building. It was the National Australia Bank building. The bank moved out years ago and left them with a building in the main street. The council bought it for a nominal amount of money. They attracted the bank back through a rural transaction program. They agreed that they would put all their revenue through that bank, and then the employees put their pay cheques through the bank, and so you create a business. It is an incubation of a bank. I think a banking service surely in any community is an essential element of being able to conduct business.

So I think that the loss of local leadership will lead to dysfunctional communities inevitably. The losses of the value of someone’s family asset, the home, and the small business are all impacts that have not had a study conducted into them, particularly in our rural communities, where these communities are vibrant but small and have a future. If you look at the scale of economic strength or weakness, they all come in the economically strong category.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Thanks for that, Bruce.

Senator FORSHAW —Thank you, Mr Scott. You have given us a lot of comment about the impact of amalgamations on the communities, and I appreciate that, but I do want to come back to the bill. I just want to state, at the start of today’s proceedings, that this is an inquiry into the Commonwealth’s legislation, which is four pages long—probably less than that if you put all the paragraphs closer together. It has bipartisan support. Mr Rudd has indicated that the Labor Party will support it. I understand that it has cross-party support; at least, Senator Murray has told us that. So it will be put through the parliament, one assumes, as soon as we get back.

You have noted in your submission—and I note that your state colleague who is to follow also refers to the fact—that the legislation relies upon the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the head of power for the Commonwealth to put this legislation through. I find that an interesting position, given the long history of your party and the coalition parties generally in opposing the use of international conventions—quite stridently so, actually. I am wondering: is this is a change of attitude by the National Party or you, to rely upon international conventions? Are there any others that you might think should be relied upon too, such as ILO conventions or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to give the Commonwealth the power to interfere or involve itself in the activities of state and local governments?

Mr Bruce Scott —Can I just say that this was brought about because of the Queensland state government’s position of legislating to fine people, or it could have ended up in a court of law, where the mayors who even discussed conducting a poll of their community would be fined, sacked and an administrator put in place. It was only through that process that we as a Commonwealth—and I was very strongly in support of this—had to find a way that the Commonwealth could ensure the basic right of all Australians: their right of freedom of speech, their right to express an opinion. That was being denied by the state Labor government in Queensland, in a unicameral parliamentary system where the ultimate power rests with the government because there is no check or balance in the system because it is a single parliament. That is why I supported the bill and the pathway forward—that we should draw on that international covenant, because of the actions of the state Labor government here in Queensland. We had to find a power that would allow us to ensure that people in Australia still had the right to freedom of speech.

Senator FORSHAW —I indicated that we support it, and I would say very clearly and openly that I did not think that the actions of the Queensland government in that respect should have been taken. But it did not specifically take away the right of freedom of speech. What it did was that it provided for sanctions and penalties, including criminal ones, potentially, for being involved in any Commonwealth inspired plebiscites. Councillors and mayors and everybody were still quite entitled to have their say and speak in opposition. I think we should just be a little bit restrained in saying that this is the end of democracy as we know it, notwithstanding that I agree that it is a serious issue. I also note that the Premier has now backtracked from that position and there is legislation going through the Queensland parliament to repeal that section.

You talked about freedom of speech across Australia. Can you tell me why, say, the local communities in the Northern Territory were not given any opportunity to have a plebiscite on issues to do with the location of a nuclear waste dump or the recent legislation relating to Indigenous people that was put through the federal parliament—decisions made by the federal government, which you supported, that directly affected the lives and rights of those people? I also remind you, and ask you to comment as well, that this legislation does not actually go beyond giving the Australian Electoral Commission the legal authority to conduct plebiscites where they are requested by a council. It does nothing beyond that in terms of stopping amalgamations or supporting them. In fact, the Prime Minister is on the record as saying:

Would you respond to that? Why did the federal government not provide this same opportunity in cases where their own decisions directly affected the lives which you are talking so eloquently about now?

Mr Bruce Scott —The Northern Territory is an internal territory of the Commonwealth and, as such, does not have state powers. The Commonwealth does have powers over the Northern Territory—and the ACT, for that matter.

Senator FORSHAW —I asked you about allowing the people who live in those territories to express their views in a plebiscite.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —There is nothing to stop a local council in the Northern Territory having a plebiscite. There is in Queensland.

Senator FORSHAW —I am not asking you, Senator Macdonald.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —With the length of time you took to ask the question, I thought you were giving evidence.

CHAIR —Mr Scott, would you like to respond?

Mr Bruce Scott —There was not legislation in the Northern Territory preventing people from conducting a plebiscite.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Absolutely.

Mr Bruce Scott —But in Queensland there was legislation that would prevent local councillors or mayors from conducting or in any way involving themselves in a plebiscite, in a poll or in seeking the opinion of their local ratepayers.

Senator FORSHAW —Did you offer to pay for the plebiscites in the Territory?

Mr Bruce Scott —There was nothing preventing them from conducting one in the Northern Territory.

Senator MOORE —At their own expense.

Mr Bruce Scott —At their own expense.

Senator FORSHAW —Are you sure about that? Is that the constitutional position as you understand it?

Mr Bruce Scott —The Queensland government put through a law, and had it signed as soon as they could once it came through the parliament to give it royal assent, that would prevent people from expressing an opinion. If local councillors were involved in that, they were going to be subject to a fine, a sacking and a possible criminal conviction. So that is a totally different—

Senator FORSHAW —Did that decision occur after the Prime Minister’s announcement that they would bring in legislation to fund plebiscites?

Mr Bruce Scott —What decision?

Senator FORSHAW —The Prime Minister made his announcement about funding plebiscites in Queensland on, I think, 17 August—I have forgotten the date. When was the decision made by the state government regarding the imposition of penalties?

Mr Bruce Scott —You will have the shadow minister for local government appear. I am sure he will be able to give you the details when he gives evidence.

Senator FORSHAW —What is your position and the National Party’s position on supporting a constitutional change to give recognition to local government in the federal Constitution? That would a head of power that could be relied upon to put this legislation through and potentially to then enforce the results of plebiscites. This legislation does not do that.

Mr Bruce Scott —What you are talking about is recognising local government as a legitimate third tier of government in this country. Personally, my position is that I would support that. But that will not have any impact because it requires a constitutional change, a referendum of the people of Australia, so it is not anything that could be conducted prior to any decision of the state government affecting the proposed forcing of amalgamations.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —It is a view you have long held, if I remember correctly.

Mr Bruce Scott —It is indeed.

Senator FORSHAW —Is that true? You have long held that view?

Mr Bruce Scott —Yes.

Senator FORSHAW —Why did you vote against that very proposition in the House of Representatives last year, on 17 October?

Mr Bruce Scott —What did I vote against?

Senator FORSHAW —You voted against The proposition of an amendment that was put to a motion by Mr Lloyd. I can give you the details. Mr Lloyd moved a motion relating to local government. Clearly it was related to what was happening here in Queensland.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I do not think it was.

Senator FORSHAW —It related to the issue.

Senator JOYCE —Twelve months ago, I think it was.

Senator FORSHAW —Yes, but it related to the issue surrounding the importance and the role of local government across Australia.

Senator JOYCE —Hopefully they are more focused now than they were 12 months ago.

Senator FORSHAW —Excuse me. You are obviously sensitive about the question.

Senator JOYCE —No, I am not.

Senator FORSHAW —Then stop interrupting.

Senator JOYCE —You were misleading the witness, because you made the proposition that it just happened, and it did not; it happened 12 months ago.

Senator FORSHAW —I did not say it just happened.

CHAIR —Senator Forshaw—

Senator FORSHAW —Excuse me, Chair.

CHAIR —No, Senator Forshaw, continue with your questions.

Senator FORSHAW —I do not like being verballed by senators at the table. I did say this was put. I asked Mr Scott why he—

CHAIR —Address your comments to Mr Scott and give Mr Scott an opportunity to respond.

Senator FORSHAW —You might tell your colleagues to stop interrupting.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —Chair, the question has to be slightly relevant to the inquiry before the Senate, and how Mr Scott voted on a motion about something completely different does not seem to be germane to this inquiry.

Senator FORSHAW —It is not irrelevant, I would submit. There is nothing in this bill, Mr Scott, that refers to local government plebiscites, is there?

Mr Bruce Scott —Which bill are you referring to?

Senator FORSHAW —The bill that we are dealing with. Is there?

Mr Bruce Scott —I thought there was.

Senator FORSHAW —You might have a look at it. There is nothing.

Mr Bruce Scott —It does mention the word ‘plebiscite’.

Senator FORSHAW —It does not mention ‘local government plebiscite’.

Mr Bruce Scott —It mentions ‘plebiscite’.

Senator FORSHAW —It mentions ‘any activity’.

Mr Bruce Scott —That was very deliberate, because under the state legislation that would restrict people’s right to express an opinion local councils could not have, for instance, gone out and sought the opinion of their communities as to whether they wanted fluoride in their water. They could have been fined, sacked and had an administrator put in because of that state legislation. So it was not just confined to local government. It was about the freedom of speech which is part of our democracy in allowing councils to act as they would see fit in relation to seeking an opinion of their community.

Senator FORSHAW —But if it related to a range of issues to councils then it must have been related to local government. There is no mention of it. I have a final point. I will come back to the question. You asked me about when you voted against this. It was on 17 October.

Mr Bruce Scott —I did not ask you at all.

Senator FORSHAW —You did. You said you had long supported it. I pointed out that you did not and you asked me when. It was on 17 October. You might care to check the Hansard record.

Senator JOYCE —Mr Scott, have you ever changed your mind on anything in your life?

Mr Bruce Scott —Yes, as time moves on you have to be flexible and think forward. Nothing stays the same forever. I certainly have changed my mind. I would be a pretty boring person if I was not prepared to listen to people.

Senator JOYCE —You would be an automaton, wouldn’t you. So other issues and new information, as they come to light, would certainly affect the way you vote on certain issues. So there was a vote on a certain notice of motion, which we all know is a pretty insignificant statement. It was not a bill; it was a notice of motion. In light of the current circumstance, you would now have a vastly more definitive view of what you were voting on, wouldn’t you?

Mr Bruce Scott —Since I have been able to look at the actions of the Labor government here in Queensland, I certainly would be wanting to, using that information, form an opinion based on the actions of the state government here in Queensland in relation to the amalgamation of shires against their will where I can see ramifications beyond what has ever been looked at in the past in any economic or social study. I certainly would want to see that the Commonwealth have some power to act.

Senator JOYCE —Do you find it perplexing that we have one member of a political party from a state that has a certain view, and all his colleagues from that state, being Queensland, in the Labor Party have a certain view, yet a whole group of other people from the same state, from the same party, have a completely different view, yet this is not contrived; this is a natural occurrence—or do you think there is some sort of duplicitous nature in that approach?

Senator FORSHAW —I raise a point of order, Chair.

Senator JOYCE —I am just asking a question. I think it is a relevant question.

Senator FORSHAW —My point of order is that Senator Joyce pulled this same stunt yesterday.

Senator JOYCE —I think—

Senator FORSHAW —Excuse me—let me finish.

Senator JOYCE —What is the point of order?

Senator FORSHAW —I am getting to the point of order.

Senator JOYCE —Hurry up.

Senator FORSHAW —There are standing orders that specifically restrain members of the parliament from implying or imputing improper motives to members of the federal parliament or a state parliament. I think you should take note. I am very relaxed about having a wide-ranging discussion here, but when you start accusing or making assertions to a witness about duplicitous conduct, I would suggest that that is starting to border on being contrary to the standing orders.

CHAIR —I am sure Senator Joyce will be mindful of his obligations.

Senator JOYCE —How do you feel about the sincerity of those two completely different approaches by the same people from the same party from the same state at the same point in time?

Senator IAN MACDONALD —More sincere than that point of order, I hope.

Mr Bruce Scott —I find it rather perplexing to see. You referred to the Leader of the Opposition and his comments in relation to the—

Senator FORSHAW —No; I thought he was talking about you and Senator Joyce.

CHAIR —Mr Scott has the call.

Mr Bruce Scott —I find it rather amusing that—

Senator JOYCE —Mr Rudd—I am allowed to say that, aren’t I?—the Leader of the Opposition, has suggested a referendum, not a plebiscite, not at this federal election. He has not suggested that; he has suggested one at the next federal election, in about three and a half years time. Would that be of any use whatsoever?

Mr Bruce Scott —It would be of no use to those councils in my constituency. That is my concern as the federal member. A referendum in three and a half years time and then another two or three years to change laws that would allow some of these councils to de-amalgamate would be of no benefit whatsoever to these communities. I welcome and thank this committee for taking evidence here in Queensland, because this is a very serious issue. I had hoped that we would get cross-party support to put pressure on the state Labor government here in Queensland whereby they would go back to the drawing board and consult with communities. I had also hoped that there would be a social and economic impact statement provided before any further decisions or any further action was taken in relation to the forced amalgamation of these local councils.

Senator JOYCE —I want to draw your attention, because you have brought it up and it has already been discussed by Senator Forshaw, to article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states:

Can you inform me, from your knowledge of politics in Queensland, what happens to a senator from the Labor Party if they dissent and cross the floor?

Mr Bruce Scott —My understanding is, as we have seen, even members of the party are expelled from the party because they hold a different opinion from that of the party itself.

Senator JOYCE —It is a pretty severe form of interference, isn’t it? If you dissent, you are kicked out.

Mr Bruce Scott —With no right of appeal, I would suggest. And there is no right of appeal in relation to the forced amalgamation of these councils’ proposed boundaries. There is no right of appeal. Even in redistributions of state and federal electoral boundaries there is a right of appeal, and public hearings are conducted. In fact, the act provides for two rounds of public appeal to those proposed boundary changes. Under this proposal there is none. I was talking to some of the local mayors in my electorate and they were telling me this time last year that they had seen the proposed boundaries, so what the government went through here was a total farce. The boundaries had actually been drawn up 12 months ago by the department of local government. Perhaps the shadow minister might be able to expand on that point too. There was not a process of consultation or listening to local communities at all. This was something that was being forced at a centralised level from George Street in Brisbane.

Senator JOYCE —In your opinion, do you believe that if people felt strongly that they were going to possibly compromise a chance at a federal election more pressure would be exerted upon Mr Beattie and he would change his mind?

Mr Bruce Scott —I do not think it is about political pressure in relation to the federal government’s forthcoming federal election. I would rather see the Premier go back to the drawing board because of the political pressure, the voice of the people, because he has not consulted. He has used the heavy hand of a unicameral parliamentary system to bring forward boundaries that are going to have far-reaching ramifications for local communities. If you look at the actions of the people in Barcaldine when he went up there, when the Tree of Knowledge was being taken out to be preserved because it had died—

Senator MOORE —It was killed, Mr Scott.

Mr Bruce Scott —It might have been killed.

Senator MOORE —It did not die of old age.

Mr Bruce Scott —Some people said that it died of shame. You should look at the actions of the local people. We must listen to the local people—that is what democracy is about. The largest march that Queensland has seen since the Vietnam War says something to me that the Premier and the Labor government here have got to listen to. I do not think that it has anything to do with the federal election at all. I would rather think it was about listening to people—and we are listening as local members—and that is why I am here today with my submission.

Senator JOYCE —How far will someone have to travel when 35 now becomes 16? What is the increase in distance that these people are going to have to deal with to get to the first level of government?

Mr Bruce Scott —It can be 300 or 400 kilometres just to get to your local council meeting to make representation in relation to an issue of your community. In fact, at the very first protest meeting that I went to, which was held in Barcaldine, people came 1,000 kilometres one way to be there. They were workers, Aboriginal stockmen, the CEOs of the council and community people, and that distance was one way. That is the issue of the tyranny of distance in Queensland and it has not been considered. Apart from all the other social and economic ramifications—

Senator JOYCE —The disenfranchising of the most marginalised.

Mr Bruce Scott —Yes.

Senator MURRAY —Mr Scott, I found your submission, both written and oral, very helpful and very illuminating. This bill breaks new ground very considerably in two respects. Firstly, it introduces for the first time into Australian federal law a formal process of a form of direct democracy—that is, the plebiscites issue. The second thing is that it seeks to deal with an abuse of trust. Australians trusted that they had the right to express an opinion freely and they had that trust abused. Effectively, by introducing elements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, some form of protection—partial only, I regret; I think it could be fuller—has been introduced. Those are two great milestones, I think. But you have rightly touched on a third area, and it was touched on yesterday. It is the question of a lack of review where a decision has been made on a false premise or in error, which is essentially your submission.

I want to refer you to a document we were given yesterday, which you may or may not have a copy of. I do not know if the secretariat has one available for you. Yesterday we were given an extract from the Local Government Reform Commission’s decision on the Southern Downs regional council proposed amalgamation. This is the only one we have which comes from that document. It is probably a bit difficult for you to get into the meat of it straight away, but I will make this point to you: if amalgamations are predicated on evidence that there will be greater benefits from amalgamations than losses, that evidence should be presented and summarised, not least for a money man like me, in a cost benefit relationship. Can I ask you—and if you do not have the opportunity to do it now, perhaps you can go away and write to us in a supplementary letter—to examine this document and tell me if you can see, because I cannot, any evidence that the amalgamation of Warwick Shire Council and Stanthorpe Shire Council will produce identifiable gains.

Mr Bruce Scott —Without having read the document, can I just say that I have spoken to both of those councils. I have probably spoken to most of my council mayors and groupings of councils since the proposal was put through the state parliament. A few councils were prepared to amalgamate into the doughnut type of shire. Do you know what I am referring to? Waggamba and Goondiwindi were proposing to come together anyway because they could see some economic benefit. They had done the work. But, in the case of Stanthorpe and Warwick, they did not see any financial benefit to their ratepayers or their community.

Senator MURRAY —I will draw your attention to a few words in that report and you tell me if any of them produce quantifiable evidence, such as, ‘You will save $X million’ or ‘You will consequently create a better operation.’ It talks about economies of scale, a larger assets and revenue base, institutionalising knowledge—sounds good!—and enhancing capacity of new local government to engage with state and federal governments. Yeah, right. It says that structural inefficiencies will be addressed and better financial sustainability might affect the rate of depreciation. I do not see anything here that is evidence and therefore it would, prima facie, allow for an appeal in a normal case because there is not sufficient evidence to justify the actions being taken. My question is this: have you explored with your own Commonwealth government the question of whether rights of review and rights of appeal could be introduced into federal law, as a consequence of either implied or actual constitutional provisions, which allow for Australians to have access to justice in areas where they have been denied it?

Mr Bruce Scott —No, I have not explored the avenue of the rights of review or appeal at a federal level for actions of others—in this case, the Labor government here in Queensland. Just in listening to the words that have come from this report of the Southern Downs about structural efficiency, as you suggested, there is no evidence in there that the amalgamations will deliver.

Senator MURRAY —These are generalised jargon terms—

Mr Bruce Scott —They are, exactly.

Senator MURRAY —and they are meaningful in a macro sense. All we are talking about here, and what you have talked about, is micro—namely, local. That is correct, isn’t it?

Mr Bruce Scott —That is correct.

Senator MURRAY —Would you like the committee to consider the issue as to whether there is a mechanism by which the Commonwealth could institute a right of appeal to a judicial review body or something of that sort? The reason I ask you this question because, as you know, this is a non-binding mechanism. It is a plebiscite. It is the ability for an opinion to be expressed. It does not have the effect of providing a mechanism for setting aside a decision which has been wrongly made. I am not saying the state government is wrong in everything, by the way. I believe there is bound to be a good case for amalgamations, but individuals should be entitled to have a decision reviewed if it has been made in error. That is why I put that question to you.

Mr Bruce Scott —I would be very happy for the Senate committee to review the right of appeal. I would suggest that in the case of the Queensland parliamentary system we have a unicameral system that is unique in Australia and where there is no review of decisions by a government and where there is no review mechanism as we have here with senators with federal legislation that is reviewed so often by committees and with often the fine tuning of legislation that happens in the Senate. Because of the parliamentary unicameral system in Queensland, I would think it would be beneficial in relation to the Queensland laws as are enacted by the state government. That does not mean everything they do is wrong. But I think with the situation here where we are dealing with local councils—and, sure, I spoke more of the micro impacts—I would hope that the committee might have even be prepared to look at the social and economic impacts of amalgamations in Queensland. That is something that really has not been conducted very broadly anywhere in the world. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for the Senate to conduct such an in-depth inquiry, even drawing on the Southern Downs Regional Council jargon that is in there that there has been be no economic benefit suggested for local government by the local government department of Queensland in the case of Southern Downs.

Senator MURRAY —Would you agree with me—and this is my final question—that in the same way as every Australian believes they have the right to express an opinion, this plebiscites bill effectively enshrines that every Australian has the right to have a decision reviewed if the decision has been made in its view in error and in a way which will materially affect their lives?

Mr Bruce Scott —Absolutely.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —So that I can follow the line of questioning, do you mean in addition to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to the judicial reviews act, which are already there?

Mr Bruce Scott —That is what I was going to mention.

Senator MURRAY —That is, as you know, for federal law. What we are dealing with here is state law. But the state law precludes appeal on these matters. There may be many instances where it might go to appeal and the appeal would be denied because the government has made the right decision. That is not my point. I do not want to prejudge an appeal. All I say is that the appeal process should exist—because when I read this it should be evidence based; it should say these are the very precise local reasons which you can quantify as to why this amalgamation should occur. It doesn’t. Therefore to me there is a case for appeal but there is no process for appeal. If a state government will not provide it, can the federal government provide it? My view is it can.

Mr Bruce Scott —If we look at this in relation to the local government forced amalgamations in Queensland, as I mentioned earlier, there is no right of appeal. The people have got to accept this, unless we are able to, through the process of the Senate inquiry and other actions of the people of Queensland, force the Labor government here in Queensland back to the drawing board. There is no other avenue.

Senator Macdonald is absolutely right: at a federal level we have the right of appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on decisions of government in relation to a whole range of entitlements. In courts of law there are rights of appeal against the decision of a jury. But here in Queensland there is no right of appeal as to the forcing of amalgamation. There is no right of appeal as to this decision by the Labor government of Queensland. There is no review process, there is no economic impact statement, and so it goes on.

Senator MURRAY —So let us conclude. So you would like the committee to examine whether it is possible for this matter to be pursued further?

Mr Bruce Scott —I certainly think—but it is up to the committee obviously—that we should be conducting a review of the social and economic impacts of the forcing of amalgamation of local shires—

Senator MURRAY —Sorry, but—

Mr Bruce Scott —without an appeal process.

Senator MURRAY —You were giving me an answer I was not after. I want to know—

Senator IAN MACDONALD —He was asking the wrong question.

Senator MURRAY —Do you want us to look at the appeal process?

Senator FORSHAW —We always do.

Mr Bruce Scott —At the appeal process, yes, but I think you should also be looking at the social and economic impacts, because the federal government has a very real interest in local communities.

Senator MURRAY —But we cannot do that with respect to this bill. We have to report next Tuesday and we have got to say to the government that either we want them to look at the appeals area or we do not. If you as the local member think we should not, then I would not advance it in the committee.

Senator FORSHAW —I do not think this is confined to Queensland. I am not sure about all other states, but certainly in other states the ultimate decision on local government boundaries rests with the state government.

Mr Bruce Scott —I would be more than happy for the committee to look at the appeal avenues as they relate to the local government forcing of amalgamations in Queensland.

Senator MURRAY —Thank you.

Senator MOORE —As you know, the focus of this committee is purely on the 3½-page piece of legislation in front of us. Yesterday I asked our witnesses about their understanding of whether there is any federal role in the local amalgamations. I want to get it absolutely clear. Under the current arrangements—constitutionally and in the legal process—in decisions about state government amalgamations is there any federal role to intervene in that decision?

Mr Bruce Scott —The bill that you are inquiring into now is an avenue for the federal government to provide a means for people to have their say.

Senator MOORE —That is a general process around plebiscites, and we have been through that. Because of the way the committee is operating, I am concerned that some expectation has been created that this committee is looking at local government amalgamations. Though there may well be some need for such a review, this committee is not doing that. I want to get it clear from witnesses whether they understand that.

Mr Bruce Scott —I do understand that and that is why I said that I hope the committee would at least look at a further inquiry into the social and economic impacts of forcing amalgamations.

Senator MOORE —Some committee would do that.

Mr Bruce Scott —A committee that will review, because that has not been done in Australia. The benefits have not been laid out in any of the legislation—the economic and the social. We do not know. I talk about the Tambo, the Aramac, the Tara and Southern Downs—a whole range of 35 shires in my electorate.

Senator MOORE —Does Tambo have a doctor?

Mr Bruce Scott —You would have to ask the CEO.

Senator MOORE —Because we had talked about pharmacists, it was just a general question about whether they had a doctor as well.

Mr Bruce Scott —I have just been advised that they have a visiting doctor for two days a week.

Senator MOORE —So they have a visiting doctor as well.

CHAIR —Thank you very much, Mr Scott. We appreciate your time this morning.

Mr Bruce Scott —Thank you, senators. Thank you for being here. It is very important.

[10.28 am]