The Referendum that Wasn't: Constitutional Recognition of Local Government and the Australian Federal Reform Dilemma

Abstract

<jats:p> In 2010, the Commonwealth government proposed Australia's third attempt to give federal constitutional recognition to local government. In 2013, the government secured the passage through Parliament of a Constitution Alteration but, due to political events, and amid much controversy, the proposed amendment was not put to the people. This paper examines the merits and prospects for success of the proposed reform, with an eye to lessons for the future of local government's place in the federal system. It argues that the legal and constitutional cases for the alteration were strong, but limited, and poorly contextualised, theorised and articulated. We use public opinion evidence to conclude that had it proceeded, the referendum result would probably have been a third failure. These lessons are important for ongoing debate over sub-constitutional and constitutional reform to Australian intergovernmental relations, including questions of federal financial redistribution at the core of the proposal. Overall, the events of 2013 reinforce arguments that reforms to the position of local government, while important, should only be pursued as part of a holistic package of federal reform and renovation; and that more robust deliberative processes and principles must be adhered to before again attempting any constitutional reform. </jats:p>

The legitimacy of local government in the Australian federation

“…Although this may appear to be a straightforward proposition, although at first illogically structured, the assumption here is that constitutional recognition will not be forthcoming based on previous experiences (see e.g., Brown, 2008Brown, , 2013. Therefore, focusing on other measures to improve the standing of local government may be the best strategy.…”

“…These reforms do not seem to have been embraced by residents. Victorians are most critical of local government performance compared to residents in other states (Brown, 2008). Respondents in previous surveys who perceived local government to be the least effective level of government cited issues with governance quality and capacity, as well as concerns about the integrity of officials, inexperience and incompetence, and poor resourcing (Brown, 2008).…”

“…Victorians are most critical of local government performance compared to residents in other states (Brown, 2008). Respondents in previous surveys who perceived local government to be the least effective level of government cited issues with governance quality and capacity, as well as concerns about the integrity of officials, inexperience and incompetence, and poor resourcing (Brown, 2008). More recently, the Victorian government has further legislated accountability reforms and mandates the most comprehensive performance reporting framework for local government in Australia, along with strict financial sustainability requirements and limits to raising revenue through taxes (Tran & Dollery, 2022).…”

“…In subsequent decades, this issue has come back onto the agenda. The local government sector generally sees formal status and accompanying esteem, along with more direct means for federal government funding as crucial to improving services and administration, professionalizing, and enhancing citizen engagement through clearer accountability lines (Brown, 2007(Brown, , 2008. This could also become a bulwark against unwanted state government interference.…”

“…Many state governments have imposed reforms citing improving performance as the justification. If local governments were reformed and became stronger, more democratic, and higher performing, would there be a need for constitutional recognition (Brown, 2008)? Generally, many Australians are critical of the effectiveness of local government, which undermines support for constitutional recognition and creates a “chicken and egg” dilemma (Brown, 2008).…”