DODGY local councils will be harder
to sack if a $55 million referendum to change the Constitution is
approved, says legal advice to the State Government.
Constitutional experts and a ratepayers' group are concerned that
councils will be more difficult to control while some could be worse off
if local government is formally recognised in the nation's founding
document.
Anger is growing over the use of ratepayers' money to
help fund the "yes" campaign for the September referendum, with some 50
Victorian councils pledging about $1 million towards a $10 million
national fighting fund organised by the municipal lobby.
The
Gillard Government has already committed $55.4 million of taxpayers'
money for the referendum, including more than $11 million for a civic
education campaign to promote the "yes" case.
But Victoria, which along with most states opposes the referendum, says it is a waste of public money and legally dangerous.
Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell said she had legal advice
that adding the words "a local government body formed by a law of a
state" into the Constitution could spell trouble.
"(This is)
supported by constitutional law experts Professor Cheryl Saunders and
Professor Greg Craven, who state that changes could cause legal
uncertainty, blurring the roles and responsibilities between the three
tiers of government," she said.
"If this proposal gets up, the
State Government's ability to intervene into poorly governed councils
like Brimbank could be at risk."
Ms Powell said the Federal
Government would spend $55 million on the referendum while cutting
budgeted grants to Victorian councils by $13.4 million.
"Ratepayers are now asking why they are paying for the campaign," she said.
Prof
Craven, also vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University,
said that, speaking as a Carlton supporter, "this referendum has more
problems than our backline".
"Most local governments are honest
and hard-working but every now and then one goes out of control and then
the State Government has to step in and re-boot the whole thing by
sacking the council and putting in administrators," he said.
"The
next time that happens the very first thing that council will say is,
'You can't touch us, we're in the federal Constitution', and the battle
will end up in the High Court."
Lord Mayor Robert Doyle accused the states of being churlish and said they had been left flat-footed by the referendum.
"Their
complaint was that it was going to create competitive sovereignty and
that was the scare campaign they were going to run," he said.
"The
Federal Government's wording makes it abundantly clear that local
government is still the creature of state governments. They can still be
sacked."
Cr Doyle said the constitutional change was a simple
mechanism to provide direct funding to councils on projects of national
and mutual benefit, such as the planned redevelopment of Queen Victoria
Market.
"This might be something where you say to the federal
government, this is not just about an open-air fresh food market. This
is about a crucial part of Victoria's economy," he said.
Campaigner
Tim Wilson, from the Institute of Public Affairs, urged ratepayers to
tell their councils not to hand money over to run an irrelevant
political campaign while they were struggling to fund services.
He
said the constitutional change would make councils more indebted to the
federal government, which could then dictate how money was spent.
"Councils
will be worse off if this referendum passes because more power will be
in the hands of Canberra politicians and bureaucrats, not local
communities," he said.
heraldsun.com.au 16 June 2013
The general perception is that if something or someone is doing a 'dodgy' act, it could be on the edge of being legal or it's another way of putting it nicely that the act is illegal.
Local councils are in fact unconstitutional or 'illegal' but that it not really spelled out by the corporate media.
In 1974 AND 1988 a referendum was held and the people said "NO" to city councils.
The acts and actions are frankly quite unlawful.
