The late King Sihanouk of Cambodia wrote that the way to make a fool of oneself was to predict the future. It is with this maxim in mind that Social Action Australia (SAA) cautions that there is still a possibility that a referendum could be called later this year to amend Section 96 of the Constitution so that local government is recognized. The time period for such a constitutional development is narrow due to the final arrangements being currently undertaken to finalize the wording concerning the indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum question which should be achieved by the end of May 2023.
It is due to this narrow timeframe that it is highly improbable that a referendum proposal to recognize local government in the Constitution will be authorized by new legislation. However, there are potential warning signs that a referendum proposal to recognize local government could still be slotted in to be held in conjunction with the Voice referendum question.
There are currently no warning signs that a referendum question on amending Section 96 will be put to referendum in 2023. However, in June 2013 legislation – The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 2013- was passed, at the initiative of the then Local Government Minister, Anthony Albanese, that a referendum be held on September 14th 2013. This narrow time frame was set so that opponents of local government constitutional recognition would have insufficient time to organize an effective ‘No’ case. It is with this precedent in mind that the following hypothetical analysis in this article is undertaken.
While it is highly improbable that this will occur, vigilance still needs to be exercised because the possible ramifications for Australian states could be dire if local government receives constitutional recognition. If local government in the Constitution was to be recognized, then a pathway to ultimately abolish Australian states could well be established along with the planting of the seeds for a massive split within the Liberal Party.
Therefore, the underpinning dynamics for these two possibilities to eventuate warrant speculative analysis. Concerning the eventual phasing out of Australian states, Section 96 of the Constitution would probably have to be amended. This constitutional section covers financial assistance to the states. The referendum proposal to amend Section 96 which was authorized in June 2013 during the last days of the Gillard Government might, had it been put to referendum and passed, have allowed the federal government to fund local authorities.
Fortunately, in an act of statesmanship, Kevin Rudd, on returning as prime minister in June 2013 called a federal election for September 7th, 2013. This was seven days earlier than what Julia Gillard had planned, because she intended that Australia would go to the polls on September 14th and that there would also be a referendum question amending Section 96 so that local government would be recognized in the Constitution. By holding the federal election seven days earlier so as to delay the referendum question being put to the Australian people, Prime Minster Rudd effectively ensured that this matter lapsed.
Why Referendum Questions can cause Party Splits
However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the first half of 2023 could still authorize a referendum question to amend Section 96 to be held in conjunction with the Voice constitutional proposal. The hypothesis which SAA advances for this occurring is that there could be an interlinkage between two such referendum questions being simultaneously put to the vote, to help engineer a major split within the Liberal Party!!
For the Liberal Party to split would be an extraordinary development. However, should local government be recognized in the Constitution, then both the continuing Liberal Party and a socially progressive break-away party could establish bases of support in new federally funded local government bailiwicks which could develop in order to eventually usurp the role of Australian states.
The above scenario is hypothetical, but the possibility of this occurring still warrants analytical speculation because the consequences of these outcomes are potentially so detrimental to the Australian body politic. It should be remembered that two of the three splits which happened in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) would not have taken place had it not been for preceding referendums.
The very bitter October 1916 referendum question concerning conscription resulted in the ALP subsequently splitting along sectarian lines. Similarly, the seeds for the great Labor Party Split of March 1955 were sewn in 1951 when a constitutional referendum was held in September that year to ban the Communist Party of Australia (CPA).
Although the 1951 constitutional proposal narrowly went down the very holding of this referendum was still a political masterstroke by Prime Minister Menzies. This was because the predominantly Catholic anti-communist elements within the Labor Party became so alienated from the then federal ALP leader H.V. Evatt due to the vigor with which he had opposed the banning of the CPA. Without this hostility the Labor Party could not have subsequently split in March 1955.
Similarly, the Voice referendum proposal could split the contemporary Liberal Party. The success of the Teals in the April 2022 federal election and the ALP being able to win the Aston federal by-election from the Liberals a year later, illustrate that there is now a sufficient critical mass to establish a new socially progressive major political party. This is particularly the case because the contemporary Liberal Party seems to have lost the millennial vote. Progressive elements within the federal parliamentary Liberal Party could well split from their party following the Voice referendum because millions of Liberal inclined voters will support this proposed constitutional change.
The Prospect of a Liberal Party Split
It may seem a fanciful proposition that socially progressive Liberal Party parliamentarians would split from their party thereby endangering their career prospects. However, should Section 96 of the Constitution be amended then the scope would consequently exist in time for there to be new local government bailiwicks so that a new major political party could be underpinned. With the Liberal Party currently holding only three metropolitan seats in Melbourne, the capital of the south-eastern state of Victoria, there is now the scope for a new socially progressive political party to emerge.
That such a major split could eventuate within the Liberal Party is all the more amazing considering the political astuteness of the federal Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton. However, Dutton would probably know that unless there is a major socio-economic crisis, that he is unelectable (which the Aston by-election indicates) due to his deep unpopularity outside of his home state of Queensland in Australia’s north.
It is therefore a plausible scenario that a post-split Liberal Party would also remain viable should Section 96 be amended because new regional bailiwicks would be created which post-split Liberals could fall back upon. Therefore, by holding onto the Liberal Party name millions of rusted on Liberal voters would continue to vote for a new hard-right version of this party at a local government level. It could have been to ensure that a possibly post-split Liberal Party can still access the millions of its rusted on voters, that legislation was passed in the last federal Parliament banning political parties, other than the two major parties, from having either ‘Liberal’ or ‘Labor’ in their names.
The failure of former South Australian Senator Cory Bernandi’s Australian Conservatives (which was a Liberal Party breakaway which existed between February 2017 and June 2019) demonstrates that there is insufficient electoral support for a hard-right Liberal Party break away party which goes by a new name.
At any rate Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has the monopoly on the hard right of the Australian body politic so that it would be counterproductive for the Right of the Liberal Party to continue under a new name in a post-split context. Indeed, should Australia eventually transition to a new regionalized regime then the One Nation Party and the Greens Party would be able to further entrench themselves within a new greatly enhanced tier of local government.
Why Amending Section 96 could still Pass.
It must be emphasized that the above scenarios are hypothetical. Furthermore, there is the retort that these possible scenarios are highly improbable because they are dependent upon Section 96 of the Constitution being amended. It has been pointed out that the holding of referenda in Australia under Section 128 more often than not fail. This high failure rate is primarily due to their lack of bi-partisan support.
Nevertheless, should there be a move in the next few months to legislate for a referendum question (to be held in conjunction with the proposed Voice constitutional proposal) that Section 96 be amended, then that latter proposal could well pass. This is because such a proposal to amend Section 96 could be sold as a common sense ‘reform’ and could also have bi-partisan support by Peter Dutton, very possibly endorsing local government constitutional recognition.
Beside the hypothetical scenario that Peter Dutton could possibly publicly endorse amending Section 96 of the Constitution is the future potential for Malcolm Turnbull to be expelled from the Liberal Party following the Voice referendum being held. Should Malcolm Turnbull be forced out of the Liberal Party then that party could then experience the worst split in its history.
However, neither a post-referendum hard right Liberal Party led by Peter Dutton, or a Turnbull inspired progressive Liberal Party breakaway would be able to survive if Section 96 is not amended because neither political party will have regional bailiwicks to fall back onto. Hopefully, if there is to be a referendum question on amending Section 96, Malcolm Turnbull will thwart those who previously forced him out as prime minister by campaigning for a ‘No’ vote on that particular constitutional amendment.
Concerning a possible vote on Section 96, caution would have to be taken to ensure that public funding for the ‘No’ case is not allocated to a bogus pro-state rights organisation so that they can subsequently run a dud campaign. Indeed, with the Liberals now being in opposition in every mainland state and with their ‘conservative’ factions generally in favor of local government constitutional recognition, who gets to run the ‘No’ campaign would be a very important consideration should a referendum on this matter be held in conjunction with the Voice proposal.
The question subsequently emerges as to which section of the Liberal Party stands to lose the most should a referendum question on local government constitutional recognition pass? The answer to this question is the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. This is because if there is to be a future onset of regionalization the major immediate beneficiaries would be the Victorian ALP due to their gross incompetence at a state government level.
Victoria: A State of Abyss
That Victoria is a financial basket case is generally not well known due to the lack of media reporting and the still very healthy state of Australian banks so that they can still provide cheap credit to business (as opposed to home mortgages). However, there are already danger signs for the Victorian economy with major infrastructure projects now being cut or cancelled. Furthermore, because the state public service is too big, cutbacks to it are now being undertaken.
To try to raise sufficient revenue Vic Roads may be half privatized, which could result in massive cost increases in car registration. Already, there have been staggering increases in stevedoring costs following the privatization of the Port of Melbourne which constitute a massive de facto indirect tax.
The Andrews ALP Victorian Government is now going to the federal government to bail out the state because within the next twelve to eighteen months Victoria may not be able to pay its own way. Therefore, the Victorian ALP may very well welcome the onset of regionalization as a strategic means of shifting power to a local government level because the Labor Party corporate brand name might well become political mud in a way which was even worse that it was toward the end of the Cain and Kirner era in the early 1990s.
How the Victorian Liberals can still save Australian States
Therefore, should there be a referendum question to amend Section 96, the Victorian Liberals will hopefully be at the forefront of leading a bona fide ‘No’ case. This may be a forlorn hope because former Victorian Liberal premier, Jeff Kennett, has categorized states as nineteenth century institutions.
Even though Victoria has arguably become Australia’s most left-wing state, the Liberal led opposition is still viable despite their current divisions. This may seem a strange deduction to make given the relatively poor performance of the Liberals in the recent Victorian state election of November 2022. However, the current Victorian Opposition Leader John Pesutto won his state seat of Hawthorn back from the ALP in the November 2022 election. Similarly, Jess Wilson in the neighboring seat of Kew also won what had been a traditionally safe Liberal seat, despite a viable challenge from a Teal candidate.
These above cited electoral comebacks illustrate that the Liberals in Victoria and elsewhere around Australia can remain electorally competitive if they continue to operate in a state-wide context. This will mean that the Victorian Liberals and some of their federal parliamentary counterparts will have to oppose any moves in the coming months to possibly authorize a referendum proposal to amend Section 96 of the Constitution.
The scenarios which have been canvassed in this article concerning the holding of a referendum on Section 96 are still hypothetical. However, if the party of Menzies is to be safeguarded then caution over the coming months will need to be taken to ensure that only the Voice referendum proposal is put to the people in the second half of 2023.
If, however, there is to be a referendum to amend Section 96 in 2023 then let the moderate forces in both the Liberal Party and the ALP conduct a genuine ‘No’ campaign to oppose changing this section of the Constitution so that Australian states and the federal system in which they operate can be saved.