John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I commend to the chamber the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory, entitled The long road to statehood: report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory. I commend the work of all of the members of the committee secretariat, particularly Ms Joanne Towner. The secretariat has done a first-class job.

As members are aware, the recommendation of the committee’s findings in this 130-page report is that ‘the Australian government update and refine its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommence work on unresolved federal issues’. In my view, it is important to identify the milestones of colonial and post-colonial history of the Northern Territory in order to appreciate the constitutional significance of this report. Of key importance is the fact that the issue of granting statehood by application of Commonwealth legislative power will be the first such exercise of those provisions of chapter VI of the Commonwealth Constitution titled ‘New States’. Members of this House and the public are reminded that, since Federation in 1901, the Commonwealth of Australia has never had a new state added to those founding states of Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. The state of Western Australia was not an original state within the meaning of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act but became a state of Australia by proclamation on 17 September 1900. The Northern Territory was originally a nameless part of the state of New South Wales. In 1908 the government of South Australia passed the Northern Territory Surrender Act, which enabled the transfer of the Territory from the government of South Australia.

In supporting this report, I raise my heartfelt desire that the right reason will prevail in the deliberations of what are the well-founded reasons for enabling an existing Territory of the Commonwealth to become Australia’s first post-Federation state to be admitted to the Commonwealth. As members of this House are aware, the capacity of the Commonwealth to admit a new state to the Commonwealth is primarily founded on chapter 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901. Within chapter 6 lies section 121, which is titled ‘New states may be admitted or established’. Section 121 states:

The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

I cite section 121 of the Constitution as it wisely anticipates the necessity to grant express legislative powers to the Commonwealth legislature for the purpose of determining the extent of representation in either house. In practical terms, this means that the founding fathers of the Commonwealth Constitution did anticipate that there may be, at a time in the future, the opportunity, if not the necessity, to admit new states to the Commonwealth. This provision reflects the model upon which our Constitution is based; namely, the constitution of the United States of America. Not surprisingly, it is a relevant factor as to the number of representatives both the people and the proposed state should have. As this House knows, we as members of the House of Representatives represent constituents in particular electorates. In my case, that is the electorate of Lowe. The Commonwealth Senate, by comparison, is known as the states house, in that senators do not represent constituents but their respective states.

In the case of the Northern Territory, there is much debate concerning the proposal for the Northern Territory to become a state, with specific analysis at pages 65 through 70 inclusive of the report. My chief concern is that the change from a territory to a state will result in a disproportionate representation of voters in the Northern Territory compared to the relative voting power of the other states. My concerns are summarised well by the report where it concludes—in my view, wisely—at paragraph 6.35 that:

As the granting of five seats to the new State—

of the Northern Territory—

would further increase the uneven distribution of voters in electorates, or malapportionment, in seats among the states in the House and potentially undermine an argument for equal treatment, the Committee considers that it is appropriate for the Northern Territory to retain two members of the House of Representatives upon statehood. The question of representation of the new State in the House should then be considered by the Australian Electoral Commission at an appropriate time.

With respect to the Senate, I equally concur with the recommendations expressed at paragraph 6.36:

The Committee also considers that it is not appropriate for the Northern Territory to gain an additional 10 Senators—

from the existing two senators—

immediately following statehood. An allocation of 12 Senators from a new state with a population of around 200,000 would present an unacceptable level of malapportionment and would be unlikely to gain the support of the Australian Parliament.

I am sure the member for Lingiari would agree with that.

See this speech in context