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

In the ensuing discussion on this debate, much recourse will be had to the arts of persuasion and rhetoric—more, I fear, than recourse to commonsense and right judgement, in determining the right model of governance.

We only need to look at the report, as does the member for Lingiari, to see what calumny and politicising of the agenda was latent in the debate during the Northern Territory’s public debate on the referendum to vote on the question of whether the Northern Territory ought to become a state. Accusations flew, recriminations were made and taunting reached fever pitch. None of this is helpful in an objective assessment of the questions of ultimate good ends if the Commonwealth were to give a very small area in population terms the status of a new state.

Finally, I bring the House’s attention to the provisions on Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island, which is another territory administered by the Commonwealth. Paragraphs 8.40 to 8.45 inclusive suggest that this territory ought be disannexed from the Northern Territory. This raises the notion that there are other territories which may validly be absorbed into the states of Australia. One may see no difficulty about that, but what would our view be of the Australian Antarctic Territory or the Australian Capital Territory becoming states? Let us remember that on the populist basis of authority, the people of the Northern Territory voted against becoming a state in 1998. To my knowledge, those supporting this inquiry for statehood are to be found in the Northern Territory Chief Minister’s office. However, there are serious national and public interests to be considered, to say nothing of significant jurisprudential and moral questions to be answered. These questions go to the heart of what is good governance and why the parliaments of South Australia, New South Wales and the Commonwealth decided to make this parcel of land a territory in the first place. The ongoing administrative costs and benefits of remaining a territory or becoming a state must be fully realised.

The methodology to answer such questions is founded on guiding moral principles rather than the mere populist vote in time and space. Populism is not the only determinant of whether a territory becomes a state. In conclusion, let me say that we must have recourse to the right reason, the common good and common sense, as properly understood. I now look forward to hearing the member for Lingiari’s contribution.

See this speech in context