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

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don’t.

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

I note in passing that the following local government areas in New South Wales all have populations approaching, if not over, the 200,000 population mark: Fairfield City Council, Bankstown City Council, Parramatta City Council, Liverpool City Council, Campbelltown City Council and Canterbury City Council. I could possibly add many more of the estimated 145 local government areas in New South Wales, many with populations comparable with the population of the entire Northern Territory. Given that there are likely to be further anomalies of this kind, I would encourage further elaboration on and examination of the means by which proportionality may be preserved.

I now turn to the material provision of this report, which deals with the motivation behind the moves towards statehood. As this House is aware, the people of the Northern Territory voted, in the referendum of 1998, against the proposal that the Territory should become a state. I am not one to immediately fall for arguments of populism on the one hand or of tyrannical rule on the other. As I said earlier, the reasons why we would make a new state for the purpose of admission into the Commonwealth must be based upon well-founded reasons.

When reading this report, examples are given that compare the differing standards between the powers, rights and duties of a state compared to those of the territories. Great play is made of the implied assertion that section 122 of the Commonwealth Constitution is somehow unfair because it grants a right to the Commonwealth to overturn a territorial law. I refer, for example, to the Commonwealth’s Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which amended the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to overturn the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

Examples such as these are quoted throughout the report in a wide range of jurisdictional issues from environmental laws to exploration, fishing and mining rights and so forth. To my mind, however, the only objective source of determination of whether the Northern Territory is at a point where it may become a state is to be found in the intrinsic governance of a territory compared to that of a state. Nothing, in my view, will be achieved from pointing to spot issues and drawing out extreme examples that test the boundaries of any laws, and then seeking to justify such cases for or against the debate as it unfolds.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What! Where’s this crap come from?

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Lingiari should be very careful, if he wants his chance of rebuttal, instead of 15 minutes in the sin bin.

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

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is a matter that I wish to raise before I consider whether to give the member for Lingiari the call. I would ask that the member for Lingiari apologise to the committee for the tenor of his outburst.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise for the tenor of my outburst.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the document be noted.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will use a lower tenor. I did singing once and was a base tenor. I am not certain whether that is the cadence with which you wanted me to address the meeting this afternoon. Let me just say to the member for Lowe that whilst a lot of what he said was interesting, a lot of it was also bunkum. He knows next to nothing about the Northern Territory or the processes, and he has learnt very little out of this report.

I was in the Northern Territory in 1998 and was part of the process. That referendum failed because of the stupidity of the CLP administration in the Northern Territory. That was the reason. Whilst I accept that you can have all sorts of views about whether or not the Commonwealth should have the right to intervene in the Northern Territory, it should not. You would not tolerate the intervention in New South Wales that has been tolerated in the Northern Territory. It is inappropriate for you to stand up in this chamber and say to me that, as a representative of the Northern Territory community, I should accept the proposition that the Commonwealth, using its powers under section 122 of the Constitution, should have the right to intervene in the way you say they have. Not only do I think it is unreasonable; I think it is unfair. You ought to apologise to the people of the Northern Territory. I invite you to come to the Northern Territory and we will have this debate up there, because it is totally unfair and totally unreasonable. Nevertheless, I—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari will withdraw his remarks.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise his right to express himself.

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

What about 12 senators?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never asked for 12 senators. That is not the issue. What I was attracted to, however, was the contribution of the member for Solomon this morning in this debate. He, like the member for Lowe, showed not only a lack of understanding of the processes that have been undertaken in this committee report but an absolute disdain for the people he represents. Not only did he say in his contribution that really the Northern Territory government was doing nothing, when in fact it is doing a great deal more than you—that is, the member for Lowe—care to tolerate or admit, but he said that this all comes out of the chief minister’s office. That is just not the case. You need to understand that there is a genuine interest in the community about addressing this particular issue over time. Not only is it totally uninformed; it just displays ignorance.

The member for Solomon raved on about one matter and one matter only, and that was the repatriation of the land rights act to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Let me say to him, as he ought to know now, that the reason that the referendum failed on the last occasion was the potential desire of the then CLP administration to interfere with Aboriginal rights. If that is what the CLP wants in the Northern Territory, if that is what the government in this place wants—to somehow or another intervene and override the interests and rights of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory in the way which is being proposed by the member for Solomon—then the next referendum will be defeated as well.

It is worth noting that the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee, which has been established and operating for some time under the auspices of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, has among its members a number of MLAs, including the CLP MLA Terry Mills. I have to say to Mr Mills that he ought to actually counsel the member for Solomon because of his lack of interest in advancing the cause of the people of the Northern Territory and the people of his own electorate of Solomon in this discussion. He ought to understand, as should the member for Lowe, that there are a range of activities which this committee has been undertaking publicly over a long period of time involving the community in discussion—not prejudging an outcome, not presuming an outcome, but having a discussion with the community.

Since last year, the committee has undertaken over 25 community presentations or briefings on statehood with a range of Territory organisations and individuals. They included professional development workshops in February for teachers to discuss how the stated materials fit into the civics and citizenship aspects of the school curriculum and provide advice on the resources that the committee has developed to assist teachers. The committee has also travelled to Hermannsburg, Santa Teresa, Amoonguna, Alice Springs, Wallace Rockhole, Katherine and the surrounding communities to host community awareness sessions on statehood in the Central Australia region.

One of the most interesting things that the committee is doing is in conjunction with the Australian Electoral Commission—this might even attract the attention of the member for Lowe. On 18 May the committee announced that it had entered into an arrangement with the Australian Electoral Commission—indeed, the member for Solomon might be interested if he opened his eyes and actually cleaned the wax out of his ears for a change—to increase awareness of and participation in voting on the statehood issue when the time comes. It has joined with the Australian Electoral Commission to run a mock referendum on statehood during the 2007 Northern Territory show season. For those people who are not aware of the show season in the Northern Territory, it is a very important time. It is where the community gets together to applaud the pastoral sector and the rural industries of the Northern Territory, but at the same time they have a mighty fine get-together.

During the 2007 Territory show season, in a simulated voting exercise, Territorians will be asked to vote yes or no to the following three questions: (1) do you agree that the Northern Territory should become a state under the Australian Constitution? (2) do you agree the Northern Territory as a new state should have the same powers as existing states of Australia? (3) do you agree that the Northern Territory as a new state should have the same number of senators as the existing states of Australia?

People have an interest, and, if they participate, they can vote yes or no and give an indication of what they think. In the mock referendum on statehood, Territorians under the age of 18 will be eligible to cast a vote, all mock referendum voters 17 years and over will be asked to ensure that they are on the electoral roll and younger voters will be provided with information about why enrolling to vote is so important.

Another significant difference is that the polls will open on day one of the Freds Pass Rural Show, which is on 19 May. I have had the pleasure of attending the Freds Pass Rural Show, unlike the member for Lowe or the member for Solomon, neither of whom were there to express their views to the Northern Territory community. I will take the member for Lowe to the Northern Territory and I will front him up to a few of these meetings and, if he expresses the views to them that he expressed here in the parliament this afternoon, he will get run out of town in very short order.

Another significant difference is that the polls will open, as I said, on day one of the Freds Pass Rural Show and will not close until the end of the final day at the Borroloola show in August—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does the member for Solomon say?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but voters will still only be able to vote just once. He says nothing; that is the point.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He cannot be a Territorian.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the point. He expresses total ignorance as to what is happening in the Northern Territory about statehood. He is not aware, does not understand and has no interest in the operations of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee. Whether or not you agree with the prospect of statehood, in the Northern Territory they are undertaking a very broad ranging community consultation and getting an expression of views from people—unlike the member for Lowe, who is keen to express his own view in this place about the rights and interests of the people of the Northern Territory in a way which I would not about the rights and interests of the people in New South Wales. It is inappropriate behaviour on his behalf, as far as I am concerned.

Secondly, in the case of the member for Solomon, he ought to know better. He actually lives in Darwin. You would expect him to express a view which supports the views which are currently being discussed by the people of the Northern Territory—that is, that there is an active process of participation by the people of the Northern Territory in a discussion about statehood. The only recommendation of this committee report says that the Commonwealth should do something about it. That is not a bad view to express. The committee recommends that the Australian government updates and refines its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommences work on unresolved federal issues. In paragraphs 3.59 to 3.62, this report says that the Commonwealth should take an active role in trying to isolate those issues of contention and have discussions with the community of the Northern Territory, through the Northern Territory government, about those issues and try to find some resolution to them—not in the way that has been expressed by the member for Lowe or, indeed, by the member for Solomon. Well, what do you say about him, frankly?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did he say anything?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did not say anything worth noting. In fact, he says very little about anything that is worth noting. Paragraph 3.61 of this report says:

On balance, the Committee considers that there is a role for the Commonwealth Government to play in assisting the Northern Territory work through some of the unresolved issues of statehood, without driving the agenda.

I fully understand that there are contentious issues here, like the proportionality issue about the numbers of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate that the Northern Territory should have—and I have a particular view about that which is probably closer to the views of many in this place than others might think. But they are issues which need to be legitimately discussed with the people of the Northern Territory and they should be assisted in that discussion by work being undertaken by the Commonwealth government. I commend the report to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.