Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the report of the committee entitled The long road to statehood: report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

On 9 May 2005 the Attorney-General referred to the committee the task of convening a seminar to inquire into recent developments in the Northern Territory on the question of statehood, including any proposals to advance statehood, and emerging issues which may have implications for federal arrangements. Honourable members would be aware that the people of the Northern Territory narrowly rejected a model of statehood at a referendum in 1998. However, many Territorians appear to be in favour of the idea. Statehood is now back on the agenda in the Northern Territory following the announcement of a community focused campaign by the Northern Territory Chief Minister in 2003. The prospect of creating a new state raises a host of unresolved constitutional, policy and administrative issues that may impact on current federal arrangements. These issues include Aboriginal land rights, representation and legislative arrangements, mining and uranium resource issues and national parks and marine protected areas.

Unlike the original states, the Northern Territory is subject to the legislative power of the Commonwealth under section 122 of the Australian Constitution. The Territory is represented by two senators in the federal parliament in contrast to 12 senators from each original state. The votes of Territorians in national referenda are counted only once in the overall tally, but not counted towards a state tally, which is the second criteria for a successful referendum. The Northern Territory is also without certain state-like responsibilities in the areas of uranium mining, land and some national parks.

From 14 to 16 November 2006, the committee held a statehood seminar in Alice Springs and Darwin. The committee had the privilege of hearing from over 60 speakers representing a range of stakeholders in the Territory, including Aboriginal service providers and land councils, Territory and Australian government and opposition parliamentarians, Supreme Court justices, and union and business representatives. I have to say that the committee was quite grateful for their enthusiastic participation in the seminar. The most contentious issues raised at the seminar centred on the representation of the new state in the Australian parliament, the future treatment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and the role of the Commonwealth government in assisting the Territory to achieve statehood.

Territorians were uncertain of the current position of the Australian government on Northern Territory statehood. Historically, the Commonwealth position on statehood has been that it would consider the matter only at the request of the Territory. It was considered that statehood was a domestic matter to be resolved by Territorians alone, with the in-principle support of the Australian government. However, without Commonwealth involvement, the Territory government would not be able to put before its people a model of statehood that contained specific proposals on crucial issues such as the level of representation of the new state in the Australian parliament. Any vague model of statehood would be doomed to fail at a referendum. People want details. Without discussions with the Australian government over the nature of the details, there is a strong risk that the issue of statehood will remain unresolved. That is why the committee has recommended that the Australian government update and refine its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommence work on unresolved federal issues. By refreshing its position on statehood, the Commonwealth would assist the Northern Territory in developing further its own position on statehood and allow the Territory government to consult its citizens with more concrete proposals.

I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked so conscientiously during the course of the inquiry. Our report is unanimous. On behalf of the committee I would also like to express my great appreciation for the contribution and assistance of the Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee and the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and, in particular, Ms Barbara McCarthy MLA, who chairs both committees. I would also like to convey my thanks to the staff of the committee secretariat. The report demonstrates the complexity of creating a new state in the Australian Federation and makes one recommendation. I anticipate that this inquiry will assist Territorians in their discussions on statehood and help open up a dialogue between the Territory and Commonwealth governments in discussing the possible way forward on the road to statehood. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)

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

I welcome the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled The long road to statehood: report of the inquiry into the federal implications of statehood for the Northern Territory and sincerely hope it does progress statehood for the Northern Territory. As the report points out, it seems an anomaly that the Territory does not have the status of statehood. The Northern Territory is, after all, the historic national stage of the Aboriginal land rights movement, home to some of the key mineral resource regions in the country, a gateway to Asia and a World Heritage environment with a growing and diverse population. The NT faces a lot of state-like issues, but it will surely be a long and winding road to statehood, with no end in sight, unless the representational and legislative arrangements of statehood are dealt with comprehensively, ensuring that the Northern Territory has full and equal rights with the states on all matters.

I fully endorse the recommendation of the committee that the Commonwealth needs to take a greater role in assisting the progress of statehood and in resolving federal issues. These issues are many, and include: repatriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act; industrial relations; mining resources, particularly uranium royalties; environment and national parks, including marine protected areas; financial relations; representation; and, legislative arrangements.

Equally, I must castigate the Northern Territory Labor government for their lack of action on removing obstacles to statehood and any meaningful consultation with the federal government. They have not progressed the statehood issue since announcing a five-year timetable back in 2003. They have also done little to build a coalition of support for statehood; there are certainly no new approaches to statehood. While the level of bipartisan support for statehood is encouraging—and I congratulate the Minister for Statehood, Syd Stirling, and the shadow minister for statehood, Terry Mills, on their cooperation—its impact has been muted in the wider community. Future arrangements for the land rights act still require clarification from the Territory Labor government, a crucial issue if the way is to be cleared for statehood.

I have to express some disappointment, too, at the lack of enthusiasm by the Northern Territory public on the issue of statehood. In the words of the committee, Territorians ‘still have a long way to go before they come to a community decision on whether they want statehood and, if so, on what basis’. Views are diverse and divided. At the 1998 referendum, over 51.3 per cent of the Northern Territory’s citizens voted no to statehood. Non-Aboriginal groups supported the proposal, but an estimated 74 per cent of Aboriginals voted no to statehood, and they make up 30 per cent of the NT population. Until we get Aboriginal people onside, statehood is a dead duck.

As mentioned, statehood is an issue not just for the Territory to decide; it will require Commonwealth action to prepare the way before statehood can be imposed or voted on in the Northern Territory. Firstly, how is the Commonwealth to accommodate full representational equality? Anything less than a state entitlement of 12 senators and the minimum five MHRs is not equality. I do not think it is acceptable that, if the Territory is to be the seventh state of Australia, we should have any less representation in this place. Secondly, how will the Commonwealth resolve future land rights legislation? Until these two issues are resolved, statehood will not come to pass.

I will now deal briefly with the Aboriginal land rights act issue, because its removal from the statehood debate is essential, in my view, or else we will go nowhere. My view is that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 should be repatriated to the Northern Territory as soon as possible, basically in its current provisions, with the Commonwealth installing some safety clauses to guarantee its provisions if it sees fit. The removal of this issue from the statehood debate altogether is essential, or else we will get nowhere. Will land rights be repatriated to the Territory or will that remain under Commonwealth administration? Every Territorian, in particular, Aboriginal Territorians, needs to know the answer to that question before they are asked again whether they should become a state.

Finally, I join with the chairman of the committee in thanking all the committee members for their support during this inquiry, and I thank all those people and organisations who gave evidence at our hearings in Canberra, Alice Springs and Darwin. This is a very important issue for the Northern Territory, indeed for all Australians, and those people who participated in the inquiry and seminars have done a great service to Australia. I thank them for their support.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fisher wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.