Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 is a significant private senator's bill for the people of the Northern Territory. I stand here enormously proud to represent the people of the Northern Territory here in the Senate. I stand just as proudly with my fellow Territorians—Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, and also Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari. I thank very much the CLP senator for the Northern Territory, Sam McMahon, for standing with us in putting this private senator's bill to the Senate for debate today.

The Constitution allows for five members of the House of Representatives for each original state but leaves it to parliament to determine the number of seats in the territories. In some ways, I wish that we didn't have to have this particular bill, but the Australian Electoral Commissioner has declared that the Northern Territory will lose one of its two seats at the next federal election. This news has been met with great despair in the Northern Territory. We have only four voices in a parliament of over 220 parliamentarians. The Northern Territory is growing. The Parliament of Australia says, 'Let's develop the north.' And, when we talk about developing the north and its economy and infrastructure, we must also talk about developing the north in terms of the voices of the people of the north. Removing a voice diminishes all of our voices. I am urging senators to get behind this bill.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides for a minimum of one member each for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. A single seat in the House of Representatives would mean one member of parliament representing more than 250,000 Territorians in an electorate of over 1.4 million square kilometres—an electorate which is 30 per cent First Nations people and which has a population undercounted in the census.

I introduce this bill in the Senate along with my Labor colleague—our shadow special minister of state, Don Farrell. It has been co-sponsored by fellow NT Senator, Dr McMahon, and all the Nationals senators. We understand the importance of fair representation for regional, rural and remote Australians and we understand that the Northern Territory has 72 remote Indigenous communities, 500 homelands and 40 Indigenous languages. In fact, there are more than 40. They're the strong ones. There are actually over a hundred Aboriginal languages in the Territory. The case for the two seats in the Northern Territory is about fairness for remote and regional Australians. It recognises the huge geographical area of the Northern Territory, which is six times the size of Victoria and almost double the size of New South Wales. It recognises that, with two seats, the population in each is still not far below the national average and is significantly more than the five seats in Tasmania. This is by no means intended to disrespect my colleagues in all of the other states, but it's important in terms of justice and fairness in terms of democracy. That's what this bill is about.

This bill has been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which gave us an opportunity to hear from those Territorians who will be affected by this change. The inquiry is considering more than 50 submissions on the issue and has heard from more than 20 witnesses. The overwhelming majority of these support maintaining our two seats in the Northern Territory. They included submissions and evidence from the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory; the four land councils of the Northern Territory—Central Land Council, Northern Land Council, Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council; Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory; Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation of the Northern Territory; the Chinese Literary Association of Christmas Island; the CPSU; the Multicultural Council of the NT; the Australian Greens; the Leader of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory, Lia Finocchiaro; and many more. Greg Ireland, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, who gave evidence, said:

… bringing in a floor of two members is what we're seeking. We'd actually love it to be law. But that would at least allow a stronger voice inside parliament to assist with those challenges that we face.

Marion Scrymgour, the CEO of the Northern Land Council, said that returning to a solitary seat would heighten the effective disenfranchisement amongst Aboriginal Territorians. Sarah Cook, from the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, said that a single electorate would 'undoubtedly' limit the representation of remote communities and remote families in federal parliament. Sarah said:

Lingiari is a massive landmass. There are many, many layers of need and disadvantage. We are already competing for air in those factors. We really think it's unreasonable to further limit us by reducing it to just a single person.

Sarah Cook gave evidence over the phone from her car in Katherine and told the committee she was about to drive home—10 hours sitting on an open highway.

Let's not forget the most important Indian Ocean territories that come under the Northern Territory: Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. From Christmas Island, Chris Su wrote that travelling across a single Northern Territory division 'would take more than two weeks and no less than four international airports' and two ferries. He said:

The distance from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Alice Springs as the crow flies is 4,113km.

Dublin to Cairo is 3,975km.

4000km is one tenth of the circumference of the Earth.

These are the passionate submissions coming from people right across the Northern Territory Lingiari electorate.

Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation—based in Maningrida, Arnhem Land, one of the most remote corners of the current electorate of Lingiari—put in a powerful submission. I'd like to read quite a bit from their submission. They say:

…the suggested redistribution of the NT electoral boundaries illegitimately diminishes Indigenous Territorian's right to representation and ultimately justice.

The idea that one MP could be an effective voice for the most disadvantaged Australians in an electorate spanning 1.4 million square kilometres makes a mockery of representation

…   …   …

This means that our local people are already disadvantaged when it comes to representation.

I also want to share with the Senate the voices of individuals who have spoken to me about this issue and who have signed the Labor petition on this matter. I've spent the past month travelling across vast areas of the Northern Territory. I have been speaking to people from Yirrkala and Baniyala in north-east Arnhem Land and to people from Timber Creek and Yarralin, towards the Western Australian border. I have been speaking to people in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. In particular, I have been speaking to people in Kalkarindji, the home of the Gurindji, the site of the 1966 Wave Hill walk-off, which at the weekend marked its 54th anniversary.

Some of you may have seen an article in The Australian newspaper last week, a plea from the grandchildren of Vincent Lingiari to the Prime Minister. In a letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison the grandchildren of Vincent Lingiari, Debra Vincent, Sonny Smiler, Rosie Smiler, Jocelyn Victor and Lisa Smiler, called on the Prime Minister to support this bill in the Senate, and in particular when it reaches the House of Representatives, which we seriously hope that it does. They wrote:

In 2000, we gave permission for the Australian Electoral Commission to use our grandfather's name for the electorate of Lingiari. We were proud to see the achievements of Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji people recognised in this way. Losing a seat will make our voices softer not louder.

…   …   …

Right now we ask you to listen to our voice, and help us to protect our voice.

…   …   …

The voice of remote NT will be diminished without strong representation.

It's really important for the Senate to recognise the significance of that letter to the Prime Minister in particular, and the importance, from a cultural perspective, of First Nations people giving permission for a name like Vincent Lingiari to be used in the parliament for a seat in the House of Representatives. The families had no idea what this decision meant in terms of the Australian Electoral Commission. No-one had spoken to them. No-one had explained why the name of Vincent Lingiari may not be going forward.

In my travels I do explain to Territorians what we're fighting for—for fair representation in the Northern Territory, for a voice for remote and regional Territorians, for democracy—and they are absolutely quick to get behind me. I say to the people of the Northern Territory: let's stay strong on this. We deserve to grow in every aspect of that word—grow in the economy, grow in our infrastructure, grow in our population and, most importantly, grow in our democratic rights here in the Australian parliament.

Labor has garnered over 3,000 signatures from across the Territory and from across Australia on its petition, and we are not stopping there. We will continue with that petition. I will table that petition to the Senate later in the year. Petitioners include Erin Lucas from Lajamanu: 'One representative to service the whole of the Northern Territory is unreasonable, unrealistic and, put simply, unfair.' This is what John Boffa from East Side, Alice Springs, and our Chief Medical Officer Public Health at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress says: 'The population counts are not accurate, and marginalised people need to know their politicians if they are going to be motivated to vote. We must retain two seats.' This is what Raquel Nicholls-Skene in Brinkin says on the petition: 'The Northern Territory has the most disadvantaged people in Australia and being further stripped of representation will only contribute further to their disadvantage. As a territory not a state we already currently miss full participation in our governance—that is, not even a full vote in a referendum.'

Johana Iren from Umbakumba on Groote Eylandt said: 'The NT is already underrepresented with two seats. It's crucial to the Northern Territory to retain these two seats.' Gregory Thomson from Stuart Park in Darwin said simply, 'One seat is an insult to democracy.' Beverley Genat from Pine Creek said, 'While population density is normally the primary consideration, geographical distance must also be given just and fair consideration.' Werner Appel from Tennant Creek said, 'It's a disgrace.' Ann Grattige in Darwin said, 'It's not all about population size. The complexity of the issues needs to play a part in decision-making.' I would absolutely love to go on, and perhaps I will one day. From interstate we've had Beth Cummings from Millbrook, Western Australia, who said: 'We all need to stick together to do what's best for the Northern Territory.' Barbara Greensmith from Port Pirie in South Australia said: 'NT definitely needs two seats. It's such a huge area and it's totally unacceptable to believe that one person could possibly cover the whole area.'

There are so many. Go on my Facebook page and you will see all the comments. These people—these everyday Territorians and everyday Australians—get it. They understand what federal representation is meant to do and they can't believe the Northern Territory could possibly be represented by one person. They get that a single electorate for the Territory would not give adequate recognition to the differing communities in the NT. They get that a single electorate for the Northern Territory would not recognise the strategic and economic importance of the Northern Territory to Australia as a whole.

Labor gets it. The Nationals get it. I thank Senator Sam McMahon, Senator Bridget McKenzie, Senator Matt Canavan, Senator Perin Davey and Senator Susan McDonald for co-sponsoring this bill. The Greens get it. Independents Senator Lambie, Senator Patrick and Senator Griff get it. Even the leader of the Northern Territory CLP gets it. So does the Northern Territory Labor Party. With all of these senators supporting the bill, we're hopeful it can pass the Senate. Now I call on the Prime Minister to do the same. The only thing we need now, Prime Minister, is for you to get it, for you to support the voices of the people of the Northern Territory, for you to assist in passing this legislation to enable the Northern Territory to have two seats, at a minimum, in the lower house. Yamalu.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. Before I do, I would like to acknowledge the great festival of democracy that was held on the weekend in the Northern Territory. In particular, I want to thank and congratulate all the candidates who stood for election and acknowledge the work of Lia Finocchiaro, the leader of the Country Liberals. I worked for the Country Liberals back in 2012 as their campaign director, when we were very fortunate to come to power after being in the wilderness for a number of years. Lia is one of those brilliant politicians who has what I call the X factor. Congratulations to her and Sallyann Innes and everybody involved in that campaign. I'll have more to say about that at a later time.

This bill, introduced by Senators Farrell and McCarthy on 11 June of this year, would amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide for a minimum of two divisions for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives. The introduction of this bill was predicated on research that projected the possibility that the Northern Territory would lose one of its two seats in the House of Representatives, caused by its population falling below the entitlement quota for the second seat. On 12 June of this year, Minister Cormann, as Special Minister of State, wrote to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to ask it to inquire into and report back on this bill early in the spring sittings to ensure a timely deliberation before redistribution processes for the Northern Territory could become too far advanced and that senators hear from appropriate experts and from members of the community, including government agencies, on the administrative and legal implications of this bill. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I want to briefly update the Senate on this inquiry and on some of the evidence that has been received.

On 17 June, after Minister Cormann's request, the committee resolved to adopt an inquiry into the bill, which was subsequently publicised by media releases and in the form of invitations to interested parties. It was only during the inquiry—this was on 3 July—that the Australian Electoral Commissioner formally made the determination to increase the number of seats in Victoria from 38 to 39, to decrease the number of seats in Western Australia from 16 to 15 and to decrease the number of seats in the Northern Territory from two to one. This was based on the most recent official population figures for the Commonwealth published by the Australian Statistician. What I will do is go into a bit of detail in terms of how this has come about.

The population quota for one member is 172,537 people, to be precise, with partial quotas over 0.5 rounded up. Unlike the states, the territories are afforded an additional calculation process to account for the margin of error related to the population at the last census. This margin of error calculation was introduced by the Howard government through the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Representation in the House of Representatives) Act 2004, following the recommendation of JSCEM's 2003 territory representation inquiry. The NT population shortfall for a second member was 11,526. This was more than its population margin of error of 7,440. As such, it did not retain a second seat. The ACT population shortfall for a third member was 1,784. This was less than its population margin of error of 10,694. As such, it retained its third seat.

The 31 December 2019 estimated resident population data was published by the ABS in June of this year. These were the most recent statistics required to be used by the Electoral Commissioner under the Electoral Act for the calculation of entitlements ahead of the next election. The determination of reduced entitlement for the Northern Territory to one member only applies immediately for the purposes of enrolment. The members elected at the 2019 federal election, representing the division of Lingiari and the division of Solomon, will continue to represent those electorates up until the next election.

Part III of the Electoral Act specifies the process to be followed to determine the number of members of each state and territory, when it is to be conducted and by whom it is to be conducted. The number of members in the House of Representatives for a state or a territory is based on the population of that state or territory relative to the population of all other states and territories. Some margin-of-error adjustments are made to the territories to account for the accuracy of their census population data. So enrolment is not relevant to the entitlement to members in the House of Representatives. The allocation of members by jurisdiction involves a calculation that divides the population of the state or territory by a population quota. Partial quotas, as I indicated earlier, over 0.5 from this calculation are rounded up. So, in essence, the population quota equals the number of people of the Commonwealth as ascertained by the Electoral Commissioner, divided by twice the number of senators for states.

In calculating this quota, the number of people of the Commonwealth does not include the people of the territories. The Electoral Act requires the Australian Statistician to supply the Electoral Commissioner with the populations of the states and territories, which have been compiled and published in a regular series under the Census and Statistics Act 1905. The information to be supplied by the Statistician is required to be published immediately prior to the day for the calculation—that is, one day after the House of Representatives has been sitting for 12 months following an election. The ABS also publishes the estimated resident population each quarter.

Adjustments may be made to the ACT and NT populations as follows: the ACT to include the Jervis Bay territory and to include Norfolk Island where the latter is not entitled to a member in its own right, and the Northern Territory to include the Christmas Island territory and/or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands territory when either or both of these territories are not entitled to a member in their own right. In both of these cases, the population of the smaller territory is added to the population of the ACT or the Northern Territory and the number of members to which the ACT or the Northern Territory is entitled is recalculated. This is an additional calculation which is made where the entitlement for the ACT or the Northern Territory is a whole number and a remainder that is less than or equal to one-half of the population quota. Depending on the outcome of this calculation, a further adjustment may be made to the population and the number of members recalculated. This is the margin-of-error calculation that was introduced in 2004.

Section 24 of the Constitution does specify that five members at least shall be chosen in each original state and, as has been pointed out by speakers, Tasmania is guaranteed a minimum of five members of the House of Representatives as an original state of the Commonwealth of Australia. Section 122 of the Constitution allows the parliament to make laws for the territories and provides that the parliament may allow the representation of such territories in either house of the parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit. Subsection 48(2B) of the Electoral Act requires that at least one member of the House of Representatives shall be chosen in the ACT and the NT at a general election. This provision was introduced through the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1989. Prior to the 1989 act, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 fixed representation at two members for the ACT and one member for the Northern Territory.

I think it is important that we also look at the historical representation in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory was first represented by one member in the House of Representatives in 1922 through the Northern Territory Representation Act 1922, but it should be noted that the voting and participatory rights of the NT member were initially restricted. They could not vote on any question or be counted in any situation where numbers mattered—for example, a quorum or an absolute majority—and they could not hold office as a Speaker of the House of Representatives or a chair of a House of Representatives committee. In 1936, the Northern Territory member was granted the right to vote on any motion to disallow any Northern Territory ordinance and on any amendment to such a motion. In 1959, the Northern Territory member's right to vote was extended to include any proposal relating solely to the Northern Territory. In 1968, the Northern Territory member was afforded the same rights, privileges and immunities as members for the states. The Northern Territory Representation Act was repealed and replaced by the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act in 1983, which transferred Northern Territory representation privileges in the Electoral Act and retained the Northern Territory's fixed entitlement to one member. I think it's very important to be aware of the historical background of representation in the Northern Territory but also to be fully aware of the legal background upon which redistributions take place in Australia and the basis upon which redistributions do take place.

Since the inquiry into this bill was established some months ago, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has received written and verbal evidence from over 50 individuals and organisations. While it was the committee's original hope to travel to the Northern Territory to hold in-person hearings, the committee secretariat received advice that this was probably not appropriate, considering the coronavirus pandemic that is currently sweeping Australia, and so the committee instead agreed to hold a hearing via teleconference on 21 July.

At the hearing, the committee heard from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and—as Senator McCarthy indicated—we heard from Senator McCarthy along with the federal members for Solomon and Lingiari. We heard from the Australian Electoral Commission. We heard from officers from the Department of Finance and from election analyst Malcolm Mackerras AO—for those who might be listening along at home, it is Professor Mackerras who came up with the Mackerras pendulum. We heard from the ABC's Antony Green as well as from a number of other representatives including from the Chamber of Commerce NT, the Isolated Children's Parents' Association and Indigenous organisations, and from other individuals. Some were supportive of the bill. Others called for amendments or changes to the formula. In saying so, responses to questions on notice arising from the hearing were due last week, and there are some submissions that the committee still needs to consider before publication. It is my understanding that the committee secretariat now is working through the evidence that we have received. The committee had agreed to consider the report in early October; however, it is my preference—and I'm looking across at my Labor colleagues over there—that, subject to the view of other committee members, and without wishing to step on their toes, and considering the workload of the secretariat, I would hope that we can report back sooner than that, given the formal determination by the Australian Electoral Commission in July.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

We do need to consider the evidence soberly and with due consideration, Senator Farrell. In closing, there has been an important and longstanding convention that electoral legislation should generally only be changed based on bipartisan consensus and after appropriate opportunity for scrutiny of legislation. And I do hope that the Senate considers the committee's forthcoming report and recommendations prior to any vote on this bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, you have the call.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land that I am dialling in from here in Meanjin, or Brisbane, the Turrbal, the Yuggera and the Yugarabul people, and that sovereignty was never ceded, so we are on stolen land. I'm very proud to be first senator using our remote facilities, as the chamber finally enters the 21st century. I hope that we can continue that trend to modernity with, maybe, some more women in cabinet and a more representative chamber, and that is, of course, what the bill is about today.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 is a bill that the Greens are very proud to support, and it goes to the ability of this chamber to represent its constituents and to the ability of the House to represent its constituents. The reason for this bill is that in early July the Electoral Commissioner determined that population changes in the Northern Territory meant that the electoral entitlement for the NT was for one lower house seat only. If the parliament doesn't act, then this small change in relative population will lead to the Northern Territory losing half of its representation in the House and going from four federal representatives down to just three. The resulting lower house electorate would cover the entire Northern Territory and the Christmas and Cocos Islands, so it would be by far the largest electorate in the country by population, at almost a quarter of a million people.

The Greens strongly believe that halving the number of seats in the Territory would be a massive injustice for First Nations people living in the Territory—who are, frankly, already unrepresented and underserved by our parliamentary system. It would also lead to major underrepresentation for rural and remote communities across the Territory and the islands. These diverse and disparate communities already share one rural electorate, despite the diversity of issues that the electorate has to cover. To combine an already stretched electorate with an urban centre would just further marginalise rural and remote issues. That is, of course, the reason why we are in strong support of the bill.

In the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the bill there was broad consensus expressed, both by those making submissions and those giving evidence, that returning to just one member and one electorate would seriously diminish the representation of people in the Northern Territory. I note that the Territory is 27 per cent First Nations people, which is the highest proportion of any state or territory. Lingiari, which is the seat that would be abolished, has the highest proportion of First Nations voters, at about 40 per cent, so its amalgamation would seriously and disproportionately impact the representation that First Nations people are able to get in the House of Representatives chamber in this federal parliament.

I've already mentioned how the NT is huge in its geography and covers a disparate range of constituencies. Currently, the urban and industrial issues are concentrated around Darwin, in the seat called Solomon, while most regional areas are represented in Lingiari. As I've said, amalgamation of those into one seat, we fear, would give priority to those urban areas over regional, remote and First Nations issues and voices. In relation to fracking, for example, which is, of course, quite topical, city voters who might have bought the spin that somehow there'll be some economic benefits flowing from gas—which, frankly, is dubious and disputed by the experts—might vote differently to people in the regional and remote areas, who will have to live with the impacts of a destroyed water table and other incursions onto their land. So it will be very difficult for a representative to balance those competing interests and concerns.

Of course, in order to represent an electorate properly you should get around and visit the place. Part of the reason I'm dialling in remotely is so that I can do that in the 14 days after this fortnight of sittings, rather than being in an appropriate level of quarantine to keep my fellow Queenslanders safe. But, because of the size of the NT, making it one seat makes it thoroughly impractical for the representative to get around and actually listen to the community and then represent those interests here in parliament. I want to note that in federal voting statistics the Northern Territory already has a lower turnout than other states and territories. If voters already feel unrepresented due to the size of the existing electorates and, further, the lack of an elected representative to get around and see them personally, there's potential for even less engagement and even more disenfranchisement. That would be a tragedy for our democracy.

The fact that the NT population fluctuates with a clear margin of error and that the census data is sometimes unreliable given the transient nature of the population means that it's preferable to have a guarantee of two seats, rather than changing between one and two seats every few terms. There is a whole range of ways this could be achieved, and some of the submitters to the inquiry on the bill went through them. Antony Green proposes a harmonic mean apportionment. It all gets very 'wonky' and interesting. We're very open to considering those methods in the future, but for now we think this bill is a necessary safeguard to protect our democracy and protect the interests of First Nations people through their being properly represented in the House of Representatives and the federal parliament.

Now is a crucial time in our relationship with First Nations people. The Greens, of course, believe that we need a treaty, we need truth, we need justice, we need healing, we need reparations and we need sovereignty acknowledged. All of those issues should be dealt with by this parliament and by our community, but, if we are to start off by reducing representation of First Nations people in federal parliament, that sends absolutely the wrong message and could set back progress on those other crucial issues of how we respect and acknowledge our First Nations people and their rights.

While we're on electoral reform, I have said that this bill is important, and the time for dealing with these issues is now, but there are also a lot of other reforms that our democracy is crying out for. We need more diversity of representation in our chamber and we need the voices of the community to be properly represented. Now, I have a private member's bill of my own, which will, hopefully, come on for debate at some point this century, which would remove the influence of private money on our democracy. It would say that, actually, you shouldn't be able to buy influence and that particular industries should not be able to make massive donations that then buy tacit favours or tacit policy outcomes that suit the bottom line while community interests, the public interest and the interests of the planet get put second, third or last. We think that's a crucial electoral reform as well. It has long been the Greens' view that we should get dirty donations and their influence on our democracy right out of the picture, so I'll be hoping to bring that bill on at some point. It would cap donations from everybody at $1,000 a year. That's for individuals; that's for community groups. That's for everybody, because we don't think that big money should be running our democracy; we think it should be about the public interest and the interests of the planet and the future.

That is, of course, the biggest electoral reform that the Greens will continue to champion and to push for, and we hope to have some support for that, but we note that, sadly, both of the big parties do accept very large corporate donations—to the tune of, I think, $100 million now since 2012. So, sadly, we're not yet confident that that bill will have the numbers it requires to pass, but we live in hope.

In terms of other reforms that are needed for our democracy to remain in this century, remote participation is, of course, at the top of the list. I'm really pleased that we are here and that things seem to be working. I haven't had my phone buzz, Mr President, to say that you can't hear me or see me or that things aren't working, so I assume that all is tickety-boo. I'm very grateful for that, but it's six months too late. We've been in this global pandemic for six months now and, really, we should've seen this process expedited at the beginning of that time. I'm glad we're here now, but it did take an awfully long time. Let's hope that the system holds up for the coming fortnight.

In terms of other reforms, the parliamentary code of conduct and, of course, a federal corruption watchdog, which go hand in hand, are desperately needed. I'll be speaking about the parliamentary code of conduct later today because the reporting to the inquiry into my bill to set one up is being tabled this afternoon, but suffice to say I think we need to make the parliament a more attractive workplace so that people actually want to enter politics and seek to make change, improve people's lives and work for the betterment of us all. The way that they see many senators and members conducting themselves really doesn't endear the profession to people who might be interested in a career in politics. If we're talking about democratic reforms and making our chamber more representative, then things like parliamentary standards so that conflicts of interests are properly managed and people act in the public interest are really very basic stuff that should have been legislated an awfully long time ago.

In terms of other democratic reforms, ensuring government decision-making and advisory bodies have broader representation is very crucial and very topical. We've seen the COVID commission stacked with industry representatives who have vested interests in pushing particular industries or particular resources, even particular projects, and there are very lax conflict-of-interest rules about how to manage those flagrant conflicts between what could be advocacy for the public interest through a public commission and what could be advocacy for the private interests of the personnel who are on that commission. Again, in this broader context of making our democracy work better, it's the community that needs to be represented, not people's private interests, so making sure that those government decision-making or advisory bodies are more representative and have better conflict-of-interest rules is well overdue.

There are a whole lot of other initiatives that we would love to see trialled as we take these tentative steps towards the 21st century in our teenage democracy. Things like citizen-initiated matters of public importance, citizens' assemblies and participatory budget-making—actually involving people in their democracy more systemically and more successfully—would lead to better outcomes. We would all be better informed and the system would do its job better. So we're really excited about the prospect of progress on those issues. We've learnt to become very patient, so I am not sure how long it will be until we see some real action on those things, but I am proud to be in a party that's pushing those issues and I know that there are many people in the chamber that agree on these issues, so there's hope for reform.

These are the reasons we support broader democratic reform, and in this particular instance we support this bill. I want to pay tribute and credit to Senator McCarthy, who has really championed this issue and has done, as always, an excellent job on it. I acknowledge that this legislation would entrench malapportionment, but we think it's fair enough in this case. You can't have a single Representatives seat representing an entire territory that is 27 per cent First Nations people and say that that's good and fair representation because there has been a slight change in population numbers. That could potentially lead to a really unfair and, I think, undemocratic outcome. So we need this fixed. We've got the bill before us today to fix it. I don't think it's coming on for a vote. I hope I'm wrong about that. We will certainly be supporting the bill if it does, and I do hope that the government take this on board and take the strong feedback of all of the submitters on board along with the rights, wishes and desires of First Nations communities to be properly represented in this chamber and in the other chamber.

With that, I conclude my remarks. It seems the tech has held up, so I'm grateful for that. I say thank you to everyone who has been involved in getting these remote facilities set up. There have been a lot of people working very long hours. We're very grateful for that and we thank you for it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise as one of the co-sponsors, along with Senator McCarthy and Senators McMahon, McKenzie, Canavan, Davey and McDonald, to support this legislation to ensure appropriate and fair representation for the people of the Northern Territory in the federal parliament. At the outset I will follow the lead of Senator McGrath in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition for last weekend's election in the Northern Territory. I extend my congratulations to the Chief Minister, Mr Gunner, who we hope has, in the most difficult of circumstances, been returned to majority government. I can see Senator Smith nodding there. I had the great privilege of working with Mr Gunner in the 1990s when he was an official of the shop assistants union—that great union—and it does appear that at some time either today or tomorrow, when the counting is completed, we will find that he has been returned with a majority government in the Northern Territory and will continue the terrific work that he's been doing, particularly in the circumstances of the pandemic.

As I said, I am a co-sponsor of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 and support very much the legislation in terms of its extension to the Northern Territory or maintenance of the current position. I note that one of the people who made a very clear submission to the inquiry into this bill was, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, who made it very clear that she would like to see the continuation of two seats for the Northern Territory. I am aware that there are other people who would like to speak on this topic who are from the Northern Territory, so I am happy to associate myself with the remarks of Senator McCarthy and complete my comments at this point.

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today, strongly on behalf of Territorians, in my support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. I'm not surprised, reading through the submissions to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into this bill, at the vocal opposition to the Australian Electoral Commission's move to reduce the number of the Territory's lower house seats from two to one. Given the strong opposition from community groups, Indigenous land councils, political analysts such as Antony Green, professors, the Northern Territory government, Territory opposition, federal members and senators in this place, I have to wonder why we allow a blunt mathematical equation on population to get it so wrong.

That leads me to the purpose of this bill. Through this bill we are seeking to ensure a minimum of two seats for the Northern Territory. Let's not forget that as a Territory we have only two senators; that's four representatives in total, and it's proposed to go down to three. Since 2001 Territorians have been served by two members of parliament. Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data, overlaid by an arbitrary Australian Electoral Commission formula, the Territory is set to lose a seat. This would mean 250,000 Territorians would be represented by just one member of parliament—and, I might add, that doesn't include unenrolled voters. At 31 March, the Northern Territory government believed there were approximately 24,000 unenrolled voters in the Territory. Many of the Territory's unenrolled voters are Indigenous. I myself, having just been through some of the gruelling remote-area mobile polling, have seen firsthand how many people in remote communities are not enrolled.

Without this bill, the Territory would become the largest seat in the country, seeing an extra 30,000 people spread over an area more than 35,000 times as large as the electorate of Melbourne, while, on the other hand, we have Tasmania. I love my Tasmanian colleagues. But Tasmania is, as we've heard, guaranteed five seats, regardless of its population—five members in the House of Representatives, with a population of about 535,000 people. And let's not forget: Tassie gets 12 senators. So, for double our population, Tasmania has over four times our representation. Without this bill, Tassie would have over five times our representation. It doesn't sound fair, and it's not.

But leaving fairness out of it for a second, if it is deemed that an MP can adequately represent a certain population, then why doesn't that apply in the NT? As Territorians, we like to think we're different. But are we? It is an area of approximately 1.4 million square kilometres, has a population of approximately 250,000 and has a population density of approximately 1.75 people per 100 square kilometres—fewer than two people per 100 square kilometres. It's currently the second-largest division in Australia, behind Durack in WA—but let's not forget, WA has many more MPs, and 12 senators.

We have cosmopolitan Darwin and Palmerston, covered by the seat of Solomon. The rest of the NT is covered by the seat of Lingiari. This contains the towns of Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Timber Creek, Pine Creek and so on. We also have reasonably large-sized towns that are incredibly isolated, such as Groote Eylandt, sitting in the gulf, and Gove, up on the tip of Arnhem Land, that is inaccessible by road for much of the year. We also have some of the most remote communities in Australia. Lingara is out in the Victoria River district, out towards Halls Creek in WA. I was there just last week. It's an eight-hour, one-way trip to get to Darwin. Lingara had three voters last week, but those three people deserve representation.

Let's not forget the NT also includes Christmas Island and the Cocos Keeling Islands out in the Indian Ocean. You cannot even fly there from Darwin. You have to go via Perth or Malaysia. There are 2,000 people out in those territories. It takes an entire week to do a trip out there. Imagine that you have to travel to another state or overseas to visit your constituents. It's unimaginable for the rest of Australia. The Territory is six times the size of Victoria and almost double the size of New South Wales. Not only that, as we've heard, the Territory is home to a culturally rich and diverse population, with 27 per cent of Australia's Indigenous population calling the Territory home. Roughly 40 per cent of the population of Lingiari is Indigenous. Most of these remote communities which contain our Indigenous population are only accessible by unsealed roads and are impassable during the Territory's wet season. It makes the work of scheduling for a Territorian MP very challenging.

In July, our government reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people overcome entrenched inequality through the national agreement and set 16 new targets across key challenges, including health, education, employment, justice and housing. At a time when we are seeking to elevate the voice of our First Nations people to address these issues, our Indigenous Territorians deserve effective and efficient representation, and this is best served by ensuring at least two MPs in the Territory.

The seat of Solomon focuses on the Darwin-Palmerston areas. In that seat is Darwin Port, the closest port to South-East Asia. The port is vitally important, not only to Australia's defence capabilities but for trade relationships with the rest of the world. The seat also contains major defence assets and is home to the US Marine Rotational Force. Tourism, education and manufacturing are other important activities for this hub.

As you can see, these two seats have very unique characteristics, opportunities and challenges, but both share in the challenge of the tyranny of distance. Without this bill, there is no doubt the Territory's strategic and economic importance will be undermined. Now, more than ever, in the light of COVID, this is not in Territorians' best interests, and it's certainly not in our nation's best interests. COVID has seen a number of the Territory's key industries and businesses put at risk. The timing couldn't be worse, with an NT Labor government debt forecast to be $8.2 billion. The ramifications of this will see many Territorians seeking access to their local MP, whether that is to help locate opportunities for community funding grants, provide assistance to small business in accessing small business loans, or to help constituents deal with human services.

Despite the challenges, we also need to be looking for the projects capable of ensuring economic recovery. In the Territory, we are blessed with many opportunities. Some of those opportunities are in tourism, mining, gas, minerals, manufacturing and education. MPs are often the first go-to on these project proposals, and ensuring that they are briefed helps them advocate successfully in Canberra. With just one MP—an MP who would undoubtedly spend more time travelling than meeting with Territory constituents—my fear is that the Territory's potential may never be realised and our people, particularly Indigenous Territorians, will continue to be left behind.

In closing, I would like to particularly thank my co-sponsor, Senator McCarthy, for her strong advocacy on behalf of all Territorians and the contribution we make to this nation. I implore all of my colleagues to consider the role our MPs have in representing in Canberra each and every part of their electorates, and to ask themselves: is it fair to give 250,000 culturally, economically, and geographically diverse Territorians just one MP? I hope the answer to that question is an unequivocal no.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 in the strongest possible terms. 'One vote, one value' is an important principle in our democracy, and we know that periodic electoral redistributions take place to make sure that this principle is maintained. But it is not the only principle that is important in Australian democracy. Indeed, given its growing population, should the current electoral redistribution go ahead in the Northern Territory, the very principle of 'one vote, one value' would be undermined because of the extraordinary number of people who would end up in the one and only Northern Territory lower house electorate.

Our Constitution enshrines a minimum level of representation for each of our states in the House of Representatives. The low population of a state may fall, but the number of seats in that state can never fall below five. Our founders knew that states have distinct interests and that those states must be represented not only in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives. Indeed, the point that has just been made is that states' interests are well served not only by the minimum of five lower house seats but also by the fact that there are 12 senators for each state—a luxury that the Northern Territory does not enjoy.

There are other principles that the Australian Electoral Commission applies when redrawing electoral boundaries, and they include community interests within electorates. That's an important principle as well. Our democracy recognises that people cast their votes according to what is important to them and their community, and the Electoral Commission recognises, and our Commonwealth Electoral Act is designed to recognise, that this can differ extremely widely between the city and the bush, between one part of the city and another, and between communities built around manufacturing or around a service sector or agriculture. Democracy is how we negotiate all of those different values and different interests. For that to work, they have to be represented in both houses of our parliament.

All of these important parts of making our democracy work will be disregarded if the Northern Territory has only one electorate. One single parliamentarian will represent nearly 250,000 Australians. It will be, by far, the largest electorate in Australia. On the figures for the redistribution from last year, the Northern Territory falls short of two seats by fewer than 5,000 people. If the Territory retains two seats, each of them will have more electors than any of the five seats in Tasmania. What's more, the Northern Territory's Department of Treasury and Finance predicts that, by next year, the Northern Territory's population will be more than 251,000 people. By the time the election is held, it will have even on the single criterion of population more than enough people to deserve two seats. If the Northern Territory loses a seat then in that election one Northern Territory vote will have one-half value. That is an extraordinary way for the current Electoral Act to override the principle of one-vote one-value.

Here in our nation we must look to the principles of democracy. Those future figures and the figures now are not even taking into account the significant barriers to enrolment in remote Indigenous communities. I myself know from experience in the Kimberley that there are many more eligible voters in many places around the country than are on the electoral roll. The Commonwealth government doesn't do nearly enough work in the remote communities of our country to get voters on the roll. This government makes it difficult for people who don't have ID and who move frequently to stay on the roll. This has a disproportionate effect on Australia's remote communities.

It's certainly well within the bounds of possibility that, if enrolment in remote areas matched the national average, the Northern Territory would be entitled to two seats right now. While I note that it is based on population, we need also to look very clearly at the enrolment levels of those communities. The representation of distinct interests of each jurisdiction that makes up our federation is clearly being overridden by reducing the Northern Territory to one seat, and that must be prevented. Other senators have made remarks about the huge distances that are covered in seats like Durack. Indeed, the Northern Territory would have the largest seat in our federation. It is absolutely extraordinary that this seat be taken from them.

I support the guarantee of a minimum number of seats for each state regardless of population because I absolutely agree that properly representing a state's common interests in parliament and caucuses needs a baseline number of members. Our democracy currently does not extend that same principle to our territories. It absolutely should. One of the reasons it absolutely must in the case of the Northern Territory is that it is by far a very distinct electorate and territory compared to the rest of our nation, which has large numbers of suburban seats. Representation of each state is made up of large numbers of suburban seats, whereas the Northern Territory essentially has a remote seat and a city seat. Here we're expecting even them to be rolled together. We cannot countenance the idea of the Northern Territory and all those remote voters being bundled together with a city seat when their voices are so incredibly distinct.

In what fundamental way is the Northern Territory different to a state besides the administrative and legal accidents of history—or perhaps should I say the racist accidents of history? The Northern Territory was not historically treated as a state, because of its low population size at a time when its population was not even counted. That was when the accidents of history actually occurred. The Northern Territory became a territory at a time when the Australian human population of the Northern Territory were not properly counted even as citizens. They may not even have been counted in a population census at the time these administrative decisions were made.

If we were forming the Australian federation today, wouldn't the chief ministers of the territories be at the table with the premiers of the states? When our nation mobilised to combat COVID-19—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. Senator Pratt, you'll be in continuation when the matter comes back before the parliament.