Have your say
If you would like to post a message on our forum wall please enter your information in the fields below. Feedback and comments left here can be seen by the general public. If you would like to contact us directly about a matter please click on the contact us button above. Thank you.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I think we should have more public discussion and debate about this matter.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
This issue should be part of the next territory election.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
May I please suggest that the new state NOT be called the NT, but something different. If the state is called by a name beginning with any letter other than N, Q, T, W, S or V then every state in Australia could be abbreviated by a single letter. That would really make things much more efficient around this country. No longer would we need Vic, NSW, Tas, etc. One letter would do to abbreviate all of our states. E.g. Melbourne would become V-3000, Sydney S-2000, etc. What name for NT state? What about Uluru state (U) or Kakadu state (K) or perhaps some name of a federation of all representative native tribes? Anything other than an N would be just wonderful, because NSW already has that and Tasmania already has the T.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I understand we will be given the opportunity to change the name of the Northern Territory as part of the Statehood issue. Statehood will be an opportunity for us to draw a line in the sand.
We should change the name because the name we have was in part given to us by South Australia. It is common knowledge that the NT started its life as part of NSW. Then South Australia came along. Early in the life of SA, the Government of SA wanted to build the overland telegraph line . They did not want to build the line on land they did not own so, proper papers we drawn up and the area of land was exercised from NSW and became the ‘Northern Territory of South Australia’, so they gave it to the Federal Government to administer. The Federal Government changed the name to the ‘Northern Territory’, which was decided for us by Canberra .
If we leave the name as the Northern Territory then it shows that we lack the sort of foresight I always thought the Northern Territorians had. It lacks imagination and I have to say that the ‘Northern Territory of South Australia’ we are not. We already have South Australia and Western Australia. We don’t need a ‘Northern Australia’.
At Statehood we should change the name to ‘Arnhem’. This name has had a long association with the Northern Territory. Arnhem Land is a place that is a mystery to most Territorians because it was always necessary to get a permit to go there. If we adopt the name Arnhem for our new state I believe the name has sufficient connection to our past to be relevant. It also fits with reconcilliation and we can all become part of the mystery that the words Arnhem Land have held for most Australians, including most Territorians.
Unfortunately, whether or not the NT changes its name at Statehood will probably be decided by the people of Darwin area who are not, in my view, the real Territorians. Lets show some real guts.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Go Statehood! It is definitely time for a change. We ought to be equals with the rest of Australia. Need to educate more people about it though as many Territrorians out there have no idea about what it all actually means.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Miss Lelekis,
I am British with dual Belgian nationality, born and raised in Belgium, a child of World War Two.
I am now 62 and very interested by the Commonwealth of Australia and especially by the Northern Territory.
I discovered the site of the NT Statehood Steering Committee. It is very interesting and I congratulate you for your great work as Project Officer, Promotion and Events.
I hope you shall accept this humble letter of support from Belgium?
Allow me to wish you all the best for the future.
Sincerely yours
Keith Heselwood
February 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Dear Mr Heselwood,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback on the Committee’s site and in particular my work as Project Officer.
It is in fact testament to the passion and efforts of the entire team including Committee Members and Secretariat Staff.
We are delighted to hear from you and absolutely honoured to have your support - all the way from Belgium!
Thank you for your wishes.
Kindly,
Poppy Lelekis
June 15th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I am at a loss my knowledge is this
The territory stands to lose massive funding from the commonwealth if we were to become a state. The other states would have to support fully this change and agree to those changes in the constitution. This would also leave open to negotiations for others states to make changes to the constitution.
So my real question is why are we spending so much funding on statehood which if happens would cost this territory massive loss of commonwealth funding. And not closing the door on this suck up of funds that could be better spent on the people of the territory and assisting territorians.
I am not sure about the rest of you but I am not prepared to support a proposal that would lose monies that we current recieve to become a state. I am a proud territorian and I like you should be asking the real questions WHY??? are we pursuing this ideology that would take so much monies away from us??? State hood is not for the territory. It is not in the best interest of the territory. And I love my NT…………….
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Dear Janet
Thank you for taking the time to participate in Statehood’s on-line forum to voice your concerns. In particular, concerns about the implications of the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory should we become a state.
You sound very passionate about the Northern Territory and you will be glad to know that Statehood will not impact on the current financial arrangements we have with the Commonwealth. This is because the Northern Territory is already funded as a state. We receive Commonwealth revenue in the same way as the states and have been doing so since the 1980s.
The Commonwealth provides grants to the States and Territories in the form of tied grants called Specific Purpose Payments and untied grants called General Purpose Payments which mainly come from GST revenue. The General Purpose Payments can be spent in the way a State or Territory wishes and Specific Purpose Payments can only be spent as set by the Commonwealth - generally on Health and Education.
Calculations seek to ensure that each state and territory has the capacity to provide services at national average levels of efficiency. According to these, the jurisdictions with smaller populations, such as the NT, receive more than their per capita share of GST revenue.
Despite moves by some of the larger states to change the way GST revenue is allocated, the Commonwealth is unlikely to make any changes without agreement of all states.
Statehood will not jeopardise the current formula. Instead, it will preserve the right of the NT to receive Specific Purpose Payments under the Australian Constitution and will entrench the right of the NT to be treated fairly for the purposes of the allocation of GST revenue.
Would you be interested in attending one of Statehood’s Workshops later in the year? All Territorians are invited to come and have their say. Watch this space for more information on dates and locations. In the mean time, don’t hesitate to write to us on any other concerns. We love hearing your views.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:00 am
what are the bad things about statehood? nothing on this website answers that. it just skips the question that ask about issues that might not be the best thing for the NT if it becomes a state. people have a right to know about both the pros and the cons and so far all we are getting are the pros.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
On the fact sheets and FAQ’s, it is obvious that where a question is asked, it is avoided, such as,
Q: Why can’t we just stay as we are?
A:Statehood is something Territorians will decide on before any approach is made to the Commonwealth for admission to the Federation.
Change will only come if Territorians want it to come.
It doesn’t answer the question, it merely states that Territorians will decide, not why we can’t stay as a Territory.
These fact sheets are provided for information, but it is obvious that statehood.nt.gov is biased on the matter, and it would be helpful for all Territorians to know the disadvantages with no contradictions, to let Territorians form their own opinions without persuasion of this website.
Personally I am not against the statehood movement, but after reading several fact sheets, I still feel uninformed, as if I’ve only heard one of the arguments. Please consider this and the Territory when answering more enquiries from people who are simply curious .
regards, A.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
There is no reason to change the name of the Northern Territory. Victoria kept its name when it became a State even after the death of Queen Victoria! We can keep the name.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Perhaps we need an aboriginal state as initially proposed in the 1920’s at the time this was supported by the Adelaide Advertiser and our government. It did make excellent sense as of course our people were largely aboriginal. In this century we would need to have proportionate representation from leaders in the regions where the main indigenous community groups reside. This idea was quashed at the time by the Federal Government.
I don’t understand why we spend another million dollars on forums and blogs on statehood education. In 1996 The Northern Territory Sessional Committee on constitutional development issued an excellent final Draft Constitution. Wouldn’t this million dollars be better spent on improving our existing constitution to the benefit of our local citizens particularly the Indigenous people. If its toward another referendum that people have in mind remember that Australia wide referendums have overwhelmingly resulted in a no vote time and time again ever since our nations Federation. 20% at most of our referendums have resulted in Yes. This is all at a time when the Federal government is reducing powers of the states and implementing section 96 of the Australian constitution whereby states are given money only on specific conditions anyway, as we have done since the Whitlam government.
The NT particularly Darwins recent Development appears to be largely on the back of borrowed capital – Particularly the Knuckey Street and the Smith Street Development. Meanwhile our very young indigenous Males (20yo’s) are being incarcerated for participating in community riots at Wadeye, even for incidents as minor as banging a steel pole on a fence. What does this tell you about injustice and difference within our community? What has corporate Thatcherism done at all for our current and future young indigenous citizens, the very people we should be most concerned about?
Our cattle stations have a history of employing very very few indigenous people and of mostly ripping the land away from indigenous people, razing and destroying traditional hunting grounds and denying aboriginal people the right to eat the alternative introduced species. The tracts of land opened to cattle grazing are literally irradicating the already exiting and subsistent native species. Cattle appear to be a very hungry and wasteful meat source, compared to chicken and white meats but we don’t invest any money in either piggeries or chicken farming in the NT. What does this tell you about our inconsistency in farming direction?
I don’t believe we need a state, we need a well directed and useful constitution, not the junk that appears to be currently causing so much injustice and hurt to the powerless in our midst.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am
Statehood Office Reply to ‘A’ - The NT can of course stay just as it is, and it will until people decide otherwise. The Statehood Committee has a brief given to it to promote Statehood. It is not the role of the Committee to oppose Statehood. Committee members must support Statehood that is why they are Committee members. If you do not support Statehood that is your democratic right. Be informed and make your own decision.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Statehood Office Reply to Dan - The Northern Territory cannot have a constitution if it is not a State. Becoming a State gives the Northern Territory the opportunity to develop its own consititution. The Draft 1996 Constitution remains a draft only and was included in a Statehood Steering Committee Discussion Paper released in 2007 asking people if it should be considered again. The Commmonwealth Parliament’s 1978 NT Self Government Act remains our de-facto consitution with all control resting in Canberra until the day we have our own consitution with Statehood. Becoming a State allows the NT to develop a modern consitution that fits the unique place we want to be in a modern federation.