Speech

Speech by Michael Tatham, Executive Officer, Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee - to the National Trust of Australia Northern Territory Patrons Dinner, 6 June 2005.

His Honour the Administrator, Ms Evans, Distinguished Guests all,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight about something with its own iconic status - Statehood for the Northern Territory.

I am the Executive Officer to the newly created Northern Territory Statehood Steering Committee. A group of 14 dedicated Territorians from outside the parliament as well as three Members of the Legislative Assembly.

The Committee’s role is to advise the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on how to go about achieving an eventual grant of Statehood.

The Brief includes extensive education and consultation.

The single most challenging thing is engagement and capturing people’s attention.

WHAT IS STATEHOOD?

For most people, Statehood is a very conceptual notion. Some people equate it with politics and ignore it or think of it as boring.

But it is the many and varied stories that make up the Territory relating to Statehood which can make Statehood so engaging.

The stories I refer to are about our very unique population, our landscape, our relationships with the rest of Australia our place as an afterthought or a de-facto colony of Canberra and in spite of that ambivalent relationship our relishing the tag of being a ‘Territorian’.

A LONG HELD GOAL

Recently I came across an article in the Centralian Advocate which quoted its launch edition from 24 May 1947 as follows:

It is the first paper to be published in Centralia and will in years to come when the NT is a flourishing STATE and has its own parliament be a copy that has a sentimental value.

Unfortunately for the editor of the day, by those dual criteria the first edition still has no sentimental value.

Almost since the beginning of administration, Statehood has been something locals have thought will come, but sometime in the long distant future. A couple of times Territorians have thought the future was nigh, but it has remained elusive.

Since Administrator John Gilruth upset the locals with his brand of authoritarian rule which included refusing to allow Darwin's barmaids time off for the town celebrations of the end of the First World War, Territorians have sought more self determination.

Taxation without representation was a major issue early last century.

In 1922 one of Gilruth’s critics, Harold Nelson took up the first seat allocated to the Territory in the House of Representatives, yet it was still a less than equal arrangement. He had no right to vote.

A Territory Legislative Council was created in 1947 with a majority of appointed members. A Legislative Assembly came in 1974 and Self Government in 1978. Statehood has crept closer, but we are not there yet. 1998 was a learning experience. Today we continue to look forward.

A CLEAR MAJORITY NEEDED

One thing is clear, with 51.3% of voting Territorians saying NO to Statehood on the terms offered in 1998, we know that about half the population are interested in moving toward Statehood.

If the situation had been reversed in 1998 and 51.3% of voting Territorians had said yes, I am not convinced we would yet have Statehood.

The Commonwealth will require a comprehensive indication that Statehood is desired by the Northern Territory before exercising the power to admit a new State under the Commonwealth Constitution.

WHAT ARE TERRITORIANS THINKING ABOUT STATEHOOD NOW?

As part of my work I have had the opportunity to address Public Service graduate trainees, a recent year 12 Legal Studies Workshop and other visitors to parliament about the Statehood Steering Committee.
When I meet them I survey them about their level of understanding of what Statehood means and what more they may need to know to support Statehood.

Along with surveys we conducted at the Fred’s Pass Show we now have about 450 returns and it is interesting that nearly 50% of people surveyed want further information before they will support Statehood.

I am also yet to conduct a survey where a majority would support changing the name of the Northern Territory. An overwhelming 85% at Fred’s Pass said NO to that question.

I can see no problem with keeping the name. After all the Gold Coast is not gold, and what about Utopia?

If we can live with the East Alligator and South Alligator Rivers there is no reason why we cannot retain the name Northern Territory.

The names we have for things is part of our iconic heritage.

When the Statehood Steering Committee held its first Public Forum at Alice Springs and when we visited Fred’s Pass we talked to Territorians about Statehood and found the most commonly asked questions related to: Senate representation; financial relationships with the Commonwealth; our population base; and interestingly, speed limits.

Each one of these issues will be addressed seriously in a range of Fact Sheets that will be produced and available in hard copy and eventually on a website.

SENATE

Senate Representation, as many are aware, is an issue of equality for Territorians. It is well documented that during the 1980s Statehood discussions, Territory parliamentarians were telling Canberra it is all or nothing.

This is going to be a matter for Territorians in the coming consultation to decide for themselves, I suggest an all or nothing approach will lead to a response from Canberra that the status quo can remain.

I understand the then Minster for Territories in 1998 (Alex Somlyay) had prepared a draft Cabinet submission recommending the existing two senator positions be the starting point for the new States Senate representation.

According to another report, the Prime Minster considered three as a starting point. If the Territory is to have twelve Senators it will create a flow on effect for more members of the House of Representatives in the more populous States.

This would come about by virtue of the formula in S. 24 of the Constitution which states– The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators.

You can bet that the other States and the Commonwealth will balk at such a prospect. With the current Federal Government taking over the balance of power in the Senate any move to dilute that in this term of office will not be welcome.

Territory icon Bern Kilgariff tells a story of when he arrived to be a Senator representing the Territory.

There was a cartoon at the time depicting six crows as the original states sitting on the branch of the Senate in Canberra and how those six crows were determined not to make any room for a 7th crow to come sit on the branch with them.

He says that pretty much sums up how he was treated back then. How much has changed?

One of our current senators told me last year that colleagues in Canberra have asked her since the last referendum on NT Statehood just what made Territorians think that they would be admitted as a State even if they overwhelmingly wanted to be.

By way of an update on that front, we have recently received a letter from the Commonwealth Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. They are to commence an examination of the Federal implications of NT Statehood sometime soon.

FINANCE

Turning briefly to the issue of financial relationships – it appears that this remains a major source of insecurity.

The Territory is treated according to a generic formula.

General Purpose Payments from GST are distributed to the states and territories on the basis of ‘per capita relativities’ calculated by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

My understanding is that means we get the money on the basis of how we can apply the funds in the most efficient manner relative to the other jurisdictions capacity to do the same taking into account our population and remoteness.

Despite the political noises made by NSW and Western Australia complaining that Queensland is nicking all their GST money, the Grants Commission has made it pretty clear that the Commonwealth is not going to change the current arrangements without agreement from all the States.

POPULATION

As indicated, another common concern concentrates on our population.

This seems to be a general concern yet no one can come up with a magic number that would be enough to become a State.

When it comes to size and growth, the Territory is the home of some pretty interesting figures.

In 1901 when the existing States were created from the original colonies, the Territory population was around 4800 people (we can only note the probable inaccuracy when it comes to recording the Aboriginal population - a consistent inaccuracy with data for each of the States at that time.)

Today we have over 200 000 people for the first time.

If we were to equate our proportional growth rate to the States we can clearly show we are way ahead.

What other State or Territory has had a 40 fold increase in its population in the past 100 years?

If NSW grew as fast as us they would be near a population of 50 million!

The Territory punches well above its weight for a population of 200 000.

For example, a recent piece in the NT News made the comment:

State Premier Peter Beattie says Queensland is the fastest growing State in Australia, but he says he deliberately uses the word ‘State’ because the Territory’s booming economy is doing even better. (13 May)

If you think small you stay small.

Nothing is stopping the population of Malta for example – one of the 25 member states in the European Union - Malta has a population of just over 398000 people, the EU has 460 million. Malta’s population is a miniscule decimal point of less than one percent, yet qualifies to be a member State ahead of aspirants with many millions more citizens.

Alaska, a common comparison for the NT in terms of remoteness, frontier values and climactic extremes has a population of 635 000, about one quarter of one percent of the current US population – yet they have been a State for nearly fifty years.

Tasmania and Western Australia both had populations smaller than ours when they became States.

Tasmania had 172 000 and WA 188 000, each about 4% of the total Australian population at the time.

SPEED LIMITS

As to speed limits, I recently had a look at the Australian Road Rules – the standard rules agreed to for uniformity by all governments in 2000.

I see from the Rules that even very highly urbanised jurisdictions like NSW refer to unrestricted speed zones and recognise the black circle sign with the diagonal slash as a valid speed sign (Rule 21).

States can have unlimited speed roads, whether they do or not is up to them.

There is no reason why as a State we would have to change our current arrangements.

Indeed if the head of the so called Pedestrian Council of Australia, one Mr Harold Scruby of Sydney, were to have his way, the Federal Government would intervene under its current powers and impose speed limits in the Northern Territory.

Some here may recall a somewhat naïve Federal Transport Minister in what was probably an attempt to shut Mr Scruby up during the last Federal election campaign made the mistake of committing to have a look at speed limits if returned to government .

That opened a can of worms in the Territory, a few days later Mr Anderson was eating his words while Mr Scruby and a Territory radio broadcaster were engaged in some heated exchanges.

UNIQUE LIFESTYLE

Territorians are fiercely protective of the lack of formality and what is described in the overused expression as The Unique Territory Lifestyle.

One of the greatest fears is losing uniqueness and that point of difference.

I think the opportunity Statehood offers is to cement that identity;

• The opportunity to formulate a modern and specific document that recognises the original inhabitants of the land in a Constitution;.
• The chance to enshrine the values that Territory people hold close to them and make them different from those in the South;
• The opportunity is also there to cast off the last vestiges of colonialism to be a leader in Australian polity and governance.
• To be a modern dynamic new State asserting ourselves in the context of the agenda of New Federalism.

Look at all the people who come here.

Even the reluctant ones end up embracing the place and taking on the unique qualities of the Territory identity.

Newcomers are very soon asserting their difference and valuing the fact we have somehow cleverly discovered this place that remains an almost mythical, romantic, never to be reached destination for the vast majority of people in Sydney and Melbourne.

When I came to the Territory I read the play Dragged Screaming to Paradise written in the 1980s by Suzanne Spunner. It encapsulates the transition from urban pseudo sophisticate to a more accepting and down to earth Territorian.

It is a very amusing and somewhat romantic depiction of one person’s conversion – I was really enjoying reading it until I came to the following part – Like a true Paradise, this place seduces you with its sheer beauty, always promising more than it ever can give you, so you won’t desert it – one day it may reveal all. That’s why everyone feels guilty about living here. They probably will stay even when all the perks are whittled away, or are removed overnight when Statehood finally comes.

All the iconic things mentioned in the play; the ubiquitous stubby coolers, the Beer Can Regatta, the pilgrimage to Kakadu, the bottles of Rid repellent, chlorinated children, the Mall, the Build Up, the clicking ceiling fans, going Out Bush for work, the camaraderie and the personalities – these are the real perks of living in the Territory and are under no threat from Statehood.

Statehood won’t change any of that.

THE (NON) VICE REGAL

Just last week I witnessed His Honour, the Administrator, strolling across the ambitiously named State Square.

He was wearing a very fetching bright floral shirt.

It seems he was on his way back to his office from somewhere in town. He bumped into the Chief Minister on his way; they stopped and had a chat for a few minutes on the forecourt of the Parliament.

This is one of the few places in the world where two of our most senior leaders would be such a normal part of the everyday movement of people around the streets.

Statehood won’t change that.

But consider the Administrator – No, not His Honour but the office of the Administrator itself - what a shame it is that such a Territory icon as the incumbent is, according to law, in fact a servant of the Commonwealth.

The Administrator is appointed by the Governor General and reports to the Minister for Territories in Canberra.(S.32 SGA)

In effect, the Administrator is a double agent!

Of course this does not reflect on the incumbent as I take great pains to point out, especially since I noted in my diary today that I have an appointment to brief His Honour next week on the Committee and its activities.

If you never hear from me again, you will know why!

I would be very interested to know if anyone here tonight, apart from His Honour, can name our Territory Minister in Canberra.

(It is Jim Lloyd the Member for the NSW based seat of Robertson on the Central Coast)

DOCKER RIVER

Part of what I do with the Statehood Steering Committee is to consult widely.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit the remote desert community of Docker River where delegates from the Central Land Council were holding a meeting.

There is no doubt the delegates are very focused in terms of the opportunities Statehood has for inclusion and understanding.

Without overstating its potential, it is fair to say that the Statehood process, if done well can provide for understanding and participation where that may have been lacking in the past.

I hesitate to call it reconciliation – that terms carries its own baggage - but the membership of the Statehood Steering Committee and the work we have to do has potential for application in the context of relationship building.

Constitutional change as a mechanism for reconciling the common law system and customary law was the theme of a speech by Galarrwuy Yunupingu at the 3rd Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture at the then NTU in August 1998.

It is an idea that is definitely out there, up to us to do the work.

Constitutional development is going to be a major undertaking for the Northern Territory and will be part of recommendations by the Statehood Steering Committee to the Legislative Assembly over time.

Constitutional development is usually in direct response to the history and experience of a people.

South Africa’s for example reflects coming out of the notorious apartheid era.

In the United States the Constitution came from a struggle for independence. Changes such as the 13th amendment expressly prohibiting slavery came from civil war.

The Constitution of Cambodia recognises the horrors of Pol Pot and our neighbour East Timor adopted a new constitution in March 2002 that reflects their struggle against invasion and colonial occupation.

A Territory Constitution can reflect a commitment to positive relationships between all who live here.

We are some time off the day when we will hold another Constitutional Convention, but much work will be done on gathering ideas and views in anticipation of that.

TERRITORY CHARACTER - CONCLUSION

There’s great deal we can talk about in regards to Statehood and some of you may even want to ask a question or two, but there is plenty of time to do so. In concluding I want to reflect on a quote that was in a newspaper article in the Sydney Morning Herald– entitled Line Dancer on 17 May.

The arrival of the Ghan provides a neat metaphor for the potential arrival of Statehood. Journalist Ben Cubby wrote - So now that Australia's last great rail connection has been made, has the Territory lost its frontier reputation?

No one in Darwin seems to think so. "Most people that move here from down south are running away from something, be it a wife or a crime or whatever," a Darwin taxi driver said. "They will always keep coming here to look for something a bit different."

ENDS