LUNCH TIME TALK – SUE BRADLEY, NORTHERN TERRITORY LIBRARY
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2006
IS TERRITORY DAY HERE TO STAY?
In various public venues Territorians have told the Statehood Steering Committee how much they value Territory Day.
Territory day celebrates the milestone of self government for the Northern Territory, albeit a limited form of self government, on 1 July 1978.
For many Territorians the basis for the celebration is irrelevant whilst the usual form of celebration – the letting off of fireworks on cracker night – is a valued privilege.
During our at show stalls last year a REGULARLY STATED OBJECTION to progressing to Statehood for the NT was the perception that Territory day –and the fireworks- would be lost !! See Fact Sheet No 12
So next Saturday 1 July we will let off fireworks to celebrate the fact that IN A country which prides itself on its DEMOCRATIC principles, we Territorians are not always democratically governed; as a Territory, the Commonwealth Parliament in which we have no guaranteed voice, can override the laws of our democratically elected Northern Territory Government. We celebrate our inequality to the citizens of the States!
IS TERRITORY DAY HERE TO STAY?
I THINK IT PROBABLY IS- BUT I’LL GET TO THAT LATER.
Let’s see how history has lead to this questionable celebration in 2006.
In 1901 Territorians became citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia as residents of South Australia with two local members elected to SA Parliament AND THE SAME POLITICAL RIGHTS AS ALL CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA.
Soon after Federation, South Australia engaged in discussions with the Commonwealth to hand the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth to administer. The NT was considered an administrative burden for SA at the time.
SO - on 1 January 1911 the NT was transferred to the Commonwealth. TERRITORIANS IMMEDIATELY LOST ALL RIGHTS TO VOTE! YES- ALL RIGHTS TO VOTE AT A STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL!! ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE ISN’T IT? BUT THIS COULD HAPPEN AGAIN WITH AN AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF THE SELF GOVERNMENT ACT - WHICH IS A SIMPLE ACT OF THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT
(I think that January I, 2011 would be a very appropriate date to achieve Statehood. One hundred years of inequality is enough!! On a more mundane level, any celebratory cracker night may be safer in January in the wet season!)
After 1911 the Territory was run by a federally appointed Administrator; a senior public servant answerable to the Commonwealth.
By 1919 Territorians were becoming increasingly unhappy with government from afar. HAROLD NELSON was active in the so called Darwin Rebellion which saw the end of the administration of Administrator Gilruth.
Mr Nelson had been gaoled for not paying taxes. He had taken up the issue, also popular during the American Revolution, of ‘no taxation without representation’. History tells us he was a popular local figure with the town locals playing music to him over the walls of Fannie Bay Gaol whilst he served his time.
In 1922, in response to the rebellious actions of our citizens, we were allowed by the Commonwealth Parliament to send ONE representative to that Parliament. The representative had NEITHER the right to SPEAK in Parliament nor any right to VOTE on any bills. He had observer status only. Our first Member of the House of Representatives was the former felon Harold Nelson. He must have wondered if the battle was worth the prize.
In 1936 our single representative in Canberra was given the right to speak in parliament and vote, but only on matters specific to the Northern Territory – a restriction applying to no other representative.
1947 saw the election of the first six elected members to a Northern Territory Legislative Council . Was this a time for celebration at last? Not really. Control was maintained by Canberra as the six elected members were always able to be outvoted by the seven Commonwealth appointed members in the Council of thirteen!
1948 saw the passage of Commonwealth law making all people in Australia at the time Australian citizens rather than British subjects. This citizenship law however did not apply to Aboriginal peoples. And Territorians still remained unequal ‘citizens’ in their level of representation. Some other information about the status of Aboriginal Territorians can be found at Fact sheets 14 and 15
In 1963 there was a display at Darwin Show grounds for the visit of the Queen, using a motor show theme. You will see on the screen behind me the images from that display. These show that even then, Territorians dreamed of Statehood - a model where “the driver and passengers in the car will be in control, with their own fuel supply.”
By 1968 our single representative was allowed to speak and vote as other members of the federal parliament – But they still did not have and do not have any CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE that the Northern Territory would retain representation in the Commonwealth Parliament - a constitutional right accorded to all States.
Even by 1974 the Commonwealth was not really letting go - the first fully elected Legislative Assembly with 19 members , replacing Legislative Council in the Territory, had VERY LIMITED POWERS.
In 1975 the Territory was allowed two Senators in federal Parliament. Some States challenged the ability of Territories to have senators. Our Territory senators are not constitutionally guaranteed. The High Court determined Territory senators could exist so long as the Commonwealth Parliament legislated for them to exist!
Also in 1975 Territorians had their hopes raised when the then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser said the NT would be a State within 5 years!
1978 The Northern Territory was granted Self Government. Some powers of the States under the Australian Constitution were retained by (and remain with) the Commonwealth such as ownership of uranium and control over land rights, industrial laws and some national parks. Refer to your fact sheets for specific information.
WITH THE LIMITED SELF GOVERNMENT WE CELEBRATE NEXT SATURDAY THE COMMONWEALTH RETAINED THE RIGHT TO OVERRIDE ANY TERRITORY LAWS!!!
However, from 1978 until 1988 the Territory was treated very well financially by the Commonwealth. Much better in fact than the States.
However, from 1988 the Northern Territory has been treated identically to the States for the purpose of financial arrangements with the Commonwealth. We are subject to the same formula the Grants Commission applies to all the States and it is only by virtue of our size and sparse population relative to the States we get more per capita.
There is no longer any special relationship that allows the Territory to be granted more money. Commonwealth policy decisions outside of the normal grants formula may benefit any individual jurisdiction from time to time, but the Commonwealth constitutionally cannot discriminate between the States. They can discriminate for or against a Territory but by adopting the same formula there has not been ‘positive’ discrimination since 1988.
It is this lack of positive financial discrimination to the developing Territory by the Commonwealth, when it is constitutionally able to do so, that leads us to say “Since 1988, since the end of preferential financial assistance, there is no longer any argument AGAINST Statehood!”
In 1996 there was real outrage in the NT when Canberra overturned the Territory’s Euthanasia laws. Statehood appeared to be firmly back on the agenda. The movement was supported when; during 1996 the NT’s Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development released in full its 1.2 million word report after ten years of consultation. The report included the draft of a proposed NT constitution.
However, in 1998, only two years later, the people of the Northern Territory voted by 51.3% against Statehood on the terms offered at the time.
Why?
The referendum had been preceded by a short, unpopular “constitutional convention” comprising a large majority of government appointed members.
Territorians had little opportunity to understand the ramifications of the new draft constitution which differed significantly from the Sessional Committee draft of two years before.
The referendum was held in conjunction with a Commonwealth general election – a factor known to confuse some voters.
The referendum asked a multi faceted question which was -
Now that a constitution for a state of the Northern Territory has been recommended by the statehood convention and endorsed by the Northern Territory parliament, do you agree that we should become a state?
The question assumed support for the proposed constitution, support for the convention process, support for the parliament’s endorsement of the process, SUPPORT FOR STATEHOOD when the terms and conditions of that were absolute unknowns.
In May 2003 our Chief Minister reported “I have spoken to the Prime Minister this week and he has agreed to support our new campaign for Statehood”
In April 2005 the SSC was established and in May 2005 a reference was given by the Commonwealth Attorney General to the Commonwealth Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to investigate recent developments and emerging issues about NT Statehood. That Commonwealth Parliamentary Committee currently plans to visit Darwin in August to commence their enquiries.
SO WHERE ARE WE UP TO IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JOURNEY TOWARDS STATEHOOD IN JUNE 2006?
Let’s examine what current and former Chief Ministers have been saying this month.
1. Clare Martin in weekend Australian of 18 June is reported as saying that our hope of becoming a state will take a lot longer to achieve, as momentum among the community for constitutional change had not developed as predicted following debate over a nuclear dump. I quote: “Ms Martin said Canberra’s moves to force a nuclear waste dump on the NT did not generate the same level of outrage as the decision of the Federal Government to overturn the Territories Euthanasia legislation in 1966”
This is a curious comment.
The overturning of the Territory Euthanasia law had clear constitutional implications! A valid law was made for people of the NT by their democratically elected parliament. The law was not made capriciously and there was much soul searching and much anguish in its formation. Territorians were outraged when the member for the seat of Menzies in Victoria, Kevin Andrews sponsored a private members bill in the commonwealth parliament that overturned territory law and inserted a provision; section 50 A, which prevents the territory making any law allowing for voluntary euthanasia in the future. Whether you agreed with that particular territory law or not you must ask “What do this territory’s laws have to do with a member of the commonwealth parliament in his capacity representing a seat in Victoria? “ OF COURSE TERRITORIANS WERE OUTRAGED!
The issue of the proposed nuclear waste facility is a very different animal. Fact sheet 22 has more information.
Under the ANSTO Act the Commonwealth is able to store its waste in any State or territory. There are few constitutional issues here - BUT there are clear POLITICAL issues with our lack of a strong political voice at the federal level.
The federal government has more to lose by becoming unpopular in the states where they hold a significant majority of 86 out of 150 seats in the House of Representaives and a majority of one seat in the 76 seat senate,
Even if Territorians became 100% outraged the Government stands to lose ONE of those 86 reps seats and ONE senate seat. The political stakes for any government are much higher in a State, even the smaller states. Tasmania, has 17 seats, and South Australia, has 23 seats that could lost. Who would you choose to antagonise if you were the Commonwealth Government?
So whilst it may be reasonable some Territorians have not been outraged by the Commonwealth using its valid laws to provide for nuclear waste, they might and in my view SHOULD be outraged by their continuing lack of a strong political voice at the federal level: a situation that CAN ONLY BE CHANGED by demanding a model of Statehood bringing eventual equality with the original States.
2. Former Chief Minister Shane Stone on ABC radio on 16 June is reported as saying that the Territory WILL NEVER GET ANOTHER SHOT AT STATEHOOD.
Why will we never get another shot? What has changed? What does he know that we do not?
S121of the Australian constitution is still available.
This says “ The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either house of parliament, as it thinks fit.
While the provision for establishing new states remains in the constitution and when the people of the Northern Territory demand it - of course we can have another shot !
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STATEHOOD EVERYDAY AND S121 GUARANTEES. ALL WE NEED FOR ANOTHER SHOT IS YOUR GO AHEAD!!
You can give your go ahead through our Committee process. Michael has indicated how you can do that. Politicians may not take notice until you make your wishes clear, SO MAKE YOUR WISHES CLEAR.
If you have any ideas about how this committee can help with the process please tell us.
To move on….
3. Former Chief Minister Marshall Perron wrote to me early this month. Amongst other things he remarked that he was shocked by the 1998 referendum result “BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST STATEHOOD. IF THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST AND BENEFITS FOR- WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE NO?…. OUR ONLY HOPE IS A COMMITTEE LIKE YOURS, BEING UNBIASED AND UNTAINTED WITH POLITICS, FINDING A WAY TO CONVINCE THE CITIZENS THAT ’THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST STATEHOOD’.
So, what’s the current climate like for Statehood? Given these comments you may feel discouraged. But if the citizens of the NT were to demand Statehood now, I think there may be a reasonable chance of success.
Why?
We have a centrist federal government currently taking control over work place relations; clearly stating it wants to take control of ports; wanting control of education and health. This week it also wants control over state legal systems and their consideration of customary law!!!
Such increasing centralism is weakening the power of the states.
Oddly, the weaker the states become, the less threat they are to a centrist federal government and the more likely we are to achieve the status we seek!
But why seek Statehood in such a climate?
So that we become subject to DEMOCRACY!! Democracy under the Australian Constitution means the Commonwealth would have to treat us equally; could not override the will of our State government when the State government has made valid laws.
I quote a comment by former Under Treasurer and Administrator Neil Conn:
“Good self government in the NT can be seriously compromised by bad interference from outside NT and the peculiar deals and trade offs that can sometimes occur during such episodes. Only Statehood can provide us with a guarantee against capricious intervention in local legislation.”
And, just so you appreciate the reality, Marshall Perron has told us that during his term as Chief Minister “ individual Federal Ministers, on a number of occasions threatened to overturn NT legislation if we did not respond to their demands”
SO - IS TERRITORY DAY HERE TO STAY?
Territorians have told us how much they value the celebration and the fireworks. A huge majority of people we have surveyed have told us they want the name Northern Territory to be retained in when the Northern Territory is admitted as a State.
So I suspect Territory Day is here to stay!
Not to celebrate just ONE limited milestone in our constitutional journey BUT as a celebration of the day (Perhaps 1 January 2011?) when the State of the Northern Territory is admitted to the Commonwealth and all its citizens gain the same rights as other Australians under the Australian Constitution.
QUESTIONS?