Mr EDE - 1994-11-29
At the second Leaders' Forum, held last Friday, I understand that the Chief Minister put up 2 proposals for the leaders to consider relating to statehood for the Northern Territory. The first was that they support the achieving of statehood by Territorians by 2001 and the second was to have COAG form a committee to examine the statehood proposal. Is it a fact that the Chief Minister's first proposal, for statehood by 2001, failed and that he was forced into the old fall-back position of sending the proposal to a committee? If so, where is the great victory that he has been announcing to Territorians?
ANSWER
As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, in conjunction with a statement on the outcomes of that forum, after Question Time today I will be tabling the communiqu that the Leaders' Forum released last Friday. To address his question specifically, it is true that, with the concurrence of the state leaders, I had listed on the agenda the subject of statehood for the Northern Territory. The papers that we circulated on the eve of the conference included some words, which I will obtain specifically from my office for the information of the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that I sought from the Premiers and the other Chief Minister support in principle for statehood for the Northern Territory at 2001. Further words in the same motion proposed that COAG, which meets next February, establish a committee of state, Commonwealth and Northern Territory representatives to examine the terms upon which the Northern Territory would be admitted as a new state. Those words seemed to me to express a perfectly legitimate objective.
We are aware that the Prime Minister himself believes that the states have no role in the admission of the seventh state to the federation of Australia and that it is a matter purely for the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory to address. State Premiers feel differently from the Prime Minister in this regard. The Premiers feel that, as the Commonwealth was established by the states themselves in 1901, the states have a very legitimate interest and role in the decision to admit another state to the federation. Of course, such action has not happened in the last 90 years. When the Territory is admitted as a state eventually, those elements of the Australian Constitution that allow for the admission of new states will be tested for the first time.
It is true to say that there is no universal support for statehood for the Northern Territory among our political colleagues interstate. There is a great deal of ignorance about the Northern Territory. There is a high degree of scepticism. Indeed, in some places, there is opposition to the suggestion that we will ever have equal Senate representation given the size of our population. As a person who shall remain nameless pointed out to me at the forum, the fact that the Territory receives 75% to 80% of its funds from the Commonwealth is sufficient, in that person's mind, to cast doubt on whether the Northern Territory is ready to move towards statehood at this time. I pointed out to the Premiers and the Chief Minister from the ACT that, in my view, the reasons why the Territory is so undeveloped in 1994, does not have a much greater population and does not have a much more substantial economy is because we have been a territory since 1911 and we have not had federal representation of any strength.
Page 331
Indeed, it is only 26 years ago since we first had a member in the House of Representatives with full voting powers. Only 16 years ago, we obtained self-government. As we are all aware, that has been a huge success and the Territory has steamed ahead in those 16 years. I told the Premiers and the ACT's Chief Minister not to look upon us today as being too small for statehood because the reason we are small is that we have not had statehood for the last 80 years. Had we had statehood during that period, not only would the Territory be a very different place today, Australia too would be a different place as a result of what could have happened here. If only we had had people in the Territory who believed in and had some executive authority over the region, our experience since federation would have been different. The Commonwealth, which administered the Northern Territory, had no interest in the Northern Territory.
From 1911 to 1978, the Commonwealth government merely provided services to those few hardy souls, some of whom are in the gallery today, who chose to live in the Northern Territory, a harsh and remote place. The Commonwealth government provided some services to them begrudgingly, and poor services they were. By and large, the Territory's administrators did not live here. They were 2-year appointees in transit from Canberra who hoped only for a promotion and an early return to Canberra at the first possible date. That is why the Northern Territory did not surge ahead for 80 years, and that is what I told the Premiers the other day.
Mr Ede: And they would not listen!
Mr PERRON: As a result of their not being keen to be so specific as to agree to statehood for the Northern Territory in 2001, and rather than have no motion of support from the Premiers, I thought it wise to move to a fall-back position. I acknowledge that. The fall-back position was that they agree to recommend to COAG that a committee of the Commonwealth, states and the Northern Territory be established to progress statehood for the Northern Territory. If the Leader of the Opposition does not regard that as a step forward, then he is very wrong.
Mr Ede: It is no great victory. Who believes that sending anything off to a committee is a great victory?
Mr PERRON: I believe that it is a step forward. It was not my first choice. I would have much preferred the Premiers to say that 2001 was an ideal target and that they would strive with us to achieve that. However, a motion of support is better than no motion. We must bear in mind that this is the first time that we have ever achieved a unanimous view on statehood among the state Premiers. Whilst I would have preferred something stronger, at least we will go to COAG in February next year with the states having a united front when the issue arises under the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee's report which recommends that such a committee be established. If the Leader of the Opposition has any influence in Canberra, I ask him to attempt to use it. I am concerned that the Prime Minister will veto the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee's recommendation that such a committee be established. I believe that he may well say that the states have no role, that there will be no committee established with state representation on it ...
Mr Ede: He would not do that if I were Chief Minister.
Page 332
Mr PERRON: ... and that statehood will be on the never never.
Members interjecting.
Mr Ede: It is true, isn't it?
Mr PERRON: I urge the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite, who claim that they have significant contacts and pull with the federal Labor government, to advance the cause of statehood for the Northern Territory by having the federal government support the motion and the proposal to establish a committee.
Page 333
ANSWER
As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, in conjunction with a statement on the outcomes of that forum, after Question Time today I will be tabling the communiqu that the Leaders' Forum released last Friday. To address his question specifically, it is true that, with the concurrence of the state leaders, I had listed on the agenda the subject of statehood for the Northern Territory. The papers that we circulated on the eve of the conference included some words, which I will obtain specifically from my office for the information of the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that I sought from the Premiers and the other Chief Minister support in principle for statehood for the Northern Territory at 2001. Further words in the same motion proposed that COAG, which meets next February, establish a committee of state, Commonwealth and Northern Territory representatives to examine the terms upon which the Northern Territory would be admitted as a new state. Those words seemed to me to express a perfectly legitimate objective.
We are aware that the Prime Minister himself believes that the states have no role in the admission of the seventh state to the federation of Australia and that it is a matter purely for the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory to address. State Premiers feel differently from the Prime Minister in this regard. The Premiers feel that, as the Commonwealth was established by the states themselves in 1901, the states have a very legitimate interest and role in the decision to admit another state to the federation. Of course, such action has not happened in the last 90 years. When the Territory is admitted as a state eventually, those elements of the Australian Constitution that allow for the admission of new states will be tested for the first time.
It is true to say that there is no universal support for statehood for the Northern Territory among our political colleagues interstate. There is a great deal of ignorance about the Northern Territory. There is a high degree of scepticism. Indeed, in some places, there is opposition to the suggestion that we will ever have equal Senate representation given the size of our population. As a person who shall remain nameless pointed out to me at the forum, the fact that the Territory receives 75% to 80% of its funds from the Commonwealth is sufficient, in that person's mind, to cast doubt on whether the Northern Territory is ready to move towards statehood at this time. I pointed out to the Premiers and the Chief Minister from the ACT that, in my view, the reasons why the Territory is so undeveloped in 1994, does not have a much greater population and does not have a much more substantial economy is because we have been a territory since 1911 and we have not had federal representation of any strength.
Page 331
Indeed, it is only 26 years ago since we first had a member in the House of Representatives with full voting powers. Only 16 years ago, we obtained self-government. As we are all aware, that has been a huge success and the Territory has steamed ahead in those 16 years. I told the Premiers and the ACT's Chief Minister not to look upon us today as being too small for statehood because the reason we are small is that we have not had statehood for the last 80 years. Had we had statehood during that period, not only would the Territory be a very different place today, Australia too would be a different place as a result of what could have happened here. If only we had had people in the Territory who believed in and had some executive authority over the region, our experience since federation would have been different. The Commonwealth, which administered the Northern Territory, had no interest in the Northern Territory.
From 1911 to 1978, the Commonwealth government merely provided services to those few hardy souls, some of whom are in the gallery today, who chose to live in the Northern Territory, a harsh and remote place. The Commonwealth government provided some services to them begrudgingly, and poor services they were. By and large, the Territory's administrators did not live here. They were 2-year appointees in transit from Canberra who hoped only for a promotion and an early return to Canberra at the first possible date. That is why the Northern Territory did not surge ahead for 80 years, and that is what I told the Premiers the other day.
Mr Ede: And they would not listen!
Mr PERRON: As a result of their not being keen to be so specific as to agree to statehood for the Northern Territory in 2001, and rather than have no motion of support from the Premiers, I thought it wise to move to a fall-back position. I acknowledge that. The fall-back position was that they agree to recommend to COAG that a committee of the Commonwealth, states and the Northern Territory be established to progress statehood for the Northern Territory. If the Leader of the Opposition does not regard that as a step forward, then he is very wrong.
Mr Ede: It is no great victory. Who believes that sending anything off to a committee is a great victory?
Mr PERRON: I believe that it is a step forward. It was not my first choice. I would have much preferred the Premiers to say that 2001 was an ideal target and that they would strive with us to achieve that. However, a motion of support is better than no motion. We must bear in mind that this is the first time that we have ever achieved a unanimous view on statehood among the state Premiers. Whilst I would have preferred something stronger, at least we will go to COAG in February next year with the states having a united front when the issue arises under the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee's report which recommends that such a committee be established. If the Leader of the Opposition has any influence in Canberra, I ask him to attempt to use it. I am concerned that the Prime Minister will veto the Centenary of Federation Advisory Committee's recommendation that such a committee be established. I believe that he may well say that the states have no role, that there will be no committee established with state representation on it ...
Mr Ede: He would not do that if I were Chief Minister.
Page 332
Mr PERRON: ... and that statehood will be on the never never.
Members interjecting.
Mr Ede: It is true, isn't it?
Mr PERRON: I urge the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite, who claim that they have significant contacts and pull with the federal Labor government, to advance the cause of statehood for the Northern Territory by having the federal government support the motion and the proposal to establish a committee.
Page 333
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016