The Northern Territory is a curious legacy of Federation. South Australia was burdened with debts during the late 1890s, and through a clever program of negotiation managed to foist them onto the Commonwealth along with the NT. In a universe where the NT had turned a profit for South Australia, we in Darwin would be governed by Adelaide.
Instead we are governed by Canberra. Oh, the NT has self-government and the trappings of independence; but it’s only a courtesy. The Commonwealth could take it back in a day. Indeed the Commonwealth and the Federal Parliament have repeatedly shafted Territorians for over 100 years.
That is why we need statehood. It does not prevent all depredations of Canberra, but it prevents quite a few. A State has legal immunities which a Territory does not. It is like insurance: most of the time it seems expensive and unnecessary, but when things go wrong there is no alternative.
If elected I will work within Parliament to have the NT admitted to the Commonwealth as a State. I will agitate for the NT to have equal representation in Parliament: that’s 2 MHRs and 12 Senators. Anything else is a cop-out, a shameful stitch-up between the major parties aimed at making their lives easier.
The current arrangement suits the majors because it preserves the status quo. Mathematically the current arrangements guarantee one ALP and one CLP Senator. This is not representation by candidates intensely interested in the NT. It is representation by candidates who are best at internal party politics.
Remember that if elected, I could be in a position to help determine which side forms government in the House. I wouldn’t have a fair mandate to dictate much policy-wise (though I’d negotiate), but I’d have a bloody good mandate to dictate terms on Statehood. I am the best chance in years that Territorians have of getting immediate and equal statehood. That’s why I hope you’ll vote for me on Saturday 24th.
Email:
2 Comments
It seems a bit of a funny position for an anti-government Libertarian to take, doesn’t it? Pushing for statehood? Many (not myself) would argue that “states” represent a completely useless level of government that could probably be scrapped altogether to increase the efficiency of government and save lots of money. The same goes for senators - why would a Libertarian want another 10 senators on the tax-payer’s payroll? It seems like a position more related to populism in the Darwin community, rather than coming from any small-government ideal, Jacque.
The idea is twofold. First, being a state gives Territorians legal rights through the legislature which they do not enjoy currently. This has consistently hurt us — have a look at my previous piece about the Tyranny of the Faraways.
More generally, libertarians support competitive federalism and subsidiarity. Having states instead of a purely unitary government allows decisions to be moved closer to the people who are effected. It allows governments to tailor policies to their own areas rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. It also keeps them in check: if they get out of hand people and business will start to move elsewhere.
Is it populism? Sure, but only because it’s popular. People in Darwin and the NT generally want statehood because they’ve been screwed by the Commonwealth before — after Tracy, euthanasia legislation — the list just goes on and on. Don’t we deserve the same rights and responsibilities as other Australian citizens?