As the civilian population returned to Darwin at the end of World War II, the proposition of self-governance gained momentum. But it was not until that the NT Legislative Council was formed.
The member council consisted of six elected members and seven nominated by the federal government, but that included the Administrator of the NT, who held both deliberative and casting votes, and while the council "could make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory," it could still be vetoed by the Commonwealth, and had no authority over finances.
In , the Legislative Council argued that the Territory's federal MP should be given full voting rights and that the NT should be represented in the Senate, but the Commonwealth refused. But by , the Legislative Council was re-created as the Legislative Assembly comprising of 19 elected members; similarly to a state, it had the power to legislate over areas of health, education, land, mining, and local government, but the Governor-General retained overriding power.
Finally on July 1, , after more than half a century of lobbying, the NT achieved self-governance. However, today, on the eve of self-government's 40th anniversary, some question whether the decision did in fact "prosper" its people, as the Commonwealth retains the right to veto NT legislation.
So we don't have the full measure of state powers," Mr Parish said. Despite successive statehood working groups, a failed referendum in , and periodic pushes for equal recognition, none have come to fruition. I think we need to do some pretty radical rethinking on the nature of the NT as a jurisdiction. The Territory's fiscal imbalance is at the core of arguments against it: the NT simply can't raise the funds required to cover its spending responsibilities.
The NT accounts for about a sixth of Australia's total land mass, yet its total population is about one-twentieth of Sydney's. The relative isolation, significant land mass, and low population mean services cost more, so it's compensated by the Commonwealth to provide those services, and more than two-thirds of the NT budget is derived from federal GST disbursement and specific-purpose grants.
And so the argument goes, if the NT receives the bulk of its funding from the Commonwealth, then it's only fair that it retains some influence over Territory decision-making.
It was a sentiment echoed by some within the Territory during the statehood referendum. Then, the Central and Northern Land Councils opposed it amid concerns regarding "the generally adversarial and hostile approach" taken by successive Territory governments. The statehood committee itself noted that the land councils "appeared to hold greater trust in the constitutionally guaranteed accountability mechanisms of the Commonwealth parliament, regardless of which party was in power, rather than the accountability mechanisms of the Legislative Assembly of the NT".
There is no benefit in pretending that it is something it is not. In both Puerto Rico and the United States as a whole, people are increasingly ready to give up the idea that Puerto Rico should be a territory. Puerto Rico has voted twice, in and in , to become a state. The government of Puerto Rico formally requested statehood in So far, however, Puerto Rico continues to be a territory of the United States.
Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States… but just what does it mean to be a […]. All three branches of government have made it clear that […]. Since only […]. You must be logged in to post a comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States… but just what does it mean to be a […] Log in to Reply.
The acts of Congress take precedence over and repeal acts of the Territorial Legislature in conflict therewith. At any time Congress may increase or decrease its grant of powers to the Territorial Legislature. Although some mentally resourceful "constitutional lawyers" have sought to maintain the opposite, it is no doubt true that Congress could entirely withdraw this grant of power.
Any law passed by the Territorial Legislature is subject to veto by the Governor of the Territory, a federal official, and laws may be passed over his veto only by a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature. Any law of the legislature may be rendered void by a specific action of Congress. Otherwise, it is for the courts to decide upon the legality of territorial legislation if and when it is challenged. The power of the national government over the territories differs from the power of the national government over the states not only as to the establishment of local government but also as to the regulation of the social and personal relations of the people.
Over them in the territories Congress has also that power which in our federal plan we have allotted to the states. The chief additional power in dealing with the local affairs of the territories is what is known as "the police power of the states.
As Judge Morrow of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit once declared, in a decision respecting Alaska: The United States having rightfully acquired the territories and being the only government which can impose laws upon them has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and municipal, federal and state… It may legislate in accordance with the special needs of each locality and vary its regulations to meet conditions and circumstances of the people.
Whether the subject elsewhere would be a matter of local police regulation, or within state control under some other power, is immaterial to consider. And so, while congressional acts regulating the speed of automobiles, the making of contracts, or the closing of shops on Sunday within the state of Oregon would be unconstitutional as invading the functions of the state government, yet the same laws for Alaska would be entirely within the rightful powers of Congress.
As to the rights of individual citizens, however, except for the right to take a hand in controlling national affairs, people in Alaska are not inferior to those of the states. The humblest newborn child in Fairbanks could no more have the plentitude of his privileges of American citizenship taken from him than could the governor of New York. Learn more about UA's notice of nondiscrimination. UA is committed to providing accessible websites. Other examples of territories are those which are occupied territories and are under the military control of the invading country, disputed territories which are claimed by two or more countries, and special administrative regions like Macao and Hong Kong.
Ships are also the territories of the countries whose flags they are flying. A territory can be any area which is claimed by a government. As countries expand their borders, they claim territories, and they can become states when they become organized and incorporated enabling them to petition the federal government to make them states.
Citizens of a state enjoy more privileges and the full rights of a citizen while citizens of a territory enjoy limited rights and privileges.
They are also usually situated farther from the central government although they are also represented in it. A territory is an area which is under the control of another state or government and does not have sovereignty while a state is also known as a country or an organized political organization which enjoys sovereignty. Citizens of states enjoy more privileges and full rights under the law while citizens of territories only have limited rights and privileges.
A state is usually located within the geographical area of the seat of government while a territory is usually located far from it; even ships which are in international waters are considered territories of their flagship country.
A state monopolizes control over its territories through legitimate force while a territory does not.
0コメント