Agitation In

Norfolk Is.

Petition Rejected—Canberra

Encourages Industries

Amass of material, official and non-official, relating to the Norfolk Island community’s pro test against increased taxes, and against an expensive administrative set-up in which the people have little voice, has reached PIM re cently. Some extracts follow.

The Islanders’ petition to the Queen eventually was referred to the Governor-General of Australia,

who re j ecte d it- The grounds of rejection have been set out in a long statement by the Australian Department of Territories.

Some of the proposed taxation has been withdrawn.

Australian Department of Terri tories (through Mr willoughby> in charge of economic planning section) is trying to strengthen the Island’s weak economy by introduc ing new industries in NI. Active encouragement is being given to a whaling enterprise, which may be headed by Mr. Anderson (whose meat retailing organisation is well known in Papua and New Guinea).

The main obstacle to this is the international body which controls catches of whales. It has been try ing to cut down Australia’s whale

quota, and may react unfavoui to application for a quota for It seems likely that NI will tinue to resist all demands foi creased taxes, direct and indJ while Australia continues to si large sums on the mainten of an administrative organiss which most observers agree is m unnecessary and mainly orname

Petition to the Queen

CLAIMING that Norfolk Is “suffers under an almost « plete dictatorship,” 375 of island’s 583 adult residents landholders have signed a peti to the Queen, states Mr. R. P Nobbs, chairman and presider the Norfolk Island Advisory Con Dated January 26, the peti asks the Sovereign to repeal!

Customs Ordinance 1954, procla; law in Norfolk Island by the « ernor-General of Australia on vember 30, 1954 —and claims the Ordinance is “contrary to fundamental principle of Bi government, that there shall b taxation without representation asks the Queen to “restore to u: democratic right of control our domestic affairs.”

The petition states that s from the 375 signatories, “64i too sick or absent, and 102 are terred from signing by their d or indirect Government emj ment. Others, while they agree,, it might prejudice the receip pensions and destitute funds,, sole discretion of this being in hands of the Administrator, balance have not had the op tunity to sign or decline to doi The petition, it is stated, is outcome of a unanimous dec at a public meeting called by elected councillors to protest ag;: the Ordinance, which is said to imposed further taxation “wit) representation or consent or sultation with our elected counc:;

as promised.”

THE Customs Ordinance, subjected a large range articles to ad valorem ranging from 5 pc to 20 pc on of heavy shipping freight (£:! ton for 950 miles). It has pointed out that “practically ev thing imported carries the apprf ate mainland production taxe addition.”

‘Comic Opera Island’—

‘Bureaucratic Comt

ALTHOUGH the heading Merton Woods’s article in Sy\ Sunday Telegraph about co ditions on Norfolk Island is “C' Opera Island,” and “Bureauc: Comedy of Errors,” the wr summary of conditions as he? observed them there is not n funny.

He shares with most observer;* wonder that the Australian Gov

•nt should find it necessary to em >y a staff of 42. complete with [ministrator and Government iuse trimmings, to govern a small and with 583 adults and about I children. ie describes the expenditure by stralia of £131,000 on Norfolk and in the last three years as xe nation’s craziest dogfight”— ►ecially in view of the facts that [ is stagnating and declining and ,ny of its settlers are poverty icken.”

Hie reporter is caustic and amus : at the expense of “dapper” igadier Norman, the Adminis ter who, he says, maintains “the mality of a near-Vice Regal ahlishment” —he “dresses five hts a week for dinner at Govern it House and rides in a car which ries a pennant.” ■he cause of NX’s “revolution” has n described in recent issues of A. The Australian Government ided to obtain another £3,000 per mm out of the NI taxpayers, and K)sed new import duties. NI pie protested vigorously and, ;n they were ignored, they itioned the Queen for review of new taxes, and for relief from oppressive governmental system. * Australian Governor-General cording to the Sunday Telegraph April 3) refused to grant the ition; but the Government did ise the proposed taxation, so that now will take only £1,700 per ;um more from NI. he Telegraph publishes a de ption of Nl’s medical service ch it says should make “the dais of the Department of Terri es in Canberra hang their heads hame.” The newspaper suggests t the medical care of NI should attached to the Papua-New nea Department of Health, be Telegraph writer seems to c reached the same conclusion as the PIM long ago—namely, that le Australian taxpayers are pre )d to foot the bill, there is no ion why NI should not have its ic opera governmental set-up; if the 580 adults on the island expected to pay for all the sense, it is time that the whole the Government administrative ngements were reviewed in the t of practical politics and com isense.

1 Council May Appeal

Again Over Ordinance

(From Our Own Correspondent)

Norfolk Is., March. 25.

DRFOLK Island’s 1954 Customs Ordinance caused a hullabaloo, including the petition to the :en and letters to all members the Australian Parliament, but amended Ordinance has been )pted by the Advisory Council, he Council, after a long dis >ion today, agreed to accept the

(Continued on Page 152)

Wicks-McNicol

Wedding

Mr. and Mrs. Allan Wicks after their marriage at the church of Our Lady of the Rosary, Port Moresby, on March 12. The bride was formerly Miss Judith McNicol. Both bride and bridegroom are Civil Aviation Dept,

personnel.

Photo: Papuan Prints.

revised Ordinance—but it reserved the right to appeal again for its abolition.

In the amended Ordinance duties have been waived on apparel (excluding silk), carpets and floor coverings, paints, radios and a few other lines.

The clauses of the new Ordinance were explained by the Administra tor at a public meeting. In the course of his speech he referred to the petition.

His Honour granted the righ f of residents to sign the petition, but he protested against what he termed inaccurate statements in the letter accompanying the petition and, to a greater degree, in the letter sent to members of the Federal Parliament.

An example, he said, was a state ment that £200,000 of the taxpayers’ money had been spent in the last 2 h years on the restoration of old, convict-built buildings at Kingston while urgent work on the hospital and school was neglected.

The Administrator said that £20,- 800 had been spent on restoration at the special desire of the Federal Government and at no expense to the Islanders.

The President of the Advisory Council (Mr. R. Nobbs) conceded that the word “including” had been omitted before the word “restora tion.”

There was a considerable amount of heckling at the meeting, some of the questions asked by interjectors being: Had the Administrator represented the case of the majority or the minority to Canberra?

Would the public have an opportunity to criticise his repre sentations? Had the Administrator refused to discuss estimates unless in committee? No replies were made to the interruptions.

Mr. Nobbs, who is also chairman of the Island Petition Committee, apologised for anything that could be misread, but said that the issue was quite clear to most people. He emphasised the seeming unwilling ness of Administrators to give the Council and the public the estimates and expenditure “in any practical way.”

Mr. Nobbs said that to prevent any doubt as to how the estimated £200,000 in 21 years was arrived at, he would quote the official Aus tralian annual estimates, the trust fund credit balance of £38,000 in the 1952 balance sheet (the latest published) and Mr. Lambert’s “whittled down” average revenue.

The total for the period was £200,- 000, as stated in the letters, said Mr. Nobbs. (The 1952 balance sheet shows: (1) Credit balance in trustee fund, £38,600; Australian estimate and

expenditure. 1953, £40,247; £58,256; 1955 (£lO,OOO receive Jan.), est. £20,480. In 1954 revenue was £25,000. but Lambert’s average of £21,000 annum was taken, making £ for 21 years. This accounts fo 2i years’ total of approxini £2OO 000).

The Territories Minister Paul Hasluck) has indicated, the handing over of more gove powers to an Executive, inste; the present Advisory Counc: still being considered.