Up Front

with the Editor

It is fitting that there should be another political controversy on Nor folk Island. It’s fitting because this is Norfolk’s year.

On October 10 it celebrates the 200th anniversary of its discovery by Captain Cook—and the island is only 14 years short of the 200th anni versary of its first settlement by Britain.

In almost 200 years of settlement one would have expected that its political fate would have been firmly settled, but the islanders don’t think so.

Norfolk Island, 1,000 miles north east of Sydney, is only 14 square miles in area, with a population of about 1,500. It’s still noted mainly for its stately Norfolk Island pines— the trees which so impressed Captain Cook in 1774 as being suitable for masts for British ships. It’s because of this, and because of the wild flax that grew there and which looked as if it could be useful for sails, that Cook took possession of the then un inhabited island.

And because the British Admiralty agreed with him, it was a matter of only a week or two after the landing of Captain Phillip’s First Fleet at Botany Bay in 1788 that a vessel was despatched to Norfolk to found a settlement and prevent any other power acquiring it. Thus Norfolk Island became the second British settlement in the South Pacific. As it happened, neither the flax plant nor the pine trees turned out to be useful —the pine trees had too many knots in them—and the island in subse quent years became a prison colony.

Its modern history began in 1856 after the convicts had departed and there arrived by special arrangement the entire population of Pitcairn Island to begin a new life, their own island being thought too small for them. Some of the Pitcairners later got homesick and returned to Pit cairn, which is the reason why the descendants of the Bounty mutineers can today be found on both Pitcairn and Norfolk.

Britain agreed at the time that

Norfolk Island would be considered a “separate and distinct settlement”.

Responsibility for the island was vested in the Governor of NSW—not the colonial government of NSW but the governor himself, and a number of the early governors enjoyed having their own little community to play with, even testing out the Norfolk school pupils on their maths during their visits and inspecting the state of the drains.

But the Australian colonies formed the commonwealth at the turn of the century, and by 1914, despite some protests on the island that Norfolk was still a separate and distinct settle ment, Norfolk became a territory of Australia, and still is.

Australia has not up to now made income tax laws for it, nor do the people pay rates, nor radio licence fees. But nor do they receive pen sions and other social service hand outs. The island gets along on its own small resources, which include the proceeds from tourism, plus a fairly small subsidy from the Australian Government. Some facts are on p 92.

The population over the years has been swollen with Australians and New Zealanders, and some people from Britain, who have retired there or set themselves up as small shop keepers.

The current fuss has been sparked off by a letter to the eight-man Norfolk Island council in July by the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Gordon Bryant, whose responsibility includes Norfolk.

During almost the whole history of Norfolk since 1856 there have been complaints on the island that they have not been allowed to pro perly conduct their own affairs. There have been commissions and royal commissions, petitions to the Queen and even a court challenge or two.

The recent debate in the council about the contents of the Minister’s letter is simply another manifestation of Norfolk’s contihued frustration with outside authority.

What the Minister said in his letter was that advantages to the people of Norfolk Is would accrue “by closer

slationship with the mainstream of ustralian life”, and that the island s disadvantaged by isolating itself om the varied and highly desirable >cial welfare benefits which member lip of the Australian taxation system akes possible”.

This seems a highly colourful way : preparing the islanders still further ►r the joys of Australian income tax.

Fhe islanders have been left in little >ubt these last 12 months that they e going to get it, although they m’t know when.) The Minister’s letter laid it clearly i the line where the Australian Gov nment stands over Norfolk’s consti tional position. The Minister was ying virtually that Norfolk can be garded as part of the Australian ainland and that he intends to treat as such.

The Minister reminded council that ; had the final responsibility for the [ministration of Norfolk Island, that e Australian Government had the nstltutional right to make laws ►plicable to Norfolk and that in his ;w it was “counter-productive” for e islanders to continue to debate eir constitutional position.

'Hie letter drew a heated response, ainly on the matter of who was •ss. Councillor Duncan Mclntyre id that when the minister acted ainst the advice of council or acted thout seeking council’s advice on y matter concerning Norfolk Island ;n he defied not only the elected presentatives of the people. He fied the whole island. He exceeded » power.

He said the United Nations

Covenant on Human Rights permitted Norfolk Island to choose its own political future and its own political form, and that “Norfolk Island is entitled to the last word over the Minister, and that is true, even if the Minister thinks it is counter-productive”.

He added that if Norfolk Island did not argue its case vigorously before the eyes of the world, in the UN if necessary, “then we sell out the island and we are not free men”, Councillor Smith agreed, and he said if the Minister was going to take away Norfolk’s human rights he would like to see the island placed under the United Nations.

The debate was reported in detail in the Norfolk Islander, the little weekly newspaper produced by Tom Lloyd and his wife Tim, and then got an airing in the mainland newspapers and TV. The mainland newspapers stressed mention of the United Nations and reported that moves were likely for UN intervention on Norfolk, according to an unofficial

poll.

What appeared from newspaper reports to be a second Mutiny on the Bounty irritated Minister Bryant in Canberra, who promptly sent Norfolk a cable suggesting if the council wished to communicate with him only through the medium of the press, it seemed “an odd way to do business”. He said he was personally sympathetic to council having some

executive responsibility, and pointed

out that the Norfolk Island Council in i 960 had been empowered to make laws, to carry out local govern-

ment functions and to raise local revenue, but these powers had been removed by the Australian Govern ment in 1963 “at the express request of the council, which assured the Minister of the day that it was the unanimous wish of the people”. He reminded them that the council had reverted to an advisory one and still was advisory, but he was willing to make an early recommendation for those powers to be reintroduced if that was what Norfolk wanted, The Minister was speaking the truth. Local government was intro duced with a great flourish on Nor folk in 1960 but a bloc on the council refused to put it into practice, Faced with Mr Bryant’s cable the councillors appeared not so mutinous, Council passed unanimously the fol lowing motion, “That the council dis sociates itself from the recent pub licity in the Australian and local press concerning the visit to Norfolk Island by the United Nations dele gation and further emphasises that the Norfolk Island Council has not considered such action. Furthermore no poll was ever conducted to ascer tain the views of all councillors con cerning a proposed visit by the UN delegation to Norfolk Island.”

The question now is, does the council want the reintroduction of local government?

I think it might be a good idea if it took this step again. As an advisory council it’s little more than a debat ing society, and it has only itself to blame if nobody takes it very seriously.

Stuart Inder