Up Front

with the Publisher

THE Australian Department of Foreign Affairs wants Australia to take over Norfolk Island. The de partment put its views to the Norfolk Island Royal Commission on the island’s future administration, saying it would be good for Australia, and no reason could be seen why it would be bad for Norfolk. Australia’s best interests would be served by fully incorporating the island into Australia.

The department sees no reason why that should conflict with the real interests of the islanders. It would be consistent with the spirit of the times that the people of Nor folk, who are already Australian citizens, should enjoy to the full the same rights and duties as main landers.

That’s what the department says about this small hunk of South Seas land, first seen by Captain Cook, and which became, in 1788, the sec ond British settlement in the South Seas.

But the department’s views com prise only a small fraction of the 4,000 typed pages of evidence, and 250 exhibits, presented in all by 140 witnesses when the public hearings finished on the island at the end of November. Yet to come are a written summing-up by counsel and the royal commissioner, Sir John Nimmo, and a further opportunity for islanders to comment on counsels’ views, before this absolutely invalu able wealth of material is ready for final release, which is not before the middle of the year.

Luckily, all the material will go into Norfolk’s archives, and it might —it surely has to—put an end to the political frustration and unease that has existed on Norfolk for what must be the last century. Questions such as who does own Norfolk?

What rights, if any, have the Norfolk Islanders? Did Britain really give the land to the Pitcairners when they were moved there with goods and chattels from their own overcrowded island in 1856?

During Sir John’s inquiry it’s been obvious that here is a man who is charmed by his task; a man fully involved with the problems and atti tudes of this extraordinary island

and its independent people.

In an interview with the Norfolk Island News as he wound up his public sittings, Sir John allowed himself to say, “This little island has more legal problems than con tinents. This is a real challenge. I’m fascinated by the situation here”.

Sir John not only has to clarify its legal problems, that is, the island’s constitutional position, he has to make recommendations on the kind of government Norfolk should have. A government that can work on a small island about 1,000 miles off the Australian mainland.

Among the variety of information that has come out during the in quiry, I found two items of special interest.

First, the views of Mr Peter Cus tance on the Pitcairn community. It had been said earlier at the inquiry that the Pitcairners had been de creasing in importance as the “main landers” had come in, but Mr Custance had analysed the list of the 996 adults who live on Norfolk, and decided that 876 of them could be considered members of the perma nent population, and that of these, 486, or 55 per cent, were members of the “Pitcairn community”. That is, they had direct Pitcairn descent or had married someone of Pitcairn descent. In addition, of the 309 children in school, 178, or 58 per cent, were of Pitcairn descent. And members of the Pitcairn community were a majority on the council.

The second interesting fact, for me, was the extent of the money that was passing through little Nor folk at the height of its “tax haven” days. A bank manager told the com mission that a total of $643 million which may have involved tax avoid ance had gone through company accounts at his bank.

Peak year was to September 30, 1971, when $2Ol million passed through just 97 major accounts, since when the money flow had been easing steadily. For the last 12 months to September, only $63 mil lion passed through a fewer number of accounts. No wonder the Aus tralian Treasury was interested!

Stuart Inder