Picking
p. 31 · Read in the full issue
Pacific tourists' pockets
From FRANCIS ROLLEY on Norfolk Island Norfolk Island’s identity crisis over whether or not it is part of Australia is posing problems for its local politicians. While awaiting the Royal Commission’s ruling on the island’s future status, the eight members of the Norfolk Administrative Council have found themselves playing politics with Big Brother counterparts in the Australian and New Zealand governments who, seemingly, pre judged the matter and decided policy affecting Norfolk on the basis of con tinued Australian authority.
The local politicians, however, have shown they can wheel and deal with the best of them by proposing conflic ting principles on parallel issues.
Vested Interest is the name of the game and when the latest NZ Budget threw a 10 per cent foreign travel tax on departing Kiwis, the council and the Norfolk Tourist Board, fearing a resulting decline in visitors, cried foul and alleged unsporting treatment.
In telegrams to the New Zealand Government and Prime Minister Rob Muldoon they pointed out that tourism is the island’s only major in dustry and urged exemption of the tax for Norfolk-bound New Zealanders like that provided for travellers to some other South Pacific islands.
In a 13-point rationale of their re quest, the board told Mr Muldoon that while Norfolk Island may legally be part of Australia at present, it is not so in reality. Thus, it should not be lumped with western-bound trans- Tasman travellers who have to pay the New Zealand tax.
However, the admission that Nor folk may be legally part of Australia tends to undermine the stand the Nor folk Island Council is taking on a tourist tax of its own.
Only three days after the NZ budget announcement a Council Visiting Fee Ordinance which picks $2 each from the pockets of people departing after a Norfolk holiday came into effect.
The Australian Senate Standing
Committee on Regulations and Or dinances promptly wrote the council saying the tax was objectionable because it appears to restrict the right of Australian citizens to visit part of the Commonwealth.
The committee asked that con sideration be given to raising the revenue in some other way.
After debating the matter at some length, the Norfolk politicians took the point that their tax does not only apply to Australians but also to tourists from other countries, in cluding New Zealand.
They decided to reply to the com mittee explaining that the ordinance was made only after due considera tion of the fact that alternative sources of revenue are already being utilised. But while they were manoeuvring the political ball back to the Australian Government’s court, the NZ Government on their other flank was confidently returning ser vice by undertaking only to keep Nor folk’s attitude in mind if and when any review of the list of exempted destinations is made.
For the moment, at least, Norfolk Island’s Council members are back to square one on the political playing board. The 40 per cent of Norfolk visitors who come from New Zealand continue to pay their government’s tax while the Norfolk Administration continues to have no qualms in taxing both them and the remaining 60 per cent of visitors from Australia for the privilege of coming and going.
The point, apparently, is not whether travellers should be taxed but rather who should reap-in the revenue raised. Match point, however, remains to be played and although the local Norfolk politicians are a little behind the eight-ball after the first round, the game might not yet be over.