Up Front

with the Publisher

“Here’s a how-de-do!” somebody sings in Gilbert and Sullivan. But on Norfolk Island lately there’s been a how-de-do going on that’s more serious than comic opera (although Sir William Gilbert’s librettos often were a knife-thrust commentary on social and political matters of his day).

Norfolk is the Australian territory off the east coast of Australia, home of the descendants of the mutineers of the Bounty, who were moved there from Pitcairn in 1856. As PIM readers will know from recent stories, Sir John Nimmo'tabled an exhaustive report on the constitutional background and likely future of the island.

Sir John recommended that Australian quickly make up its mind whether to abandon Norfolk Island completely, or to continue to accept responsibility for it. If it should decide to accept responsibility, he said, then Australia should move the island closer to the Australian governmental and political system. It should have its own Territory Assembly, but residents should be included in the Federal electorate of Canberra and have the privilege of paying taxes like other Australians.

Sir John does not specifically say that Norfolk cannot eventually have an independent future by passing through the usual stages of political development, but some Norfolk Islanders are clearly in no doubt that if Sir John’s recommendations are accepted then for all time Norfolk will be completely absorbed and integrated into the Commonwealth.

They’re probably right, because those sort of eggs would be the dickens to unscramble.

Ed Howard, American-born Australian citizen, who is a resident of Norfolk and editor of one of the island’s two newspapers, has just produced an 8,000-word argument in a supplement to his paper, the Norfolk Island News, which is a spirited defence of the “historic rights” of the Pitcairn settlers to Norfolk Island.

The core of his case is that a real contract has existed between the Pit cairn settlers and the British Government since the day in May,

1856, when the Pitcairners boarded the vessel sent by the British Government to carry them to Nor folk Island for resettlement there.

Conceding that there is no written document embodying the Pitcair ners’ rights, Mr Howard argues that a contract nevertheless existed, say ing; “In law, enforceable rights flow from contracts. If a contract is a written one, the rights of the parties involved are defined by the wording of the contract document.

“But from time immemorial, most contracts have not been written ones. An unwritten contract, known in law as a ‘parol’ contract, can be every bit as real and enforceable as a written contract.”

He says: “The Pitcairners believ ed that they were accepting an offer of Norfolk Island, an offer virtually without qualifications. There was a qualification that Norfolk could not be ‘ceded’ to them. There was prob ably a qualification that some of Norfolk would be reserved by the Crown, but how much they were not yet certain.

“Through the 120 years since 1856, the descendants of the Pit cairn settlers have learned, one generation passing its knowledge on to the following generation, that the rights were real, and that they have been unjustly abused and taken away .. .

In his editorial in the issue carry ing the supplement he says: “The theory in the accompanying paper can be partly disproved if verifiable evidence can be presented that shows it was not the intention of the British Government to allow the Pitcairners to continue gover ning themselves as they had on Pitcairn ...

Ed Howard’s own document is a pretty powerful addition to Norfolk’s documentary history, especially as he raises a legal argument that appears to have been overlooked by jurist Sir John. It needs a reply, and perhaps the Australian Attorney-General might like to supply one. Or perhaps Sir John.

Stuart Inder