- Background
History of Norfolk Island
2.1The history of Norfolk Island and its relationship to Australia occupies an important position in local understanding of the current governance situation.
2.2Ms Robin Adams, a Norfolk Islander of Pitcairn descent and former Mayor of the Norfolk Island Regional Council (NIRC), told the Committee that in order to conduct this inquiry, ‘it is important for the Committee to know the Norfolk story, who the Norfolk Island people are.’ The Norfolk Island Council of Elders similarly stated:
We are a community distinct from others. We have loved and cared for our island for generations for our children. We have our own language and culture and we have common values, particularly around land use and land ownership on Norfolk.
2.3It was a sentiment shared by many people who participated in this inquiry. As such, this chapter provides an overview of the history of Norfolk Island and its various governance arrangements to set the context for the matters under consideration by the Committee. This history reflects the local understanding of its history, the role of the Pitcairn settlers, and its relationship to Australia.
Penal period—1788–1855
2.4Norfolk Island was first claimed by the British in March 1788, weeks after the arrival of the First Fleet. Despite initial difficulties, the penal colony of 22 (comprising seven free settlers and 15 convicts) grew to 1100 inhabitants by 1804. However, the immense difficulties of maintaining the settlement, largely related to its remote location and lack of a safe harbour, made its continuation unjustifiable. In 1806 the population began to draw down, with the last settlers withdrawn in 1814.
2.5A second penal settlement was established on Norfolk Island in 1824, with the intention of housing ‘the worst of convicts in New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land’. Transportation to Norfolk Island was considered ‘the ultimate limit and a punishment short only of death’. The second penal settlement ‘became associated in men’s minds with all that was vilest, with cruel tortures, brutal methods, debased criminals and suffering humanity’.
2.6Significant development took place during this period, including the construction of roads, buildings and wharf facilities, as well as the planting of a range of crops. All of this would serve its future inhabitants well.
2.7In 1847, following a change in policy, the penal settlement was closed and the final convicts were removed by May 1855. Only a small party of caretakers remained.
A separate settlement—1856–1895
2.8Between 1844 and 1856, Norfolk Island was part of the colony of Van Diemen’s Land. In 1856 it was separated by Queen Victoria, who declared Norfolk Island ‘to be ….a distinct and separate settlement’. The administration of Norfolk Island was invested in the Governor of New South Wales, as a separate office.
2.9The impetus behind this declaration was the resettlement of the Pitcairn Island population. This population was descended from the HMS Bounty mutineers, who had settled on Pitcairn Island with some men and women from Tahiti in 1790. Having outgrown the limited resources on the island, the population petitioned the British Government for relief and assistance in transferring to a new location.
2.10One hundred and ninety-four Pitcairners arrived on Norfolk Island in June 1856 and each family was allotted land. The legacy of the original population continues to this day, with around 25 per cent of Norfolk Island’s current residents identifying as being of Pitcairn ancestry. Every year, Norfolk Island celebrates this event on 8 June, calling it Anniversary Day or Bounty Day.
2.11The events of 1856 loom large in the minds and lives of many Norfolk Islanders, and the Committee was acutely aware of the importance attached to these events. The Order in Council in which Queen Victoria established Norfolk Island as a ‘distinct and separate settlement’ has led, according to Ms Robin Adams, to a ‘belief that has been handed down through generations of Pitcairn descendants’ that ‘Queen Victoria “gifted” Norfolk Island to the Pitcairners’.
2.12Similarly, the Committee is aware of sentiment on Norfolk Island which holds that Norfolk Island remains to this day a distinct and separate settlement, essentially a British possession which Australia has no right to claim or administer. This matter has been examined many times in the past, by the High Court of Australia, by a Royal Commission, and in numerous earlier reports of this Committee.The Committee does not address the constitutional status of Norfolk Island in this report.
Early self-government
2.13As part of the new settlement, the Governor of Norfolk Island was vested with the power to ‘make laws for the order, peace and good government of the island’. This acted as the means by which Norfolk Island was governed for most of the remainder of the 19th century.
2.14The Governor implemented a set of 39 rules, which largely mirrored the rules Pitcairn Islanders used to govern themselves. The island’s public business ‘was conducted by the House, a meeting of all adult members of the community where decisions were decided by majority rule’.
2.15In this way, according to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA), ‘Norfolk Islanders operated under something close to self-government for the first forty years of settlement’. Merval Hoare, a historian of Norfolk Island, noted that during this period:
The pattern of life on Norfolk, though conservative, was not completely static. Changes in the laws were made from time to time, some at the request of the people and others by order of the Governor.
2.16By the end of this period, the 39 rules had increased to 47, however no major changes to the governance arrangements on Norfolk Island had occurred. That was until 1895, when the British Government requested New South Wales to take over control of Norfolk Island due to existing arrangements being ‘considered unsatisfactory’. Specifically, the Governor of Norfolk Island had raised issues with the administration of justice, stating that ‘the experiment made in 1856 had failed’ and proposed ‘a proclamation repealing the existing laws and regulations and substituting others’.
Federation—1896–1914
2.17In October 1896, a new Order in Council placed Norfolk Island under the administration of New South Wales. These changes were ‘vigourously opposed’ by Norfolk Islanders, who expressed a desire to remain a British colony.
2.18The following year, in January 1897, a new Order of Council provided that Norfolk Island’s ‘affairs were vested in the Governor of New South Wales’. The preamble of this Order further mentioned ‘the prospect of future annexation to New South Wales “or to any federal body of which that colony may hereafter form part”’.
2.19The existing laws on Norfolk Island were repealed in November 1896, and replaced by a new set of 23 laws and regulations to provide for the administration of the island. Additionally:
The office of Chief Magistrate (hitherto elected) became a Government office and was not again filled by an islander. A Council of Elders of twelve members, elected annually, was constituted with the responsibility for the maintenance of roads and public reserves. The Council could, with the approval of the Chief Magistrate, make by-laws.
2.20In October 1900, Queen Victoria updated the arrangements on Norfolk Island to reflect the impending federation of the Australian colonies. This transferred responsibility from the colony to the state of New South Wales, and the ‘Governor of New South Wales was empowered to administer the affairs of Norfolk Island’.
2.21The Council of Elders in turn was disbanded in 1903, and replaced by an Executive Council ‘consisting of two elected members and four appointed by the Governor of New South Wales’.
2.22The future status of Norfolk Island, however, was not finally decided until 1913 with the passing of the Norfolk Island Act 1913 (the NI Act 1913) by the Australian Parliament. The earlier Orders in Council were revoked in 1914, and a new one placed Norfolk Island under the authority of Australia. DITRDCA told the Committee that this Act provided for the acceptance of the island as an Australian territory.
2.23According to Justice John Angus Nimmo, who conducted the 1976 Royal Commission, this step ‘flowed directly from the intent expressed’ by Queen Victoria in 1897.
Uncertainty and change—1915–1978
2.24Between 1915 and 1978, relatively minor changes were made to governance arrangements on Norfolk Island.
2.25The NI Act 1913 was replaced by the Norfolk Island Act 1935 which essentially replaced the Executive Council with an Advisory Council, consisting of eight annually elected members. The Commonwealth Administrator was separated from the Chief Magistrate and was responsible for public works and ordinances while being required ‘as far as possible’ to consult with the Advisory Council.
2.26These changes were further altered in 1957, with the Norfolk Island Council—also comprising eight members—replacing and taking over the powers of the Advisory Council. Importantly, these changes provided for the future possibility of granting the Norfolk Island Council some executive powers.
2.27In 1960, the Norfolk Island Council was conferred ‘a wide range of local government powers’, which were to be exercised by ‘a fully elected Council with an elected president’. According to Justice Nimmo:
Immediately after being elected in July 1960, the Council resolved that it could not accept the proposed powers because, first, the Administrator was given a power to veto by-laws passed by the Council and second, the Council would have to raise its own revenue, the then Administrator having stated that the traditional sources of revenue would be denied it.
2.28DITRDCA stated that following 1960, ‘a number of attempts were made’ to invest ‘a range of local government functions and powers’ in the Norfolk Island Council. All of these attempts were rejected either by the Council itself, or by the community at Council elections. This led, in part, to the establishment of the Nimmo Royal Commission, which was asked to inquire into and make recommendations on the future status of Norfolk Island, and its constitutional relationship to Australia.Justice Nimmo handed his report to the Governor-General in 1976.
2.29In the first of 71 recommendations, Justice Nimmo outlined the central question that faced Australia in relation to Norfolk Island:
That the Commonwealth Government decide as soon as practicable and announce its decision on whether it proposes to abandon Norfolk Island completely or to continue to accept responsibility for maintaining it as a viable community.
2.30Justice Nimmo further recommended that it be included in the division of Canberra for Commonwealth electoral purposes, and that the Norfolk Island Council be abolished and replaced by a Norfolk Island Territory Assembly.
Self-government—1979–2015
2.31The Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly was established in 1979, via the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (the NI Act 1979). In his submission, Dr Chris Nobbs, a Norfolk Islander of Pitcairn descent, summarises the key aspects of the NI Act 1979:
The Act set out the capacity for Norfolk Island residents to be elected to a Legislative Assembly (consisting of nine members, elected every three years), a Norfolk Island government to be drawn from the elected members, and the government so formed to take executive action and be responsible and accountable.
2.32The NI Act 1979 contained a preamble which set out much of the history outlined above, and explicitly recognised the wishes of the Norfolk Island community to achieve internal self-government, extending the powers of this self-government, and recognised that ‘the residents of Norfolk Island include descendants of the settlers from Pitcairn Island’. It further noted the ‘special relationship’ held by the Pitcairn descendants to the island, as well as their ‘desire to preserve their traditions and culture’. Ms Robin Adams highlighted the importance of the preamble to the Norfolk Island community, as it outlined ‘the historical steps that happened for Norfolk Island’.
2.33It is important to note that this preamble was later removed from the NI Act 1979 in 2015, a move which is still deeply felt by some Norfolk Islanders.
2.34Throughout the period of 1979–1997, the Norfolk Island Government gradually took on more functions that are typically the responsibility of State and local governments. These included powers over the Norfolk Island public service, public works, regulation of industry, and responsibility for the airport. Mr Geoff Bennet suggested that this ‘progressive advancement of powers’ was part of the vision of the 1979 model.
2.35By 1997, Norfolk Island had similar governance arrangements to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, but with additional responsibilities ‘normally reserved to the Commonwealth’, including social security benefits, immigration and customs. Norfolk Island was ‘politically and financially more self-sufficient than Australia’s other Territories or […] the States.’ Mrs Nadia Lozzi-Cuthbertson noted that in 1999, the Australian Government handed over more responsibility, ‘of all matters relating to the management and control of private and public land on the Island’.
2.36A major source of income for the Norfolk Island Government was a local goods and services levy. However, Mr and Mrs JG and RH Howard noted that under self-government a range of revenue sources were developed:
Tourism and stamps were the main sources of revenue. There was no income tax but there was 12% GST, import duty, fuel duty, a medical levy, and revenue from telephony and broadband services.
Local perspectives on self-government
2.37Many Norfolk Islanders were supportive of the self-government model and praised both its operation and effectiveness in supporting the local community.
2.38Dr Nobbs noted that, during its first 30 years, the Norfolk Island Government ‘neither borrowed nor received monies from the Australian Government for recurrent expenditures’. Another submission stated that ‘from 1979 till 2011 the Norfolk Island Government ran a balanced budget’. Mr Geoff Bennett suggested broadly that the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly had ‘successful beginnings’ but ‘apparent failings’ in later years, attributing these in large part to alterations to the original self-governance model. Some, such as Mr John Brown, distinguished between self-governance as it transpired and the Ellicott model—as originally intended— viewing the latter as superior.
2.39Some submissions to the present inquiry praised the quality and range of infrastructure and services under self-government. The Norfolk Island All Party Parliamentary Group, Dr Chris Nobbs, Ms Alma Davidson, Mr Andre Nobbs, and Mr and Mrs JG and RH Howard listed many services provided by the Norfolk Island Government, such as the hospital, school, airport, post office, immigration, parliament and courts.
2.40Stakeholders also commented on the fiscal management of the government. For example:
- the Norfolk Island People for Democracy noted in its submission that expenditure was reduced through ‘volunteerism’, which ‘subsidise[d] the cost of providing government services’;
- Mr Geoff Bennett highlighted a practice of reducing and deferring expenditure;
- Dr Geoffrey Edwards referred to a ‘low-cost, low-overhead, low-debt economy’;
- Mr Ronald Ward described a tradition of ‘limiting government expenditure to essentials’; and
- Dr Chris Nobbs noted that ‘government ministers worked closely with the public servants to restrain expenditures’.
- In his evidence, Mr Chris Magri stated that the governance model ‘was cost efficient’ and ‘delivered a large range of community services effectively… It was locally supported, and it was democratic.’ Ms Cherri Buffett told the Committee that this system ‘gave the ability for Norfolk Island to control its own destiny’. Ms Rhonda Griffiths, while acknowledging that problems existed, commended the Legislative Assembly’s approach and outcomes, which took into account environmental and social issues. Mr Donde noted the ease with which legislation could be amended or updated, and the suitability of immigration arrangements to Norfolk Island’s situation.
- Many stakeholders also praised the former Norfolk Island GST, including Mr Geoff Bennett, Mr Benjamin Nobbs, Mrs Nadia Lozzi-Cuthbertson, Mr George Plant, Ms Tane Cottle, and Ms Alma Davidson. However, Mr Plant noted, ‘like all indirect taxes, people on low incomes were disadvantaged by it, and it put a cost burden on business to collect.’
- Mr Magri criticised a lack of communication between the Norfolk Island Government and the Commonwealth Government. Mrs Lozzi-Cuthbertson similarly criticised a lack of funding for Norfolk Island’s social services, health and education systems, citing this as the cause of these systems’ shortcomings and the Norfolk Island Government’s issues after the Global Financial Crisis.
- Mr Geoff Bennett outlined some other expectations at the time of self-government being granted. These included the gradual transfer of powers, that Australian laws would not automatically extend to Norfolk Island, fishing access and revenue-sharing that would provide revenue for Norfolk Island, infrastructure upgrades, an economic feasibility study, public service restructures, and ‘nurtur[ing]’ of the evolution of self-government. He stated that many of these expectations were not fulfilled.
- There were incipient issues. The quality of services varied relative to Australian standards. Mr George Plant noted that the Island ‘struggled to provide’ social and community services, and that running its own customs service ‘was a very difficult thing for us to do’. Mr Fred Howe also stated that historically Norfolk Island “has struggled to provide the services and facilities that this community expects and needs”.
- Conversely, Mr Peter Edward Christian-Bailey and Mr and Mrs JG and RH Howard suggested that Australian services and standards may not be appropriate for Norfolk Island., Other submissions expressed a similar view with respect to Australian regulations, including award wages. Likewise, Mr Geoff Bennett suggested that requiring Australians on Norfolk Island to be ‘entitled to the same rights & benefits applying to Australians’ led to ‘quite substantial on-costs to NI’.
- Submissions reflected controversy over the causes of issues on Norfolk Island, including a sense that Norfolk Island had been blamed. Ms Mary Christian-Bailey in her submission suggested that self-government was not successful ‘more by Australia’s fault than Norfolk Island’s’. Mr John Brown suggested that ‘the Department of Territories never supported self-government for Norfolk Island’.Mr Ronald Ward stated that ‘the island was given a very bad rap at the time of the takeover’, specifically in regards to waste management. Mr Geoff Bennett noted that ‘the blame for the apparent failings has been rooted-home to the elected representatives of Norfolk Island’. This sentiment was also reflected by Ms Leah Honeywood in her testimony.
Removal of self–government
2.48As a result of these declining economic fortunes, in 2010 the Norfolk Island Government ‘approached the Australian Government requesting a loan to tide it over its serious financial difficulties’. Dr Nobbs noted that:
The response from the then Commonwealth Minister responsible was to declare that the Commonwealth would provide no money to Norfolk Island unless it paid taxes and joined the Australian welfare system and publicly supported the Territories Law Reform Bill then going through the Parliament. The Norfolk Island Government reluctantly agreed to these terms, under protest.
2.49In March 2011, the Norfolk Island Government adopted a Roadmap for changes under a ‘modified self-government model’. This document noted the decline in tourist numbers and island infrastructure, and stated that reform was required to make the economy sustainable. Ms Robin Adams in her supplementary submission noted, ‘both Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth recognised a need to modernise the 1979 arrangement and committed to jointly develop a “mutually acceptable and appropriate form of modified self-government”’.
2.50As part of the Roadmap process, several reports were produced on different aspects of Norfolk Island, such as economic wellbeing and development, financial capacity, and the public service.
2.51A major feature of this Roadmap was the proposal to integrate Norfolk Island into the Australian legal, social welfare, and taxation system (with the exception of GST),, though this had not occurred by 2014.
2.52At this time, the Norfolk Island Government also put forward a Preferred Model for Territory Self-Governance. This proposed that the Norfolk Island Government ‘transfer federal functions to the Commonwealth in accordance with the process outlined in the Roadmap’ while ‘retain[ing] State and Local Government type functions’, with funding for the latter shared with the Commonwealth.
2.53Mr John Brown told the Committee:
[T]he road map, […] was signed on behalf of our government by one of our Ministers. I'm not aware of there having been any significant prior discussion with his colleagues. But that was a document whereby Norfolk Island agreed that, in return for X, the Commonwealth would do Y. The Commonwealth then held the island accountable for that, and if at any time the timeline hadn't been met, the Commonwealth withheld funds.
2.54Ms Alma Davidson outlined how the Roadmap was understood at the time:
The Commonwealth was to assist Norfolk Island to develop long term sustainability of its economy and achieve this through structural reform to the island’s governance arrangements, financial management framework, and other measures to be agreed.
2.55Submissions to the Committee reflect that agreements across the 2011-14 Roadmap period were not implemented as planned, and more broadly that expectations were not met. Ms Robin Adams suggested that Norfolk Island met its Roadmap obligations but that the Commonwealth did not. Mr Andre Nobbs similarly noted that historically the Commonwealth had not honoured agreements with Norfolk Island. In contrast, the DITRDCA stated that the Norfolk Island Government did not meet the agreed conditions of a grant:
In 2014, the Legislative Assembly agreed to introduce land rates for the 2014-15 financial year, as a condition of the $13 million Australian Government grant to upgrade the Cascade Jetty. Despite this agreement, the Norfolk Island Government did not introduce rates.
2.56In March 2014, the Hon Jamie Briggs MP, then Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, referred to the Committee an inquiry into economic development on Norfolk Island. In referring the inquiry, Minister Briggs noted that:
Over the last four decades there has been a plethora of reviews and reports looking at these arrangements, including a royal commission conducted in 1976, 12 separate parliamentary inquiries and the commissioning of more than 20 reports from experts in various fields including outgoing reports from former Administrators. All of these reviews, reports and audits have been unanimous in recommending significant changes and reforms.
2.57When the Committee tabled its report in October 2014 it noted that little progress had been made on the 2011 Roadmap and that ‘continuing to prop up’ the Norfolk Island Government budget is not ‘an option that ultimately serves Norfolk Island residents well’. The report’s recommendations included:
- repealing the Norfolk Island Act 1979;
- establishing an interim administration;
- the Commonwealth Government take responsibility for urgent infrastructure review and upgrades, as well as psyllid eradication and quarantine; and
- changes to support economic development and capacity building.
- DITRDCA acknowledged that the recommendation to abolish self-government ‘was opposed by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly’. Despite this opposition, following this report the Norfolk Island Act 1979 was amended and self-government abolished.
- Echoing Minister Briggs, DITRDCA stated that there was a wider context thanthe 2014 Committee report:
This decision was made in consideration of various audits and reports commissioned during this period of self-governance, that highlightedlong-standing concerns with Norfolk Island’s financial sustainability and weaknesses in governance processes and procedures.
2.60Several stakeholders from Norfolk Island reflected concern about the process and outcomes of the 2014 inquiry, including that:
- it recommended governance changes, when its terms of reference focussed on economic development;
- Norfolk Islanders did not have the opportunity to respond to some of the evidence received;
- Norfolk Islanders did not have the opportunity to negotiate on changes to governance structures;
- the changes were forced onto the community; and
- the impact of repealing self-government was not well understood in Australia.
Committee comment
2.61In addition to providing an outline of some of the history that has led to the current inquiry, this chapter serves another important purpose.
2.62It is clear even from this cursory examination of the relevant stages and chapters in the history of Norfolk Island that the issues currently before the Committee are not new. Various aspects of the current situation on Norfolk Island can be seen in some of the events outlined above.
2.63Governance arrangements on Norfolk Island have never been subject to any meaningful form of long-term settlement. In all the various permutations outlined in this chapter, none have lasted much longer than four decades. Many of the changes, in the eyes of the Norfolk Island community, were externally imposed, and often without Norfolk Islanders playing a role in electing those responsible for making the decisions.
2.64The 1960 rejection of executive functions by the then Norfolk Island Council provides another example of history repeating. The rejection by the Council of executive powers based on an inability to raise revenue according to traditional means has echoes of the current task before the Committee.
2.65This history shows that the task set in this inquiry fits within the historical development of the relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island. It makes clear that the difficulties associated with applying contemporary approaches to governance in Australia to Norfolk Island has always been fraught, subject to periodic negotiation and change, and that in all its permutations, the ‘correct’ or ‘best’ form of government has not yet been found.
2.66This history also provides context to the choices facing Norfolk Island. At least 25 per cent of its population—as Pitcairn descendants—is culturally, ethnically and, in some cases, linguistically distinct from other Australians. These origins are keenly felt and valued on Norfolk Island. The perspectives of Norfolk Island residents, particularly those of Pitcairn descent, need to be approached and understood with this in mind.