6. Governance principles
   1. This chapter sets out the framework for future governance on Norfolk Island.It discusses key principles to underpin the framework, and draws on the experience of small, non-self-governing island jurisdictions.

International experience

6.2A range of jurisdictions around the world were identified as offering insights to sustainable, long-term governance arrangements for Norfolk Island. Dr Gerard Prinsen of Massey University noted that of the many ‘non-sovereign island territories or subnational island jurisdictions’, there are some common patterns in relation to governance that must be taken into consideration in shaping the future relationship between Norfolk Island and Australia.[1]

6.3These patterns relate to several key aspects of the relationships between small non-self-governing island territories and the larger countries to which they are attached in some way or another, and include:

• partnership;
• the need of small island territories for financial support;
• constant negotiation between the partners;
• autonomy for small island territories; and
• wider communication structures.

Partnership

6.4According to Dr Prinsen, one clear pattern is that referenda and similar processes offering independence tend to result in a no vote. Of the 19 such referenda which have taken place since the 1980s, all have shown a ‘big no’.[2]

6.5While no referendum or plebiscite has been held on independence on Norfolk Island, a number of submissions from Norfolk Islanders expressed support for a future relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island that ‘will benefit both’;[3] that will ‘bridge the divide and arrive at a place where’ Australia and Norfolk Island are ‘on the same platform’;[4] and will establish ‘an inclusive and effective partnership’ that respects the interests of both parties.[5]

6.6An example of this support for an ongoing connection is contained in a proposal submitted by the Norfolk Island People for Democracy (NIPD), endorsed by the Norfolk Island Council of Elders, entitled ‘Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth of Australia: A better future, together’.[6] This proposal is examined in further detail below.

Financial support

6.7One of the reasons put forward for maintaining a partnership is the need for financial support. Dr Chris Nobbs stated that Australia ‘has an important role to play’ on Norfolk Island, as it ‘will without doubt need on-going financial support from Australia’.[7] Specifically, Dr Nobbs noted that ‘small, isolated oceanic islands do not achieve a surplus of income over expenditure without external support from larger states’, and that ‘shortfalls in these cases are commonly met by the superior/metropolitan power engaged with the smaller jurisdiction’.[8]

6.8Dr Prinsen echoed the financial support aspect, noting that all non-self-governing island jurisdictions are ‘net recipients of quite a lot of money from the metropole’. Additionally, Dr Prinsen told the Committee that:

…the metropole is a reserve in case things go horribly wrong—in cases of natural disasters, for example, or in case a massive infrastructure investment is required that the island community could never pay for itself.[9]

6.9Dr Prinsen noted that islands receive significant funding from the metropole, ranging from US$1,100 per capita for the Cook Islands to over US$18,000 for the Caribbean Netherlands.[10]

6.10NIPD echoed Dr Prinsen’s statement, noting that a clear demonstration of the ‘benefits of Norfolk Island maintaining their relationship with Australia’ was during the COVID-19 pandemic, ‘when Australian Government support for Norfolk Island was instrumental in mitigating what would have otherwise been an economic catastrophe for our community’.[11]

6.11Dr Nobbs related this international context to local governments in Australia. According to Dr Nobbs, in addition to ‘small, isolated oceanic islands’ which do ‘not achieve a surplus of income over expenditure’:

Almost all local authorities in Australia classified as rural and remote (and many not in these categories) do not achieve a positive net result in their financial performance without support from central government (State and/or Federal).[12]

6.12This had certainly been the case in the years leading up to the repeal of self-government on Norfolk Island and since. In its submission, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) provided the annual spending on the provision of state-type services on Norfolk Island since 2015, which is set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Annual spending on state-type services on Norfolk Island

Source: DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 25.

6.13In addition to the funding provided to support services, significant other money has been provided, totalling $138.38 million since 2015, through grants and investment in essential infrastructure and services. The infrastructure supported includes the airport, telecommunications network, Cascade Pier, and health and education services infrastructure. Other grants have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic.[13]

6.14According to the DITRDCA, the condition of infrastructure on Norfolk Island in 2016 was an important aspect which led to the current level of financial support:

…when the Regional Council was established, it was established with a very significant asset base. That asset base was not in good condition, and there was no funding set aside for future upgrades, maintenance or replacement of that asset and infrastructure base.[14]

6.15Given that current land rates on Norfolk Island in 2022-23 resulted in $3.08 million in revenue, it is clear that the Commonwealth will be required to continue to provide major funding to support the provision of essential services and infrastructure on Norfolk Island into the future.[15]

Negotiation

6.16Another pattern raised by Dr Prinsen is that relationships between ‘island communities and the metropole are constantly negotiated’, and are ‘never a settled relationship’. He offered the example of New Caledonia, which ‘has had 12 different constitutional relationships’ with France since 1946, and ‘is about to negotiate a 13th’.[16]

6.17Unlike other subnational jurisdictions—in Australia’s case the States and Territories— which ‘do not renegotiate with the national authorities’, island communities are ‘different’, according to Dr Prinsen. These patterns of renegotiation have occurred ‘over and over again across the world’, and rather than trying to ‘make an island into something it is not’, Dr Prinsen argued that it is necessary to accept that these communities are ‘not the same as a territory on the mainland’.[17]

6.18The history of Norfolk Island outlined in chapter 2 of this report certainly supports this interpretation. Since the 1890s, when Australia began to play a more central role in the administration of Norfolk Island, there have been many attempts to establish a permanent settlement for Norfolk Island and its relationship to Australia. Short of wide-scale changes to governing arrangements, there have been periodic smaller adjustments to existing arrangements. Even the period of limited self-government is replete with examples of change and evolution instigated by both Australia and Norfolk Island.

6.19When change is coupled with the fact that full independence is not being sought by non-self governing island communities, an interesting conclusion emerges. As noted by Dr Prinsen, given ‘metropoles cannot cut the relationship’ as it would leave people stateless and violate the United Nations Charter, it results in ‘a marriage whereby the islanders get to renegotiate the terms whenever they want and the metropole can never call for a divorce’.[18]

Autonomy

6.20This renegotiation leads to another pattern identified by Dr Prinsen; that ‘islanders get their way’. Specifically, communities in these territories ‘get away with bending metropolitan rules and do so quite effectively’.[19]

6.21Between 1979 and 2014, governance on Norfolk Island departed significantly from the approach taken to many issues in Australia more generally. An example of this relates to migration to Norfolk Island. As discussed in more detail later in this chapter, during the period of self-government Norfolk Island ran its own migration system separate to that in place in Australia. This system was internally defined by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and was administered by the Norfolk Island Government.

6.22Mr John Brown, who held ministerial responsibility for migration on Norfolk Island during self-government, discussed how this separate system of migration operated in terms of long-term migration:

We had an immigration committee to which an application for long-term migration would be referred. One of the issues that the minister of the day would be required to consider, in considering an application, was the view of that committee.[20]

6.23Mr Brown also noted that, in addition to rules around long-term entry, Norfolk Island had its own approach to allowing temporary entry, immigration cards for new arrivals, and gathering and publication of population and migration statistics.[21] This diverges markedly from internal migration in other parts of Australia, where citizens and residents are free to move between States and Territories without making applications or having their movements.

6.24While this relative autonomy may have been the case during the period of self-government, when Norfolk Island’s approach differed markedly from that in Australia, this pattern is harder to see under the present arrangements. According to Dr Prinsen this is one key aspect where Norfolk Island is unique:

The setback that they suffered in 2015 is exceptional. There is no comparable example in the world whereby a metropole cut back the autonomy of an island community.[22]

6.25In contrast to this rolling-back of earlier levels of autonomy, Dr Prinsen discussed the example of Cook Islands and its relationship to New Zealand, noting that it is ‘one of continuous growth in the autonomy of the Cooks Islands’, which ‘often goes one step back but then two steps forward’.[23]

6.26Dr Prinsen also noted that the autonomy of island communities is reaffirmed through participation in international agreements, negotiations, and sporting events.[24]For example, Ms Robin Adams, former Mayor of the Norfolk Island Regional Council (NIRC), highlighted Norfolk Island’s participation in the Pacific community in various ways, including the Festival of Pacific Arts and the South Pacific Mini Games.[25]

Communication

6.27The final pattern highlighted by Dr Prinsen is a desire by island communities to ‘negotiate or create net-like communication structures’ with the metropole and other communities as well.[26] Ms Adams argued that Norfolk Island can act ‘as a bridge between’ Australia and the Pacific region, due to the Polynesian ancestry of portions of the Norfolk Island community.[27]

Bilateral agreement

6.28The patterns identified by Dr Prinsen raise an important consideration—underpinning the relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island with a bilateral agreement.

6.29Mr Alistair Innes-Walker considered that an important first step in defining the future of Norfolk Island is clarification of its legal status. According to Mr Innes-Walker:

Issues with respect to historical links with the United Kingdom, what was or may have been agreed to by Queen Victoria, the indigenous status or otherwise of descendants of the Pitcairn settlers and the subsequent transfer of administrative responsibility to the Australian Commonwealth continue as sources of strong disagreement and frustration experienced by some in the community.[28]

6.30This uncertainty has contributed to Norfolk Island’s various community stakeholders and others’ inability to ‘achieve the best outcomes for the community’ since the establishment of local government. While Mr Innes-Walker noted that a clarification ‘may not result in satisfaction for all stakeholders’, it would nonetheless ‘provide a solid platform’ for any future model of governance ‘by sidelining any potential ongoing disruptive debates regarding what was or was not said’ over the last 150 years and longer.[29]

6.31One possible means of achieving this clarification is via a written agreement between Australia and Norfolk Island. The idea of underpinning the relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island with an agreement was raised repeatedly in evidence.

6.32For example Ms Mary Christian-Bailey considered the idea of an agreement long overdue. According to her submission, underpinning the relationship with an agreement would have been ‘far less costly and cumbersome’, would have ‘shown respect for the Norfolk Islanders as a separate and distinct people’, and would have ‘brought mutual benefits for both Australia and Norfolk Island’.[30]

6.33Dr Chris Nobbs discussed one aspect of the relationship that could defined in an agreement:

I would propose that in the future the Commonwealth provides a fixed proportion of the Commonwealth government’s budget to Norfolk Island, the amount being reviewable at intervals. This could be a straightforward and efficient means of allocating such funds, while at the same time giving Norfolk Island some licence in the matter of choice, along with the responsibility as to its use. It also has the important factor of reliability which would enable continuity in planning on the island.[31]

Principles

6.34Throughout this inquiry, the Committee heard evidence of the unique nature of conditions on Norfolk Island, and the need for a considered solution to its governance requirements. For example, the NIRC told the Committee that:

Strategically, the best outcome for this remote island would be to stop ‘tinkering’ with older models that are resource intensive for small and remote communities and take the opportunity to build a ‘bespoke’ solution with less constraints to meet the needs of not only its residents, but thousands of visitors per year.[32]

6.35Dr Nobbs similarly told the Committee that it was necessary to accept ‘the legitimacy of difference’, and that Australia must understand that what Norfolk Island needs is ‘difference to some degree from laws and regulations as implemented in mainland Australia’.[33] Dr Nobbs further noted that this is not a new idea, as it was reflected in the governance arrangements put in place in 1979.[34]

6.36The Committee has identified some useful principles that will assist the Australian Government and Norfolk Island in navigating the process of finding a bespoke solution to the unique governance requirements of Norfolk Island. These principles are set out below.

Democracy

6.37A central component of the structure must be its democratic nature. At present, Norfolk Islanders have very limited ability to democratically elect their representatives.

6.38The effect that the changes in 2014-21 had on the sense of local control and democracy on Norfolk Island cannot be overstated. This effect was well summarised by Mr JG and Mrs RH Howard:

Putting the NIRC into administration left Norfolk Islanders only with, for all intents and purposes, meaningless voting rights in the ACT due to their small numbers (in 2016, 328 Islanders voted in the Federal elections in an electorate with 117,000 voters), and no say over the things that matter to them on the island.[35]

6.39The Norfolk Island Accommodation and Tourism Association (ATA) similarly noted the practical effects of the current governance situation on Norfolk Island:

The current absence of democracy on Norfolk Island is unacceptable. It is important that the community have as much representation as possible and have a say in the areas that impact their lives and livelihoods. Laws are being extended to Norfolk Island without any meaningful assessment of their impact on businesses and the community. Bureaucrats in Canberra are formulating policy positions with respect to Norfolk Island without consultation or accountability.[36]

6.40The ATA highlighted the importance of local input into local governance matters:

There may be better outcomes if decisions that directly impact the lives of Norfolk Islanders are made by people who, at a minimum, actually live on the island, who drive the pot holed roads, who purchase the overpriced foods, who face the constant shortages, who struggle with the substandard telecommunications, who pay the high sea- and air-freight charges, who pay the high electricity charges, who struggle to obtain loans, who defer costly renovations and repairs, and who pay the excessive Council taxes particularly on businesses and vacant land.[37]

6.41There are many aspects to what democracy means, and one important aspect is how elections are conducted, and who gets to vote for the elected representatives. The electoral requirements on Norfolk Island are unique from those in Australia more generally.

6.42Mr Don Morris offered an informed, local perspective on the nature of elections on Norfolk Island. According to his submission due to ‘the small size of the electorate, it would significantly skew results if “itinerant” residents were permitted to vote’.[38] Universal adult suffrage on Norfolk Island would result in approximately a quarter of eligible voters being non-permanent residents. To ensure those voting have a long-term stake in the future of Norfolk Island, Mr Morris argued that only those who have been a ‘resident on the island for the preceding three years’ be eligible to vote. In Mr Morris’ view, ‘this would authenticate the integrity of electoral results’.[39]

Responsibilities

6.43As discussed in chapter 3, the governance arrangements on Norfolk Island following the abolition of self-government in 2015 have been complex and led to considerable confusion. The NIRC incorporated local council-type functions, as well as retaining responsibility for some State-type functions.[40]

6.44According to the NIPD, administrative responsibility on Norfolk Island is:

Distributed amongst numerous Canberra-based Commonwealth Departments, the Queensland Government, the island’s Australian Administrator, the local government Administrator, and contracted non-government organisations.[41]

6.45Indeed, the interlocking web of administrative responsibilities is so complex that the NIPD told the Committee that ‘no one, either on Norfolk Island or in Canberra, can authoritatively and exhaustively identify the laws applying in and to Norfolk Island’.[42]

6.46A clear message to the Committee was the contested nature of exactly what responsibilities should be held by the local governing body on Norfolk Island.

6.47While the Committee does not intend to make any changes to the existing responsibilities of the NIRC, the discussion that follows seeks to examine the wider responsibilities where local input is needed to ensure that services are provided in ways that meet local needs.

Population strategy

6.48As discussed in chapter 2, the former Norfolk Island Government maintained an immigration function, which effectively limited the rate of permanent settlement on Norfolk Island in an effort to maintain a level of population that the community felt was sustainable. Some submitters to this inquiry argued for a return to local control of population levels on the island.

6.49For example, Mr Benjamin Nobbs, a Norfolk Islander, discussed the perceived detrimental impact that a lack of immigration controls was having on Norfolk Island:

The unrestrained immigration currently in place in Norfolk Island is having a detrimental effect on the island. People who have called Norfolk home for many years are now experiencing the lack of housing, the escalation of land prices, the over crowding of Norfolk’s environment and assets, including beaches.[43]

6.50Similarly, the Norfolk Island Council of Elders (CoE) argued that ‘the removal of our immigration regime has had a profound impact’ on Norfolk Island.[44] Dr Chris Nobbs elaborated on this, noting that the ‘abandonment of immigration control’ in 2015 ‘is without doubt the most major and least discussed of all the changes introduced’. According to Dr Nobbs, its ‘consequences have been severe’:

1Loss of control of island population numbers and island capacities, for example in relation to environmental resources, and infrastructure;

2Dislocation of the island’s social structure; and

3Disruption of the housing sector, whereby currently local families can find houses neither to rent nor to buy.[45]

6.51In an international context, Dr Nobbs told the Committee that no comparable small island jurisdiction had similarly uncontrolled immigration. As a result, Dr Nobbs stated that there is a need for an immediate review of the current situation, with a view to ‘re-establishing a regime of reasoned and reasonable control’.[46]

6.52According to one witness, Norfolk Island is approaching capacity, and this would have flow-on effects on local capacity. Ms Sharon Nicol, who works in real estate as well as being President of the Norfolk Island Business Council, told the Committee that:

Without some indication of our population and trying to manage that appropriately, I think we will reach capacity. That will be dictated by the fact that you won’t be able to find accommodation and, therefore, won’t be able to come here to work.[47]

6.53Like Dr Nobbs, the CoE noted that it had taken responsibility for developing a population plan for the island. It told the Committee that the re-establishment of ‘a regime of reasoned and reasonable’ control, rather than stopping immigration, was necessary to maintain a ‘social, cultural and environmental balance’.[48]

6.54The NIPD also noted the cultural implications of increasing population on Norfolk Island, particularly from the perspective of Pitcairn descendants. It stated that ‘as the population grows, the percentage of Pitcairn people will naturally shrink’.[49]

6.55Having some level of control of population was not ‘politically motivated’, according to the CoE. It told the Committee that:

There is no reference to politics in this. It’s purely what is best for this island based on being able to have enough land to run some cattle, to have a garden, to provide for ourselves, to still have national parks that people can go to and enjoy, and to still have a tourism industry.[50]

6.56The NIRC noted that, while there is no formal immigration role for local council on Norfolk Island, it does exert ‘pseudo control’ in managing population through its planning functions. These functions allow for local control over development and subdivision of land, which can facilitate increases in population. However, according to the NIRC, there is no current indication ‘that population would continue to grow at the same rate that is has over the last five years’.[51]

Tourism

6.57The Norfolk Island economy is heavily dependent on tourism, and attracting tourists to the island was the responsibility of the Norfolk Island Government prior to 2015. Since then, promoting tourism has become an issue of concern on Norfolk Island.

6.58Mr Duncan Evans told the Committee that, as attracting visitors and tourists is typically a State government responsibility:

Tourism marketing is one of those things that have actually fallen through the cracks. The Department of Infrastructure sees the tourist bureau as being a local government responsibility. That’s fine for, for example, the Tweed Heads Council, where visitors drive in. No-one can drive here.[52]

6.59This situation leads to concern on Norfolk Island as, according to Mr Evans, aside from ‘handing out a few brochures when you get here’, the primary role of the local tourist bureau on Norfolk Island is marketing. In a situation where the NIRC is financially strained and without Commonwealth funding, money for marketing tourism ‘has all but collapsed’.[53]

6.60The ATA highlighted the importance of tourism to the Norfolk Island economy. It stated that:

Norfolk Island needs to remain competitive with other South Pacific destinations as their borders have re-opened, and the new segment of Norfolk Island visitors that usually travel overseas, have resumed their overseas travel plans. It will also need to remain resilient to continue to market the destination and upgrade its tourism products and services.[54]

6.61It also noted the importance of the tourism accommodation sector as an employer on Norfolk Island. Given the centrality of tourism to the island, any steps towards changing costs imposed on tourists ‘need to be carefully assessed before any implementation’.[55]

6.62On the other hand, the ATA discussed the importance of investment in the tourism industry by government. According to its submission:

If NIRC uses some of the new government revenue to re-invest in the tourism sector through increased targeted marketing, tourism infrastructure, event funding, and tourism industry training, this may contribute to growth in the industry and enhance the products and services available to tourists. This, in turn, should increase government revenues.[56]

6.63As a result, the ATA argued for ‘greater private sector decision making within the new governance structure’ in regard to tourism, in particular noting previous recommendations that it not be integrated into the responsibilities of the NIRC.[57]

Government business enterprises

6.64The ATA argued that while there are ‘some functions that government will need to perform to underpin the viability of the community’ due to the isolation of Norfolk Island, ‘careful consideration should nevertheless be given to the divestment’ of the various government business enterprises ‘to include participation from private sector stakeholders’.[58]

6.65In this regard, the ATA highlighted electricity, telecommunications, and the Liquor Bond as ‘obvious candidates’.[59] Mr Leah Honeywood, a Norfolk Islander, also noted the scope of government business enterprises on Norfolk Island and the fact that nowhere else in Australia ‘does a council have the power to dictate the trading terms and the rates’ charged for telecommunications, electricity, and alcohol.[60]

6.66Dr Chris Nobbs noted that the government business enterprises played an important role on Norfolk Island, particularly in relation to community empowerment. According to Dr Nobbs:

There's an economy of scale. There's an empowering of your people. There's an employment of your people in valued employment—they're a valued contributor to your island and they, in effect, are part of that circular economy.[61]

6.67Two of these—telecommunications and the Liquor Bond—are discussed briefly below.

Telecommunications

6.68Telecommunications was previously the responsibility of the Norfolk Island Government, and this has been continued by the NIRC via a government business enterprise, Norfolk Island Telecom.

6.69According to Mr Duncan Evans:

The Norfolk Telecom telephone arrangements are nothing short of woeful. Two weeks ago we basically lost, apart from telephone communications, the whole network. It was voice communications. The data network was gone for a number of days. When they did get it running, the database was corrupt. I’d paid money for a 30-day plan; 10 days into it my plan was gone, never to be seen again.[62]

6.70Compounding this difficulty, Mr Evans noted that he was unable to ‘go to a telephone ombudsman and complain’ as Norfolk Island is ‘not part of that system’.[63] Mr Evans considered it appropriate that functions like telecommunications sit outside any local governing body, and that the approach used in the Indian Ocean territories where the territory administration holds responsibility for telecommunications, rather than the shire councils, would be more appropriate.[64]

6.71Internet, on the other hand, has reportedly improved recently. Although it can have problems due to weather events in either Norfolk Island or at the uplink end in Western Australia, according to Mr Ron Ward, the availability of satellite NBN has resulted in a ‘fairly reliable system’.[65]

6.72Another issue with the telecommunications system is related to the numbers used. According to Mr Ward, a ‘range of online forms and proformas’ will not work for Norfolk Island telephone numbers.[66] Mr Ward elaborated on the problems this can cause:

Often, where a phone number is mandatory, you can't put your Norfolk number in. You can't go any further with your form. That comes right down to issues around doing your Australian Business Number, your personal identifying papers, and that sort of thing. You need to have a number that you can put in that system.[67]

Liquor bond

6.73Since 1979, governments on Norfolk Island have operated the Liquor Bond and this role continued following the establishment of the NIRC. Under this arrangement, the NIRC imports, stores, and retails alcohol on Norfolk Island, and generates a profit from the collection of an alcohol duty.[68] According to Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, in 2022-23 the Liquor Bond resulted in $1.38 million in surplus, which when compared to the $1.82 million generated by land rates represents a significant source of income for the NIRC.[69]

6.74In its submission, the NIRC noted that:

NIRC is heavily reliant on the profit derived from the Liquor Bond. On average, the profit made from liquor sales is $2 million and above. This revenue source is used to cross subsidise normal local government services, such as community grants, parks maintenance, road maintenance, library services, and administrative services.[70]

6.75DITRDCA noted the importance of the Liquor Bond as a revenue stream on Norfolk Island.[71] However, according to the NIRC, the Liquor Bond will reduce as a revenue stream as a result of ‘changes to liquor importation licensing that are currently under way’.[72]

6.76Mr Innes-Walker discussed the future of the Liquor Bond:

The Bond is the only business unit showing a surplus but even this is under potential threat in the future as there is an ongoing debate on island as to whether the legislated monopoly the Bond operates under should be removed and the market opened up to competitors.[73]

6.77According to Mr Innes-Walker, it is ‘bizarre logic’ to ‘think opening up the alcohol market to competition’ will benefit the community via lower costs. This is because at present, ‘all Bond surpluses go to subsidise services’ provided by the NIRC, whereas under an open market profit from alcohol sales will go to private businesses.[74]

Biosecurity

6.78Another responsibility that arose in evidence relates to biosecurity on Norfolk Island. One submitter who requested that their name be withheld examined the issue of biosecurity in detail. This submitter noted that a ‘robust biosecurity system is fundamental’ to protecting the local environment and food security system.[75]The submitter continued:

Norfolk Island has a very different plant and animal health status to the Australian mainland and Tasmania. Further, Norfolk Island has a wide range of endemic plants and animals that occur nowhere else on earth except for the ~35km2 that makes up the Norfolk Island group (Norfolk Island, Phillip Island and Nepean Island); often the area in which the entire population of where an endemic species occurs is much smaller, and can be as little as a few square metres. Hence these organisms are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of introduced plants, pathogens, and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate).[76]

6.79Dr Nobbs raised the perception that biosecurity on Norfolk Island is a very small issue in the wider Australian context, but for Norfolk Island itself it is everything.[77] According to Dr Nobbs, the application of the Commonwealth biosecurity legislation was imposed ‘without discussion with the community, or evident consideration of the island’s specific needs’. As a result, the ‘biosecurity regime has substantially degraded since 2016’, and:

Bizarrely the current biosecurity relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island is one in which the main exporter (Australia) decides what the importer (Norfolk Island) can import.[78]

6.80Dr Nobbs argued that:

Norfolk Island requires its own biosecurity zone and controls, and in particular positive support from the Commonwealth in establishing Norfolk Island’s agricultural vitality.[79]

6.81In contrast, the previous submitter noted that prior to local government, Norfolk Island ‘was protected by extremely strong quarantine/biosecurity’. This system was the responsibility of the Norfolk Island Government, which ‘allowed only a limited selection of plants (including seeds)’ to be imported. Further:

Many animal species were prohibited from entering Norfolk Island and companion animals and livestock were imported only under very strict conditions.[80]

6.82These restrictions ‘served Norfolk Island well but were non-compliant with the types of biosecurity systems run elsewhere’, being the best that could be achieved with the available resources.[81] Since that time, these responsibilities were assumed by the Commonwealth and split between ‘at least two Departments’ with ‘limited clarity as to who undertakes what’. The broadening of permittable plant imports that has occurred has not been transparent and has not been subject to consultation with the community.[82] The submitter stated:

There are considerable concerns with the conduct of these “risk assessments” in that that they are likely not to have been undertaken from the perspective of Norfolk Island, where the Australian mainland (and Tasmania) pose considerable threats to Norfolk Island. Pests (and other organisms) that are not considered problematic in Australia potentially pose significant threats to Norfolk Island.[83]

6.83Resting primary responsibility for biosecurity with Australian officials has also created complexity. For example, it is challenging for these officials to ‘consider Australia as a significant threat to Norfolk Island’, as the focus of their training and the regulations underpinning their role is the protection of mainland Australia.[84]

6.84Taking all this into account, the submitter argued for a ‘robust, appropriately skilled biosecurity system’ that recognises the Australian mainland as the primary threat, as this is ‘vital to underpin the economic well-being of Norfolk Island’.[85]

6.85The Norfolk Island Cattle Association put forward a different view of the application of Commonwealth laws and standards in relation to biosecurity. According to this perspective, the application of the Biosecurity Act 2015 resulted in the banning of live imports of cattle, sheep, and goats, which has had flow-on effects for the agriculture industry.[86] While options other than live imports are available and possible, these carry additional costs, do not hold the same benefits as live imports, and do not mitigate the risk of inbreeding in the cattle on Norfolk Island to the same degree as live imports.[87]

6.86Similar concerns were raised around the impact of biosecurity changes on the goat industry. The Hilli Goat, a local goat farm, told the Committee that the ban on live imports was ‘devastating to the local agricultural industries’ because it had been the ‘only viable means of keeping our genetic pools strong’.[88]

6.87The inability to import stockfeed from New Zealand has had negative effects on egg production on Norfolk Island. Shifting to Australian stock feed has led to a number of undesirable outcomes, according to Island Eggs, including:

• stock feed not being fit for purpose in terms of weather conditions on Norfolk Island, resulting in mouldy feed;
• pests such as lemon scented mite and grain storage mite infesting stock feed; and
• increased costs for both stock food importation and eggs on Norfolk Island due to reduced production.[89]

Capacity building

6.88The role of local capacity building was central to the long-term sustainability of any model of governance for Norfolk Island. As one Norfolk Islander told the Committee during a session of community statements, outsourcing and fly-in NIRC staffing arrangements ‘has basically killed local capacity’.[90] The following discussion examines local capacity building from two angles—the role of any local governing body in providing training, education, and skill development opportunities more generally to support the island community, and efforts to build local capacity intended to support future governance arrangements.

6.89Another submitter told the Committee that capacity does exist on Norfolk Island to support local government functions as ‘professionals across multiple demographics come and go’. Some of these have left the island ‘due to the absence of specialist work available’, and their disinterest in working for either the NIRC or DITRDCA as both ‘remain intolerably toxic’ places to work, especially for women.[91]

6.90This submitter elaborated:

…a number of officials, including some of the best doctors and police officers the island has ever had, have left the island prematurely due to a context of unencumbered powerplay, bullying, intimidation, and toxicity, directed internally and externally, to the frustration of positive outcomes for the community, by those in the highest positions.[92]

6.91According to this submission, some of these professionals work remotely for Councils and other government agencies ‘in positions specifically mentioned by the NIRC Administrator’ as lacking on Norfolk Island. This situation represents a considerable opportunity loss for the community, and results in additional costs incurred as a result of engaging consultants to perform these roles.[93]

6.92Efforts at building local capacity for future governance arrangements was canvassed extensively with the NIRC during this inquiry. Upon entering the period of administration in 2021, capacity building was not specifically part of the remit of the NIRC administration, however NIRC Administrator Mr Mike Colreavy stated that this does not mean that there was ‘no interest in any kind of capacity building’.[94]

6.93Mr Colreavy told the Committee that the primary focus of the NIRC has been on getting the NIRC ‘back on its feet financially’, so that once administration ends whatever governing body takes over can be handed a ‘stable organisation in a sound financial position’ and allow a focus on ‘capacity building in terms of jobs for youth’ and related matters.[95]

6.94In evidence, the NIRC outlined its current efforts towards building capacity on Norfolk Island. It highlighted vocational training directed towards young people on Norfolk Island in particular, noting that it has four employees currently completing the final year of apprenticeships in telecommunications, carpentry, electrical and mechanical. Upon completion, the NIRC will decide whether to conduct an intake of new apprentices.[96]

6.95It is engaged in the investigation and development of a career partnership with the Norfolk Island Central School and NIRC Service Units for Fire and Airport Services to form ‘a traineeship program for local high school students. NIRC provides a bursary grant program to support locals undertaking tertiary and vocational studies to purchase textbooks and airfares.[97]

6.96The NIRC also engages with the wider community on Norfolk Island through its advisory committees. These advisory committees were established during the period of administration, and cover four key areas:

• business, innovation and tourism;
• public reserves, biodiversity conservation and land management;
• sustainability, waste management, water management, food security, energy efficiency and sustainable population; and
• youth.[98]
  97. According to the NIRC:

Advisory committee participants are required to undergo induction training in Code of Conduct requirements, meeting practice requirements and general information about NIRC. Participation in NIRC’s advisory committees is a positive experience that builds organisational and community capacity through close exposure to Council activities and achievements. The advisory committees are an embryo for fostering interest in NIRC, developing expertise in Council topics, and potentially increasing interest in candidature at future Council elections.[99]

6.98The NIRC provided further detail on the four advisory committees, noting that they provide ‘a positive experience that builds organisational and community capacity through close exposure’ to NIRC activities. Additionally, they carry the potential to increase ‘interest in candidature at future’ elections.[100] These bodies serve multiple purposes. Mr Colreavy told the Committee that one of his early acts as Administrator was to establish the advisory committees ‘in recognition of the fact that democracy has been temporarily taken away’, and to provide mechanisms where the community’s voice could be heard on a range of topics’.[101]

Legislative basis

6.99New, bespoke Commonwealth legislation was put forward by some submitters as necessary to provide the basis of any future governing body on Norfolk Island.

6.100Ms Robin Adams argued that the former preamble to the Norfolk Island Act 1979, discussed in chapter 2, should be reinstated as part of any future legislation defining governing arrangements on Norfolk Island. According to Ms Adams, this preamble and the historical development it outlines ‘is treasured by the Norfolk Island people’, and from the perspective of the Council of Elders having the preamble reinstated is ‘one of the most important things’ to consider in establishing any legislative basis for governance on Norfolk Island.[102]

6.101Ms Adams told the Committee that one of the key aspects of the preamble was its final words, which contained words to the effect that consideration be given within five years of the commencement of the Act that the powers granted to the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly in 1979 be extended. In Ms Adams words, this provision ‘put Norfolk Island back on the road to self-government’, and the removal of the preamble and subsequent establishment of the NIRC meant that this path to self-government was ‘gone’. This situation has led to uncertainty on the island as to what ‘Australia’s long-term intent for Norfolk Island’ is.[103]

6.102One of the key problems with revenue sources for the NIRC is the legislative basis upon which it operates. As noted by the NIRC, under the local government legislation it is ‘not authorised to levy income taxes or to consider things other than fees and charges and property-based rates’.[104] While this causes dissatisfaction in the community, the legislative framework provides the NIRC with no other options for raising revenue.[105]

6.103In order to raise and retain local taxes, and control migration to the island, Mr JG and Mrs RH Howard told the Committee that amendments to the Norfolk Island Act 2015 are required. They argued for a return to the 1979 form of this Act, including the reinstatement of the preamble.[106]

Committee comment

6.104In the Committee’s view, the patterns discussed at the start of this chapter and their relevance to Norfolk Island provide some useful guiding principles for determining the shape of any future governance arrangements.

6.105Norfolk Island, like other non-self-governing, small island territories, needs to partner with a larger jurisdiction in order to achieve a sustainable future for the community. The provision of health and education services at a level commensurate with those provided in Australia alone are likely beyond the capacity of the local community to fund without imposing disproportionately on households. A small current of opinion within the community notwithstanding, there appears to be broad support for Australia to continue this relationship on Norfolk Island.

6.106Steps need to be taken to reassure Norfolk Island of the nature of this relationship. In the Committee’s view, this desire for clarity about the future can be addressed through the introduction of a preamble that set out the basis of the relationship between Norfolk Island and Australia and the shared aspirations for its future direction and development.

6.107The previous preamble included in the Norfolk Island Act 1979 was very important to many in the Norfolk Island community. Its statements recognising the history, unique culture, and traditions of the island are held in very high regard by Norfolk Islanders, and the need for a new preamble in some form is clear.

6.108The preamble once gave Norfolk Islanders a sense of their future, as well as their past. One thing that came through in the evidence received on Norfolk Island is uncertainty about the future, and about what Australia wants for, and from, Norfolk Island. The Australian Government wants to maintain a connection with Norfolk Island. Given the need for both Australia and Norfolk Island to find a way forward together, and the likelihood of any settlement of the nature of this relationship needing adjustment and renegotiation in future, the Committee sees a role for this preamble in underpinning the relationship. Much like the Australian federation more generally, a preamble which sets out the basis of the relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island will provide certainty and stability, and hopefully reassurance for Norfolk Islanders that their local democracy will remain in place for the long-term.

6.109The preamble could define the division of powers and responsibilities between Australia and Norfolk Island, clearly setting out which government services are the responsibility of which level of government in much the same way that the Commonwealth and State constitutions do in Australia. It should also provide scope for the terms to be revisited periodically, to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of both parties and that the need for local autonomy is served.

6.110The preamble can also serve other purposes. Given the importance of history to many Norfolk Islanders, and the centrality of culture and custom to so much of life on the island, the preamble should explicitly recognise the history, language, culture, and customs of Norfolk Island. It can establish the financial responsibilities of both parties, formalising which responsibilities should be funded by the Commonwealth and by the local authorities.

6.111To recognise the past, define the current relationship, and provide a guide for the future evolution of this relationship, the Committee sees a need for the introduction of a new preamble to the Norfolk Island Act 1979. In this regard, the Committee notes the recent establishment of the Norfolk Island Governance Committee. Part of its remit includes the recognition of the culture, heritage, and traditions of Norfolk Island. The Committee believes that the Governance Committee, being composed partly of elected representatives of the Norfolk Island community, is the best forum for detailed consideration of an updated preamble to be finalised and included in the founding document outlined in the Committee’s recommendations.Given that the Governance Committee also incorporates representatives of Australia, it can also define the shared understanding of Norfolk Island’s future.

6.112The Committee recommends that the Norfolk Island Governance Committee incorporate into its terms of reference consideration of the development of a preamble for the establishing legislation that:

• recognises the culture, traditions, heritage and history of Norfolk Island;
• defines the nature of the relationship between Norfolk Island and Australia; and
• sets out the shared aspirations for the future direction of the relationship.
  113. It is clear to the Committee that applied New South Wales local government has not worked for Norfolk Island. The model has proven unpopular, lacked local legitimacy, and was not effectively supported in terms of local capacity. This model has not worked for Norfolk Island in the way that was intended when it was establishedin 2016. To continue with this model would just raise the same issues that have led to this inquiry.
  114. Another key reason is the speed of the governance changes between the abolition of the Legislative Assembly and the formation of the NIRC. This did not allow key stakeholders in the process—both elected and otherwise—the opportunity to adjust their skills in such a way that they could effectively support the application of local government.
  115. Similarly, re-instating self-government brings with it a range of potential issues. Many things have changed on Norfolk Island, not least of which are the application of the Australian taxation system, Medicare, and the Fair Work Act 2009. Layering the pre-2015 system of self-government on top of these new administrative arrangements would put Norfolk Island in a similar position to Australia’s internal territories, which are orders of magnitude larger in terms of size and population.
  116. The system of government that has evolved to support the community in Australia’s internal territories was developed to address the issues these territories face. Despite this huge difference in size, the issues on Norfolk Island are no less complex than the internal territories. This complexity notwithstanding, the fundamental differences between Norfolk Island and the internal territories are too great for the application of such a model to provide a stable, long-term governance structure.
  117. More generally, Norfolk Island is in so many ways unique. Its strengths, the problems it faces, its history, indeed its very location being defined by extreme geographic isolation, all underpin a society such as is found nowhere else in the world. This uniqueness requires a place-based solution. The distinct culture that first developed on Pitcairn Island, then after 1856 on Norfolk Island, is a source of immense pride in the community, and any governance arrangement needs to take account of the specific cultural attributes of the local community. Any off-the-shelf model taken from elsewhere is unlikely to succeed in providing a stable long-term arrangement which gives the Norfolk Island community certainty about their future.
  118. A noteworthy factor of the preceding discussion of proposals for governance models on Norfolk Island is the sheer diversity of views that is present in such a small community. It is obvious to the Committee that the passion for their future, and for the right of citizens to have a controlling interest in their government via the conduct of elections, is alive and strong on Norfolk Island.
  119. For a community of approximately 2000 residents, to have so many competing models put forward, and to see such nuanced discussion on the details of these competing models occurring in submissions and public hearings, is a credit to the Norfolk Island community. The Committee is also grateful to the community for the extent to which it has engaged with this inquiry, especially in light of the sheer number of inquiries to which this small community has been subjected.
  120. In assessing these models and the discussion surrounding them, the Committee has formed the view that a bespoke governance arrangement is required for Norfolk Island. This arrangement needs to take account of local conditions and should be underpinned by a commitment to democratic processes and outcomes. It needs to be based on mutual cooperation and respect between Australia and Norfolk Island and mindful of the need to preserve local culture and custom. Among its goals should be financial sustainability and local capacity building.

6.121The Committee recommends a new bespoke model of local governance for Norfolk Island, to be enacted through Commonwealth legislation after thorough community consultation to define some key aspects of the model.

6.122One important consideration for any bespoke arrangement is ensuring that sufficient local capacity to support the model exists on Norfolk Island. Given the role that lack of local government expertise played in the operation of the NIRC, ensuring that any governing body contains, at minimum, people with financial and/or environmental management expertise, or any other forms of expertise that are relevant to the very specific local requirements on Norfolk Island, seems to be a necessary precondition for its longer-term success.

6.123A striking aspect of the evidence received both in relation to self-government and local government is that the specific local conditions on Norfolk Island make it difficult for elected officials to make unpopular or difficult decisions. There are many reasons for this difficulty, not least of which is the accessibility of elected officials to the voters. In this regard, the Committee notes the proposals made for a board model of government for Norfolk Island.

6.124It is the Committee’s view that this model with its mix of elected officials and experts in relevant issues being appointed provides for a more sustainable balance between the requirements placed on government on Norfolk Island. That is, it provides the capacity for Norfolk Islanders to engage in democratic elections and achieve a suitable level of autonomy, but also provides for suitably qualified individuals to assist the governing body in the process of making difficult or locally unpopular decisions.

6.125Having a focus on both using existing local capacity, and developing additional local capacity, also needs to be central in the conduct of the new governing body. While the existence or otherwise of the necessary local expertise to effectively run a local governing body is contested in the evidence to this inquiry, and is clearly a highly contested matter on Norfolk Island, the way forward is simple. Efforts must be made towards employing such local capacity and expertise that exists—and many indicators point toward a wealth of capacity in relation to the niche issues facing Norfolk Island, if not in relation to applied local government—and towards developing future capacity to support the new governing body. In this regard, the role for local government in developing local capacity must include developing the skills and expertise required to support an appropriate form of local government as well as developing the necessary skills and expertise to support the community more generally through apprenticeships and traineeships.

6.126There are many issues facing Norfolk Island, including financial sustainability, management of the local ecology and environment, and legal issues relating to the complex web of laws applying to the island. It is not for the Committee to decide which of these are the most pressing—this is a decision that must be made by locals with closer knowledge of the local issues. However, any appointed members of the governing board must be selected on the basis of the expertise via a transparent, merit-based selection process. And this process should, wherever possible, preference suitably qualified local community members.

6.127The Committee recommends that the new governing body include both democratically elected and appointed members with specific expertise in public administration, and that:

• the governing body consist of at least six members;
• a majority of members be elected, with elected members holding the balance of power on the body;
• the appointed positions be reserved for individuals with expertise in relevant matters of public administration, selected via a merit-based process that preferences qualified local community members where possible; and
• capacity building be a key responsibility of the governing body to ensure that more Norfolk Islanders are qualified to hold future governance positions either in the governing body or local administration, and in the procurement of goods and services by the administration.
  128. In evidence to this inquiry, some Norfolk Islanders were hesitant to speak on the public record or put their names to their submissions. In this regard, the Committee heard of instances of Norfolk Islanders being targeted for putting their views publicly, particularly when these views were counter to the prevailing opinions within some sections of the community. The exclusion and intimidation discussed above have meant that many Norfolk Islanders were unwilling to speak with the Committee about their views on future governance, and the social divisions this speaks to make the task of finding a long-term solution much harder.
  129. In order for any system of governance to succeed on Norfolk Island, it requires a certain level of local acceptance and legitimacy. The Committee has only been able to reach portions of the community to hear their perspectives on what governance should look like on Norfolk Island. As such, further consultation needs to be conducted to add to the Committee’s recommendations about future governance, and to ensure that the vital interests of all parties are met by any future governance arrangements. The Committee notes the recent formation of the Norfolk Island Governance Committee, and believes that this is the most appropriate forum for the conduct of this further consultation. In the process, some refinement of the principles of governance outlined in this report may well be required to ensure that future arrangements are bespoke and fit-for-purpose.
  130. Establishing the new governing body via new Commonwealth legislation also provides for more flexibility in terms of the revenue raising aspects for this body. While land rates in some form may play a role in local revenue, having the ability and option to seek revenue from other sources such as a goods and services levy, or a sustainability levy that includes visitors to the island, will be of benefit to this governing body. Chapter 4 examined the issue of revenue, and makes a recommendation for widening the revenue base on Norfolk Island. However, before legislating for this, further local consideration is important.
  131. This consultation process should be concluded by a binding, compulsory vote of registered voters on Norfolk Island to determine definitively the level of community support for any specific proposal.

6.132The Committee recommends that the Norfolk Island community have a say in the governing body, including that:

• the recommendations contained in this report be referred to the Norfolk Island Governance Committee for further consultation and refinement;
• this consultation and refinement result in a model that includes a clearly defined preamble for the establishing legislation, the size of the governing body, the specific expertise required by this governing body, and the revenue models to be incorporated into the establishing legislation; and
• a binding, compulsory vote of registered voters on Norfolk Island is required to approve the final model determined by the Norfolk Island Governance Committee.
  133. In the Committee’s view, a democratic deficit currently exists on Norfolk Island. This deficit has had a negative effect on the community and local democracy must be restored. Furthermore, the community deserves a clear timeline towards its restoration. Norfolk Islanders deserve the same democratic rights as other Australians, and the conduct of elections for the new governing body should be a first order priority.

6.134The Committee recommends that the first elections for the new governing body should be held prior to December 2024.

6.135In the Committee’s view, underpinning the relationship between Australia with Commonwealth legislation including a preamble seems key in two important aspects. Firstly, it gives the people of Norfolk Island certainty as to future directions in the relationship, and in the extent of self-government and Norfolk Island’s capacity to determine its own future via a democratically elected body.

6.136Secondly, it provides a basis for current and future engagement between Australia and Norfolk Island. Legislation that is periodically revisited and revised will help to inform the evolution of any future governing body. It will provide a formal basis for ongoing discussions between the Norfolk Island community and the Australian Government, possibly via the Norfolk Island Governance Committee, wherein the specifics of the governance arrangements can be discussed, altered or adjusted, and made to provide the best possible fit for the needs of both Norfolk Island and Australia.

6.137While in this report the Committee is recommending a mix of elected representatives and appointed experts to help support the early operation of the governing body, the flexibility provided by revisiting legislation allows for future changes in the composition of this body to fully elected, should the opportunity to do so emerge.

6.138The Committee recommends that the governing body be adaptive and supportive of the unique local history and identity of Norfolk Island, and that:

• the new Commonwealth legislation contain the form of the preamble developed by the Norfolk Island Governance Committee; and
• the legislation contain provisions for periodic review to ensure that the governing body is adaptable and can meet the future needs and interests of both Norfolk Island and Australia.
  139. The use of Commonwealth legislation also provides scope for more local input and control over issues that affect Norfolk Island in different ways to Australia. For instance, the above discussion of the application of Commonwealth biosecurity law demonstrates how, in some cases, what works for Australia will not work for Norfolk Island. The legislation establishing the new governing body could, at minimum, provides clear avenues for local input into aspects of governance like biosecurity to ensure that aspects of administration that effect Norfolk Island differently to Australia are accounted for, and that bespoke local solutions that account for the unique aspects of Norfolk Island are both informed by local perspectives and more effectively implemented.
  140. Another good example of where new legislation can be effective is tourism. As noted in evidence, tourism is central to the economic health of Norfolk Island, and this necessitates the governing body having a focus on encouraging and facilitating tourism on Norfolk Island. Building the tourism industry and boosting tourist numbers increases economic activity on Norfolk Island, providing a multitude of opportunities for revenue as well as contributing to local prosperity and social cohesion.
  141. As such, the new governing body must play a role in tourism on the island. Giving consideration to the specific role of the new governing body in relation to tourism will be central to the success of the Norfolk Island economy, looping back to providing essential financial support for the governing body. No one will understand the requirements of the tourism industry on Norfolk Island as well as the Norfolk Islanders themselves, so having—at minimum—input into the expenditure of funds on promoting and facilitating tourism is an essential part of the task of the new governing body.
  142. The Committee is not in a position to make clear recommendations about exactly what role the body should play in matters like tourism, and the government business enterprises. The provision of affordable and effective services like telecommunications and electricity are immensely complex and in large part technical. Both of these matters require further, deeper examination before steps towards divestment and placing their provision in the hands of the private sector are taken.
  143. The role of the Liquor Bond clearly has multiple dimensions on Norfolk Island beyond simply a source of revenue. There are social and historical aspects to this responsibility that cannot be divorced from any consideration of its appropriateness as a local responsibility. The lack of a State government structure controlling liquor licensing further complicates this picture. Again, as with tourism and the government business enterprises, the Liquor Bond’s future requires further consideration and expert analysis, including community consultation.
  144. While this report seeks to outline a structure for a new governing body that incorporates democratically elected representation, it is fitting that the responsibilities of the new governing body under this model be subjected to further consideration and community input to ensure that it is tailored to the unique local requirements of Norfolk Island. As stated above in relation to finalising the structural aspects of the governing body, the Norfolk Island Governance Committee is the most appropriate forum for the community’s consideration of the specific responsibilities of the body and the specific means of harnessing local knowledge for improving service provision on Norfolk Island. It is also fitting that any decisions about the future responsibilities of the local governing body on Norfolk Island—particularly if any changes are to be made—be made following the restoration of local democracy.

6.145The Committee recommends that the responsibilities of the new governing body and the mechanism for local input into Commonwealth and State responsibilities be clearly defined following the restoration of local democracy on Norfolk Island, including that:

• to ensure Commonwealth and State services meet local needs—the governing body should have a formal advisory role in relation to education, health, population strategy, heritage management, biosecurity, sea-freight and tourism;
• the management of key historical sites of cultural importance to the local community be subject to joint management between the Commonwealth and the local community; and
• these matters be incorporated into the terms of reference of the Norfolk Island Governance Committee for further local consultation and refinement.

6.146In conclusion, the Committee is grateful to the Norfolk Island community for its engagement with this inquiry. During its brief visit to the island, the Committee found a welcoming community with a strong sense of self, of its history, and of its place in both Australia and the wider world.

6.147The Committee gained direct knowledge of the unique culture and customs of Norfolk Island, and can understand the local desire for this culture to continue into the future. The Committee wishes Norfolk Island well, and hopes that the recommendations contained in this report strengthen democracy, and provide the basis for a sustainable future.

Ms Alicia Payne MP

Chair

14 November 2023

Footnotes

[1]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[2]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[3]Mr and Mrs JG and RH Howard, Submission 15, p. 14.

[4]Ms Robin Adams, Submission 7, p. 13.

[5]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 8.

[6]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, pp. 11-24.

[7]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 2.

[8]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 13.

[9]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 9.

[10]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[11]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 6.

[12]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 13.

[13]DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 25.

[14]Ms Sarah Vandenbroek, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 28 March 2023, p. 1.

[15]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 6.

[16]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[17]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 9.

[18]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 9.

[19]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[20]Mr John Brown, Vice President, Norfolk Island Law Association, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 13.

[21]Mr John Brown, Vice President, Norfolk Island Law Association, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, pp. 13-14.

[22]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[23]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[24]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[25]Ms Robin Adams, Submission 7, p. 14.

[26]Dr Gerard Prinsen, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023, p. 8.

[27]Ms Robin Adams, Submission 7, p. 14.

[28]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 7.

[29]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 7.

[30]Ms Mary Christian-Bailey, Submission 28, p. 2.

[31]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 14.

[32]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 18.

[33]Dr Chris Nobbs, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 29.

[34]Dr Chris Nobbs, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 29.

[35]Mr JG and Mrs RH Howard, Submission 15, p. 5.

[36]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 20.

[37]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 21.

[38]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 3.

[39]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 3.

[40]DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 23.

[41]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 2.

[42]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 2.

[43]Mr Benjamin Nobbs, Submission 30, p. 1.

[44]Ms Rhonda Griffiths, Secretary, Norfolk Island Council of Elders, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 19.

[45]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 6.

[46]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 7.

[47]Ms Sharon Nicol, President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 11.

[48]Ms Rhonda Griffiths, Secretary, Norfolk Island Council of Elders, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 19.

[49]Mr Chris Magri, President, Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 5.

[50]Ms Rhonda Griffiths, Secretary, Norfolk Island Council of Elders, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 21.

[51]Mr Phillip Reid, Acting General Manager, Norfolk Island Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 9.

[52]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 12.

[53]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 12.

[54]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 10.

[55]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 11.

[56]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 15.

[57]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 19.

[58]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 19.

[59]Accommodation and Tourism Association, Submission 10, p. 19.

[60]Ms Leah Honeywood, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 36.

[61]Dr Chris Nobbs, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 47.

[62]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 13.

[63]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 13.

[64]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 13.

[65]Mr Ron Ward, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 29.

[66]Mr Ron Ward, Submission 2, p. 3.

[67]Mr Ron Ward, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 29.

[68]DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 27.

[69]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 2.

[70]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 7.

[71]DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 14.

[72]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 7.

[73]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 3.

[74]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 3.

[75]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 1.

[76]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 1.

[77]Dr Chris Nobbs, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 31.

[78]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 6.

[79]Dr Chris Nobbs, Submission 14, p. 6.

[80]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 3.

[81]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 3.

[82]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 4.

[83]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 4.

[84]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 4.

[85]Name withheld, Submission 3, p. 5.

[86]Norfolk Island Cattle Association, Submission 39, p. 1.

[87]Norfolk Island Cattle Association, Submission 39, p. 1.

[88]The Hilli Goat, Submission 40, p. 1.

[89]Island Eggs, Submission 43, p. 1.

[90]Mr Peter Christian-Bailey, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 40.

[91]Name withheld, Submission 24, p. 6.

[92]Name withheld, Submission 24, p. 6.

[93]Name withheld, Submission 24, p. 6.

[94]Mr Mike Colreavy, Administrator, Norfolk Island Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 6.

[95]Mr Mike Colreavy, Administrator, Norfolk Island Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 6.

[96]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9.1, p. 2.

[97]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9.1, p. 2.

[98]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9.1, pp. 3-4.

[99]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9.1, p. 3.

[100]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9.1, p. 3

[101]Mr Mike Colreavy, Administrator, Norfolk Island Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 8.

[102]Ms Robin Adams, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 15.

[103]Ms Robin Adams, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 16.

[104]Mr Mike Colreavy, Administrator, Norfolk Island Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 2.

[105]Mr Mike Colreavy, Administrator, Norfolk Island Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 2.

[106]Mr JG and Mrs RH Howard, Submission 15, p. 13.