5. Governance models
   1. The Committee received a number of proposals for how future governance on Norfolk Island should be determined and what structure it should take.
   2. Fundamental to achieving an outcome that is sustainable for both Norfolk Island and Australia is, as stated by the Centre for Governance and Public Policy, ‘finding a politically sustainable governance system’. In this regard, the Centre for Governance and Public Policy noted ‘many, evolving precedents around Australia for alternative governance arrangements that could replace’ earlier models and be ‘part of a more settled and sustainable constitutional outcome’.[1]
   3. The extent of community sentiment towards any specific model of governance was difficult to ascertain. As noted by the Norfolk Island People for Democracy (NIPD), there are ‘a range of very strongly held views’ in the Norfolk Island community that the Committee ‘will not hear’.[2]
   4. While the response from the community was encouraging, it is noteworthy that most of the people who contributed to the inquiry were Pitcairn descendants and other long-term residents. Additionally, the Committee received confidential and in-camera evidence about the difficulties some Norfolk Islanders face in speaking publicly about the matters under consideration in this inquiry. It is important that all those who have chosen to make Norfolk Island their home are able to have a say in its future governance arrangements.

Possible models

5.5This section examines four key approaches to future governance on Norfolk Island including consultative models or processes, self-government, the current local government model, and a board model.

Consultative processes

5.6In its submission, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) noted the need for a ‘place-based approach’ to future governance on Norfolk Island:

Given the unique culture, history and environment of Norfolk Island, the Department encourages the Committee to consider a place-based approach to local government. Such an approach would emphasise a shared commitment to developing local strategy by the community, the Australian and Queensland Governments and other service providers, with shared accountability for planning, decision-making and results.[3]

5.7Many Norfolk Islanders made reference to, or noted their support for, a long-term consultative process to determine the future nature, shape, and workings of a local governing body on Norfolk Island.

5.8More generally, Ms Mary Christian-Bailey made a powerfully worded plea to the Committee to include Norfolk Island as an equal partner in discussions of future governance on the island:

Do not insult us with tokenism. Do not just come up with your own options as you have done in your terms of reference. Do some serious brainstorming with us. Together with us, look at where successful arrangements have been made in other parts of the world. Australia’s biggest failure, to my mind, has been its lack of imagination, that would have enabled it to develop a successful relationship with its neighbour Norfolk Island instead of just using the ideas in its own worn out box of tricks.[4]

5.9Ms Christian-Bailey called for a ‘roundtable’ approach wherein the views of Norfolk Islanders carry equal weight with those of the Australian Government.[5]

5.10Dr Geoffrey Edwards, a Norfolk Island resident, told the Committee that it ‘should not rush to recommend a model of governance, but should recommend a process by which a model of governance will arise’.[6] Dr Edwards argued for a ‘Norfolk Island Constitutional Convention’, which could hold sessions in Norfolk Island and Canberra, and include ‘wide participation by island people and also by knowledgeable experts in a range of disciplines’.[7]

5.11Professor AJ Brown of Griffith University endorsed this approach and noted that it ‘would be a very good option for systematically working through all of the issues’ and ‘finding a long-term, sustainable governance solution’. Professor Brown also told the Committee that ‘there is enormous opportunity for innovation and improvement in arrangements for self-governing territories within or under the Commonwealth Constitution’.[8]

5.12Ms Robin Adams, a Norfolk Islander of Pitcairn descent, noted that one of the final acts of the elected councillors on the Norfolk Island Regional Council (NIRC) in 2020 was to call for a royal commission to examine the options for appropriate models of governance for Norfolk Island. Ms Adams endorsed the idea of a wide-ranging process for conducting this examination.[9]

5.13The Norfolk Island Accommodation and Tourism Association (ATA) also recommended the establishment of a ‘task force comprising political, economic, social and legal specialists’ to evaluate the various models ‘that lead to greater financial sustainability and deliver services that meet the community’s needs and expectations’.[10]

Norfolk Island People for Democracy model

5.14The NIPD proposed a specific long-term consultative process for determining the future nature of governance on Norfolk Island. In the NIPD’s view, ‘Norfolk Island people’ should play ‘a direct and leading role in determining the best possible’ model of governance, and that this must not be ‘restrained or limited to local government’ models. The NIPD also stated that the Committee should not be making the decision on behalf of Norfolk Island.[11]

5.15Noting the ‘uncertainty, mistrust and division’ regarding governance on Norfolk Island that began under British rule and continued under Australian administration, the NIPD argued that there is a ‘need to provide an opportunity for Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth of Australia to formally reset their relationship’. Doing so would require Norfolk Islanders to ‘take a leading role in designing the most appropriate and respectful way to govern Norfolk Island’.[12]

5.16The NIPD proposed the establishment of ‘a permanent and highly influential’ governance steering committee representing both Australia and Norfolk Island to design a new governance model suited to the unique circumstances of Norfolk Island.[13] The NIPD outlined the goals of this governance steering committee:

• overseeing the implementation of and ensuring the future success of Norfolk Island’s new democratically elected governing body;
• facilitating effective inter-governmental communications and cooperation;
• rebuilding and maintaining trust and good relations between the Norfolk Island community and the Australian government;
• ensuring both Norfolk Island and Australia have an equal and shared obligation in preventing small easily solvable problems from growing into significant difficulties and divisions; and
• ensuring Norfolk Island’s new democratic governance arrangements are able to adapt to changing circumstances and conditions.[14]
  17. The proposed committee would be comprised of two elected Norfolk Island representatives, one chosen by the Norfolk Island Council of Elders ‘to ensure respect for the culture and traditions of the Pitcairn descendants’, two representatives of the Australian Government, and one representative of the Queensland Government.[15]
  18. In order to form ‘a well-designed long-term plan’ to ‘ensure that Norfolk Island has the best possible governance arrangements’, NIPD argued that it should not be ‘bound to retain any part of the island’s current governance arrangements’. According to the NIPD:

The Governance Committee will be provided with a comprehensive schedule of all laws currently applying to Norfolk Island, up-to-date data on the Norfolk Island economy, a precise recitation of Norfolk Island’s legal and political history, and any other information it requires to begin the process of carefully planning and designing Norfolk Island’s future governance arrangements.[16]

5.19The plan laid out by the NIPD also proposes to make provisions for the transitional period before the resumption of local democracy on Norfolk Island. According to the NIPD:

The plan establishes a strategy to manage the intervening period between today and when a new governance arrangement is established—a strategy that focuses on rebuilding trust and assisting our community to repair some of the detrimental impacts of recent years which, if left unaddressed, will continue to cause division and erode trust and confidence in our future.[17]

5.20The NIPD told the Committee that ‘since mid-2022, our plan has been the subject of very positive discussions with Minister [for Territories Kristy] McBain and representatives of the Department’.[18] DITRDCA referenced these discussions, noting that it would ‘provide a collaborative forum’ and a means for the Norfolk Island community to have ‘input on setting priorities for government service delivery and in shaping how those services are delivered’.[19]

Norfolk Island Governance Committee

5.21During this inquiry, the Australian Government announced the establishment of the Norfolk Island Governance Committee (NIGC) as a ‘formal mechanism for collaboration, cooperation, and communication’ between Norfolk Island and the Australian and Queensland Governments.[20]

5.22This body is empowered to ‘provide decisions, advice and recommendations on the governance of Norfolk Island’, and will consider issues such as the legislative framework and laws applicable to Norfolk Island, the delivery of services, and other important governance-related matters. It will work with the community on Norfolk Island to ‘deliver a plan, methodology, and timeline to modernise’ governance on Norfolk Island in a way that is ‘consistent with the needs and aspirations’ of the community. Its goal is to establish:

• a new governing body with appropriate legislative authority and financial and administrative capacity to efficiently, effectively and sustainably administer its responsibilities; and
• a new governance model that is clear, fair and effective, and ensures a secure and genuinely democratic future for Norfolk Island and its people.[21]
  23. The membership of the NIGC is very similar to that proposed by NIPD. It includes:
• The Norfolk Island Administrator, representing the Australian Government Minister with portfolio responsibility for Territories
• A representative from the Australian Government Department with responsibility for administering the territories
• A representative from the Queensland Government Department of Premier and Cabinet
• Three elected Norfolk Island community representatives.[22]
  24. The NIGC will meet quarterly at minimum, and will make decisions and recommendations on a consensus basis, with any differing views reported in cases where deliberations do not lead to consensus.[23]

Self-government

5.25There was strong support for reinstating some form of internal self-government.[24]Mr Allen Bataille told the Committee that a lack of self-government was a considerable source of ire on Norfolk Island:

Until such time as the Commonwealth agree to allow for the island to have capacity to elect their own parliament, decide their own legislation and make their own laws, to maintain their culture and traditions, and have the preamble reinstated to the Norfolk Island Act, then there will be continued agitation and resentment within the community to the activities of the Commonwealth in their administration of the island.[25]

5.26Mrs Nadia Lozzi-Cutherbertson, a Norfolk Islander and former Norfolk Island Government Minister, told the Committee that the former Legislative Assembly ‘did remarkably well in managing its finances between 1979 and 2008’, and that it ‘provided its residents with modern services until world events’ intervened and ‘affected it more severely than the rest of the Commonwealth’.[26]Mrs Lozzi-Cuthbertson stated that ‘the most important thing’ that the Committee could do ‘is to recommend Norfolk Island have self-government again’.[27]

5.27Mr Ron Ward considered self-government to offer the most appropriate means of ensuring the accountability of elected and other officials to the community that is also most suited to the ‘unique circumstances and history of Norfolk Island’.[28] According to Mr Ward:

Re-establishing a credible form of self-government devoid of any form of grandiose indicators would enable people to approach their elected representatives or a particular member with responsibility for specific areas.[29]

5.28Mr Don Morris, a former Norfolk Island and Commonwealth public servant, echoed this, but added a note of caution about the restoration of the pre-2015 model of self-government. While lauding some aspects of that form of local democracy— including that ‘everyone knew their elected representatives’, the accessibility of the government, and its ‘benevolent vein’—Mr Morris also noted that the ‘optimistic view about the management of finances’ on Norfolk Island is ‘somewhat misplaced’.[30] Specifically, Mr Morris told the Committee that:

The Norfolk Island Government did not always bite the bullet to make hard decisions, especially in respect of needed infrastructure funding, where the imposition of charges or levies would have been electorally unpopular.[31]

5.29Mrs Lozzi-Cuthbertson was of the view that, now that Australia has taken responsibility for the provision of services and incorporated Norfolk Island into the Australian tax system, ‘there is no real reason’ for not ‘returning real democracy to the residents of Norfolk Island’ by re-enacting the recommendation of the 1976 Royal Commission and returning self-government to Norfolk Island.[32]

5.30Ms Rhonda Griffiths, Secretary of the Norfolk Island Council of Elders (CoE) characterised the former Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly as both ‘a source of pride’ for the community and ‘the most significant and successful governance institution we have had’.[33] Ms Griffiths recommended ‘self-government with more powers than they had in 1979’.[34]

5.31The ATA told the Committee that self-government had been successful for the tourism sector on Norfolk Island partly because of the accessibility of decision-makers. According to the ATA, if there were ‘issues within the tourism industry’, individuals could ‘flag down the Tourism Minister’, discuss the issues, and ‘things could change’.[35]

5.32Self-government also allowed for more effective regulation of local industries, including tourism. The ATA noted that having the ability to make and change legislation on Norfolk Island meant that groups like the ATA could ‘go to the Tourism Minister’ and tell them what was required for the industry, ‘but now we have nobody to talk to’.[36]

5.33The ATA provided a specific example of the effect this lack of access has. It outlined a process of consultation over tourism legislation—previously the Norfolk Island Tourism Act 1984 (NI) —which became Commonwealth legislation following the abolition of self-government. Specific deficiencies in the legislation were identified, 12 months of consultation was undertaken with the NIRC, and proposed changes were submitted for consideration and implementation. According to the ATA, Norfolk Island has ‘been waiting for two years for Canberra to fix this legislation’, but because it involved ‘local issues’, the Commonwealth Government is unable ‘to keep up with it, and they don’t understand the issues’.[37]

5.34Many other Norfolk Islanders shared this view. The Norfolk Island Law Association urged the Committee to conduct a ‘clear and careful examination’ of the possibility of a ‘return to locally elected territory level’ government akin to the internal territories of Australia. It called for consideration of:

…whether the island community has the legal framework building blocks, the necessary governance skills, and capacity building systems to properly handle full self-governance…[38]

5.35Alternatively, the Law Association suggested a process whereby a temporary local government model be implemented with ‘a structured training and resource development program’, with a view to conversion to a ‘full territorial level governance model within a period of ten years’.[39]

Local government

5.36In its submission, the NIRC argued that ‘with an appropriately skilled management and governing body’, continued use of the local government model via applied New South Wales legislation will work on Norfolk Island.[40] According to the NIRC, local government is also ‘the most democratic model available’, as it ensures that:

All enrolled electors, including property owners and rate-paying lessees, can vote for their preferred candidates. This avoids preferential candidate selection and promotes equality among voters on island.[41]

5.37The NIRC acknowledged that while local government works for more than 500 jurisdictions across Australia, a ‘major point of difference’ for Norfolk Island is that while these 500 local councils have been operating and evolving for over 100 years, the NIRC has only been in place for six years and has not had time to achieve the same level of maturity.[42]

5.38Mr Colreavy acknowledged the central role that local acceptance of governing models plays in their ultimate success. In his view, the framework that was applied in 2016 was not the problem:

I think the framework can work, and what it takes is a desire and willingness to want it to work. I think that’s where the problem is, that right from day one the willingness wasn’t there across the entire community. That’s something that needs to be worked on, for the community to obtain an understanding that this can work and deliver what you want, but you have to be willing to let it do that and you have to have an arrangement where the governing body has confidence in the administration to deliver.[43]

5.39According to the BCNI, there ‘is nothing wrong with the local government model as such’, as it ‘works successfully in most councils in Australia’. However, it noted that problems had emerged on Norfolk Island due to ‘a number of individuals pursuing particular agendas’ causing ‘the whole thing to go off track’.[44]

5.40Several submitters argued that the local government model typically used in the rest of Australia is not necessarily transferrable or suitable for Norfolk Island. For example, Ms Mary Christian-Bailey focused on how what works in Australia, may not work in Norfolk Island. In discussing local government, Ms Christian Bailey argued that considering these matters from an Australian perspective is a mistake.[45]

5.41Ms Robin Adams, former Mayor of the NIRC, noted that it was in part the structure of the local governing body that has led to the current situation on Norfolk Island:

Councillors have attempted to achieve the best outcome for Norfolk Island within the limitations of the NIRC local governance model by encouraging collaboration, cooperation and partnership with the community and the Commonwealth. However, by July 2020, notwithstanding the efforts of the Council and the Commonwealth over the previous four years, many of the shortcomings inherent within this model of local government became self-evident.[46]

5.42In Ms Adams’ view, the local council model is ‘neither acceptable nor appropriate to ensure unity’, and does ‘not deliver a satisfactory outcome’ either for the people of Norfolk Island or the Australian Government.[47]

5.43Dr Geoffrey Edwards argued against continuing with a local government model, stating that ‘trying to squeeze this place into a local government model won’t necessarily work’. Dr Edwards elaborated:

As you well know, on the continent local governments are creatures of the States. If there is no State, then the whole rationale of the framework for a local government model just disappears, because local governments are embedded in a totally different framework, taxes, subsidies, provision of services, and that network of relationships just can’t be transferred to here.[48]

5.44The NIPD also expressed opposition to the continued use of a local government model on Norfolk Island, stating that:

Although a local government arrangement may serve communities in Australia well, in the Norfolk Island context a local government model (whether it is categorised as a regional council or not) constitutes an uneconomical and inefficient way to administer local government responsibilities on a small geographically remote island with only 2,300 residents.[49]

5.45Mr Ron Ward, a Norfolk Islander of Pitcairn descent and former Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly member, agreed that the New South Wales local government model was unable to ‘effectively function’ in a ‘small, geographically remote island’ in the South Pacific. Mr Ward also noted that accountability suffered under local government:

Since its inception in 2016, senior management of the NIRC has directed the focus of accountability entirely to the Commonwealth Department administering the island—with negligible, if any accountability to the Norfolk Island community.[50]

5.46The CoE told the Committee that local government had ‘not improved anything’ for Norfolk Island, rather it had ‘alienated’ community members. Local government had ‘exacerbated inappropriate planning and poor policymaking’, as the senior management ‘is so busy being accountable to the Commonwealth that it can give little thought’ to being accountable to the community.[51]

5.47As a result, according to the NIPD the ‘current governance model… must be abolished and replaced’ with something that offers efficiency, sustainability, and is ‘genuinely democratic’.[52]

5.48Ms Alma Davidson was also critical of the democratic nature of local government, and noted that the use of local government on Norfolk Island does not provide a truly democratic system:

Whilst it is alleged that democracy was restored with the ability to vote for a Regional Council; we have no entitlement to vote in the State Government whichever provides State Services under Service Delivery Agreements with the Commonwealth and we have to vote in the seat of Bean for Commonwealth Parliament elections. A seat remote from Norfolk Island. In effect we have no real representation.[53]

5.49Dr Chris Nobbs, a Norfolk Islander of Pitcairn descent, echoed the concerns about the nature of local government. Dr Nobbs told the Committee that:

In Norfolk Island’s experience, the consequences of this approach have included exclusion, with councillors and community cut out of the information flow, and a consequent lack of transparency and accountability as to detail, and there’s no necessary concurrence between council actions and community aspirations and interests.[54]

5.50According to Dr Nobbs, the applied New South Wales legislation ‘promotes local governance as being run like a private business’. It grants ‘widespread independence’ to general managers including ‘political matters’ such as privatisation and outsourcing ‘with the only real responsibility to ratepayers being to show a positive bottom line at the end of the year’.[55]

5.51Mr Morris also cautioned against the continuation of applied local government and argued that the Committee ‘not be wedded to follow New South Wales structures in regard to Council governance’.[56] Mr Morris elaborated:

Norfolk Island is not part of New South Wales, unlike Lord Howe Island, and should be free to tailor its structures to its own unique needs. It is better to take what might be useful from other jurisdictions but fashion them to suit the local circumstances on the Island.[57]

5.52Mr Alistair Innes-Walker told the Committee that applied local government does not work for Norfolk Island:

It was destined for administrative failure from the start by the adoption of the New South Wales local government model to be run in parallel with existing Norfolk legislation which was to be phased out over time and replaced by Commonwealth legislation.[58]

5.53On the legislative basis on which Norfolk Island’s current governance arrangements operate, Mr JG and Mrs RH Howard stated that:

The current governance model comprises a complicated and confused mix of Australian local government approaches inappropriate for a local administration which has very wide responsibilities, NSW Local Government requirements, still current Norfolk Island legal requirements, Commonwealth legislation, regulations and taxation and the Commonwealth partnering with Queensland and previously NSW on State matters (education and health), and sees Norfolk federally located in the seat of Bean.[59]

5.54According to Mr Innes-Walker, this process of phasing out old legislation has not been completed, which ‘strongly contributed to the confusion and frustration’ during the early period of applied local government. This was particularly confusing in light of the fact that the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)(NI) refers to other New South Wales legislation that does not apply on Norfolk Island.[60]

Board structure

5.55Some stakeholders advocated for a board-like model of governance. As discussed in chapter 3, the NIRC told the Committee that a ‘lack of willingness and capability to exercise its responsibilities’ on the part of the governing body was directly related to its financial problems and dismissal.[61] The NIRC argued that moving to a board structure would provide a ‘more effective and sustainable model for the delivery of services’ on Norfolk Island.[62]

5.56The NIRC proposed a five member board, reporting to the Minister for Territories, which would operate under adapted local government legislation similar to the governance arrangements in place on Lord Howe Island. The NIRC proposed the following structure:

• the Chair position to be occupied by the Administrator of Norfolk Island;
• two independent members—appointed specialists with relevant expertise and experience, and Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) graduate recognition; and
• two elected members, who reside on Norfolk Island and have (or obtain) AICD recognition.[63]
  57. The NIRC noted that a board model would provide a ‘sufficient and workable’ level of local representation. Under the NIRC’s proposal, two elected members being selected by 950 registered voters would provide for one elected representative per 425 voters. It is notable that this ‘compares favourably to other similar sized jurisdictions in Australia’.[64]
  58. More generally, a board model would ‘provide agility for innovation, and flexibility to deliver programs’ for functions delivered by the States and would reduce reliance on Australia for funding ‘because of a lack of support from the local community to meet reasonable living costs similar to other jurisdictions’.[65]
  59. Further, the requirement for expertise in appointed board members would ‘equip the board to operate “strategically” for the benefit of the community’, and in the process ‘remove most of the constraints and conservatism of a Local Government model’, according to the NIRC.[66]
  60. The BCNI also expressed support for exploring ‘a model similar to the Lord Howe Island Board’, with some elected members and some appointed experts. It noted that this model could act as an interim measure on the path to a return to a fully elected local governing body. While the BCNI added that it was not advocating any specific model, it did outline a set of principles necessary to ‘assist business in prosperity:

• A supporting framework that fosters development of and enhancement of local capacity;
• A focus on leveraging local knowledge and empowering local decision-making;
• A combination of elected representatives and appointed council or board members with appropriate qualifications, skills, experience, expertise and knowledge for the clearly defined roles;
• an articulated community engagement and review mechanism; and
• an appropriate funding model that acknowledges the economic challenges of Norfolk.[67]
  61. The BCNI stated that once a specific model had been proposed it would seek to provide comment following consultation with its membership.[68]
  62. Similarly, Mr Innes-Walker discussed principles which should be applied in constructing a successful model of governance for Norfolk Island. These principles included, among other things: local, Commonwealth and State representation, and participants and representatives who hold relevant experience.[69]
  63. Mr Innes-Walker proposed two versions of a board structure. In one, a board, modelled on the Lord Howe Island Board, established as a Commonwealth Government statutory authority reporting either to the Minister responsible for DITRDCA or an equivalent State Government. This proposed board could follow the structure of the Lord Howe Island Board, with three locally elected members, a representative of DITRDCA, and a chair and two independent members all appointed by the responsible Minister. The three appointed members ‘would bring skill sets that would add value’ to the planning and decision-making roles of the board in areas such as ‘finance, asset management, human resources, business development, and the environment’.[70]
  64. The second proposal is an alternative board model under which the role of the Administrator is expanded to include decision making responsibilities:

The Administrator would be supported by an Advisory Council made up of locally elected members, representatives from the responsible Commonwealth Department and other experts as required. Day-to-day operational matters would be managed by a CEO/Executive Officer reporting to the Administrator.[71]

5.65According to Mr Innes-Walker, either proposed board model ‘would provide the necessary framework for effective and timely planning and impartial decision making’ for the benefit of the Norfolk Island community.[72] They would also include ‘significant local representation’.[73]

5.66Another submitter, who requested that their name be withheld, also referenced the Lord Howe Island Board model, proposing a five-member board to replace the elected council, of which a majority are appointed by government on the basis of their expertise with all members being required to either hold or acquire AICD qualifications. This submitter called for the establishment of a Norfolk Island Regional Authority similar to the Torres Strait Island Regional Authority. This Authority would be composed of five elected members, and its primary function would be ‘to strengthen the economic, social, and cultural development of the peoples of Norfolk Island’.[74]

Other options

5.67Several other governance arrangements were put forward for consideration.

5.68For example, the Norfolk Island Law Association canvassed a range of other possible options that do not align with the various governance arrangements discussed above. Many of these related to removing Norfolk Island as an Australian external territory. These options included:

• return to the status of British possession;
• cooperative autonomy with Australia, wherein Norfolk Island exchange ‘irrevocable foreign policy guidance, cooperative defence policy, coinage and medical support’ for limited independence with increased future autonomy;
• transferral of Norfolk Island to New Zealand; and
• referral of Norfolk Island to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.[75]
  69. Mr Don Morris noted that the former ‘wide range of power’ held by the NILA should ‘perhaps’ not be restored, but also stated that the removal of self-government in 2015 was ‘a shameful day in the annals of Australian history’. Mr Morris argued that this ‘drastic move’ must be corrected.[76]
  70. Mr Morris suggested a new model that draws on older approaches—there-establishment of the Norfolk Island Council. This Council could incorporate ‘elected representatives and an executive’, and be empowered with ‘the conventional range of local government responsibilities’. According to Mr Morris:

The work of the Council could be funded by a Financial Assistance Grant in the same way that the Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands shire councils are funded, and it could also raise its own fees and charges as it sees fit. The Council should also have responsibility for the Norfolk Island airport, with appropriate administrative support.[77]

5.71In Mr Morris’ view, a Council of nine members should be elected, with five serving a period of four years, and four serving for two years. The division of terms should be decided by a random ‘draw-from-a-hat ballot’, and future elections be conducted on a staggered basis to provide for ‘some continuity and corporate knowledge’ as well as regular ‘refreshing’. Both the Mayor and executive council members could be elected every two years coinciding with the half-council elections.[78]

5.72Additionally, Mr Morris argued against an ‘interim process’ or transitional consultative body being formed on the basis that it would ‘further delay the restoration of democracy’.[79]

Footnotes

[1]Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University, Submission 41, p. 1.

[2]Mr Chris Magri, Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 2.

[3]DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 18.

[4]Ms Mary Christian-Baliey, Submission 28, p. 2.

[5]Ms Mary Christian-Baliey, Submission 28, p. 2.

[6]Dr Geoffrey Edwards, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 30.

[7]Dr Geoffrey Edwards, Submission 22, p. 8.

[8]Professor AJ Brown, Professor of Public Policy and Law, Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University, Committee Hansard, 25 July 2023.

[9]Ms Robin Adams, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, pp. 14-15.

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

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

[12]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 14.

[13]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 16.

[14]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 17.

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

[16]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 20.

[17]Mr Chris Magri, Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 2.

[18]Mr Chris Magri, Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 2.

[19]DITRDCA, Submission 23, p. 18.

[20]DITRDCA, Norfolk Island Governance Committee: Terms of Reference – consultation draft, <https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/norfolk-island-governance-committee-consultation-draft-terms-of-reference-august2023.pdf>, p. 3, accessed 30 August 2023.

[21]DITRDCA, Norfolk Island Governance Committee: Terms of Reference – consultation draft, p. 3.

[22]DITRDCA, Norfolk Island Governance Committee: Terms of Reference – consultation draft, pp. 3-4.

[23]DITRDCA, Norfolk Island Governance Committee: Terms of Reference – consultation draft, p. 4.

[24]See: Ms Sue Pearson, Submission 11; Mr and Mrs JG and RH Howard, Submission 15; Mr David Bigg, Submission 20; Mrs Cherie Nobbs, Submission 25; Ms Alma Davidson, Submission 27;Ms Mary Christian-Bailey, Submission 28; Mr Geoff Bennett, Submission 29; Mr Lisle Snell, Submission 37;Norfolk Island Accommodation and Tourism Association, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023.

[25]Mr Allen Bataille, Submission 1, p. 3.

[26]Mrs Nadia Lozzi-Cuthbertson, Submission 5, p. 2.

[27]Mrs Nadia Lozzi-Cuthbertson, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 33.

[28]Mr Ron Ward, Submission 2, p. 4.

[29]Mr Ron Ward, Submission 2, p. 5.

[30]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 2.

[31]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 2.

[32]Mrs Nadia Lozzi-Cuthbertson, Submission 5, p. 2.

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

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

[35]Mr Rael Donde, President, Norfolk Island Accommodation and Tourism Association, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 25.

[36]Mr Rael Donde, President, Norfolk Island Accommodation and Tourism Association, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 25.

[37]Mr Rael Donde, President, Norfolk Island Accommodation and Tourism Association, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 25.

[38]Norfolk Island Law Association, Submission 16, p. 2.

[39]Norfolk Island Law Association, Submission 16, p. 2.

[40]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 8.

[41]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 12.

[42]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 19.

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

[44]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 9.

[45]Ms Mary Christian-Bailey, Submission 28, p. 1.

[46]Ms Robin Adams, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 14.

[47]Ms Robin Adams, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 14.

[48]Dr Geoffrey Edwards, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, p. 30.

[49]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 4.

[50]Mr Ron Ward, Submission 2, p. 1.

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

[52]Norfolk Island People for Democracy, Submission 18, p. 7.

[53]Ms Alma Davidson, Submission 27, p. 4.

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

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

[56]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 2.

[57]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 2.

[58]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 6.

[59]Mr JG and Mrs RH Howard, Submission 15, p. 10.

[60]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 6.

[61]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 16.

[62]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 16.

[63]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 17.

[64]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 20.

[65]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 20.

[66]Norfolk Island Regional Council, Submission 9, p. 19.

[67]Ms Sharon Nicol, President, Business Council of Norfolk Island, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 8.

[68]Mr Duncan Evans, Vice-President, Norfolk Island Business Council, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, p. 9.

[69]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 6.

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

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

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

[73]Mr Alistair Innes-Walker, Submission 19, p. 8.

[74]Name withheld, Submission 8, pp. 1-2.

[75]Norfolk Island Law Association, Submission 16, pp. 2-3.

[76]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, pp. 1-2.

[77]Mr Don Morris, Submission 32, p. 2.

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

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