Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today it gives me some pleasure and ambivalence, in one sense, to speak on this bill, and I will explain the ambivalence and then explain the pleasurable parts of this bill. This is a report on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 and it was carried out by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, of which I am a member. I compliment the authors of the report—the staff of the committee—for their hard work, as indeed I compliment my fellow members. I was ill for part of the compiling of this and I think they have delivered a very good report.

This report is about prescribing the process for selecting and dismissing the Chief Minister and ministers, as well as determining their roles and responsibilities, on Norfolk Island. In fact, most of this, other than a few sections on the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island, is about Norfolk Island. It establishes a no-confidence motion process for the Chief Minister. It allows the Norfolk Island Administrator to have greater access to a range of advice when bills come before him for assent. It allows the Governor-General and the minister responsible for territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation. It talks about reform of the voting system of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and providing more certainty about when elections are held. It establishes a customised and proportionate financial framework which provides for responsible management of public moneys and public property, preparation of budgets, financial reporting, annual reports and procurement. It provides for the appointment by the Commonwealth of a financial officer for Norfolk Island should that be required; the appointment of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to conduct audits of Norfolk Island, as he would of other government agencies; amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which will confer on the AAT a merits review jurisdiction for specific decisions of the Norfolk Island legislature; and amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to apply on Norfolk Island. It also allows the Commonwealth Ombudsman to assume functions on Norfolk Island and to become the Norfolk Island Ombudsman. Norfolk Island public sector agencies will also be required to adhere to information privacy provisions in the same manner as the Australian government public sector agencies on the mainland.

A lot of those are eminently sensible matters but, as this report reveals, they have been matters of some contention for the people of Norfolk Island. I think it would be fair to say that there has not always been a happy relationship between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island. It has never gone into really bad territory, but the 2,000-odd people on Norfolk Island take on a huge responsibility in running the government. The Norfolk Island government not only assumes the responsibilities of a territory government in the absence of the state but also assumes the responsibilities of a territory government and the local government obligations that apply to an island of that size. So it has a dual role and, as such, it is a very responsible role.

It has always been my contention that the Commonwealth has been too harsh with Norfolk Island over the years. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House do not agree with me on that. Whether we like it or not, the formation of Norfolk Island came about when the Pitcairn Islanders in the 1850s petitioned Queen Victoria for a new home. They were granted the old penal colony of Norfolk Island, and the bulk of the population moved there.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please keep your comments through the chair.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that has always been a matter of contention. I do not want to argue the case one way or the other, other than to say that the spirit of the thing was that Queen Victoria, who was the supremo of this part of the world at the time this unusual event occurred, when the Pitcairn Islanders had outlived the resources of their island, gave them residency on Norfolk Island. Over the years various forms of government have developed. Norfolk Island has been under the jurisdiction of New South Wales, Tasmania and New Zealand, and back to New South Wales; more recently, it has been under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. They have been pushed from pillar to post but it has always been my contention that the spirit of letting Norfolk Islanders have an independent lifestyle was inherent in Queen Victoria’s actions. Most Australian governments have observed that, not necessarily to a great extent but to some extent. I feel that, now that we are proposing a reformation of some of the laws and processes of Norfolk Island, we should take into account that spirit of allowing Norfolk Islanders an independent lifestyle and not overburden them with Australian control and bureaucracy.

I, for one, think it would be an outrage to reduce Norfolk Island, as some people suggested a few years ago, to being a shire council of New South Wales or something of that nature. I do not think that that would be acceptable. I just want to put that on the record, because I think the Commonwealth could do a bit more than it has done in the past for Norfolk Island, irrespective of whether it pays tax. Forget this perennial argument that, because it does not pay tax and it is a tax haven, it is not entitled to this or that. Any outback town in western New South Wales, western Queensland, Western Australia or wherever, regardless of what they return to Commonwealth revenue by way of taxation, whether it be a lot or a little, would not be denied a hospital or some major facility such as that if it were needed. The island runs a very good hospital there, but it is old and needs replacing. My view is that the Commonwealth should kick-start things like that. I do not think that the island should be indulged, but I think a few things should be put right. Another thing that offends me is—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us not get down into that sort of stuff. I always like to take an optimistic view of people. When Norfolk Island’s airport needs resealing periodically, companies are brought in from New Zealand and Australia to do that. When that happens I think the Commonwealth should take the opportunity, while they have the hot mix and all the various screenings and things that you need to do roadworks and runway works, to upgrade a number of streets on the island. In fact, an offer was made some years ago by one of the companies that, for another $1 million, they would do work on most of the streets. Because, let us face it, it is a very difficult thing to do bitumen work on a little island, with a population of only 2,000 people, or 3,000 if you want to count the tourists at a peak period.

I wanted to put those things on the record at the beginning, because I, as a member of this committee and as an Australian, tend to think that we should consider Norfolk Island as our third territory. We talk about six states and two territories, but I would prefer that we talked about six states and three territories. We acknowledge Norfolk Island as one of our territories. We respect its independence as a territory to do certain functions of government and we do not interfere any more than we need to.

But, having said that, I share a lot of the recommendations of this report. One recommendation is that, once the Norfolk Island parliament meets, it should elect a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker, which has to take place for the good running of the government, and the next thing it should do is appoint a Chief Minister. I agree with that because, as it does not have a well-developed party system, nor would it be appropriate to have a well-developed party system where you have only 2,000 or 3,000 people involved, it has to meet to decide who will be the leader. It will not necessarily be the leader of the biggest political party on the island. It establishes that the nine elected members recognise someone as a leader.

That person then appoints his ministers, as would the premiers and the chief ministers of the other states and territories, whereas, under the old system, they were all elected. The Commonwealth recognises the right of Norfolk Island to carry out the same procedures as the other states and territories, and I think that is a good thing. I see that my colleague opposite agrees with me on that. Although it is not specifically laid down in this report, I also think it is fair enough that we should have a more clearly defined method for elections. The island uses the Illinois system, which has its good points and bad points. But I think it should be more in keeping with what exists on the mainland as part of the general Australian experience. As such, it should be tailored to that island to give a good result and reflect what the people of the island feel about the nine people they want to elect.

There will be a provision—it is recommended in this report—for a financial officer if that is required. Sometimes in a small territory like this you lack a skill in your government. It is fair enough that Norfolk Island should be able to ask for—or the Commonwealth should insist; whichever is the case—a financial officer should it be required.

The appointment of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to be the Auditor-General for Norfolk Island is also a good measure. No-one should object to that. There are amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act so that the AAT merits review jurisdiction should apply on the island. Freedom of information should be available. Far from these things denigrating the authority of the island, I think they enhance it. I think they say, ‘Hey, you’re up there now.’

It is good to see the Minister for Home Affairs in here, because he has done quite well with this report. It has raised the tenor of the thing and given the islanders a greater deal of recognition. I think the move with the Commonwealth Ombudsman is also a good one.

There is one other provision I would like to talk about. I hope the minister will insist on this with his department. One of the things that has dogged the relationship between Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth, that has dogged progress on the island, has been the slow response from the Australian bureaucracy even to matters that are purely administrative in nature. To have to wait six months for bills to be approved by the Commonwealth is a bit weak. To some extent it takes from Norfolk Island a measure of the true meaning of self-government.

Keeping the ministry to four and the backbench to four, with a speaker, also reflects a separation of powers that has long been required. (Time expired)

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the honourable member for Hinkler for his speech on the advisory report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. I know his long-ranging commitment to Norfolk Island. He has done a lot of work on the external territories committee for a long period of time. I know his concern about making sure that we do not change things on the island. I differ with him slightly about the taxation side of it, but I agree with him that we do not want to take away the assembly. I do not think that is the correct direction.

The Minister for Home Affairs has done a good job in working through and discussing matters with the Chief Minister and others. Our committee has been there and has produced this report. Our committee has, over the years, brought down many reports that seek change. Some of them are addressed in this bill, which deals with transparency, right to appeal and administrative law issues which are costly if you have to set them up in a small community. It still leaves the assembly there to deal with its own affairs, while making it into a more Westminster-type system. There will now be one member of a political party elected to the assembly who can claim to be the Leader of the Opposition there. So there is a movement in that direction.

But Norfolk is sort of governed by committee. I do not think that is a council process; I think the executive should make decisions and stand by and sell its decisions, as we do in this parliament, and oppositions or others can say why they do not think that is right. I see that situation emerging and I see it as a good process. Accountability and transparency in small decision-making areas with small councils—the member for Hinkler represents some and I do too—is always difficult. Sometimes you have to be brave to make decisions in some of those areas if you think something is particularly right.

So this is a good direction and I commend the minister and the people in the Attorney-General’s Department who have done some work in the area. Our committee worked pretty hard to make sure that the islanders and government had their opportunity to put submissions to us, and we have dealt with several of their issues within our report. I think we are really getting there. During the term of the last government there was a recommendation and a cabinet submission to wipe them out as an authority. That did not pass and we have now got to this stage. I think we are going in the right direction.

The report before the parliament also deals with the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to provide some vesting mechanisms for functions under the Western Australian law and how they apply to the Indian Ocean territories, leading to greater efficiency in the administration of service delivery arrangements. This goes to the point that the member for Hinkler made about having three territories. We would have to have a couple more if Christmas Islanders sought to come to a parliamentary arrangement over the years as well; and, of course, we have got Antarctica. I do not know if the leader of the Antarctic mission down there who has the responsibility of governing, with the laws and employment issues of the Antarctic division, wants it to be called—although we do call it such—a territory, but it throws up other issues to do so.

The report is certainly an accumulation of many visits and lots of discussion, and some of those discussions helped move it forward. The islanders do, I think, sometimes get a little locked into their ways. Being a Tasmanian, I know that this is the way of islanders—that you can go inward and not outward. However, it is often important to look outward on an island to find solutions and also to make sure that you are keeping up with the rest of the world. Speaking broadly, I think they might need to do that more in regard to some of their views.

There are some good jobs in this parliament, and I am sure that the member for Hinkler would agree that there are sometimes bad ones. Enduring hostile public meetings as a member of parliament is not all that good, but visiting Norfolk Island is always one of the pleasures of being on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. It is a magnificent island and a beautiful place with delightful people. It is also, of course, enormously important in the history of our nation, and those of us who have had ancestors there feel some connection to it. After the first settlement of Norfolk Island closed in 1813 all the people on Norfolk Island were moved to New Norfolk, which is in the electorate of Lyons, or Norfolk Plains, which is my home now, and the northern midlands. So those connections with my ancestry are big and strong.

Of course, Tasmania governed Norfolk Island for some years along with New Zealand, and there was a very interesting situation regarding the power and politics, and in particular the location of the bishop’s see, of the Anglican Church that looked after Norfolk Island over the years. There was a mistake of latitude on one occasion and it ended up in New Zealand. The Bishop of New Zealand had half the island and I think someone else had the other half, which caused a few problems. But maybe they wanted to visit the island and enjoy the beauty of it.

The culture of the island is very nice, but it is not the stereotype of the South Seas, and I don’t think they should go there with that view. It has a different history. Its flora is not the palm tree; it is the beautiful Norfolk pine. That was the reason Captain Cook, when he landed there, wrote in his journal about the Norfolk pines being used for ships. He wrote too about being to use the flax that he saw growing there. Unfortunately, neither worked out very well for the British Navy or the future settlement. It has been a part of Australia since 13 weeks after the first settlement at Sydney Cove and it is a magnificent piece of Australia. I recommend that every Australian should visit it.

The governance of the island, as I have said, is by an assembly backed up by an administrator of the Australian government, with the current federal member of Canberra, Annette Ellis, being the member of that area. That is another matter to tidy up that is mentioned in the report. Anyone that lives there as an Australian citizen can name their electorate. That disperses the electoral opportunities for the island. One recommendation is that we bring everybody into the one federal electorate under this recommendation, and that is probably a good thing.

One of the issues the island has is waste management—dealing with its waste, and getting some waste off the island and transporting it somewhere. I first came across this when I was on the treaties committee. I thought that we as a nation would not have any problems the dumping at sea treaty, but someone said we did have because there was an issue in Norfolk with what was put into the sea. Eradicating Argentine ants has become a real issue for them. They are working hard, but it is a small island and it is difficult to deal with that sort of pest. Water quality and the findings that have just come forward is also a real issue. There are also issues around the absence of worker’s compensation protocols and applications of the Trade Practices Act and other Commonwealth legislation which would help give some people opportunities to state their case and deal with issues in which they have concerns. These, I think, will be picked up through the legislation which is before the parliament.

The committee noted in its report its deep concern about the findings of the water assessment report on Norfolk Island. The health of Norfolk Island’s natural waterways is poor and in places contaminated. There were other environmental issues raised. They were of considerable and sufficient seriousness for the committee to urge the government of Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth to take immediate action to resolve them as they certainly pose serious threats to the health and safety of residents and, of course, to visitors to the island. With only 2,000 residents, it is always difficult to deal with issues like water quality, and it can take a lot of intellectual rigour to find solutions. Water comes from aquifers and local bores, which are used throughout, but sanitary issues are not dealt with adequately. I think the Commonwealth government put the last scheme in, and the honourable member for Hinkler probably remembers and knows more about that than I do.

One of the submissions from the Norfolk Island government proposed the establishment of a working group of officials from Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth to determine suitable ways forward and asked that outcomes be modelled, like in the ombudsman process, that successfully incorporate requirements of the Commonwealth ombudsman to deal with some of the complaint issues that are continuing to come forward on the island.

Like the member for Hinkler, I believe that there are lots of opportunities for moving forward. I am very interested to see Norfolk Island look at solar opportunities into the future to bring down their diesel costs, which are pretty steep. The Commonwealth could certainly assist with wind and solar issues, which would be one way of bringing down the costs. Island economies are always looking for ways to do that. Being from an island, I have made a study over the years of transport issues. Dealing with those sorts of issues on an island is always difficult, but I am sure that we will get there. I would say to Norfolk Islanders, with my apologies to John Donne: ‘No community is an island entire of itself. Every group is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, the country is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee—Norfolk Island.’

I commend the bill to the House and commend the minister for his work in getting us to this stage after a long period of time and with lots of committee reports.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.