Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that there was an election on Norfolk Island a few months ago, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected members of the 13th Legislative Assembly, particularly the newly elected Chief Minister, Mr David Buffett, whom I met with recently in Canberra.

It is no exaggeration to say that Norfolk Island is a unique and integral part of Australia. In addition to being one of Australia’s most geographically isolated communities, it is also one of Australia’s oldest territories, having been settled in conjunction with Australia’s founding settlement at Sydney in New South Wales. At various times in its history the island formed part of the colonies of Van Diemen’s Land, which is now Tasmania, and New South Wales. Norfolk Island’s convict history and heritage and the traditions of its residents remain an important part of Australia’s national heritage and culture. Mr Christian-Bailey, a former member of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, described the island culture in an article published in 2006, when he said:

The Norfolk Island Community has an incredibly proud history. We were arguably the first people in the Commonwealth to have a free and compulsory vote for everyone over 18, including women. This was enshrined in our own laws as early as 1838. We have always been proud of ourself-reliance, our resourcefulness and of our strong community spirit. We have our own language, which we still love to use with one another, and our cultural traditions are strong and distinct from those of Australia.

Going back further, in 1839 Joseph Campbell wrote an account entitled Norfolk Island and its inhabitants. Campbell describes the small and exceptionally beautiful place, inhabited by 400 people—‘about 250 who reside in the town, the rest in the small farms in various parts of the island’. There were excellent roads built by convicts, first-rate soils, thousands of lemon and guava trees, native flowers and, of course, the Norfolk Island pines. In those days there were a chief magistrate and jury running the island. Islanders had no taxes to pay but gave one week’s labour out of every seven months to any public work that needed to be done. Before a person could settle on Norfolk, they needed to obtain the votes of two-thirds of everyone over 20 who could read and write, and the inhabitants were described as ‘very jealous of admitting people as members of their community’. Times have changed, and I now understand that six months residency is required before you can move to Norfolk Island permanently, although the island comes more broadly under the Australian Citizenship Act.

Visitors to Norfolk, and indeed the islanders themselves, often describe the island as one of the most beautiful and unspoilt places on earth. Sadly, I have not had the opportunity to visit the island, although I would like to do so in the near future. And when I am there I will certainly be keen to undertake discussions and consultations with the Norfolk Island legislators, its leadership and also as many of the community groups as possible. It is fair to say that the members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, the committee secretariat and, most importantly, the people on the island who have given their time to the consultation process deserve a timely response, and we will endeavour to see an appropriate outcome from this legislation for the people of Norfolk Island.

Successive Australian governments have acknowledged the importance of Norfolk Island to Australia’s national heritage, and the value of the traditions and culture of the Pitcairn descendants is a part of multicultural Australia. However, while the Norfolk Island community is unique in many ways, regardless of where you live in Australia many of the issues that confront Norfolk Island are similar to what occurs in regional towns of a similar size. You have a community that is physically removed from Australia and from the centre of power in Australia.

As a Western Australian, I certainly understand and have some empathy for how people might feel about being governed from distant Canberra and I am sympathetic to some of the concerns that the people of Norfolk Island have had in relation to this bill. As a former Western Australian senator, Ian Campbell, said when he was the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads:

… it is very important that people in a place like Norfolk Island who do not necessarily agree with that sort of received wisdom feel that they have got the right to pursue a different way of doing things.

In considering the need for electoral reform, it is important to bear in mind that the Australian parliament has the overarching responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, wherever they may live in the federation. Indeed, we have an obligation to ensure that the laws in all Australian jurisdictions are consistent with national obligations and also our obligations under international law.

As noted about Norfolk Island in a previous Bills Digest, the constitutional status and history of the island is complex and unusual. After the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, Norfolk Island was placed under the authority of the new Commonwealth government to be administered as an external territory. During the Second World War, the island became a key airbase and refuelling depot between Australia and New Zealand, and New Zealand and the Solomon Islands. Since Norfolk Island fell within New Zealand’s area of responsibility, it was garrisoned by a New Zealand Army unit, known as N Force, at a large army camp which had the capacity to house up to 1,500 men. N Force relieved a company of the Second Australian Imperial Force. The island proved too remote to come under attack during the war and N Force left the island in February 1944. In the late 1960s a mini-invasion by British expats followed after the island was featured on a BBC television documentary presented by Alan Whicker. Fifty families decided to emigrate from the United Kingdom to Norfolk Island as a result of that program. In 1979 Norfolk was granted limited self-government by Australia, under which the island elects a government that runs most of the island’s affairs. As such, residents of Norfolk Island are not represented in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, making them the only group of residents of an Australian state or territory not directly represented here.

The main purpose of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 is to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to implement major changes to the governance, electoral and financial mechanisms for Norfolk Island. The bill, in schedules 2 and 3, also revises a vesting section of the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955. The bill makes very significant changes to the governance, electoral and financial mechanisms for Norfolk Island. Specifically these changes would:

• allow the Governor-General and the responsible Commonwealth minister to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation including provision for the Commonwealth minister to give directions in schedule 2 matters and to reserve schedule 2 matters for the Governor-General’s consideration.
• provide for the selection of, and prescribe the roles of Chief Minister and other ministers including by: limiting the number of ministers that might be appointed; further, allowing the removal of the Chief Minister by the Administrator in ‘exceptional circumstances’; limiting the power to allocate ministerial portfolios to the Chief Minister.
• enable regulations to be made for a code of conduct for members of the Norfolk Island public service.
• provide that regulations can be made for changes to the process for the election of the Legislative Assembly.
• provide for minimum and maximum fixed terms of the Legislative Assembly.
• implement a contemporary financial management framework including provision for contemporary guidelines for financial reporting and budgeting and auditing of the administration’s financial statements by the Commonwealth Auditor-General.
• allow the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to operate on Norfolk Island and provide for merits review of decisions made by the Norfolk Island administration.
• apply the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 to information held by the Norfolk Island government and its administration.

Schedules 2 and 3 amend the Christmas Island Act and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act. These amendments provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws as they apply to those territories—powers and functions under Western Australian officers and authorities where an agreement with the Australian government exists for those officers and authorities to act in the territories.

Although the coalition support this bill in principle, as, I might say, does the administration of Norfolk Island in the main, we have some reservations regarding some aspects of it. In particular, we are concerned about the FOI and privacy provisions within the bill. We are concerned about the increased bureaucratic processes that might place an unreasonable burden on Norfolk Island’s public service. We therefore reserve the right to move amendments in the Senate as they may be necessary to maintain flexibility in determining what is an appropriate level of added bureaucracy for the island.

I would like to acknowledge some of the concerns of the Norfolk Island government that have been put to me directly and that were also expressed to the joint standing committee when it inquired into this bill. The administration has six main concerns which I will detail briefly. These concerns are legitimate and it is important that this parliament acknowledges them with due respect and takes them into account within its decision-making process.

The first of these concerns is what it has expressed to me as an ‘erosion of the ability to self-govern’. Anyone familiar with Norfolk Island will understand that island self-government is jealously—and rightly—guarded by its residents and of course by the Norfolk Island government. That government argues that the ability to manage schedule 2 matters is fundamental to self-government. According to the Norfolk Island government, schedule 2 matters affect the internal machinery of its government. Matters under schedule 2 include, but are not limited to, roads, street lighting, electricity supply, quarrying, tourism, firearms, housing, community and cultural affairs as well as matters incidental to or consequential on the examination of executive authority. A letter from the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, Mr Buffett, noted that the ‘addition of a veto power for matters pertaining to schedule 2 undermines the very principle that underlines the democratic rights of Norfolk Islander voters to govern themselves in relation to matters that are specific to Norfolk Island’.

The second concern that the Norfolk Island government has raised is the ‘ability to remove the Legislative Assembly’. The Norfolk Island government argues that to provide fair and equitable government the ability to dissolve the Legislative Assembly should only be available to the Governor-General, who would be able, on advice from the Administrator, to appoint a caretaker government, as is the convention in Australia.

The third concern raised was the issue of elections. The Norfolk Island government agrees with the recommendation of the joint standing committee that this part of the bill be removed and further discussion and consultation be entered into.

Their fourth concern pertains to financial arrangements. The Norfolk Island government largely does not agree with the financial proposals in the bill. It has expressed the view that the proposals will result in direct interference with the operation of the Norfolk government, and it is particularly concerned with the obligations on employees of the Norfolk Island government to provide directly information not necessarily agreed to or vetted by the Norfolk government. It has indicated that this provides for the Commonwealth government to bypass the elected representatives and treat employees of the Norfolk government as if they were employees of the Commonwealth government.

The fifth issue is the accountability process. The Norfolk Island government has reservations about the method of implementation proposed by the bill for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and for privacy and freedom of information provisions. The Norfolk government has expressed its desire to implement what it has termed the ombudsman model for these provisions, which would allow it to enshrine matters in their own legislation in consultation with the Commonwealth.

The sixth and final concern relates to deputies. The Norfolk Island government has some concerns with the ability under the proposed bill for the responsible minister to appoint numerous deputies to the Administrator. The Chief Minister has said:

It has been identified that these deputies would only be utilised in times of emergency, i.e. when the Administrator and the Official Secretary (who normally holds a dormant Deputy commission) were not available. If this is in fact the case the Norfolk Island Government would like this reflected in the Bill to provide clarification of the deputies’ role.

The opposition acknowledge Norfolk Island’s traditions and culture as well as the concern felt by some islanders that these reforms may threaten the current governance situation on Norfolk Island, but we also acknowledge that both the Norfolk government and the Islanders recognise, at least in principle, that there is a need for reform. I have no doubt that the people of the island and the people in their Legislative Assembly are raising these concerns in good faith.

In summary, the opposition would like to see a pragmatic approach taken to this bill—however, this approach must always be in the best interests of the Norfolk Islanders themselves. We support the bill in principle, but we do reserve the right in the Senate to move amendments that address some of the unique and special culture and history of Norfolk Island. We cannot necessarily subject what is an island of 1,500 people to the full gamut of Australian democracy if they can find mechanisms that might be more suitable for a government of their size and for a government that administers what is a relatively small population. With those reservations, the opposition supports the bill and will look at it in a more detailed way during the Senate process.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first recommendation of the landmark 2003 inquiry report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the governance of Norfolk Island—entitled Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?is:

The continuation of the self government of Norfolk Island, as provided for under the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth) … be conditional on the timely implementation of the specific external mechanisms of accountability and reforms to the political system recommended in this Report.

I make the point that the joint standing committee included just about the widest spectrum of political party allegiances possible in the Australian parliament at that time. It is precisely and carefully written, consistent itself with a variety of earlier and later reports. Moreover, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government at the time, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, contributed a lengthy statement about the nature of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the Norfolk Island government, which is included in the report itself.

The report was prepared under the chairmanship of Senator Ross Lightfoot, supported in essence by the then minister, Wilson Tuckey, and it asked for urgent action to improve the governance of Norfolk Island. If my friend the present Minister for Home Affairs and I as the minister immediately preceding him have been concerned during the course of the Rudd government to bring forward amendments to the Norfolk Island Act, which were seen to be well overdue in 2003, it will be passing difficult to plausibly accuse us of either radical or precipitate behaviour. I should mention that the contemporary joint standing committee—some of its longstanding and most committed members were there in 2003, including the Chair, Senator Kate Lundy; the honourable member for Canberra; and the honourable member for Hinkler, who is here in the chamber—has recommended support for the present bill, the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010, in another report brought down a month or so ago.

The history of Norfolk Island is singular. Polynesians lived there for a few years in the 14th and 15th centuries. Captain James Cook discovered the island uninhabited on his second voyage. It was seen by the British government as an auxiliary colony. Indeed, it was established as a convict settlement within six weeks of the settlement of Sydney Cove in January 1788. Abandoned between 1814 and 1825, it then entered another period as a notorious penal settlement, until that was in turn run down after 1847. At the time, it lay within the jurisdiction of the colony of Van Diemen’s Land, but in 1856 the British government relocated the descendants of the mutineers from HMS Bounty and their Tahitian companions from Pitcairn Island to Norfolk and placed it under the administration of the Governor of New South Wales. Thus it remained until it was accepted as a territory of the Commonwealth by an order in council in March 1914 pursuant to section 122 of the Constitution of Australia.

It needs to be borne in mind that Norfolk Island has a population of fewer than 2,000—less than a single ward in most local government councils in Australia. Nevertheless, the status of Norfolk Island is still sometimes contested by those who see it as a separate, culturally distinct dependency with a right to independence. That independence proposition has been argued in courts and asserted to the United Nations, but I cannot find any suggestion that that view has ever been entertained by the Australian government or the Australian legal system.

Indeed, I have found instead a consistent and general level of consensus in the many reports of the joint standing committee on territories over the last 30 years and in the comments of a long succession of territories ministers, both Labor and coalition. All agree that Norfolk Island is part of the Australian federation. All agree that its unique history and culture, together with its geographical position, require that it should be given a special status. Therefore, all agree that it is desirable to have some form of self-government and that it is better to modify the existing system than to withdraw self-government. However, all agree as well that the way of actually doing government has to be improved a lot.

It was my direct experience during discussions in 2008 and 2009 that the idea of Norfolk Island as a separate dependency is still alive, so I repeat the decisive commentary of the joint standing committee in 2003:

The status of the Island was considered in Newbery v The Queen. In that case, Justice Eggleston found the Norfolk Island Act 1957 (Cth) to be constitutionally valid, and that the history of, and historical documents relating to, Norfolk Island, showed that it became, in 1914, a Territory placed by the Crown under the authority of the Commonwealth within the meaning of the Section 122 of the Constitution.

Any remaining doubts about the status of the Island were removed by the High Court of Australia in 1976 in Berwick’s Case in which Justice Mason—with whom the other judges agreed—stated that the history of the Island made it “abundantly clear that Norfolk Island forms part of the Commonwealth of Australia”. The Hon Robert Ellicott, QC, widely respected on-Island as the architect of self government for Norfolk Island, concurred with this position in evidence before the Committee on 25 July 2003.

The Hon. Robert Ellicott is also respected by me personally. During my childhood and youth we lived in the same district, and he moved my admission as a solicitor to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He is a man of enormous gift and integrity, and I know that he still maintains an interest in the welfare of Norfolk. He introduced the Norfolk Island Act 1979 following the detailed work conducted by the Royal Commission into Matters Relating to Norfolk Island by Justice Sir John Nimmo. Some of Nimmo’s recommendations were not followed, including those concerned with taxation, grant assistance arrangements and social security. Those matters are difficult. They have been discussed by ministers and the joint standing committee over the subsequent years. They are, I believe, of fundamental importance. They need to be addressed, and I think that some issues on the island will never be resolved until they are. However, there is no intention to address taxation or grant arrangements in this bill.

The 1979 act was introduced under the plenary power of section 122 of the Australian Constitution. The act replaced an advisory council with a nine-member local legislature with the power to make laws over a very wide range of responsibilities exercised in other parts of Australia by local, state and Commonwealth governments. The nominal head of government is an administrator who relies on the advice of Norfolk Island ministers when exercising powers and functions set out at length under schedule 2 of the act. On the other hand, powers set out in schedule 3 of the act are subject to Commonwealth veto. Schedule 3 includes matters of obvious national concern such as immigration, customs, fishing and social security.

The bill before the House today proposes detailed changes and additions to machinery-of-government provisions. Some seek to bring the government of Norfolk Island more into line with the idea of ministerial responsibility under the Westminster system—for instance, by prescribing a process for selecting and dismissing the chief minister and ministers, who are limited in number to three, and providing for a no-confidence motion process for a chief minister. The Administrator will be able to dismiss members of the Norfolk Legislative Assembly for serious or unlawful conduct, and the Governor-General will be able to dissolve the legislative assembly under a measure identical to that which exists in the Australian Capital Territory.

The Norfolk Island Act was drafted to enable the Commonwealth minister responsible to carry out the checks and balances necessary to ensure that Norfolk Island legislative proposals comply with Australian government policy objectives and Australia’s national obligations under international law. The right of the Australian government to intervene is therefore an existing part of the island’s system of governance. The assent processes established under the act are designed to protect the Australian government’s national interest in Norfolk Island. This is particularly important precisely because the Norfolk Island government has executive responsibility for a range of Commonwealth type powers such as immigration, customs, quarantine and so on.

The act clearly intends that schedule 3 and non-schedule bills be subject to Commonwealth scrutiny. However, as presently drafted, the act does not allow for Commonwealth scrutiny of schedule 2 matters. The present strict designation of matters in schedules 2 and 3 does not recognise the difficulty of making an absolute determination about which particular matters may affect the national interest or of attempting to foresee what issues will be of interest to the Commonwealth in the future. The inability of the Commonwealth to intervene on schedule 2 matters limits its ability to respond to a new and emerging national policy interest or objective. For example, a number of matters presently listed in schedule 2 could easily intersect with national policy objectives, including item 25, firearms control; item 87, national censorship objectives; item 48, telecommunications; item 93, bankruptcy and insolvency; and item 88, child, family and social welfare.

Since 1979, additional powers have been transferred to the Norfolk Island government’s authority under schedule 2 with the expectation that Norfolk Island would enact and administer appropriate legislation and that the legislation would be consistent with the national interest and Australia’s international legal obligations. Many of the powers transferred in 1989 and 1992 are either not supported by legislation or subject to inadequate legislation. For example, the Legal Profession Act 1993 is yet to be fully implemented, the Companies Act 1985 has not maintained parallel provisions with Australian corporate law, there is neither navigation legislation nor censorship legislation and so on. As presently drafted, the Commonwealth is also not able to introduce bills directly into the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly for consideration. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s ability to intervene on matters within schedule 2 of the act is at present limited to the passage of Commonwealth legislation under the overarching constitutional territories power.

This bill proposes to amend the Norfolk Island Act to extend the Commonwealth’s legislative oversight of Norfolk Island legislation by providing the responsible Commonwealth minister with the power to issue instructions on schedule 2 matters; expanding the options available to the Norfolk Island Administrator when he or she is presented with a proposed law by allowing him or her to refer bills on schedule 2 matters to the Governor-General where previously this option only existed for schedule 3 matters; extending the Governor-General’s existing legislative power to allow him or her to introduce a proposed law on any topic into the Norfolk Island legislative assembly; and providing the responsible Commonwealth minister with authority to introduce laws into the legislative assembly for the peace, order and good governance of the territory.

It is especially important to point out that the increased Commonwealth legislative oversight of Norfolk Island is advanced through provisions that are, in this case, permissive and not mandatory. These provisions will assist the Australian government to fulfil its obligations to the community of Norfolk from a national perspective. But these provisions do not restrict the Norfolk Island legislative assembly’s almost unlimited power to ‘make laws for the peace, order and good government of the territory’.

Schedule 1, part 2 of the bill proposes amendments to the Norfolk Island Act to provide for a minimum three-year term for the legislative assembly, with a maximum of four years. That will provide certainty about the legislative assembly’s term. The bill also proposes amendments to allow the Australian government to make regulations on the voting system to be used in elections.

There are other matters. It is an obvious fact that, since 1979, there have been quite massive changes in the way that government is held to account for its performance in every Australian jurisdiction and at every level, with the singular exception of Norfolk Island. A series of measures is therefore proposed in the bill before the House to increase public accountability and transparency. Not a few of them have been recommended by various inquiries for up to 20 years. You would have to say that the Commonwealth really bears far more responsibility than the Norfolk Island government for the failure to implement them. One understands that a government as small as the Norfolk Island government cannot have the resources to easily meet the rigorous requirements of modern administration in all respects; after all, much larger local governments on the mainland routinely rely on state governments to legislate much of the provision for the machinery of accountability. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable for any Australian jurisdiction to fail to meet even the most basic standards in this respect. Credibility depends on it.

Therefore, this bill proposes amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which will confer a merits review jurisdiction on the AAT for decisions made under Norfolk Island legislation. These changes will be introduced in stages, in consultation with the Norfolk Island government. The bill proposes amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to apply the act to Norfolk Island in the same way that it applies to Commonwealth agencies. It provides for the assumption by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of the function of Norfolk Island Ombudsman under Norfolk Island legislation and it establishes the requirement that Norfolk Island public sector agencies adhere to information privacy principles in the same manner as Australian government agencies.

Reform of Norfolk Island financial management and reporting was specifically recommended in the 2008 report by the Senate Select Committee on State Government Financial Management. The Norfolk Island government and administration commenced financial reporting according to international financial reporting standards for the first time only in 2008-09. Prior to that, it had used only local accounting principles.

The bill before the House establishes a legislative financial framework in the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and provides for the details of this framework to be included in subordinate legislation. The details of the financial framework are being developed in consultation with a joint working group comprised of officers from the Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Norfolk Island administration and government. The proposed financial framework will bring territory authorities into Norfolk Island’s consolidated financial statements, budgets and annual reports, providing a more complete picture of Norfolk Island’s financial position. The framework will also introduce a statutory requirement for all financial statements, annual reports, audit reports and budgets to be tabled in the Norfolk Island legislative assembly. The framework will set minimum budget requirements, including the production of qualitative and quantitative statements. It may include comprehensive budget financial statements based on external reporting standards, including forward projections. Subject to consultation with Norfolk Island through the working group, requirements are also likely to include compliance with Australian accounting standards, which would mean that Norfolk Island was preparing financial reports on a basis consistent with Australian local governments, state governments and the Commonwealth government. In other words, these are extremely important provisions.

Finally, there are some important acknowledgements. The staff at the Territories Division of the Attorney-General’s Department of Australia have worked persistently and sometimes under considerable difficulty over a long while to bring resolution to the issues that we are dealing with today. I personally wish to acknowledge the Norfolk Island government but especially former Chief Minister Andre Nobbs, with whom I was in very frequent contact as Minister for Home Affairs before June last year. Andre always sought constructive solutions. I wish to express my particular admiration for the steadfast work of the Administrator of Norfolk Island, Mr Owen Walsh, who is so well supported by his wife, Bianca, a Pitcairner. I believe the island has been most fortunate to have a person of his competence and dedication to help it through the difficult negotiations of recent years. There is no doubt that those negotiations have sometimes been difficult. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there has remained a great deal of goodwill within the Australian parliament, on both sides of this House, to bring about a resolution of long-outstanding matters so far as the governance of Norfolk is concerned. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

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

It is no secret that I am a great admirer of, and have a great deal of respect for, the people of Norfolk Island. By playing to some extent the role of devil’s advocate, I also take the view that a lot of the problems that have occurred on Norfolk Island with regard to governance have not all been the fault of the Norfolk Islanders and I think that we in Australia take a heavy share of that responsibility. I think that consultation could have been closer and perhaps we could have been more amenable to their views at earlier stages than now to have to come on with a bill of this magnitude and purpose.

It certainly is an area with a great and rich culture, a culture that by its association, I suppose in the first instance, with Captain Bligh and the mutiny on the Bounty is interwoven with Australian history—though the development of Pitcairn Island, where the mutineers went to live, had nothing to do with Australia at that time. The island was granted to the Pitcairners by Queen Victoria in the 1850s when Pitcairn Island became overcrowded, and a new and vibrant culture based on their earlier culture and their Tahitian culture developed on Norfolk Island.

As the shadow minister pointed out, they are people with their own language which they like to use at times. They have a way of doing things. They have cultural objectives and expectations and they guard those jealously. Some of those come to the edge of decision making and at times they will not always mesh exactly with Commonwealth expectations. You really have to ask yourself in those instances whether you want to approach this with a stick in one hand and a carrot in the other, or whether you will put both away and talk to these people as equals. My personal view is that Australia has over the years been too harsh in some matters, and I will outline that a little bit further in my address.

The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 before us has many good features about it. No-one is denying that. No-one should ever deny, as the member for Macquarie just pointed out, that throughout all the Australian jurisdictions over the last 20 or 30 years there have needed to be shake-ups. This is not unique to Norfolk Island; this is something that has occurred in all the states where various levels of maladministration, or indeed corruption, have taken place—though I am not suggesting corruption on Norfolk Island. I think that we have all recognised the need for more accountability.

Also, there has been greater social development throughout the Commonwealth and, might I say, the Commonwealth of Nations, the OECD and the UN have adopted matters of respect. For example, we have looked to things like freedom of information, rights for women and all those sorts of things, and they have become enshrined in legislation throughout those groups of countries, and no less so in Australia.

I am not comfortable with schedule 2 concerning matters being subject to veto. If an island has self-government, I think you need to recognise that and give some genuine control over matters, for example, gun laws. If the Commonwealth feels so strongly about gun laws, well, why wouldn’t it ask the Norfolk Island people to remove that issue into a separate bill that parallels the Commonwealth law rather than using the blunt instrument of a veto?

It is said that we want to get uniform laws on pornography. I do not think that you would have any trouble on Norfolk Island getting uniform laws on pornography. I think that probably if you were to ask for this to be implemented in legislation, the Norfolk Islanders would be perhaps less accommodating than some Australians are to some of the filth we see in the newsagencies and sex shops of Australia. To suggest in schedule 2 that by omission the Norfolk Islanders are potentially more prone to that, I think, is a bit insulting. So my first criticism would be that schedule 2 should not be subject to veto and there should be a willingness on both sides to consult and where things are necessary to meld with Commonwealth initiatives, let us have complementary legislation rather than the blunt instrument of veto.

The removal from the Assembly is another matter that seems to occupy the minds of the current administration—and I might add at this point that with the election of the new government of Norfolk Island, I congratulate David Buffett. He is a longstanding member. I think he was the first Chief Minister, as I recall, in the early days when limited self-government was granted. I think he has an intention to have a closer relationship with Australia, but one based on respect, not on just being told all the time.

I think the Governor-General should have the right, as she does in the ACT, to dismiss the government. I agree that elections should be beyond reproach. I think the three years with a limit of four years is a sensible measure and that a vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister should be subject of an automatic action should it occur.

However, when it gets down to financial arrangements, one in particular—the Commonwealth financial officer—is referred to in the bill but the exact functions of that officer are not clearly outlined. If the purpose of that is to give the administration of Norfolk Island a greater gravitas in the compiling of its accounts and budgets, and you have to recognise that when you only have 2,000 or so people on the island there is not going to be a lot of scope for getting various forensic accountants and the like—that is, for plucking them out of the community—that is perhaps not a bad measure. That should be subject, however, to a definition of the role of this person and this person being a consultative and integral part of the administration rather than, if you like, a watchdog for the Commonwealth government. Were it the latter role, that would not be in the best spirit of cooperation.

Certainly Norfolk Island should provide budgets and reports. But what I do not agree with is that, without reference to the Norfolk Island minister, the head of a department can be required to report to the Commonwealth minister. Surely that is not in the best spirit of federal government or of the Westminster system. The channel should always be the appropriate Norfolk Island minister. I can understand the pain this might cause the Norfolk Islanders and the administration in particular. It could be seen in doing this that the assembly is being circumvented in making its officers report first and foremost to Commonwealth instrumentalities rather than to their own elected and appointed ministers and then through them to the Commonwealth ministers. I think that needs to be clarified.

As you are aware, the Norfolk Islanders have accepted the concept of the ombudsman. I think that is wise and commendable. That also goes for the role of the Auditor-General on the island. When it comes to things like the Freedom of Information Act and privacy principles, I think you should allow the Norfolk Islanders to adapt what they need for a community of 2,000. Would you go out to a place like Gunnedah in western New South Wales or Roma in western Queensland and say, ‘We’re going to apply all the principles of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act as they are applied by the Commonwealth’? I think you have to give the Norfolk Island assembly the ability to texture those particular laws to the requirements of 2,000 people. Sure, on the mainland we have 22 million people. That is a totally different thing and you can understand why there should be some rigidity in the Commonwealth law. But, when you are applying it to 2,000 people, you do not want to make it so onerous and so heavy with paperwork that the people of the island lose faith or interest in the system.

Another matter I have some concern with is the appointment of deputies. We have an Administrator who virtually exercises under the Governor-General the powers of the state governor. Those powers are perhaps somewhat less, but essentially they are the powers of the governor. We have an official secretary on the island. I can understand why that official secretary should be the Deputy Administrator. But this bill allows for many more deputy administrators, and I think again that will start to water down the control of the island by the islanders. If you have Commonwealth appointed deputies it becomes a little bit like Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Gondoliers. You know: when everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody. You might have a system of succession where you could have the Administrator, the secretary as the first Deputy Administrator and perhaps another person. But to go beyond that I think could be quite ridiculous. Again, we are talking about 2,000 people. We need to treat them with respect, not with a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and patronising control by the Commonwealth.

The Norfolk Island act of 1979 allowed the Governor-General through the Administrator to introduce into the assembly laws for peace, order and good government. I have no worry about that; that is for times of emergency. But this bill goes further, to allow nominated Commonwealth ministers to do that. Why would you want Commonwealth ministers introducing legislation into the Norfolk Island assembly? Sure, in an emergency situation the Governor-General’s authority through the Administrator can be exercised for peace, order and good government. But I would have thought that would have been sufficient. It should not be necessary that every Commonwealth minister that has a responsibility to Norfolk Island has the right to introduce bills into the assembly. Once you do that, again you are starting to water down the concept of self-government.

I said I would speak briefly on another matter. Yes, we are the Commonwealth; yes, this is the parliament and we are responsible to a large extent for all Commonwealth matters that have come under the 1901 act and constitutional amendments to that act by way of referendum and international treaties that this country enters into through the United Nations. That sovereignty is not questioned in any way. It is exercised differently in the states because the 1901 Constitution defines certain powers for those states. Subsequent bills for the Northern Territory and the ACT, perhaps not allowing for the same degree of flexibility, have allowed many of those laws. I think we should treat Norfolk Island, to the extent that we can, as the third territory of the Commonwealth. In doing that, there are not just rules and regulations but the Commonwealth authority, which we have seen exercised in bucketloads over recent months, of pouring Commonwealth moneys into all sorts of enterprises that were once the prerogative and responsibility of the states, not least of which is health. We have seen it also in roads. But when it comes to being applied to Norfolk Island we get this self-righteous standing on our digs and saying, ‘Oh no, it can’t be done on Norfolk, they don’t pay tax.’ Sure, they do not pay income tax. That is probably why they survive as well as they do. They do have a form of goods and services tax and one might argue that perhaps a levy could be imposed on that for entry into Medicare. I certainly would support that, although I am not sure all the islanders would.

Having said all that, the Norfolk Island Hospital, for example, while it is well run in the sense of the personnel who are involved in it and the loyalty it receives from its community, by construction standards would not be tolerated in a town in western Queensland or western New South Wales. The outer structure is not much removed from the fibro and chamferboard huts of the Second World War. As long as I have been on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—and that must be getting on for 15 years now—we have never seriously attempted to do something about the Norfolk Island Hospital on the spurious ground that somehow because they do not pay tax they are not entitled to good health. We do not apply that principle anywhere else in the Commonwealth and we should not apply it on Norfolk Island.

Every once in a while the airstrip has to be upgraded—hot mixers being brought from Sydney or Auckland. Contractors bring barges and all the material over. I remember on one occasion one of the contractors offered for $1 million to do a lot of the roads on the island while he was still there, which made eminent sense. It is the sort of thing we would do if there was a major wash-out in floodtime somewhere on one of the highways in western Queensland, the Northern Territory or western New South Wales. We would go in and fix it. I think on occasions like this, when you have those sorts of facilities that are not normally available on the island, such as road construction abilities, we should be in there giving a hand. It is not just all thought on the part of the Norfolk Islanders and this great need for a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork. It is a matter of respect, and that respect should be reflected in the time we give to the detail, the schedules and the subordinate legislation. (Time expired)

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010

Norfolk Island has had self-government since the introduction of the Norfolk Island Act by the Fraser government in 1979. It is the only self-governing Australian external territory. The island does not rely on Commonwealth funding; however, funding from the Commonwealth government does provide crucial assistance and support. It has to be said that in the recent past the island has been suffering financially. The global financial crisis has been particularly unkind to those places where tourism is the main source of economic activity. The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will make much needed changes to the Norfolk Island system of self-government. The amendments will provide major changes to the governance, electoral and financial systems of Norfolk Island.

It is the duty of this House to strengthen the Norfolk Island system of government to benefit the residents. We must make sure that the Norfolk Island government is accountable to the community and residents have access to fundamental rights. Natural justice would require that this extend to the right of administrative appeal. So there are significant benefits for the people of Norfolk Island in this legislation. We will make sure the Norfolk Island government is accountable by extending the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1967 and the Privacy Act 1988.

The Norfolk Island reforms were first announced by the Australian government a year ago in May 2009. The House would be aware that the future of Norfolk Island has been the subject of many Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories reports, discussions and the topic of widespread media reports. It is now time to act on those reports and recommendations. A joint standing committee suggests that the Norfolk Island system of governance be changed.

The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will action some of the recommendations from the report of the 2003 inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories into governance on Norfolk Island. That report recommended Norfolk Island enacts the following democratic principles: greater public accountability through access to the Commonwealth Ombudsman; better regulatory framework of privacy arrangements; and a common-law approach to rights and entitlements. As it stands today, the Norfolk Island government has an informal means for good governance and, quite frankly, it is not enough when it comes to the fundamental rights and responsibilities of the Norfolk Island community. The report stated:

… the absence of formal and effective mechanisms of accountability and transparency, seriously undermine the quality of governance on the Island.

The report goes on to recommend reforms to the Norfolk Island electoral system; a better financial management framework, including audits; the introduction of administrative law such as in Australia; and the incorporation of designations of Chief Minister and ministers. I have been informed that the Norfolk Island government agrees that local residents should enjoy the same rights to personal privacy, access to the Ombudsman, appeal rights and freedom of information as mainland Australians. However the Norfolk Island government would argue that some of the processes that are connected to these basic rights are resource intensive and can be time consuming. It has been raised with me that the government of Norfolk Island is concerned that it does not have the resources to implement these Australian models in their entirety. However, these reforms are essential and I am confident that any issues can be worked through appropriately by the Norfolk Island government and the Commonwealth government.

I will now outline the reforms in more detail. Schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill will make significant changes to the Norfolk Island Act. Through changes to the general governance and electoral amendments, the bill will establish a no-confidence motion process for the Chief Minister; put in place a proper process for selecting and dismissing ministers and chief ministers; permit the Administrator of Norfolk Island to access advice when presented with bills for assent under schedule 2; and, allow the Governor-General and the minister responsible for the territories to take a more active role in the Norfolk Island legislation.

The bill will also reform the voting system. By simplifying and modernising the electoral process, the bill will allow more Norfolk Island residents to participate in the democratic process. This will mean fewer people will drop out of the system. The Norfolk Island Chief Minister will enter into arrangements with the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct general elections. This will mean Norfolk Island residents will have an independent third party conduct their elections to ensure greater certainty and transparency. The integrity of the electoral process is at the heart of our political system and it is only right that Norfolk Island residents have access to the same safeguards as mainland Australians. That is democracy. It makes sense. Electors trust us to create a process which is as easy as possible. Complexity creates confusion.

I am informed that the Norfolk Island government has some concerns over schedule 2 of the Territories Reform Bill 2010. I will outline some of their concerns. Today, the Norfolk Island system of governance means the Commonwealth appointed Administrator is bound to take the advice of the Executive Council to ensure local laws are passed quickly. The reforms will see the responsible Commonwealth minister seek and provide advice, and if any conflict arises the minister’s advice will prevail. The Norfolk Island government is concerned the Commonwealth will be able to veto local solutions to local problems. It should be acknowledged that the Norfolk Island government are concerned about the implications of the bill on their ability to self-govern. The Commonwealth government’s rationale is to put in place proper processes for responsible government. I encourage the Minister for Home Affairs to continue the conversation with the Norfolk Island government to allay their concerns.

I will now move to the implementation of a financial management framework. Schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will establish a financial framework which is responsible and accountable. By ensuring there is proper process for financial management, the bill will help Norfolk Island to be financially sustainable into the future. The reform will include a process for annual reports, budgets and framework in line with the unique requirements of Norfolk Island. In line with my earlier comments, we will support Norfolk Island to achieve a responsible fiscal framework in line with Australian regulations. The reforms will provide the Norfolk Island government with the mechanisms to conduct their general business with transparency. The bill will provide the Auditor-General with the power to conduct audits on the island’s financial statements to maintain integrity within the island’s financial system.

Finally, the Territories Law Reform Bill will bring Norfolk Island in line with Australia’s administrative law procedure. Essentially, Australian residents living on Norfolk Island will have the same rights and services available to them as if they were living in Australia. Part 4 of the bill will mean decisions made by the Norfolk Island government can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Part 5 of the bill will amend the Freedom of Information Act. It will provide residents with the fundamental right to access documents held by the public sector and to ask for personal information if the information is incorrect or misleading.

In addition, part 6 of the bill will mean the Commonwealth Ombudsman can act as the Norfolk Island Ombudsman and provide independent dispute resolution. As already mentioned, I understand that there has been a great deal of consultation with the Norfolk Island government to make sure the Ombudsman procedures will suit the island. It is absolutely essential that we get this right, and consultation with the Norfolk Island government will ensure this.

Part 7 of the bill will amend the Privacy Act so that it applies to Norfolk Island in the same way that it applies to Australian government agencies in Australia. We will ensure that Australian government agencies play an ongoing role to educate and support the Norfolk Island community and public sector.

The Territories Law Reform Bill will reform the way Norfolk Island is governed. I understand concern has been raised about the reforms hindering the island’s ability to self-govern. It is the opinion of the government that this bill will strengthen Norfolk Island’s legislative ability to act as a sovereign island, by formalising its self-government practices. The bill will focus on transparency and accountability in Norfolk Island governance, establish financial frameworks and an administrative decision-making process. It is absolutely essential that the same rights to information and appeal apply to Australian residents living on Norfolk Island. The reforms will provide Norfolk Island with the tools to ensure ongoing stability and effective self-government under the Norfolk Island Act.

These reforms are, quite simply, the right thing to do. These reforms will provide a legislative framework for the future growth and sustainability of Australian territories. I commend the bill to the House.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise in the House this evening to speak about the issue of the relationship between the Commonwealth, the administration of the Territory of Norfolk Island and the Norfolk Island government. I have been in this place for just under 15 years and have been a constant member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories since election in 1996. Members in this place are probably aware that, through the unique electoral processes on that island, a number of Australian citizens on Norfolk Island are also constituents of mine as, through that mechanism, they are attached to the Canberra electorate. That has given me a longstanding and reasonable understanding of the issues on Norfolk Island, the people who live there, the history of the place, the uniqueness of the place and the need for us all to work together to ensure that self-government on Norfolk Island not only remains but is enhanced into the future.

The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 makes amendments to a range of Commonwealth legislation to improve Norfolk Island’s governance arrangements, including through the reform of the electoral system. A new financial management framework is also proposed. The new governance arrangements are really quite important. We are applying on the island the electoral and administrative law practices that are generally applied in the mainland jurisdictions, albeit with some variations. The process for selecting a Chief Minister, providing for no-confidence motions and allowing a Commonwealth minister to provide advice to the Administrator are useful additions to the democratic processes on the island.

The bill also clarifies certain aspects of the relationship between the Commonwealth and this external territory, the island, including the power of a Commonwealth minister to introduce a new bill into the legislative assembly, dismiss assembly members for unlawful or improper conduct and allow the Governor-General to dissolve the assembly. A minimum three-year term is specified under the bill, with a maximum of four years. These are important safeguards to the process of democratic governance on Norfolk Island.

The new financial framework provisions will apply the broad approaches of the Commonwealth and territories in terms of financial reporting. The role of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to investigate financial matters relating to the actions of the government is essential for transparency in government. On the whole, the transparency and fiscal affairs for which this bill and associated regulations will provide bring the island into closer alignment with practice in other Australian jurisdictions and support democratic processes and accountability to the people of Norfolk Island and the Australian taxpayer, where federal funds are deployed.

The application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and freedom of information and privacy provisions to the island and the new role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman as the ombudsman of the island are also major improvements to the practice of governance on Norfolk Island. In fact, they are essential changes, giving Norfolk Island people the same basic rights under administrative law that all other Australians generally enjoy. As other speakers have said already, there is a certain level of apprehension in not all but some sectors of the community on Norfolk Island about some of these changes. I understand that and I respect that cautiousness.

To talk about the question of privacy provisions for a moment, my understanding is that under current legislation the Commonwealth Ombudsman can and does use those powers within the ACT, for example. Under the same legislation, Norfolk Island could have already passed legislation itself to bring that provision into action on Norfolk itself but has not done so. That has been available but it has not been done. I regret that reluctance on the part of Norfolk Island governments in the past, but the point is that we do not need to look back; we need to look forward. There is now every opportunity for the beginning of reform of governance on the island. Many people on Norfolk Island share our view and look forward to the reform as outlined.

Over the years I have had many opportunities, both as a member of the committee and as a backbencher with responsibility for those on the island who are attached to my electoral roll, to visit Norfolk Island. I have said it in this place before, and it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to say it again: it is the most remarkable place. It is so unique and special, and it carries so much history of its own, as well as history connected to the mainland. To anybody listening to this debate: if you have not had the opportunity to travel to Norfolk Island, I implore you to do so. You could not go to a more beautiful place.

In saying that and in saying that I have had the opportunity and privilege to make many friends within that community over those years, there is also no doubt in my mind—with all of the reports that the joint committee has done over the years—that now really is the time to begin governance reform on Norfolk Island. That is not in any way to be seen as a challenge to its self-governing role. As long as the conversation continues between those on Norfolk Island and people here within the government and within the parliament generally to work towards an outcome with which we can both be very content, nothing but improvement and better governance can occur.

This bill will also improve keys aspects of public finances on the island. It brings the island closer to Australia on governance and accountability issues. In my view, this is probably not the beginning and end of reform of governance arrangements on Norfolk Island. There are many other things that we could consider as well. By saying that, I do not want to scare people on Norfolk Island or make them more apprehensive. I fully understand the level of apprehension in the minds of some—but not in the minds of all.

I really want to see these reforms pass successfully. I really want to see the conversation between the Norfolk Island government and this government and parliament continue in an open and honest fashion. I would like to think that both sides of the federal parliament could agree to implement a properly formulated reform program for Norfolk Island, one that would effectively establish the island as a jurisdiction within which Australian citizens have the same access to law, to freedom of information and to a raft of governance arrangements that we here take for granted. Those things need to be brought into line on the island. A reform program could involve various considerations for the future, but here and now we are looking at the bill before us and the proposals within that bill to begin that reform process.

I thank the current Minister for Home Affairs for bringing this bill forward. I compliment him, his officers and his officials on the discussions that have been held to date. I very sincerely thank those on the island with whom I have had discussions in the past and who are, I know, very keen and anxious to support this proposal and see it through.

To those on the island with apprehensions: please remember this is not an assault on self-government. It is not intended to in any way erode self-government. It is, in fact, intended to enhance it, preserve it and guarantee it for the future. If that is the approach taken by everyone here and, I hope and trust, by everyone on Norfolk Island, then I know we are going to have a successful reform process. I commend the bill to the House.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I am very pleased to sum up the debate on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010. I thank all the members for their contribution, in particular the member for Canberra, who has a special interest—as do many in her electorate—in many of the citizens who reside on Norfolk Island; the member for Brand; and the member for Macquarie. The member for Macquarie is also my predecessor as Minister for Home Affairs and did a lot of the work to bring this bill to this place for realisation. I thank him for his good work in assisting the government with these very important reforms. I also thank the members for Stirling and Hinkler for their contributions to this debate.

I will address some of the issues raised by members. I am aware that the Norfolk Island government has concerns with this bill. I know so because I spoke with the Chief Minister when he was last in Canberra. I am also aware that these concerns, or some of these concerns, have been shared with members, including the members for Stirling and Hinkler.

The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler have voiced the concern of the Norfolk Island government that this bill will erode Norfolk Island’s ability to self-govern. This is not the case. The proposed amendments to the Norfolk Island Act 1979 do not restrict the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly’s almost unlimited power to ‘make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory’. The right of the Australian government to intervene in Norfolk Island legislation is an existing part of the island’s governance system. The amendments will extend this oversight to schedule 2 matters, as well as enabling the Commonwealth minister and the Governor-General to introduce legislation into the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. The need for this amendment can be linked to the number of additional matters transferred to the Norfolk Island government’s authority under schedule 2 since 1979. Many of the powers transferred are either not supported by legislation or are subject to inadequate legislation. The bill will enable the Australian government to carry out the checks and balances necessary to ensure that Norfolk Island legislation complies with Australian government policy objectives and Australia’s obligations under international law.

The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler made remarks about the appointment of deputy administrators. On this matter, amendments allowing the minister to appoint the deputies of the Administrator of Norfolk Island are consistent with the power already provided to me as the responsible Commonwealth minister to appoint deputy administrators of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The amendments allow for flexible and timely appointments to be made in the event that the Administrator is unable to perform one or all of the functions of the office. This is particularly important due to the remoteness of Norfolk Island. The amendments will enable essential functions of government to be performed quickly and efficiently. I further note that the position of Deputy Administrator is not intended to be a position involving remuneration.

The member for Stirling also expressed the concern of the Norfolk Island government about amendments authorising the appointment of a Commonwealth financial officer. The Commonwealth Financial Officer does not have any specific powers under the amendments proposed in the bill. The Commonwealth Financial Officer’s functions are required to be flexible and adaptable, to enable the best possible assistance to be provided to the Norfolk Island government and administration in implementing the bill.

On the issue of the Auditor-General’s appointment, the Australian government has agreed to fund the Commonwealth Auditor-General to provide financial statement audits for three years. Any further funding after this period will be subject to budget considerations. I note that the ACT and the Northern Territory have established their own auditors-general and do not receive funding for these positions. The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler also raised the issue of Norfolk Island public servants reporting directly to Commonwealth ministers. None of the amendments proposed in the bill will affect the relationship between the Norfolk Island government and employees of the administration.

In terms of the issue raised about the Administrator’s role following the dissolution of the legislative assembly, amendments in the bill that provide for the Administrator to exercise certain powers in the event of the dissolution of the legislative assembly provide a practical and effective arrangement to ensure the continuity of business of government, including the provision of services to the Norfolk Island community. I note that the Administrator would be required to exercise these powers in accordance with any direction given by the Governor-General. The member for Stirling and the member for Hinkler have argued that the approach taken in the administrative law reforms to extend Commonwealth administrative law to Norfolk Island is too complex and that Norfolk Island lacks the capacity to implement such reforms.

Much has been made of the different approach which has been taken in relation to the ombudsman reforms. I agree that these reforms are a positive example of what can be achieved through cooperation between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island. However, the approach taken in the ombudsman reforms should be distinguished from the remaining administrative reforms for a number of key reasons: firstly, there was an existing precedent for this approach as the Commonwealth Ombudsman already undertakes the role of ACT Ombudsman under ACT legislation; and, secondly, the Norfolk Island government introduced ombudsman legislation into the legislative assembly in 2009. The need for administrative law reform on Norfolk Island has been the subject of numerous parliamentary reports and recommendations since 1991. However, to date, the Norfolk Island government has failed to initiate any Norfolk Island legislation in the area of freedom of information or privacy.

The approach taken in the bill is specifically designed to take into account the ongoing concerns raised by the Norfolk Island government about resourcing and capacity constraints on the island. The existing Commonwealth legislation is adaptable to Norfolk Island and is currently applied across Commonwealth agencies of varying sizes, including those equivalent to the size of the Norfolk Island administration. The extension of Commonwealth administrative law mechanisms will enable the Norfolk Island government and community to access the Commonwealth’s expert knowledge, experience and resources. Funding has already been allocated to Commonwealth agencies to assist with the implementation of these reforms on Norfolk Island. The bill will ensure that the standards of administrative law enjoyed by Australians on the mainland are extended to Norfolk Islanders.

I would like to reiterate that the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 implements important reforms to improve the governance of Norfolk Island and strengthen the accountability of the Norfolk Island government. The bill is not an attempt by the Commonwealth to remove the Norfolk Island government’s ability to govern the territory, nor is it an opportunistic attempt by the Commonwealth to take control of the territory. The bill is a first step towards ensuring high levels of transparency and accountability in Norfolk Island governance and financial management and administrative decision making. This is an important part of providing Norfolk Island with the tools necessary to ensure ongoing stability and to sustain strong and effective self-government pursuant to the Norfolk Island Act 1979.

The Australian government recognises Norfolk Island self-government as sought and granted to the Norfolk Island community in 1979. The Norfolk Island Act provides mechanisms to allow a degree of Commonwealth oversight of the Norfolk Island legislative process. This bill will further extend this oversight by introducing provisions that reaffirm the Commonwealth’s legislative authority. The Commonwealth authority is intended to be used as a last resort if the Norfolk Island government does not undertake action to ensure its legislation is consistent with the national interest and Australia’s international obligations.

Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill make general governance and electoral amendments to the Norfolk Island Act. The bill proposes key governance reforms, including: prescribing a process for selecting and dismissing a Chief Minister and ministers, including a no-confidence motion process; allowing the Norfolk Island Administrator to access a greater range of advice when presented with bills for assent under schedule 2 of the Norfolk Island Act; and allowing the Governor-General and the minister responsible for territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation.

The bill also establishes the framework for the reform of the voting system for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. The amendments will provide Norfolk Island residents with greater transparency in electoral processes and certainty about when elections are held. The bill establishes the foundations for such a process, which will be supplemented by regulations to be developed in consultation with Norfolk Island.

The bill will implement a new financial framework to ensure that the Norfolk Island administration and government are subject to a comparable level of scrutiny as the Commonwealth. The framework will assist the Norfolk Island government to meet the expectations of its community and to plan for the future. It will also enable the Commonwealth to track Norfolk Island’s financial progress to facilitate the provision of appropriate assistance and oversight.

The bill also amends administrative law legislation to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Norfolk Island government and public sector. The amendments will extend the application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 to Norfolk Island. In addition, amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Norfolk Island Act will make the Commonwealth Ombudsman the ombudsman for Norfolk Island. These administrative law changes will ensure that Norfolk Island residents have access to the same rights enjoyed by other Australians.

Finally, the bill will amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws applied in the territories. This will ensure that powers under Western Australian laws applied in each territory are automatically vested in Western Australian officers where an agreement with the Commonwealth exists for them to act in the territories. The automatic vesting mechanism will lead to increased efficiency under service delivery agreements by enabling WA officials to have faster access to newly created powers. It will also reduce the administrative burden of maintaining the delegations for Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, allowing resources to be applied to other valuable tasks.

The Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories has completed an inquiry into this bill and tabled its report on 11 May. The committee supports the general provisions of the bill and recommends that it be passed by the Senate. The committee made four other recommendations. The first is the continuation of consultation with Norfolk Island in the development of regulations to support the bill. This process is already being undertaken through working groups established for that purpose. The second other recommendation is that the Commonwealth minimise delays in the scrutiny of Norfolk Island legislation as part of the assent process. The third other recommendation is that a review be undertaken of items in schedules 2 and 3 of the Norfolk Island Act. The government accepts these recommendations.

The final recommendation of the committee is that the amendments relating to elections be removed from the bill and reintroduced in 2011 following consultation with the Norfolk Island government and community. Changes to Norfolk Island’s electoral system have been recommended in a number of previous reports on Norfolk Island, including by the joint standing committee for the territories. While Norfolk Island has a degree of self-government, it is also part of Australia, and the Australian parliament retains ultimate responsibility for territory electoral matters. The proposed amendments recognise this Commonwealth responsibility. Under the commencement provisions of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010, any electoral regulations will only take effect from the first meeting of the legislative assembly following the first general election after the bill receives royal assent, which is anticipated to be some time in 2013. Accordingly, the first election to be conducted under any new electoral voting system is expected to not occur until 2016.

The other legislative amendments relating to elections in part 2 of the bill provide for a minimum term of three years and a maximum of four years for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and enable the Norfolk Island government to make arrangements with the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct general elections or fill casual vacancies. Consultations undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Department, in addition to submissions received by the committee inquiry, indicate a level of support from both the Norfolk Island government and community to these legislative changes.

The Australian government acknowledges the concerns raised by the committee in formulating the recommendations. I believe that these concerns can be addressed through retaining the provisions in the bill. To address the committee’s concerns, I will undertake not to introduce electoral regulations until after July 2011. The proposed timing will enable consultation with the Norfolk Island government and community and consideration of appropriate voting systems for Norfolk Island. I further propose to present to the committee the draft electoral regulations for their review and comment. This will introduce an additional measure of scrutiny to the regulations. Following my visit to Norfolk Island in December last year I stated:

The Australian Government wants to ensure Norfolk Island’s long-term sustainability and the effective delivery of government services to the Territory’s residents.

This bill allows the Australian government to assist the Norfolk Island government and community to create an equitable and sustainable future. These reforms represent the government’s ongoing commitment to fulfilling its obligations to provide the legislative frameworks for the future growth and sustainability of Australia’s territories. I thank the House for its support. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.