Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010, which for the most part effects a series of reforms to the governance of Norfolk Island. The legislation covers a wide range of administrative arrangements affecting Norfolk Island to put in place mechanisms for accountability of the administration of that self-governing jurisdiction which would be very familiar to citizens of any other part of Australia. It, for example, provides that members of the Norfolk Island public service should be governed by a code of conduct. It applies, in effect, arrangements for financial statements of the Norfolk Island administration to be audited by the Commonwealth’s Auditor-General. It provides that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at the Commonwealth level operate on Norfolk Island and that there be the capacity for merits review of decisions made by the Norfolk Island administration. It applies the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 to information held by the Norfolk Island administration and government.

All in all, this affects a range of reforms which might be said to bring the Norfolk Island administration into a contemporary setting with respect to the standards applying in other parts of Australia. I think it is fair to say that these changes have been sought by the Commonwealth for some time by not merely the present Gillard government but also by the previous Howard government. They reflect in addition a number of suggested changes to the structure of the Norfolk Island administration that have their origins in reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.

It would be easy and tempting to see this package of reforms as simply dragging the Norfolk Island government and administration into the 21st century and rectifying glaring and serious omissions in the way in which the government of that island has occurred for some time, but I would caution the Senate against seeing things in quite such a simple way. It is clear that, in some respects, by comparison with other Australian mainland jurisdictions, Norfolk Island’s arrangements have been wanting, but it is also important to remember that Norfolk Island is a self-governing territory with a very long history of uniqueness and isolation from the rest of Australia. Indeed, Norfolk Island was in fact a British colony until well after Australia federated and became an independent nation. Of course, famously, the citizens of Norfolk Island originated on Pitcairn Island, in the middle of the Pacific, and migrated to Norfolk Island in the middle of the 19th century at the invitation of Queen Victoria to settle what had until then been a possession of the British which was only intermittently occupied since discovery by Captain Cook in 1774.

So the arrangements for the governance of Norfolk Island have always been quite unusual and the independence of the islanders with respect to their affairs, and particularly to their governance, has always been jealously guarded and protected by those people. The Commonwealth exercises its paramount power over Norfolk Island with, I think, some level of care and even trepidation. We do not wish to simply tell the islanders what we think is best for them but, hopefully, effect reforms of this kind in a process which reflects some negotiation between the parties. Through the work of successive national capital and external territories committees—Senator Lundy, who is in the chamber, is the immediate past chair of that committee—it has been impossible to conduct a very active debate with the parliament and people of Norfolk Island about the nature of these reforms. I note that today the government of Norfolk Island is on record as supporting the changes which are passing through this parliament, although it does need to be said, with a slight degree of hesitation, that that goes back to earlier iterations of the position of the Norfolk Island government, which were somewhat different to the provisions that are now before the Senate.

The federal parliament, in passing this legislation, has to make a very clear decision about how it deals with a difficult question of balance. On the one hand we have an obligation to impose minimum standards of accountability and transparency in the operation of the government of Norfolk Island—a government which has not until now had basic provisions for FOI or ombudsmen’s roles. We need to ensure that basic standards are maintained and that the democratic apparatus which any Australian citizen enjoys is available to some extent to the people of this self-governing territory. On the other hand, we need to respect the uniqueness of the island’s position, we need to acknowledge that isolation of the kind that Norfolk Island has experienced brings with it both advantages and disbenefits and we need to ensure that, as much as possible, we bring the island population and those who are elected by the island population to govern it along with us in these processes. I think that, broadly speaking, this legislation is able to achieve that.

The changes themselves provide for a number of different mechanisms with respect to the operation of the island’s government and parliament and also with respect to the island’s administration. It provides, for example, that there is a greater role for the Governor-General and the responsible Commonwealth minister in the passage of certain legislation which is considered by the Norfolk Island parliament. It provides that the selection of and the roles of the chief minister and other ministers is a matter limiting the number of ministers that might be appointed. It allows the removal of the chief minister by the administrator in exceptional circumstances. It enables, as I mentioned before, regulations to be made for a code of conduct to be enacted for members of the Norfolk Island Public Service. It provides for minimum and maximum fixed terms of the Legislative Assembly. These are all arrangements which hitherto have not applied on the island.

It also, in effect, imports a number of administrative changes to the operation of the island’s public service and provides those mechanisms that I mentioned before—the Commonwealth Auditor-General, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988—to be applied in one form or another to the island’s administration. Those are significant and important reforms which are welcomed by the opposition, though with the acknowledgement that there is an extent to which these changes will be difficult to effect on an island which has a population of about 1,500, a voting population of about 1,000 to 1,200 and, necessarily, a very small public service. We need to acknowledge that importing the entire structure of institutions available in much larger states and territories and in the Commonwealth into the administration of Norfolk Island may occasion some difficulties and may not easily be transferred in that fashion. Indeed, the coalition in the other place moved an amendment to allow for some more flexible arrangements to be put in place with respect to, in particular, the provisions dealing with freedom of information and legislation under the Privacy Act.

The coalition is aware that the government has been able to negotiate with Norfolk Island for there to be particular arrangements for the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s role to be imported into the Norfolk Island administration through its own legislation. It is a unique arrangement, and that was felt to be appropriate for the circumstances of Norfolk Island. In the case of the provisions dealing with the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act, we moved in the other place that these provisions ought to be adapted for the Norfolk Island situation rather than simply applied willy-nilly. Those amendments were not accepted in the other place, and we therefore do not insist on them in this place, because we believe that, overall it is important for the island population to have the advantage of these provisions. But we indicate that, as far as we are concerned on this side of the chamber, we will be watching very closely to see how well these reforms are applied in practice to the experience of government on Norfolk Island. We expect that teething problems and problems to do with scale can be successfully negotiated. (Time expired)