“Norfolk Island was unceremoniously plonked into the ACT for federal electoral purposes. It seems, therefore, reasonable to me that we Canberrans step up in support of our Pacific Island fellow constituents,” writes columnist JON STANHOPE.

I was very conscious over the last few weeks of the deep and interested engagement of the Canberra community in the election campaign for the ACT Legislative Assembly.

My sense, as someone who has been closely involved for some decades in ACT elections, was of a far greater than usual level of engagement and interest in the campaign. Which is, of course, a sign of a healthy democracy and is a good thing.

Interestingly, and by a strange coincidence, I have also over the last few months had regular contact with friends on both Christmas and Norfolk Island, bewailing the contemptuous disinterest and disregard which the Australian government and Australians generally have for their rights or rather the fact that they have virtually no rights at all. 

It is now more than 10 years since the Labor and Greens parties in the federal parliament united, out of sheer laziness and disinterest, with the Liberal Party to abolish self-government on Norfolk Island. 

Ten long years in which a proud Australian community with a unique history and heritage has been denied a meaningful say in the governance or management of its community and their lives.

The anger and frustration of Norfolk Island residents at the patent disregard that not only the Albanese government but Australians generally have for them and their rights is starkly reflected in a letter from a highly esteemed Pitcairn family elder, Mary Christian-Bailey, which was recently published in a local newspaper.

Mary was responding to the following allegations published on the island by the Commonwealth-appointed administrator Michael Colreavy.

“Although there are Commonwealth and Queensland Government representatives on the Norfolk Island Governance Committee, half of its members are community elected representatives,” he writes.

“This is problematic when notions of democracy on Norfolk Island allow for the representative governance framework through familial heredity.

“The best interests of Norfolk Island’s community are hindered by a vocal minority that want to dominate the island’s political system with decision making that benefits individual interests above those of the broader community. Fear of reprisal prevents the silent majority speaking up against that.”

This is what Mary had to say in response: “These statements are racist, libellous and outrageously untrue. 

“They ignore the fact that no resident or citizen on Norfolk Island has had any voice at all for some years, apart from a meaningless vote in some distant electorate in Canberra. 

“We have not even had the luxury of any political system of governance in which we have had the slightest input, let alone decision-making power.

“They need to acknowledge that this community has put up with taxation without representation for a long period.

“They forget that this community had legislated a democratic and free vote, including women, back in 1838 when Australia was little more than a group of penal colonies.

“I challenge the administrator, Mr Colreavy, to provide a snippet of evidence that voting on Norfolk has ever been anything but fair, equal and transparent. I also challenge him to substantiate his thinly veiled suggestion that individuals have corruptly pursued vested interests. 

“As someone who has lived here for 58 years but lost their right to participate in local electoral affairs on Norfolk Island many years ago (a right that was removed by the Australian government) I am deeply saddened and angry by what continues to be perpetuated.”

“And just a little maths lesson, Mr Colreavy, three members out of six on a committee is 50 per cent. You can hardly call it ‘domination’.”

One does also wonder, considering the administrator’s tirade against a “vocal minority demanding decision-making that benefits individual interests above the broader community” what he thought about the proposed indigenous Voice to Parliament.

As noted above, Norfolk Island was unceremoniously plonked into the ACT for federal electoral purposes. It seems, therefore, reasonable to me that we Canberrans step up in support of our Pacific Island fellow constituents. 

We could start by demanding of our federal representatives that they exhibit the same passion for the “Territory Rights” of Norfolk Islanders as we have recently demanded and achieved for ourselves. To do anything less can rightly be seen as rank hypocrisy.

An issue that my friends and colleagues on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are grappling with are the implications for both the residents of the territories and the local environment of recently announced plans by the Commonwealth to significantly expand the defence infrastructure in each of the territories. 

It is understood that the Australian Defence Force has commenced development of a Forward Operating Base on Cocos Island for its Airborne Intelligence Electronic Warfare Project and there have been reports that it is also considering conducting missile firing from Christmas Island to test the army’s ability to deploy long-range missiles.

As reasonable as these plans may seem it is relevant, I think, to acknowledge that along with the residents of Norfolk Island, the inhabitants of Christmas and the Cocos Islands are denied basic democratic rights that would surely colour a decision by the armed forces to roll up and (say) deploy a battery of intercontinental missiles over your back fence.

It is also relevant, I think, to be cognisant of the fact that Christmas Island was occupied for three years by the Japanese army during World War II and there are consequently likely to be some continuing emotional scars.

Jon Stanhope was ACT chief minister from 2001 to 2011 and the only chief minister to have governed with a majority in the Assembly. Read more of his columns on citynews.com.au