“What our elected representatives mean when they talk about ‘Territory Rights’ is the rights of some ‘Territories’, namely ours, and so far as other Territories, such as Norfolk Island, are concerned the Devil can take the hindmost,” writes JON STANHOPE.

I wrote recently to each of the ACT members of the Senate and the House of Representatives about the denial by the Commonwealth of democratic rights to the residents of Norfolk Island.

David Smith, the member for Bean, to whose electorate the residents of Norfolk Island, 2000 kilometres away, have been assigned, responded on behalf of himself and his three Labor colleagues. 

Mr Smith provided me with a glowing appraisal of progress in “restoring local democracy” on Norfolk Island. He modestly advised me that: “The government’s commitment to working closely with the Norfolk Island community to develop a sustainable and appropriate governance model has been commendable”

He further advised: “The new model was informed by the recommendations of the Norfolk Island Governance Committee (NIGC).”

I found Mr Smith’s assessment of the role of the NIGC somewhat surprising in light of the content of the letter of resignation from the NIGC submitted by one of its members, Ms Alma Davidson, to the Minister for Territories, Kristy Mc Bain, following the release by the minister of the government’s anti-democratic and, quite frankly risible, plans for Norfolk Island.

The following is some of what Ms Davidson had to say to Minister McBain: “I stood for election to the NIGC believing the Australian government and you were serious about restoring democracy for Norfolk Island. The disregard of the NIGC Terms of Reference in the final outcome continues Australia’s colonial attitudes!

“One of my election commitments was to restore respect and trust. Regrettably your department’s attitude and the Australian government decision has completely eroded any trust and respect.

“Your decision that the majority aspirations of my community were out of scope came well after you issued the terms of reference for the NIGC and the community members who engaged in the process feel disregarded.

“It is regrettable that I have no option but to resign from the NIGC as all my advocacy to achieve the best outcome for both Norfolk Island and Australia has been for nought.”

Hardly, Mr Smith, what one would term “commendable”.

Ms Davidson’s resignation from the NIGC was greeted with the following small sample of comments from leading members of the Norfolk Island community and other members of the NIGC. 

They are views at odds with Mr Smith’s understanding and that of his fellow ACT Labor members, of the views of his Norfolk Island constituents.

“Many thanks Alma for all your hard work… the process has been an absolute sham, totally ignoring the needs and aspirations of the community.”

‘’It is a shameful imposition of a clearly unacceptable governance model by Minister McBain….”

“Even worse-it is said that using the Ordinance provisions through the Parliamentary processes is the sneaky pathway to avoid open scrutiny…”

“Exactly, and the trouble is, we have been governed by legal instrument many times to avoid scrutiny. It will be disastrous…

“Just leave everything the same but call it the Assembly, they said. That’ll keep them happy.”

“A year-long process to reaffirm governance via an imposed Australian ‘local government/council model’ on Norfolk Island yet under the same name as Norfolk’s abolished limited self-government. Same name, but with reduced powers to local government level only.”

Perhaps most damning was the following critique of the announced changes from the elected Norfolk Islander representatives, on the NIGC.

“On Wednesday morning, the Australian government announced its decision on the future governance of Norfolk Island. This was the first time the community and the NIGC had seen the proposal. Although the NIGC has not had the opportunity to properly consider and discuss the government’s decision, instead of addressing the significant deficiencies in Norfolk Islands governance, the government has chosen to retain the current ‘local government’ model.

“This decision is inconsistent with the NIGC’s terms of reference and does not reflect the will of the people of Norfolk Island.

“Maintaining the current governance framework continues to deny Norfolk Island state or territory-level democratic representation, community voting rights and accountability. It also leaves unelected delegates of the federal minister to act as the island’s de facto state government – a core concern for the community. 

“Retaining the current governance framework perpetuates the island’s democratic deficit.

“Despite the broad terms of reference given to the NIGC, critical issues raised by the community have been dismissed as out of scope and deferred for future discussion.”

“This decision fails to reflect the will of the Norfolk Island community. Instead, it ensures that all significant decisions regarding Norfolk Island’s future will remain under the control of the Australian government. 

“This outcome directly contradicts the intended purpose of the NIGC process which was to build a new governance partnership based on democracy, trust and mutual respect.”

Hardly, Mr Smith, what one would term “working closely with the Norfolk Island community”.

I have long held the view that Norfolk Island is arguably a colony. Regardless of the legal niceties associated with the definition of “colony”, the fact that the outcome of this latest one-sided review of governance arrangements on Norfolk Island is to continue to deny its residents a genuine say in the laws to which they are subject or the appointment or selection of those by whom they are governed is un-Australian and unacceptable.

As for the sanguine indifference that Mr Smith and his ACT Labor colleagues have shown for the democratic rights of the residents of Norfolk Island, I am genuinely surprised. 

My surprise is heightened by the fact that I recently read the impassioned speeches each delivered in response to the motion in the federal parliament to restore to the ACT the right to legislate for euthanasia. 

What is clear, of course, is that what we Canberrans, notably our elected representatives, mean when we talk about “Territory Rights” is the rights of some “Territories”, namely ours, and so far as other Territories, such as Norfolk Island, are concerned the Devil can take the hindmost.

Jon Stanhope was ACT chief minister from 2001 to 2011 and the only chief minister to have governed with a majority in the Assembly. 

Mary mauls administrator’s comments: racist, libellous, untrue