The Howard cabinet moved more than 20 years ago to quash Norfolk Islanders' hopes for independence, pointing to the island's strategic importance deep in Australia's sphere of influence in the Pacific.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
![Australia was reluctant to lose control of Norfolk Island, "conveniently situated" deep in the Pacific. Picture: Shutterstock Australia was reluctant to lose control of Norfolk Island, "conveniently situated" deep in the Pacific. Picture: Shutterstock](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/fdcx/doc78n2vn5hb1capt3zl3v.jpg/r0_314_3072_2048_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
The move, revealed in cabinet documents released on Wednesday, provides insight into the final decision from 2016 to strip Norfolk of self-government, a move that has ignited the islands who are now asking the United Nations to intervene.
In December 1997 then-territories minister Alex Somlyay urged cabinet to ward off any idea that Norfolk was on path to independence.
He said the status quo - in which Norfolk had self-government - should not continue, given the state of the island's finances, and because it gave the impression that independence was an option.
The most sensible long-term option was to make Norfolk Island a shire of NSW, Mr Somlyay wrote in a submission to cabinet. But he acknowledged that would be "practically and politically very difficult" given that the island had had self-government since 1979 and the move would need a NSW referendum.
The island was "conveniently situated Australian sovereign territory deep within Australia's sphere of influence in the Pacific", he said. It was a staging post for aircraft in the operations in the Pacific, and was useful as a forward support base for Defence operations, as it had been used in the 1987 Fijian coup. It was also a base for Coastwatch surveillance and patrol boards and had important fisheries and potential oil resources.
Independence would be contrary to Australia's national interests and have implications for drug trafficking and transnational crime. Nor would it be in the interests of the islanders themselves.
Islanders had asked for the transfer of all power other than foreign affairs, defence and coinage by 2000, but that would amount to a "free association" arrangement such as New Zealand had with the Cook Islands and Niue. It would not protect Australia's interests and leave Norfolk vulnerable to exploitation by others, he wrote.
Shifting Norfolk to the same status as the ACT and the Northern Territory was the most achievable option with "minimal adverse political consequences".
"Opposition will come from two quarters - those genuinely concerned about a loss of island identity, and a wealth group, who have arrived in the last 20 or so years, primarily attracted by the favourable taxation," he told cabinet.
"While I anticipate opposition to these overall changes from vested interests on the island, I believe they are essential to the Commonwealth's interests and in the interests of the majority island residents."
Mr Somlyay said the path could be eased by giving Norfolk Islanders early access to social security benefits, pharmaceutical subsides and Medicare. Such measures would "greatly enhance the Commonwealth's position in the event of any media opposition to the proposal," he said. Tax changes, including the introduction of income tax, should be made more slowly, he said.
READ MORE:
Mr Somlyay said the system of self-government fed "national and international misconceptions" about Norfolk's independence. Australians were not automatically entitled to vote in island elections and needed a passport to travel. Many Australian laws didn't apply, including tax laws, giving "succour to the claims that the island is a separate sovereign state".
"The self-government model established by the Commonwealth on Norfolk Island has had the unintended effect of giving support to the concept that it is not an integral part of Australia but rather is in "free association with" or "temporarily under the authority of" the Commonwealth pending independence," he told cabinet.
Health, education and social security spending was well below Australian standards, as were wages on the island, despite the lack of income tax. Tourists wore a disproportionate share of tax.
He recommended the government legislate to force gun reform on Norfolk, which he said had failed to fully implement the national gun scheme, and to ensure only Australian citizens be allowed to enrol in the Norfolk Island Assembly elections.
Cabinet also agreed to give Norfolk an interest-free loan to repair a rock face above its shiploading dock, and left it open for Mr Somlyay "if he considers it appropriate, to make the introduction of accrual accounting and reporting a condition of the loan".
Norfolk proved a long-running problem for Australia. In 2016, the government finally stripped the island of self-government, replacing the Assembly with a regional council, and bringing the island into mainland tax, welfare, health, immigration and other systems. The move was made in the face of ongoing opposition from islanders.
The government also removed a preamble from the Norfolk Island Act which had recognised the "special relationship" of Pitcairn Island settlers had with Norfolk and the desire to preserve their traditions and culture.
Briefing papers late in 2018 to then assistant territories minister Sussan Ley say the preamble was repealed as "a necessary step for cultural inclusion, and disengagement of the Pitcairn stronghold and cultural exclusion", a revelation that upset the community still further. Ms Ley apologised for the briefing.