This week I attended a most interesting public lecture at the Australian National University College of Asia and the Pacific, given by prominent Pacific historian and journalist Nic Maclellan. The detailed presentation was entitled The Pacific Plan and non-self-governing territories in the Pacific. Two facts of great significance to Norfolk Island emerged from this lecture: In 1946, the United Nations required member states to provide it with a list of inhabited non-self-governing territories. Australia listed only Papua New Guinea, ignoring its obligation to disclose the Territory of Norfolk Island. (Christmas Island and Cocos/Keeling Islands were not at that time Australian territories.) This failure by Australia has had drastic consequences for Norfolk Island, as discussed below. France and Australia are currently jointly exploring the seabed in waters between Australia and New Caledonia, with a view to exploiting hydrocarbons and other seabed mineral resources. This exploration includes waters in close proximity to Norfolk Island. Both of these facts have great significance for the relationship between Australia and Norfolk Island and should lead to a complete rethink of the processes currently underway to force Norfolk into a “normalised” model under which it would be treated as a mendicant quasi-mainland entity under the total control of Canberra politicians and bureaucrats. Part of the current mythology circulating in Norfolk Island is that the Commonwealth is generously bailing out Norfolk from its financial woes with $29 million of federal largesse. While this figure is highly inflated by including consultancy fees, wages and travel expenses of federal bureaucrats and even some of the running costs of Canberra departments, it pales into insignificance against the huge revenues reaped by Australia through its failure to decolonise Norfolk Island, which it would have been required to do had it been listed with the UN in 1946. Even the granting of limited self-government in 1979 failed to meet UN requirements, since it was not preceded by any plebiscite, referendum or other act of self-determination. Additionally, Australia then reneged on its commitments to upgrade infrastructure – specifically a new hospital, improved and sealed roads and new port and harbor facilities, among others. In a cruel twist, Canberra is now blaming the people and government of Norfolk Island for not undertaking these infrastructure works, and pressuring residents to pay land taxes to meet the cost. Past experience suggests that the Commonwealth’s insincere encouragement of Norfolk Island to apply for infrastructure grants for these projects will again result in no funds being allocated. What the ANU lecture revealed was that the debt owed to Norfolk Islanders by the Commonwealth does not date back to the unfulfilled promises of 1979, but in fact arises from its failure – accidental or deliberate – to list Norfolk Island as a non-self-governing territory in 1946. Australia is a founder signatory of the United Nations Charter, which contains a Declaration Concerning Non-Self-Governing Territories. In Article 73e of the Charter, Member States agree to report to the United Nations annually on the development of non-self-governing territories under their control. Australia failed to do this for Norfolk Island, leading to 33 years of economic exploitation followed by a flawed granting of a strictly limited form of self-government, under which the key elements of political and economic power have remained reserved to the Commonwealth for another 34 years to date. So, for 67 years Australia has benefitted from the huge additional exclusive economic zone which it gained by its effective annexation of Norfolk Island, without accountability to the United Nations – an international body which it helped to establish with a mandate to prevent such unjust exploitation. In light of the current claims of “generous assistance” to Norfolk Island and demands that residents should pay punitive taxes to Canberra, it could reasonably be asked just what is the extent of the Commonwealth’s economic gain from the Territory of Norfolk Island in the last 67 years. For a start, there have been massive revenues from fishing rights and fishing licences, not to mention the huge values of the actual catches. Meanwhile, Norfolk Islanders have been restricted to “The Box” and not allowed to export catches or establish commercial fisheries. Now it has been revealed that French and Australian companies and governments are exploring with a view to exploiting the undersea mineral and hydrocarbon riches of the Norfolk Ridge. Many of these would have fallen within Norfolk Island’s exclusive economic zone if this had not been expropriated by Australia which failed to report to the United Nations on the decolonisation of Norfolk Island, as it should have done. Such reporting may not have resulted in full autonomy or control of mineral resources, but Australia would have been required to provide compelling reasons why not in annual reports to the Special Committee on Decolonization. It is not too late for Australia to admit its past failings, to drop all of the Road Map and Funding Agreement nonsense and to enter into a new, mutually agreed and cooperative relationship with Norfolk Island, preferably in a form endorsed at referendum by the Island people. If the Canberra politicians and bureaucrats were to be really honest, they could initiate a listing of Norfolk Island as a non-self-governing territory with the United Nations. This would acknowledge that the circumscribed form of local government at Kingston is not in fact full self-government, and Canberra could then report annually to the United Nations on what steps it was taking toward decolonisation of the Island. Such a listing of Norfolk Island with the UN would not be without precedent, since New Caledonia was added to the United Nations list in 1986. Acknowledgement that Norfolk Island is not truly self-governing but is on the United Nations list would open up many other possibilities, including access to the Pacific Plan, membership or observer status at relevant regional bodies (SPC, Pacific Islands Forum, Forum Fisheries Agency, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme etc.) and eligibility for overseas development assistance. This approach would enable Norfolk Island to take its place among its Pacific Island neighbours, as a self-determining, prosperous and sustainable microstate – as envisaged by the founders of the United Nations, of which Australia claims to be a proud founder member. Peter Maywald
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:39:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015