GOOD INTENTIONS?

I am sorry this the only picture I could find of Hon. Robert Ellicott on the web. He is a man for whom I have enormous admiration and respect. A truly honourable man.
Back in the 1970's, the then Labor Government commissioned a Royal Commission into Norfolk Island Affairs. Sir John Nimmo was put in charge of this Royal Commission. This method of inquiring into the island was perhaps a better way than the Senate Standing Committees to which we have been subjected recently, as hopefully, the Commissioner did not have a bias and an "agenda", and hopefully was less influenced by the Canberra bureaucracy and Government policies.
Nevertheless, Sir John Nimmo did recommend that Norfolk Island be absorbed into Australia, with even less of a say in their own affairs than they had already been enjoying...and that was only an Advisory Council, presided over by an Australian appointed Administrator.
By the time the Nimmo Report was being considered, there was a change of Government in Australia, with the dismissal of the Whitlam Government and the election of a Liberal Government under Malcolm Fraser. There was certainly a big break in continuity of governance and policy on the Federal level.
This gave some hope to Norfolk Island, where a strong grass-roots movement had begun among the Norfolk Islanders in reaction to the threat to their heritage and identity as a separate people.
Canberra adopted a somewhat cautious approach, and the new Minister for Territories, (Sir) Robert Ellicott, when speaking to Norfolk Island people about their aspirations would always preface his remarks with "My government believes.." or "My government's policy is..."
It soon became apparent that when you heard these words, you knew that his private view differed somewhat from the official one. Even then, he personally felt that Norfolk Island, historically, morally and constitutionally, had a greater right to a say in its own affairs, and that government at the hands of a Canberra bureaucracy was inappropriate for a small island with a unique and separate heritage, history and culture.
Sir Robert Ellicot has made it clear that he still holds this view.
To his credit, back in the latter part of the 1970's, Sir Robert began a process of intensive, open and productive consultations with the people of Norfolk Island and other interested parties, resulting in the Norfolk Island Act of 1979. The Act gave the island an elected Legislative Assembly of 9 members, and a tiered arrangement of powers.
There some areas where the Norfolk Island Government was to have complete control, some areas which were to be decided by Norfolk Island, with Australia having powers of veto, and some areas where the Commonwealth would retain control. The plan was to gradually increase the area of responsibility that were placed in the hands of the Norfolk Islanders....or so we believed.
The plan was accepted and acted upon in good faith. It would be true to say that the grass-roots movement fighting for self-determination, mainly in the form of the Society of the Descendants of the Pitcairn Settlers, had encountered a degree of local opposition, and there was some polarisation of pro-Australia/pro-Norfolk Island feeling, many feeling the two could not be reconciled, a perception persisting to this day. There was, however, a general acknowledgement that the views of the Norfolk Islanders and Bounty descendants should, as a matter of principle, hold more weight and command more respect than those of shorter term residents, with loyalties to Australia and New Zealand.
Even though there were some who desired a closer relationship with Australia, there was a reasonable level of optimism about the island's ability to gradually assume more self-government, fuelled no doubt by the goodwill, integrity and encouragement shown by the truly honourable Sir Robert. We also believed that Canberra was ready and willing to support us along the path, in no lesser way than they would be advising and supporting their Pacific neighbours.
We were wrong.
If only we had a crystal ball at the time, we would have gone about it differently, and ensured that there were safeguards, and that the Commonwealth could not act unilaterally to alter the arrangements and block the continuity of the progression towards greater self-determination.
Even as little as two years ago, celebrating the 25th anniversary of self-government, the Australian representatives were paying lip-service to the concept, but it was starting to become very apparent that they were only waiting for the right opportunity and time to "move in for the kill", as it were.
That time is now.