DAY IN COURT

Since Minister Jim Lloyd's announcement on February 20, the question of "What can we do?" has been in the thoughts and minds of many Norfolk Island people. There may have been an initial feeling of helplessness, but as the days have gone by, many have made a firm resolve to do what they feel they can. For some it has meant writing - submissions, letters, emails. For others it has meant attending meetings, and supporting the different organisations that have taken up the issue. Some have encouraged friends and relatives on the mainland to speak on our behalf. Others have talked to our own government, and offered support and help and encouragement.
It was extremely good news, however, to hear that the defence of our rights is to take place on yet another front - in the High Court of Australia. The case has been lodged, and issue on which the complaint is to be dealt with is the right of Australia to change Norfolk's electoral laws. The plaintiffs will be a group of Norfolk Island residents who have been disenfranchised or had their right to stand for election removed by Australia's action in changing our electoral laws. Our case will be handled by two of Australia's leading constitutional lawyers, one of whom is Robert Ellicot QC, the architect of Norfolk's self-government.
It will be good to have the matter settled. All of Australia's dealings with Norfolk Island in recent years have been carried out on the basis of the "Berwick case" in the 1976, a taxation case, in which the High Court ruled that Norfolk Island was an integral part of Australia, and therefore Australia had the right to legislate for Norfolk Island.
There is a strong tradition that has been handed down from generation to generation of Norfolk Islanders that they were encouraged to leave Pitcairn and come to Norfolk Island by a promise that the island would be ceded to them, that the land would be theirs to deal with as they wished, and that they would be free to live under their own laws and customs.
The reality was that this did not happen.
Disappointment and resentment have continued to the present day.
Many Norfolkers accept that although Australia does not have a moral right to make the island part of Australia or otherwise impose its will on the island, nevertheless what they have done was done legally and constitutionally, albeit without consultation with or agreement from the Norfolk people.
However, there are others who firmly believe that the Britain and/or Australia have acted illegally and unconstitutionally from the beginning
* that they wrongly reneged on a commitment in 1856
*that Governor Hampden acted unconstitutionally in 1896 when he repealed the laws and removed the role of local magistrates of the island
*that the transfer of Norfolk Island to Australia as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth in 1914 did not in fact give Australia the constitutional powers that it has chosen to exercise over the island ever since.

We can only hope that this matter will now be progressed with the fairness, balance and transparency that have been notably missing from the dealings we have had with DOTARS and the Australian Government.
Yesterday someone aptly described the community of Norfolk Island as "an endangered species." We can only hope and trust that the Justice system will protect us!