A THIRTY YEAR WAIT (TIME WILL TELL)

At the beginning of each new year, the Australian National Archives makes available to the public significant and sensitive papers which have just been released from the usual 30 year embargo. This includes papers relating to Government Cabinet decisions made thrty years previously.
Our ears pricked up when we heard Norfolk Island included in this year's items of interest, with the revelation that the Fraser government of the time, desperate to distance itself from the excesses of the Whitlam government, had considered abandoning Norfolk Island because of the high cost of running it. Abandoning Norfolk Island completely had, indeed, been one of the two options suggested in the Nimmo Report, a fact that few remember. The other option had been integration into Australia.
The figures quoted as the cost of running the island was in the region of $2.5 million dollars. As small as this amount may sound now, I can assure you that very little of that money was used to directly benefit the island itself. In fact, if just a small proportion of it had been actually spent on the infrastructure that was handed over to us in 1979, our financial situation may well be very different! Indeed, the $2.5 million was based on figures supplied by various government departments, which leads one to draw the conclusion that most of that money went into bureaucracy. 'Twas ever thus.
Sir John Nimmo had declared that although these costs could not be justified on economic grounds, the following benefits (for Australia) should be taken into account when deciding whether to commit itself to retaining Norfolk Island as a viable community.
1.recognition of the 1856 humanitarian intention of Britain to provide a homeland for the Pitcairners and their descendants
2.the desirability of maintaining historical links including the preservation for posterity of the island's unique beauty and its relics, buildings and sites
3.the collection of weather data of vital importance to Australian and New Zealand commerce and defence
4.the provision of emergency landing ground for Australian and other international aircraft in difficulties on Pacific routes e.g. to Nadi (Fiji)
5.ownership of a foothold in the centre of a vast expanse of ocean which one day may yield materials or advantages to the Commonwealth as a whole.
6.an insurance against any other power attempting to exercise dominion opver the island; and
7.a potential link in any future defence chain
Now it should be remembered that these recommendations, and the decision to adopt them, were made at a time when the Cold War was still very warm, and there was a fear of Russian expansionism.
The Minister responsible for territories at the time was the Hon. Reg Withers, and the difficulties that the Norfolk Council of the day had in communicating with him were perhaps even worse than those being experienced by our Assembly in 2006. I suspect that in both cases, it was because the Ministers themselves were uncertain of which way to move, and did not have it in their power to give any definitive answers.
To his credit, Withers urged the Cabinet of the day to make an early decision and announcement as to its intentions, in order to give some degree of certainty to those responsible for government on Norfolk Island.
Two things stand out from all of this:
One is that Australia's attitude to Norfolk Island, and its stance on whether or not to continue to accept responsibility for this territory was very much about Australia's interests and needs, and very little about the rights or well being of the Norfolk Island people. Although a new spin was put on the rhetoric in 2006, it was still basically about how important this island is to Australia, and not the other way around.
Secondly, it is amazing to reflect on the fact that Australia would even have considered abandoning Norfolk Island in 1976, or that a man of Judge Sir John Nimmo's standing, a judge with a strong background in constitutional law, would even pose it as an option. To me, this suggests that Norfolk Island's "status" as an integral part of Australia has always been more a matter of political will and expediency than a concept with an irrefutable constitutional and historical foundation!!
It seems we may have to wait another 30 years to find out what lay behind the 2006 exercise, and its surprise ending.