Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

It is indeed an honour and a privilege to me to speak in the debate on the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 following two very distinguished persons speaking from the coalition’s point of view in Senator Humphries and former President Senator Ferguson. I only wish time had permitted us to allow both of those senators to speak longer on a bill on which they both have some considerable expertise. I am very concerned that, because of the gagging of this and other debates by the coalition of the Greens and the Labor Party, the debate on this bill has been quite substantially restricted.

I also indicate that, contrary to advice that I gave earlier to this chamber, the coalition will not now be moving amendments to this bill, much as we would have liked to. The reason we are not doing that is that the coalition believe genuinely that is in the best interests of Norfolk Islanders and that it must be addressed immediately. It is a regret that we are rushing it through on the last extended day of the last week of the last month of this tumultuous year of parliament, but I am told and accept that it has to be adopted today.

Our amendments—and I only speak very broadly because time will not permit me to go further—affected two areas and there is another area that I want to touch on which I think should have been addressed by the government. Generally speaking, in relation to privacy and freedom of information matters, we think the imposition of Australian rules on such a small community with a public service very limited in number should not have been put through the red tape and procedures that apply in a country of 20 million people like Australia. Our amendments moved in the lower house were along those lines and, I think, should have been supported. I am quite confident that, after hearing the debate, the two Independents in this chamber would have supported those amendments, which would have meant that the bill would have gone back to the government in the lower house to be dealt with on Monday.

If then, as the Labor Party indicated, the government did not accept the amendments, it would mean that this bill could not be dealt with today. Accordingly, an essential bill that is basically in the interests of Norfolk Islanders would not have been able to have been dealt with prior to the beginning of next year, and I am told that that is far too late. So rather than having that situation because of the intransigence of the Labor Party to those very sensible amendments, which they rejected in the lower house, it is preferable to deal with the bill today. For that reason the coalition will not be proceeding with the amendments which I foreshadowed earlier.

The two speakers before me have considerable experience in Norfolk Island and I do not even attempt to relate my experience to theirs, but I was for three years the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government and spent a deal of time on Norfolk Island in those days, and in fact was one of the ministers who started the process that has ended up where we are today. It has taken a long time, almost 10 years, to get from there to here. I say proudly that, back in those days, I commenced the action that brought a form of freehold title to the island, which I hope has been beneficial. But, as both Senator Ferguson and Senator Humphries have indicated, there are difficulties on the island that do need to be addressed, and this bill does go part of the way.

I say to anyone who might be listening to this: if you have not been to Norfolk Island, you should go there. It is a fabulous place. It is steeped in history. The scenery, ambience and culture there are worth experiencing and I certainly urge people to visit the island. These days it is, I understand, cost effective, although over the history of Norfolk Island the situation has been that, because it does not have a tax system, certain wealthy people do benefit from living there. But they got their money for government services by taxing the tourists, and, in that way, I have to say that they have contributed to the difficulties in which they currently find themselves. But it is quite clear that the island cannot go on financially in the way that it has in the past. It will need increased Commonwealth assistance. This has always been very obvious to anyone who has an interest in the island.

The amendment bill before the chamber now, as set out in the second reading speech which my colleagues have briefly referred to, does assist in regularising the governance of Norfolk Island. With a very small population, it has had a parliament of seven, eight or nine people—I forget; it had a ministry of three, four or five people; and it had a chief minister who used to have a ministry that was put there by where they came as a result of the vote. It meant that there was no collegiality in the ministry. The situation was very different. Every person had four votes, and you could allocate four of your votes to one candidate, or two to one candidate, one to another and one to the other. There were quite a number of other governance and electoral provisions which would have been seen as quirky, if I may use that word, to people coming from a democracy like Australia. This bill goes part of the way towards addressing some of those things. It would have been better had the coalition’s amendments in the lower house been accepted.

I just want to raise one aspect of the bill which I am not sure the government has properly and clearly thought through. Item 19 proposes the repeal of section 9 of the Norfolk Island Act and substitutes a provision which says:

(1)

The responsible Commonwealth Minister may appoint a person, or persons jointly or severally, to be the deputy or deputies of the Administrator in the Territory, and in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the responsible Commonwealth Minister such powers and functions of the Administrator as the responsible Commonwealth Minister assigns to the deputy or deputies.

(2)

The appointment of a deputy does not affect the exercise of a power or performance of a function by the Administrator.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Administrator’s role. The Administrator of Norfolk Island is, all things being equal, the same as the Administrator of the Northern Territory: he carries out an essentially vice-regal role in the same way as the Governor. Although on Norfolk Island he has slightly broader discretionary powers, which will be enhanced by this bill, in 80 per cent or more of his role, he acts on the advice of his Norfolk Island ministers. It is wrong for the Deputy Administrator or deputies of the Administrator to be appointed by the Commonwealth minister. When Mr Ellicott QC introduced the original bill in 1979, it was provided that the Administrator and Deputy Administrator should hold commissions from the Governor-General, and I would submit that that should remain.

The proposed amendment is purely for the administrative convenience of the department, yet it makes the fundamental error of treating the Deputy Administrator as if they are a public servant. The person appointed may well be a public servant in their other duties, but in their role as Deputy Administrator they occupy a uniquely hybrid office and should still be appointed by the Governor-General. It is wrong for the minister to be appointing someone who is required to give assent to laws and who may have to make decisions at their own discretion to seek advice and reserve laws for the Governor-General’s pleasure. It confuses the vice-regal type role of the Administrator and his or her deputies.

I believe this clause is also wrong in that it proposes that the minister may choose which powers of the Administrator he assigns to the deputy or deputies. So, on one hand, the Administrator is appointed by the Governor-General and has powers set out in the act and, on the other hand, in the Norfolk Island laws, one or more deputies may be appointed to have some powers but not others, at the whim of a federal minister.

Even at this late hour, I have gone through that at some length. I do hope the government will have a look at that and perhaps amend the bill later, when the additional amendments that are required, as was suggested by Senator Ferguson, are set out.

I have been handed a note saying, ‘Please leave Senator Lundy five minutes to close the debate,’ and I certainly intend to do that. I simply say to Senator Lundy: it is a shame that the motions I have tried to move to extend the time of this debate have been gagged by the Labor Party and the Greens. I know my two colleagues wanted to say a lot more on this legislation, but they have very generously curtailed their remarks to allow Senator Lundy, who I know also has an interest in Norfolk Island, to say a few words. I intend to cease now to give Senator Lundy the same amount of time as I have had to comment on this, but again I lament the fact that the procedures of this chamber have been so abused by the Labor Party and the Greens in coalition as for them to have gagged, more than a dozen times in the last two days, free debate on this bill and a series of other bills, including the very important telecommunications bill which we have had a very curtailed debate on over the last couple of days. With those serious reservations, I support the bill and urge its adoption before parliament rises.