Labor welcomes this report.

The report addresses issues that have been neglected for too long. The report itself is long overdue.

General context

I wish to make a few general comments before considering the specific recommendations of this report.

Of Australia’s external territories, those with permanent populations fall into two discrete groups: Norfolk island in the Pacific Ocean and the two Indian Ocean Territories: Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

There are a number of similarities: all are small islands remote from the mainland; all have small populations; each has a distinctive culture.

There are obvious differences too.

Norfolk has a history as a convict settlement dating back to the earliest years of European occupation of Australia and later as a settlement for the relocated descendants of Bounty mutineers from Pitcairn Island.

Its economy survives on its tourist trade.

Since 1979 it has enjoyed a form of self government under the Norfolk Island Act.

The Indian Ocean Territories have a different history.

The Cocos Islands, until relatively recently, were kept in semi-feudal conditions by a private family that had difficulty differentiating between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

It had a plantation economy that sustained a significant Cocos Malay community that continues to make up the majority of the islands’ population.

Christmas Island was also enmeshed within the Imperial economy, although its primary value was the mining of phosphate for export to Australia, New Zealand and further afield.

Administration of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands was transferred to Australia in 1955. In 1984, in a United Nations Act of Self determination Cocos islanders voted in favour of integration with Australia.

Christmas Island was British Crown Colony until 1958 when it, too, was transferred to Australia.

Local government was established in both these territories in 1992, and both the Christmas Island and Cocos Islands shire governments have grown to become extremely important local institutions.

Differences in approach

This brief resume highlights the problematic approach adopted by the Howard Government to the issue of governance in its external territories.

In approaching the issue of territorial governance, the Howard government has been unable to transcend the individual histories of each territory.

The government has proved incapable of formulating a systematic, coherent approach to territorial governance.

As a consequence, we now face a series of contradictions.

On one hand Norfolk Island, the one territory that has been given a large measure of self government, is now in economic and political crisis.

The Commonwealth Government is belatedly, and a bit reluctantly, intervening.

The terms of self-governance on Norfolk Island are inevitably going to be reshaped.

On the other hand the two Indian Ocean Territories have never even been given the option of greater self governance.

Two points are relevant here.

Firstly, the Commonwealth Government has for the past five years had a preferred Indian Ocean solution that would see the two territories unilaterally integrated into Western Australia.

The reasoning behind this preferred option has never been adequately explained: no real discussions on this course of action have been held with the people of the two territories.

As a consequence, it is hardly surprising to find that there is no-one in either territory who publicly supports integration with Western Australia.

Secondly, the Indian Ocean Territories are well aware of the problematic nature of self government.

When discussing the possibility of self government, it is abundantly plain that they do not want to repeat the failed Norfolk Island experiment.

Those in these territories who advocate self government argue for different, more measured models.

So it is not good enough for the Government to argue that self government for the Indian Ocean Territories is not possible because of the failure of Norfolk Island.

In the aftermath of the intervention in Norfolk Island and, as a consequence of this review, we need a new debate on external territory governance.

It is not a matter of drawing back, or evading the issue of self government but rather of establishing a coherent policy for external territory governance that protects the rights of all in the territories as Australian citizens but which retains sufficient flexibility to meet local conditions and circumstances.

Recommendations from the Report

This report contains thirteen recommendations.

At this stage I wish to consider a number of the most important.

The primary recommendation addresses the issue of future governance.

It recommends that “the Australian Government undertake to develop options for future governance...in conjunction with the communities on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, with a view to, where practical, submitting options to a referendum of those communities by the end of June 2009 Possible options could include, but should not be limited to maintaining current governance arrangements., incorporation into the State of Western Australia, and a form of limited self government”

This is a considered recommendation. Is does not take self government as a given, but rather only possible if it the expressed wish of the territory populations.

It calls for effective consultation with the communities involved- a quality that has been notably lacking in this debate so far.

I urge the government to adopt this recommendation and do so in good faith.

The Government also needs to act expeditiously, to ensure that an adequate education campaign and other necessary arrangements can be put in place.

A further recommendation addresses another aspect of governance.

It also recommends that governance arrangements be amended in the immediate future to provide the two Shire councils with an expanded role, including acting as direct representatives of their communities with the Minister for Territories and a formal advisory role in respect to applied laws and service delivery agreements.

Other subsidiary recommendations follow.

The report also recommends:

• amendments to the current operation of applied law and the operation and management of service delivery agreements,
• that every effort be made to increase the number of flights between the territories and the mainland,
• that an investigation be conducted into the costs of sea freight to the territories and, as an interim measure, that customs and quarantine charges on freight travelling between the territories and the mainland be rescinded.

Finally, the report recommends that the Australian government review its curious and unilateral decision to block the licensing of a casino on Christmas Island, with a view to consult with the community and reissue a licence at the earliest opportunity.

These are all useful proposals, worthy of support.

Summing Up

This report canvasses issues that have been neglected for too long.

While I have concentrated on issues of governance, there is another issue that also needs to be tackled in a systematic way.

I am referring to the need to promote economic development in all external territories.

Tourism on Norfolk Island is under pressure while the major employer on Christmas island , the Christmas Island Phosphate company is suffering from the length of time it is taking to get key port equipment back into operation.

We not only need to protect existing operations but to identify new opportunities.

We hear a constant message from the Indian Ocean: help us to tackle the markets of South East Asia.

Help us with the development of tourism opportunities, and with the growth of niche markets in food products.

Ultimately, economic development cannot be separated from questions of governance.

This report has provided a broad blueprint and an initial timetable for this process.

Once again, I urge the Government to assimilate the recommendations and implement them as the beginning of a process for governance and economic reform for the Indian Ocean Territories.