Descendants of HMS Bounty Mutineers Have Problems with Authority, Too

Tiny Norfolk Island’s infrastructure is crumbling, but does that mean nearby Australia should take over?

On a small rock 900 miles off the coast of Australia, a hubbub is brewing about sovereignty and the right of unique peoples to self-governance. The residents of Norfolk Island, about 2,000 people living on a three-by-five mile chunk of earth, have enjoyed self-rule since 1979, when they argued that their unique history and culture entitled them to freedom from the Australian government. But in recent weeks, Norfolk Islanders learned that members of the sitting Australian government have decided to peel back the island’s autonomy, introducing legislation that would phase out the local legislative assembly and loop residents into federal taxation and welfare schemes, effectively ending the ability of island locals to manage their own economy.

Usually disputes over autonomy and independence in the South Pacific don’t catch much attention—places like French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and the Torres Strait Islands are just too small and far off to register on the international media radar. Yet the plight of Norfolk Island has garnered a significant amount of press because it ties into a beloved tale of high seas intrigue, immortalized in a number of books and movies. The residents of Norfolk Island are actually the descendants of the men who mutinied in 1789 against Britain’s notorious HMS Bounty.

Old Military Barracks converted to Legislative Assembly Chambers in Kingston, Norfolk Island. Image by Steve Daggar via Wikimedia Commons

Led by the charismatic Fletcher Christian, chafing under the command of Captain William Bligh, and eager to embrace the perceived life of paradisiacal luxury they had experienced in Tahiti, the crew and their Tahitian brides (and a few Tahitian men) set Bligh adrift and first settled on Pitcairn Island. Yet in 1856, just over 60 years later, 194 families descended from the mutineers appealed to British Queen Victoria to relocate them to some new, independent island to escape a famine on Pitcairn. The Queen obliged and moved them to Norfolk Island. Norfolk had been a penal colony from 1788 to 1814, then from 1825 on, a labor camp for Irish dissidents, which had recently been abandoned by the British justice system for being too costly to administer and, at times, too severe with its brutal punishments.

As the vestiges of the colonial era dissolved, the Norfolk Islands fell increasingly into the political orbit of Australia. But in 1979, they successfully made the case for their independence—the island was uninhabited when they arrived, and because they have developed a unique culture (and a pidgin dialect of mixed English-Tahitian), Norfolk residents are a distinct, indigenous peoples deserving of self-rule. Under the Norfolk Island Act, they gained their own nine-person elected assembly and court system and took control over their own customs, education, health, immigration, police, and social services policies. Island residents successfully protected their status again in 1994, petitioning the United Nations to reinforce their self-rule against creeping federal influence, asserting that Australia was only entitled to dictate policies regarding the island’s defense and foreign policy.

Norfolk prospered for a time on agriculture and a profitable tourism industry, paying no Australian taxes and receiving no welfare or social services from the neighboring nation.

But in recent years, the economic balance of the island has tipped. Most of Norfolk’s infrastructure began to crumble, having not been updated since the 1970s. And by October 2014, costs on goods had increased so much that the state was set to run a $5.6 million annual deficit, on top of already begrudgingly relying on Australian subsidies to their airlines to maintain what tourist revenue they had. Increasingly dependent on bailouts (by November 2014 they were in hock to Canberra to the tune of $11 million), and populated by fly-in-fly-out workers and Australians escaping taxation, many locals began to suspect that the federal government would seek to take away their sovereignty. Officials had been proposing that Norfolk Islanders consider paying federal taxes to get access to the same welfare as mainlanders since 2011, when the island’s solvency started to become an issue. And accordingly, in March 2015, the commonwealth government announced that with Norfolk Island basically bankrupt, failing to provide services to its own people, and (they argued) captive to the vested interests of a ruling elite, the feds would step back in, imposing taxes and central administration on locals for their own wellbeing.

As it stands, if Australia gets its way (and it seems almost certain they will), the Norfolk Island legislative assembly would be eliminated and replaced with an advisory council of federal and local officials until 2016, when elections could create a regional government. That summer, personal and businesses taxes would kick in, as would social security, state healthcare, and other infrastructural funds. However, it would take a number of years and almost $100 million to fully transition the island into integration with Australian mainland rule—likely by incorporating it into the state of New South Wales—and bring its facilities up to national standards.

Norfolk Island coast. Photo by Bob Hall via Flickr

Although many on the island might agree that they are in dire economic straits, and envy the resources of the mainland, it seems that they’re not down with the way this change has been proposed. Norfolk Island Chief Minister Lisle Snell has described it as an unfair imposition from the top down. At least 700 residents have signed a petition protesting the process, demanding more input into the future of their local government. Some seem to worry that the federal imposition will devolve into colonial rule, impinging on local practices and norms and eroding the unique culture that has developed over a century and a half.

Some of these concerns may be overstated. The people of Norfolk do have a point that they ought to have more of a say in their own governance, even if it means that their standard of living doesn’t match up to Australia’s. Right now, residents of the island are divided on the issue, with some looking forward to the benefits of joining a richer country, but it is notable that without Australia forcing the matter, locals did not choose to join the larger nation on their own. Some will continue fighting for independence, or at least some kind of compromise plan, until the legislation is put up for a final vote in May. And thanks to the attention afforded them, the descendants of the HMS Bounty’s crew may still get some kind of opportunity to shape their own future if enough pressure falls on the Australian government. Yet that’s a special fortune of the island’s flashy history—sadly, not every autonomous region gets that grace.

via Real Time with Bill Maher / YouTube and The Late Late Show with James Corden / YouTube

A controversial editorial on America's obesity epidemic and healthcare by comedian Bill Maher on his HBO show "Real Time" inspired a thoughtful, and funny, response by James Cordon. It also made for a great debate about healthcare that Americans are avoiding.

At the end of the September 6th episode of "Real Time, " Maher turned to the camera for his usual editorial and discussed how obesity is a huge part of the healthcare debate that no one is having.

"At Next Thursday's debate, one of the candidates has to say, 'The problem with our healthcare system is Americans eat shit and too much of it.' All the candidates will mention their health plans but no one will bring up the key factor: the citizens don't lift a finger to help," Maher said sternly.

Keep Reading Show less

There is no shortage of proposals from the, um, what's the word for it… huge, group of Democratic presidential candidates this year. But one may stand out from the pack as being not just bold but also necessary; during a CNN town hall about climate change Andrew Yang proposed a "green amendment" to the constitution.

Keep Reading Show less
Me Too Kit

The creator of the Me Too kit — an at home rape kit that has yet to hit the market — has come under fire as sexual assault advocates argue the kit is dangerous and misleading for women.

The kit is marketed as "the first ever at home kit for commercial use," according to the company's website. "Your experience. Your kit. Your story. Your life. Your choice. Every survivor has a story, every survivor has a voice." Customers will soon be able order one of the DIY kits in order to collect evidence "within the confines of the survivor's chosen place of safety" after an assault.

"With MeToo Kit, we are able to collect DNA samples and other tissues, which upon testing can provide the necessary time-sensitive evidence required in a court of law to identify a sexual predator's involvement with sexual assault," according to the website.

Keep Reading Show less

Villagers rejoice as they receive the first vaccines ever delivered via drone in the Congo

The area's topography makes transporting medicines a treacherous task.

Photo by Henry Sempangi Senyule

When we discuss barriers to healthcare in the developed world, affordability is commonly the biggest concern. But for some in the developing world, physical distance and topography can be the difference between life and death.

Widjifake, a hard-to-reach village in northwestern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with a population of 6,500, struggles with having consistent access to healthcare supplies due to the Congo River and its winding tributaries.

It can take up to three hours for vehicles carrying supplies to reach the village.

Keep Reading Show less
via Keith Boykin / Twitter

Fox News and President Trump seem like they may be headed for a breakup. "Fox is a lot different than it used to be," Trump told reporters in August after one of the network's polls found him trailing for Democrats in the 2020 election.

"There's something going on at Fox, I'll tell you right now. And I'm not happy with it," he continued.

Some Fox anchors have hit back at the president over his criticisms. "Well, first of all, Mr. President, we don't work for you," Neil Cavuto said on the air. "I don't work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you, just report on you."

Keep Reading Show less