Diplomatic relations between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Kingdom of Norway were established in 1970.
Australia and Norway collaborate in managing matters related to Antarctica. Both countries have Territorial claims in Antarctica, and they share a mutual border at 45 degree East longitude. They also completely accept each other's territorial claims in the continent.
Australia and Norway share similar views in many matters, including human rights, international peace and order, sustainability, and open trade. The two nations’ stances on whaling issues, however, are dissimilar.
In 2001, disagreements on the MV Tampa affair resulted in intense public exchanges between the authorities of Australia and Norway.
Bilateral trade between Australia and Norway gradually increases. The two nations have also entered into trade agreements and other affiliations.
Australia currently has no consulate in Norway, but instead refer to their embassy in Denmark. Norway has an embassy in Canberra.
Antarctic issues
Australia and Norway, together with New Zealand, France and the United Kingdom, are the only nations that jointly recognize the sovereignty over the territorial claims in Antarctica of each other.
Under the Antarctic Treaty, Australia, like Norway, each possesses two distinct territories in the region. Of their territories, Dronning Maud Land of Norway and Australian Antarctic Territory share a border in the east of the Norwegian territory and the west of the Australian territory at 45 degree East longitude.
The agreement about the limit between the two countries’ territories is the result of a settlement between Hjalmar Riiser-Larsen, a Norwegian captain, and Sir Douglas Mawson, who led the British Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE), in January 1930.
The formal recognition of Australian annexation of the Australian Antarctic Territory by Norway was obtained on 15 January 1939 when Norway informed Britain that the limits of Australian Antarctic Territory were accepted.
Whaling disagreements
Australia and Norway are members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Their views on the function of the IWC, however, are different. Norway is on the pro-whaling side. They maintain that the mission of the IWC is to achieve the whale stocks’ sustainability through regulation and management of whale hunting. Australia is among the anti-whaling nations. They hold the view that protecting and conserving the population of whales is the main purpose of the IWC.
Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which laid the groundwork for the IWC, there is a provision that gives members of the IWC the right to file an objection so that the objectors can unilaterally set their own quotas for whaling and avoid having to comply with IWC's regulations and moratorium.
Norway adopts a stance against the ban on whaling and advocates a resumption of commercial whaling. Norway has made use of the mentioned article under the ICRW. The country filed the objection to the moratorium in 1992 and resumed hunting whales for commercial purpose in 1994. Today, Norway still maintains its commercial hunting of common minke and fin whales with self-set quotas, mainly in the North Atlantic and are under no obligation to comply with any regulations or prohibitions of the IWC.
On the other hand, Australia protests any form of whaling (commercial or researching purpose) in spite of the status of whales’ population or ICRW's purpose and maintains the position that there should be an immediate end to ‘scientific’ whaling and whaling ‘under objection or reservation’. Australia is also of the opinion that there is a need for rejuvenating the ICRW to eliminate the provision that enable the IWC's members to avoid being legally bounded by the IWC's rules, which is also the article that Norway is taking advantage of.
Dispute over the freighter MV Tampa incident
Norway relied on the fact that Australian authorities requested for the rescue to claim that the responsibility for the Afghans rescued must be taken by Australia. In response, Australia denied any obligation to allow entry for the rescued people arising from the conveying the mentioned request. It was Australia's expectation that the determination of the refugees’ next destination, either back to where they were from or continue to the MV Tampa’s planned destination, be done by the government of Norway.
‘Acrimonious’ public exchanges were made between Australia and Norway as a result of both countries’ continuing denials of responsibility.