Angels and Eagles

A NEW START

2011-05-09T14:24:00.002+11:30

I note that it is two or more years since I lasted posted to this site. There was a time when I thought I would no longer need to. But sadly that is not the case. You just don't win one battle and sit back. Not when you are dealing with Canberra.
While we relaxed and enjoyed our beautiful island after the demands of Minister Lloyd and his government in 2006, the powers-that-be have re-grouped, and after waiting patiently for us to stumble and fall, through no fault of our own, they are swooping in for the kill with what seems like unseemly haste.

I have found it difficult to re-commence this blog, because I have not been sure what the main issues are that I have to deal with. It is not black and white as it was in 2006. Moreover, I have issues with our own government as well as Canberra and I need to tread carefully because I elected them to represent me. But I am intensely sad that they seem to be capitulating to Canberra's will and whims with barely a whimper. And some of them are suggesting that we should be careful of what we say because 1. there is no other way and 2. we do not want to upset Minister Simon Crean in case he decides not to come to our aid.
But what I want to say, clearly and simply, is that Australia took on responsibility for this island nearly a hundred years ago. Since then they have ensured we have no other voice except by going through them on the International front. They gave us so-called self-government in 1979, but placed enough obstacles in our path to ensure that we would never flourish or really be able to stand on our own feet or deal with the world on our own terms.......and now they are acting magnanimously over a small amount of financial assistance that has become necessary because of the Global Financial Crisis. They are pulling the rug right from under our feet to ensure that we will never succeed again. And in the meantime we will become just another part of regional Australia, losing our unique identity and putting 222 years of proud history and achievement out with the rubbish.

I only hope that if I start speaking up again, it will help in our search for a "friend in court". We badly need one.

2008-12-01T09:43:00.003+11:30

FOR CHELSEA......
...who has turned 18, and now she is old enough to vote, wants to know what are the real issues we are dealing with and how they will affect her and her homeland.

Dear Chelsea
First of all, congratulations on having a family who sit and talk things out at the dinner table! That is special nowadays.
I applaud you for having the interest and courage to ask the questions. It is, after all, your future. Some of us have reached the stage where we would not be seriously affected by changes one way or another, but we are very conscious of wanting to pass on a good future for you and your children.
I am afraid I cannot claim a lack of bias. You could call it attachment, engagement, commitment – but I cannot help how I feel.
I am not sure about facts either – what is a fact for one is different for another. The facts in the eyes of Australia may represent something quite removed from what we see as reality here on Norfolk Island.
The best I can do is pose some questions for you to consider.
If you ask what the issues are, you will get a different answer from everyone.
For many it is simply a case of:”Do we want/need/have a right to self-government or not?”
For me the issues are more complex, and they all overlap and impact on each other, but fall into these general areas:

The traditional and historic rights of the people of Norfolk Island They began as an independent self-governing people, and have never voluntarily surrendered the right to manage their own affairs. Is this still important, or should we “move on”?

Democratic rights today. Should the community have a say through referendum about what they want to happen? Should there be more consultation with our government and community?

The identity and cultural issues. I mean culture in its broadest sense of the special ways in which people express themselves, relate to their environment, interact with one other. Will the process of becoming more like other Australian communities dilute the things that are special to Norfolk? Will government welfare weaken the Norfolk spirit of self-reliance, resourcefulness and caring for one another? Will an increased regulatory environment damage our simple and relaxed way of life, or restrict our spirit of enterprise? Will Immigration changes affect the character and culture of the Island?

The practical and economic issues. Will taxation and along with it increased red tape and paperwork make it more difficult and expensive for business here? What effect will it have on employment, on the variety of goods and services available? How will it affect our tourist industry? Will it affect the ability or willingness of young people and families to stay here?

Can or will the Commonwealth guarantee we will be better off than before? Will this only apply to a few individuals or the island as a whole? Can we be better governed and provided for by Canberra, or is a small locally elected government better able to meet our needs? Should we look at Australia’s record in meeting the expressed needs of other external territories and remote communities? Does the Australian medical system, for instance, have more to offer than our own?

Is the Commonwealth acting in our best interests or is it more about Australia’s national interest? They say they wish to promote equity for all Australian citizens, and feel a responsibility for the economic prosperity and stability in the nearby Pacific area. Norfolk Island is strategically important to Australia, they already own the rights to all seas within 200 nautical miles of Norfolk. They own the fishing rights to this area and also the rights to the oil and gas in the area when the technology is developed to exploit this. Does this matter?

Can we pick and choose, and have the best of what we now enjoy, and the best of what Australia offers? Is compromise and a special deal possible for Norfolk Island, or will it be the ‘thin end of the wedge’ to being totally integrated into the Australian political and economic system?

Can we afford self-government? Is our government able to meet the needs of the people and the island? Are Norfolk people willing to pay more? Is the Australian government placing restrictions on our potential revenue-raising? Should we seek subsidies and grants from Australia? Is the model of government in the Norfolk Island Act too complex to run efficiently? Is our Public Service too big?

There are a lot of things to be weighed up according to what is important to you. For me, it comes down to “Will we lose more than we will gain?” and how it will impact not just on our material well-being, but on heritage, identity, social cohesion, values, or our simple joy in being different and living in the best place in the world..
I think you know how I feel personally, Chelsea. If you make up your mind, and feel passionate about it, that is great. But remember too there are people with a great diversity of views about all this who still have a strong commitment to the island, contribute to the community, and value Norfolk’s culture and heritage. If we let it become bitter and divisive, if fail to listen to each other, if we stop respecting, loving and caring for one another, we will have lost the battle to protect what is so good about this island anyway!
Best wishes
Mary

2008-11-27T22:03:00.003+11:30

SUBMISSION TO JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE
Mary Christian-Bailey

I am British born, but have lived on Norfolk Island for some 42 years. My husband and five children are Norfolk Islanders, and we all share a very strong commitment to this place. It is my family’s homeland, and my adopted homeland, even though I have been partially disenfranchised here by the Australian Government in recent years.
I will not enter into any argument about whether Norfolk Island is part of Australia or whether Australia has the right to legislate for Norfolk Island. The answer to both is probably ‘YES’, if only because Australia says it is.
But I would dearly love the Australian Government to acknowledge the following:
The people of Norfolk did not first receive self-government in 1979. They previously had it for 107 years until it was unjustly taken away in 1896. The Norfolk people did not start off as Australians. They did not have their roots in Australia, and they never migrated to Australia. They were never asked if they wanted to become part of Australia, or under Australia’s authority, and they were never consulted about being made citizens of Australia. Their history is quite distinct from that of other Australians. Their status, apart from the current self-government which it seems is tenuously held only at Australia’s discretion, is mostly a result of decisions that have been made over time for and about them without consultation or consent, and often without their knowledge. I defy you to find anywhere in the historical record that says otherwise.

In the light of this, you may understand better the deeply entrenched desire of the people to make their own decisions. These are some of the things I would like to see your Committee recommend:

That any action that is taken or law that is passed that affects Norfolk Island should be a matter for prior consultation on an equal government to government basis between Norfolk and Australia.
That no change be made without a properly conducted economic impact study, the results of which we have free and open access to. There is more to what makes this place tick than economic factors, but that would be a good start.
That where it is considered, by mutual agreement, that we need to lift our game in some area – and what government anywhere cannot say that – that the necessary action be taken by the Norfolk Island Government, under Norfolk Island law, albeit with some help and advice from your own authorities.
That before risking change to this island, both your committee and the people of the island should seriously examine Australia’s record on dealing with economic sustainability and cultural and social sensitivities in its own remote communities, including Aboriginal communities, Christmas and Cocos Islands, and struggling rural communities. One of your own former members described Christmas Island as “a basket case.”
That no change be made affecting Norfolk Island without seeking the will of the people of this island, through properly-conducted referenda. Send a scrutineer or observer if you like, if you really believe our referenda are manipulated and invalid as suggested by a previous JSC Committee.

What I would really like to see is for your Committee come here with a view to learning why we are so successful, and why, against all odds, we are such a productive, vibrant, self-reliant and resourceful community, and how a small remote place of fewer than 2000 people can boast ready access to such a wide range of goods and services, enjoying an enviable quality of life. And perhaps apply some of what you have learnt to help other less fortunate places. I know your bureaucracy finds Norfolk Island an untidy anomaly – but wouldn’t it be wonderful if you thought of us as “the jewel in your crown”, and not just “a thorn in your side”?

Now I would briefly like to deal with some myths. I am sorry that we need always to be on the back foot defending ourselves, when we would rather be moving forward positively on the front foot.

The myth that big is better. Every time you tune into the news now, you realise that the bigger you get, whether it is an economy or a business or any other entity, the harder you fall. We only need small government for what is a small island state.

The myth that this island has a culture of intimidation and violence and threatening behaviour, that we regularly burn each other’s houses down, that we protect murderers. It is to your shame that defamatory comments and numerous untested allegations like these are not only included in your reports, but two of your former members even went to the media with them. Your reports freely quote similar defamatory statements made by Nimmo from 30 years ago, and he in turn quoted negative observations from 1885!! Let us have facts.

The myth of a big divide between the haves and have nots, and the mysterious rich and influential people who stand in the way of justice for the disadvantaged on the island. You will have to provide some pretty good evidence for this, because none of us know who these people are. Many of us are asset rich but cash poor. Our family land is our children’s birthright and insures they can call Norfolk Island their home. But that will all be in vain if you manage to change the culture of this place and make it unaffordable.

The myth that we are heading for the status of failed state. This island has a wonderful energy, a high level of participation in work and leisure activities, and enviable array of easily accessed goods and services. We are peaceful and productive. Crime, violence and anti-social behaviour are at low levels.

The myth that we are blinkered into thinking this is UTOPIA. We work hard and with resourcefulness and creativity to overcome challenges and obstacles. We care for one another in hard times. We can adapt to growth and change – we have had to –but on our terms. We have responded readily to many things that have been recommended in previous JSC reports. Your own government has really only responded to one – and that was the electoral issue which managed to disenfranchise many long term residents, including some of Pitcairn descent. Whose interests are you really looking out for?
There is another issue which I would like to raise briefly. In your former report on Governance, whose quaint Latin name I will not attempt to pronounce, even though I studied Latin for five years, you said you did not consider it appropriate for this island to consider itself part of the Pacific community. But it is part of the Pacific community. It is a small island state, with many geographical and cultural connections to other Pacific Islands. And many of the people around me still have every bit as much Tahitian blood as many of your Aboriginal people have Aboriginal blood.

Try to see it from our point of view – impose inappropriate change on us from outside, meddle with our “can-do spirit”, turn us into just another area of one-size-fits-all Australia, and it will be like taking away our homeland and the legacy we want to pass on to our children.

Finally, thank you for helping to bring the new Fire Engines to the island. They are an example of our willingness to invest in infrastructure that will ensure a sustainable future. Your assistance was a good example of simple neighbourly help. And that is all we ask – a little bit of help to help ourselves!

Mary Christian-Bailey
November 2008
Norfolk Island
http://angelsandeagles.blogspot.com/
http://devonhouse.blogspot.com/

2008-11-22T16:02:00.006+11:30

STATING OUR CASE

The Joint Standing Committee for the National Capital and External Territories is visiting on what they call a 'Familiarisation' visit. Although this group, whose membership has changed under the new Rudd Government, did not have any particular issue they were investigating, there was no shortage of people wanting to speak with them. No doubt this was particularly important to folk in the light of the recent announcement by Minister Debus about changes to the Norfolk Island Act.
Now there are some on this island who are seasoned attenders of J.S.C. hearings, and make submissions every time. I am not one of them, although I have made written submissions.
And there are many like me who, in spite of holding firm convictions, feel a little intimidated about fronting up before this group of Canberra politicians. So when it was suggested by someone a group of us go together to meet with them, they expected to gather a handful of people. But within hours, just by word of mouth, a large number of Norfolkers had asked to be included.
And when we gathered at the South Pacific before our appointed time, they just kept coming, until there were 45 of us, with many sending their apologies because they were working the ship, or were unable to leave their work. And I think every one of us could think of many more who would have been there if only they had known about it.
Anyway, there was this group of Norfolkers, many Islanders and spouses, long term residents, and some who have been here a shorter time, but all feeling a strong commitment to this island. They were not from any particular family group, or political organisation or any other special interest group. It was obvious they were all just people who felt that "Enough is enough" and the time had come to speak out.
We were not called into the room until at least an hour after our appointed time. We were graciously welcomed by a smiling Kate Lundy, the chairman, which was just as well, because the others all looked a bit like members of the Glum family. We realised that they were somewhat overwhelmed by the size of the group, and they apologised that only half a dozen chairs were available. It was obvious too, that they thought it was time for lunch, because we were informed that our 20 minutes we had been allocated would be cut to 15 minutes, and that the following 20 minutes that had been allocated in Robin's name would be similarly reduced to 10 minutes.
Now most of those people there had come from their own place of work, and were busy people. It had taken some courage for many to front up in the first place, and we had been kept waiting for over an hour, presumably while other people went over their allocated time. We had planned our presentation to fit within the 40 minutes we had been allowed. There were some moments of tension, and it was obvious that many among us were feeling angry and "short-changed."
Senator Lundy quickly recognised the tension, and attempted to rescue the situation with a reasonable degree of diplomacy and discretion.
There were ten of us made presentations of varying length, beginning with our much loved elder statesman Greg. The body language of the Committee was quite fascinating. One or two appeared to bristling with the unexpectedness of the onslaught. A couple appeared to be bored and weary. I will not read 'antagonism' into any of it, but it was certainly not designed to be friendly and put us at our ease.
As people moved forward to have their say, I was just so proud of this group. They spoke with quiet conviction. Some explained why Australia's proposals would not work in a practical sense, some refuted the faulty assumptions that Australia seems to make about the island and its people. Others addressed the matter of the historic and democratic rights of the Norfolk people. Most expressed a desire to see a good working relationship with Australia, but with the balance tipped a little more in Norfolk Island's favour than has been evident in the past. Disappointment was expressed in the tone of some previous reports and the conduct of previous Committee members. The final speaker promoted the idea of saying 'Sorry' for past wrongs and injustices, so that healing can take place and we can move forward. All spoke with passion of their love for this island, and their belief that it was special, unique, and could set an example to the rest of the world.
Now an interesting thing happened. By the end, the body language had definitely changed, and most of the Committee seemed to be engaged and listening. They could not fail to have been moved, and I suspect that many of them had never heard our case stated in quite this way before.
Even if there had been time, we had decided not to wait for questions. We just wanted our firm and sincerely held convictions to speak for themselves.
As we left quietly, there were no long post mortems. Each of us just went our own way, back to our places of work, our homes, our families.
This had been a truly special time, a real grass roots gathering of representatives of the"Silent Majority."
But there was a disconcerting note. At the conclusion of our time, Senator Lundy stated that they were only on a Familiarisation trip. and would be making no recommendations. She urged us to contact the Minister Debus with our views. It did not sound as if she had any intention of passing them on!
So if they don't have time to talk to each other in Canberra on mutually shared matters of responsibility, what hope and confidence have we got that they would give much time or thought to our specific wishes and needs if they were to assume greater control of our affairs?

2008-11-19T17:41:00.003+11:30

OUR CHIEF MINISTER RESPONDS

Do read this statement, first shared with us in today's sitting of our Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. Andre was also wonderfully supported by other members. I am so proud of them!

Legislative Assembly Meeting 19th November 2008

Response to statements in the Australian Parliament

Mr Speaker, Members will be aware that on 23rd October 2008, two statements were made in the Australian House of Representatives in relation to Norfolk Island. These statements were by the Hon Bob Debus MP, Minister for Home Affairs, and the Hon Sussan Ley MP, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs.

As this is the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly since those statements were made, I wish to place on the parliamentary record a response to some of the matters raised. Of course, Minister Debus has in the meantime visited Norfolk Island and we have commenced a process of communication and consultation with him about future governance arrangements. I will continue to keep Members and the broader community informed about the progress of those discussions and to consult widely about the options available and about any firm proposals put forward by the Commonwealth.

Mr Speaker, I have previously expressed my disappointment that Minister Debus chose to canvass changes to governance arrangements for Norfolk Island without any prior consultation with the Government or Members democratically elected by the Norfolk Island community to represent them. He also made a number of comments about the sustainability of current service delivery and drew general conclusions that a growing proportion of people in Norfolk Island were becoming disadvantaged in comparison with other Australian citizens. It is significant that many of those conclusions do not appear to have been supported with factual data and were made before the Minister had made any inspection visit to Norfolk Island in his official role.

Mr Speaker, I know from the many discussions Members have had about these matters that we agree on several key points. Firstly, we believe on balance that self-government has served Norfolk Island well – while at the same time being aware of the need to constantly fine tune the structures and implement improvements. Secondly, we share some frustration that no matter how much information we make available about our unique economic, cultural and social models and our success as a largely self-sufficient community, we are constantly subjected to reviews by departments, ministers and parliamentary committees which want to radically change the way we are governed. We sometimes feel that nobody in Canberra is listening, or even attempting to understand our aspirations and vision for this beautiful place, or to help us with the problems we face as a small and remote community.

It has puzzled Norfolk Islanders for many years why there is such a disparity in views between the tens of thousands of everyday Australians who visit here (and in many cases return over and over again) and marvel at our self-sufficient and sustainable service delivery, compared with the constant criticism from parliamentary committees and bureaucrats who seem to want Norfolk Island to conform to some unrealistic model of ideal government, purportedly delivered in Australian rural communities.

The Minister’s statement has brought this issue into stark relief. We in the Norfolk Island Government see ourselves as being essentially in the business of service delivery to our community, in partnership with the private sector, non-government organisations, local families and individual community members. Our focus is on good outcomes in delivery of services which are comprehensive, equitable, accessible and effective. By contrast, it is clear that the Canberra club of politicians and bureaucrats are focussed on bureaucratic processes and massive over-regulation, not on outcomes. How else could they possibly believe that the way to improve services in Norfolk Island would be to extend a massive array of Canberra’s taxes, legislation and bureaucratic regulation? Do they seriously contend that their model has achieved better results in remote Australian communities than the community-based Norfolk Island model?

Winston Churchill famously said that “…for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”. Only last week, the Secretary to the Australian Treasury again called for major reform to the Australian taxation system. He highlighted the problems caused to the Australian economy by a complex web of 125 separate taxes and some 5,700 pages of legislation. Not surprisingly, we do not see the extension of these sorts of bureaucratic regulations and legislative complexities to Norfolk Island as being likely to achieve positive outcomes for our community.

The massively complex Australian taxation and social welfare systems have failed to deliver prosperity – or even fair and equitable services – to many Australians in remote and rural communities comparable with Norfolk Island. Indeed, the recent independent study by a group of prominent Australians for Desert Knowledge Australia concluded that many remote parts of Australia are akin to a “failed state”. They identified the characteristics of failed states as including poverty, violence, lack of basic services and lack of government legitimacy, and concluded that these are everyday realities in remote regions of Australia.

In a media comment on the same day as his statement to the Australian Parliament, Minister Debus contended that Norfolk Island was in danger of becoming a failed state, apparently because of his belief that we were “…falling well behind national standards” in some areas of service delivery. We do not agree with the Minister’s assertion, and I shall return to the specific details of those service delivery areas later. But for the moment, it is interesting to note that the independent definition above of a failed state related to the complete breakdown of law and order together with a lack of basic services. Nobody could seriously contend that such a definition could apply to Norfolk Island now or in the foreseeable future.

Any serious study of outcomes in remote Australian communities puts Norfolk Island at the forefront in delivery of health, education and welfare services. We are seriously concerned by the implication in the Minister’s statement that these services should be reduced to levels comparable to those delivered to other Australians in “remote mainland locations”, which do not have full service hospitals, fully free education from reception to year 12 or the range of welfare services provided by our government/community partnerships.

We have consistently provided information on our unique economic and service delivery models to government, parliamentary committees and independent studies, but it seems that nobody in Canberra can absorb that in terms of good outcomes, our system works well and has continued to do so as it has been refined and developed in almost 30 years of self-government. Our unique public/private partnerships ensure that we retain services that comparable communities in Australia have lost – for instance, among many others, we have two full-service bank branches, our own full post office, pharmacy, public library, police station and local radio and free-to-air television stations. Our community, unlike so many in remote Australia, is not losing services and shrinking in size or civic pride. Rather than acknowledging this considerable achievement, the constant focus from Canberra seems to be on “normalising” us to a model of a mendicant territory rather than encouraging our self-reliance and sustainability.

Minister Debus rightly identifies that in 2006, the Commonwealth spent a full year studying Norfolk Island governance, including the commissioning of several external studies by bodies including the Australian Grants Commission, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Centre for International Economics. Much of the focus of those studies was on how to introduce comprehensive Australian-style taxation measures in Norfolk Island and on extending many thousands of pieces of Commonwealth legislation to the Island.

The Minister goes on to note that at the end of that extensive period of investigation and study, the former Australian Government “somewhat mysteriously” decided in late 2006 not to make governance changes to Norfolk Island. The decision was not at all mysterious, it was based largely on the old axiom that “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”. Federal Cabinet looked at all of the information available to it, including independent econometric analysis by Econtech Pty. Ltd., and made a conscious decision that no change was necessary to the basic Norfolk Island governance model. The then Minister for Territories, the Hon Jim Lloyd MP, said that any changes would not be in the interests of Norfolk Islanders. On 20 December 2006, he issued a statement that governance changes “…would not be in the interests of Norfolk Island at this time as the Island’s government works to build a long term future for its community”.

It may be significant that the only report which was based on the negative economic or social impacts of extending Commonwealth taxes and laws to Norfolk Island – that is, the report from the Centre for International Economics – has never been made public. Minister Debus conceded during a recent visit to Norfolk Island that he has been unable to view the CIE report which was being treated as Cabinet-in-Confidence. The Norfolk Island Government has made application to the Commonwealth for access to that report a number of times, but it has not been provided to us.

It should also be noted that in 2006, Federal Cabinet had before it all of the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (JSC) to which the Minister refers. The JSC has not made a report to the Australian Parliament since then, although it is due to arrive in Norfolk Island later today and will no doubt issue a further report in due course, although it has no formal reference. In considering the future governance of Norfolk Island, The Commonwealth saw no need in 2006 to take action on the various reports of the JSC.

In fact, for many years it has only been the Norfolk Island Government which has acted to improve services or legislation in areas identified by the JSC, with the sole exception of action taken by the Commonwealth in 2004 to disenfranchise a number of Norfolk Island permanent residents, who were prevented from standing for office or voting in elections for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly.

As highlighted in our recent submission to the Senate Select Committee on State Government Financial Management, the Commonwealth has routinely ignored recommendations from the JSC and other parliamentary committees for action which might have had beneficial effects for Norfolk Island.

Without wishing to debate every detail of the statement by Minister Debus, I need to put on the record a response to some particular matters. The Minister stated that the Australian taxation system applies in other external territories such as Cocos and Christmas Islands “…without detriment to the development and governance of those islands.” We disagree strongly with this assertion, on the basis that those territories have never been given the opportunity for self-government which Norfolk Island has enjoyed and thus have not had the chance to develop the sort of self-sustaining and more prosperous model which applies here. As a consequence, we have had many years of full employment and do not experience the poverty and welfare-dependence of those external territories which have little real employment and minimal private sector activity.

Norfolk Island receives many approaches from other external territories, from remote and island communities in Australia and from our Pacific neighbours, seeking to emulate the unique community-based self government model which has served Norfolk Island well since 1979. They see us as the success story in this region of the world and a role model for their future development.

Minister Debus perceives that Norfolk Island has a significant number of citizens of high wealth and a “growing proportion” of people who are “significantly disadvantaged”. No evidence is provided to justify this view, which is not supported by Norfolk Island census data. There are in Norfolk Island, as in almost all parts of Australia, a small proportion of some citizens with substantial private wealth, and some on relatively low incomes. But the gap between rich and poor is much less than in most small Australian communities and substantially less than in Australian cities and suburbs. It would be hard to find a single example of destitution or poverty in Norfolk Island to compare with those in rural Australian towns, much less with those in central cities and depressed suburbs in Australia.

Minister Debus quotes the differential between the tax-free minimum wage in Norfolk Island and the taxable minimum wage in Australia as an example of disadvantage, without taking into account the direct and indirect impact of Australia taxes on take-home earnings and on household costs. For example, since there are no land rates or property taxes in Norfolk Island, these are not passed on to wage or salary earners in higher rental or property costs. Similarly, the Minister asserts that Norfolk Island pensioners would be better off under Australian social security rules. However, if the Commonwealth’s income, assets and citizenship tests were applied in Norfolk Island, it is likely that up to half of current pensioners would receive no social security entitlements whatever.

Norfolk Island has programmes for welfare, employment, health and education which are carefully designed to meet the unique circumstances of our community. We contend that while the details of these programmes are different from those in the Commonwealth, the outcomes are comparable, and in many cases more favourable, for those in need in our community.

Minister Debus asserts that Norfolk Island is “…falling well below national standards in areas like health…”. This statement is inaccurate and is not supported by the facts. We are probably the only part of Australia where public patients do not face any waiting lists for elective surgery. We provide free dental care at a fully staffed dental clinic for all children from birth to the end of school and to pregnant women. A Norfolk Island doctor describing herself as “stung into action” by the Minister’s statement, wrote to the local newspaper outlining hospital services as including “…casualty/outpatients, one operating theatre, pharmacy, Xray and ultrasound and laboratory services. There is a maternity suite with one delivery room, one intensive care bed and 20 general care beds, including those for the aged. A separate building is used for antenatal classes and a baby health clinic…” I add that other available health services include physiotherapy, pathology, blood bank, ambulance and emergency medivacs. There is universal health insurance in Norfolk Island – once again, on terms different from those in Australia but with outcomes designed to ensure a health safety net for every person on the island.

That said, we recognise the need for new hospital buildings and the Hospital Board has established two working groups which have made substantial progress on projects to replace the existing hospital buildings and to improve aged care facilities, within the resources of the Norfolk Island Government and community. These plans will involve the phased replacement of buildings in modular form, with first priority being given to aged care facilities. We are also conducting a current study into home care options for aged persons in Norfolk Island.

We welcome the statement of the Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs that the opposition “…stands ready to work with the government and people of Norfolk Island to achieve the best possible outcomes for this unique people and environment.” We regret that she was unable to proceed with plans to travel to Norfolk Island this week, but would welcome a visit from her at some time in the future. In the meantime, we will be happy to call on her in a future visit to Canberra to provide further information on Norfolk Island governance and our strategic plans for the future. We also agree with the Shadow Minister that the process of governance reform should not be rushed and should be based on sound and detailed consultations.

The Shadow Minister expressed the quite common view that “…Norfolk Islanders just want to be left alone.” That is not the case – we wish to work in positive partnership with the Commonwealth to achieve the best possible outcomes for Norfolk Island and all of its residents. While we do not see the extension of full Commonwealth taxes and legislation to Norfolk Island as being likely to achieve positive outcomes, we do look to the Commonwealth for advice and expertise in a wide range of areas.

This includes two areas highlighted by Minister Debus in his statement. We are in the process of developing new measures to enhance workplace safety in Norfolk Island, particularly in relation to mechanisms to deal with issues raised by employees or complaints of unsafe management practices. I am personally grateful to Minister Debus and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department for providing specific advice on how to proceed with these matters. Based in part on that advice, drafting instructions have now been issued for changes to legislation and regulations and I look forward to bringing those before the Assembly in the early part of next year.

Minister Debus also mentioned child protection and welfare as areas where attention was necessary to ensure that Norfolk Island measured up to national standards. We were already working on those areas, having identified needs to improve mechanisms to protect the welfare of children and to deal with offences against children. A bill to provide for children’s welfare has already been drafted, based on similar legislation in Australian jurisdictions. That bill is currently under reconsideration by the legislative draftsman, as we judged that some of its provisions were overly bureaucratic, given Norfolk Island’s circumstances. Draft legislation has also been prepared to provide for specific children’s court judicial functions. I expect that both pieces of legislation will be placed before the Assembly by the respective ministers in the near future.

Mr Speaker, what we hope to achieve from the discussions now underway with the Australian Government is a new, certain and more positive two-way relationship between Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth. We wish to see the removal of the uncertainty about the continuation of self-government which is so damaging to business, investor and community confidence. We wish to draw on the expertise of the Commonwealth and others to assist us with better financial programming and improved public sector structures and performance. We wish to work actively with the Commonwealth to ensure that new economic initiatives to broaden our commercial base are encouraged and supported by both parties.

We believe that we have demonstrated our willingness and ability to work closely with the Commonwealth on environmental and heritage protection and enhancement (for example in KAVHA and in Natural Heritage Trust projects), and are grateful to the Australian Government for the financial support it has provided in these areas. We believe that this model of close bilateral cooperation could be extended to other programme areas as a basis for a new governance relationship. In this context, we welcome the statement from Minister Debus that “…the Australian Government are working in many of the countries of the Pacific to establish political stability and economic prosperity and we have an obligation in our own territories to uphold those same principles”. We would be happy to work with the Australian Government on that basis, especially as we believe that there is much we can share with our neighbours about our successes - and maybe even our problems – in aspiring to similar goals.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

André Nobbs
Chief Minister

2008-11-11T16:36:00.008+11:30

FAILED STATE ?

Minister Debus used the term 'Failed State' in connection with Norfolk Island. He said that we were in danger of becoming one. It certainly caught everyone's attention, and was picked up by the media for their headlines after the announcement.

Of course, we on the island reacted too, and thought the term was a harsh exaggeration to say the least.

I decided to find out what exactly was meant by the term, and was soon to discover that 'failed state' has actually been the buzz word of the past decade.

The internet provides countless descriptions and definitions of the term. There are references to places where the government has lost control or the ability to meet the needs of its people, where there is violence, terrorism, civil unrest and uprisings and an inability to control borders. The term is applied to countries that have been severely weakened by natural or military disasters, and or whose coffers have been drained to the point where government is difficult.

The term has been applied to a number of African countries, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Haiti, Timor. In more recent times it has been applied to Iceland, to the Solomons, to New Guinea. I have even found articles referring to the United States and Britain as failed states, and this was before the current financial crisis.

And now, believe it or not, former W.A. Senator Fred Chaney has been referring to Australia's north, the rich mining areas, as a 'failed state' because of the levels of poverty, lawlessness and violence in those regions.

'Failed State' can, it seems, mean whatever you want it to mean.

It has become a term you use when a place does not meet your particular benchmarks or criteria or perceptions of how things should work. It is often used to justify your intention to intervene in, or interfere with, the management and governmental processes of that place.

So is New South Wales a failed state because it has had to cut back its infrastructure planning drastically, double its taxes, and faces possible bankruptcy unless it sells its electricity undertakings?

Is Australia a failed state because it faces possible budget deficit with the heavy demands placed by the Financial crisis? (We are currently being prepared for this by being told that it is alright to have a budget deficit, as long as it is in surplus 'over the cycle.') Can it be accused of being unable to meet the needs of its people because its hospital system is described as "critical" with an estimated 1500 deaths per year because of their treatment (or lack of it) within Australian hospitals?

Norfolk Island faces a difficult time ahead as does every economy of the world. We are not immune. But having a mini-economy that is reasonably uncomplicated, with our self-reliance in all walks of life underpinning it, we may be able to survive better than many.

On a daily basis we are hearing about rescue and stimulus packages being dished out to individuals,organisations and business and industry in Australia. It is all starting to add up to big money. Just imagine six billion dollars to the Auto industry alone, with no guarantee that it will lift it out of the doldrums!

We have not asked for it, but just the minutest fraction of that money would go a long way to putting our economy here streets ahead, because we know how to target our spending wisely, without all the bureaucracy and middlemen and one-size-fits-all policies.

Two years ago, Australia developed a package worth $38 million for justice, law and order in independent Vanuatu.

But if we were to hold our hands out for just a small percentage of that for useful infrastructure like harbour or airport facilities, they would come right down on us saying we could no longer manage for ourselves, and therefore must not be allowed to govern ourselves any longer. Anything we have ever been given- and that is precious little - has come with long strings attached. Not just strings, but ropes that threaten to strangle out the last vestiges of our free and independent Norfolk spirit.

But we are not a failed state. We are a proud 'island state.' We continue to be a peaceful, productive and optimistic little community. We have an enviable sense of well-being and quality of life. And we have economic reports that show that our economy is sustainable.

Let Canberra prove otherwise, instead of relying on outdated reports and misguided perceptions. Why can they not be content with just being a good neighbour to us, instead of a demanding big brother?

An island family celebrates the 90th birthday of one of its elders. These are not the citizens of a failed state!!

2008-11-09T13:00:00.008+11:30

AND SOME BUSINESS SENSE

If you were driving through the Australian outback, and came through a small township with just a few hundred people, it is not likely that you would actually stop unless you needed a comfort stop, ot there was a well-known tourist attraction, or you were visiting someone there.

Many of these small towns are struggling, and are losing more and more businesses, services - and jobs - each week.

Now Norfolk Island is a remote community, with just 2000 people, and boasts a wide range of businesses and services and retail outlets that would be the envy of many a country town with a much larger population!

I do not have a well-developed head for for facts and figures myself, but we and various members of our family are involved with business here in areas such as Tourism, Retail, and Trade and Manufacture, and we have a fair idea of how things work.

In recent years, particularly after self-government, our business sector has grown, and the need to travel to or order from the mainland has decreased dramatically. We hardly feel like a remote location, because there is so much available to us here.

One of the reasons is a strong spirit of enterprise among those who call the island home.

Another important factor is the low tax base.

Although a recently imposed G.S.T. has imposed a modest additional burden with costs and paperwork, this has not been a major change in the retail area, because it has replaced a previous customs duty on goods for re-sale. It has however, meant a new tax on services, but the transition has gone smoothly, and most folk have recognised the need for a broader based system of revenue raising.

Charge-out rates for tradesmen are still usually less than half of what you will pay in Sydney or Brisbane or Auckland. Wages are lower too. Absence of business taxes, and freedom from the restrictive and costly regulations and paperwork experienced on the mainland means that many small businesses can operate viably in this small community.Looking from outside one bank towards the other. How many small towns still have the services of even one bank??

Many will tell you that "freight is a killer," but that would be true of any place a long way from the source of supply, and most of us accept that this adds to the cost of many basic items, particularly the more bulky items like household goods and building materials and many foodstuffs. Infrequency of shipping services also means that storage and warehousing adds to the cost of goods to a degree. But we cope with this because of the convenience of having these things available to us most of the time.
Our government hopes that a harbour will help with the freight problem, because much of the cost arises from the fact that a ship often has to wait around until the seas are suitable for unloading. A harbour may be a long term project, but most business people see it as a necessary investment in a sustainable future.

Port facilities are, in fact, an area in which the Federal Government could assist if they genuinely wanted to give us a bit of help to help ourselves and ensure our longterm economic viability.

So what would change if we were integrated into Australia's economic system and tax and welfare regime?

Well for a start, business and company taxes and regulations would greatly increase the cost of doing business. And income tax would mean that much higher wages would need to be paid to employees to compensate them.

Most tradesmen here agree that charge-out rates would at least double.

Their services would be less affordable to their customers, who would already be coping with having a chunk taken out of their wages in income tax.

Similarly, goods in retail outlets would become more expensive. That would happen even without us coming under Australian Customs and losing our "duty free" status.

Australian O.H. and S. regimes would make our lighterage and cargo handling system incredibly costly, even though we currently boast a very proud record of operating safely over many decades.

The long and the short of it is that many businesses would close their doors. They may only have enjoyed modest returns up until now, but were hanging in there because of the pleasant lifestyle here. Many professionals and tradespeople would take their skills elsewhere. You would not only lose their services, but the money they put into the community.

Some may stay - but only if they could find another source of income, which is doubtful in an environment where the cost of employing people was rapidly increasing.

In order to remain viable, many businesses would "rationalise" and the first step would be reducing staff.

Some of the smaller operators would be swallowed up by the bigger ones who could operate at a more efficient level. Once again, this would mean fewer jobs, but it would also mean a loss of choice for the customer, with all the disadvantages of a monopoly situation, and loss of competition.

It is beginning to sound unhealthy, isn't it?

We now describe a situation where a lot of people have lost their jobs or businesses. Some will move away, and once again there is less money circulating in the community. Some will stay, but will need unemployment benefits. This will be a help, but does not pay for the extras which have given us a good standard of living here until now.

I have not even mentioned our tourist industry.

Visitors will also have to pay a lot more for their accommodation, their hire cars, their tours, and what they buy in the shops, and we will eliminate a big section of our present tourist market. We will also have taken away the range of choices they have, and we will seem a far less attractive place to visit.

And so the downward spiral will continue, and we will become more like that a small country town in its death throes.

So what if I am just starting a "worst-case scenario"?

Should we be forced to take the risk? Shouldn't we have the benefit of a properly conducted economic impact survey, such as the one conducted by the previous Federal Government, the results of which they refuse to release to us or even to the current Federal Government???

We understand that Treasury told them that integrating Norfolk Island into the Australian system will be very costly to Australia, but they seem to be happy to spend it in the name of "equity for all Australians" whatever that means.

Do they think the cost to us does not matter? We will always have the dole and family benefits and other subsidies to see us through, but they will have destroyed a hardworking and thriving community that has operated successfully and sustainably without those things up until now. They will have taken away a quality of life and standard of living that many envy.

Why not send a team to study how business works here in a low tax, low regulatory environment and take that model to their own small remote communities, dependent on welfare and subsidies and rescue packages and grants.

Yes, we do have problems. We do feel the pain of the global financial crisis and economic downturn. We do have a heavy dependence on a tourist industry that is somewhat in the doldrums. But we are survivors. We know how to live simply and sustainably. There are many ways in which Australia can help us, but taking away our ability to help ourselves is not one of them.

2008-11-06T16:28:00.003+11:30

MAKING SENSE

In his interview with George Smith on our local radio, Minister Debus said Norfolk Islanders were missing out on Commonwealth funding in various areas. For instance, the $1000 pensioner bonus could not be paid to our pensioners, and we do not receive health funding like NSW, because of legislative restrictions. He said it did not "make sense" for us to miss out.

But really it is quite simple.

On Norfolk Island, we do not pay tax to Australia and we do not receive - or expect - welfare benefits or other government services from Australia. It has been that way for a long time, and we are used to it....and even proud of it.

Back in the days before self-government, Australia ran this place a bit like a colonial outpost, and put a little funding into it, although a quite minimal amount, to supplement locally raised revenues. They did not really care that our pensioners were getting a meagre pension compared to Australian pensions, or that our hospital was pretty basic, or that much of our legislation was out dated.

What they handed over to us with self-government in 1979 was, we now realise, a bit of a mess, with obsolete infrastructure, outdated systems and methods of accounting, and a public service even then in need of reform.

We were to run the show ourselves and pay for it all ourselves. Perhaps they expected us to fail.

But we took it on bravely, if perhaps a little naively, and guess what? We made a go of it. There were initial difficulties, but we went from strength to strength as we "grew up" and learned to deal with our own island needs. And to pay for them. And now we have an economy and quality of life that is the envy of the Pacific, and we are now making enormous strides to improving our infrastructure and investing in our future.

The Minister was glad to point out to the Australian Parliament that our pension has a tougher income means test than in Australia, but omitted to tell you that it is paid at a higher rate than in Australia!

The Treasure Wayne Swan said the other day that in this current global financial crisis, he would rather be in Australia than anywhere else in the world.

Well, we can go one better. We would rather be here on Norfolk Island than anywhere else in the world. That is because, however tough times get, through no fault of our own, we already know how to work hard and use our initiative to look after ourselves and also look out for one another.

We may be broke for a while, but we will never be poor.

In the first of the 2008 ABC Boyer lectures, Sir Rupert Murdoch warned that Australia was unprepared for a golden age ahead, because it was in danger of institutionalising idleness and encouraging welfare dependency. He said "The larger the government, the less room for Australians to exercise their talents and initiative....it means smaller government and an end to the paternalism that nourishes political correctness, promotes government interference and undermines freedom and personal responsibility."
Australia should be very careful before tinkering round with an ethos and a mini-economy that have evolved separately from Australia to suit our unique social, economic and cultural needs on Norfolk Island.

It may not "make sense" to an outsider, but it works amazingly well.

We do not want to see the "institutionalised idleness" that Murdoch speaks of to take root on this island. We do not want to have our immigration controls weakened so that, in the name of equity, any Australian can come here and still receive unemployment benefits in this very pleasant environment. Most of all, we do not want to see the things that underpin our economy whipped away from us so that those of us who call this place home are actually forced to accept hand-outs.

We are not afraid of taxes. We have embraced a G.S.T in the past 18 months, and accepted the increase in paperwork and regulation that have accompanied it. We really want to pay our way, and many would be willing to pay even more than we do now, but we want it to stay right here, so that our "small government" can target our real local needs, and not those things that "big government" says we ought to have!

2008-10-31T07:04:00.003+11:30

WE ARE THE ANGELS AND EAGLES
The Prime Minister has said that dealing with the global financial crisis is "taking up truckloads of the government's time."
We know just what he means.
Dealing with Canberra's unfair takeover threats takes up truckloads of our government's time, money and resources.
It happened in 2006.
It will happen again.
It is almost as if they hope that the "failed state" thing will become a self-fulfilling prophecy as our Government directs time and resources into doing what they know is right and just for the people of this island, at the same time trying to maintain attention to the normal day-to-day issues.
We know Canberra is doing it "because they can," They have all the resources of big government and the public service behind them. They can spend big dollars, and they can easily get the attention of the media.
Yes, it is heavily weighted on Canberra's side.
But we have something they do not have. We are very proud to be Norfolkers, and part of a people who have built a thriving, productive and resourceful community out of inauspicious beginnings, on a small remote island.
We have something that we are strong and proud to defend, because we have created it ourselves over the years, and we know it works for us, whatever outsiders may think.
The French explorer La Perouse came across this island and considered it was not worth laying claim to, because its rugged remoteness made it fit only for "angels and eagles".
The British at first thought the pines may be useful for masts, and the flax for linen for sails. When that proved unviable, the island was only fit for providing a hell-hole for convicts who would be "out of sight, out of mind." Even that was abandoned eventually.
But it was good enough for the Pitcairners in 1856. It did not matter that it was remote and rugged. It became their much loved home, where, by the work of their hands and with a firm code of values, they developed a society and an economy that is the envy of many. They have been joined by many others who have espoused their values, and also treasure their island home and unique culture and heritage.
We are the "angels" and the "eagles."
We belong here.
It is our home.
We do not want someone from another place, another culture, another background, another way of seeing and doing things to come and change it. Turn it into something that is more like their own environment than ours.
We have love and pride on our side, and we also have fairness and justice, and we will use these as powerful weapons in the battle for the right to decide for ourselves the future of our island.

2008-10-28T07:50:00.003+11:30

CANBERRA'S CONTEMPTThis is the 12th Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, together with the two clerks.
They are about half way through their term of office.
When they were elected, Norfolk was very much at the crossroads.
The Federal Government had recently abandoned and walked away from its year long exercise to introduce governance change to Norfolk Island. In spite of our joyful relief, we were in a difficult position. Not only had the exercise used an enormous store of the time, finances and resources of our own government, but we had achieved nothing in areas where the Commonwealth could have assisted us in making useful reform and progress.
The elections that followed showed that the people wanted a change.
Old hands, including those who had been most useful in resisting Canberra's push, were voted out.
There was a generational change for a start.
But I believe we elected a government that we wanted to take us forward in a positive manner.
A government that would firmly address the areas that Canberra maintained were a concern, such as economic sustainability.
And a government that would seek to build a good working relationship with the Commonwealth so that we would not have to face the events of 2006 again.
The elected members accepted this mandate. They have been proactive in many areas, especially in planning for a more stable economic future.
There has been a focus on planning for future infrastructure needs, such as a harbour and international standard airport, and the maintenace of an airline, our lifeblood, in difficult times. These are areas for which the current Rudd government has taken the previous Coalition to task for neglecting, saying that they are vital to future economic stability and productivity. I believe they are important to this island too.
The task of building a dialogue with the Commonwealth actually got off to a fairly hopeful start. That is, until the election of the Rudd Labour Government. There were changes in portfolio arrangements, and the island now came under the Minister for Home Affairs Bob Debus.
The Minister has shown a distinct lack of interest in discussion and consultation with the Norfolk Island Government, and has taken almost a year to even visit the island.
There has been plenty of activity at a political level, with visits from Annette Ellis, the member of the Canberra electorate to which Norfolk Island is loosely attached, with voluntary voting rights. There has been the establishment of a Norfolk Island Branch of the Australian Labour Party, who have, "dem tull", been more successful in reaching the Minister's ear than our own Government members.
But on a Government to Government level, we have been shown something that comes close to contempt.
The Minister came to the island on Sunday. The main purpose of his visit was not actually to talk with our Legislative Assembly but to be involved in an International "Islands of Exile" Conference.
No doubt his announcement last week about changes to Norfolk's Governance were timed to conveniently coincide with the visit he was going to make anyway.
But he will not even speak to our Government until today, two days after his arrival. He will already have held many private meetings and discussions with individuals and groups.
Dialogue (??) with our government is low on his list of priorities of appointments.
This is an insult to the people of this island and their elected representatives.

2008-10-25T06:49:00.005+11:30

OUT OF THE BLUE.......BENEATH THE RADAR.......

AND BELOW THE BELT

That is how I would describe the tactics of the Federal Government, and the Minister responsible for Norfolk Island, Bob Debus.

His announcement in Federal Parliament on changes to governance on Norfolk Island came like a bombshell. And if I was shocked, how did the members of our own elected Legislative Assembly feel?

It came without warning, without consultation, without even the courtesy of simple communication at a Government level.

Ever since their election, and also since the election of the Rudd Labour Government, our own Ministers have genuinely sought to develop good lines of communication and a working relationship with Canberra and the Minister. They saw it as important to working through issues of mutual concern. They have not tried to "go it alone."

But I know they have found it frustratingly difficult, and Debus' response has been less than encouraging. He obviously had his own agenda.

When the Liberal Government decided to look into Norfolk affairs in 2006, with a view to making changes in Governance, the then Minister Jim Lloyd had the courtesy to give forewarning, and came to the island to make his announcement face to face with us, clearly setting out the steps that would be followed, with inquiries, studies and assessments.

This time all we got was a statement delivered in another jurisdiction, full of tired and outdated assumptions, sweeping generalisations, and a good sprinkling of misinformation. And this is the man who holds our future in his hands!!

Maybe the Minister thought he was sneaking in under the radar with his announcement while the media's attention was focussed on the worsening world financial crisis. Even at the best of times 2000 people on a remote little island have a job having their voice heard.
But we will be heard.
And we will be determined that this same financial crisis will not be used or manipulated by others to bring us to our knees.
The attack on our ability to sustain ourselves was not only beneath the radar - it was below the belt, and the arrogant lack of respect shown to our people and our own elected government is shameful.
The Minister will make his first visit to this island tomorrow - he has had many invitations - and his main purpose is for participation in an Islands of Exile Conference, leaving him very little time for the sort of consultation with our government and people which should have been his priority long before now.
He will find the Norfolk Island people - and our government members - respectful and polite as always. But he should not be fooled.
Many of us are very angry. We are angry that yet another Australian Government is acting in a high -handed manner, threatening our heritage and culture and our economy, and deeming it unimportant to properly communicate or consult with those of us who have so much to lose. It has been happening for over 100 years.
We thought that in that time the world had made much progress in the area of human rights.
Sadly we still need someone to stand up for the rights of the people on Norfolk Island.

2008-10-23T17:12:00.004+11:30

BATTLE BREWING

I must admit I have been sensing a threat on the horizon for a little while now, and have even been gathering "ammunition" from what I was reading and hearing. But I had hoped that as we went about our lives in the peaceful and productive way that characterises us here on Norfolk Island, that we would be allowed to continue to enjoy our uniqueness for a little longer before the onslaught.

Today, I chanced to be listening to Federal Parliament on Skynews Active following on from Question Time, when Minister Debus rose to his feet and sought leave to make a Ministerial Statement on Governance on Norfolk Island.

I was stunned, my heart sank, and what followed was even worse than my worst fears.

The long and short of it is that the Austraian Government once again proposes to bring Norfolk Island under its own Taxation and Welfare system, because he regards us as a failed state!!! He believes our model of government does not work.

I am disgusted, because these Canberra politicians, abetted by Canberra bureaucrats, are once again making decisions on our behalf which are based on gross misinformation, and misunderstanding of what goes on here. Even more galling is the fact that they are more prepared to listen to the views of people who I believe have been much discredited.

I mean people such as our former Administrator Grant Tambling. who did not even know when addressing a Senate Committee that Norfolk pensions are higher than those in Australia, and Senator Ross Lightfoot, who is on record as saying that the Norfolk community was hiding and protecting the murderer of Janelle Patton. Both of these men were quoted extensively in Debus' announcement.

I knew that the Norfolk issue was "on the table" and was being toyed with, with some nudging from the Norfolk Island branch of the Labour party (a body who are quite entitled to put forward their views as long as they are balanced against those of us who have no desire to be part of the Australian system.)

But I had hoped that good sense would prevail as Australia realised that not even her own economy enjoyed an ironclad security in the face of global financial issues.

No doubt they will now use the current worldwide economic difficulties to pin us down and "rescue us."

I an bursting with indignation, and will once again use this forum to air my views. They are mine alone, but in our Campaign of 2006, I know I had an enormous army of support from people who shared my feelings, and were glad that I could put them into words for them.

For a while I was not sure if I had the stamina for another battle. But I love this place and its brave and intangible spirit too much, and will not allow it to be subdued or extinguished before I have told the world - or anyone who will listen -that Norfolk Island is the most wonderful place in this world, functions in a unique way that perhaps defies worldly logic, and should be held up in the world's eyes as an example, not of a "failed state", but of how things should be done!

A THIRTY YEAR WAIT (TIME WILL TELL)

2007-01-03T17:17:00.000+11:30

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.

C IS FOR CELEBRATION

2006-12-20T20:44:00.000+11:30

Today I am posting my 100th message on Angelsandeagles.

Today it is with great delight that I report that the Australian Government has abandoned its plans to make its changes to the way Norfolk Island is governed.

The Norfolk flags have been flying and there is an enormous feeling of joy, relief, hope and vindication.

People who have quietly got on with their lives all this year, hoping deep down that this island was not going to lose those things that made it special, are openly celebrating, hugging each other, and declaring that this will be the best Christmas ever.

I will give Minister Jim Lloyd his due. Last week, Cabinet rejected his proposals for governance changes to Norfolk Island. This week, he came to the island and in an open, direct and gracious manner, gave us the good news. I know you need to be thick-skinned in politics, but that must have taken some pluck and courage.

I do not know why Federal Cabinet decided not to proceed, any more than I know why they ever decided they wanted to take away our self-government in the first place. But I do know that we have been needlessly subjected to nearly a year of doubt, fear, suspicion and anxiety, when we should have been able to celebrate our Sesqui-centenary freely with joy and pride. It was all so unnecessary.

But Norfolkers stood very tall and proud today. We felt like the mouse that roared. We resisted the push, but kept our dignity and integrity.

The events of this year have taken a great toll on the time and resources of our government, at a time when they needed to deal with some difficult local issues and problems. But I cannot begin to imagine how much the Federal Government has expended on this exercise. Even the Minister's announcement today involved an overnight trip in a Lear Jet with at least 6 other officials and relatives. No doubt it will all go into the ledger as Commonwealth expenditure on Norfolk Island. Nothing changes.

Looking on the positive side, our experience this year has taught us to value and cherish those intangible things that make this community and its people so special. That so often happens when you are faced with the prospect of losing something. There has been a tremendous feeling of solidarity and pulling together, with some unlikely people finding common ground, and quietly contributing in their own way to fight the threat we were facing.

There is a hard road ahead. We are not out of the woods with our economic difficulties. I could not help feeling I detected a slight note of petulance on the part of Canberra's representatives, a suggestion that if we wanted to go it alone, they would quite enjoy seeing us fall flat on our faces.

We must not let that happen. We must be determined to keep our government honest and accountable, and keep the lines of communication clear and open. We need to give them positive and constructive support, and embrace reform and progress where it is necessary to keep us sustainable in this modern world. Norfolkers must become more proactive and vocal about policies and decisions that affect this community.

Meanwhile, I believe that we must be extremely vigilant in our relationship with Canberra. It would be so easy for them to achieve by stealth those things they have failed to achieve in their Campaign of 2006. We should recognise that they have slowly and insidiously moved to Australianise this community, and dilute its special identity, over many years, and will probably try to continue that process.

It is my dream that we should develop a Constitution for Norfolk Island, and from that, advance the concept of a Norfolk Island citizenship.

But for now, we will be very grateful for our good news, for this wonderful climax to a difficult year, for the fact that we can celebrate this Christmas season with a feeling of peace and hope and joy.

THANK YOU

2006-12-19T15:33:00.000+11:30

Perhaps it is because this is a season of goodwill, but I would like to offer some thanks and support to our politicians. By that, I mean our local ones...the ones that you and I elected through an open and fair democratic process.
I know that it is not popular to put in a good word for these people, and that politician is almost a dirty word, but you have to admit that not everyone is made of the sort of stuff that gives you the courage to make yourself public property, accountable to all and sundry.
And let's acknowledge that when our own Norfolk Island MLAs put their heads on the line at the last elections, little did they know that they were going to have to deal with all the consequences and aftermath of Minister Lloyd's announcement last February. They were elected to provide good government for Norfolk Island, and suddenly found they were being dictated to by those who thought that Australia's interests were more important and overriding.
It actually took a long while for them to get their act together after Canberra's initial "Two Options" plan/announcement. But they had no more warning of this than any of us did, and after the initial shock (felt by all) they had the difficult task of discerning what their mandate was, and how their constituents wanted them to respond. A referendum was hardly an option, most of our previous ones having been belittled by Canberra.
Our nine members actually had differing views about what course of action to take...after all, they are only human.
But eventually, as members of the electorate and community groups began to lobby them with a strong clear message, they re-grouped in order to mount a defence, and hopefully even an offensive. It was a pretty painful time, but we have to acknowledge that those felt that hurt and ingratitude the most were gallant and gracious for the most part. And I would like to thank those who put personal feelings to one side, in order to enable our Assembly to have some strength and unity on the issue.
Dealing with Canberra was not easy. There was little direct communication with our government, and they had to suffer the ignominy of being bypassed and ignored on many occasions. Their endeavours to bring about genuine dialogue and negotiation were frustrated at every turn, and right to the very end, their attempts to promote constructive discussion and solutions received only token acknowledgement from Canberra.
Yet they remained positive, and continued to display to the Minister and other politicians, and the DOTARS officials not only generous Norfolk hospitality, but respect and courtesy far in excess of what had been shown to them. They went out of their way to co-operate with and show openness and honesty to the the succession of commissions, committees and surveys imposed on us.
Meanwhile, they had to get on with the task of dealing with local issues, including those very problems that Canberra had seized on for its rationale and reason for calling our self-government unworkable. It soon became apparent that the "unworkable" part was meant to be a self-fulfulling prophecy, as Canberra stood in the way of many attempts to improve and diversify our revenue raising. It was a real challenge to get around the obstacles placed in their way, as Canberra tried to dictate how our moneys should be raised and spent. Meanwhile promises of grants and handouts were dangled in front of our noses in a manner designed to undermine the credibility of our own elected government.
One of the biggest challenges was dealing with the misinformation and lack of information that was fuelling Canberra's push, and attempts to use "Freedom of Information" were unsuccessful. And for one of the most important studies commissioned by Canberra, the Study of the Economic Impact of Canberra's plans, we were not only denied the right to have input, but were denied access to the results.
It became difficult to make long term decisions for good government as provided by the Norfolk Island Act, when hanging over their heads was the enormous Question mark about whether that Act would still be in force in the next year. The words "if" and "when" were interchanged frequently, depending on your level of optimism and determination to uphold Norfolk Island's right to determine its own future. But our Assembly members did not give up, but continued to make decisions...difficult ones at that...according to the mandate they had received when they were elected, and in response to the challenges that were presented by an economic downturn. Indeed, it was a downturn that was being seriously exacerbated by the uncertainty and doubt hanging over our heads. Many of our government's decisions and policies may not have been popular, dictated as they were by stringent economic necessity. Some of them may have been unwise or even wrong...but we can let them know at the next election. We did not elect the Canberra politicians who believe they have the right to control Norfolk's affairs.
I do not know what Minister Lloyd will tell us tomorrow, although I have heard rumours. We will find out if he and his colleagues have actually done any listening. We will find out if our MLA's have actually achieved any success in their attempts to stand up for this island. Many of us have wished at times that they had been more vocal and forceful and pro-active.
But we do need to acknowledge that 2006 must have been an "Annus Horribilis" for our MLA's, and they have needed to demonstrate incredible fortitude and resolve.
And in this season of peace and goodwill, I really believe we should say a big THANK YOU to them.

MEETING THE DEADLINE

2006-12-11T10:37:00.000+11:30

The Federal Parliament has gone into recess for Christmas, but if you thought this meant a 'stay of execution' for Norfolk Island, you may well be wrong. Cabinet is to hold its final meetings for the year early this week, and this is the time that major policy decisions are made for the coming year.
It was this time last year that Minister Lloyd was given his instructions to "fix" the Norfolk Island problem over the next 12 months.
Will the Minister meet his deadline?
Has he succeeded with his rapid "whistle stop" journey armed with the TWO BROAD OPTIONS (in other words, choose the lesser of two evils)?

Has he managed to avoid being sidetracked by those of us trying to persude him that these "final solutions" for Norfolk Island are not only unnecessary, but harmful and unjust?

Has he actually heard us tell him that they have it all wrong, that not only do they not know the answers, they do not even ask the right questions?

It is hard to imagine that the Minister and his army of DOTARS advisors could not have been just a tiny bit moved by the intense sadness of those who fear they will be witnessing the loss of a very special and unique community and of values and a heritage they hold dear.
You cannot tell me that Canberra has not become aware of growing numbers of people on this island who, in spite of initially welcoming or accepting the Australian government's proposals in a spirit of goodwill, have become increasingly sceptical about the detail- or the lack of it - and the obvious self-interest behind it all.
It is difficult to believe that the input of our own elected government, constructive and positive proposals to implement beneficial changes to meet the island's real needs and satisfy mutual concerns, would have completely fallen on deaf ears.
Surely warning signals should have sounded when Australia began to see the unwanted effects of paternalism and bullying in the Solomons and Papua New Guinea. It is a sad reflection on a country like Australia if increasing arrogance and desire to spread the boundaries of its influence and its economic resources blinds that country to the fact that the "Australian way" may be the best for Australians but is not necessarily the best for its island neighbours.
There is no doubt that the Minister has faced increasing dilemmas, doubts, distractions and discomposure over the Norfolk Island issue.
But will political expediency win out anyway?

Will the Minister dutifully meet his deadline?

Or will he have the courage to say"Look, I think we may be have got it wrong. We need to go back to the drawing board"

Will we be allowed to enjoy a truly happy Christmas?

WALK RIGHT IN

2006-11-25T14:36:00.000+11:30

I apologise for a longish posting today. But the juggernaut of imminent change rolls swiftly on, and there are still so many questions unanswered about the implications for this island. Immigration is one of the serious issues we must confront.
When the Pitcairners first relocated to Norfolk Island, it was expected that they would wish to continue in the relative isolation that they had known on Pitcairn. Indeed, Captain Denison more or less instructed them that they were not to allow others in, or to buy and sell their land that was being granted to them.
Such advice may have been well-intentioned, but it was paternalistic and misguided. When the Pitcairners had expressed a desire to be left alone, they meant that they wanted to go on managing their community life in their own way, and according to their own laws and customs.
Fortunately, the Pitcairners did not realise that they were being looked on, by the outside world, almost as a museum curio which should be kept in strictly controlled conditions, and an almost rarified atmosphere. In fact, they were far more realistic and practical. Over the next few decades, quite a number of people joined the community, much to the annoyance of the colonial authorities. In some cases these were people who were able to bring skills and qualifications which were to prove useful. This enhanced the economic life of the community. There were new settlers who married into the Pitcairn families, such as those from the Melanesian Mission. Those who were welcomed into the community, and stayed for the long term, tended to be those who accepted the way of life and the codes of laws and values of the original settlers and their descendants. They were people who were prepared to pull their weight and make a contribution towards the well-being and sustainability of the island.
Funny....this all sounds very much like the criteria that Australia uses for its Immigration regime today....having needed skills and qualifications, family connections, willingness to espouse Australian values. Much has been said about that one recently.
With loss of control of our own immigration, the situation is going to be like this. Anyone who qualifies as suitable to immigrate into Australia will automatically be deemed suitable to move to Norfolk Island. A willingness to espouse Norfolk values will not be necessary. There will be no periods of time to qualify for residency here. No criteria...as long as you are coming from Australia. People wanting to come from anywhere other than Australia or New Zealand will find it far more difficult, however well-suited we may consider them to be. Even for Norfolk Islanders and people of Pitcairn descent. That special relationship with the island will count for nothing.
Thinking we are so naive that we do not know the difference between Immigration and population control, the Commonwealth has told us we just need to solve any potential difficulties through planning controls. It is OK for them to have criteria other than simple numbers, but not for us. We will be like Lord Howe where you only need an address to live there! Except that there are a lot more available addresses on this island, particularly if you have a bit of money behind you. After all, the locals won't be able to afford them. The good things in the community that we have built up, with very little outside help..things like our well-run school and hospital, communtiy facilities and amenities, and less tangible things like our community spirit and way of life...anyone will be able to avail themselves of these just as long as they have that Australian passport.
We do know the difference between Immigration and Population control, but unfortunately, we made the mistake of not distinguishing between residency and citizenship. We treated Residency as something to be earned and cherished, and although having ethnic ties to this island and its people was helpful in achieving that residency, once you had it, you enjoyed full citizenship rights on this island, whatever your background. No discrimination. We were exercising equality and human rights long before Australia started making an issue of it!
It is Australia who has introduced the concept of two classes of citizen on this island...those who can vote and stand for the Assembly, and those who can't. And those who can't include people of Pitcairn descent, and people who have lived here for a large chunk of their lives.
Yes, a large percentage of people here have Australian citizenship. Anyone born before 1949 had it conferred on them without their consent or knowledge. That is all that counts nowadays. Your connection to this island means nothing.
Some say that losing control of Immigration will not matter, because we have only had an Immigration regime for a few decades anyway. But 50 years ago, there was a difference. Norfolk Island was far more isolated, and making the move to settle here involved a considerable commitment and willingness to adapt. Even more important was the fact that you were moving to a place with its own system of laws, different from those in Australia.
If Canberra has its way, anyone who chooses to hop on a plane and buy or rent a place here will be able to. And because we will be living under Commonwealth law, those people will expect to enjoy the same rights and facilities as in any place on the Australian mainland...and will be able to demand them. And if they feel marginalised or discriminated against, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunties Commission will be on the case as quick as a flash. We can already thank that body for the change in our electoral laws. There will be no more more saying that we do things differently here. Some of the Australian politicians have told us that we shoud be negotiating over what Commonwealth laws should apply here, but that is an empty hope. At this stage they are not showing many signs af actually listening.
For one thing, your jobs will be up for grabs. Forget the reassurances that Centrelink will not be allowing people to come and look for jobs in areas where there is high unemployment. There are jobs here for them..and the one you were hoping to qualify for is one of them.
And did you know that Centrelink and its agencies has already been subsidising people on their books to come here and take up positions? And that it recently sought to establish a Work-for-Dole scheme for unemployed people on their books who wanted to go on living here after they lost their jobs? Signs of things to come!!
That is just one of the many implications of losing control of Immigration.
But there is worse to come. Because your Australian citizenship actually does not mean everything you thought it did. If you read the article in the Norfolk Islander about the Ame Case, and were able to delve through all the legal jargon, you will have discoverd that citizenship is not an entrenched right for all Australians. At least, it is not if you happen to have dual citizenship, or if you hold it by virtue of being born in one of Australia's external territories. You could lose it. That is how the High Court reads things from the Australian constitution.
I believe that both Australia and Norfolk Island should take a much longer, harder look at all the implications of what is proposed. We should be asking a lot more questions, and if they cannot answer them, then we should insist that they we will just not accept any changes until we are satisfied with the answers.
Is Australia really interested in human rights, or just Australian rights?

RESCUE.....OR PILLAGE???

2006-11-19T14:59:00.000+11:30

Our N.I. Government ministers have been holding further talks in Canberra. We have had very little feedback at this stage, but it is to be hoped that the debate and dialogue have proceeded on a more reasonable and rational basis than the exaggerated misrepresentations we heard from the Senate debate on the Norfolk Island situation.
Following on from his incredible statements about the lack of provision of basic services and human rights on Norfolk Island....e.g phones, roads, power, garbage disposal,water, pensions, aged care etc, Senator Kim Carr proceeded to criticise "well-orchestrated efforts of island diehards who would have us believe that Norfolk Island is some sort of Utopia." He proceeds to assert, and one wonders where he got his information from, that most islanders want current arrangements to change, and then, in a massive sweep of arrogance, says
"Only the Commonwealth of Australia can guarantee (those) basic human rights."
Let us say from the outset that no one should be apologetic about being very proud of their island, their homeland. Proud of what has been achieved, enthusiastic about our way of life, and very thankful for a good standard of living. Just as you would expect Australians to be proud of their nation.
That does not mean we promote it as Utopia. We have problems like anywhere else ...and we have the means to deal with them. We have faced incredible demands for change in recent decades, and have managed them extremely well..and will continue to do so. We accept that by sheer virtue of our small population and our geographic isolation, there are challenges living here on our small island. Those who were born here have grown up with those challenges, others of us have chosen to accept them because the compensations of living on this island are enormous.
Yes, we accept that freight costs make many things a little dearer here. We often have to wait for the ship to bring needed supplies of this or that item. There is not always the same choice or access you would have living in a larger centre. There may not be the same range of skilled and specialised services and facilities.
But we are resourceful. We improvise and we recycle. We get off our backsides and do things for ourselves instead of sitting round waiting. We become multi-skilled. We sort out our priorities and we get creative. We are careful with our resources, especially our water and our power.....even if it means saving a bit of money using candles in the evening. (But if you drive around the island in the evening, you will know that not many have chosen that course!) We tailor our services so they are targetted to meet our real needs, with the minimum of wastage. Is that such a bad thing in today's world where waste, red tape and mass consumerism are causing such problems?
Above all, most people here feel a sense of responsibility to this community and the well-being of those in it, and there are many individuals and community groups quietly enhancing the lives of those around them, and giving of their time, skills and resources to keep this a very good place to live in.
We are told that there are some shortfalls in labelling and signage on chemicals and hose reels at our airport.......but our government has done a magnificent job in keep the planes flying reliably to this island!
We are told that the hospital storage and maintence shed are not up to (someone else's) standard....but our mums can still have their babies here, and our low tax status enables us to attract quality doctors.
Our visitors tell us time and time again that they envy our way of life, and no one, absolutely no one, has been able to describe any country town or isolated community in Australia, with a similar population, that enjoys anywhere near the level of facilities and services that we have on this island.
I cannot help having this vision of Australian politicians and bureaucrats, fancying themselves as our rescuers, dressed as knights in shining armour, riding in on their white chargers, and scooping up the damsel in distress and carrying her off to their castles. Except that this little island is not a damsel in distress. You simply cannot offer us anything better than we already have or better than we are capable of achieving if we are given a little bit of help and understanding to get on with the job ourselves.
If our Senator friends are really concerned about human rights, democracy and fairness are right there near the top. Instead of trampling on our rights, they should be making a stand to uphold our right to choose for ourselves.

A PEOPLE AND A PLACE

2006-11-16T17:25:00.000+11:30

The frustration of still not knowing what will happen to this island continues, and as Christmas approaches, the prospect of celebrating that season with either uncertainty or bad news hanging over our heads is a worrying one.
But things are happening. The High Court has heard our case. Their judgment will take quite some time, and even then it will be a majority decision of seven judges who are known to approach their task in different ways, and frequently reach different conclusions. Constitutions are funny things, and it is sometimes difficult to interpret something that was framed some time ago in a way that reflects modern values and needs. And, as Judge Michael Kirby reminded the court
"we have to give effect to the Constitution of the Commonwealth. That is our constitutional duty. "
In other words. it is the Australian Constitution and Australian law which will form the basis of their final judgment.
I have been wading through the transcript, and some of the legal jargon and references are daunting. But a couple of things stand out in my mind. The first is that both sides of the case are somewhat short on the facts about this island, its people, their background and their way of life, and if I had been there in the courtroom, I would have been very tempted to interrupt and correct a few basic errors of fact, things that are very obvious to anyone who has actually lived here and thrown their lot in with this community.
The second aspect of the case and the associated legal argument is this..... much of it seems to centre on the theme of Norfolk Island as a geographical place, as opposed to Norfolk Island as a "people". Counsel for the Commonwealth took the view that Norfolk Island(the place) came under Australia's jurisdiction, and therefore whoever lives here (even if it were just penguins as on Heard Island) also come automatically under Australia's jurisdiction. Australia legislates for Norfolk Island simply because it can!!
The fact that the Norfolk Island people are a distinct community, with their own ethnicity, history, roots and traditions is, according to the Commonwealth's Counsel, irrelevant. Indeed, he goes on to question the right to even use the words distinct or separate in relation to Norfolk Island. He makes the following points:
*that we are no more a "distinct and separate settlement" than, say, Byron Bay or other country towns or settlements within Australia.
*that saying that we are Norfolk Islanders from Norfolk Island is no different to saying we are Tasmanians from Tasmania.
*that different ethnicity carries no weight, because there are many other ethnic groups in Australia, such as the descendants of the German settlers in Hahndorf in S.A.
That sort of thinking is what we are up against.
It is ignorant and it is false.
But it is something they trot out frequently. In a letter to Mr Rick Kleiner, Minister Lloyd said:(Norfolk Island's) 'cultural differences are no more pronounced than those of other communities within Australia.'
He proceeds to back up these insulting claims by quoting from Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, from The Joint Standing Committee's 2003 Report, the Nimmo Commission, and the Berwick Case in the High Court.
These are, of course, all Australian bodies, making judgments and observations, as usual, from an Australia-centric point of view. It is a view that the people of Norfolk Island, those of Pitcairn descent, and the others who have married into the Pitcairn community or who have thrown their lot in and made this their home, must strongly and proudly deny and resist.
The consequences of allowing this view of Norfolk Island are dire.
*Our culture will be reduced (in Australia's eyes)to a few recipes, a bit of island dancing, a handful of public holidays, an odd dialect to which they will pay a bit of token lipservice.
*Norfolk Island will no longer be a "homeland". Those German settlers of Hahndorf who decided voluntarily to migrate to Australia, for whatever reasons, accepted that they were leaving Germany behind, and making a new life with the people of another country. Their homeland, Germany, is still there. Australia wants to take away our right to call Norfolk Island our special place, our homeland where we have our roots, a place to which we belong in a special sense, and a place with values and traditions that have developed separately from Australia. If they take that away, we have nothing left. We are just a few insignificant and indistinguishable drops in a big Australian ocean. Not only will we have lost our sense of this being "our place", but we will be diminshed as a people.
To read the transcript of the High Court proceedings
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/hca/transcripts/recent-transcripts.html
To read the Minster's reply to Rick Kleiner asking whether he considers that Norfolk Island has an indigenous population
http://www.nagnorfolk.com/Indigeneous.pdf

NOT GOING ANYWHERE

2006-11-11T10:39:00.000+11:30

"This claim has come out of nowhere" said David Bennett, the legal Counsel for the Commonwealth, defending the High Court Case in which the Norfolk Island Government and residents have questioned Australia's right to legislate for an island which regards itself as a distinct and separate settlement.
Tell that to all those Norfolk Islanders who have grown up believing that this island was given to them in 1856 to live in according to their own laws and customs. They believe this firmly, and their parents and grandparents believed it before them. It is not something they have just recently invented in order to hold Australia's laws and taxes at bay. It is something that has always gone to the very core of their being and identity as a people.
This case is not a frivolous one. The traditional belief of Norfolk's people is backed by considerable evidence that has been presented by some great legal and constitutional experts. In spite of the efforts of Australia over many decades to take away our rights and identity by stealth, and and to deflate the issue by a gradual and insidious process of "Australianisation", it just will not go away. Here on Norfolk Island there is a people, a community which is justly proud of what they has been achieved and developed through hard work and resourcefulness over more than 200 years from somewhat inauspicious beginnings and roots. They are proud of their British heritage, albeit through mutineers, and they are proud of their strong Polynesian heritage, which played a strong part in forging the community we know today.
The irony is that Norfolk Island has also been reasonably happy with its close association with Australia, firstly through the colonial authorities and later through coming under the protection of the Commonwealth. Yes, there was discontent about the breaking of promises and the reneging of commitments, and there was frustration and disappointment about the lack of consultation and the passing of legislation without the knowledge or consent of the island's people. From time to time, resentment would surface when Commonwealth authorities were out of touch with the island's real needs, or when their concerns and advice were ignored or overridden. But as long as the island was being governed for the benefit of its own people, and the advice of the Island's council was recognised and acted upon, Norfolkers were generally content, as long as they were able to continue to meet the needs of the community, and live according to their own customs and values.
But that was not good enough for Australia, who regarded Norfolk as an annoying anomaly. The Nimmo Report in the 70's recommended to absorb the island right into mainstream Australia or abandon it altogether. All or nothing!
Fortunately, there were those who had sufficient vision to see that a middle ground was still possible, and indeed this could be a better system than before. That was how we ended up with the Norfolk Island Act of 1979. This island courageously embraced this opportunity to manage its own affairs and finances, and most of us believe we have done a magnificent job, albeit without the genuine support and review processes that were initially promised by Australia.
It was Robert Ellicot who was the architect of this process of self-government, and it is this ame man who is now prepared to defend not only his vision, but the historic rights of the Norfolk Island people.
I am prepared to say that even if Norfolk Island were to lose this case on legal or technical or constitutional grounds, the moral issue will not go away. Promises were made to those early Pitcairners to persuade them to exchange their traditional homeland for a new one. And for 150 years, they have regarded this as their homeland, despite attempts to make it a part of middle mediocre Australia. I have said it before, but what Canberra wants to do does not mean taking us back to the days before self-government. Canberra once again wants all or nothing. No middle ground.
It will take us into a new era, where we will be governed solely for the benefit if a wider Australia and for any Australians who choose live here. And the gate will be firmly closed behind us. This is why we must have some legal recognition of what Norfolk Islanders have always known....NOW. And our traditional rights must be recognised and entrenched in such a way that they cannot be taken away on the whim of a government whose attitudes and policies seem to belong back in a past colonial era.

PUTTING IT TO THE TEST

2006-11-06T16:13:00.000+11:30

In a democracy, people elect governments, governments make laws, and then the judges decide whether those laws are being kept as they were intended to.
And that will be the job of the High Court when it meets to hear the Norfolk Island case today.
But while we must leave it to the Honorable judges to test whether Australia has acted properly and constitutionally in legislating for Norfolk Island, we should be very concerned about the fairness of what is going on in the Australian parliament.
As I said, the politicians there are elected by the Australian people, usually on the grounds of their policies, abilities and record. It is their job to ascertain the needs and views of their constituents whom they represent. This initially happens at the ballot box, but during their term of office it is achieved by talking and listening, consulting and studying issues. If they get it wrong, then they will find out when they go back to the ballot box.
The trouble is that we currently have Australian politicians making sweeping and distorted statements and allegations in the Australian parliament about Norfolk Island, which is not even in their constituency. Not only are they making these statements under Parliamentary privilege, but what they claim will not be put to the test. Moreover, some of the things they are saying may well be influencing the attitude of their colleagues to Norfolk Island and its position, and the news is not good. Nor do we have any redress.
I would like to protest in the strongest terms about statements such as these made in the Australian Senate. This includes the following statements made by two senators to persuade anyone who may think otherwise that the Norfolk community wants the changes they propose.
Senator Carr:"in my opinion there are a majority of people on the island that desperately want to see substantial reform" ..."It is my opinion the islanders do want change"....."Many have judged that the current arrangements are in fact a failure and must be changed. As I said most islanders believe that is the case.'
Senator Hogg:"I would have enjoyed being there to witness the change in attitude that has come across both the Norfolk Island government and also a number of leading players in the business community and in the community at large in the island."
I am sorry, Senators, but your flying visits to the island, listening and talking to a few chosen people, relying heavily on views expressed in confidential sessions (which cannot be tested in any public arena) have not given you the right to make these claims.
I have written nearly 100 columns for Angelsandeagles, and have been told by many, many people of all ages and backgrounds that I have put into words what they are feeling. But the views are still my own, based on my love of this island and 40 years of living here and mixing with many parts of the community. I may well represent a majority view, but I would never make bold claims to that effect. Our Norfolk Action group has made a couple of wide and comprehensive polls and surveys which suggest that most people feel like I do. The island has had countless referenda in the past which have indicated that most people want to keep Norfolk Island making decisions for itself. In a democracy, you learn about that sort of thing properly at the ballot box.
However, not only have Senate Joint Standing Committees cast slurs on our past referenda, not only have they belittled our own elected government, but they deny us the right to speak for ourselves in a properly conducted poll on this very issue, which affects us here to the core of our existence.
Of equal concern are misleading statements and allegations such as these:
Senator Carr:(Confidential submissions) are from people who oppose the oligarchy of the rich and the powerful that run the island.......there are those on the island fighting hard to protect their vested interest and their privileged tax status". ..."well-orchestrated efforts by island diehards who would have us believe that Norfolk Island is some sort of Utopia with no social problems"....."beneath the surface informal mechanisms are being allowed to operate with impunity"..."increasingly obvious incapacity of the Norfolk Island government to provide islanders with basic service provision in such fundamental areas as aged care, pensions, health and medical benefits."...."basic services like telephones, power, water (!!!), roads, port facilities and garbage disposal... These are fundamental human rights...but they are not being provided on Norfolk Island." (Senate, Monday 30th October)
I am probably labelled as one of the diehards, but I just do not recognise the picture painted by Senator Carr. It is vitriolic and unsustainable. Take the trouble to read the transcripts in our local press, and I am sure you will be appalled by the sarcasm and innuendo, even from the Chair, about the people of this island. I recognise the need for ongoing change and accountability, and am prepared to embrace the many changes and demands that are needed to meet our challenges. But they should be made by our Norfolk Island government for the people of Norfolk island.
Senators, your words and actions are damaging and maligning us, and you have allowed us no redress either at the ballot box, or in the forum in which you make your allegations.
Is that justice?
The High Court sits today in Canberra at 10.15 to hear the Norfolk Island Case. There will quite a number of Norfolkers there, including many who have made the journey from the island specially. No doubt the media will be far more interested in the Melbourne Cup and in the Murray-Darling Water Summit, but this is an important day for all those who are proud of Norfolk Island, cherish the Island's historic identity, rights and values, and want to resist the push to absorb us completely into mainstream Australia.

LESSONS FROM OUR NEIGHBOURS

2006-11-04T12:19:00.000+11:30

No doubt there would have been quite a few Norfolkers shaking their heads and sighing today as they read in our local press the transcripts of an enormous volume of reports, interviews, and Hansards of Australian Senate Debate on the Norfolk Island.
It is frustrating to have to sit back and put up with all the misunderstandings and inaccuracies contained in this material. It is also tempting to feel as if you are a mouse dealing with a monster, and perhaps it is just too hard to fight it. Their thinking seems to be that we are part of Australia, and therefore there is no option but to toe the line, and be like all other Australians.
But we do not need to look very far afield to realise that this need not be the case.
Take our neighbour New Zealand. The Kiwis have a lot in common with Australians culturally, socially and ethnically, but their attitude to small island states which have been entrusted to their care and protection is totally different.
The Cook Islands, for instance, is peopled mainly by Cook Island Maoris, ethnically very close to their New Zealand counterparts. The Cook Islands are not independent, but are "in free association" with New Zealand. New Zealand exercises responsibility in defence and external affairs in consultation with the Cook Islands' government, but exercise no authority in any other area.
In the early days of "free association" post 1965, New Zealand gave assistance in creating legislation for the Cooks until they had the legal and judicial expertise in the more complex areas. And they helped them obtain that expertise!! In the earlier days, there was also a mechanism by which appeals could be made to the High Court of New Zealand. Both of these arrangements ceased around 1980, and today the islands have true self-government. Their people hold New Zealand citizenship, but this does not carry the obligation to "toe the mainstream New Zealand line." They have not been asked to exchange it for their own identity.
The Cooks have their own diplomatic missions in many places, are signatories to several International treaties and conventions, and participate in the South Pacific Forum in their own right. They are also considering joining the UN.
A small and decreasing part of their budget actually comes in the form of aid, mainly from New Zealand. When revenue contribution from New Zealand was higher than it is today, audits were carried out by New Zealand, but assistance to stimulate the local economy, and training in auditing and accounting led to the Cook Islands taking over the audit function in 1991.
The Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands is the Governor-General of New Zealand, but he/she is obliged to act on the advice of the Ministers of the Cook Islands Government.
Since 2000, under the Cotonou agreement,the Cooks have also received financial and technical assistance from the European Union!
They have the right to unilaterally declare themselves independent at any time, and New Zealand cannot object.
The picture has not always been rosy and positive. There were times in the 1980's and 90's when the country "lived beyond its means" and faced difficulties. With some assistance, it reduced its bloated Public Service, restructured debts, introduced reforms in economic management, and stimulated its tourist industry. Their economic recovery has been enhanced by reforms in governance and accountability.
Overall, New Zealand's part in the relationship was initially to assist in setting up basic social and economic programmes. Aid continues to be targetted in ensuring services reach outlying islands in the group. Underpinning this help was the aim of promoting national development, and reducing the reliance of the Cooks on handouts.
Former NZ PM Norman Kirk wrote:
"The special relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand is on both sides a voluntary arrangement which depends on shared interests and shared sympathies. In particular it calls for understanding on New Zealand's part of the Cook Islands' natural desire to lead a life of their own and for equal understanding on the Cook Islands' part of New Zealand's determination to safeguard the values on which its citizenship is based."
Now doesn't that read like a breath of fresh air!
New Zealand recognises the right of the Cook Islanders to retain their own identity, and gives the Cook Islands a bit of help to help themselves.
Come on, you Aussie politicians and bureaucrats, would it be so very hard to do the same thing for Norfolk Island and its people?

CUSTOMS CONCERNS

2006-11-03T12:36:00.000+11:30

The Australian Government commissioned an Economic Impact Assessment into the possible economic effects of the huge changes they have planned for Norfolk Island. They have recognised that our economy has developed differently from that of mainland Australia, but I am not sure if they are recognising that a whole lot of other things are different too, such as our culture, and our expectations and needs.
Anyway, this assessment study has been carried out, and Canberra plans to use it, they say, to minimise the negative impacts of their changes. Things such as staggering them and introducing them in stages. In other words ïf they "do us slowly", perhaps we will not feel the flames so badly.
But we have enormous concerns.
Firstly, the Economic Impact assessment Report is to be kept confidential, and you and I will not know what it has said...until it is far too late. Are we not to be trusted with this information?
The second problem is that they did not ask very many of us how the changes would affect us, and we all know they will be extremely damaging to our way of life, our businesses, our sense of community and especially to our tourist industry.
Take Customs for instance. Canberra is not just going to assume control of that area. It will be abolished altogether, and Norfolk Island Customs will no longer exist. We will be under the Australian Customs Regime....completely.
Any goods coming here from other parts of the world will be subject to the same tariffs as those entering Australia. Now these tariffs and import duties have been set to suit Australian needs, to protect Australian industries, and to help fill Australian coffers.
Never mind that our local needs are quite different.
Never mind that when Australia first decided to do this, Norfolk Island Customs Duties were an important part of our revenue stream. So much for being concerned about our sustainability!
Did they take the trouble to observe how many of our successful and popular tourist shops import quality products from all over the world, and have been able to sell these to our visitors at extremely attractive prices. They have been able to do this, partly because of our low duty regime, and partly because they did not have to go through Australian agents and middlemen.
We will no longer be seeing our tourist shoppers loaded down with imported shoes, Lego, porcelain and china, perfumes and giftware items that have made shopping here very attractive. It will all need to be imported through Australia, and you can bet your bottom dollar that we will also be required to use those agencies and middlemen which have exclusive import rights within that country. Because we will no longer have our separate identity.
Our shopping will either become very expensive, or Burnt Pine will need to become a "Chinatown" type precinct of $2 and Junk type shops trying to woo our visitors with cheap mass-produced goods and trinkets.
All this is justified by vague mumblings about "anomalies"and "inconsistency" and "tidying things up in Australia's border protection regime". This is in spite of the fact that our Norfolk Island Government has offered to meet them more than halfway on questions of genuine security concerns, and does, in fact, provide an extra security checkpoint under the current arrangements!!
Sadly, our Norfolk Island Customs regime is just one more of the "loose ends" that is to be firmly woven into the fabric of Australia's all-enveloping mantle of control.
It means a loss of government revenue, a loss of part of an industry that has underpinned our sustainability, and another major step in the loss of our unique and separate identity.

BROAD OR NARROW

2006-11-01T14:08:00.000+11:30

In February Canberra announced two broad options for change of Governance in Norfolk Island. However, time has proved these two options to be very narrow indeed, with no opportunities for meaningful input from the people of this island, and not even any encouraging signs that we may have any actual say in which option is finally chosen. Indeed there have moments during this year when Norfolkers have had the feeling of being driven relentlessly along a very narrow path, on a route that has obviously been carefully mapped out by the politicians and bureaucrats a long time ago, and with a timetable set in concrete.
Although Minister Lloyd has been our designated driver, and Australia's representative on this island our "chaperone", the whole agenda is much bigger than both of those people, and apparently even enjoys bilateral support in Australian politics.This island's financial capacity and sustainability have proved to be a convenient vehicle for this journey towards loss of self-government, and, sadly, it has been fuelled by flawed data and misinformation. The Acumen Report, which Canberra has used as its rationale for the course it has set us upon, has been shown to be based on false assumptions, poor statistics, and a gross misunderstanding of the actual needs and expectations of the people of this island.
The Minister and the Australian Parliament have once again chosen to play the financial card in recent days, spreading alarm and suspicion and anxiety, which they hope will work in their favour.What we need to realise is that even if our financial situation were
so dire that we needed Australia's intervention (and it is certainly not), this is merely a smokescreen for a quite different and unrelated agenda which Australia has said it means to implement regardless, and which, according to Minister Lloyd, is completely non-negotiable. This agenda includes the following:
*Application of all Commonwealth laws to Norfolk Island with few exceptions
*The power to intervene to develop and amend any Norfolk Island laws "in the public interest"(i.e. Australia's interest)
*Bringing Norfolk Island within Australia's taxation and social welfare system
*Bringing Norfolk Island under Australia's electoral system
*Bringing Norfolk's Customs and Quarantine under the Australian system
*Abolishing our powers of Immigration control completely.

In other words, take away the last vestiges of our separate and unique identity as a people and community.

The ironic thing is that not only will these changes bring about social and cultural damage to our island community, but they will have enormous negative effects on our economic and financial well-being. I will explore more of these negative effects in future posts.
Unfortunately for us, the ultimate decision on our fate will be made by Cabinet and by the Australian Parliament. We shudder to think of the unbalanced advice and misinformation on which this decision will be based.
Our Chief Minister has finally succeeded in obtaining a face to face meeting with Minister Lloyd tomorrow. We need to hope and pray for some honesty, flexibility and integrity to enter this process. We need some genuine consultation and dialogue. We need Canberra to step back and be prepared to start again, if they really care about the interests of the people of Norfolk Island.

2006-10-29T11:49:00.000+11:30

BREAKING THE SILENCE
It is some weeks since I attended to this blog. Thanks and apologies to all those people overseas who have said they have missed being able to log on and keep up with what is happening and the feeling on the island.
The fact is that we have been in what I can best describe as a "holding pattern."
Our own Assembly executives met with the Minister back on August 21st, although Jim Lloyd only gave them a morning of his time, before going off to issue a press release on his own version of what had ensued at the meeting.(DOTARS personnel and sundry officials were left to deal with the remainder of the day's business.)
Our own government subsequently insisted on a joint Press release, in which they made it known that they had laid on the table matters which went beyond the Australian Government's very narrow agenda for dealing with the Norfolk Island Governance issue. These matters included the Econtech report, which calls into question the economic sustainability concerns in the Acumen report which the Australian Government has used as the basis and rationale for the massive changes it wants to impose on this island. The Norfolk Island Government also took to the meeting a number of suggestions and proposals which addressed the concerns Australia had voiced over border security, accountability and other related matters.
There followed some weeks of silence, even though the Norfolk Government had expressed a strong wish to continue with discussions and negotiations. The Grants Commission came and went, but at least they took the trouble to talk, ask questions and obtain feedback. The "independent" Economic Impact Assessment was undertaken, with the relevant personnel commissioned to carry it out slipping quietly in and out of the island, barely stopping to ask any of us in the community how we would be affected by the changes. One must wonder about the quality control of that particular exercise! They are not even obliged to release their findings to us for comment or feedback!
Back to the silence. Was the Minister somewhat taken back that we would dare to try to steer the agenda, and restore some balance to the negotiations? Was he finding it difficult to discredit the Econtech findings, which put such a different light on the issue of our financial situation? Was the Commonwealth Government hoping that a period of non-communication would make us more anxious to bring about a resolution, in any form, so that we could move forward with some certainty? Or have he and his colleagues been too pre-occupied with the fall-out from their bullying tactics in New Guinea and the Solomons?
Meanwhile we have been getting on with our lives, engaging with one another and supporting one another in the Norfolk way. Yes, we have had problems to deal with, but we have faced up to them with good old-fashioned Norfolk resourcefulness and hard work. We continue to value each day on this beautiful and special island, and vow to retain its uniqueness.
Now the Minister has come back to us with a new press release, which is extremely alarming, and shows little evidence that Canberra has done any genuine listening. Our own government has also received a communication in recent days from the Minister, which, I believe, is equally disturbing, in that it is obviously designed to deter our own government from any future plans to contribute anything which lies outside Canberra's pre-conceived and pre-determined plans.
Meanwhile, the important High Court Case is set for Tuesday 7th November at 10.15 a.m. A number of Norfolkers will be there. If you have this island's best interests at heart, and can organise the journey and the time, why not join them?

2006-09-20T15:21:00.000+11:30

SOUNDS FAMILIAR

Many of us on Norfolk Island wake up to the ABC relay of the "Pacific Beat" programme, which deals with issues and problems in the Pacific region in a way that enables us to gain a local perspective rather than one that has been sensationalised, sanitised or censored by Australian or New Zealand media

As we listen, many of us shake our heads , because we recognise and empathise with many of the aspirations, problems and frustrations of our Pacific neighbours.

The situation in the Solomons has reached something of a crisis, and the Australian High Commissioner has been expelled by the Solomons' PM because of interference in local judicial and political processes. This action, in spite of a strong and angry reaction from Australia, seems to have given courage to leaders both in the Solomons and in other areas of Melanesia, to voice their dissatisfaction with what they see as an increasingly high-handed neo-colonial attitude on the part of their larger, richer and more powerful neighbour.

Areas of concern embrace not only what is described as unwarranted manipulation and interference, but a failure to respect the Solomon's sovereignty. They do not deny that they value the assistance that is given by RAMSI (Regional Asistance Mission to the Solomon Islands), but claim that this assistance comes with too many strings attached, and is heavy-handed, with local perceptions being that it consists more of Aussies with guns than Aussies sitting down and engaging in dialogue and asking where assistance is really needed. There has been insufficient attention given to cultural sensitivitiies when dealing with ethnic problems and unrest.

It was pointed out, moreover, that the figure frequently broadcast as Australia's contribution to stability, development and aid in the Solomons ($870 million over 4 years) is grossly misleading. By the time all the middlemen, bureaucrats, consultants and contractors have taken their share - and there are about 17 Aussie officials there being paid just to oversee the spending of this money- the balance is very thinly spread in meeting real needs. Most of it just ends up in Aussie pockets.

The PNG government voices similar frustrations. It is only in recent weeks that they have successfully negotiated to have some of the Australian aid projects put in the hands of their own local contractors rather than the ex-pats. A view was s trongly expressed this week by a PNG figure that there is an entrenched lobby group in Australia, including media and academics, who are persistently promoting the image of the sovereign countries of Melanesia as being "failed states." He said they failed to take into account that the people in the traditional rural areas of these islands were still managing to feed and clothe themselves and provide shelter for their families satisfactorily. It is, in fact, those who have moved to the urban areas and embraced more Western lifestyles and expectations who have been put at risk. But even these problems are being sensationalised and overstated as in the recent 4 Corners programme on HIV/Aids.

Australia and larger powers continue to cite "economic unsustainability" and "corruption" as the reason and rationale for their meddling in the judicial and political regimes and processes of these Pacific islands, whose only "sin" is to dare to operate on a smaller scale and to respect the traditions and cultural values of their own people.It is all very much a case of applying inappropriate yardsticks and regimes to economies and cultures that operate quite differently to the Australian way. Poverty, health and educational disadvantage are very much relative terms, and are more likely to have been created by Western interference in the first place.

The concept of Sovereignty and self-determination are very much misunderstood. It does not mean that you "go it alone" and thumb your nose at everyone else. It means that you have a right of choice, that you come to negotiations on matters of mutual interest as an equal partner, it means that you can accept offers of help that do not have unreasonable strings and conditions attached to them.

Sadly, the consequences of Australia's inappropriate and high-handed actions is that these nations are turning increasingly to Adsia and places like Taiwan, whose eyes are likely to be more on commercial interests.

But when we see what is happening, it is sobering to realise that we on Norfolk Island, as a mere external territory of Australia, have very little clout in our struggle to have our traditional values and rights recognised.

GRANTS COMMISSION PART 2

2006-09-08T12:41:00.000+11:30

GRANTS COMMISSION PART 2
In my last posting, I said I would try to deal with just a couple of the issues and concerns that were raised by participants who attended the Grants Commission Conference.
The first was in the area of health, where Norfolk was compared with a "small regional acute hospital." The general consensus of most present was that in spite of the age of our hospital facility, the levels of staffing and services appeared to be superior to those of comparable communities, including communities which were isolated, and would therefore require more "at hand" emergency facilities. There was real concern expressed that even if more money was directed to health, this would tend to be used up with equipment and infrastructure, but that the higher levels of staffing necessary would still be unaffordable. Add to that the difficulty in attracting good medical personnel to a higher taxing regime. There was also a suggestion that we may be operating at a greater level of efficiency because we also service a large tourist population! Observations of how health operates on say, Christmas Island, offer no comfort.
A second issue that generated much input was that of land rates and taxes. The former are imposed by local government, and the latter by State Governments on commercial premises (including hobby farms, and on larger tracts only part of which are used for commercial purposes.) and on non-principal places of residence.
It was obvious that the Norfolk ethos, by which land is held in trust for your children, and not for speculative purposes, will be severely affected by such taxes. The Commission has assessed that the land on the island has the capacity to raise x amount of dollars....a huge amount, in fact. Capacity has nothing to do with your ability to pay, or indeed with the desirability of raising money this way. The simple fact is that if you cannot afford to pay it, because you are asset rich but cash-poor like so many here, then you must sell it, and someone else will pay it! The situation is complicated by the fact that Commonwealth pensions are also means tested according to your assets, as is your eligibility for nursing home care. Add to that the loss of immigration controls, and the grim scenario is one of a whole lot of land leaving the hands of those who call this island home!
A third concern, of the effect of higher costs and taxes on business, was even echoed by the Commissioner, who said you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that Income and other taxes would have an effect on the profitability of businesses, and therefore on the value of that business, and consequently on the amount of land tax that could even be raised! He also admitted that the bulk of the money we have the capacity to pay in land taxes would be raised from the business community.
Some participants voiced their frustration at the lack of attention to cultural aspects of the Norfolk Island, and the danger of developing a hand-out mentality. To which the Commissioner replied that any package should, ideally, strengthen Norfolk Island's viability, not weaken it, but, he followed this up by saying: "I don't have a white horse to ride into Canberra, only a little donkey!"
What a pity!
You see, all I can conclude is that we will be required to raise more money in taxes from the people of Norfolk Island, plus be forced to accept millions of dollars in hand-outs from Canberra...and still be no better off!!

GRANTS COMMISSION

2006-09-03T15:37:00.000+11:30

In today's world where truth is often a casualty in the battle for media attention and personal and political agendas, it is refreshing to know there are still some individuals and organisations willing to exercise some degree of quality control in collecting and collating data.
For this reason, there was a good degree of local interest when the Grants Commission came to the island a couple of weeks ago to discuss their preliminary report, and test its findings in an open forum, before presenting its final figures to Canberra. (More open forums of this type, especially with Joint Standing Committees, would have been helpful and helped build more trust.)
The Conference was attended by N.I. Government members and key administration officers, but was also open to any interested member of the public, and several took up the opportunity to have the findings explained, and to give feedback and voice concerns. A couple of DOTARS staff attended also, but the Commissioner Alan Morris stressed that they had no role in the conference.
When given the opportunity to make some opening comments, the Chief Minister voiced the frustration felt by many of us that the process of decision-making in Canberra concerning Norfolk's future is being based on incomplete information and with a lack of regard to social and cultural issues. Recognising that the Grants Commission is restricted to investigating the cost of providing services that are typically provided at a State and Local level in Australia, David pointed out that we already provide all of these services to meet local needs without grants and subsidies, and that here on Norfolk Island, the three levels of government are consolidated into a "seamless and efficient model."
Catherine Hull, from the Grants Commission Office, pointed out that the bottom line is that we would need a $9.7 million Commonwealth subsidy to carry out state and local functions that are provided in a comparative community in Australia. (We should point out that in the absence of a community anything remotely like Norfolk Island, a 'comparable community', for the Commission's purposes, is actually a composite mish-mash of features and aspects of a large range of small, remote or atypical communities all over Australia).
But it should be realised that this shortfall does not imply that our government fails to meet important community needs. It may mean that it meets them and funds them in a different way, and to a certain extent has different priorities because our economy has developed in a totally different way. But even if we were to eventually be forced to accept this subsidy, because some of our other revenue streams would be denied to us, we may still be forced to raise more revenues locally through means currently used by Australian state and local governments, such as land rates and taxes, and payroll taxes (more of that later).
Strangely enough, Norfolk Island already raises more than the Australian average in State type taxes! Confused? It all comes from trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Commissioner, Alan Morris stressed that the work of the Commission was basically a mechanical exercise, and no value judgements were involved. The data they sought was basically figures, and data about perceptions and levels of satisfaction with the status quo did not really play a part. The Commission is concerned that the information they gather should be accurate, but they do acknowledge the difficulties of having to use data that has, in fact, been collected for other purposes. There is also the problem that Commission's conclusions are based on data collected for the 2004-5 financial year, and that the whole picture and equation tales no account of the effect of imposing Commonwealth legislation (including taxes and welfare regimes) on the Norfolk community and economy.
Facts and figures are neutral in themselves, but can be powerful tools, depending on who makes use of them. That is the scary part.
I have no doubt that the Grants Commission, given their narrow terms of reference, have found it frustrating trying to overlay a typical Australian model over an economy that is very, very different. Equally frustrating was the fact that a large percentage of the concerns raised during the Conference, although listened to with great patience and respect, simply did not come into the Commission's brief, or else they did not substantially affect the findings or the bottom line.
In my next posting, I will try to set out some of the contributions and concerns of those participating in the Conference.

CRUCIAL TALKS

2006-08-22T22:11:00.000+11:30

Most people would agree that during this whole process of exploring changes to Norfolk's governance, it is the Commonwealth Government that has always had the upper hand. Not only have they assumed the legal and constitutional "right" to take these actions, but ever since the Minister's announcement on February 20th, they are the ones who have set the agenda with the announcements, the pamphlets, the reports and the visits. The terms and the timing have been theirs, and they have had the added advantage of a process of planning and departmental and governmental deliberations that have been going on much longer than most of us realise.
The only "choice" we have been offered is a contribution to the debate on which of the two models of governance would finally be imposed on this island. Canberra has offered no message of hope for our ability to depart from this narrow path.
Nevertheless, there was a slight element of optimism -temperd by a great deal of cautiousness and realism - as our four Government Ministers travelled to Canberra for serious talks ...talks that should have taken place long ago. The reason our expectations were raised, ever so slightly, was that they went armed with the Econtech Report. This was an independent economic report commissioned by our Government, to look at our economic and financial position and prospects.
Not only has Econtech presented a very different picture to that of the Acumen Report, which the Commonwealth had used as the rationale for assuming greater control of our affairs, but to a degree it discredits Acumen. It would seem that if all the principles and models used by Acumen were applied to Federal Finances, they too would appear to be in deep water, and sinking rather than swimming! Moreover, Econtech is a highly reputable organisation, whose economic modelling has been used by the Commonwealth Government itself on occasions.
It was with some alarm that we heard the initial media reports of the Canberra meeting early this morning. It would appear that once again our Canberra friends had wanted to get in first, and put their own view and version as a foregone conclusion.
However, when our own Chief Minister spoke with the island's people, prior to speaking with the media, we learned that while the discussions had been positive and productive, things were not cut and dried, and deliberations were to continue in the near future.
Not only does our Government need to convince Canberra of our ability to achieve economic sustainability, but it is important to retain our control over Immigration, Customs and Quarantine. Loss of control of those areas would not only bring us irrevocably within Australia's borders, but it would threaten our identity and much of what underpins our viability as a separate and unique community.
Meanwhile, I believe that the Commonwealth's economic arguments are appearing progressively weaker. We are working positively through our present and temporary economic difficulties. This is in spite of Canberra's continuing attempts to obstruct our own government's measures to stimulate our economy and increase our revenues.
It is time for Canberra to go back to the drawing board. And it is also time to allow us control over the decisions that determine our future.
Help us, but don't try to do it for us.
Because it is our wellbeing and welfare, our heritage and future, that are at stake, and we want to continue to show that even a smallcommunity such as ours can be strong and proud.

THE NORFOLK PUZZLE

2006-08-18T15:55:00.000+11:30

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
I will be the first to admit that the Commonwealth Government has had a well-thought out game plan for the process of changing governance arrangements for Norfolk Island. In fact, it has been very difficult to persuade them to take the slightest detour from their plan of action, or even to pause a while in order to allow any of us to catch our breath or take stock.
Relentlessly, the Inquiries and Commissions and Studies and Surveys have come and gone. Each of them have had their strict instructions and terms of reference, and there has been no leeway to depart from these in any way.
That is not to say that valuable information has not been collected. It would seem that we have been remarkably helpful and co-operative in providing this data and information. I cannot help being reminded of the prisoner who was asked to build his own gallows, or dig his own grave. But we remain ever optimistic that we can use much of this data to assist in our own aspirations for good governance on Norfolk Island, which is not necessarily what the Commonwealth has in mind.
DOTARS, the JSC, the ABS, the Grants Commission, the Minister, the Administrator's Office on Norfolk Island, the Norfolk Island Government, and those responsible for various economic reports (including the recent Economic Impact Assessment) have all had input.
The problem is that these little piles of data are all like little pieces of a puzzle. Someone has to put them together in a meaningful way.
Who is going to put this information together and make sense of it? Who is going to make the decisions and policies? Who is going to decide on the "big picture"? What if one or more pieces of the puzzle are wrong...do they realise that this will affect all the rest? What about missing pieces, the things they have overlooked or refused to acknowledge?
We can pour our hearts out all we like to the fact-finders commissioned by the Commonwealth Government. But these things are out of their hands. Unfortunately, the views of those of us who are actually "in the picture" do not seem to carry the same weight as those of the fact-finders and number crunchers who are sent over here.
I can only hope that our own Government members, arriving in Canberra this weekend, can present our case strongly and clearly, not only to the Minister, but to those other Australian Government members who will, after all, have the final say.

SPEAKING UP

2006-08-11T09:34:00.000+11:30

Something visitors find a little unusual about Norfolk Island is the relative lack of vocal protest or even group discussion of Norfolk's political future and proposed changes. Some may interpret as support for the changes, resignation, or perhaps even apathy. No doubt those feelings are out there among some folk. But I believe the real reasons for the relative silence can be found elsewhere. The fact is that discussion of these issues is extremely unsettling and divisive, and we do need to get on with our lives. We need to preserve a feeling of harmony and friendship with those we live and work and socialise with. The Norfolker's spirit of courtesy and good manners comes to the fore, and we do not want to put at risk the cohesiveness and stability of our community. Our government too must get on with governing this community as they were elected to do, and dealing with this issues that have been thrust upon them by Australia has increased their workload enormously. Not only that, but they too face the same uncertainties as the rest of us, and finding which is the path that the people of this island wish them to follow is not an easy task.
In the light of all this, it was very welcome to have the opportuntity on Tuesday to hear three people, leaders of community groups, speak out clearly about their aspirations for this island, and the path they feel we need to follow. This took place at a meeting organised by the Norfolk Island Action Group at Rawson Hall.
The Chief Minister David Buffett, speaking for the Norfolk Island Government, said that we should not be focussing on how far away we are from meeting our commitments, but how close we have come, given the difficulties of the past year or two. Comparisons were made with local government in NSW, which, it is reported, cannot meet its infrastructure needs. The Norfolk Government fully intends to make a strong case for the island's sustainability to Ministyer Lloyd, with the help of an independently commissioned report. David encouraged his listeners to remain positive and united, believing that continued self-government was achievable and negotiable.
Andre Nobbs then addressed the meeting on behalf of the Norfolk Action Group. This group also believes that the Acumen Report into Norfolk's finances was based on poor research and false assumptions, and NAG has put many hours into describing a more accurate picture of our present and future needs and spending priorities. Andre also urged us to feel positive by what this island has achieved..."amazed by contemporary Norfolk Island" were the words he used. In concluding he challenged us
"Don't let us be the generation who is blamed for losing what is our right!"
The third speaker was Lyndsay Tooley, speaking on behalf of the Accommodation and Tourism Association. While Lyndsay did not address the self-government issue, he did speak of the fairness and equity issues we need to address in order to assist the stakeholders in the Tourism sectors.
It is to be hoped that future meetings will see other community groups- such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Norfolk Business Group and the Public Service Association - have a say, and let us know their views and how the issues affect the memers of their respective groups. We badly need calm and reasonable communication and a frank exchange of ideas and concerns. Only then can we pull together to produce the best outcome for Norfolk Island.

SINCERE INTENTIONS OR EMPTY WORDS?

2006-08-06T11:10:00.000+11:30

The Joint Standing Committee has been visiting again, and I understand they have been seeking to "build bridges". They certainly need to take responsibility for much of the mistrust and poor communication we have with the Commonwealth. This has arisen partly from the heavy bias and lack of balance in their successive reports into island affairs, but their credibility has also suffered from the thoughtless and hurtful comments made by their chairman and another member in relation to the Janelle Patton murder investigation.
In a speech delivered during his time here, Senator Lightfoot and his colleagues parrot the oft-repeated platitudes concerning the issue of looking after Australians and their interests.
Now I will be the first to admit that Australia would a good place to live in, and its profile on human rights and the welfare of its citizens would be reasonably well-regarded in the eyes of the world.
I have no intention of getting into the argument about whether Norfolk Island is part of Australia at this time, but I have serious doubts about whether the Joint Standing Committee and the Commonwealth Government are, in fact, genuinely concerned about the rights of those who live here, who are Australian citizens by choice, or because they happened to be born here. I have even graver concerns for the Norfolk Island people living here who do not hold Australian citizenship, and who have become second class citizens in recent years by being denied full participation in the electoral process.
If you asked any Australian what he values most about living in that country, he will probably speak about his freedoms and democratic rights as exercised through Australia's Constitution. He elects governments and representatives at three levels, and these people are accountable to the electorate on a regular basis, as happens here. If the Government of the day wishes to make a change to the Constitution and method of government, then they must go to the people with a referendum, and the people will make the decision.
In hindsight, it was probably a mistake not to insist on having a Constitution for Norfolk Island (as usual, we were too trusting), and the Norfolk Island Act is probably the nearest thing we have to it. But are we going to be allowed to exercise a democratic choice in the changes? NO!!
We frequently hear PM Howard and members of the Federal Government speak about "Australian values", and the words mateship, understanding, respect and tolerance, historic rights, heritage, cultural freedoms get regular airings. But for some reason, Norfolk Island misses out on these privileges.
Our historic rights are being ignored and denied, and our very real differences are not acknowledged. As for the island's culture...well, grants for oral histories, family banners, museums and recording the Norfolk dialect are fine. But isn't it time that they recognised that this island's culture and heritage is very much tied up with the way we deal with each other, make decisions about our community and meet the needs of our island and its people?
What Australia wants to do with this island goes right to the heart of our identity, our historic values, and our sense of who we are and where we come from. I cannot think of a single ethnic group or minority within Australia's borders who would be expected to put up with this sort of treatment.
Senator Carr, a member of the JSC, is quoted as saying

"..this Committee shares a commitment to ensure the equality of opportunity for Australian citizens."

If they are sincere, can we ask the Joint Standing Committee to recommend to the Australian Government that they cease discriminating against the people of Norfolk Island and

(1)show proper respect and acknowledgement of their historic rights and cultural heritage and values

(2)allow the people of Norfolk Island to make a democratic choice about changes to their system of government.

(3) acknowledge that the forbears of the people in this Norfolk Island community exercised a free and proud system of democracy and equal opportunity decades before the forbears of our Australian counterparts even dreamed of such possibilities!

BORDER CONTROL AND SECURITY

2006-07-29T11:27:00.000+11:30

Regardless of the outcomes of any other "negotiations" with Australia over issues of governance, sustainability etc., we on Norfolk Island are going to lose control of over who or what comes into this island.
In a letter to a local resident, (who had queried the necessity to take over this area when Norfolk already complies with any Australian Goverment requirements in this area), the Minister Jim Lloyd said:
"regardless of which of the two governance models under consideration is eventually adopted, it(i.e. the Commonwealth Government) had decided to extend federal customs, quarantine and immigration regimes to Norfolk Island.)"
The letter goes on to "explain" that new security threats and a changing international security environment require that Norfolk Island "does not become a weak link in Australia's overall border security chain."
Which does not explain anything much at all, when we already comply with everything they require, when the Commonwealth Government already has power of veto over these areas while we administer them, and when any person or item arriving in Australia from here already needs to go through the same security checks that are required of a person or item coming from any overseas destination. Believe it or not, because I hold British citizenship, I cannot even be checked in here at the Norfolk Island airport to travel to Sydney unless airline staff make a phone call to Canberra to check that is OK to allow me on the plane!
Now if they are sincere, and there really is a weakness in our controls here, wouldn't it have made sense to sit down with our government to talk about it? Don't they think we are also interested in security? Couldn't we have come to some agreement in a spirit of mutual co-operation?
We often ask our visitors who come back time and time again what they like about Norfolk, and they often say that it is because they feel very safe here. We have made our immigration controls work very much in our favour, so that this remains a peaceful and productive community. That is going to be lost.
Our immigration system enables us to preserve our culture, and to protect the rights and freedoms and opportunities of those who call this island home. I often hear the PM of Australia speaking about Australia's Immigration system and controls being necessary to strengthen and protect "Australian values." What about Norfolk Island values?
We have strictly controlled the goods and plant material that arrive here, so we can avoid bringing in anything harmful or undesirable. I consider that we have done a pretty good job in the quarantine area, even under pressure from locals to relax things a bit. But now we are no longer to be trusted.
Our Customs service has worked well. While bringing in a wide range of goods that are attractive price-wise to our visitors, the service has also provided valuable revenue for the running of this island. That money will now go into Australia's coffers.
When the Australian Government talks about security, whose security are they referring to? Whose borders? Whose controls?
They should admit it, this is not about our ability to sustain our governance, or our ability to maintain proper security and border control. It is about bringing Norfolk Island, once and for all inextricably within Australia's borders. It represents more nails in the coffin for our unique and separate identity.

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE - AGAIN

2006-07-22T16:22:00.000+11:30

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has put out its preliminary report. Hard copies will be available next week, but in the meantime, you can read it on the web.
But you will have to wade through 146 pages, with a lot of data, tables and figures.
You may not wish to go through all that, and just want to know "What is the bottom line?"
Actually there isn't one. Bodies like the CGC and the ABS are policy neutral. They just produce the data, and someone else uses it to make decisions and policy....in this case DOTARS, Minister Lloyd and ultimately the Cabinet and the Commonwealth Government.
The CGC and the ABS have had difficullt jobs. They are called independent, but in fact, they are there to serve those who commission them, and they have to work within the criteria and the narrow terms of reference that have been set for them.
Because the CGC is neutral, and because the members are here "on the ground" for reasonable lengths of time, they have the opportunity to speak with lots of people, both individuals and larger groups and forums. They have seen at close hand how things work, and I suspect some of the members of these visiting Inquiries quietly and personally think our way of doing things does work!! Let's face it...they are reasonable, intelligent and highly trained people, selected on merit rather than popularity with the voters! I think the people of Norfolk Island have been open and honest with them, and they have obviously taken on board much of what we have told them.
For instance, the CGC has noted that generally we have a high level of satisfaction with our medical facilities. They have noted that land has a strong cultural significance to us. The report mentions that our policing requirements are lower than average, because we do not have high levels of crime or community problems. There is also a recognition that many of our government-provided services operate on a user-pays basis, to a greater extent than happens in Australia. The fact that we have quite different priorities and expectations here has probably presented quite a challenge.
Nevertheless, the Commission has had the task of comparing Norfolk's way of doing things with those of states and territories with in Australia, and have also had to weigh us up against comparable communities with in Australia. Of course, we and they know there are no comparable communities, in fact nothing even remotely like this island.
Another difficulty the Commission has acknowledged is that whatever data they have produced in this report would no longer actually be valid under the changed circumstances of the Commonwealth's proposals for our governance and economy.
So they have been forced into dealing with quite a few assumptions and hypotheticals and unknowns.
Fortunately, we will have the opportunity of having a further say next month when the CGC returns to the island. I would urge every one who feels they have a stake in this island continuing to be a strong and viable society and community to give the preliminary report a bit more than a cursory glance. And plan to have your say when the opportunity presents itself next month.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW

2006-07-17T15:33:00.000+11:30

A couple of months ago, I posted some tongue-in-cheek questions that Canberra should be asking about Norfolk Island.
This time, there are some questions to which I would genuinely like answers.

1. Why did the Australian Government make up its mind about what should happen to Norfolk Island before carrying out all these inquiries and surveys we are having this year?

2.If our economy is in a bad way, what parts of their proposals are designed to stimulate business here (apart from some short term infrastructure projects.) or improve our tourist numbers or airline services?

3. Minister Downer, in a speech on Friday at a Business lunch, dismissed the Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey as not being meaningful. Is this because it told them things they did not want to hear?

4. Can Canberra guarantee that we will continue to have services such as an island based optometrist, when they will no longer be able to operate profitably in such a small population unless they have a low tax base?

5. Will they reassure us that mothers will still be able to have their babies locally, that the number of full-time medical personnel will not be reduced, and that we will not be subjected to long waiting lists for surgery under Medicare?

6. Do they really mean it when they say we can negotiate over what Commonwealth laws should or should not apply here? (They were not interested in our views when they changed our electoral laws.)

7. Will any Australian citizen have the same rights as local Norfolkers to apply for local jobs and contracts, with selection being based purely on merit, with no preference to local residents?
What will happen to local jobs....or will everyone be employed in building the new roads, hospital or work-for-the-dole schemes?

8. The issue of introducing Commonwealth Taxation/welfare and the issue of taking away control of Immigration, Customs and Quarantine are always mentioned separately. Is there any connection?
a. If we can no longer control our Customs revenue, aren't we going to have to rely on Australian money anyway?
b. If any Australian citizen is going to be free to come here, because it is within Australia's Immigration Zone, aren't they going to expect the same benefits and rights as apply in the rest of Australia anyway?
c. What is the real reason for the changes...is it border control and security, is it our economic viability, or is it something else?

9. The current Liberal Government prides itself on turning round a $96 billion deficit since it took over, through hard decisions, good management and changes to taxation (plus some fortuitous changes in the world economic environment.) Why can't they let Norfolk turn things around in the same way?

10. Canberra says it is "moving in" because we are becoming increasingly reliant on Australian hand-outs and loans etc. Isn't it true that the amounts involved in these grants etc. are far less than they would be spending if we came directly under their control?

11. How do they account for the fact that when we took on self-government, we ran it successfully over a long period of time? Isn't it possible that increasing Commonwealth demands for compliance, bureaucratic accountability, and big government type spending have been responsible for most of the recent strain that our locally elected government has experienced in recent times?

12. If Canberra's plans have the effect of turning us into a "basket case" (which has been used to describe Cocos and Christmas Islands), will they be prepared to turn back the clock and give us back self-government?
Or will they solve the problem by making us the responsibility of New South Wales, in the same way they would like to make Christmas Island part of Western Australia?

THE BIG PICTURE AND THE DETAIL

2006-07-12T20:25:00.000+11:30

I am not into stereotyping and generalising about people...not even Aussie politicians. I do not believe that all politicians are automatically power-hungry, or corrupt, or out to serve their own or vested interests. Most people would go into politics with a sincere and genuine desire to make their town, their district, their country and the world a better place. They deserve encouragement and a pat on the back, because they have to live with long hours, lots of travelling, long absence from family, public scrutiny, and the task of making difficult decisions which impact on people's lives.
However, you cannot deny that however sincere and genuine their intentions, once they are in politics, politicians rarely avoid becoming captive to agenda far bigger than their original motivation. It starts with party politics and government policies, and as they rise up the ladder, they are often at the mercy of their departmental advisors, in a "Yes Minister" type scenario.They simply cannot hope to absorb all the information, implications and background of the issues they deal with themselves. They do not have the time or resources!
Politicians in yet more senior positions have an even "bigger picture" to deal with ..... issues of national interest and security, energy resources, trade, regional stability, treaties and alliances, and international conventions.
When all the issues are weighed up, is it any wonder that the individual person, district or interest group often comes off second best? Is it any wonder that truth and smaller interests are sometimes victims?
Take our distinguished visitor this week - no doubt an honourable man, doing a difficult job (Foreign Affairs) to the best of his ability. But he has a few worries with the Australian Wheat Board Issue. Such as who knew what was going on, and who wasn't telling, and what measures were taken to be sure the kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime were kept under wraps. We must await the Cole Inquiry's findings before anyone passes judgement on any group or individual, but you can be sure that truth and justice were casualties somewhere along the line in the cause of "bigger interests."
No, your average politician is not always free to pursue his own vision of what is good and right and beneficial. "Integrity" and "truth" become relative terms. Those who come close to it are the independents or members of minior parties who are in a position to sway the numbers. Which is why many Aussies have become disenchanted with the major parties.
The Australian states are fighting their own battle with the process of placing all the economic and financial control in the hands of the Federal Government. Gradually, state powers are being eroded. It is a long-term policy. It may be an inevitable process, but your average Queenslander, Territorian or Tassie "Islander" is not necessarily happy about it. We know how they feel. The PM has said, referring to services and benefits "People do not care where it comes from, as long as they get it." But really most people would rather have their services delivered by real people, with a hands-on, live-in understanding of local needs. Thriving and vibrant local communities are the best guarantee of the well-being and welfare of the individual.
I am not sure what the "bigger picture" is in the Norfolk Island situation, although I am fairly sure it is not genuinely being driven by our current financial figures and outlook. Regional Security and Stability? Bureaucratic streamlining? Energy Resources? Defence strategies? Territorial limits?
It is quite probable that all those politicians that we lobby and appeal to really have their hands tied, and even those who would like to speak out on our behalf are not free to do so.
Which is why those of us who are affected, who really care about this beautiful place, must try and make sure our voices are heard loud and clear.

PLAYING CHARADES

2006-07-09T21:24:00.000+11:30

If you were reading Saturday's Norfolk Islander you may have thought you were seeing double. The front page had two different announcements about an invitation from Minister Jim Lloyd to our own Government Ministers to attend a meeting in Canberra. The press release from our own Chief Minister stated that he welcomed the opportunity to meet, and that that a suitable date was being negotiated, but he felt it was important to have the preliminary report from Commonwealth Grants Commission in the Government's hands before the meeting should take place.
The Minister's announcement was a little less gracious. In fact, it sounded somewhat petulant. He said he had not received any formal reply from our government (although many of us here have been aware of our government's readiness to travel to Canberra to take part in these talks for several days now.) He also sounded somewhat miffed that the date he had set was not automatically being agreed to, because of the urgency of the wonderful plan of salvation that Canberra has prepared for our financial and economic stability here on Norfolk Island...as if a few days are going to matter!
So because he cannot get his own way, once again Minster Lloyd uses the tactic of going to our local press, in order to "tell tales" and hopefully to embarrass or discredit our own M.L.A.s
His action is demeaning to say the least. Surely if he has a concern, or wants more information, or wishes to negotiate or resolve a little issue like the date and time of a meeting, he should go direct to our own government members. This would be the ethical and diplomatic way of doing things.
Yes, I know the Minister feels trapped. The Cabinet has made a decision about governance on Norfolk Island, and has given him the unenviable task of seeing it carried out. Perhaps he really believed we would all sit down quietly and accept it, and let the process go smoothly for him.
But whatever the Minister's difficulties and frustrations, he should pause to think what it is like for our own government. The Canberra meeting is referred to in terms such as "ongoing dialogue", "high level talks", "ongoing consultations", "serious talks."
But do not be fooled. It is none of these things. If Canberra has its way, it will be a carefully scripted charade.
For a start, the focus of the meeting is to be the two models of governance outlined by the Australian Government. No more, no less. But the Minister has yet to demonstrate to our own government, and many in the community, why these proposals are the only way of solving any financial problems we may be experiencing. They cannot even assure us that they will not have a very negative and damaging effect on our economy!
Canberra has set the agenda for these talks, just as they have set the terms of reference for all the inquiries and studies. Their terms, their agenda and their timing. Norfolk Island has been allowed no input. And now, it seems, he thinks it is okay for our Government to come to the meeting without the advantage of some of the information from the Grants Commission that may be useful or helpful. In fact, lack of real information at a government level has put our own MLA's at a disadvantage right from the start.
It is to be hoped (I told you I was an optimist) that this meeting will be an opportunity for our own Ministers to raise some issues, and that "dialogue" will not just be a euphemism for a process of talking in which Canberra calls all the shots. Let us hope that Canberra will do some genuine listening and some open-ended consulting.
It is also to be hoped that Minister Lloyd and his colleagues will take a short course in communication, good manners and diplomacy, and that they will cultivate the qualities of equity and respect in their dealings with our own elected government representatives.
But I won't hold my breath.

CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE

2006-07-05T13:27:00.000+11:30

I have before me a six-page paper entitled "AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO NORFOLK ISLAND." I understand it was prepared in May this year, but I am not sure if it was prepared on behalf of DOTARS, or as a submission, or for circulation in the community.
In any case, I believe the intent of the paper is to make a case for Norfolk Island's financial dependence on the Australian Government.
The paper lists items of funding to NorfolkIsland through Australian Government Agencies operating on Norfolk Island, and secondly funding through grants, loans etc.
I will deal with some of these.
Did you know that there are number of areas that, although we are not billed for them, are entered into the "ledger" as Norfolk Island expenses...in other words, what we cost the Australian Government?
You may be surprised to learn that this includes the Meteorogical Bureau, which we all know is NOT there to provide weather forecasts to Norfolk Island at all, but is part of a larger regional network! Yet the cost of the new building ($2.2 million) is described as "funding for an infrastructure project on Norfolk Island! Perhaps we should be charging Australia for the privilege of using our airport and our island for this facility!
Another component is the funding for the Norfolk Island section of DOTARS, for the Administrator's Office (and presumably also for Government House).
There is an old saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Well it works in reverse, too, and in those areas where, for whatever reason, Australia has insisted in retaining control, it is only right that they should bear some of the associated costs. Particularly those that come with big-government bureaucracy.
Prior to self-government, you may recall, when the Adminstrator and his Official Secretary were in charge of all of Norfolk Island's public service, they occupied a modest office area in the main Administration building. There were no computers and limited communications facilities. Everything ticked over on a smaller scale.
Today, while we get on with the business of governing the island, the Australian government presence seems to require a greater degree of infrastructure and staffing..and obviously funding. But that is their business, not ours.
Now I have done a lot of history reading lately, and I have never come across any instance of Norfolk Island officially requesting or inviting Australian day to day involvement in this island's affairs, or a presence on this island. Not since 1896, when the powers of our own magistrates were usurped by a colonial government appointed official. Their presence here is basically to protect Australia's interests. We have usually made their officers welcome here as part of our community during their stay, just as we have been hospitable to visiting officials and government representatives. We have appreciated their interest in us most of the time. But make no mistake...their involvement here is on their initiative and their terms, not ours, and the costs belong to Australia, not us.
The same goes for KAVHA. However, that is something I would like to deal with separately in a future posting.
Another interesting item is the roadworks on Mount Pitt, which is part of the area that Australia strongly insists on keeping under its control. The paper says "these roadworks and repairs were undertaken primarily to provide access by the island's tourist operators." Now many locals enjoy a drive up the mountain or out to Captain Cook, but did you know that it is only these two Commonwealth Government owned and controlled roads that do NOT provide access to tourist buses!!
Then there is the Toon Buffett Memorial Environmental Trust Fund, funded by the proceeds of converting Crown leases into freehold. A worthy project, but remember....this is the same land that the Pitcairners believed was to be theirs, and which the Australian Government took control of when it ceased the practice of making grants to Norfolk Island people. It also includes land that was purchased back from the Melanesian Mission using monies from the Norfolk Island Trust Fund, on the understanding that the land would in some way be available for the young people of the island to make their homes. By some means, the Commonwealth passed legislation in order to assume the title to this land, although that had not been the intention of the Mission.
The item that is perhaps the greatest insult is that relating to funding from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, for pensions, benefits and health services to Veterans residing on Norfolk Island. My own father-in-law was one of those. He also paid Australian taxes for 25 years. Can I be forgiven for thinking that people like him had earned these pensions and benefits because they served in Australia's defence forces, at great sacrifice to themselves and their families! Some veterans from World War 2 actually returned home to find their land and home had been taken to build an airport in the interests of regional security!
Now I do not deny that there has been a good spirit of co-operation with the Commonwealth over the years, and I do not deny that there has been assistance given as part of Australia's role in assuming responsibility for and asserting its right to control of Norfolk Island. Some of this help has been requested, and some has been given "whether we like it or not." There is no lack of appreciation here for worthwhile projects and assistance. But Canberra should take care to get its facts straight, and not manipulate the figures to suit its own ends.

HERE'S HOPING

2006-07-02T12:34:00.000+11:30

Sometimes people ask me about the time I spend on "AngelsandEagles." I must admit I occasionally ask myself if it is not somewhat risky making such a personal investment of time, and more particularly of emotional and creative energy when it may end in disappointment.
But I will "keep on keeping on".
That is partly because I choose to be positive and optimistic. I simply cannot believe that members of the Australian Government, who have been brought up with principles of fairness, democracy and equal rights for all people, would really follow through with the plans they have signalled that they have for this community. I mean, it is simply not just to impose a regime on a people when they have had no say in whether they wish to adopt it or not.
I am sure that many of our Canberra politicians and bureaucrats really think they have our best interests at heart. They are not all like some of the DOTARS officers who have regarded us as a somewhat tiresome anomaly for many years, or some members of the Joint Standing Committee whose cynical and sarcastic outpourings seem to indicate they do not even like us very much.
Yes, Australian Government may be proud of its standing in the world, and what it has achieved for Australia and Australians in a little over two centuries. And rightly so. And some of them think it would be good for Norfolk Island and Norfolkers to share in all that.
But they are mistaken if they think that what is good for Australia and Australians is automatically right for us. We have the right to choose for ourselves what is good and right for this community, this people.
Maybe, as someone said, Australia will do the right thing by people here. Maybe there are some benefits it would be nice to enjoy...although few of us believe that Australians in Australia have a better way of life than we already enjoy here.
But that is not the point...........because they simply cannot guarantee that all their decisions in relation to the government and management of this island will be appropriate, beneficial or productive, or that they will protect our unique cultural and social heritage, let alone improve our self-reliance or the health of our economy.
Any reading of our history reveals a long saga of ups and downs for this island. Much of it has been governed by external factors, but much of it can also be attributed to the competence, goodwill and perceptiveness of incumbent Administrators, Canberra governments and Ministers, and Territories departmental personnel. There have been Administrators in the past who have done a great deal for the island, encouraging and fostering local industry and enterprise. Some have been good listeners and shown diplomatic and caring sensitivity to local feelings. On the other hand, there have been others whose competence left much to be desired, or who operated on a value system which was foreign to that of the community. The same could be said of Canberra ministers responsible for the territory of Norfolk Island...they have varied in the degree of goodwill, competence and understanding they displayed to the island and its people.
Do we really want our future to be in the hands of people whose heritage, value system and way of life is different from our own? Do we really need to be at the mercy of the everchanging whims and levels of competence of the everchanging Canberra representatives and ministers?
We need our own rights as citizens of Norfolk Island set in concrete, and not able to be changed by anyone from outside. We need some certainty. That may include a degree of mutual co-operation with Australia, but we need to know that the next politician or bureaucrat who comes along will not think he can change it or improve it.
We thought our future had been decided once and for all 27 years ago, but we know now that anything we say can be overridden, promises broken and commitments axed.
Canberra's big backflip has left us in a state of uncertainty, disappointment, and the feeling that they will never manage it to get it right when they deal with Norfolk Island.
Ultimately, it should be up to us to decide what is good and right for us. And I, for one will "keep on keeping on" to ensure that is what happens.

FAIR PLAY

2006-06-28T09:53:00.000+11:30

This is the day that many Aussies will be protesting against what they regard as unfairness in the new Industrial Relations laws. Meanwhile, the whole country from the PM down seems to be mourning the elimination of the Socceroos from the World Cup because of a "dodgy" referee's call.
One of our locals was moved to pen the following:

Dear Prime Minister,
Now that, thanks to the Socceroos, all Australia knows what it is like to have an unfair decision made against one, don’t you think it is an appropriate time to re-consider the case for Norfolk Island?
Yours Sincerely,

**********

In case you were wondering if anyone out there is actually listening and actually cares about injustice to Norfolk Island, you may be interested in the fact that the following questions have been tabled to be asked in the British House of Commons by the member for Romford, Mr Andrew Rosindell M.P.

1.Andrew Rosindell (Romford): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether there is a mechanism by which Norfolk Island could petition the Government to secede as a self-governing Australian Territory and become a self-governing British Overseas Territory.
2.Andrew Rosindell (Romford): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether she plans to visit Norfolk Island.
3.Andrew Rosindell (Romford): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what the Government's policy is on Australia's proposed changes to the governance of Norfolk Island.
4.Andrew Rosindell (Romford): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether the Government has had discussions with the Australian government on the sovereignty of Norfolk Island since 2000.

Now in the past, Norfolk Island has been traditionally regarded as very loyal to the Crown and proud of its British heritage. But I am not sure that goodwill necessarily extends to the British Government. It should be noted that after a period of benevolent paternalism during the earlier Pitcairn/Norfolk days, the British Colonial authorities underwent a gradual change. The quaint "naive novelty" that Norfolk Island represented had become an "annoying anomaly", and they were only too happy to hand Norfolk Island over, firstly to the colony of New South Wales, and from there to the Commonwealth of Australia without any consultation with the Norfolk Island people.

Of course, Britain may have sincerely believed that Australia would act with greater fairness to their new responsibility than has proved to be the case. Meanwhile, at this present time, the Brits are dealing with their own "annoying anomaly" - Pitcairn Island" - and many would say that our Bounty cousins over there are faring no better than us under a modern neo-colonial "normalisation" process at the hands of big remote control government.

Nevertheless, the general view has been that as a very small place, we do need to have a close association with someone bigger than ourselves. Complete independence has never been a very popular concept on this island. However, of late, I frequently hear people ask "Well, could we be any worse off?" At least, if we were to go it alone, we would have have control of our own seas, our fishing and potential mineral resources, and we would not be restricted in efforts to establish an Offshore Finance Centre, Internet facilities and enterprises, external and post graduate Education Centes such as Greenwich University, a Shipping Repair facility, and numerous other potential revenue earners which are currently denied to us because of Aussie red tape. Perhaps we could emulate other Pacific Islands and vie for financial support from nations such as Taiwan and China in return for recognition at the U.N.

If these all seem a bit "pie in the sky", then just consider the possibility of having a share in the amount of around $700 million that is to be distributed in aid (mainly towards governance) to our Pacific neighbours this financial year!! And without all the strings attached that are currently holding us back.

Many people bemoan the fact that New Zealand's push to take on responsibility for Norfolk Island a century or so ago came to nothing. That country seems to exercise a far greater level of respect and cultural sensitivity in its dealings with the Cook Islands and Tokelau.

We cannot turn the clock back. But collective memories endure. Issues from the past remain with us, and modern day policies, masquerading as moves to "ensure a stronger and sustainable future" will only compound the problems of injustice and unfairness that have characterised both Britain's and Australia's dealings with the Norfolk Island people.

Now is the time that we need a genuine and open round table to thrash out these issues. We do not need pre-determined policies or unilateral decisions. We need more than lipservice to the mantras of rights and responsibilities. We need recognition that the Norfolk community is unique - not merely in a quaint cultural sense - but unique in matters that go right to the heart of fair, sound and responsible governance. And in this modern world where globalisation and normalisation dominate policy and action, we need to ensure that the voice of the individual, little person, and the little island -such as Norfolk - is clearly heard and respected.

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

2006-06-24T14:04:00.000+11:30

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has delivered its figures based on its survey of business on Norfolk Island. I have no doubt about the professionalism of these people, and they have been great guys to deal with.
Statistics is not my favourite subject, but I do know a couple of things about it. One is that the job of the statistician to produce the data, and it is some one else's job to make use (or misuse) of the figures to develop a policy or decide on a course of action. In this case, it will be Government.....our government and the Commonwealth government.
The other thing I know about statistics is that it deals with means and averages, and I suspect that yet again we are going to be averaged out to conform with middle Australia.
I am not really a student of economics either, and this is where I call "Blind Freddy" in to help me. Blind Freddy can tell you, even without seeing the ABS figures, that many areas of business have been doing it somewhat tough in the last year or so, through factors largely beyond our control - but not beyond our ability to "fix". And there has been a flow on effect to government revenues.
But these ABS figures are not altogether glum. It is plain that most of us have been hanging in there and keeping our heads above water. I strongly believe that this is because the way we do things here, within our contained island situation, gives us more flexibility and resilience than we would have under a system other than the one we have developed to suit our needs. We do not have the high overheads and the restrictive and costly regulatory environment that small business on the mainland deals with. Most of us "shop locally" because we just cannot set off down the highway to the nearest big centre. And there are strong loyalty factors in employer/employee relationships and business/client relationships.
Moreover, because we keep things on a small and modest scale as is fitting for a small island with a small population, we do not need to take big risks...and the bigger the risk, the bigger the loss in a downturn.
Now you may hear phrases like "depicting the economy" and "mapping the economy" of the island in relation to the ABS figures, but it does not take much imagination to know that these figures are only part of the story. Brian Finnegan admitted to me that they only describe one sector of the economy. For that matter, they only describe part of the business sector.....business with a turnover of over $3000, on the grounds that surveying businesses operating below this level would not have a significant impact on the results.
I would beg to disagree, and remind our Canberra friends that this is a small island that has developed its own type of economy to suit its small island needs. Even the February 20 booklet acknowledged there was a difference.
There is an enormous amount of economic activity on the island operating on a small scale. Quite apart from the areas where we have bartering and mutual help, just think of those people who fish for their families and friends, and sell the excess to the shops, restaurants and hotels. Or the excess vegetables and seasonal fruit that get sold. Quite important in a place that does not import fresh produce!!Then there are the cattle and pigs that go to the butcher, and the palm seed and the pine seed. There are small agencies and franchises that operate on a modest part-time basis, the market stalls, the artists and craftspeople who producing work for shops or on commission. the "occasional" caterers. You and I all know lots of people carrying on economic activity such as this. Then there are all the people, including school students and senior citizens carrying on business activity part time .... lawn-mowing, grounds maintenance etc. It may be "insignificant" in the Australia with its big government/big business mentality, but it has been keeping this place ticking over in a vibrant and resourceful fashion for decades.
So did the ABS Study ask the right questions?
Well, I am sure they asked the ones that Canberra needed answers to.
The true purpose of this ABS study was to help predict what government could expect to receive in tax revenue from business on this island.
And people with better economic credentials than me say it will not actually amount to very much.
But the high compliance and regulatory system that they will impose in order to collect it will cause enormous damage to the well-balanced mini-economic environment that has been developed to suit our island needs, and has served us well.
It would be far better for Australia to help us re-invigorate our economy, and mind their own business and let us mind ours!!

PAYING FOR WHAT WE GET

2006-06-21T16:59:00.000+11:30

I have read and re-read the booklet that Minister Lloyd and his department sent to every resident last week, and I note the range of services provided and the methods of revenue raising used by each level of government in Australia.
We are informed of a wide range of benefits and services available to Australians under Commonwealth Law, in the form of pensions, allowances, subsidies and grants. This includes some forms of assistance that are not currently available under our own local social services regime.
The Minister made some tantalising statements after the last Federal Budget reminding us if what we on Norfolk Island were missing out on...i.e. a share in the great amounts of money that the Commonwealth Government has at its disposal.
But we should not imagine that all this bounty comes from some magic honey/money pot! They do not just print money to enable them to provide all these services and benefits.
No. It has to be paid for - by taxpayers, which will include you and me if they have their way. These things are funded by taxes paid by all except those earning a very small part-time wage. They are paid by everyone running a business, or employing staff. If you buy a car, a new jacket or even a loaf of bread, some of that goes into this magic money pot. If you sell a property, you pay a percentage of any profit you make. Health Services are partly funded by a percentage of what you earn...although it should be pointed out that this will not guarantee you treatment when and where you really need it.
We are told that we may be asked to adopt a Local Government model. Local Government looks after matters such as "sporting grounds, rubbish collection, drains, streets and footpaths, street signs and traffic control, building permits, libraries, pet control etc." All this too has to be paid for, and that is where rates on property and businesses comes in. This is on top of what you pay in your income and business taxes.
Then if Norfolk Island is "allowed" to retain some State functions, you can add in land taxes, payroll taxes, and stamp duties on property transactions.
Now I think you will agree that we enjoy a reasonably good standard of living here on Norfolk Island, as well as a great quality of life. Our isolation presents some difficulties, and many people need to budget carefully and work hard to support their families and provide for their wants and needs...just as people do in Australia. But on the whole, no one could call us a disadvantaged community. In fact, we are very 'blest" - and that is why most of us choose to live here.
Our own government has shown over the years that it can provide for our basic needs, if not all our wants. Our resourcefulness and spirit of enterprise sees us through difficult times, and the strong community spirit provedes a wonderful safety net.
I do not believe we will be materially better off under Australia's system. In many areas, such as health, we could be much worse off. But conservative estimates say that it will cost Australia as much as $65 million to extend those services to us, far more than they will receive back from us in taxes and duties.
Meanwhile, those services provided by our Norfolk Island Government are cost-effective, and easily accessed according to need. We do not pay out massive amounts to consultants, contractors, middlemen and professional bureaucrats. We do not spend millions on advertising (and glossy brochures.) We do not lose millions to those people who rort the social welfare system. Travel allowances to our politicians are on a tight budget and are heavily scrutinised and closely monitored, as is all government spending. What you get in your paypacket is your own...no one has been to it before you for their percentage. We do not have to see big grants being made to "airy fairy" projects and causes, or aid that is poorly targeted. We do not have to witness the massive waste generated by big government.
The booklet says the Australian Government is considering "what precise services and responsibilities should be taken back (from the Norfolk Island Government.)"
Please Minister, let them continue to provide them for all for us in the personal, efficient way that is apprpriate for Norfolk Island and Norfolkers.

HO-HUM

2006-06-16T22:18:00.000+11:30

Ho-hum.
This was the response of many of us to the glossy booklet which was placed in our mailboxes this week.
It was very much more of the same. Two options, no third way.
The booklet, from the Australian Government, was designed to explain how governance operates in Australia, (or in the Minister's words"in other parts of Australia"). And what we could expect under either of the two models proposed for Norfolk Island.
My first reaction is to realise that we can expect a considerable waste of money on exercises such as this little booklet, with its pretty, but irrelevant pictures, and its description of how things work for Australians, with a governance system that has evolved in circumstances and an environment that is totally different to that of Norfolk island and the Norfolk Islanders.
The booklet pays mere lipservice to Norfolker's concerns and aspirations, with words and phrases like "input to the development and consultation process" and "input from the Norfolk island Government and community" and "intention to develop and consult with the Norfolk Island community".
However, I am afraid that this publication shows little evidence that they have been listening to us so far, except those things they want to hear. The very strong opposition to their plans that has come from many in this community is trivialised and dismissed by saying "many are understandably nervous about what the changes mean for them personally."
Well Minister, I am not merely worried for me personally. I am not just nervous....I am deeply concerned for this island and this community as a whole, and I am very worried that you are destroying something that is very special and quite unique in today's world. That is, a community and a way of life where individuals matter, where a spirit of self-reliance and resourcefulness keep things ticking over really well, and where there is a standard of living that would be the envy of any community anywhere!!
To date, you seem to have dismissed input from our government, and have even left them out of the loop altogether in some instances. Quite rightly, our government has made it clear that this publication only represents your side of the story. They have a different story to tell about what is needed to fix our problems, and ensure a strong and sustainable future for Norfolk Island and Norfolk Islanders.
We should not be deceived. In spite of its pictures of our children, our Chapel, our historic buildings, our monuments, our landscape...this booklet is not about Norfolk Island, it is about Australia. I suspect we can communicate our concerns, comments, and questions all we like...and we will continue to do so....but the fact is that Australia means to impose on us a system of governance that is not appropriate for the people of this island, and which will cause us to lose far more than we will gain.

WHOSE RIGHTS? WHO'S RIGHT?

2006-06-12T14:24:00.000+11:30

It has been a great week to be on Norfolk Island. There has been a wonderful influx of family and friends, not to mention all those Norfolkers-in-exile who have taken the opportunity to come home to share in the festivities, and to feel proud to be part of a very unique race of people, with a distinct identity and a wonderful heritage. All week, Norfolkers have been bumping into other Norfolkers, and recognising their kinship, often just from facial features or an intonation of voice. There has been a marvellous feeling of family pride, good fun and camaraderie.
But no one -not even those Norfolkers who are proud of their Australian citizenship and see Norfolk Island as part of Australia - would claim that this community is just the same as every other part of Australia historically, ethnically and culturally.
But Canberra does not see it that way.
A 1975 Senate Report clearly stated that Norfolk Island's population was ethnically and culturally akin to that of "the mainland".
We are also told that Norfolk Island does not come under the United Nation's definition of a non-self-governing territory, because, according to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Australia "that resolution refers to a territory which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it."(1999) Evidently, in their eyes, this does not describe Norfolk Island.
This statement was made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission when dealing with four complaints made in 1996-7 about Norfolk Island's Immigration Act.
The Commission found that Norfolk Island's Immigration Act."violates the right of all Australians to liberty of movement and freedom of choice of residence..."
The same Commission also stated that Norfolk Island did not need an Immigration regime separate from that of Australia "because it is not necessary to protect the island's environment or the culture of the Pitcairn descendants."
Sadly, the recommendations of the Commission are shortly to be acted on, if Canberra and the Minister have their way.
I do not know how the powers in Canberra deal with the "geographic" and "ethnic" distinctiveness issue. However, I suspect they are a little touchy about the "culture" bit, and are bending over backwards to assure us they would like to recognise and preserve the Norfolk Island culture. Hence the Family banner project, and the $25 000 grant announced on Bounty Day for an Oral History Project. I am not saying they are not worthwhile activities, although I did overhear someone suggesting they could at least have managed $1000 for each of our 150 years! The point is that the best way of preserving our culture is to give us the freedom to live it out according to the values and traditions and customs that we have developed and built up over 200+ years. Norfolk's culture will not be preserved by this ceaseless "Australianisation" process that is being forced on us.
Now those visitors who "watched on" the week's celebrations and activities knew that the Norfolk Island community was different. The Norfolk Island people feel different. They know their history and beginnings are quite different from that of Australia, and they know that the Norfolk Way is not to be compared to any other.
The view that Norfolk Island is not distinct from mainland Australia and other Australian communities has serious implications:
1. A person's status as a Norfolk Islander, or as a resident or citizen of Norfolk Island (as distinct from their status as an Australian citizen) can receive no recognition or protection in any policy, law or statute.
2. Norfolk Island has almost no access to help from the United Nations except through Australia.
3. Norfolk Island people will no longer properly call Norfolk Island their homeland, nor will they have any say over who shall come here or live here.

Can we challenge the Human Rights Commission, just once, to consider the rights of the Norfolk Island people? Why must our rights always be secondary to those of Australians?

Read the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission at:
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/word/human_rights/norfolk_island.doc-

BOUNTY DAY

2006-06-09T23:13:00.000+11:30

If you were down at Kingston yesterday, on the occasion of our 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Pitcairners to Norfolk Island, you may well have felt as if you were in another time and place.
And you would be right.
Anyone watching those hundreds of Norfolk Islanders and their families, with a scattering of their Pitcairn and Tahitian cousins, could not fail to notice that this is a separate and distinct people, with their own unique traditions, heritage and history. A people whose culture has developed quite separately from that of Australians, and a people who are very proud of who they are and where they have come from.
It was plainly evident, too, that this was not another ethnic group living in Australia and preserving the culture and ways of their homeland. This was a separate people living out their culture in their homeland itself. And hundreds of Norfolk Islanders living abroad had come home to share in the celebration.
There was much to celebrate....one and a half centuries in a bountiful island, a strong and vibrant community that is rightly proud of its values, its spirit of self-help, its "Inasmuch" principle by which the community chooses to live.
Our Australian friends would be very blinkered and undiscerning if they thought those hundreds of Norfolk Islanders who paraded at Kingston yesterday would sit easily into their one size-fits-all mold.
Our Chief Minister told us:
"Dieh es d'taim orl aklan noe we gat kamfram. Staanap. Miek big faret.........Hoelap a hied en miek shus awas wieh es wathen wi kiip f'aklan."
(Right now, all of us know we have "comefrom" (class, family pride, breeding, roots).... Stand tall. Celebrate it and let the whole world know. Hold your heads high and make sure we hold on to our Norfolk way.)
And then in addressing the Governor-General and other visitors, he said:
"This is a momentous day to celebrate the 150th Anniversary of the arrival of our ancestors in this place, this beautiful and bounteous place, Norfolk Island. The arrival on an Island to nurture us, and we to nurture it and for it to be the home of our people, forever.
"We as the Pitcairn and Norfolk Island people, have grown from a very small number of only 29 in 1790, to almost 1,000 living in Norfolk Island today, with many thousands resident in other parts of the world, principally Australia and New Zealand......
Small groups of people throughout the world are vulnerable; many do not survive as a people.
But over the 150 years in this place we have shown vigour and tenacity, surmounted many difficulties, met many challenges and celebrated not a few milestones. Whilst others may have diminished, it’s quite clear we are not done yet."
What I would like to say to our Canberra politicians and bureaucrats is this:
We hope you enjoyed our celebrations. We know you say you admire our special traditions and heritage. But we need you to understand that our culture is not a performance or a street parade. It is not something we bring out and dust off for special days and events. It is not just something meant to give quaint amusement to spectators, and it is not a mere commercial commodity. It is something we live out every day and we draw strength from it.
Yes, you were in a special time and place yesterday. We were all proud to be a part of it. If you truly respect our cultural identity, please do not destroy our traditional rights and freedoms. Please ensure we survive as a strong, distinct and proud people.

IN THE PINK

2006-06-07T14:53:00.000+11:30

"In the Pink or in the Red" was the somewhat facetious title given to the Joint Standing Committee's report into Health Services on Norfolk Island in recent years.
Most would agree that Health and Education are priority areas of spending for any government nowadays, and any attempt to reduce spending or services in either of these areas would bring about a strong community reaction.
Our own Norfolk Island Assembly, faced with the task of reducing spending and costs in the Public Service, has to deal with the reality that the lion's share of these costs is in these two areas of Health and Education.
Despite rumblings from Canberra's representatives and officials about Norfolk Island's hospital being sub-standard, third world, and in need of bulldozing, I have rarely heard any strong complaints about the level of service and care there.
I have certainly never heard anything like the anger, frustration and concern expressed by people interviewed in last Monday's Four Corners program about rural health services in N.S.W.
Allowing for some journalistic licence and editing in the interests of creating a good story, some of the issues raised in the program are quite frightening.
Take Cobar, a country town of 7000 people, almost quadruple Norfolk Island's population. They have one doctor, and their maternity unit has closed down. Expectant mothers need to plan to go and stay with relatives (or a hotel) in a large centre weeks before their baby is due. In the event of premature labour, an air ambulance may be called, but if labour is reasonably advanced, there is a 4 hour road ambulance journey to Dubbo or Bourke, with a change of ambulance along the way.
The program also dealt with the issue of cancer sufferers, who are 35% more likely to die if they live in the bush, because of lack of access to proper treatments. There are also problems with old buildings, outdated or unserviceable equipment, staffing shortages, waiting lists, and enormous difficulties in attracting doctors.
If you missed it, you can access a transcript to the program on
http://abc.net.au/4corners

Draw your own conclusions!

MORE OF THE SAME

2006-06-05T10:21:00.000+11:30

The economic rationalists in the Territories Department are at it again. They have just put out a tender for someone to do an Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed governance arrangements for Norfolk Island.
In view of the fact that the tender was only published on 30th May, and the closing date for lodgement of tenders is 26th June, one wonders if this tender process will just be another "formality" to give the process an appearance of transparency and independence. Do they already have someone lined up to do this study?
The fact is that no inquiry is independent .... it will always serve the interests of those who set the terms of reference. I wonder - did our own government have the opportunity to give input to these terms of reference?
Now many of us are very concerned about the economic impact of the proposed changes. Blind Freddy can tell you it will be very bad for business, our competitiveness and our tourist industry among other things. We will have no problem in presenting a barrage of concerns to whoever conducts this assessment.
But there are three very disturbing aspects of this tender call.
1. Canberra's mind is still made up, whatever the results of this inquiry. I quote from the tender document:
"Where the extension of Commonwealth laws is likely to have a significant negative impact on the Norfolk Island economy, the consultant should provide options to alleviate these impacts, including possible transition arrangements."
In other words, if we do not like the medicine, they will give us a spoonful of sugar to go with it, but we still have to take it.
Please Canberra, we do not want or need your medicine. We would far rather see an open-ended inquiry, the sort of inquiry you should have had before you made up your minds!!!
2.The timeframe for delivery of this tender is 29th September. That is a mere 3 months after the closing date for lodgement of tenders. It would appear that the bureaucratic timetable is set in concrete, whatever concerns and opposition to their plans may arise. This does not suggest genuine consultation and negotiation.
3.This whole business has all been about economics.
I have news for Canberra....there are other things in life that sustain and nurture us....things like national pride and heritage, family and relationships, way of life and rootedness, and most important - our democratic and historic rights!.
Would Canberra have the courage to explore the social impact of these changes on a very special community?
You can read the tender advertisement at

https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/shared/rftdetail.cfm?p_id=4893&p_criteria
=TRS06%2F188&p_advert=0

Perhaps some of us on Norfolk Island could get together and submit a tender to carry out this assessment?
Or would it be seen as biased?
I suppose it is too much to expect that the real stakeholders in this whole issue should be allowed to have a genuine voice and involvement.

A PAINFUL CHANGE

2006-06-02T15:23:00.000+11:30

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
Gandhi

When I started "AngelsandEagles", one of my aims was to make people aware of what is going on with the island's relationship with Australia. I have also tried to educate people (including me!) and put a perspective on what has happened in the past. Above all I hope I have helped people feel inspired and proud to belong to this unique and wonderful island community.
I have consciously refrained from discussing current local politics up until now. That is not because there are no issues that concern me. But it has been my view that our own elected government needs and deserves support and loyalty in the extremely difficult challenges that have been thrust in front of them....demands and difficulties that none of them could have envisaged when they stood for election. At that time, they probably had a fair idea of what their "mandate" was, but ascertaining the mood and will of the people over the Canberra/governance issue would not have been easy.
I believe that the Norfolk people have been telling them strongly and clearly that that they want to see
*leadership
*action
*direction
*momentum
*communication
*negotiation
Our government has reorganised itself. Those responsible say they believe it was the only way to achieve these goals. It has been a very painful time for every member. I do not believe that any member could be accused of ignoring the challenges we face, and all have approached their task with energy and earnestness.
But the reality is that we seemed to be facing an impasse, a severe communication break-down, and change was needed. It is my belief that it is better for that change to come from within, rather than be forced on them from outside.
It is not a sign of instability...it is a sign of taking responsibility. All governments readjust and re-shuffle their human resources from time to time in order to be more effective and achieve their aims. That includes Liberal and Labour governments in Australia.
Time will tell if these are the right changes, but I strongly believe we should give them time to give it a go! Meanwhile all of us, including our elected members, will need to put self-interest, egos and personality clashes behind us, and put Norfolk Island first.
We do not need to turn our own people into adversaries. We badly need to support and understand each other, whatever our views. Or we risk damaging the very way of life we are trying to preserve.

LIVING IN HOPE

2006-05-30T22:13:00.000+11:30

Different people have reacted in different ways to Australia's plans to strip Norfolk of its right to self-government.
There are some who want it to happen.
Some think we deserve to have it happen.
Some just think it is inevitable.
Some don't mind.
Some don't care.
But fortunately there is a large body of people who think this is a very special place, and do not want to risk losing those things that make it special. They believe that Australia's push is not only unjust and undemocratic, but that it will cause enormous damage to our economy, our identity and the well-being of our community. They are very proud of what this island and its people have achieved, and have great confidence and optimism that we can continue to be a strong and vibrant community, while maintaining control over our own affairs.
I was very impressed by this statement put out by the NORFOLK ACTION GROUP. It was in last week's Norfolk Islander, and would like to reproduce it mainly for the benefit of the Norfolkers and friends overseas who regularly check in to "Angels and Eagles."

A MESSAGE OF HOPE FROM NAG.
"We live in 'd' baes side iin d' werld (We live in the best place in the world.)
We know it. The hundreds of thousands who have holidayed here over the years know it too........
Our people have faced many challenges over the 150 years of the modern Norfolk, and we have always prevailed and grown stronger.
We are faced today with the biggest challenge in our short history which, through the intervention of the Commonwealth to limit (at best), and take away (at worst) our ability to self-govern, will greatly change our way of life, culture, and our community.
But, we believe we can prevail again.
Where we can be sustainable. Where we can retain all that is good about life and living here - our community and culture; improve what needs to be - and there are many areas where we must do better: build better experiences for tourists who tell us they do not want a mini-Australia to visit; and pay our way in a manner that is ours; in a future of self-government, and partnership with Australia, where we are not a burden on the tax-payers of our partner forever.
Furthermore, a self-determining Norfolk Island Government is the only government who can guarantee: the 'veranda' for our elderly; three doctors, a dentist, and a physiotherapist; you can have your baby on Norfolk Island; a low regulatory environment and low taxes that can underpin our competitiveness in tourism; a (democratic) choice as to the governance model we want; nil unemployment; and the best outcome for the Australian taxpayer."

A message for all our friends and family in New Zealand, Australia and other parts of the world. We are working hard to keep this beautiful island a good place for you to come home to!!!

BOOM AND BUST...FEAST AND FAMINE

2006-05-28T14:47:00.000+11:30

When you talk to the older folks on Norfolk Island, they will tell you about the good old days, and they will tell you that the good old days were often very tough. Yes, there are many very happy memories of wonderful people and gatherings and events, but putting food on the table meant plenty of hard work and resourcefulness and sharing..but they managed.
They will also tell you that the history of Norfolk Island in the last century tends to be one of "boom and bust." Over the years, there have been many industries that were developed to provide a cash flow for the community...whaling, bananas, passionfruit, lemon juice, seed and peel, oranges, bean seed, fish, flower seeds, palm seed, pine seed. Many of these were very successful for a time, and for periods actually attracted numbers of settlers to the island, as in the Banana Boom of the 1920's.
Many other things were also tried for a time, such as avocadoes, flax, broom millet and pumpkin seed, ginger, guavas.
That many of these eventually failed was usually a result of shipping difficulties, changing markets, and even trade embargoes. Nevertheless, the Norfolkers have always been ready to give something else a go. With an equable climate, good soil and a bit of hard work and initiative, anything was possible.
The growth of the Tourist industry, particularly in the 60's, saw a lessening of the dependence on agriculture, and an influx of people to help serve the needs of that industry or to capitalise on the opportunities it provided. Since then we have seen, not so much booms and busts, as peaks and troughs, usually due to changing demographics and factors beyond our control. But once again, Norfolkers have proved adaptable, and have developed new markets, strategies and facilities to keep things going, and in the meantime have tightened their belts a little until things improved.
Now Australia is no stranger to booms and busts. Mining, sugar, wheat, wool, car manufacturing, just to name a few, have had their fluctuations, and have often had to be "propped up" until solutions could be found. Government Revenues in Australia have not been immune either. How many times have we heard about the 96 billion dollars of debt the present government inherited from the previous Labour Government. Inflation, deficits, recessions....they are all part of the cycle of life, of business, of government.
So why is it that when Norfolk confronts a difficult time financially, suddenly our system of governance is unsustainable????
A commercial airline fails, the travel market undergoes some changes..these are factors beyond our control, but we have responded to these changes.
We have needed to undergo a learning and adapting process with our government accounting and revenue-raising. What government of any other country has not had to do that from time to time?
Can we be blamed for cynically suspecting that Australia has chosen this time to edge in when they think we are on our knees, and then place more obstacles in our path so we fall flat on our faces?
Norfolkers are resilient and adaptable. We have weathered downturns before. We are happy to make changes.
Meanwhile, we have not lost the willingness and the skills to put food on our tables. We still know about growing things for ourselves, pooling resources, sharing, bartering and bargaining.
We know how to improvise, how to budget, and how to help one another. These are qualities and skills that have largely been lost in the more welfare dependent communities in Australia.
Moreover, we still live in a very beautiful and peaceful and stable island, our soil is fertile and our climate is favourable.
We know we can see the good times again. It would be nice if Australia, as a friend and neighbour, could see their way to helping us on the path. It may need nothing more than a bit of time, and relaxing of some of the bureaucratic obstacles and red tape they put in our way.
Our island is rich in both its natural and human resources. Let us be positive about steering our future...the NORFOLK WAY.

TRACK RECORD

2006-05-25T17:02:00.000+11:30

Australia is dealing with quite a few problems just lately, problems that are outside the normal day-to-day running of the country for the Australian people. There is a large deployment of troops overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to solve problems that seem to defy answers. Now more troops are placed right on Australia's doorstep trying to bring order to Pacific Islands badly affected by violence and dissidence.
Then there the difficulties right at home in Australia's Aboriginal communities. We are seeing really severe social and health problems that will not go away. Many of these are the result of decades of policies and programs that were poorly conceived and delivered, however well-intentioned they may have been. The difficulties are complex, but one thing is abundantly clear:

If you dispossess a people..........

If you take away their means of providing for themselves..........

If you place them in a regulatory environment that is culturally inappropriate.............

....then no amount of money, not even $3.3 billion a year, will bring healing to the situation.

I do not intend to start laying blame. But Australia's track record is not good. And what makes me really angry is the Australian Government's inability to learn from its mistakes!

*Here on Norfolk Island we are confronting ignorance of and insensitivity to a people's cultural heritage.
*We are being dispossesssed of what Norfolk Islanders regard as their homeland, separate and distinct from any other country, including Australia.
*We are to be subjected to a body of law and an economic system that was designed for Australians, not Norfolkers.

Does Australia really want to create yet another community which has lost its spirit and pride, which is dependent on welfare and hand-outs, and which will sit uneasily in the one-size-fits-all Australian mold?
Here on Norfolk Island we have a community with a strong spirit and sense of rootedness. We are peaceful and law-abiding. We are healthy, energetic and productive. We have a high level of services and facilities and employment. But we have extremely low levels of crime, violence and anti-social behaviours. We are not a drain on Australia's finances, but provide for ourselves. We are not a security risk to anyone.
Why would we want anyone to come and spoil that for us?

NORFOLK ISLAND AND THE UNITED NATIONS - part2

2006-05-23T18:09:00.000+11:30

Norfolk Island has been barred from making a direct approach to the United Nations in the past. We may have been able to appeal to the Committee dealing with de-colonisation but Australia conveniently omitted to tell that organisation that we were a non-self-governing territory, and not part of metropolitan Australia....and no one thought to question it.
Is there anything we can do about it now?
Back in 1978, when our appeal to the U.N. had been unsuccessful, our case was taken up by the United Nations Association of Australia. The President of the Association at the time was Richard Alston, but most of the spadework and and the subsequent report were the result of the efforts of their Media Officer John Bulbeck. The very clear and comprehensive report produced stated unequivocally that Norfolk Island had been wronged and misrepresented as to its true legal and constitutional status over a long period of time.
However, around that time, the Hon. Robert Ellicot had taken over as Minister responsible for Territories, and was obviously much more favourably disposed towards Norfolk Island's aspirations. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to press the island's case before the U.N. any further, because it appeared that we were to be set on the path to self-determination anyway.
In hindsight, we would have been better to have waited, and had our status as a non-self-governing territory clearly established before embarking on the journey to self-determination. If we had done that, the process would have been monitored internationally, and we would have some real leverage and ammunition now. But as usual, our goodwill and trusting nature worked in Australia's favour. And now they continue to have the upper hand.
So is it too late?
Well, just think about the "Australianisation" process that has gone on in the meantime. Not only have many Norfolkers become Australian citizens by default simply because they were born here, but in the past few years, you have more or less had to take out Australian citizenship if you wanted to qualify for residency. And now it is essential even if you want to vote or stand for the Assembly. Australian citizens have even been given the right to vote in Australian elections, although we said that we did not want it. So if an international body looks at Norfolk Island, and finds out that most of us are Australian citizens, they say "Well, what's the problem? You must be part of Australia."
Pretty cunning.
Would other member states of the United Nations be prepared to support us? Maybe. But you must realise that every single country is there basically to represent its own interests, and votes at the direction of its own government at home. Norfolk Island would not rank very high on their list of concerns. The U.N. does a lot of good things, through their humanitarian programmes and peacekeeping, but championing the cause of little places that do not have a voice of their own is not a high priority. I am sorry if that sounds cynical, but it comes from frustration.
What about our Pacific neighbours? Would they speak up for us in the U.N. General Assembly or sponsor our appeal?No doubt they would have some sympathy for us, but nowadays, they are so hopelessly enmeshed in the strings that are attached to the Foreign Aid they receive from Australia that they may need to think twice before openly supporting our cause! Trade deals and other agreements that countries have with each other further complicate the situation.
I am told it may be possible to take our case to the U.N. Committee of Human Rights, but we must be sure we have the political will and necessary funding. Does that mean we will have Minister Lloyd shaking his finger at us, and warning us about using public funds, as he did over the High Court Case?
Maybe in the end, it will still be up to you and me....to speak up, let as many people as you can know what is happening, write letters, make your views known to our own Assembly as well as Australia's representatives and bureaucrats. It doesn't matter if you do not think you are good with words...just tell it like it is, from your own point of view. Get on the phone or the fax, take up your pen, sit down at your computer. If you really love this island, do it from the heart and with passion.
Norfolk may just be a tiny place in the scheme of things, but it would appear that we are extremely important to Australia.....important enough for Australia to shamelessly and dishonestly ignore our rights over as long period of time.

NORFOLK AND THE UNITED NATIONS - part one

2006-05-22T21:14:00.000+11:30

Many of us are probably asking ourselves where we can go for help in seeking a fair and just solution for Norfolk Island.
We can make endless submissions and write countless letters to DOTARS, the Minister, the P.M., and the Fact-finding Bodies they send our way, but their minds are all made up. We are told that both sides of Federal Parliament want to see Norfolk Island brought under the Australian taxation and welfare system. Even those brave MP's who have shown sympathy for Norfolk Island's case in the past have been well and truly muzzled.
We are hopeful about the High Court Case, but must remember that although those judges are independent of politics, it is still the High Court of Australia. We can play the media, but the media is fickle, and would be more interested in our cause if we showed some inclination for banner carrying, demonstrations and violent tactics, and other activities that are simply not in the Norfolk character.
What about the United Nations?
Sadly, they cannot and will not help us.
Australia has seen to that.
Back in 1977, when we were under threat from the Nimmo Report, we tried to appeal to the United Nations, and were unsuccessful.
WHY??
Well, back in 1945, Australia was a signatory to the U.N. Charter, which included article 73 which related to a country's responsibilities to non- self-governing territories. This article would have given considerable protection to Norfolk Island in its desire to move towards self-determination....except that Australia omitted to include Norfolk Island in its list of non-self-governing territories! Cocos was listed, and so was Papua - but not Norfolk Island. And in case you think this was just an oversight, Australia had the chance to make amends later in 1975 when a Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on "United Nations Involvement with Australia's Territories" stated clearly that "a number of factors militate against even the possibility of United Nations involvement in Norfolk Island." They said that Norfolk Island is part of mainstream Australia.....and no other member state of the U.N. has ever questioned the matter. Britain even listed Pitcairn as a non-self-governing territory....but Australia refued to give us that status, although that is clearly what we were...and we were left with no international rights! Another case of "Australia does it simply because they can."
So if we wish to speak with the U.N., we must ask Australia to do so on our behalf (fat chance), and any approach to the Committee of 24 on Decolonisation must come from the General Assembly of the U.N.
Thus Australia has been absolved of any responsibility towards this island, according to U.N. Charter, "to develop self government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them in the progressive develoment of their free political institutions..."
So do we go on feeling too small and insignificant for the rest of the world to worry about us?
Can we do anything about it?
Or is it too late?

ARE YOU LISTENING??

2006-05-19T14:15:00.000+11:30

At the moment the buzz word seems to be "consultation".
IN 1995, the then Shadow Minister for Territories said in the Commonwealth Parliament, referring to Norfolk Island and its people:
"we ought not to presume or assume that any changes that impinge on their constitutional and legal rights ought be imposed without a degree of special consultation"
We are now being told that it is all right for Australia to be doing what it is because extensive consultation is taking place.
I thought I was missing something, so I looked the word "consult" up in the dictionary...I used the big Macquarie dictionary (an Australian dictionary) to be sure I got it right. It said:
1.to seek counsel from; ask advice of. 2. to refer to for information. 3. to have regard to (a person's interest,convenience etc.) in making plans. 4. to consider or deliberate; take counsel; confer.
Now quite frankly, I just cannot see that this process is taking place at all. Because to me, definitions 1 and 2 mean that the person you consult is presumed to have the skills, wisdom and knowledge to help you make the right decisions. When you consult a doctor, you listen to him/her. You do not come with your own diagnosis and write your own prescription. And when you genuinely consult with the Norfolk Island people, you listen to them and take their advice, because they know best. Consultations with Grants Commissions, Bureaux of Statistics and Standing Committees are not the same as seeking counsel from us!
Definition 3 is definitely not taking place, however warm and fuzzy the Minister tries to make it sound when he talks about enjoying the same benefits of all "other Australians". When it comes down to it, this is more about Australia's national interest than ours.
As for Definition 4, well, I will agree some of those things are taking place, but we, the people who are being affected, are being left right out of the equation. Canberra is conferring and deliberating with everyone except us. I believe the preparations for the final takeover have been extensive, and have spread through several government departments at all sorts of levels, even in some state and municipal areas. Yes, I know some of this may be "demtul," but let's face it, we on Norfolk Island are being tkept in the dark and told very little.
If Canberra thinks we have a problem - economic, governmental or otherwise - wouldn't it have been better for all the stakeholders to sit down around a round table and confer as equals, and seek solutions that are mutually beneficial?
There is nothing consultative about presenting us with two non-negotiable options, with the details to be announced later after receiving the results of Commissions and Inquiries into whose terms of reference we have had NO INPUT!
As for negotiation and dialogue - two more words bandied around by those who insist that Australia will do the right thing by us - they are also meaningless in this situation. Australia has the upper hand, they set the terms, they choose the questions, and they listen to what fits with their pre-conceived plans, and ignore the rest.
It is not just about consultation either. It is about rights and democracy. We were given self-government. The members of the Australian Government should be treating the members of our government as equals.
It is not good enough to be playing political games as if our government were members of the Minister's Federal Opposition! Nor is it right for him to be bypassing our elected government with open letters and public press releases as if we were constituents of his electorate with whom he needs to curry favour.
Minister - can't we have a fresh start and go about all this in the right and honourable way?
Or do we have to 'cop it sweet'?
(See article in today's Norfolk Islander 20th May 2006 -"FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST LISTEN")

THE GREAT EXPERIMENT

2006-05-17T12:20:00.000+11:30

Ever since the first discovery of the little community on Pitcairn in 1808, with John Adams, that hardy survivor of the Mutiny on the Bounty, and the Tahitian wives and offspring, the Pitcairn/Norfolk community has been an object of interest in the eyes of the world. Folk back in England in the early 19th century were amazed at the transformation this little group of people had undergone, their piety and godliness, the peace and good order of the community, and their simple survival of a violent period and extreme isolation.
The fact that they had become a "novelty" in the eyes of the world, and that some of the interest was somewhat patronising, fortunately did not trouble them much. They continued their isolated existence, benefitting from the benign assistance from regular visiting ship's captains and friends back in England. However, we know that they captured the interest of those interested in the science of "eugenics"( i.e. the science of choosing parents in order to produce a particular type of offspring (the modern designer babies.), an interest that continued right up until the 1920's when the anthropologist Dr Harry Shapiro, after extensive studies, concluded that the offspring and descendants of the crossing of the Polynesian and the British bloodstock displayed a "physical vigour which equals, if not surpasses, either parent stock."
(Even in recent years, unfriendly journalists have chosen to refer to this community as "inbred.")
When the Pitcairners made their move to Norfolk Island, it is apparent that the outside world, and those in authority continued to view the community very much as an interesting social experiment. In his book "Norfolk Island and the Third Settlement" Ray Nobbs writes that the concept of the move and re-settlement of the Pitcairn community being an experiment occurs frequently in the communications and writings of Governor Denison.
"the Pitcairners...did not realise they were subjects of an experiment, albeit a sincere one, which was open to review and future qualification. Their interpretation was thus misguided on two accounts; the nature of the proposal itself (they regarded Norfolk Island as ceded to them by Queen Victoria) and the permanency of the agreement about exclusive occupancy." (Norfolk Island and the Third Settlement pp47-48)
In our past 150 years, we have been made painfully aware that we continue to be treated like guinea pigs or lab rats. Our methods of governance and constitutional status have been chopped and changed on a regular basis, and rarely has it been done with proper consultation with those involved on this island, except in very minor matters. We have been expected to adapt and make the best of it, which I believe has been done with considerable grace.
We could be forgiven for thinking that in 1979 the experiment was coming to an end, and that finally we had the certainty that at last our future was to be in our own hands. We really thought it was set in cement.
Our hopes have been dashed. The neo-colonial authorities, it seems, were still only viewing it as a trial. They were playing with us once again. In fact, it seems that we were like rats in a maze, trying to find our way through to the cheese. Everytime we were showing signs of success, they would move it, or place obstacles in our path.
Now they are tired of the game. The novelty has well and truly worn off. The subjects of their experiment are to put back into the large cage.....the one where they keep the enormous homogenised mass of all Australian citizens. It is the final solution. In the future, it will be hard to recognise us from any Australian community. That is why we must strongly resist the "Consistency, Uniformity and Control" drive, articulated by the Minister, which I believe is the true reason for Canberra's encroachment on our historic rights and freedoms.
The frightening thing is that what Australia means to do in the name of fixing our economy is the greatest gamble and risk that this community has ever been subjected to. They can send all the number-crunchers here that they like, but they just cannot give any satisfactory evidence that governance changes will stimulate our economy. On the contrary, it will place it at great risk, and probably have an enormous social and cultural impact as well.
But this time it will be too late to reverse the changes. We simply will not be able to go back and start again.

CONSISTENCY, UNIFORMITY AND CONTROL

2006-05-15T16:26:00.000+11:30

CONSISTENCY, UNIFORMITY AND CONTROL.....I heard it from the Minister's own lips......with my own ears. And he used all three words in one sentence.
Yes, and most of us already knew it ....... that is the REAL reason for wanting to take away our right to self-government.
It is not about the economy, it is not even about border control, it is about bringing us into line, shortening the tether-rope, taking away everything that makes us different.
If you listened to Jim Lloyd's radio interview with George Smith, you will know that it is very clear that the Minister cannot and will not give us any sound or rational reasons for what his government has planned for this island.
He says it is about the Acumen report, but it is blatantly obvious that all of this was in the pipeline long before that report.
He says it is a Cabinet decision, not his......but the buck stops with him, and it is up to him to give us explanations.
He tells us he receives emails from business people asking Australia to come and take over soon because they are going broke......but gives no clues as to how those businesses will fare better under a high-taxing, high-compliance regime.
He tells us we do not have an electoral voice.....but we elect our own parliament every 3 years to manage our affairs, and Canberra plans to strip them of much of their powers and authority and revenue raising capability. And his own government has actually stripped some of our residents of their local electoral voice and rights!
He says that Canberra will work with the N.I. Government "where they can"......but fails to show even common courtesies to our elected representatives, let alone pursue clear lines of communication.
He talks about negativity towards the proposals, but fails to notice that most opposition comes from people who are very positive about keeping Norfolk Island as it is, because they think it is the best place in the world, and they envy no one....not even all those people benefitting from Australia's so-called prosperity.
He talks about misinformation............but shows an appalling lack of accurate knowledge about our proposed NSL.
And of course we may never know what misinformation has led to the Cabinet making this decision.
And as for gloating about a gift of less than a million dollars to his own Gosford Council for roads in the recent Budget!
Admit it Minister.....that is for a population far higher than ours, and the Acumen report said we are heading for insolvency and we need to spend a whopping $86 million on our local Norfolk roads in the next few years!
Moreover, I presume these councils need those handouts, because I am led to believe that a high proportion of them are heading for insolvency!!!!!
Methinks the Minister should be avoiding interviews and press releases, because the web he is weaving is becoming increasingly tangled.
Remember...CONSISTENCY, UNIFORMITY AND CONTROL.....that is what Canberra has in mind for little Norfolk Island. That is their agenda. The rest is a smokescreen.

PROMOTING NORFOLK'S CAUSE

2006-05-14T12:09:00.000+11:30

Ed Howard moved to Norfolk Island in the 1970's, seeking a quiet life of retirement. Instead, this former American citizen found himself in the centre, and sometimes at the forefront of a political struggle to enshrine the historic rights of the Pitcairners into law. Ed Howard took Australian citizenship, then proceeded to "take on" the Australian Government. He served terms on the Assembly, and became a mentor to groups such as the Pitcairn Descendants' Society. Ed had the skills and resources to conduct research into legal and historical documents that would throw light on the issues involved, and he was also able to articulate the concerns and aspirations of many Norfolk Islanders.
When asked why he bothered, especially when his actions aroused strong opposition in many quarters, he said:

"I dislike bullies. When I see a bully, I move in."

Ed was keen to dispel the view that he supported full independence from Australia.
He said:
"Human sharks smell such situations and move in."
This still happens today. There are very few people who truly want to secede, but the idea does sound tempting when Australia refuses to negotiate or compromise on a fair and just basis.
Ed devoted considerable time to examining the documents surrounding the move of the Pitcairners from Pitcairn Island to Norfolk Island. He said it was true that later documents made it clear that there were to be limitations placed on the Pitcairners' rights to ownership of the land on Norfolk Island.
Nevertheless, Ed declared, the documents on which the Pitcairners based their agreement to leave their home did make it clear that Norfolk Island was to be ceded to them. Neither they, nor Lieutenant Gregorie who negotiated the move with the Pitcairners, were aware of later amendments. The view that the documents must be read in proper sequence is also promoted by Professor Ray Nobbs in his new book to be launched next month.
Ed was greatly persuaded by the strong oral tradition, handed down through island families, that Norfolk Island was rightfully theirs, a gift from Queen Victoria. He said:

"Nimmo found there was nothing to support any idea that Pitcairners have 'special rights' to Norfolk. I thought, hold on, if people have been believing something for five or six generations, there has got to be something in it."

There is no doubt that the battle that Ed Howard took on 20-30 years ago is much the same struggle that we face today. The Pitcairners, brought up on Christian values, believed that the word of the colonial authorities could be trusted and believed. They were sadly let down. And we are still being let down today.

NO GOING BACK

2006-05-12T13:37:00.000+11:30

When the subject of Norfolk's future comes up in conversations, I sometimes hear people say:
"Oh well, we will just go back to the way we were before 1979. We managed then and we will be okay."

Having invested a great deal of personal emotional energy into resisting Australia's push, I only wish I could share their confidence or complacency!
That is because it will NOT be as it was before self-government at all. This is a totally new and different situation we face.

Pre-1979, the Administrator acted on the advice of his Advisory Council. Only when he strongly disagreed would a matter be referred to Canberra.
Under proposed changes, Canberra will have all the say in everything except minor domestic matters. It will be government by remote-control.

Pre-1979, Norfolk was governed according to Norfolk laws, designed for Norfolk Island and Norfolk residents.
Under the proposed changes, Norfolk will be governed according to Australian Commonwealth laws for the benefit of Australia and for any Australian citizens who choose to live here.

Pre-1979, the Norfolk Island was able to tender advice on how revenues should be spent. Although there was occasional friction, it was generally accepted that it should be spent on what locals recognised as their real needs.
Under proposed changes, all the big financial decisions will be made by Canberra, and although big money may be spent, it may not necessarily be what we want or need, and much of it will be spent on outside contractors, bureaucrats, middlemen, consultancies etc.

Pre-1979, this was very much the home of the Norfolk Islanders and those people they had welcomed to join them in this community.
Under the proposed changes, there will be no T.E.P's or G.E.P.'s, or "permanent residents" for that matter. There will be no special rights for anyone who feels they have a special relationship with the island, no matter who they are. All jobs, contracts, tenders etc will be up for grabs, available to anyone who holds Australian citizenship.

Pre-1979, our economy, our administration, our governmental processes and our infrastructure were much simpler. There has been an enormous development in our business sector, our infrastructure and our level of services and facilities since that time.
Under the proposed changes, there would be an enormous impact on the complex economic, and administrative systems that we ourselves have developed to meet our special Norfolk needs in this new millennium.

Pre 1979, Norfolk Island could be proud of its separate status, and its unique heritage, culture and value system.
Under the proposed changes, the "Australianisation" process would gather momentum and we will have very few means to resist it (it is hard enough now!)

Make no mistake...these 26 years of self-government have not been a little "detour". There will be no "putting the genie back in the bottle" as someone has said.
This will be an enormous change from anything Norfolk Island has known before, and once it has happened, whether we like it or not, there will be no turning back!

THE MAIN ISSUES

2006-05-10T11:23:00.000+11:30

Since Minister Lloyd's announcement on February 20, Community concern and discussion seem to have focussed on three main issues.

THE ECONOMIC ISSUE
Some share Canberra's view that Norfolk can no longer provide for itself, while others feel that given a bit of help and support, we can recover from our current downturn and not only be sustainable but a vibrant economy.
There are some who would welcome the opportunity to receive an Australian pension and assistance in areas such as Health and Education, while others feel that Canberra's proposals would make self-reliance impossible, make business unaffordable and uncompetitive, and lead to a decrease in services and facilities we now enjoy.

THE RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY ISSUE
Several in our community have long held the view that Norfolk Island is very much part of Australia, and that Canberra is entitled to impose whatever regime it likes on Norfolk Island. At the other end of the scale are those who believe that Norfolk Island does not belong to Australia at all and continues to be a distinct and separate settlement. There are many shades of views in between, including those who accept that we are a territory under the Commonwealth of Australia, but that Canberra should not make decisions that affect us without consultation and our agreement. Often the question is what comes first ...our rights and responsibilities as Norfolk citizens or as Australians.

THE IDENTITY ISSUE
This is the area that arouses the most passion, and is very much bound up with the other two areas. Many feel that unless we are allowed to make our own choices and decisions about our way of life, our way of dealing with issues and with each other, and about our laws, then our culture and heritage are under threat. They feel their identity as a separate people is threatened by the 'Australianisation' process. Meanwhile others are satisfied that we can still live out our own culture and traditions even though we live under the Australian regime.

I believe there is an important fourth issue that we should all confront, and ask Australia to explain.

THE HONESTY ISSUE
To my way of thinking, Canberra has not been open or honest about why they are imposing their own laws and governance models on us. Nothing they are proposing can be shown to solve our economic difficulties which they state are the problem. They cannot give us any sound reason why we need to come under their Customs, Immigration and Quarantine umbrella, or why Commonwealth laws should apply here. They consistently deny us the right to pursue any initiatives that will help our sustainability. In fact, they place obstacles in our path. They speak about consultation and negotiation, but we are not allowed any input into the agenda. Everything they say to justify their actions sounds to me like a "furphy" and a distraction from the real issues.
Australia seems to need us more than we need them.
Is it "our" oil and other resources?
Is it for strategic reasons?
Is it because they are just tired of the Norfolk Anomaly?
Is it because this is one of the easier steps in their big neo-colonial push in the Pacific?
WE SHOULD RECOGNISE IT, AND CANBERRA SHOULD ADMIT IT.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT NORFOLK ISLAND.
IT IS ALL BEING DONE IN AUSTRALIA'S NATIONAL INTEREST.

TAKE A BOW NORFOLK ISLAND

2006-05-08T19:09:00.000+11:30

As much as Canberra would like to paint a picture of doom and gloom, and have us on our financial knees, this little island is doing remarkably well. The image of a busy, buzzing little community seems to persist.
In the past eight or nine days, there have been a number of fundraising functions. Last week we had the Easter Carnival, this weekend we have had a major Benefit night for local residents, a Car Wash and a Quiz night for the kids going to Tahiti, and a Fish/Fry entertainment evening for those raising funds to show hospitality for our Tahitian friends coming for Bounty. There has been a very successful "Shave for a Cure" at the Sports and Workers, and no doubt other functions and raffles.
I would say that conservatively speaking, well over $100 has been given in the "helping out" and "Inasmuch" spirit by every man, woman and child on this island on average in this period, and that does not include generous donations of prizes by individuals and businesses, and time given by entertainers and organisers.
Not that those attending these functions have not benefitted and had a good time too in return. But that is how it works here. You get out if life what you put in. It is called community spirit, and you should never underestimate the extent to which it keeps this island ticking over.
Much of our business community, too, is not only holding its own in the downturn, but doing well. Especially those who have taken the trouble to re-organise, brighten their premises, offer incentives, meet the needs of their customers, and maintain an optimistic outlook. I do believe we are in a better position to sustain ourselves than we would be under the mainland systems, where small businesses last an average of just 2 years in the best of circumstances! Our flexibility, our close relationship with our customers and market, and lack of red tape really works in our favour. Minister Lloyd actually warned people to hold off from investing in business here at a business luncheon in February. Glad to say his advice was ignored by many.
Norfolkers are travelling too...just go out to the airport any time and see who gets on and off the planes! That wasn't happening two or three decades ago. This weekend, the Markets were bustling, lots of locals were enjoying the pleasant autumn weather at Sports Venues, at the al fresco eating places, in their gardens, and carrying out DIY jobs on their homes. And if the seas were good, you can bet plenty of them were out fishing too.
I feel positive and confident about this place, and that is why I will keep speaking up to keep this island in control of its own future.

CREDIBILITY AT STAKE

2006-05-06T13:47:00.000+11:30

From time to time there arises a situation where our success and well-being depends on the decisions and actions of someone else. It may be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a politician. When this happens, we need to trust and hope that the person concerned not only has our best interests at heart, but they are able to act with skill, with wisdom, and with integrity.
Which is why the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories is a bit of a worry. Now we all know that to a large extent, the findings of this committee are the justification and the rationale for much of the recent decision-making from Canberra on the future of Norfolk Island.
I have been re-visiting the transcript of the programme that was aired on Channel Nine in 2004, in which several people were interviewed about the Janelle Patton murder. Two of our esteemed JSC members allowed themselves to be interviewed for this programme...Senator Lightfoot, the chairman of the Committee and Senator Hogg. I find myself scratching my head about what they thought they could contribute to the issue, but nevertheless they were quite happy to be quoted on the subject.

As I read through the script, I read the following from Ross Lightfoot:
"People on the island know who murdered Janelle....No question that they know. It's very, very hard to penetrate that husk of silence that surrounds Norfolk Islanders when they want to protect their own."
"The committee's report published last Christmas was largely ignored on the mainland but it's a scathing indictment of how federal parliamentarians see life operating on Norfolk under the peaceful veneer."
"There's a lack of respect for outside authority. That includes the seconded AFP police officers, who are fine men, and includes a lack of respect for this committee."

And from John Hogg:
"There is an atmosphere of threat and violence and fear permeating throughout the island."
"In the environment they live in, they (i.e. possible informants) really fear for their lives. And their families."

I must say that I simply do not recognise the island and islanders I know and love after 40 years in these statements and the rest of the transcript.
But I do recognise sour grapes, and worse- venom, spleen, paranoia, and incredible prejudice that borders on racial hatred.
We all know that now these two men are left with a good dose of egg on their faces.
Their credibility is seriously damaged.
But they are still on the Joint Standing Committee, and still trusted by Canberra to carry out the role of investigating and reporting on Norfolk Island affairs....hopefully with fairness and justice!!
This leaves serious and worrying questions in my mind.
How about you?
You can read the transcript for yourself at
http://www.sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1586.asp

COUNTING THE COST

2006-05-03T21:00:00.000+11:30

A team from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is on the island, collecting facts and figures on business activity on the island.
They tell us they are completely independent. But no one is independent if they are commissioned and funded by another body, and get their instructions and terms of reference from that body.
They also tell us that the information they receive will not be identifiable as coming from a particular business. When it is collated, it will all be "averaged out." Well, we are also getting used to the idea that we are going to be treated like "average" Australians.
Nevertheless the ABS fellows are only doing their job. Asking questions and getting answers, with varying degrees of co-operation.
I hear they are getting an earful while they do their rounds. People are telling them that business is doing it tough at the moment, but not nearly as tough as it will be if Canberra takes over. We are used to boom and bust on this island, and we can adapt, make changes and fight back. This is a busy, vibrant little island with loads of potential. And Canberra's "solutions" will do nothing to stimulate our economy.
So what harm can a collection of figures and graphs do?
Our big worry is what Canberra will do with those numbers. How they will twist them to support their message and agenda. They have already made the unfounded assumption that we have not got what it takes to be sustainable.
Through all this torrent of costings and assessments we are undergoing, we must ask:

"What about the human factor?"

Does Canberra realise they are dealing with a community of real people, with emotions and feelings? Do they count?
A young man told me today that he will be heartbroken if Canberra gets its way with the island. Many people have told me that the threats the island is facing actually make them feel depressed and physically ill. They feel a passionate love for their island home and their heritage...........and Canberra doesn't seem to care.
It has been called "bloodless genocide" in one quarter, and as dramatic as that may sound, it is an indication of how people feel about having their unique identity and birthright snatched from them.
Figures and statistics are all very well in their place, but the way of life we enjoy here on this island is priceless. Australia may promise to pour millions into this island if they take control, but they can never compensate us for what we will lose.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Benjamin Disraeli

SOMETHING FISHY

2006-05-02T21:40:00.000+11:30

You may have noticed that ever since Minister Jim Lloyd made his announcement on February 20th, we have not been given much more information. The Canberra people have just repeated the same thing over and over again. Perhaps if they keep saying it, they hope we will believe it. They have not even made much attempt to explain or justify what they plan to do. They have not been able to demonstrate that their plan will solve any problems we may have.
They simply want to swallow us up. They say it is for our own good, and we in turn are expected to swallow it hook, line and sinker!

*They tell us we are in economic difficulties - and then threaten to block any initiatives we want to make to strengthen and diversify our economy.

*They tell us we face future insolvency, then take away our customs revenue to make sure it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!

*They tell us they have to take away our customs, immigration and quarantine and say it is about border control. But we already have to go through exactly the same immigration and customs barriers and checks as every other visitor or exporter to Australia.

*They say they want to "maintain the strength, self-reliance and culture of Norfolk", and then they threaten to take away the very things that have kept us self-reliant and strong up until now.

*They talk about the "special character of Norfolk Island and its history and its people" - and think they can preserve it by extending Australian Commonwealth laws to the island.

*They talk endlessly about consultation - but have ensured that it is only a one-way process and that we have absolutely no say in the agenda!

*They say that we should not expect the Australian taxpayer to fund a small helping hand out of our current temporary difficulties, but they can afford to spend $674 million in aid towards governance in other 'independent' Pacific islands in one financial year.

The simple fact is that they have had a long-standing and well-developed agenda to swallow us up and make us just another part of mainstream Australia. They want to take away our separate identity and absorb us into their system of laws and government. They do not really want to help us...they would rather see us dependent on them.

It is unfair. It is unjust. It is undemocratic.

It doesn't even make sense.

It must not happen.

LIFE IN THE SUBURBS

2006-04-30T12:23:00.000+11:30

Minister Lloyd told us in his phone/radio interview yesterday that he has single streets in his electorate with more people than live on Norfolk Island.

So what can we imply from this?

We are too small and insignificant to be worth worrying about?
Well, we do not see it that way. Our community is very important to us. We are well aware that Norfolk Island, being an anomaly, has only nuisance value for Canberra and DOTARS. We don't really expect others to see us as important to their lives. Just leave us to get on with things our way.

We cannot possibly organise ourselves into a viable and self-sufficient community with our own laws and methods of managing our affairs?
On the contrary, I believe we have proved we can. In those early years after the mutiny, and the initial violence, the Pitcairners could easily have "gone feral" and wiped themselves out altogether. But they didn't...they organised themselves into a productive and positive little group of people, and laid the foundations for a society, indeed, a small nation, that has remained strong, well-ordered, resilient. A people with a sound set of values, a sense of rootedness, belonging and empowerment. A people that is diverse, yet cohesive. A people that is contented and relaxed, but prepared to work hard for what it wants and needs. And above all, a people that wants to continue to manage its own affairs for the benefit of the people who belong to it.

Big is better?
On that basis, New South Wales is better than Tasmania, The U.S.A. is better than Australia, China and India are better than the U.S.A.....you could go on making comparisons. But we all know it is not necessarily so!!!
It is all a question of cutting your coat to suit your cloth, and working out a system to suit your needs and your size. Here on Norfolk Island, much of our problem has been that we have had big-government "solutions" imposed on us to meet small local island needs and problems.
If our government has become too complex, it is because Australia has demanded that it be so.
Drawing us into the Australian system will only make our government and our lives more complex and unweildy.

We need to be "normalised" into the Australian suburban model?
There is no better place in the world than Norfolk Island. We love living here. We love being different. We have evolved a very special way of life that suits us. We do not expect others to fit into our pattern of life...although we are sure we can teach them a lot about getting your priorities right! We are incredibly proud of our uniqueness, our special heritage, our beautiful island home.
Much has been said in recent days about the criteria for prospective immigrants into Australia. The PM says that people migrating to Australia should be prepared to accept Australian values, customs, laws and also speak some English!
Well, what about Norfolk laws, customs and values? Don't they mean anything? Do you really want to wipe those things out with the stroke of a pen? Why are Australian ways and laws better for us than ours?

Please do not try to fit Norfolkers into your little suburban boxes!

MUTINY 217 YEARS ON

2006-04-28T17:04:00.000+11:30

Today is the 217th anniversary of the Mutiny on the Bounty. Some of us can understand the frustration of those forefathers as they dealt with a high-handed and irrational authority figure. Who can blame them for wanting to return to the relaxed freedom of the Pacific Island they had left behind?
Many of us feel pretty depressed with what has been dished up to us on the radio and in our mail boxes today.
So in the interests of a good laugh...and a touch of free speech....I thought I would post this for your enjoyment.

SINK OR SWIM

NEW INQUIRY INTO NORFOLK AFFAIRS

2006-04-27T16:08:00.000+11:30

You may not have heard, but the members of the JSC have decided they still cannot understand what makes this island tick (surprise, surprise!), so they are going to conduct another Inquiry in the near future. Here are some of the things they are hoping to find out about Norfolk Island's people:
JUST STOP COMPLAINING
TERMS OF REFERENCE
*Why are they still playing ball when we keep moving the goalposts and tripping them up?
*What is it about eating Pilhi that makes them so proud of their culture (and will they please ask us for Bounty Day so we can taste it again.)?
*Could they extend their free burial scheme to mainland Australia?
*Why are they fishing in our 200 mile zone without a licence?
*What secret tactics did they use to stop highrise development on the island when we couldn't do it in Australia?
*Would it be possible to replace the Norfolk dialect with Latin so they can understand "Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes?"
*Why do their kids do so well in a third world school?
*Are they educated enough to understand how much money we are spending in the Solomons, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and other independent Pacific Islands?
*Why are the patients so happy with their treatment in a third world hospital?
*Why are the parents not complaining about the third world childcare?
*How do they manage to run businesses without the paperwork?
*Why are their kids missing out on the important experiences of vandalising, spreading graffiti and other anti-social behaviours?
*Where do they hide their unemployed youth and social misfits?
*Why do they keep electing their governments and holding referenda when they know we take no notice of them?
*How do their community organisations and service clubs manage to keep raising so much money from an underprivileged and cash-strapped community?
*How do they get from place to place on their sub-standard roads?
*How do their pollies and ex-pollies get to use their gold passes?
*How can we convince them that "Life is not Meant to be Easy" and that they had better get used to being as miserable as the rest of us in the future?
*What are the angles and untidy edges we still need to knock off so they can fit into the nice smooth round hole we have prepared for them here in Canberra?
See you in our dreams!

THOUGHTS ON ANZAC DAY

2006-04-25T20:52:00.000+11:30

This old photo showing the unveiling of the Cenotaph at Kingston (on Anzac Day 1929) is a reminder that, although Norfolk Island has not been under direct enemy attack, war has played a very significant part in the history of the island people.

As far back as the beginning of the 20th century, a number of Norfolkers had enlisted with the Imperial Bushman Force to fight in the Boer War. Then when World War 1 broke out, like others around the world, they were very ready and willing to enlist to fight for King and Empire.
Seventy-seven Norfolk men enlisted with the Australian and New Zealand Forces, a number which represented more than half of all males on the island of suitable military age....a significantly higher percentage of the population than anywhere else in the Empire!! Their patriotism was also demonstrated in very generous donations and subscriptions to Patriotic Funds and War Loans...close to 2,400 pounds, which was a considerable amount from a 'subsistence' economy.

World War 2 saw the same courage and desire to defend the freedom of the region, and over 10% of the island's total population enlisted, and nine paid the supreme sacrifice in overseas service, a casualty rate that was more than double that of Australia per capita. Over 60 men also formed an infantry detachment that stayed to defend the island.
Norfolk Island paid the price with more than lives. Pressure from New Zealand and America led to the construction of the airfield, although Australia at first had not been keen on the idea. They said that it would need fewer defence force personnel to defend the island if it remained isolated. At the outbreak of war, Australia had, in fact, not considered it necessary to send anyone to help defend the island except a handful of men to protect the Cable Station.

The building of the airstrip had an enormous and far-reaching impact. Over one-eighth of the island became effectively "alienated" from normal agricultural and residential use, and many servicemen returned home after the war to find their homes and farms gone forever. As well as the loss of homes and property, the removal of the beautiful Pine Avenue also left a bitter taste.
The virtual quadrupling of the island's population placed enormous strain on the island's resources as food supplies and products such as passionfruit that would have otherwise been exported were allocated to help feed the defence personnel. Timber reserves were decimated, and rural areas became overrun with noxious weeds when the active labour force was absent in large numbers. Nevertheless, the Norfolkers were generous and hospitable to their military visitors.
A 20 bed hospital and many new roads were two of the better legacies of the War. Many may think the airstrip, which opened the island up to the rest of the world, may have been a mixed blessing!

Norfolkers have continued to serve in the defence forces, and have done so proudly. They cherish the ideal of freedom as much as anyone.
I cannot help wondering why Australia insists on nailing us down. Surely the goodwill, the co-operation and even the sacrifice that Norfolkers have shown over the years are enough to guarantee that they can rely on us and our friendship.

THE KIWI CONNECTION

2006-04-23T16:39:00.000+11:30

Well, the Kiwi connection is obvious, isn't it?
For one thing, we are pretty close geographically speaking. A flight to Auckland is almost like a short bus trip, while a plane journey to Aussie is starting to get into the full-day excursion, cut-lunch thing.
And a lot of New Zealanders live here. Some have been here for two or three generations, and even quite a lot of Norfolk Islander Bounty descendants have Kiwi passports!
During the war, at one stage there were as many as 2000 N.Z. servicemen stationed here, and a few of them fell in love with the island, or a local girl, and made the island their new home.
There are other factors that make us feel more "at home" in New Zealand. They can cope with "small government" far better than Australia, and they seem to be better at applying good housekeeping principles and budgeting to running the place.
We relate well to our Polynesian cousins, the Maori people, and they fit in well when they come here to Norfolk Island. Come to think of it, although they may have a few real grumbles, the Polynesian communities under the oversight of the New Zealand government have fared far better than Australia's Aboriginal people.
You frequently hear the view expressed that Norfolk Island may fare better as a territory of New Zealand. That is not a new idea!
Soon after the Pitcairners arrived on Norfolk Island, Bishop Selwyn, Bishop of New Zealand, ensured that his Bishopric included Norfolk Island, and was taking a considerable paternal interest in the well-being and spiritual welfare of the Pitcairners. The connection remained strong through the 50 or more years that the Melanesian Mission operated on the island.
But there was a time when New Zealand came strongly to Norfolk Island's defence.
In the 1890's, when the plans were in place to annex Norfolk Island to New South Wales, the NZ Government put forward strong and forceful claims for the right to oversee Norfolk affairs. Not only did they feel it was a more logical and convenient because of the geographic proximity and the fact that the island came under NZ ecclesiastically, but they were strongly critical of the proposed actions by the Governor of NSW.
"..there were insufficient grounds for the contemplated abrogation of the rights and privileges of the Islanders. It was pointed out that the original agreement with the islanders was that 'while their island was, and would remain, an integral portion of the Empire, they should enjoy local self-government without interference."
Sadly, the proposals did not eventuate, but the concept was to be brought up again at various stages of the island's history, particularly during a Royal Commission in 1926.
One wonders how we would have fared as an external territory of New Zealand. A little better, I suspect, than we have done as a territory under the Commonwealth of Australia.
But we will never really know, will we?

LESSONS FROM HISTORY

2006-04-22T12:35:00.000+11:30

It has been said that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them.
This does not mean that we should carry around rage and resentment about injustices of the past. Rather, by examining what has gone before, we gain a better understanding and perspective about the causes and outcomes of certain events, actions and policies that have played a part in our past. This enables us to make clearer and better informed decisions about our future.
Professor Raymond Nobbs has written a book that deals with a significant period in the history of this island and its people. Although the book is a sort of sequel to Ray's two earlier books on the First and Second penal settlements, it is significantly different in that it deals mainly with a different set of people - namely, the Pitcairn/Norfolk community. The history focusses mainly on the period 1856-1956, but explores some of the background of the earlier times on Pitcairn island, and some of the changes and trends that were having an effect on the island beyond 1956 into more recent times.
It is refreshing to read a history of the island written by someone who is proud to call himself a Norfolk Islander, and who therefore has a better appreciation of the values and culture of the island's people. Ray does not shrink from examining very thoroughly many of the controversial issues surrounding the rights of the island community and its treatment at the hands of the colonial and Commonwealth authorities. Nevertheless, he has managed to create a very balanced overview and narrative of the "Pitcairn Period" of settlement on Norfolk Island.

I would like to quote from one review of the book:

"Beautiful Norfolk Island continues to be a place which fascinates, intrigues and at times bewilders. Has ever such a small piece of land had such a deep and rich history? Professor Nobbs' book is just what is needed to make sense of the past and therefore in many ways the same issues which are still here in the present of this remarkable island and its people. I commend this book highly for those who already know and love the island. I commend it highly to those who do not, but for whom this account of a community seeking to maintain its identity in the challenges of increasing globalisation will be fascinating."
THE RT. REV. ROBERT FORSYTH
ANGLICAN BISHOP OF SOUTH SYDNEY

Ray's book is due to be launched on Norfolk Island on Bounty Day. I wish it was "out there" now, because it would greatly assist in our understanding of how we got where we are today!!

However, to keep your appetite whetted, I will, with Ray's permission, be quoting from it from time to time.

TAKING THE LEAD

2006-04-19T15:02:00.000+11:30

I cannot help feeling enormously encouraged after listening to today's meeting of the Norfolk Legislative Assembly.
Our MLA's have copped a lot of criticism lately. Some of it has been justified, but a lot of it has been negative, unproductive and unhelpful.
We need to remind ourselves that, for better or worse, they are our representatives, freely and democratically elected by us...or at least by those who have not yet been disenfranchised by Australia.
We need to remind ourselves also, that they were no more prepared for the substance of Minister Lloyd's February 20th announcement than anyone else, nor were they given any more detail than we were. In fact, the Minister imparted more detail to journalists who interviewed him.
So our MLA's have had to deal with all of this emotionally just as we have. On top of that, they have had the difficult task of reading the electorate, because they know it is just not good enough to be guided by their own personal reactions to Australia's plans.
To add to their difficulties, they have not been able to gain any further information from Canberra. As our Chief Minister said, his letters have gone unanswered. Canberra is not interested in dialogue.
Meanwhile, they have been conscious of their responsibility to continue to govern this island properly, as is their mandate...life goes on. But they must not only govern it, but now they are very conscious of the message that their electors have been sending them:
"Get your act together, show leadership, and show us that you can keep our island viable and our economy sustainable."
I am personally very grateful for the message of vision, direction and action that has been promulgated in David Buffett's motion. This is a good springboard to go on to better things, better times, better government by Norfolkers for Norfolkers.
As the Chief Minister said, the Commonwealth Parliament has had over a century to lay its foundations and build legislative systems and practices that are workable, transparent and efficient. You cannot tell me that they have not made plenty of mistakes along the way, that they have not had to make adjustments to their way of doing things.
So why is our system unsustainable just because we may need to make some adjustments after 26 years?It is especially galling when you realise that part of our problem has always been that they have imposed Big Government practices and solutions on a small island situation. For some reason, they think that what works for them ought to work here..and it is just not always the case, in practice.

So to our MLA's..this is a good start.
Keep up the momentum. Be pro-active. Keep listening to us. Keep us informed. Explain what you are doing. Enlist our support.
You are on the right track!
Press ahead confidently for Norfolk Island and its people.

WELCOME TO NORFOLK ISLAND

2006-04-17T15:39:00.000+11:30

I suppose that there are some who look at us here on Norfolk Island, and ask why we should be treated differently, why we insist we want to do things our way, why we think we are so special.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are different, separate, distinct, and this community has known that for over 200 years, and we are not about to give up our identity.
But that does not mean we want to be a closed or exclusive community. We never have. It is true that our story began in isolated and remote circumstances, and that equipped the Pitcairn/Norfolk people to be very self-reliant, innovative and hard-working. It also helped us to develop a strong sense of community, which persists to this day.
It is a mistake to think that the people of Norfolk Island want a closed community. It was a mistake that was made by Governor Dennison back in 1856, when he acknowledged the desire of the people to live without interference. What the Pitcairners meant was that they wanted to get on with managing their island and their affairs in their own way. Dennison thought it meant that they would be adversely affected by having others join their community, and he proceeded to give the people strict instructions that they were not to invite others to join them or sell their land to them.
Well, the Pitcairners ignored these paternalistic instructions - as was their right - and over the years land was bought and sold, and a number of people were welcomed into the community, including some of the Melanesian mission staff who married into island families.
But it was the island community that decided who should join them, with the decisions being made in a meeting of "The House", which was the informal parliament in which decisions were made by a majority vote. The community wanted control over immigration, just as they do today.
Over the years a large number of non-Pitcairners have joined this community. Some have come to work, found they could relate to the values of the community and stayed. Some have married islanders - that includes me!! Others have come and settled and raised families who have also put down roots here. Norfolkers have always welcomed into the community people who will enhance their way of life, bring skills that can help their self-reliance, and are generally prepared to go along with the "island way", and not want to change the island into a place like the one they left behind. We are quite a multicultural community, and sometimes almost cosmopolitan in character! Everyone who has made a long-term commitment to this community is valued!
Islanders of Pitcairn descent do not enjoy any exclusive rights, except insofar as their "special relationship with the island" may assist their immigration status. That is fair enough. It has been made quite clear to us by Australia that U.N. Conventions will not allow any discrimination on the basis of race. Yet discrimination is precisely what many people of Pitcairn descent are experiencing when they return to the island after a period away, and find they are ineligible to be placed on the electoral roll. While others, purely by virtue of having Australian citizenship, are judged fit to vote on local matters after just six months.
Sadly, we are also now seeing people coming, for the long or short term, and because they have been told this is a part of Australia, they expect conditions to be the same as they are in Australia. They expect the same Australian "rights" (although I suspect a few are quite glad to be free of the obligations in the form of taxes etc.) All this is a result of official Australian Government policies. And it will get worse.
Visitors from other Pacific islands tell us time and time again "Keep control of your Immigration."
Look at Australia - their immigration criteria are stringent, and for good reason. Yet they would deny this community those same rights that they insist on for themselves.

HAPPY EASTER

2006-04-13T22:21:00.000+11:30

I would like to wish everyone who reads this a happy and holy Easter.
Because I feel that Easter should be a time for reflection and renewal, I will take a break from posting to this blog for three or four days.
The past weeks have been a busy time, and our energies have been consumed at times by unexpected and unfamiliar activities. In many ways our thoughts and lives have been turned upside down. As we come to grips with what Norfolk faces on the political front, it has forced us to look inside ourselves, and also to look around us to sort out what is important to us in our lives.
In many ways we have been re-discovering so many good things about this island, and especially learning to value each other. Unlikely groups of people have been thrown together, united by a common desire to keep this island very special and beautiful.
However, when feelings are running high, there is a tendency to become single-minded and not see what is going on around us. We allow ourselves to be driven by fear and anger and even resentment, and sometimes this causes us to turn on each other. We begin to label people and groups, and stereotype them. We start to view people with mistrust and suspicion. If the community starts to polarise around differing viewpoints, we run the risk of destroying the very way of life we say we are fighting for!
We should remember there are people who are struggling to get their heads around what is happening to the island, and there are people who have deep questions, doubts and concerns. Some are really doing it tough, and are looking for someone who cares enough to try and make things better. Others are feeling sidelined and insecure, and don't know how their voices can be heard.
We have seen it before in the 70's. The pressures, even those that come from outside the island, can lead to us blaming one another, and there can be tensions in families and in workplaces.
I do not want this to happen. I hope we can really be sensitive to one another's needs and aspirations, and try to understand where everyone is coming from, whether they agree with us or not.
We should be sitting down and listening to one another, and finding out what we have in common.......respecting one another's point of view and agreeing to differ, if necessary.
The Norfolk people are strong and resilient, but we do need each other, every last one of us.
Let us keep the "INASMUCH" principle alive.

Today is Maundy Thursday. Maundy is actually an old word for "mandate" or "command".In the Christian calendar, this is actually the day when Christians have traditionally focussed on one of Christ's most important commandments, given to his disciples at the Last Supper:

LOVE ONE ANOTHER. AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, SO YOU MUST LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

John 13:34

DAY IN COURT

2006-04-12T21:29:00.000+11:30

Since Minister Jim Lloyd's announcement on February 20, the question of "What can we do?" has been in the thoughts and minds of many Norfolk Island people. There may have been an initial feeling of helplessness, but as the days have gone by, many have made a firm resolve to do what they feel they can. For some it has meant writing - submissions, letters, emails. For others it has meant attending meetings, and supporting the different organisations that have taken up the issue. Some have encouraged friends and relatives on the mainland to speak on our behalf. Others have talked to our own government, and offered support and help and encouragement.
It was extremely good news, however, to hear that the defence of our rights is to take place on yet another front - in the High Court of Australia. The case has been lodged, and issue on which the complaint is to be dealt with is the right of Australia to change Norfolk's electoral laws. The plaintiffs will be a group of Norfolk Island residents who have been disenfranchised or had their right to stand for election removed by Australia's action in changing our electoral laws. Our case will be handled by two of Australia's leading constitutional lawyers, one of whom is Robert Ellicot QC, the architect of Norfolk's self-government.
It will be good to have the matter settled. All of Australia's dealings with Norfolk Island in recent years have been carried out on the basis of the "Berwick case" in the 1976, a taxation case, in which the High Court ruled that Norfolk Island was an integral part of Australia, and therefore Australia had the right to legislate for Norfolk Island.
There is a strong tradition that has been handed down from generation to generation of Norfolk Islanders that they were encouraged to leave Pitcairn and come to Norfolk Island by a promise that the island would be ceded to them, that the land would be theirs to deal with as they wished, and that they would be free to live under their own laws and customs.
The reality was that this did not happen.
Disappointment and resentment have continued to the present day.
Many Norfolkers accept that although Australia does not have a moral right to make the island part of Australia or otherwise impose its will on the island, nevertheless what they have done was done legally and constitutionally, albeit without consultation with or agreement from the Norfolk people.
However, there are others who firmly believe that the Britain and/or Australia have acted illegally and unconstitutionally from the beginning
* that they wrongly reneged on a commitment in 1856
*that Governor Hampden acted unconstitutionally in 1896 when he repealed the laws and removed the role of local magistrates of the island
*that the transfer of Norfolk Island to Australia as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth in 1914 did not in fact give Australia the constitutional powers that it has chosen to exercise over the island ever since.

We can only hope that this matter will now be progressed with the fairness, balance and transparency that have been notably missing from the dealings we have had with DOTARS and the Australian Government.
Yesterday someone aptly described the community of Norfolk Island as "an endangered species." We can only hope and trust that the Justice system will protect us!

WISH LISTS

2006-04-11T22:06:00.000+11:30

Life is not perfect...we should get used to it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting our best efforts into making it as good as we can.
We have some wonderful people living and working here, especially in our community services.This is a place where people still matter. The staff of our hospital have always shown great commitment to providing the very best standard of care to their patients, and the Hospital auxiliary, the Service clubs and the community will always give great support to any efforts to improve facilities.
The same goes for our school. As well as giving their best to the nurture and education of the island children, there is naturally a desire on the part of teachers and parents to have the best of equipment, teaching aids, work environments and opportunities for the students to extend themselves and further their education.
When we have visits from bodies like the Senate Joint Standing Committee, they are naturally interested in the provision of health and education, and their line of questioning would no doubt follow the line of what could be done to improve things. And I am sure the staff of our school and hospital can think of many things.
It is what these committees do with this information that leads to unbalanced reporting and misinformation. Because we do not have a particular facility or item, or because something needs upgrading, or something else has broken down, does not mean that our hospital is third world, and needs bulldozing and being replaced immediately with a state-of-the-art facility. Because we do not have access to every scholarship or area of funding for education does not mean that our school is unable to do a good job.The Australian Government would love to portray itself as Santa Claus, just waiting to tick off everything on our wish lists.
But it does not work that way. There would not be a hospital in the whole of Australia which does not want to add to or upgrade its facilities. And many of them have whole wards and other facilities that are unused because they cannot staff them! Other hospitals have equipment that breaks down - yes, even during operations - the JSC got great mileage out of that one!
Schools on the mainland, too, never reach the point of having everything they want or even need. They have to sort out priorities, and often rely on the parent bodies and community to provide extras, just as we do here on the island.
If we really think that coming under Australia is going to create a community where we want for nothing, then we are living in the Land of Make Believe. Just ask the residents of comparable communities in Australia...remote rural areas with fewer than 2000 people. They would just love to have access to even half the facilities and services that we enjoy now, just as they would love to have our high employment rate and low crime rate.
I have lived here for 40 years, and have seen such enormous improvements in the staffing, the infrastructure, the equipment, the service and the facilities in the Norfolk Island School and the hospital. This has been a result of a responsible attitude on the part of our own government, who have themselves recognised that our isolation requires us to have something better than a small country town. Their efforts have been wonderfully supplemented by those of local organisations and community groups, service clubs, businesses and private benefactors. This community has a wonderful sense of ownership of our school and hospital. Moreover, they are tailored to our special Norfolk Island needs.
Yes, we must continue to raise the standards of our education and medical services, and our government must make them a priority. But we should also be realistic, and not sit waiting for Santa to come in from Canberra loaded with gifts. It simply will not happen. They have made it clear they are not interested in what we say we need. They reserve the right to draw up the wish-lists, and that is what you will get, like it or not.

A THIRD OPTION

2006-04-10T21:30:00.000+11:30

We had all been looking forward to this, our sesqui-centenary year, as a time for celebrating all the good things about Norfolk Island, and all we have achieved in the past 15o years.
Instead we find much of our time and energy is being directed towards resisting the push by the Australian government to take away the self-government that we fought so hard for.
However, most of us are also being realistic and responsible, and we are looking at the changes we need to make to ensure we continue to be a viable community.
Yes, Australia has presented two solutions for us to choose from. But we would rather develop our own.
Why?
1.Well, we really think we are in a better position here to know what sort of things will work best for Norfolk Island and its people, without damaging our culture and our proud traditions.
2.We elected our Legislative assembly to manage our island, and we want to support them in their efforts. We did not elect DOTARS, or Minister Lloyd, or their representatives and their endless committees.
3.We really want the best for our island and its people.
4. We really believe that Canberra's "solutions" to our current difficulties will leave us in a far worse economic position than before.

Let's face it...we have not been shown one shred of evidence that changing the model of governance will help us maintain a viable economy and a sustainable community.
So we are actively thinking about it for ourselves.

We know we will probably have to make changes that will involve changes in our spending, our budgeting, and the way we order our finances. We also need to accept that we may need to deal with a little more paperwork, and possibly privacy issues. We may need to pay more for the infrastructure, the facilities and the services we enjoy here.
All of this is infinitely preferable to having big-government solutions applied to small-island problems.

It has been suggested by some that we should ask Australia to give us more time to prove we can do it. They are quite used to shifting goalposts, so it should not be too hard for them to shift deadlines.

This is a clever island. We have lots of people here who have the will and the ability to come up with some creative solutions. These past few weeks have taught me that there are all sorts of people prepared to stand up for this island and its democratic rights. They include old and young, women and men, islanders and mainlanders, newcomers and long-standing residents.

If we all pull together, get behind our own elected government, speak up and act with positive strength and conviction, we can do it.

Give the third option for Norfolk Island a big tick.

SPEAKING UP ABOUT THE NORFOLK LANGUAGE

2006-04-09T22:03:00.000+11:30

In a 1914 Memorandum relating to Norfolk Island, Atlee Hunt, Secretary of the Commonwealth's Department of External Affairs, referred to "The Local Jargon" of Norfolk Island as follows:

"It is not picturesque nor effective, and justifies its description as "a barbarous attempt to garrotte the English language". Its use contributes to maintain a spirit of exclusiveness among these folk, and for this reason, as well as because it has no merits to justify its continual existence, it is hoped that its employment may be discouraged in every way."

A new rule introduced in our school in 1915 forbade the use of anything but "the King's English" being spoken during school hours. The penalty for lapsing into Norfolk was to copy out 100's of lines to the effect that "I must not talk gibberish at school." Anderson, the headmaster at the time, predicted the Norfolk language would die out in a few generations.

Fortunately, banning the language could not extinguish it....in fact, it may well have led to its being used more fervently in defiance. Culture is something that not only sustains a people in adversity, but is often stimulated by it. The language was the natural means by which the people of this island communicated and interacted with one another. Only the Norfolk idiom can express those things that are peculiar to the island, both tangible and intangible. They are not easily translated into English.

In 2004 the JSC Committee recommended the preservation of the Norfolk language. (Funny how Australia's policies are always changing, while Norfolkers have steadily stuck with the same aspirations from Day One.) A worthy aim, on the surface. But when Australia takes on a cause like the Norfolk language, it is a bit of a worry, especially when they state that it is "in Australia's national interest". Here is a nation which thinks it understands Aboriginal culture just because it acknowledges traditional owners on public occasions, organises the occasional dance display, and hangs a bit of Aboriginal art here and there. The track record on Aboriginal culture is not good.

Now when people talk about preserving things, I have images of museums, with dinosaur bones, small animal foetuses in bottles, or stuffed animals displayed in their "natural setting." But it doesn't matter how much money you throw at something to preserve and display it, or even to record, document and teach it, you will not breathe life into it.

Language, like other aspects of culture, cannot be kept alive by being isolated, described, analysed, dissected etc or kept in a showcase. It is kept alive by being spoken and used by the people who have grown up with it. It is a living thing, and expresses ideas, personal characteristics, feelings, values, activities, and shared memories that belong to those people.

Now if you succeed in squashing the spirit of those people, changing the way they deal with and interact with one another and altering their social and cultural environment.......

If you make it difficult for them to pursue those activities which have sustained the community for two centuries, and turn the island into a place that their families and young people can no longer call home......

If you take away away their distinct identity and substitute the "Average Australian" one......

Then no amount of documenting or teaching alone will keep that language alive.

The language, and the Norfolk traditions, character, values and activities it describes will just become museum relics, like other aspects of the island's unique culture.

If Australia's plans for property taxes are brought to fruition......

If we lose our control over Immigration.....

If our Norfolk people are displaced by a homogenised Australian community.......

we may no longer have anyone left here who speaks or understands Norfolk...or even cares!

SOME SCARY STORIES

2006-04-08T13:01:00.000+11:30

For those who think that the changes Australia wishes to make on Norfolk Island amounts to little more than paying a bit of income tax and collecting an old-age pension should think again.
We are beginning to hear many stories from people who have had experience of living, working and doing business in mainland Australia, and most of them have no desire to return to that sort of regime.

Running a business on a small island with a market of fewer than 2000 people, plus just a few hundred tourists at the best of times, is not easy, but at least you do not have to expend large amounts on book-keepers and accountants. If you run a business under the Australian tax regime, you will need a huge amount of paperwork, and you will need to keep it all properly stored for 5-7 years! An auditor can ask to come and go through your books, your invoices, and your receipts at any time, and they will be prepared to follow the "paper trail" of even a $5 item not only through your books but your supplier's books! You will be fined for any small mistake you make in declaring your income.
Now if your business has not been doing so well, but they decide you are telling porkies to hide something, you will be assessed on an "industry average". (I am starting to feel that everyone under the Australian system has to be average-or else!!) The onus of proof is on you!
Even if you are scrupulously honest, the stress factor is enormous. As someone said "Big brother is watching you for the rest of your life."
Even a simple tradesman is subject to the same scrutiny and accountability. Your workplace and tools can be inspected at any time, and if your tools do not carry the appropriate tag saying they have passed inspection, you are in trouble. Charge-out rates on "the mainland" for tradesmen and professional services are generally about triple those on Norfolk Island, because they have to factor in all the business taxes, indemnity insurances compliance costs, O.H.&S. costs, plus the higher wages to compensate for income tax.
If you try to run a business under the Australian regime, you will not only have to deal with Company tax (30% on profit) and income tax payments for yourself and your employees, there will be compulsory superannuation deductions, stamp duties, payroll tax, fringe benefits, business insurance premiums, a complex system of Workers' Compensation and Public Liability. A small business in Australia is classified as one with a turnover of less than $2 million, or fewer than 100 employees. So none of our businesses here would even register on the Richter Scale, and Australia would probably see them as unviable anyway.
The business owners would not be the only losers. We would all lose out.
Not only would we lose out on the availability of the goods and services from those who do not survive, but we would pay much more to those who do manage to keep going in business.

The same scrutiny that the Tax Office applies to businesses is also applied to Welfare recipients by Centrelink...but that is another story!

Meanwhile, to find out how our low tax base enables us to enjoy facilities and professional services that would normally be unavailable to a community of this size, I urge you to read John Kelly's submission to the Grants' Commission. You can find it on the NAG Website.
http://www.nagnorfolk.com/

CHILDREN OF THE BOUNTY

2006-04-06T16:24:00.000+11:30

Yesterday I wrote about the fact that Norfolk Island is distinct from Australia ethnically, historically and culturally.

The Norfolkers/Pitcairners never migrated to Australia as a community, and they never voluntarily "adopted" Australia as their homeland or country of citizenship.

The history of Norfolk's people is quite separate and distinct from that of Australia, and their culture has evolved quite separately also.

For the first two decades after the Mutiny on the Bounty, the surviving mutineers, together with the Tahitian women and children, in their extreme isolation, formed a peaceful and positive little community that was to amaze the captains and crews of visiting ships after their discovery. All they needed in the early part of the nineteenth century was a little friendly and helpful advice. But the pattern of resourcefulness and calm strength was well and truly established by then, and survives to this day.

The Norfolk/Pitcairn dialect was also established early, combining the English of the mutineers, the Tahitian of the women, and possibly a West Indian influence from Edward Young. To this day, there are nuances, emotions, humour, and Norfolk "ways" that cannot be expressed in English. Only the colourful Norfolk language conveys these things properly.

There is no doubt that the strong Polynesian influence in the culture was complemented by the British values, first of the mutineers (especially Adams) and later of Evans, Buffett, and most importantly George Hunn Nobbs.

Later, on Norfolk Island, this Britishness was further reinforced by the influences of the staff of the Melanesian Mission, some of whom married into island families.

Many will not be aware that there was also a strong American influence in the culture. Visiting whalers often spent time with the islanders, and frequently left their wives on the island during the whaling season. Island pies, and also the celebration of Thanksgiving, are just two important aspects of our culture that we learned from the American visitors.

However the continuing Polynesian/Tahitian tradition has persisted. Polynesian dancing, weaving, cooking and music are still practised and enjoyed by Norfolk Island people. It should be remembered that this was a close and isolated community, and there was not a great deal of marriage with outsiders for the first hundred years. Even today, there is still a high percentage of Polynesian blood in many island families.

This fact was really brought home when a group of Norfolkers travelled to Tahiti last year to help the Bounty descendants still living there celebrate their Bounty Day - the anniversary of the sailing of the Bounty into Matavi Bay in 1788. The warm family feeling that the Norfolkers experienced when they met their Tahitian cousins took them quite by surprise.

In spite of the language differences, they discovered they had so much in common, and were overwhelmed by the emotional welcome and the kind hospitality shown to them by the Tahitians. The bonds were extremely strong! And they even kept meeting Tahitians who looked just like particular Norfolkers back home!

Norfolk Islanders also still feel they are of the same race as the Pitcairn Islanders. They still share the same bloodlines, the same language, and many of the same traditions. They too are "Children of the Bounty."

In 2004, the Senate Joint Standing Committee said:

"Norfolk Island's history and cultural heritage are highly valued as part of Australia's national and multicultural heritage.....Australia's national interest... is also served by ensuring that these aspects of Norfolk Island Life are maintained." (Review of Annual Reports of DOTARS and Dept of Environment and Heritage. p.87)

I find it incredibly arrogant of the JSC to speak of the culture of a people as if it were some commodity, or some feather to stick in Australia's multicultural cap!

Whatever Australia may do with Norfolk legally and constitutionally, this will not make Norfolkers into Australians in the ethnic or cultural sense. Their history and heritage are unique and separate, and they are rightly very proud of this!

AUSTRALIA NOT IN THE PICTURE!

2006-04-05T19:28:00.000+11:30

Today they unveiled a magificent Mosaic mural at the Norfolk Island Airport. The mural is a sesqui-centenary gift to the island from the Community Arts Society, and a large number of local residents contributed to the project with time, hard work and creative ideas.
I am told that there was a "brainstorming session" early in the project for ideas of what should be included, and from nearly 300 original suggestions, close to 100 themes, images and symbols were incorporated into the design. These include symbols from Tahiti and Pitcairn, as well as numerous aspects of the history of the community on Norfolk Island. It includes personalities, families, culture, transport, houses, flora and fauna, education, foods, crafts, everyday objects and landmarks, and much more that is unique to our community.
The Bounty and the Morayshire are shown, and so are Tahiti and Pitcairn and Norfolk. There are depictions of their strong Polynesian traditions as well as their British ones.
But you will not see Australia. Or anything about Australia.
Unless you count the model of the Cenotaph, which records the names of all those Norfolkers who fought for King and Country in two World Wars. They fought to defend their island and the freedom of the people of the region. And now the country whose flag they fought under is wanting to deprive the descendants of those proud and brave men of their rights as free citizens of Norfolk Island.
You see, this community never ever chose to migrate to Australia or settle there. They came from Pitcairn to Norfolk Island in 1856, believing it was being granted to them by their British Queen. They were content to be under the paternal oversight of the Queen's representative, Captain Dennison, Governor of Norfolk Island (who also happened to be Governor of Britain's colony of New South Wales.)
When they were annexed and brought under the New South Wales Government in 1896, no one consulted them or asked if they wanted this. In fact, they made it clear they did not!
When the island was brought under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1913, once again no one bothered to ask if this was what they wanted.
In more recent years, islanders who thought they were born to be citizens of Norfolk have been told they are, by default, citizens of Australia. No one is quite sure when it happened, and certainly no one asked if they minded.
Norfolk people have never chosen to identify with or be just another part of multicultural Australia. Their ethnicity, their heritage and their culture are quite separate and different from that of Australia and Australians. They feel first and foremost Norfolk Islanders.

As one admires this mural, one realises that the people of this community have a very rich and colourful tradition, heritage and culture, of which they are justly proud. It is their Pitcairn/Norfolk heritage, and these people are prepared to stand firm to preserve their unique and special identity.

MONEY MYTHS 2

2006-04-04T21:08:00.000+11:30

MYTH4: Australia Pours Big Money into Norfolk Island

Definitely not.

In the later days of the Advisory Council, Australia was giving Norfolk Island a grant of a little over $60 000. Even then, this represented only a small percentage of the island's revenue. And the cost of the Administrator and Canberra's responsibilities on the island came out of this money.

With the coming of self-government, the island was to raise and spend its own revenue. As is only right, there are certain things that Canberra pays for. Such as the cost of their Administrator and his staff and Government House. The island receives no direct annual grants, but the Commonwealth does contribute to the running and maintenance of areas that are owned by the Crown, or which serve Commonwealth interests. The Norfolk Island Government and the Commonwealth share the cost of KAVHA, which is Crown property and part of Australia's colonial heritage. They pay a third of the cost of the Federal Police presence here.For some reason, the Commonwealth assumes the total responsibility for National Parks. That is a good thing. When we see the incredible waste of money in that area, it is a warning to us of what will happen if Australia takes over other areas of responsibility.

In 1997 when the Commonwealth Grants Commission made its report into Norfolk's financial viability, the TOTAL spending on Norfolk Island by the Commonwealth was less than $4 million. That included all sorts of things like the Meteorological Bureau, the Ionospheric station, Foreign Affairs and Defence, Veterans' pensions, matters which are totally Australia's responsibility. Of that amount, the things they said could be considered to bring some direct benefit to the island amounted to just $676 000 ...and that included 50% of the costs of the Norfolk Island branch of the Territories department, 50% of the costs of the Administrator's office and Government House, and an amount of $100 000 for Medivacs. And 50% of the Commonwealth share of KAVHA costs was actually said to be properly a Norfolk responsibility, even though the island was already contributing far more than the Commonwealth in this area! The $676 000 also included an amount of social security payments being paid to residents, which they had no doubt earned through years of paying Australian tax! The Federal Government has even subsidised private industry in Australia for far greater amounts! e.g. Mitsubishi, Kodak, Sugar, Ethanol.

In other words, it was chicken feed.

We didn't actually have to pay this amount, but it was firmly placed in the ledger as something for which we should feel beholden to Australia. Moreover, the Grants Commission implied that we were even more in Australia's debt because they allowed us to keep our Customs duty and departure tax revenue, which rightly belonged to the Commonwealth!

I wonder if other countries are made to feel in Australia's debt because of the cost of maintaining their embassies and diplomats there!

Now we will admit that Australia has made available some small grants from time to time, such as for the Water Assurance Scheme many years ago, the stabilising of the Cascade cliff, and the restoration of the Kingston wharf. Not only have these been mostly tied up with indemnity issues, but the amounts were extremely small when compared to aid given elsewhere in the region.

Let us get a bit of perspective here. In 2004-5, Australia spent $674 million in foreign aid to this region just to assist in Governance issues. They have contributed $4 million to Fiji's upcoming elections. A month or so ago, they announced they were giving $38 million to Vanuatu to upgrade their judicial system.

Yet for the few scraps that Canberra throws us, there are great strings attached; we are made to feel dependent on them and incapable of managing on our own.

If Australia was really interested in sound Governance on the island, it would cost them comparatively little to help us through our current potential difficulties. They could even do it simply by removing some of the legal and constitutional obstacles they keep putting in our path.

But they do not want to assist. They simply want to take control for themselves.

MONEY MYTHS

2006-04-03T21:15:00.000+11:30

The media loves to portray Norfolk Island as a place where people avoid paying taxes. Some journalists like to imply that we have got away with this situation for too long, and it is about time Australia made us pull our weight. They also like to create the impression that the island is full of millionaires avoiding taxes that they should rightfully be paying to the Australian Government. This misinformation suits Canberra well, and they do nothing to dispel the myths. When Minister Jim Lloyd was interviewed on Radio National the morning after his announcement about changes in Governance on Norfolk Island, he was asked if it was right that Norfolk Island people should be allowed to get away without paying tax. He replied that the system was different here, but he did not attempt to explain that we receive very little from Australia either.

MYTH1 Norfolk people do not pay tax.
Norfolk residents do not pay income tax on money earned on the island. Most Norfolk residents do not pay any taxes to Australia, except on incomes and revenue earned in Australia (and the same applies to other countries like New Zealand, the U.S.)
Norfolk residents do pay a whole range of taxes and levies to our own government. Customs duty and Waste Management levy is charged on all goods brought into the island. We pay a Financial Institutions levy, a Healthcare levy, a Fuel levy, and all sorts of user-pays charges for registrations, licences and the like. Many people pay a Water Assurance levy (for sewerage) and businesses pay a range of levies, such as the bed tax paid by tourist accommodation owners. Our government also earns money from Government Business Enterprises such as Norfolk Telecom, the Electricity Undertaking, the Post Office, the Liquor Bond, the Lighterage Undertaking. Visitors and locals alike pay a departure tax. There probably ways we can spread the tax base more widely, and we are working on that. We are quite prepared to look at ways of contributing more to the running of the island...but we want that money to go to our own Government, not to Australia!

MYTH 2 Norfolk residents get special treatment from Australia.
Norfolk residents do not receive social services from Australia...no pensions, no baby bonus or family allowance, no student allowance, no childcare subsidies, no dole, no disability allowance, no business, training or employment subsidies, no Medicare, no pharmaceutical benefits.
There would be a handful of people receiving a Veterans pension, and rightly so. Likewise there are some people who have qualified for an Australian pension after a lifetime of paying Australian taxes.
We pay totally for our own Health services and hospital, and for our Education system. There is a locally-funded pension and special allowance for those who need it. We pay for our own roads and other infrastructure.We pay for our own Public Service.
Australia used to help us out with medical evacuations, using the R.A.A.F, but no longer does provides this neighbourly facility.
We are remarkably self-sufficient and independent, and want to remain so.

MYTH 3 Norfolk Island is a tax haven for millionaires
If my reading of property prices on the mainland is any indication, millionaires are a dime a dozen nowadays. There may well be a number of them living here. It is hard to tell, because we do not see any ostentatious mansions or lifestyles, nor does anyone drive a really classy car (except for one or two eccentrics!) The better-off people here are often still working hard, and pulling their weight in the community.
They are certainly not avoiding tax. Any money they are earning in Australia or New Zealand is being taxed in those countries. Norfolk as a tax haven is well and truly a thing of the past. Those who exploit taxation loopholes have all gone elsewhere.
Of course, there may be a few people who, through enterprise, hard work and good investment have made a million here on Norfolk Island. I say "Good luck to them." They do not owe Australia anything!
I believe the myth about rich people exploiting the island comes from people who would like you to think there is a class structure here. Norfolk is a remarkably egalitarian place, offering opportunities for all.
In future posts, I will deal further with Norfolk's financial relationship with Australia, and with our own Government's financial situation. There will be still more myths to be laid to rest.