STANDING UP FOR OUR RIGHTS

Politicians generally cop a lot of flak. It is part of the job. This includes the members of our own Legislative Assembly. Now our M.L.A's may have their shortcomings, both individually and collectively....but they are our representatives, we put them there, they are our own people. And if you watch Question Time in the Federal Parliament, as I do, I think our M.L.A.'s measure up pretty well when it comes to conducting themselves with dignity, decorum and sincerity.
Have you noticed how the Australian Government, the Minister and DOTARS have been treating our elected government with absolute disrespect and disdain? I myself heard Minister Lloyd publicly and rudely undermine them during his visit. When he met with them, he refused to discuss with them anything other than what was on his own agenda.

That makes me, as an elector, feel personally insulted and very angry.
But I should not be surprised.

From the time in 1856 when the Pitcairners were duped into believing this island was being given to them, to the present day, the attitude of the Colonial and Australian government has been, at best, one of benevolent paternalism, and at worst, outright trampling on our democratic rights.

In 1896, when Governor Hampden decided to bring to an end 140 years of the Pitcairn/Norfolkers managing their own affairs, the first that many of the islanders knew about it was by reading the Sydney Morning Herald! Their protests were coldly overridden. The response of the committee of one of the three investigations into the Island at that time was to refer to the "pernicious doctrine of democracy."

In 1913, when plans were afoot to place the island under the Commonwealth of Australia, the Minister who moved the Norfolk Island Bill in Federal Parliament was asked whether the Norfolk Islanders had been consulted on the issue of the change in their constitutional staus. The reply was
"They know what is going on; but no, they have not been consulted by the government."

Then in 1962, in an article in the Pacific Islands Monthly, the then President of the Norfolk Island Council. F.J. (Jim) Needham wrote:
"PIM in October reported the Minister for Territories, Mr Hasluck, as saying he did not regard the political views held by the majority (seven out of eight) of the present Council as necessarily being the will of the people. The Council, he said, did not have a mandate, because people voted for different reasons." ("What Does Norfolk Want?" by F.J. Needham, P.I.M. January 1962)

In 1977, more than two-thirds of electors on the island signed a Solemn Declaration that they supported the Norfolk Island Council and wanted Norfolk Island to remain a distinct and separate territory...with its own system of laws, taxes and benefits.
Minister Reg Withers dismissed these declarations as "totally, completely and utterly valueless." The same Minister also refused to receive a N.I. Council delegation when it travelled to Canberra. (Norfolk Island, Australia and the U.N. Vol. 2 - United Nations Association of Australia)

The attitude of contempt for local democracy continues to present times. The December 2003 report of the Joint Standing Committee states, referring to Norfolk referenda:
"referendums allow tyranny by the majority" !!! (p.112 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Dec 2003 )
They also accused us of using intimidation to manipulate results. I have visions of the senior members of our community who usually man the polling booths wielding big sticks and standing over people to force them to put their cross in the right box!

On Monday, addressing Federal Parliament, British P.M. Tony Blair urged Australia to continue the fight to establish democracy throughout the world. Yesterday, I heard Foreign Minister Downer holding up Australia's system of liberal democracy as a shining model in contrast to the system in China.
I wonder if Australia has any idea of what democracy is, unless it follows exactly their own model! They seem very "blinkered" when it comes to other people.

I believe it is time we told Australia - and the rest of the world - that we have been the victims of a high-handed, undemocratic, colonial-style rule for too long. This is the 21st century. Australia's hypocrisy, and contempt for Norfolkers' rights must not be allowed to continue any longer.

OUR ISLAND HOME

Many Norfolk Island families still live on land which is part of the 50 acre blocks granted to them by Queen Victoria. Some still proudly display the "Original Grant" documents on their walls. When the Colonial Government decided to cease handing out grants to island families over 100 years ago, the portions remaining became Crown land. Some of this became Reserve land, while other portions were "sold" as 28 year leases to new settlers.
Of considerable interest is a large area of land - almost 1000 acres - which was purchased back from the Melanesian Mission when they moved their headquarters to the Solomons earlier in the 20th century. This land was purchased back from the Mission with trust moneys that belonged to the people of Norfolk Island, and the land was meant to be used for the benefit of the people of the island. However, the Commonwealth or "Crown" assumed the title to this land for themselves.
In very recent years, the Commonwealth has begun a process of converting much of the privately occupied leasehold land to freehold, at a fairly reasonable cost to the owners. The proceeds from these sales are to go into an Environment fund for the island.
A magnanimous gesture?
Well, not really, if the land was not morally theirs in the first place.
But it gets worse.
You see, you cannot charge rates or land taxes on leasehold land.
If either of the two options for governance models is imposed on this island, it is highly likely that property rates would be part of the raft of taxes imposed.
If we are forced to accept a "Municipal" style model, our own government will be forced to levy such rates, because much of their present sources of revenue e.g. customs, will have been taken away from them.
Now many Norfolk people are what you would describe as asset-rich and cash poor. As I said yesterday, they will make any sacrifices to hang on to their land for future generations.It is very important in island culture that you have something to hand on to your family, so that they can continue to call Norfolk Island "home".
The fact that fairly large tracts have been preserved in many parts of the island means that we have been able to retain the rural character of the island. There are many such areas which are used to benefit more than the family owners. Privately owned land is often made available for community and sporting events. There are areas where tourists can walk, or where horses can be ridden. Both the Archery Club and the Pony Club use large areas belonging to the Church of England.
If land and property taxes are brought in, this amenity will surely be diminished. These owners will be forced to utilise this land for profit. Or they will be forced to sell it. There will be pressure to subdivide. There will be mainland-style "developments." The owners may expect facilities such as kerbing and guttering, or garbage services to justify the payment of rates.
If Australia also plans to take away control of our immigration, the problem will be compounded. No doubt there will be any number of people in search of a "sea-change" or "island escape" who will be willing to snap up homes and land from Norfolkers who can no longer afford to hang on to them.
Norfolk Island has always been an annoying anomaly to Canberra and the Territories Department. This will really fast track the final solution to the Norfolk problem for Australia. Just replace the Norfolkers with Australians, many of whom will no doubt proceed to turn this island into a glossy and ostentatious resort area much like the ones they thought they had left behind.

THIS LAND IS MY LAND

The way people view land and property is a very cultural thing. For instance, the Aboriginal people of Australia have a very different concept of land ownership to that of the 'white man'. Since the Native Title court case, a token acknowledgement is made of this, but I doubt that the most people have a real understanding of the Aboriginal's spiritual relationship with the land.
There is no doubt that the Norfolk Islander has a view of land and property that is different again. It is not only a product of his Anglo/Tahitian roots, but has also been shaped to a large extent by the history of the community since 1789.
When the Pitcairn community moved to Norfolk Island in 1856, they believed the island had been ceded to them for their exclusive occupation and enjoyment. Now the legal eagles will argue endlessly about whether in fact this is what happened, but there is no doubt that this community was led to believe the island was to be theirs, freely given.
Many of the Pitcairners had been reluctant to leave Pitcairn, but had come for the greater good of the community. The fact that each family was given freehold title to around 50 acres of land on Norfolk Island helped them to settle and feel they had a future here.
It was puzzling and disappointing to the community when a large parcel of land was handed over to the Melanesian Mission in the 1860's. They had no choice but to accept this situation, and made the best of it.
Meanwhile, they began to clear and cultivate their own blocks, growing for their own needs, and just a little for the limited trading possibilities open to them. They came in for criticism from the colonial powers, initially for their preference for cultivating in a co-operative and communal fashion, and secondly because they did not clear and cultivate large areas, only what they needed and could manage. In some ways, their thinking was way ahead of its time!
In 1896, the practice of making grants was ceased, and thus land ownership became even more important. In 1906, the sale of land to outsiders was permitted for the first time, and new settlers were allowed to take up Crown leases.
Over the years, a certain amount of buying and selling has taken place, and in the social upheavals of the 1960's, when the island was opened up more to the outside world, a few families and individuals regrettably allowed large portions of their land to pass out of their hands. It is something no one wants to happen again.
Today, in island families, land is greatly valued. This is also true of many mainland families who have been here for the long term. It is not a case of enjoying the power and control and wealth that land ownership gives. It is not acquired for speculative purposes. It is not necessarily prized for development potential or as a financial asset. In fact, it may cost Norfolkers quite a lot to maintain their properties and keep them fenced and free of noxious weeds.
On Norfolk Island, land is heritage. It is something you hang on to at all costs, so you can pass it on to your children, and your children's children. It is something that ensures the continuance of the rights of the Norfolk Island people to call this island home. It is something that your offspring and heirs can come home to when they have finished with their overseas education and travelling, or even after their retirement.
It is what enables the Norfolkers to put down roots, and maintain their strong sense of belonging to this place.
It is not necessarily a special relationship with a particular property or place....although I have heard both the Rocky Point people and the Cascade residents refer to their little part of the island as God's own country. It is more a case of maintaining a firm and longstanding relationship with the island that they have always believed is rightfully theirs.
Tomorrow, I will look at the implications the actions and plans of the Australian government will have on land ownership and island heritage.

MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS

The Howard Government says they are the friends of small business, that they listen to the small business owner, and that they would like to make things easier for them.
Mr Howard, we have a message from Small Business on Norfolk Island.
Please do not bring us under your system of taxes and regulations.
You see, in a small community, especially a remote and isolated place like Norfolk Island, small business is our life blood. There are dozens, perhaps more than a hundred small businesses here. It happens when you cannot access public and private services and facilities that are available in bigger centres. Someone sees a need in the community. They get hold of some basic equipment or premises. They put a notice in the paper or flyers in the mail. And away they go! It us a very flexible arrangement.
There is a minimum of paperwork, regulation, compliance issues. You just get on with doing the jobs that people need doing. It works well.
We have a number of businesses servicing the tourist industry, that require a bit of capital and infrastructure. ......shops, accommodation, touring companies. Some are bigger and involve more investment than others. These types of businesses would need to keep their paperwork up to scratch. But it is nothing like it is under the mainland systems.
We have our normal tradesmen...our plumbing and electrical businesses, our builders, garages etc. They need to be organised, and there are some controls on their activities, such as O.H&S, planning and building regulations. But they would far rather conduct business here than anywhere else. Then there are our professionals...red tape is a little easier for them to handle, but they also recognise that it gets in the way of personal service. Even our accountants don't think much of your plans, although they are about the only ones whose businesses would prosper !
Then there are the smaller businesses and all the self-employed people. They carry out tasks like fencing, carting, grounds maintenance, producing crafts, pumping out our septics, cleaning our carpets, minding our kids, fixing our appliances, signwriting, beauty and massage therapies, mini tours, growing veges and flowers, catering, floor sanding..and many more. Many of them have two or three or more jobs they work at. It may be just one or two people involved. They may call in an extra person when a job is too big.
It all works very simply. Cash changes hands...and it is perfectly legal. Apart from their work tools, these small business people need little more than a cheque book, an account with a supplier, an invoice book and a receipt book...and sometimes they get by without even those!
Business and income taxes would cripple most of these small businesses. And if the financial constraints don't get them, the paperwork and compliance issues will. They simply cannot afford it. They would rather be out doing the jobs they are equipped to do....and keeping the money circulating round the community.
We are not in the Stone Age. We do have employment regulations, occupational health and safety standards, minimum wages, workers' compensation and things that really matter.
But if we are hit with all the red tape, regulations and taxes that the Commonwealth would impose on us, many of us would 'go under'. The 'big fellows' will take over, and they will not necessarily be local 'big fellows.' They will have a monopoly, and we will all get charged more for their products and services. I hate to say it, but if that happens, there would probably be plenty of people who would be in need of the dole they want to introduce here. But please.......they would really rather be working and producing, as they are now.
The spirit of enterprise is alive and well here on Norfolk Island. Please do not kill it!

PAUSE TO SMILE

I trust that all those politicians, public servants and journalists who enjoy having a sneer at little Norfolk Island will not mind if we stop to have a little laugh at your expense.
This 'letter' was printed in the local Norfolk Islander on the weekend, but for the benefit of all the readers of this blog outside the island, I have the writer's permission to print it here on "Angels and Eagles"


DOCTORS' COMMONS

Citizens of the Self-Governing Colony called the Commonwealth of Australia.

In light of your failure to elect a competent and worthwhile Government and thus to govern yourselves properly, and particularly having regard to the grave and despicable way you have treated our loyal and much loved Subjects on our bountiful and wonderful Crown Colony of Norfolk Island, We Hereby Give Notice of the revocation of your self-governance and your so-called independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all your states, territories, islands and ocean seas (except Canberra, which she thinks is a dreadful place). We shall rename Norfolk Island as The Norfolk Islands, as there are actually three islands (all of which belong to Her Majesty and are not and never have been yours) and for the avoidance of doubt we shall extend the Crown Territory of The Norfolk Islands to an area of two hundred and fifty nautical miles around the three islands, and such shall remain the property of the people therein under her sovereignty.
We will appoint a Governor for Australia without the need for further elections. The House of Representatives and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. The so-called Commonwealth of Australia will cease to exist (and we never liked the expression Commonwealth as such was used by that bounder, Oliver Cromwell). From henceforth you shall be known as the Australian Group of Colonies and Territories.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. The letter 'u' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour', 'favour' and ''labour'' to avoid Australia slipping into sloppy American speak. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up "vocabulary"). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like", "oiu oiu" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as "Australian English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf and its spell checker will be adjusted accordingly.
You will relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen" and sing it proudly at all public occasions. January 26th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. April 1st will be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in England and on Norfolk Island. It will be called "Come-Uppance Day." You will cease playing Australian "football." There is only one kind of proper football; you call it "soccer." Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby. You will still be allowed to play cricket.
An internal revenue agent (tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all moneys due backdated to 1901. Former members of your rather pathetic former parliament will be held personally liable in the case of default.

God Save The Queen.

Thank you for your co-operation

Her Majesty's Privy Council

l

GOVERNMENT BY THE DISGRUNTLED

In the interests of fairness and balance, I have been spending time re-reading the 2003 report of the Inquiry into Governance into Norfolk Island. This is the report that is basically responsible for the stand now being taken by the Commonwealth Government that Norfolk Island is not capable of governing itself.
The report is titled, somewhat cryptically, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or "Who is to guard the guards themselves?"
If you read nothing else, make sure you read the extremely defensive opening paragraphs where the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Ross Lightfoot, says:

"There will be a vocal self-interested minority that will criticise the Committee's efforts and attempt to stifle considered debate on our recommendations."

Well, I do not really think I am part of a minority. And I am only self-interested in that I live here, this is my home, and what the Australian Government imposes on this island impacts on me, my daily life, my family, my home, my business, my livelihood, my lifestyle, my heritage.
I encourage considered debate on these issues, but they must be considered from a point of view that goes beyond the framework of the Commonwealth's pre-determined agenda. I am definitely prepared to be vocal.
I do not dispute the fact that our Government, like any other Government, must continuously face the challenge of reform and change, and of doing things better. But I say again

Let's do things better....our way!

One of the fascinating, but frightening features of the Joint Standing Committee's report is the extent to which it relies heavily on submissions and statements by individuals to justify its stance and recommendations.

The Appendices list a total of 33 Norfolk individual residents who tendered submissions or spoke at Public hearings. Of these, 13 were unnamed and confidential. A further name is given as submitting exhibits, plus 8 confidential exhibits, which may or may or may not be submitted by people from the group making submissions.

The N.I. Government and the N.I. Public Service Association also made submissions. All other submissions were from outside groups, organisations and individuals. Now there are some names on the list of people who have never made any secret about their desire to see Norfolk have a closer relationship with and dependence on Australia, and I respect their views.

What is disturbing is that the JSC has made decisions based on evidence from fewer than 40 island residents, and of the 22 who are named, I personally know there are several who would be strongly opposed to the Committee's recommendations. At the same time, the Committee has strongly criticised and discarded as valueless the results of any island-wide petitions, polls or referenda! Not to mention the views of our own democratically elected Legislative Assembly!

One can only assume that the anecdotal evidence and complaints - however valid those complaints -of a handful of disenchanted or disgruntled individuals carry more weight than the silent majority (I say that with a fair degree of confidence), who see no need to stand before the Committee because they are either happy with the Status Quo, or consider these matters to be none of Australia's business!

To make matters worse, the writers of this report continually quote ill-considered comments from the discredited Nimmo Report of 1975-6:

Nimmo concluded it would be "exceedingly difficult for this small faction-riddled and confined communityto evolve for the island policies that are likely to receive general acceptance in major matters"

They have even been cynical...and desperate.... enough to head chapter2 with a quote from a report by Magistrate Henry Wilkinson in 1885!

"Here, the whole system and everything arising from it is rotten. And unless an immediate stop is put to this sort of thing, the consequences will be most disastrous..."

Good try.

It is suggested we could try to discredit members of the JSC Committee. Don't bother.... its chairman Senator Lightfoot has already done that for himself. His actions in the gun/cash affair in Iraq hardly brought him credit.

This same person also accused the island people of protecting one of their own in the Janelle Patten murder affair.

Who, indeed, is to guard the guards themselves?

MUTINY REVISITED

It is happening.
The outside world is starting to take notice.
It is hard to imagine how Australia thought they could get away with it.
Did they really think that in the 21st century, they could just get away with an act of colonial paternalism that most of the world rejected more than 100 years ago?
They did not count on the spirit of the Norfolk Island people. People like Greg Quintal, who featured some years ago in an article in GEO, Australia's Geographical Magazine, Vol2 No2, reprinted in today's Norfolk Islander. The article quoted Greg as saying at the time that "the Australian Government has a long way to go before it really understands the unique needs of Norfolk. If necessary, he will be ready, at the drop of a liberty, to mutiny again." (GEO Vol2 No2)

Today Greg is the nearest thing we have to an elder statesman, and his love and passion for this island, its rights and its freedom is undiminished.
Many of us, like Greg, cannot help wondering:
How can Australia continue to do the following, and not risk being shamed in the eyes of the world?
*do things that affect us without our knowledge
*do things that affect us without consulting us
*do things that affect us without our consent
*do things that affect us when it is clearly against the wishes of our people
*do things that affect us against the wishes of our democratically elected government
*do things that affect us that are contrary to previous promises and commitments
*do things that affect us when it is clearly more in Australia's interests than ours

Australia has committed its troops to Iraq supposedly for the rights and freedoms of the Iraqui people, and yet it is prepared to trample on the very basic rights of the people in one of its own island territories.
How can Australia give self-government, and then take it away...just like that!! I cannot get my head around that one.
I mean, as my children got older, I gave them more and more freedom and responsibility. There were periods of time....and there still are....when they came to me for advice or a bit of help. But I respected their right to make their own decisions and to do things their way, and I respected their dignity and self-esteem, and I treated them as equals.
The silly thing is that this Norfolk community is not even like a child that broke away from "Mother Australia."
This is a people who were managing their own affairs when Australia was still well and truly attached to Mother England.

WHO SAID THIS?
"They [the Cabinet] are asking us to assent to this proposition while no member of this House, on the one hand, would stand on the hustings and advocate that there should be a certain form of government here which would not give every man a voice in making the laws. On the other hand, the Government wish to deny to this handful of people those rights which they would not dare to deny in this colony."
(William Crick, member for West Macquarie in the N.S.W. Parliament 1896, referring to the proposal to bring Norfolk Island under the NSW government, to replace the island's locally elected magistrate and to abolish all existing Norfolk Island laws.)

A POTTED HISTORY

GOVERNANCE OF THE PITCAIRN AND NORFOLK COMMUNITY

Younger people and newcomers may wonder what all the fuss is about.
"Why fight so hard for something you have only had for 27 years?" "Haven't you managed under Australian and colonial rule up until that time?"
I shall attempt to give a very simplified outline of the way this community has been governed since the Mutiny.

1789-1838
After an initial period of violence and disruption, the Tahitian women and the children of the Bounty settle down to a peaceful and orderly existence under the benevolent eye of their "patriarch" John Adams
1838
With the assistance of Capt. Elliot of HMS Fly, a list of rules and laws is drawn up, which involves the whole community electing a Chief Magistrate each year. Pitcairn is the first place in the British Empire to give the vote to women and also at this time makes arrangements for compulsory education of children 6-16. At this time, the community formally comes under the British Crown.
"Unique in History, the Pitcairn Laws offer an insight into the islanders' priorities and their virtually unprecedented dedication to conservation, education and democracy" (HELL AND PARADISE by Peter Clarke)
1856
The Pitcairn community migrates en masse to Norfolk Island, which they believe has been ceded to them according to the wishes of Queen Victoria, and where they will be allowed to live without interference according to their own laws and customs.
June 24, 1856
An Order of H.M. Queen Victoria in Council makes Norfolk Island "a separate and distinct settlement" within the British Empire.
1857
Governor Dennison assists the community in drawing up 39 Laws and Regulations. The practice of electing a Chief Magistrate continues. For the next 40 years, the community enjoys a form of self-government.
1866
Melanesian Mission is allowed to acquire about 1000 acres, and Pitcairners realise they do not have control over the land on their island. However, things proceed relatively peacefully.
1896
Viscount Hampden, Governor of both NSW and Norfolk Island, abolishes all existing laws and makes new ones. He brings Norfolk Island effectively under the NSW Government. Chief Magistrate is no longer elected, but the position is filled by an outside appointee. This causes great anger in the community.
At this time, New Zealand makes noises about the possibility of assuming control of the island instead of Australia.
1913-14
Britain transfers control of the island to the Commonwealth. The role of Administrator and Chief Magistrate are combined.
There follows, over the ensuing decades, alternating periods of calm and discontent, often depending on the attitude, competence and goodwill of the incumbent Administrator and Federal Government.
1935
Role of Administrator and Judiciary are separated
Eight member elected Advisory Council established. This replaces the Executive Council which had the majority of members appointed by the Administrator, and only had responsibility for minor municipal matters such as roads.
1954-5
When the Australian Government proclaims a new Customs Ordinance, the islanders petition Her Majesty the Queen to repeal the Ordinance, to give back their right to control of their own affairs, and to create a new constitution or restore the one they had received from Queen Victoria.

1957-60
Norfolk Island Act 1957 is passed but does not come into operation until 1960. The Advisory Council is to be replaced by Norfolk Island Council with greater control over island affairs. This is actually rejected by the first Council elected under the new system, because they said they were only given responsibility for municipal matters, the Adminstrator retained power of veto, they had too little control over revenues and would have to raise local taxes to pay for the areas under their control. The status quo (Advisory Council with Administrator as chairman) continues, with the Council able to give advice relating to the peace, order and good government of the island. There is continuing friction, mainly because of the lack of control over spending of moneys raised on the island.
1965
H.S. (Sid) Newbery goes to court to challenge the Commonwealth's authority to make laws for Norfolk Island, saying that Hampden's action in repealing all Norfolk laws in 1896 was invalid.
Newbery lost the case, and was refused right to appeal.
1975-6
The Nimmo Royal Commission recommends either abandoning the island, or incorporating it into a Canberra electorate, and bringing it under Commonwealth Law and Comonwealth Taxation and Social Welfare regimes.
1976-78
The Norfolk Island Council and community strongly opposes the Report's recommendations. An appeal is made to the U.N. (but not processed.)
1979
After an initial period of reluctance, the Australian Government grants Norfolk Island a degree of self-government, which is to be progressed and expanded over a period of time. There is to be a nine member Legislative Assembly, responsible for raising its own revenues. Role of Administrator continues to look after Australia's interests. Timetable for the handing over of powers, however, does not proceed as expected.
2006
It is up to you, me, and our Government to speak up and act!
Do not let them take it away from us again.

WE HAD OUR SAY

It is just over a month since Minister Jim Lloyd made his announcement about plans to change the governance arrangements for Norfolk Island. The first of a long list of investigative inquiries has come and gone. We have just about recovered from our initial stunned shell-shock.

Now we are talking. And planning. And taking action.

The Norfolk Action Group met again this evening. One purpose of the meeting was to consider the responses to the Have Your Say forum. All these responses have been recorded and summarised. They make interesting reading.
Overwhelmingly, the people of Norfolk Island seemed to be saying: "We love this island and our way of life. We feel very fortunate to live in a place like this. We may need to make some changes, but we want to be the ones making the decisions, and we don't want to risk the good things we now enjoy by allowing Ausralia to control us."

Someone at the meeting suggested we need to produce a bumper sticker. Perhaps

We can do it better....our way!

The second purpose of this evening's meeting was to meet with Legislative Assembly members, hear their views and plans, and to see how we can work together.

For the most part, the gathering was productive, fruitful and encouraging. We are starting to clear the path, so to speak......a path that will eventually bring us to the point where we make a firm stand on the issue of retaining the right to self-determination. We have our mission. None of us is certain of what "taking a stand" will involve in the long run. But we do mean to be well-prepared for it. Meanwhile we intend to support our government in their firm resolve to get us back on track economically.

The most encouraging thing about the meeting was the wide cross-section of people there. There were old and young. There were relative newcomers to the island, and there were some "old hands" who have seen it all before. There were business people, professionals, public servants, retired people, self-employed people, blue collar workers and white collar workers. There were Norfolk Islanders, long-term residents, General Permit holders and Temporary permit holders. You could almost say that "Adversity makes strange bedfellows." But they were all there on an equal footing, and bound by a common desire to keep Norfolk Island a good place to live.

It is obvious that the membership of the Norfolk Action Group is to grow at a rapid pace as people recognise that here is a body that will give them a voice and will work in a positive and cohesive manner to promote the welfare of all the people of the island.

I strongly believe that a very healthy grass-roots movement is starting to make its presence felt, and that it is going to gather momentum. I believe we can teach Australia a great deal about "rights and responsibilities!" We are taking ours very seriously.

THE GOOD OIL

Sometimes people say they wonder why Australia even bothers with a little place like Norfolk Island. Australia tells us they take their responsibilities to us and the Australian citizens living here very seriously. Maybe they do, but during 150 years when we have come under the oversight of the Colonial Government, the NSW government, and the Commonwealth Government, their track record has not been too good when it has come to really understanding and meeting our needs and respecting our rights and wishes.
There is no doubt that Australia needs Norfolk Island every bit as much, if not more so, than Norfolk needs Australia.
It has been obvious for over 200 years that this island is strategically important to Australia from a geographic point of view. It would be rather valuable to have Norfolk as an ally, and this island has not let Australia down in that area, with record numbers, per head of population, of island men serving in Australian forces to help defend this part of the world.
Undoubtedly, in the past four or five years especially, border control has been an issue. It would surely be possible to station one or two officers from Australian Immigration on this island to help police that area if they have any concerns.
It may not be a significant amount, but Australia probably makes more money out of this island than they admit, through taxes paid to them by larger companies and corporations doing business on this island e.g. banks, fuel companies, airlines and shipping companies. We do not get to see any of that money.
But the real issue is oil. The West's intervention in the Middle East....justified and necessary or not....was basically to secure and stabilise oil supplies. When Australia helped East Timor gain its independence....and this was a good thing.... it gave them access to the oil between the two countries, and many would say it was more than their fair share! I am not making judgements about these issues. It is just a case of these developed, oil-reliant countries protecting their national interest.
Unfortunately, Norfolk is a pawn in Australia's "national interest".
There is undoubtedly oil in or near Norfolk Island's (Australia's?) 200 mile territorial waters. This is not some far-fetched idea or wild conspiracy theory. The probability of enormous reserves of gas hydrates under the sea bed in this part of the world has been scientifically established. The technology to access these fuels has not yet been properly developed. But when it is, Australia will be ready.
Canberra has been very busy lately buying the friendship of other nearby Pacific islands. But they have their "PROPERTY OF AUSTRALIA" logo firmly stamped on this island. This saves them from having to waste time showing us proper respect and diplomacy.
So do they really care what happens to us? At least two lots of people who had interviews with Minister Lloyd were told, when they sought his help with our airline situation, that Canberra had no obligations to this island other than to "keep the lights on."
When they have completed their takeover, and stripped us of all our identity, our culture, our heritage and our self-reliance, the lights may still be on. But they will be the lights of a convenient and permanent aircraft carrier, and of a base/headquarters for oil exploration and drilling.

THE KINGSTON EVICTIONS

It us amazing how quickly things can disappear from living memory. It only takes a generation or two, really. A number of people have said that what I have written has given them a better background knowledge and understanding of what is happening today. Those of us who were here around the time of the Nimmo Report 3o years ago find ourselves reflecting that "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Actually, ever since the time the Pitcairners first came to Norfolk Island in 1856, there has been a pattern. The people of the island have been offered or promised something, only to have it taken away. They were offered this island for their new home, and were then asked to share it with others. They were told they could live according to their own laws and ways, and then had rule imposed on them from outside. They were "granted" self-government, and now it may be taken away. As Geoff Bennett and Lisle Snell said in their recent letter to the Minister, we have failed to "nail down the deal" and have found that we have continually been disadvantaged by less than honourable colonial governments.
When I first came to the island, the incident of the "Kingston Evictions" was still vivid in the collective memory of Norfolk Islanders. There were still many who actually remembered the event, which had taken place nearly 60 years before. It has been glossed over in history books, such as Merval Hoare's, but what happened burned a feeling of deep distrust and suspicion towards Australia in the older Norfolk Islanders.
My own mother-in-law, Dorothy Bailey, was a child of 6 at the time, and was at the home of Jemima Christian, who lived at Number 9 Quality Row. Number 9 had been George Hunn Nobbs' residence, allocated to him after the arrival of the Pitcairners in 1856. Jemima was his daughter, a widow, and she had cared for her father, and continued to occupy the house after his death.
The occupants of these buildings in 1908, often second and third generation of the original occupants, were asked by Australia to sign a document recognising that they had no right of ownership of the buildings, but occupied them by special licence.
The Australian representative at the time, a Captain Drake, was so upset by the reaction of grief and sorrow when he conveyed the decision to the people, that he offered to resign his position. (It was accepted.) His successors were prepared to carry out the task, however. Young Norfolk men, including some who had fought in the Boer War, were pressed into service as special constables.
Only two households agreed to sign, evidently families who had nowhere else to go. Most chose to go "up country " and live with families. Dorothy remembers that Jemima waited on her verandah for the constables to come. The wife of the Administrator came along and offered her refreshments, but she refused, saying she could not possibly drink anything.
Some people were forcibly carried out. One lady, who occupied the present Golf House, turned her calves on the constables.
Whether the Australian Government took this action because they believed the occupants were not maintaining the buildings properly, or because the Crown simply wished to assert its title to them, or a combination of both, is unclear. The Pitcairners certainly did not have access to the vast amount of convict labour to maintain these stone buildings as had their previous occupants.
In any case, after they left, most were neglected and fell into ruins anyway!
I am not suggesting that we continue to carry around feelings of resentment about what happened to previous generations of Norfolkers by previous Australian governments. However, I do believe that the time has come for some certainty about our rights and our constitutional status. The question needs to be settled once and for all, and it must be done with truth, honesty and justice, qualities that have been sadly lacking in our relationship with Colonial and Australian Governments in the past.

I am sorry there is no illustration today...I know it makes it easier to read and remember when there are pictures. But the program seems to have a glitch today, which hopefully will get sorted out.

GETTING PERSONAL

As it states at the top of this blog, what I write is a very personal response to the Commonwealth Government's moves to change Norfolk Island.
I am not a mouthpiece for any other person or organisation, although I know there are many others who think as I do. I have been greatly encouraged by the great number of people who have said they are reading "Angels and Eagles", and I am especially pleased that I am not merely "preaching to the converted."
So why am I doing it?
Well, I just love this place, and I just could not sit down and do nothing. I refuse to join the ranks of those who say:
"It's inevitable...it is no use us trying to fight it."
And I certainly do not endorse the view of those who say:
"Our own Assembly mismanaged things....it serves them right!"
That is really cutting off your nose to spite your face.
In almost four decades, I have learned to love living in a place where everything is accessible, where individuals can make a difference, where family is really important, and where people do things for themselves instead of relying on handouts. We enjoy the ultimate "sea change" existence that others dream of. But we know that it does not come without plenty of hard work, resourcefulness and commitment.
I cannot turn back the clock and be born a Bounty descendant, but I have still been able to feel a part of the place. I have never experienced any discrimination...until recently.
That discrimination has come from Canberra. It is because I hold British citizenship. I would renounce British citizenship tomorrow if I could have a piece of paper saying that I was a citizen of Norfolk Island. However after all those years of living here and playing my part in the community, Australia said that no non-Australian could vote or stand for election. They did not actually take away my vote in the end, but they did disqualify me from ever standing for the Assembly. I became a second-class citizen. Me, and a whole lot of others, including quite a few Norfolk Islanders!

By the way, there is a handful of residents of this island who also experience discrimination when travelling. Visitors to Australia, other than those holding Australian and New Zealand passports, are required to have a visa. However, residents of Norfolk Island, whatever their citizenship, are no longer allowed to apply for a visa. We have to rely on a little "Permanent Resident of N.I." sticker in our passports, which is not even recognised by most Australian Immigration officers. We cannot even leave the Norfolk airport without the Airlines having to make a call to Canberra for permission. This situation causes enormous difficulties and delays when travelling back to Australia or Norfolk Island from an overseas destination.

I am not "against" Australia.....for Australians. I spent 16 years of my life there. When I turned 21, even as a British citizen, I qualified to vote. And if I still lived there, I would no doubt have taken out Australian citizenship. Aussies are great people. I even cheer for the Aussies in International competitions. I like to visit Australia. But I do not want to have to be an Australian in order to enjoy my full rights as a citizen of Norfolk Island.

The political and constitutional changes Australia wants to make are allegedly for our economic well-being and sustainability. What I fear is that the outcome will be unwanted social change and damage.

That is why I will continue, in my own way, to push for the rights and aspirations of Norfolk Island to be recognised by Australia, and hopefully, internationally.

"Angels and Eagles" is my soapbox, so to speak.

In the meantime, I am also trying to let people know what a wonderful and unique way of life we enjoy on my other blog
http://devonhouse.blogspot.com/
This is helping me to appreciate my family, and the community we live in, which is rich and diverse. We may be remote, but in many ways the world comes to us here on this island.

May I point out that there is no copyright on what I write. If anyone feels they would like to use it (but not misuse it) they have my permission. I would just like to be kept informed.

If you would like to tell your friends about these blogs, you can just click on the little envelope at the bottom of this posting, enter your friend's email address, and they will send a message and give the URL.

FAIR GAME

Many Norfolkers sat up last night in front of their televisions to watch the Opening Ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. They would have been particularly keen to see the Norfolk Island Contingent, who marched in towards the end, with broad smiles and waving their Norfolk flags with great enthusiasm.
No doubt the competitors from every participating country, large and small, were feeling immense pride in having the opportunity to represent their homeland on this broader international front. And none more so than the Norfolkers, who fear that this is the last time they will do so.
Changes to Norfolk Island's constitutional status may well disqualify the island from future participation in this and other International Competition. Canberra and DOTARS, sensing that this is a very emotional issue, have said that they are investigating ways by which Norfolk can still take part. Well, I know they often promise miracles, but I cannot see how they can influence or tinker with the qualifying criteria of the Commonwealth Games Organisation. The simple fact of the matter is that they are taking away our 'separate' status, and drawing us into mainstream Australia, and in future we will probably need to qualify as Australians and represent that country. Because, as they keep telling us, we are Australians and reside in Australia. Their plans to put all our borders firmly within Australia...i.e. by assuming control of customs, immigration etc...will take away the last evidence of our being a distinct and separate entity.
This is not a new issue. When Australia removed Norfolk's right to participate in the South Pacific Commission some years ago, our right to participate in South Pacific sporting events was also under threat. Intervention by Sporting federations came to the rescue, and not only were we able to enter the South Pacific Games as a separate country, but were also admitted to separate membership of the Commonwealth Games Organisation. I recall that Canberra was extremely unhappy about this situation at the time. We held our heads high, and have taken part ever since the Auckland Commonwealth Games in 1986. The opportunity to compete with other smaller Pacific Islands and Commonwealth countries has been a great incentive and boost to our local sportspeople and organisations, and has contributed to the strength and vibrancy of the sporting scene on the island. It is an important factor in the social interaction and cohesion in our community, but also keeps health and fitness issues to the forefront. It helps our tourism, and it also helps us build and maintain a sound and friendly relationship with our Pacific neighbours. Desirable outcomes for any community, I should think!
Meanwhile Canberra's policy during the Games has begun to take a different twist. They have been sending their representatives, including the Minister and Administrator, to attend all the official functions at which Norfolk is represented. Are they trying to reinforce the fact that there is a change in the "chain of command?"
It is not just about being able to compete in future Commonwealth Games. It is about us representing our homeland. It is about our Norfolk Island identity. It is something we cherish. It is our heritage. It makes us what we are...Norfolkers first and foremost. Our separate and distinct identity is something we must not lose.

COMMUNITY ASSETS

I am not a lawyer, but I can recognise that what Australia wants to do to Norfolk is unjust.
Similarly, I am not an accountant or an economist, but I can recognise an asset. The ones I recognise may not be the sort that get entered into ledgers and balance sheets. Sadly, they do not get factored in along with the clinical figures and data that are required by the endless inquiries and reports that Norfolk Island gets saddled with.
I consider that I live on an island that is rich in assets, and has the capacity and the will to provide for the wellbeing of its people....in the Norfolk way. I would like to look at three areas of service provision where we have demonstrated an awareness of what people need and a will to provide it.
SOCIAL WELFARE
The Inasmuch principle is still alive and well on this island. It underpins much of our dealings with one another, and our response when someone is going through a hard time. It operates as a support network when someone is doing it tough, and a safety net when a crisis arises. It involves a whole range of things, including many kindnesses and acts of generosity which are never revealed to others. It translates into minding the kids, cooking meals, providing firewood, helping out with the lawns and the animals and the fences. Fish and vegetables are left on the kitchen bench. Individuals, churches, the Sunshine Club and other bodies quietly help out with cash. There is often a Benefit night where a large percentage of community members, including businesses, rally round generously. Opportunities are provided for someone needing extra cash to take on some work. Everyone gets behind community organisations, supports their raffles and fundraising, and takes an interest in what they are doing.
At the same time, everyone in the community is able to feel useful and valued and safe. Help is given in such a way that a person retains their dignity. We are particularly mindful of the rights and needs of our elderly folk and those who have disabilities. It is a fact that you will never be able to 'quantify' this aspect of Norfolk life, or even get people to talk about individual examples. We simply do what needs to be done for one another.

SPORTS , THE ARTS AND CULTURE
These areas are strong and vibrant on the island, and this has been achieved without government-funded facilities or subsidies. Strong sporting clubs have been built up, with many competing in international competitions, as well as hosting competitions and tournaments that attract visitors from overseas. Participation is keen, and club members work hard to raise funds for facilities and travel expenses.
The Arts are also well-served, with an extremely active and enterprising Community Arts Society promoting a huge range of arts and crafts both at workshop, exhibition and performance level. Other groups also promote areas such as music, drama, literature, dance. The island hosts a number of festivals and tournaments, such as Country Music, a Writer's Festival, Line Dancing, Ballroom Dancing, Scrabble and Bridge....and many more. We enjoy an annual Multicultural Festival. An Agricultural and Horticultural Society continues to stage a successful Annual Show, at a time when many local country Shows are struggling with falling participation and financial difficulties . Our museums, both public and private, are inviting, and user-friendly. There are private galleries and Art Studios, and active Craft groups. There is a good measure of local Business sponsorship in many areas. Many visiting artists (from all areas of the Arts) visit the island each year. The level of local participation in all aspects of the Arts is probably quite high for a community of this size, and young people are given every encouragement to take part, perform and develop their talents and interests.
However, almost all of this happens without direct Government subsidy. It is the resourcefulness, sharing spirit and enthusiasm of Norfolkers that makes it happen.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
I cover this area, because the Commonwealth Grants Commission 1997 report found that the provision of Vocational education and training was at a much lower level than average mainland standards, and threatened our economic viability.
Notwithstanding that this area has probably improved since 1997, one should note that there is a time-honoured process of 'education' that still happens here, one which has been lost in larger, urban communities. I refer to the passing on of skills and knowledge by the older generation to the younger. One can identify many Norfolkers who are earning a living, full or part-time, using workskills and lifeskills that have been taught or passed on by parents, relatives or older Norfolkers. In some cases, this has been supplemented by some formal training, but all are doing well for themselves, and many are running their own businesses very successfully. I can think of people in many areas who come into this category:
retail, hospitality, foodservice and catering, fishing, animal husbandry, lighterage, agriculture and market gardening, butchering, grounds maintenance and fencing, building and carpentry, milling, tourism, business management.....and probably many more.
I find this is a place where young people are given every encouragement to have a go at things for themselves. Moreover, the handing-down of skills from generation to generation gives a continuity that assists social cohesion, gives self-esteem and confidence, and places a community on a strong and sound foundation.

Unfortunately, none of these things can be factored in to the balance sheets of the bureaucrats, but we hope that they will take note of these cultural aspects of the 'Norfolk way' before they endanger them by paternalistic over-government. Many Norfolkers fear that placing us in a position of dependence or reliance on welfare, subsidies and hand-outs will weaken those qualities that have enabled us to be self-reliant, and bound us together as a community.

UNHAPPY CHRISTMAS II

Christmas island residents have only enjoyed permanent residency status on their island since the early 1980's. Because of the lack of past security and stability and the diverse ethnic mix on the island, it has been a challenging task for the Shire government and the people of Christmas to develop a greater degree of social cohesion and a spirit of community enterprise and self-reliance. They have both the will and the goodwill to work towards these goals. However they feel they are obstructed and frustrated every step of the way by remote-control and unaccountable Governments operating from Perth and Canberra. The Christmas Islanders say that their self-esteem and confidence is continually eroded by lack of consultation and sensitivity to their real needs.
The following situations, which have occurred on Christmas Island, could well occur on Norfolk Island if we hand over the reins.

The Commonwealth, responsible for health on the island, has built a modern new hospital.
However:
*All pregnant women must travel to Perth or another large mainland centre for the birth of their babies, something which has negative cultural, social and financial impacts for families.
*Up-to-the-minute equipment at the hospital is idle or under-utilised because of staffing, maintenance and indemnity issues.
*Although the Commonwealth guarantees a medivac service, it does not guarantee a supplier, and delays of 24 hours or longer can occur in obtaining a provider, with potentially fatal results.
*In 2003, the Health Service proposed shutting the hospital at night "to improve community health services!" and to keep within the budget. They were actually told it was NOT a funding issue!

Some other examples of a bureaucratic and irrelevant government:

*The Commonwealth is funding a combined public and community libarary. However instead of being able to purchase books, they are loaned and freighted in boxes from the W.A. State Library Service, an expensive exercise
*In 2002, the Administrator advised that a helicopter was to be permanently located on the island, and a hangar was built. The helicopter was involved in one search and rescue mission, then removed from the island never to return.
*A newly constructed Recreation Centre, designed and located without the involvement of the community, and far more sophisticated than is needed by a population of 1500, will cost the community $750 000 per annum to run and maintain. The then Minister Wilson Tuckey told the islanders "You're going to get this Recreation Centre whether you like it or not!
*A temporary Immigration Detention Centre was built...again without consultation... on a site that had been set aside for a Waste Transfer Station, which impacted severely on waste minimisation strategies and wasted much time and money.
*Against the expressed desire of the islanders, the Commonwealth refused a Casino licence to a Korean company, thus denying them the opportunity to experience the positive financial and employment benefits of this private investment.
*Business and Agriculture Support services available in West Australia are NOT available to territory residents. In fact, all legislation relating to the ability of a company doing business on the island to actually register itself on the island has been repealed
*The Commonwealth owns most of the land on Christmas Island, including that occupied by temples etc, and by calling all its building activity "public works", considers itself exempt from planning consideration or approval.
*Meanwhile, while the Shire has use and access to land and buildings required for its service provision, it has no title to them, meaning it has no assets.
*Christmas Islanders vote in the Federal electorate of Lingiari, which is in the Northern Territory!

We have built a strong and enterprising community here on Norfolk Island, with a high level of service provision that is geared towards our real needs.

Do we really wish to place this at risk?

UNHAPPY CHRISTMAS

It is not easy to draw comparisons between Norfolk Island and Christmas Island. Although both are external territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, and have a similar population, the background, history, culture, economy and ethnicity of the two differ greatly.

Even the aspirations of the two communities differ. Most Christmas Islanders were happy to become Australian citizens, because they believed it would mean an end to the racism, discrimination and poor conditions they had been living under previously. Unlike most Norfolk Islanders, they actually accept the Canberra "mantra" about "the rights and obligations of all Australian citizens."

What we do have in common is an intense disappointment with the lack of respect and understanding that DOTARS and the Commonwealth Government displays in dealing with our island communities or addressing our real needs and problems.
The government model that was imposed on Christmas Island was a "Local Government" model, with a 9 member Shire council. State type functions are outsourced to the West Australia government, who in turn often outsource them to private contractors. West Australia law "applies" to Christmas Island unless special exemptions are made, but the Christmas Island Shire is not consulted in either of these areas. They have very little input into anything other than their municipal responsibilities.

"Our Future in Our Hands" is a submission from the Christmas Island Shire to the Inquiry into Governance Arrangements in the Indian Ocean Territories in August 2005. It makes frightening reading, as we learn how time and time again, the efforts of the Christmas Island shire to govern for their people is frustrated and obstructed, while Canberra and DOTARS ignore their real needs and renege on commitments.

We read of things like:

"discriminatory practices of a Government that is still paternalistic but becoming less benevolent as time goes by"
"the beneficial normalisation of the island in the 1980's has given way to a policy aimed at making Christmas Island like a community on the mainland. 'Treat alike' has become 'Make the same' "
"Colonial style decision making....is largely unaccountable. Decisions are paternalistic; that is, they are for the community's 'own good' whether they like it, or understand it, or not."
"the Commonwealth has done effectively very little to involve, engage or facilitate the community in its own economic development."
"lack of access to advice and resources to develop community capacity."
"We have a vision for ourselves...we live here. You don't.....You have so little understanding about us. You deny our past, we live with it. You make decisions about our future, but leave us to experience the effects of your decisions" (to Minister Lloyd during protest about "No Casino Licence")
"The community suffers from consultation fatigue and has become cynical about the potential of any inquiry to deliver outcomes or benefits."
"Overall, Government decisions have undermined the economic development of the Island, particularly the ability of the community to be more self-sufficient."
"The Commonwealth...wants the island to be dependent on it, provides fillips via capital works instead of long-term sustainability measures, places its own strategic interests above that of the community, and provides lip service salves in any effort to create a perception that it is doing something, when in fact it is doing very little.....the community is left to fight over the tidbits offered like mendicants."

Those Norfolkers who trust that coming under greater Commonwealth control will solve the island's problems or give greater social and economic security to us either as a community or as individuals should think again. This 274 page report can be accessed at

www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ncet/iotgovernance/subs/sub010

It may not be a case of going forward, or even sideways like the crab.........we may well go backwards if we do not learn a lesson from the Christmas Island story.

A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE

Anyone coming to Norfolk Island for the purpose of doing a survey, a report or an investigation should have some obligatory reading beforehand.
They should take some time to read "The Lord of the Rings" by Tolkien, or even Narnia series by C.S. Lewis, where they write about another world which is very different to one we are used to. As you read these books, you are expected to shake off your preconceived ideas and value systems, and accept a whole new set of realities. You stop making comparisons with your own normal existence, you stop making judgments using the old set of parameters, and in doing so, you discover a whole new world of possibilities.
These may be fantasies, but even in the real world, believe it or not, there are individuals, communities and even nations that do not need to be judged by the average Australian standard of what is good and right.
And Norfolk Island is one of those places.
One would hope that Mr Alan Morris from the Commonwealth Grants Commission was starting to get that impression at the public meeting last night. Yet again, Norfolk is to be measured against comparable communities within the Australian system on the delivery of services and capacity to raise finance.
It is very hard to convince Canberra that there is no such thing as a comparable community, because apart from our geography, remoteness and relative isolation, the people of Norfolk Island have a history, ethnicity, and culture that is indisputably distinct from that of Australia.
About the only concession Canberra has made is an acknowledgement that "Norfolk Island's economy has evolved separately from that of Australia"(from the leaflet NORFOLK ISLAND-ensuring a stronger and sustainable future).
Can they not understand that our values, our way of interacting and dealing with one another, our aspirations and expectations are all a product of a completely separate and distinct beginning and background? I am not just referring to the wonderful Pitcairn tradition on which the island "way" is based, but to the values of those people and families who have come to join this community and have put down their roots and made a strong commitment to the prosperity of the island and the well-being of its people.
I was so proud of the Norfolkers who put questions to the Grants Commission chairman last night. The issues they raised were pointed and relevant, and they were articulated clearly with intelligence and perception. It was not about control or conservatism or resistance to change. It was about securing the future of the island for Norfolkers, not Australia. And it was about ensuring we retain those good things that have made us a strong, vibrant community right up to the present day.
Some of the concerns raised were:
*Why spend money on new and modern infrastructure that a small community cannot be expected to maintain or staff adequately?
*Why suggest that our financial viability and capacity is inadequate when it is Australia that has passed legislation that specifically blocks revenue raising initiatives of the Norfolk Island Government and community?
*How can you get a true picture of a community when you cannot factor in cultural attributes?
*Wouldn't it be more productive to select 100 Norfolk Island residents at random, and assess their level of satisfaction with the current level of facilities, infrastructure and services?
*Why is there such a tight time frame for all these investigations and inquiries?
*Isn't our current economic downturn only a symptom of another problem that could well be solved with Australia's help?
It must be strange to address a large group of residents who are NOT asking for more services, facilities, welfare, handouts.
But that is the way we are.
We are different.

LIKE IT OR LUMP IT

Those who have taken the trouble to contact the Commonwealth Department responsible for Norfolk Island will probably have been receiving replies and acknowledgements to their emails, letters and submissions.
When I began this 'blog', I submitted the web address to the Minister's office, and was hopeful that it would be read.
Today I received an acknowledgement from Mr Richard Magor, the Secretary of the Norfolk Island and Northern Territory Section of the Territories Branch of DOTARS (Department of Transport and Regional Services.) When you think about it, we are way down the ladder in terms of relative importance in matters of government over there, and one wonders if the Minister will actually lose much sleep over our problem in the scheme of things.
Although Mr Magor's reply to me was over a page, and was quite courteous,
and I was thanked for "contributing to the wider debate on the proposed changes" there was no assurance that my views were being conveyed to the Minister himself. One can only hope.
Basically the letter went over the same old ground about the TWO posible models of future governance arrangements, and the wish for community input during the process of developing the detail etc. etc. etc.
Many of us are being reminded of the days when we were told by our parents
"You can eat your vegetables or you can stay in your room....now you choose."
No compromise or alternative or real right of choice on our part. In other words, like it or lump it.

When will the Commonwealth get the message?
We do not want either of the models!
We do not believe you have a right, moral or otherwise, to force them on us against our will!
We do not believe that either will be beneficial to us or solve our current difficulties!
We believe that if either model is adopted, regardless of the detail, we will lose far more than we may gain!

We should be very clear on this.
Do not be encouraged by statements about consultation with the Norfolk Island Government and community. Canberra intends to be totally in control of the agenda for these discussions and consultations. By all means speak up about your concerns, but unless this community is heard with a very loud voice, we will need to explore other avenues to assert our right to decide these matters for ourselves.
Meanwhile, Mr Magor has said in his email:

"General questions and answers about issues on which the Australian Government has developed an approach will be posted on the Department's website in the near future at
http://www.dotars.gov.au/terr/norfolk/governance_arrangements.aspx
(There is an underscore between "governance" and "arrangements")

It is to be hoped that we are able to demonstrate to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which is currently conducting an inquiry into the island's financial capacity, that constitutional changes are not what we need to improve our economic well-being. And let them know that we have the will, the skills and resources, with a little bit of help, to continue on the self-government road.
The Grants Commission is holding a public meeting tomorrow evening (Thursday) at 6 p.m. downstairs at the South Pacific Hotel.

THE HUMAN FACTOR

I have lived on Norfolk Island for close to 40 years. I do not envisage myself ever leaving, because it is my adopted home.
In that time, I have learnt to admire the spirit and character of the Norfolk Islander.
I would not presume to describe a "typical" Norfolk Islander, or to patronise them by putting them into a neat little category or box. They cannot be stereotyped like that. The personalities are as diverse as you would find in any community.
There is, however, a set of community values and a culture that a visitor may catch a glimpse of, and a longer term resident may come to come to know a little better. It is a set of values and a character that Canberra may have underestimated, or failed to take into account.
They are very proud of their community and their history, and rightly so. Even in their relative isolation, they have made an excellent job of managing their affairs for the good government of the island and its people. Ever since the days of John Adams, when he sought to teach his people a Godly, just and honest way of living and dealing with one another, this community has been at the forefront of any western nation in developing a sound set of community values. Values such as caring for one's own, taking responsibility for one's own actions and well-being, and working hard for what one needs or wants.
As people who have always known how to cut the coat according to the cloth, they are appalled at the potential waste of money and resources they will see if Canberra tries to provide what they have competently provided for themselves up until now.
I have seen many good leaders in this community, but I have rarely seen one who was at all power hungry and inclined to get up on a soapbox and rally people behind him or her for some cause. But that does not mean that they are not reacting with strength and vigour when they see an injustice such as Norfolk has been threatened with. That is why I believe Canberra has underestimated the will of people here to hang on to what they cherish.
They are not afraid of change, and have seen much of it over the years. It took a fair amount of faith to make the move from Pitcairn to Norfolk in 1856, and the resilient and adaptable spirit is still very much present today. But the change must be productive and beneficial for Norfolk Island.
It is so encouraging to see a strong grass-roots response to the current situation, and much of this is being led by younger people with a strong commitment to keeping Norfolk a place that they and their children can continue to be proud of. They do not want to lose the strong work-ethic, or the resourcefulness or the high level of self-sufficiency that characterises them.
I mentioned the "Have Your Say" forum. Today, there was another forum on Norfolk Radio, with 6 people in varying age groups discussing which way they would like to see Norfolk progress. There was a range of views, but the discussion proceeded with typical Norfolk good humour. There was discussion on Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, and even Option 4. The views were expressed clearly, with intelligence and perceptiveness, and above all with some passion.
I have said it before, but I believe that passion is what we need now.
I did not need any convincing of the fact, but listening to that forum told me that the future of Norfolk Island is in good hands. This situation is actually bringing out the best in the people of the island.
I would like to tell the young people...don't give up and feel it is useless doing anything....we are relying on you.

I know the Canberra machine appears a bit like a juggernaut rolling mercilessly on. Already we have the Grants Commission here, when they think we will have barely had a chance to gather our thoughts together, let alone develop a strategy or plan of action. Whatever your views about the island's future, Canberra's tactics are unjust and undemocratic.

Your fathers and grandfathers made a difference when we were threatened in a similar way thirty years ago when the Nimmo Report suggested solving the Norfolk "problem" by absorbing us into mainstream Australia. It was a grass-roots movement, and gave the Council of the day hope and encouragement. The same thing can happen now.

HAVING OUR SAY

Funnily enough, as you move around Norfolk Island, you do not actually hear a great deal of discussion about Australia's plans to alter Norfolk Island's constitutional status.
In the first day or two after the Minister's announcement, a departmental officer was heard to comment that we must be happy with the proposals, because she had not seen any banners or demonstrations.
Maybe she thought she was back in Australia, but things work rather differently here on the island.
First of all, you would have to allow for the shell-shock that most of us experienced. Many described a feeling of intense, almost physical anxiety, stomach churning, loss of appetite and sleep, depression. It took a few days to get that under control.
Even those who had access to the Minister during his visit were told in no uncertain terms that the proposals were not negotiable in their basic form, although the detail would be open for consultation. However, as we were not actually given much detail, there was very little basis for constructive discussion.
Then you must remember that this is a small community...fewer than 2000 people. I myself would not describe it as "closely-knit" or "clannish", terms journalists love to use. However, we do live and work and socialise alongside each other all the time, and we need to accommodate and manage situations where there is going to be a diversity of views. There would be a distinct tendency to avoid political or controversial topics in most situations where a group of people are gathered together, lest it give rise to uncomfortable or resentful feelings. That is part of the courteous nature of the Norfolk people.
There have definitely been plenty of one-to-one discussions, and more relaxed interchange in cases where you know the others feel just like you do. Frequently, visitors have come out openly and asked "How do you feel about it?" Even then, one would be cautious in stating a view if others were present.
We do have good access to our Legislative Assembly members, but unfortunately most of them know very little more than we do. And not everyone is comfortable with a Letter to the Editor. The minister made it clear he would welcome views and submissions being directed to his department, and no doubt many have done this.
However, it was greatly welcomed when NAG (Norfolk Action Group), which is a forum for people to state their views on Norfolk affairs, and convey these views to the government here, decided to hold a HAVE YOUR SAY forum over two days in Rawson Hall.
Booths were set up for different areas of possible discussion - e.g. taxation, environment, social welfare etc., and there were sheets of butcher's paper for us to write our views. As each sheet was filled, it was taped to the wall. It was good to read the views of others, and gave food for thought.
The comments were, of course, anonymous, but one senior gentleman, who loves this island dearly and is one of our "national treasures", asked if he should sign his name. They said he did not need to, but he insisted "But I want to!!" If you wished, you could write on a card and place it in a box. Some people brought prepared written views. Various information sheets were placed around in prominent positions, such as a list of types of Australian taxes. At one end, there was a "worry wall" (or "wailing wall") on which you could pose questions or express general concerns.
I attended the forum on two occasions, and each time there were some government ministers and assembly members taking the opportunity to listen, talk, ask questions, and read what people were writing.
It was an extremely positive and constructive activity, and a large number of people took advantage of the chance to ask questions, state concerns, read how other people were feeling, or generally let off steam.
N.A.G. will now collate the responses, and make them available for the Assembly and the Minister and his Department. In view of the fact that we are not to be allowed to express our views or accept/reject the proposal through fair and democratic means, this may have been the only real opportunity for Norfolk Island to have its say.

OPTION THREE

There is no doubt that some hard decisions need to be made on Norfolk Island. The demands of the modern world and a 21st century society, plus the desire of Norfolk Islanders to maintain the good quality of life and reasonably high standard of living they NOW enjoy, means that our N.I. Government needs to re-think its revenue-raising and spending strategies.
This is no different to what every individual, household, small business, corporation, organisation, local council and state or Federal Government needs to do regularly. Sometimes small modifications are needed, and at other times more radical strategies are needed.
Norfolk Island is at the latter stage.
The Commonwealth Government has stepped in, and laid on the table two broad options "for the future governance of Norfolk Island to ensure future sustainability."

OPTION 1 "A modified self-government model with greater powers for Australian Government Involvement."
This model does nothing to address Norfolk's economic situation. In fact, because the Minister has said it will include taking away our control of Customs, it will take away our largest revenue earner. And because it will also include local residents and businesses paying at least some Australian taxation, it is difficult to imagine how we can possibly be better off economically than before!
OPTION 2 " 'A local government model' where the Australian Government could assume responsibility for state-type functions."
Presumably this would losing many of our other current revenue raising methods, and being forced to pay land taxes, something that would be disastrous for a community where many people are asset-rich and cash-poor, and where the ability to pass on land to our children as part of their heritage is extremely important to local families.

Could we please have Option 3?
The detail could be worked out after a sound and thorough process of consultation with Norfolk Island Government and people, but it should at least contain measures to fix the actual problem, without changing our constitutional status and threatening our heritage and way of life.
Among other things, it should include
1. Retaining autonomy at least at current levels.
2. Exploring improved ways of raising revenues on Norfolk Island.
3.Sharing information and expertise as a genuine measure of help to the island e.g in formulating a G.S.T.
4. Dealing with obstacles that Australia constantly places in our way which make it hard for us to "get on with things." e.g. tedious and unproductive Senate inquiries
5. Doing those things which it is in Australia's power to do to help us with the airline problem, something which the Minister recently washed his hands of.
6. Help us to give a boost to our only viable industry...tourism...so we can "help ourselves."
7. Grant us reciprocal Medicare arrangements such as are enjoyed by other non-Australian places.
8. Restore the availability of RAAF Medivac flights.
9. I have not listed grants and loans. We are not asking for handouts, but it would certainly be nice to have access to some of the money that Australia hands out to other Pacific island to buy their goodwill. They could buy our goodwill for far less than it will cost them to annexe us into their tax/welfare system.
If Australia did make some money available, it should be for those things we know we need. Things like an all-weather breakwater or improved wharf facilities at Cascade, or roads which are Commonwealth property. It should not just go to things Australia regards as their heritage and which give them kudos, such as the Kingston penal settlement ruins and the Kingston wharf.

We should all be thinking about OPTION 3.
It is unproductive to focus on the detail of The Minister's two options. The broad principle is wrong. Canberra is forcing constitutional change on us in the guise of assisting our financial sustainability.

COMING IN FOR THE KILL

You might wonder why Norfolk Island is not delighted that Australia is wanting to come in and help us with problems they feel we are currently experiencing in our economy, our tourism and our infrastructure. It would seem a very neighbourly thing to do, an expression of goodwill between Australia and the island territory it has oversight of. Canberra says it is coming in to help us before we face the insolvency that their "indisputable" reports say that we are heading for. Funnily enough, no one has ever been given the opportunity to dispute their view, and they have no intention of canvassing any other opinions, least of all ours.
It has become apparent, from listening to the experiences of those who met and spoke to the Minister during his visit, that our current problems have very little to do with the decision to annex Norfolk Island. The whole thing has been carefully considered and in the planning for a very long time, and the whole thing is well set in concrete, and the only flexibility will be in the smaller details.
We have been given two options....
*a modified self-government model with greater powers for Canberra and the imposition of Australian taxes and benefits, and all Commonwealth laws being extended to Norfolk Island.
*a local government model.
They say we are to be consulted widely about the detail, but there is no plan to offer us any other option.
One wonders, when the only difficulty they have been able to pinpoint is a current economic one (and we are still solvent), why the solution should be to change the whole government model, and to take away our responsibility for one of our biggest revenue earners, which is Customs.
What Canberra sees is this:
We have a downturn in tourism, which was exacerbated by the problems being experienced by the airline servicing the airline from Australia. This was a commercial business issue, not of our making, but the airline problems were leading to public relations issues and loss of confidence by travel agents. Before the problem got worse, our own government foreclosed on the airline, and has itself ensured a maintenance of flights since that time. It will take time to re-establish our market, but we have a great product here on the island, and we will succeed.
Instead of helping us with the airline issue at a government level, Canberra is taking advantage of the anxiety of those in the tourist industry and moving in for the kill.
Since the very beginnings of self-government, Canberra has reneged on commitments, failed to consult properly with our government, moved the goalposts in the progression of transfer of powers to us, and failed to compensate us for an infrastructure that was handed over to us in an unsatisfactory state in the first place. And now it is all our fault, even though the model they gave us was probably doomed to fail in the first place.
So now they say we cannot manage, even though their demands were unreasonable, and their genuine assistance non-existent.....and are moving in for the kill.
In recent years, we have been overwhelmed by repeated inquiries, commissions, ministerial visits. They have listened and consulted, so they say, but they have always given greater weight to the anecdotal views of a handful of disenchanted individuals than to the views of our government or the results of repeated referenda. In fact, one senator on the Senate Standing Committee actually acused us of manipulating referndum results and intimidating voters, which is laughable.
These inquiries (by senators with no guaranteed qualifications in these areas) have also been critical of our services and infrastructure, comparing them unfavourably to what they know (or think they know) of urban Australia. They have tried to convince people that they are deprived of their proper rights and services, and have sought to undermine confidence in our own government.
And now, with grand promises of giving us things that no rural community in Australia enjoys, they are moving in for the kill.
Canberra has commissioned economic reports that highlight potential problems with continuing to raise sufficient revenue to govern the island using our current revenue base. No one questions this. But the island has faced obstruction from Canberra in exploring other revenue bases.
When a GST was proposed, assistance was sought in developing the concept from both Australia and New Zealand, because of their experience. At first NZ happily agreed, but then they were apparently 'warned off. ' Canberra then proceeded to send over a tiny delegation for a whole two days, and that was the sum total of their assistance.
Canberra has also been very lukewarm with help to progress other revenue raising options such as Internet Gaming and Offshore Finance Centre.
There is no intention to help us canvas any other options either. Canberra's stand is non-negotiable.
They say our government model is financially unsustainable...they have brainwashed many people into believing it without proper evidence, and are moving in for the kill.
One of the bigger drains on our finances is health. Because of our isolation, we need to provide a level of service that is superior to that of a country town with reasonable access to a medical facility in a larger urban centre, or enjoying the services of the Royal Flying Doctor. I have already written about our excellent medical and support facilities, more than adequate for a small place. We have a Government Healthcare levy, which acts as a safety net after $2500 of expenses, which means that one can actually "self-insure" for the initial amount and be better off than they would be in a private health fund.
But our health service is costly, pharmaceuticals are not subsidised, and the government insurance scheme can be strained if there are a number of serious medical emergencies or costly long-term medical problems.
The RAAF used to provide a medical evacuation service, which was written off to "training." In recent years, this service has been completely withdrawn by Australia.
Original plans to provide Norfolk Island residents with reciprocal Medicare arrangements (such as are enjoyed by many other independent countries) were withdrawn nearly 20 years ago.
Even suggestions that our own Healthcare levy be paid into Medicare to give us access have not been taken up or pursued.
Yet we have still managed up until now.
Yet Canberra is trying to tell us we have an inferior health system, and is moving in for the kill.
There is currently some disenchantment in some sections of the community with our own government. Much of this is over issues with no bearing on our economy or anything else Caanberra has chosen to highlight. You will always get dissatisfaction with the current government, and Canberra knows that.
Yet Canberra is going to capitalise on the discontent and move in for the kill.
And the last straw is the Kingston pier, which Canberra (who owns it) has decided to restore at enormous cost, putting it out of action for many months. Our pier is our lifeline. We have another pier, in far worse condition, which can only be used if the seas and weather are right. It cannot be used during our prevailing winds. Currently a cargo ship has been out there waiting a fortnight to unload. This sort of thing greatly adds to the freight costs and cost of living here.The money so magnanimously allocated could have repaired Cascade pier, helped towards an all-weather breakwater, or developed wharf facilities in the much more sheltered Headstone area.
Meanwhile, we are inconvenienced, and more than that, we are being financially crippled by Canberra's action. One cannot help thinking it was all part of the plan.
A perfect time to move in for the kill?