BORDER CONTROL AND SECURITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.