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.