SOUNDS FAMILIAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRANTS COMMISSION PART 2

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

GRANTS COMMISSION

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