SUBMISSION TO JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE
Mary Christian-Bailey

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

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

1. That any action that is taken or law that is passed that affects Norfolk Island should be a matter for prior consultation on an equal government to government basis between Norfolk and Australia.
2. That no change be made without a properly conducted economic impact study, the results of which we have free and open access to. There is more to what makes this place tick than economic factors, but that would be a good start.
3. That where it is considered, by mutual agreement, that we need to lift our game in some area – and what government anywhere cannot say that – that the necessary action be taken by the Norfolk Island Government, under Norfolk Island law, albeit with some help and advice from your own authorities.
4. That before risking change to this island, both your committee and the people of the island should seriously examine Australia’s record on dealing with economic sustainability and cultural and social sensitivities in its own remote communities, including Aboriginal communities, Christmas and Cocos Islands, and struggling rural communities. One of your own former members described Christmas Island as “a basket case.”
5. That no change be made affecting Norfolk Island without seeking the will of the people of this island, through properly-conducted referenda. Send a scrutineer or observer if you like, if you really believe our referenda are manipulated and invalid as suggested by a previous JSC Committee.
   
   What I would really like to see is for your Committee come here with a view to learning why we are so successful, and why, against all odds, we are such a productive, vibrant, self-reliant and resourceful community, and how a small remote place of fewer than 2000 people can boast ready access to such a wide range of goods and services, enjoying an enviable quality of life. And perhaps apply some of what you have learnt to help other less fortunate places. I know your bureaucracy finds Norfolk Island an untidy anomaly – but wouldn’t it be wonderful if you thought of us as “the jewel in your crown”, and not just “a thorn in your side”?
   
   Now I would briefly like to deal with some myths. I am sorry that we need always to be on the back foot defending ourselves, when we would rather be moving forward positively on the front foot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATING OUR CASE


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

OUR CHIEF MINISTER RESPONDS

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

Legislative Assembly Meeting 19th November 2008

Response to statements in the Australian Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.


André Nobbs
Chief Minister

FAILED STATE ?

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

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

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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

AND SOME BUSINESS SENSE



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

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

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

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

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


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

Another important factor is the low tax base.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not even mentioned our tourist industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAKING SENSE

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

But really it is quite simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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