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