So - it is a very long time since I have posted. But once again it is time. I believe we are in a position now where the right decisions about Norfolk Island have to be made, made by the right people, and for the right reasons. We are in danger of having those decisions made by people who have little time or thought for this island, who are ill-informed, and who do not wish to consult or really listen to the true stakeholders.
The minister invited Norfolk people to send him their thoughts about what Norfolk Island should do. He had already stated Australia had committed to bringing the island into the Federal taxation and social security regime, which means that is non-negotiable. He has said we must make economic and social(????) changes. So what else does he need to know?
I fear that his invitation (private and confidential) will give him an opportunity to cherry pick the ideas and suggestions that suit him, and allow minority viewpoints to masquerade as the view of the majority - and hope no one is any the wiser. 
Nevertheless, I have attempted to tell him what I feel, and hope others will do the same.

>  SUBMISSION FROM A NORFOLKER TO MINISTER JAMIE BRIGGS

Sincere thanks, Minister, for your invitation to contact you personally with our views on our current difficult situation on Norfolk Island. I am aware through the media that you carry many responsibilities, and it is frustrating to realise that we compete with many other pressing issues.

I introduce myself as someone who has lived on Norfolk Island since 1966, married to a Norfolk Islander of Pitcairn descent, have five adult children who are proud to call themselves Norfolk Islanders. I have burned all my bridges behind me, love this island passionately, and will never call any other place home. I am not of Pitcairn descent, but my own sense of identity is very much bound up with my adopted homeland. I believe I have earned the respect of Norfolk Islanders, and have frequently been told by them that I put into words what they feel in their hearts but cannot express in words.

I realise that some of what I say will not strictly meet the criteria and guidelines contained in your invitation; nevertheless I believe it may be helpful for you in gaining an understanding the realities of what you are dealing with.

UNDERSTANDING NORFOLK ISLAND

Jamie, you have been "quoted" as saying that you are not interested in 200 years of history, and also that you find it "absurd" that we are different to the rest of Australia with regard to things like taxation and social welfare.

Nevertheless, you will have become aware, as have previous Federal Governments, that dealing with Norfolk Island is a complex process, fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. Sadly, the Norfolk Island situation is likely to remain in the "too hard basket", unless your government starts to approach the issues differently, think laterally, and discard the assumption that Norfolk Island can be made to fit the mould or pattern of any traditional Australian community.

I feel just a few reminders about the past may show, if nothing else, why Norfolk Island is such a complex anomaly.

 OUR HISTORY IS OUR “DREAMTIME”. IT IS PART OF WHAT WE ARE TODAY.

·        Historically speaking, the Pitcairn/Norfolk community did not have its origins on Australia, they never migrated to or settled in Australia, they have never asked to become part of Australia, and they have never been asked if they wished to become part of Australia! We are NOT another ethnic group in multi-cultural Australia.

·        There was a time last century when Norfolk Island held an almost identical status to that of New Guinea in its relationship with Australia. I am not sure what has happened since then, but I do know that Norfolk Island has had no voice or say in it.

·        There are only two occasions in history when this community has had a genuine say in its future. The first time was when they were offered Norfolk Island as their new homeland, and the whole community chose to relocate here in 1856. To this day, Norfolk Islanders believe they were "duped", because when they arrived, they discovered that they would not occupy Norfolk Island under the same conditions they had occupied Pitcairn Island.

·        The second occasion was when Norfolk Island was granted self-government in 1979. Not only did Australia fail to lay down the proper groundwork for the change and hand over infrastructure in good order, they made no continuing arrangements to monitor the progress and success of the arrangements. Moreover, rather than enjoying the status of a distinct and separate regime, the Norfolk Island community found itself increasingly accountable to the Federal Government and dictated to, eventually losing control of many areas, including electoral arrangements and immigration.

·        Particularly since so-called self-government, there has never been any certainty or continuity to enable the island to make sound progress and decisions. We have been subject to the whims and naive ignorance of changing Federal governments, a long line of ever-changing responsible ministers, and a Government bureaucracy in which "Territories" occupied a continually diminishing role, and whose officials seemed to resent having to deal with the Norfolk Island anomaly. Goal posts have been moved on a regular basis, a process that continues to this day. However well- intended the decisions made with regard to Norfolk Island, they have usually been made mainly in Australia’s national interest. They have often been to the detriment of Norfolk Island, and we have had very little input,  control or redress.

·        Prior to self-government, over several decades, the island was governed somewhat paternally by Australian officials with a local advisory council. Nevertheless, during this period, decisions were usually made in the interests of the welfare of the island and its people, with little attempt to bring things into line with Australia, or to act in Australia's national interest or the interest of those who happened to be Australian citizens. Since self government the process of "Australianisation" of the island has intensified to the extent that the Norfolk Islander who draws attention to his separate traditional origins and ethnicity is being silenced.

·        I recall a time when I first came to this island (in 1966) when the people of this community lived modestly, accepted their isolation and remoteness with any inconveniences, and they envied no one and did not compare themselves with anyone. It was a community that dealt with their lives with resourcefulness and resilience. These ethics, along with a degree of pride in having survived more than two centuries as a unique and separate people continues to this day, and underlies the way our society operates. Your suggestion that we must make "social reforms" makes us uneasy.

·        I will concede that the process of Australianisation, increased travel and improved communications, along with the growth of a cash economy made possible by a tourist industry, have all helped to raise expectations about standard of living, services and infrastructure. There is also greater evidence of an “entitlement” mentality than existed when the island was a more isolated self-contained community. Reluctantly, we accept that these changes are probably irreversible. But it is painful for many Norfolkers to face the fact that it seems we can no longer manage our affairs and meet our needs from our own assets and resources. However, you cannot blame us for questioning the obstacles that are placed in our way by virtue of the fact that we cannot borrow money, accept help from other countries, or benefit from our own economic zone.

·        Generally speaking, Australia has not treated this island well, and Australia must accept responsibility for many of the problems we are experiencing today.

·        Reluctantly I concede that we are at a crossroads and must now follow a path that diverges from the one we have followed in the past, but it must be one that acknowledges the independent and resourceful spirit of the Norfolk Island people, and the rich heritage, and community ethic that has given strength and life to the Norfolk Island people since 1789.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE

·        The Norfolk Island government should be treated with respect and dignity usually accorded to the democratically elected government of any country or region. This must underlie all negotiations.

·        Our government members should be free to express (verbally or in writing) the concerns and questions of their electorate without being intimidated or accused of endangering the roadmap. They should also be able to communicate clearly, openly and directly with yourself and your office.

·        The Australian Government should recognise the very real anxieties and doubts of the Norfolk Island people, particularly in those areas which have longstanding cultural and social implications – areas like welfare, increased red tape and regulation, open immigration, transfer of control of our local affairs to outsiders etc.

• Our government and people should be given a little bit of help to help ourselves, in recognition of the fact that managing our affairs in our own Norfolk way is closely tied up with our cultural identity.
•   Priority should be given to enabling us to have a good third landing place, something that would greatly improve our freight costs and our ability to benefit from Cruise ship business. Such a facility, on the west side of the island, would also enable our fishing boats and recreational craft to go out far more often, with benefits to local people and our tourist industry. Shipping access is our lifeline, and is the single most important thing that would improve our economic viability. Developing a third landing place would also give local employment at this difficult time.

·        Consideration should also be given to allowing the island to benefit from its own economic zone and the fishing rights involved, enabling us to enjoy greater financial independence.

·        The practice of comparing us and measuring us against so-called comparable and similar Australian communities should cease. We need small island solutions to our problems, and would greatly benefit from the opportunity to engage with other Pacific Island communities and governments.

·        Please try to understand the difficulties we have on the land tax/rates issue. Our land is what we hand on to our children, so they can continue to think of Norfolk Island as their homeland, the place where they have their roots.

·        There needs to be a recognition that the island’s “culture” goes far beyond its language, customs, cooking and such. It is  intimately bound up with the way we deal with one another, make decisions, manage our resources, care for one another, and take pride in our unique heritage.

·        Above all, I strongly believe that while Norfolk Island is an external "self governing" territory, the people of the island should be allowed to continue to think of themselves as Norfolkers first, Australians second.

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Why not SIMPLY issue a serious and genuine invitation to the Norfolk Island government and community to become more closely integrated with Australia?

Is that such a novel idea? Would it not be a way of saying sorry for the mistakes of the past, acknowledging Australia’s very real responsibilities to a territory that was placed under its oversight and care a hundred years ago, and allowing Norfolkers to play a very real role in making the decisions that will determine their future in a very different world from the one that shaped their past?

This would enable Norfolk Island to take part in a process that we have been denied because Australia failed to list Norfolk Island as a non-self governing territory with the United Nations in the past. If Norfolk Island had been correctly listed, we would have been able to undertake a process of self-determination through plebiscite.

Such a plebiscite could still be undertaken, possibly offering a range of options of degrees of integration.

The process would offer the certainty that has been lacking up to this time, because the future would have been decided democratically by us, the chief stakeholders.  Norfolkers would feel they "owned" the decision instead of feeling trapped in a process that seems to hover between bribery and blackmail to achieve uncertain and vague goals. It would also give certainty and clear direction to all the levels of government and bureaucracy who would be involved in any transition, and resources could be allocated accordingly. The path may still be difficult and complex, but there would be a unity of purpose and goodwill if that were to be the path that the people of Norfolk Island chose.

Just imagine – Norfolk Island could become the jewel in Australia’s crown, not just a thorn in Canberra’s side!

I THANK YOU FOR OFFERING TO LISTEN. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE COURAGE AND PERCEPTIVE UNDERSTANDING TO TRY A DIFFERENT APPROACH,

Mary Christian-Bailey

P.O. Box 144

Queen Elizabeth Avenue

NORFOLK ISLAND