Here is a piece written by Tet, a local fellow, who is passionate about his island home, and strongly desires to see thaty any changes are just and productive.
Editorial to the Commonwealth of Australia.

I have had enough of the uncertainty and the destabilising affects of the Roadmap and the Funding agreement.  My brain is saturated with academia reports, my mind is clouded because of little if any outcomes, and I simply cannot absorb any more propaganda and bureaucracy.

In my opinion Commonwealth politicians and public servants do not have Norfolk Island as fore and most a place that is home to original Pitcairn Island descendants and others that followed.  At the end of the day we are an Ethnic Minority.  Politicians come and politicians go.  In Australia politicians are part of a political party and are elected on party propaganda.  In Norfolk Island politicians are elected on a popular vote.  One would assume that the voting public would vote based on policies.  One thing is for certain; politicians are not guaranteed to be politically intelligent.  What keeps the politicians honest?  The service.  Public servants are not itinerant and they form a continuity party regardless of the political arena of the day.  So who is actually at the helm and running Australia and Norfolk Island?  So who is actually at the helm and representing the community members of Norfolk Island?  Well don’t jump to conclusions!  For the first time in decades and the first time in many generations of Norfolk Islanders; the outgoing Administrator of Norfolk Island was at the helm.

Was this paradigm change coincidental or deliberate?  Was this paradigm change because of the individual?  Once again and going back in Administrator history; Norfolk Island has successfully embraced progression with an ex-military Administrator with no political persuasion or agenda.  In the last six months I have written to Minister Briggs nominating a very revered and well-credentialed retired Royal Australian Airforce Air Commodore as the next Administrator of Norfolk Island.  If anyone would like to read the response I received from Minister Briggs give me a call.  I will leave it up to you to assume the reply otherwise.  NSW for instance has had absolute political neutrality of appointed Governors for many generations and soon to be another ex-serving high ranking military person.  No political persuasion and it works.  I consider ex-military appointments as jobs in support of the community whereas ex-politicians are jobs for the boys.

As I wrote my brain is saturated so I won’t try to recall specifics and/or reports, but, in hind sight where did the spiralling intergovernmental relations and outcomes begin to get out of control?  May I suggest we put aside the lack of money and arguments about political sustainability just for a moment?   Why in God’s name did both Governments sign a Roadmap and a Funding Agreement that has no end date!  The Roadmap does not hold Australia liable at all, rather, it gives Australia political clout to pounce on Norfolk Island if the Commonwealth are not happy.  What if Norfolk Island is not happy?

Norfolk Island has been bullied by the Commonwealth and regrettably the Norfolk Island Government has allowed it to happen.  Despite reams and reams of paper the Commonwealth public servants have not identified the immediate want and need in Norfolk Island.  The Commonwealth and the Roadmap is or has changed Norfolk Island from a “blue collar” community to a “white collar” dominance.  All chiefs and no Indians.  Bureaucracy gone mad.

Not once did I recall in any Commonwealth report recommending that to ensure sustainability in Norfolk Island for the Norfolk Islanders “A NEED TO IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL FUNDS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AS A HIGH PRIORITY TO ENSURE THE NORFOLK ISLANDERS CAN CONTINUE TO CO-EXIST AND SURVIVE IN NORFOLK ISLAND NOW AND IN TO THE FUTURE”.  Not once!  Norfolk Islanders are predominantly blue collar workers.  I will give you a very simple example.  I can guarantee you (yes guarantee) that if the Commonwealth had given the Norfolk Island Government upwards of $30M over three (3) years to fix our roads we would still have all of our blue collar Islanders as permanent residents.  Permanent residents who are paying their way, paying taxes, and carving a path for their children and their heritage.  In this instance Norfolk Island would be the winner.  Not once did the Commonwealth consider this, four years later, all of our blue collar workers are gone and we have a new breed of residents.

How did these new residents get here?  The Norfolk Island Government bowed down to the Roadmap and ‘loosened’ up the Immigration Act 1980.  New residents this is nothing against you as you now have all the right in the world to be here.  One thing is for sure though; the Commonwealth didn’t care about the New Zealander residents on Norfolk Island, and if it wasn’t for the Norfolk Island Government, those individuals that were GEP’s will still be GEP’s and the latest New Zealand residents would not be here.  What about the TEP then GEP then Resident Islanders who demonstrated their commitment to the Island over 8+ years and stayed through thick and thin and became residents?  How much did they outlay in that journey?  Does the new residents have to pay for that commitment – NO!  They can come and they can go!  Arrive today and resident tomorrow.  Just another example of the bullying.

I won’t even begin on the health portfolio.   We have been kicked from pillar to post by both the Commonwealth and the NSW State Health public servants.  If you need to know more about these antics and rough handedness then contact me.  Disgusting and without any consideration of the demographic verses history verses outcomes for decades.  Bullying.

I have written before and I will write again – fix tourism and you fix Norfolk Island.  The alternative is for Norfolk Island to endure this bullying and become a welfare state.  There is no other immediate income stream.  Another example of the bullying is upon us whereby if Norfolk Islanders don’t pay land rates and land taxes then the Commonwealth will not extend Cascade Jetty for passenger ship opportunity.  Forcing taxes where there is no guarantee of visitations and/or successful disembarkation. The Commonwealth are notorious for inflated project costs and they will want to hold that carrot in front of us and use it as leverage for condemnation.  I mean where will the rock come from?  Double the project cost and bring it in!  That’s right!  Fiscal mismanagement and bullying.

Honestly the Roadmap does not hold the Commonwealth liable for anything.  There is to be a new Administrator commencing on the 30^th June 2014 for at least two years.  I sincerely hope and pray that the Hon Gary Hargrave acknowledges and supports the Norfolk Island Government in every way possible and uses our Chief Minister as a conduit for communication to his community.  Another first during the past 27 months is the past Administrator providing regular fortnightly updates on radio or in the media – just another example of destabilisation.  Why did the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island allow this to happen?  As I wrote guess who was running this Island?  In addition I sincerely request that the incoming Administrator meets, listens, and cooperates with the Norfolk Island Government and the Council of Elders, and within a very short timeframe, work with the Norfolk Island Government to repeal the Roadmap and Funding Agreement.  This is not impossible because once the Hon Hargrave personally experience the bullying by the Commonwealth it should be a case of “if I don’t then I am responsible for not assisting the Norfolk Island Government for the immediate wants and needs of the community for sustainability and prosperity now and in to the future”.  Time to help this community build a bridge Hon Gary Hargrave.

Tet

Dear Sir,

Editorial to the Norfolk Island Government.

I believe in Oct 2010 the Norfolk Island Government (NIG) of the day immaturely signed a Roadmap with no end date and no key performance milestones set out to measure the Commonwealth on deliveries.  This was totally irresponsible and certainly not in the best interest of the Norfolk Island community.  Ever since then the Roadmap has been used to crucify the Norfolk Island Government.  Abysmal and lacking political and fiscal maturity.  I ask; would each of our government representatives sign a financial institution (Bank) contract without an end date and/or without how much and when?  Ludicrous to think it but it did happen.  And to make matters worse the NIG signed another ‘loose’ agreement called the Funding Agreement that is holding the NIG and the community members to ransom.

I have heard that the NIG has to seek approval of the Commonwealth to place the party lights in Burnt Pine during the Christmas in July.  You are kidding me.  This got me off to a bad start this morning.

Monday the 30^th June 2014 begins a new era in the Intergovernmental opportunities between the NIG and the Commonwealth.  A new Administrator is in the chair.  I encourage the NIG to embrace this opportunity as one of change.  Change is an interesting concept.  Any change is either well thought out and implemented or lacks leadership and planning and becomes problematic.

This NIG and previous governments since 2010 have lacked foresight and has become subservient to the bullying by the Commonwealth. If I was to sign a Roadmap I would have certainly insisted that the Commonwealth agree to pay up front on projects to ensure stability and certainty for our community, and without doubt, the Norfolk Islanders will be able to continue living and working and supporting the running costs for this beautiful self-government Island.  I would never sign anything without an exit date.  Four years later and many of our blue collar workers have gone to seek greener pastures.  Families unlikely to return for at least the next generation – probably more unfortunately.

Since the Roadmap the NIG have been listening too much to the Commonwealth.  Apart from loosening immigration, listening to bureaucrats in NSW Health, initiating land rates/taxes, increasing cost of living, etc you have believed that the Commonwealth will stand firm on their commitments and deliver.  This is sad.  In government you get nothing for nothing.  There is always a tag to everything.  In the mean time your community is abound with uncertainty BIG time.

The NIG has not identified the absolute real need.  Not at all.  Ignorance is no excuse.  I have written before that Norfolk Island is all about hard working Islanders on the land and in the sea and everything to do with hands on.  Blue collar workers.  In the successful years the Islanders rarely did hospitality or white collar work because this was work and opportunity for outside labour.  This was abundant because of a simplistic tourism destination unencumbered with bureaucracy but filled with enthusiasm and vigour.  Sadly this is seriously lacking and has been for some time.  Why?  Because successive governments have been converted from grass roots successes to unrealistic virtual marketing.  The people who were loyal over many decades didn’t embrace the change and sought other preferred markets.  Norfolk Island hasn’t changed, rather, only the people have changed.  The World of Norfolk – how much did that cost?  Whatever happened to “No Better Place”.  Tourism does now appear to be back on track but the recovery could be a generation of travellers.  Poor decisions in the past.

This same analogy applies to politicians.  This government inherited shortfalls and has continued to fall short so far.  It lacks leadership in all portfolios, it is not resourceful, it is lacking initiative and improvisation, and continues to allow the big Commonwealth roller to bamboozle them with bureaucracy.  This government has not represented this community for reasons of our votes.  If you as individuals decide to embrace change it can only get better from here!

You gave in to immigration changes.  Why?  The influx of new residents will not be as prosperous as getting our own people back home.  Current Norfolk Island residents are either by heritage or birth or by commitment through the lengthy entry permit protocols.  The long term residents are more committed to Norfolk Island and generally speaking they want to be here for their inheritance, children, and work.

All I hear is hardship – nothing prosperous.  It is evident that you have decided to tax for prosperity.  The working population is diminishing and you expect to meet financial targets.  You have lost the plot.  Fancy bringing in land taxes and land rates when you have absolutely no idea what assistance the Commonwealth will grace us with because of this taxation.  No taxes no Cascade Jetty.  What a load of rubbish.  Stand up and tell the Commonwealth money up front or blast off.  They will get their royalties down the track.  Another one - turn the hospital in to a first aid post – pathetic.  The notion that public hospitals and aging social service demands make profits is just unrealistic so just give us help up front or triage off. 

Once again I go back to the blue collar worker.  Just think about it.  Build roads and bridges and everything gets connected.  Ask the Commonwealth for infrastructure funds now.  I suggest $30M over the next three (3) years and guess what?  Our Islanders your families will return, they will have work, they can pay their way, businesses put tax your way, you pay your bills, you plan for the future, you get your enterprises to embark on research and development for the betterment of Norfolk Island, you become innovative, you sell your innovation to the Pacific, you reduce the Commonwealth contingent liability, and you are the lighthouse of the Pacific.  All this whilst the NIG and the Commonwealth are assessing the Norfolk Island future for financial sustainability and survivability.  Strive to achieve certainty.  That’s what we elected you in government for!

What have you done about alternate or innovative income streams?  From my perspective – nothing.  You have sat back and counted tourist numbers and done nothing.  If you need ideas on income opportunities then an option is to ask similar self-governments in your region or your own private sector.  You will have to convert ideas in to political fiscal budgeting of course, but and a BIG but, you only have to look at your own back yard.  You have legislation that you can change to be commercially supportive and selective without going to the Commonwealth.  I KNOW THAT YOU WILL TRY TO REMIND ME THAT BECAUSE OF THE ROADMAP YOUR HANDS ARE TIED – WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!  Ask the Commonwealth what they have done for sustainability?  They will remind you that they have put so many millions of dollars in to the NIG coffers including paying out Norfolk Air and other injections.  This is propaganda.

What have you done about implementing a forced saving scheme so that in the end your community members will have that saving for the rainy day?  Call it superannuation call it what you like.  I made representation to the NIG in 2007-2010 to legislate as such, and as it would have been a staggered approach, on 1 July 2014 all employers will be aligned with the Commonwealth and contributing to employees nominated fund managers.  All saving options would be portable by now and every employee on Norfolk Island will have contributed to a super fund awaiting the maturity date.  In effect reducing the NIG contingent liability in a finite period down the road.  The NIG could have partnered this for great returns for all stakeholders.  This was and remains a lack of foresight by the NIG.

Ladies and gentlemen of the NIG I challenge you to embrace a little bit of foresight and leadership.  The challenge will be as one government without backstabbing and lip service.  Embark on a money think tank, seek assistance, listen and learn (maybe), take it and run, and then implement and measure for sustainability.

Grow some leadership legs and build a relationship with the new Administrator and review the Roadmap.  Get rid of it and the Funding Agreement.  What are they going to do?  Sit back and watch the NIG try to rebuild for sustainability and hopefully support your initiatives and perhaps pour money in to Norfolk?  They won’t walk away I can guarantee that! 

Despite being disappointed at the NIG lack of Governance and leadership I must now place a lot of emphasis on the imminent change of the Administrator as a last bastion for the NIG to ‘kickstart’ new intergovernmental relations and arrangements so that this community can realise immediate and positive outcomes, immediate stability, and sustainable certainty.  I would like to tag this change as “Norfolk Island – A New Generation for Prosperity”

Tet

Tet has written a response to Neil Pope's outburst at the Joint Standing Committee hearings. I will try to obtain an electronic copy to post here.

A POINT OF VIEW

The anger and distress continues on this island, and people feel very let down by a former administrator whose job was to work for what was best for Norfolk Island.I reproduce here a letter written by Peter Maywald to local media on the Norfolk situation. Peter is a former advisor to our government, and many of us wish he was still doing that job!

We wish we had more people who really understand our situation, and who would be prepared to stand up for us! This is a small community, but we do need to be the mouse that roars.

30 July 2014

The Editor

The Norfolk Islander

BURNT PINE

Norfolk Island    2899

Dear Editor

I find it most disappointing that the outgoing Administrator of Norfolk Island has given a submission to a Commonwealth parliamentary committee which contains a number of false judgments based on hearsay, anecdotes and personal bias, with little factual basis and virtually no supporting empirical evidence. Even more surprising is that some in Norfolk Island have rushed to defend Mr Pope’s outrageous submission even as they continue to support the ludicrous non-solutions in the Road Map, which is more like a highway to hell.

Two years of failure to genuinely progress the “reform” agenda by the Commonwealth have reinforced the views I expressed in my detailed critique of the Fogarty Report (which you generously published in The Norfolk Islander). The neoliberal economic drivel in that report subsequently inspired the terms of the Road Map, which contains almost nothing which will result in a vibrant and sustainable Norfolk Island economy.

Norfolk is a remote island microstate, and as the World Bank pointed out, the current (but failing) economic orthodoxy for large nations cannot be applied in such environments. Higher taxes, destructive competition when there are no economies of scale and fire-sale privatisations will just do further damage to the Norfolk Island economy. When teamed with the suggested total destruction of political institutions and disregard for existing culture, language and beliefs, it is a recipe for social disaster.

Regrettably, the unfortunate contribution of Mr Pope to the debate should have been expected. Even before he took up the job, he boasted on public radio in Australia that he knew more about Norfolk Island than Norfolk Islanders, admitting in the same interview that he got the job because he was a "mate" of the (then) federal minister.

When he did take up the job, he made it clear that he regarded himself as the most important person on the Island and that he had no intention of consulting with anyone in NI because he personally knew what was best for the Island and its future. He was wrong - and so are those who have gone in to bat for him and the damaging package of "solutions" in the Road Map.

In office, Mr Pope disregarded and vilified the elected representatives of the Norfolk Island community and arrogated power to himself, continually using the first person pronoun about "his" government and what "he" would do to "reform" Norfolk in the image of the other disastrous and costly external territories.

Then, like a typical bully, when he was safely out of range of Norfolk Island public opinion, he retreated to "coward's castle" on the hill in Canberra to drop an enormous bucket on the Island, its people, its intellectual capacity and its ability to make sensible decisions. He must be very proud of his cowardly display of bile. 

   

The new Administrator has arrived with the usual platitudes about listening to the community. Let's hope that he really means what he says. A good start would be to let the NIG and Norfolk community see the consultancy reports to which Mr Pope was obviously privy, given his comments on them before the JSC.

But old Canberra practices die hard, and if any consultation does in fact take place, it is usually well after the decisions have been made. Any factual information or consultant's recommendation which does not support the predetermined outcome is suppressed from public view - witness the long and unsuccessful struggle to obtain the report of the Centre for International Economics, which has been hidden for eight years, apparently because it revealed the level of damage that would be caused to Norfolk by a Commonwealth takeover. Nothing has changed since then - but a lot of consultants' profits have been boosted with millions of dollars which could have been better spent on essential Island infrastructure.

It's time for the Commonwealth to work with the Norfolk Island community and its elected representatives toward a real and constructive partnership which can ensure economic, social, cultural and political sustainability for Norfolk Island.

Mr Pope's outburst has set back that cause enormously - but he is now gone and is best forgotten quickly. It's time to get on in a more positive environment of true consultation and consensus. 

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Maywald

 And here is a piece written by Peter some time back on Norfolk Online (in response to another correspondent)- but still relevant. As you see in the introduction, it is probably not a smart career move for Peter to point out so sharply the inadequacies of Canberra's treatment of Norfolk Island, but we appreciate his honesty.

 Testament of Peter Maywald: ANU Graduate, Senior Civil Servant & Former Secretary To Government (Chief of Staff) - Government of Norfolk Island.

[Anyone who is aware of the vindictive way in which Canberra operates will be aware that Peter Maywald demonstrates great integrity & considerable courage in speaking out frankly re. Norfolks 'Colonial-Incarceration' within a Federation it has never wanted to be 'integrated' into ... criticizing Canberra is never a good career-move for anyone seeking to further their career in the Public Sector

Speaking of "same old, same old", you're back on the fallacious track of Norfolk Island taxing itself into prosperity by signing on to a raft of Commonwealth taxes. Interesting that the current federal treasurer has reaffirmed that this is impossible and that innovation and infrastructure investment is the way to go.

Maybe Norfolk Islanders should consider this in light of a recent major independent survey by the Development Policy Centre (DPC) of stakeholder opinions about Australian foreign aid.

The study was conducted throughout 2013, looking at 17 key aspects of the development of policy and delivery of aid programmes. While it found some positives in responses from NGOs, contractors and public servants, it identified several areas of considerable concern. It concluded that there were major problems with slow decision-making by Canberra ministers and public servants which were exacerbated by a high turnover of departmental staff. As well, too many Canberra bureaucrats had insufficient training in, and sensitivity to, issues in recipient states such as language, culture and differences of scale/scope between Australia and small Pacific nations. Finally, there were problems caused by raising expectations with dramatic announcements of new policies or services which were then not delivered or were delayed by months or years.

All of this must sound horribly familiar to the long-suffering residents of Norfolk Island. While their main contacts with Commonwealth ministers and bureaucrats come through the Territories Branch rather than AusAID (now sarcastically known as WasAID since it was abolished by the Abbott government), all of the serious problems found in the aid study are replicated in the Commonwealth’s jaundiced relationship with Norfolk Island.  

As well as evidencing all of the behaviours found in the DPC study, Canberra has palpably failed to meet its end of the “road map” bargain, yet it continues to deny blame and to point an accusing finger at the Norfolk Island government and people. Perhaps the Abbott Government has copied its tactics from its Territory bureaucrats?

Yet even the farcical “road map” is not the main problem. It was foisted onto the Island with a financial gun pointed at its head, threatening to force Norfolk into bankruptcy unless it agreed to implement a range of ill-advised “reforms” detailed in the discredited Fogarty Report. In defiance of common sense and the advice of respected authorities including the World Bank, Norfolk is to be forced to sell off publicly-owned enterprises and to allow competition in a market which is far too small to support more than one service provider (such as telecommunications). Privatisations of this sort have resulted in huge price increases and reductions in service right across Australia, yet the distant bureaucrats are forcing Norfolk into this economic rationalist disaster, accompanied by a whole raft of employment-destroying new taxes.

More fundamentally, for almost a century the Commonwealth has acted as an irresponsible imperialist power, exploiting Norfolk’s resources with no recompense to island residents. Since 1946, it has also turned its back on its responsibility to inscribe Norfolk Island with the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despite Australia being a charter member of the UN, it has piously lectured other nations about their responsibilities to territories in the Pacific, while ignoring the rights of Norfolk Islanders.   If the Island had been inscribed on the UN list, Australia would have been obliged to report annually on what actions it was taking to allow Norfolk Islanders to exercise a free vote in a plebiscite on the Island’s future governance. Ironically, Canberra did allow such a vote in the Cocos Islands, but only because Britain had inscribed that territory on the UN list prior to handing it over to the control of Australia.

The unilateral Canberra decision in 1979 to grant Norfolk Island a limited form of self-government did not absolve Australia of its United Nations responsibilities, since it was not preceded by any referendum or plebiscite of locals to establish their wishes.

Recent “generous” expenditure by Canberra to prop up the NIG budget is a fleabite compared with the past, current and future revenues it accumulates through access to a hugely expanded exclusive economic zone of ocean, fishing grounds and seabed resources, gained when it seized control of Norfolk Island and proclaimed it to be part of the Commonwealth.

In this context, the federal government established a flawed model of limited autonomy in Norfolk, reserving to itself the ability to veto any local law and denying the Island the right to raise funds through borrowing, the issuing of development bonds or any other means, including deficit budgeting. Faced with such restraints, the federal government would have been bankrupt for decades!

It’s time for the feds to tear up the ludicrous “road map”, to abandon the disastrous tax and economic “reforms” being forced on Norfolk Island and to enter into honest and good faith negotiations to establish a long-term sustainable relationship between Kingston and Canberra. While they are at it, the new federal government should rectify a 68 year old failure, and inscribe Norfolk on the UN list, as France has done for New Caledonia and Tahiti. That would at least be a first step along a path toward the end of Australian imperialism and exploitation in the Pacific.

cf.also:

Peter Maywald added this comment on 1 June 2013 |Permalink

Australians have tended to have negative opinions about the 

way France has dealt with its Pacific territories, overlooking 

that in 1946 Australia singularly failed in its obligation to 

inscribe Norfolk Island on the United Nations 

non-self-governing- territories list,instead inscribing only 

Papua New Guinea. (At  that time, neither Christmas Island 

nor Cocos/Keeling were Australian territories.) 

Although Australia  granted Norfolk Island a very 

circumscribed form of self-government in 1979, that 

was done without any form of referendum or plebiscite and 

so would not have met the requirements of the UN set out in 

1960. As well, since then Australia has steadily reduced 

Norfolk’s self-governing autonomy to the point where a 

federal minister can veto any decision of the NI Legislative 

Assembly. 

Australia has also blocked NI from membership of South 

Pacific regional associations, unlike France, US, Britain and 

New Zealand which have facilitated membership for 10 such 

territories under their authority. In other words, Australia 

has continued to act more as a colonial overlord in the Pacific 

than any of the other metropolitan powers. 

There has been recent interest in Norfolk Island in 

seeking inscription on  the UN list, thus following in the 

footsteps of New Caledonia and now French Polynesia.

Below is the written submission from our former (thank goodness) Administrator Neil Pope to the Joint Standing Committee today. I have not heard his oral presentation, but what I read here makes me feel ill and angry. I only hope it makes our other normally polite Norfolk people angry enough to react.
The total lack of respect for the Norfolk Island people,  and for their elected government, is insulting, and unbefitting of a public official.
He is lucky he has left the island. He will never be welcome back.

SUBMISSION TO JSCNCET RE NORFOLK ISLAND !
The following is a brief statement of points that I would like to discuss in more detail at the
committee hearing.
There are copious reports, inquiries, studies and consultancies investigating Norfolk Island and
what is required for its’ sustainability. I do not intend going over those documents, but instead proffering my observations after my more than two years living and working on solutions for the Island in my capacity as Administrator from 1 April 2012 to 30 June 2014. 

There is little point in merely bringing in the Australian taxation and benefit scheme, without a
change in the governance arrangements, as this in itself will not make Norfolk sustainable. Any introduction of taxation must have a reasonable roll out time as there are so many complexities. In fact the list that follows is an ambitious plan that should be done over a one to five year timeframe. 

However some should be embarked upon in the short term, such as dissolving the Norfolk Island
Assembly, improved port facilities, improving the internet, fostering tourist promotion events for a
younger tourist and promoting immigration.
• Repealing the Norfolk Island Act of 1979, abolishing the Norfolk Island Assembly and
eventually establishing a local government body.
• Initially having an administration team of four or five for a few years before establishing a
far more appropriate governance arrangement.
• Transitioning into the Australian taxation and benefit system by 1 July 2016.
• Improving port facilities at Cascade, and developing a third pier on west coast of the Island,
preferably with private investment to get regular cruise ships visiting Norfolk.
• Promoting immigration to lead to a population of 2,500.
• Adoption of Australian legislation.
• Divesting and establishing management contracts for many of the Government Business Enterprises.
• Improving internet capabilities.
• Developing KAVHA into a far greater and exciting tourist attraction.
• Fostering tourist attractions to get a younger tourist, e.g. Outrigger regatta.

Self Government in 1979 was ill conceived. To have an Island of approximately 1600 permanent residents electing a Parliament of nine members and a Government of a Chief Minister and three Ministers, who have carriage of all three levels of Government responsibility, that is Federal, State and Local, is ludicrous. I believe the evidence you received from Julian Yates is an excellent description of the need for governance change:
Mr Yates: “I would like to make a very brief statement. The critical thing for me with Norfolk
Island is that it has been an experiment in self-government that has been running for
several decades. Frankly, the experiment has failed; that is my personal view. The expectation
for a community of around 2,000 people to have the governance, the financial, and the
skills base to run a semi sovereign state, more or less, just is not practical. It cannot be done.
They probably have not been financially viable from day one. There have been periods
when they have been able to cover their operational costs, but I do not see any evidence that
they really have been able to cover their capital investment or replacement costs. This is
why we see the poor condition of roads, the difficulties they have with the new hospital
building, their inability to repay the runway refurbishment loans and the continual Commonwealth bailing out. I do not see that changing, frankly. You could do everything to try to
build the economy locally, and that needs to be done, but I do not see how a community of
that size will ever be remotely self-sufficient in a funding sense, which is what the current
governance model requires. Unless change is made, we will continue down the current path
of degrading infrastructure, Commonwealth bailouts and no certainty for the community.
That is where, from an economic viewpoint, things need to change. Business needs certainty
to be comfortable to invest, and the current arrangements do not have a lot of certainty.”
Mr Yates also made an extremely valid point on changing self government when he said:
“………that the argument that changing self-government will lead to the destruction of the
Norfolk Island culture is not actually valid. I think the reverse is true; if you have a stronger
economy and a more appropriate governance structure for the community, you will have a
better chance of retaining your culture.” ! 
The Island’s infrastructure and intellectual capacity leaves a lot to be desired. However the biggest drawback is the lack of trust, and vested interests on the Island feeding that lack of trust. Of course some of the wealthier people on the Island do not want any taxation introduced for their own selfish means, whilst in the meantime those less fortunate have little access to the benefits that the rest of Australia take for granted.
Initially what is required is the dissolution of the Norfolk Island Assembly and to bring in a team of  professionals which would include the following skill sets: finance, economic development, legal, contract management, health/community services, project management. Preferably they would come from State Government ranks. They would work to the Administrator and the Administration of Norfolk Island would in turn report to this team. Dissolving the Assembly and getting rid of the Legal Services Unit would save in excess of $1.2million. Eventually after all the reforms were in place you would allow an election for a local government type body.
Too often on the Island I would hear people say the politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra want to take us over. Nothing could be further from the truth. Norfolk Island is already part of Australia.
Politicians and bureaucrats would rather not know there is an economic depression on Norfolk.
They would prefer not to have to find the tens of millions of dollars to bring in the tax and benefits schemes. According to very optimistic figures I have seen the taxation recovery is $45 million over four years.

In my 27 months as Administrator I oversaw a funding commitment to Norfolk Island of in excess
of $40 million of Australian taxpayers money.
I have mentioned the importance of getting cruise ships to visit Norfolk Island. When they are able to land passengers, on feedback surveys with the cruise ship companies they continually say that Norfolk is one of the best destinations of their cruise. However we are lucky if we can get two or three per year. There is a desire from the cruise ship companies to have Norfolk on their itinerary. In their submission and evidence the cruise ship company Carnival would like to have regular visits to Norfolk, which would deliver 100,000 visitors per annum.
The Cascade project is vital to get the commitment of these cruise ship companies to include Norfolk on their itineraries. However it is not a simple matter of just purchasing 3 barges.
Carnival in their submission to the JSCNCET were incorrect when they stated:
Mr Taylor: “In terms of the hierarchy of needs, it is these vessels (barges) to begin with. The existing pontoon, the existing crane—based on our understanding with discussions with the engineers— would be sufficient. Long-term we see benefit in the upgrade to Cascade jetty, but the most pressing demand is for the vessels so we can actually begin to put Norfolk Island back on the itineraries and see the dollars being injected into the community, and perhaps that can go towards longer-term improvements.
Mr Zimmerman: “I think the bigger point is that you do not need the pier upgrade to operate these
tenders.”
I have provided material to the Minister responsible for the territories the Honourable Jamie Briggs why the barges cannot operate without the infrastructure upgrade, and suggested that the JSCNCET get evidence from Simon Batt from Worley Parsons.
The problem with the Cascade project is the same as every other proposed major works on the Island, and that is the lack of capability of delivering. There is no capacity within the Norfolk Island Administration to deliver on these projects, and if left to the Norfolk Island Government and Administration they will fail. It will be yet another wasted opportunity for Norfolk Island.
Obviously the larger investment of a port would not only stimulate the economy through the tourist numbers, but would provide a resolution to the problem of getting freight on to the Island. Building a port would be extremely costly, but the investment would be well worth it in the long term. It could also provide the Australian Navy with a strategic base in the South Pacific.
If a port is not financially viable there should at least be a third pier on the west coast, probably at
Jacobs Rock.
The speed and availability of accessing the internet on the Island is a huge problem, and a massive disincentive for businesses to relocate to the Island. The National Broadband Network has in mind to service remote communities such as Norfolk via a satellite to be in place supposedly by 2015.
This will give a speed of what presently exists on the mainland through an ADSL operation.
There have been numerous propositions put forward to improve the internet and therefore business opportunities, but they are usually beyond the financial ability of the NI Government.
However the recent development of accessing the satellites from O3B will make a dramatic difference to the Island in internet speed and hopefully that will occur later this year.
One of the problems of the isolation of Norfolk Island is the gullibility of many of the residents.
Whilst we were on the Island a number of organisations or individuals would come up with some
new whizz-bang answer to their problems. This ranged from perpetual motion no cost electricity
generation to amateur supposed economic development corporations. All promising the world but
delivering nothing.
Possibly the most gullible were some of the politicians and ex politicians. Of course nothing would become of these hair brained schemes.
The recent announcement of the extension of the Air New Zealand contract to 31 July 2016 is of
enormous benefit to Norfolk. It gives security to the tourism industry and also a clear indication to potential competitive carriers that an international airline will be in place for the next two years. I am fearful of a recently announced re emergence of an airline service that has previously failed the Norfolk community.
Given the recent discovery of a damaging psyllid to various produce on the Island I believe it is
highly unlikely that Norfolk will become a domestic destination for the foreseeable future, thus the continuation of the Air New Zealand service for at least the next 2 years is a great outcome.
At the hearing on Norfolk Island in April this year the Minister for the Environment played down
the importance and severity of the discovery of the psyllid, and within a matter of a few weeks was
publicly saying it is a “massive threat.” Obviously any potential to export produce from the Island
has been given an enormous setback.
The changes to immigration have been vitally important, but unfortunately have only occurred
through the various funding agreements, not by the initiative of the present Government on Norfolk.
However the implementation of those changes are still being stymied by those opposed to opening
up Norfolk to mainland Australians.
The recent work by Deloittes on the Government Business Enterprises was excellent and the implementation of their recommendations is vital, but will amount to nothing if left to the Norfolk Island Government and Administration to implement.
Can Norfolk Island get out of its present economic depression? That will depend on whether the
factors working against them can be overcome, and they are:
• the moribund 14th Assembly.
• the responsibility of having all three tiers of government.
• the lack of capability in the Government and Administration.
• if the Federal Government insists that all departments delivering to Norfolk have to find cost offsets.
• no money to market tourism.
• reluctance of a well positioned minority on the Island to truly open up the the Island and its economy.
• vested interests not wanting the Australian tax system. !
Neil Pope !