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.