This letter was sent to today's Norfolk Islander..
Dear Sir,
Those who attended and participated in Wednesday afternoon's Forum/Consultation should be aware that they were NOT actually offering views on the Joint Standing Committee's Recommendations 3-8. The Administrator's questions were framed merely around the subject matter and detail contained in those recommendations.
In actual fact, every one of those findings recommends that the Commonwealth Government "assume responsibility for.." "appoint an officer to..."  "take charge of.." etc, with absolutely no suggestion that our own government have any role in the process in improving infrastructure and the economy.
Although there was much constructive discussion of our visions for Norfolk's future, a large proportion of the respondents made it clear that our own government should have the responsibility for the process.
It is regrettable that our Administrator continues to disappoint us in the area of honesty and trust.
Read the report for yourself on our government's excellent website norfolkisland.gov.nf 
Yours sincerely Mary Christian-Bailey

ADMINISTRATOR'S FORUM MARK 2

I wrote this piece for Norfolk Online after a request for a report of Wednesday's "Consultation." It seems I was a little late for the deadline but hopefully they will be able to publish it.

On the afternoon of Wednesday 19^th November, the second Forum/Consultation organised by the Administrator Hon. Gary Hardgrave took place in Rawson Hall. Early in the meeting, one of the participants questioned the earlier time, because it made it difficult for many tradesmen, business people and administration employees to attend. There were, in fact, probably a little over 150 people in attendance, including three plain clothes members of the Police Force in the gallery overseeing proceedings! According to my notes, between 35 -40 of that number chose to speak during the afternoon, some at more than one time.

Instead of an independent facilitator, the Administrator elected to moderate the meeting, using his own agenda and a series of discussion questions he had prepared based on some of the infrastructure and economic issues  identified in Recommendations 3-8 of the latest Joint Standing Committee report.

The responses were a little less emotional than those during the previous week’s forum, and many practical issues relating to Cascade Pier, airlines, roads, tourism, business, local industry and taxation were canvassed. It was helpful in some ways for the Administrator himself to be able to give some advice on the Commonwealth position on these issues. However, some of the most factual information on Tourism and Airlines issues was given by a member of out own Government’s secretariat.

It was noted that a significant number of the participants stressed that our own government had done a creditable job of managing the island’s infrastructure to date, and wanted to see them have carriage of future undertakings. It was pointed out by one speaker that the actual recommendations of the J.S.C. report seek to have the Commonwealth take over the responsibility for all these matters. I noted that affirmations of support for our own elected government tended to elicit some eye rolling from the moderator.

The Administrator attempted to keep the meeting focussed solely on his questions, and restrained any effort on the part of speakers to broaden the discussion or to challenge the Commonwealth’s position or assumptions. One speaker was effectively gagged by having the sound to his microphone disconnected.

The Administrator’s unequivocal statement that “Taxation and Welfare changes ARE going to come”  led to many voicing concerns about businesses, already operating in a fragile environment, being able to remain viable and competitive under a new regime. They did not appear to gain much reassurance from promises of bucketloads of money that would be sent our way, or being able to write off business overheads when preparing tax returns.

It was pleasing to note that in spite of the challenging times in recent years, Norfolkers still have optimistic visions for the island’s future, and confidence in our ability to see them through. However, judging from the comments I overheard at the end of the meeting, and discussions I have been part of since, I do not feel that they have the same confidence in the consultation process. They feel that for the island’s people and their elected representatives, it should also involve some negotiation and mutual agreements for a win-win situation. If the Commonwealth really wants to listen to and understand  Norfolkers, they should perhaps start asking the right questions.

THE NORFOLK ISLANDER

THE NORFOLK ISLANDER
Today the Productivity Commission in Australia released a report on the progress of closing the gap in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There has been a slight improvement in figures for life expectancy and finishing school, but on the whole the figures are very dismal, particularly in the areas of physical and mental health, self harm, addiction, unemployment and incarceration.

Australia boasts that it has over 100 ethnic identities in  that country, free to practise their own culture – which is not true. They can sing and dance and cook till the cows come home, but there arte certain aspects of their culture which will only be truly nurtured back in their own homelands somewhere else in the world.

The Aboriginal people and the Norfolk Islanders have this in common. They do not have another homeland somewhere else. It is right slap bang in the middle of what modern Australia says is hers.

The Aborigines have an ancient culture, and I will not trivialise it by making heavy comparisons with the Norfolk Island situation. But there are some analogies to be drawn.

Neither the Aborigines or the Norfolk Islanders ever chose to migrate to Australia. The former were already there. They were invaded, and well and truly overcome, and were not even allowed full rights under the new regime until fifty years ago.

The Pitcairners left Pitcairn, on Queen Victoria’s invitation to another British Crown Colony, which was not part of Australia at the time. 

They had no say in the matter when they were placed under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia 100 years ago(in fact, they objected.) They did not ask to give up their rights to British citizenship and be made Australian citizens. They never asked to become part of Australia, and were never asked if that was what they wanted, let alone the terms under which it would happen. They most certainly did not ask to become an integral part of Australia, or give assent to their new name “The Australian Territory of Norfolk Island.”

Now the Aboriginal people have something called a “Dreamtime.” It characterises their value system and underpins their relationship to their land and their environment. It would be hard to describe in words even for an Aboriginal person. Unless you are an Aboriginal person, you would not understand it, but you do need to respect it.

Norfolk Islanders can only claim to have an ancient culture if you follow through the separate British and Polynesian strands. But since 1789, they have been a separate and distinct people, and can rightly claim to be the indigenous people of Norfolk Island. And they have a special relationship to this land.

It is equally hard to provide a description in words of the set of values and beliefs that Norfolk Islanders hold about themselves and their relationship to this island. But the Norfolk Islander does feel it and holds it dear. They used to call it “way of life” for want of a better term. Some call it identity or heritage. Some call it “kam/froem”. You and I may never really grasp what it means. But those of us who have been made welcome in this special community do need to respect it, and value it, because it has helped make this place very special in a world where everyone is out for themselves.

I am a Pom, and will never be a Norfolk Islander, unless I can undergo a special “born again” process. But I have felt and experienced the special spirit of the place, and I love and honour it.

By failing to respect family and cultural values, and thinking it is all about economic outcomes, they have damaged to spirit of many Aboriginal people. They have taken away the environment in which their culture and well-being survives and thrives. They have been made dependent on a ‘benevolent’ colonial overlord. They have had their means of sustaining themselves taken away.

By all means help this island do things better, and give us help to sustain ourselves from our own resources. That is all we have ever wanted to do.

Now if a Norfolk Islander says that something doesn’t feel right, even if he cannot always find the words to say why…….if he feels his special relationship with this island is under threat………..if he feels his identity or “come-from” is being ignored, then you are treading a path that has no future for anyone. You need to go back to the drawing board, and do some serious listening. Or you will destroy something very special.

OPEN MINDS? OPEN DISCUSSION?

On Wednesday afternoon, many Norfolkers, including a handful of visitors and people who have only been here on the island a short time, came to Rawson Hall to take part in a forum. Some people had expressed concern about the process, because only one party (i.e. The Commonwealth). had input into the arrangements. They had hired the moderator and chosen the format and the agenda. The latter was of particular concern, because the two points for discussion were two of the findings of the Joint Standing Committee. Many believe that was a flawed process because the terms of reference had been conveniently changed halfway through (and after the sittings that took place on Norfolk Island.) Others believed that we had been given insufficient information and facts on which to base a view.
Nevertheless, a large number of people came to the meeting, keen to embrace the opportunity for consultation, and perhaps learn more detail of the Commonwealth's plans.
The meeting/forum was planned for 4pm to 7pm. The Administrator had urged people to come early so they could be grouped into tables etc.
It would be fair to say that many people needed to leave work early, or arrange cover for their usual duties and business responsibilities.  Many would need to go home and change, make arrangements for child care, feeding animals and normal domestic routines. Few of us have access to domestic staff to see that a meal would be ready on our return home after seven, so this needed planning too.
Many did arrive ahead of time. But by four o'clock, large numbers were still pouring through the doors. Not only had they needed to find parking, but the queue was slowed down by the necessity for everyone to fill in a form when they came through the door.
For some reason, this slowness made the. administrator angry, and he told them off as if they were naughty children, saying he had told them to come early and they were holding up proceedings.
Just a little about the forum itself. It was well run, and Ms Vivien Twyford coped very well under challenging circumstances. There was opportunity for anyone to contribute, and good microphones were provided. Some of us were hesitant about participating,  because the Administrator had warned those who had already had exposure in the media to keep quiet and let the silent majority speak.
It was fairly obvious that a large percentage of the attendees held a common view, although one dissenter was heard with courtesy and respect. A request for a show of hands was not granted by the moderator.
Why other  dissenting views were not heard, and what percentage of people held different positions, I cannot say. But they chose not to speak. Did they feel outnumbered? Did they not feel as strong or passionate about their stand? Did they feel nervous about being seen to oppose the views of some Norfolk Islanders? Did they stay away from the meeting? The Administrator had certainly assured them their contribution would be welcomed. 
One disappointing thing about the meeting/forum is that there was no one there to actually answer questions or concerns about what we were discussing. 
If there had, it may well have been the usual spin.We have become used to untruths being told about the state of affairs on the island, and also having information withheld from us. But surely in the interests of good communication and informed debate, this should have been a pre-requisite.
There was a wide cross-section of people there. There were many representatives of  Island families. This is, after all, their homeland and they feel strongly about it. There were a good number of 'mainlanders' and people who have lived here varying lengths of time, even some who are still planning to make their home here. And it was also a wide cross-section of people who spoke. One member of the present Legislative Assembly spoke, and what he said was calm, measured and informative. A number of past MLA's spoke, and we welcomed their perspective.
The administrator left the running of the forum to Ms Twyford, and exercised considerable restraint, only intervening briefly once or twice to clear up misunderstandings. However, his body language was interesting, and I have heard a number of people refer to his vigorous nodding of the head when one rather passionate speaker asked "do you think we are stupid?"
I really feel the Administrator should have found a greater spirit of graciousness and simple diplomacy when he responded at the conclusion of the gathering. After all, people had gone to a great deal of trouble to accept his invitation and to participate and contribute, even though some were sceptical about the process.
Unfortunately, however, instead of welcoming the input, and acknowledging the contribution of all those who taken part (some with a great deal of nervousness), Hardgrave's response and summing up amounted to a reflection on the rudeness, the emotion, and the lack of factual accuracy of speakers. He gave no indication of having taken anything "on board."
The administrator had asked people to come with open minds, but had failed to take his own advice, it would seem. What he did get right was what he perceived as a "lack of trust " involved in our dealings with the Commonwealth " And he did absolutely nothing to amend that situation.
The Administrator has said that a number of written contributions have been passed to him, expressing other points of view.
OF COURSE, WE WILL JUST HAVE TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT AS USUAL.

CONSULTATION?

I really need to place on record my concerns about today's "Forum" that has been organised by the Administrator at Rawson Hall.
1. It is yet another part of the process of bypassing our own Assembly and usurping their role.
2. The Commonwealth ad its representatives have not allowed the Norfolk people any say in the arrangements, the agenda, the facilitator, the format etc . It is THEIR show on THEIR terms(although it will surely be billed to us eventually)
3. The topics for "discussion" (chosen by them) are the result of an almost corrupt and onesided Joint Standing Committee process.
4. We are meant to discuss these issues when we have been given no details, no information, results of studies have been withheld from us, and our choices are very limited. Like telling a child they can choose the menu for a meal, and giving them the choice of Broccoli or brussell sprouts.
5. The Adminstrator has  made it clear that anyone who has already had access to the media - through letters to the paper, radio interviews etc is not welcome to participate or be heard.
6. I believe the Council of Elders is being "used" to give credibility to the exercise. Their views are extremely valuable, and on this occasion I feel they are being manipulated.
I will, of course, attend. And hope the Norfolk Islander can be heard loud and clear. And that the response and feeling of the meeting is reported fairly and honestly.
But let us face it - the only proper and fair way to record our views is through a fair and free plebiscite, which should take place after we have been properly and honestly informed of the issues, and are able to access all the facts we need.

Here I have a transcript of an interview in our local radio with Andre Nobbs. It was a landmark occasion, because it confirmed, in a factual way, what many of us had been suspecting - that the case for Canberra taking us over was very much overcooked, and based on a great deal of untruth and ignorance, and the Norfolk Island government and people were being blamed for much that was not their fault. See what you think.

Now I have in the studio with me Andre Nobbs, now Andre is in the studio to give us an update on the handover of the petition that was earlier on in the week, but also Andre we’ve had a lot of things happening on Norfolk Island, not only of late but over the last few years and I guess I just wanted to take us back to the protest march at the A&H Show which will lead us perhaps into where the petition came in.

Certainly, Thank you Louci and thank you for allowing me to come in and provide information on the marches and also the community related activities that have been part of those marches. Certainly at the Royal A&H Show, there was in effect a protest march that was specifically aimed at highlighting the fact that the community members wanted a real consultation process for their future. There was a head count that was carried out at that march and it was somewhere well above 200 persons that marched, which is very interesting considering we only let people know the evening before the protest march.

There was actually a comment by the assistant minister Jamie Briggs there was something like less than a hundred

Actually in today’s discussion I would like to talk about some of the perhaps incorrect information that is coming from different areas, whether it’s about numbers, whether it’s about legislation, whether it’s about economic strategic planning, a whole range of things. I would just say..

The protest march at the recent Royal A&H Show was a clear demonstration that a great number of the residents of Norfolk Island are concerned about their future mainly because there has not been a consultation process on proposed governance or tax structure for the island.

The march recently held was at the conclusion of the community petitions. The two petitions are to be hand delivered to Canberra by the Speaker of our Parliament and the Leader of our Government. With over 700 signatures on each petition were collected over an 11 day period from a community of 1600 people that indicates all are seeking an informed consulted and successful future.

And it’s worth pointing out Louci that those two petitions, one goes to the senate and one goes to the house of representatives.

Although successive Norfolk Island Governments have supported the need for change and proposed a territory style of governance – the proposal recommended by the JSC and under consideration by Minister Jamie Briggs is vastly different and suggests the repealing of the Norfolk Island Act, in effect removing the constitution for this external territory.

Louci many people marching were well aware of the shortfalls of remote control governance that existed before the 1979 Act enabled a limited form of self government. This limited form of self government transferred the majority of responsibilities and costs to the NI Government, however with no access to its EEZ and virtually no access to external investment if Australia chose not to allow it – this was the case during the GFC when Norfolk Island was excluded from GFC stimulus funding, that funding was available to all other states and territories throughout Australia.

Andre can you give us an example of some of that funding that we have missed out on?

Certainly, when the global financial crisis hit Australia and its territories and states, there was a range of infrastructure stimulus funding and the one that may well resonate loudest for you is the education revolution funding, which was also part of the GFC stimulus packages.

When other funding options were presented to this islands government, the Australian government used its power under the NI Act to obstruct that assistance.

That assistance at the time was offered by one of Australia’s leading banks when they recognised that we weren’t being given any other assistance, however that proposal was rejected by Canberra.

That is well documented in the NI government records Louci. And it is records and facts that I have been asked to provide through this interview.

I have been approached by a very large number of community members and more than a few radio stations to provide facts that respond to statements made in recent interviews by Jamie Briggs and the NI Administrator. Before during and after the march this weekend I was asked to respond as a former government minister and a current member of the NI KAVHA Board – in many cases on behalf of people who are intimidated by the commonwealth representatives and their spin on Norfolk Island.

So what I have done is compile a summary of statements or inferences made by the assistant minister for territories Jamie Briggs and Administrator Gary Hardgrave and I’ve also provided a factual correction that includes the relevant documentation proving they are either grossly misinformed or misleading in their responses:

Minister Jamie Briggs claimed, There are no Gun Laws on Norfolk Island, No Child Welfare legislation and no Drink Driving Laws.

You and I Louci know that is absolute rubbish and misleading to the Australian public that Norfolk Island would not takes these matters seriously or with integrity.

NI has the Firearms and Prohibited Weapons Act 1997 – updated in 2013

I’ll explain shortly why I refer to the updates

The Traffic Act 2010 updated in 2012

The Child Welfare Act 2009 updated on the 5^th of May 2014. I mention the updates as they are carried out on the Authority of the Administrator of Norfolk Island and communicated through the Federal Ministers Office, so who is lying here about very serious issues?

Or not reading some of the paperwork.

It may very well be very badly misinformed Commonwealth representatives, but they are casting a slur on Norfolk Island and our commitment to do what is right.

Any person around the world can view this legislation and all they have to do to view them is to go to the NI Government web page;

As I said I will be providing facts and places where people can go to view those facts, so if you were to go to the   norfolkisland.gov.nf site, you would find those legislation documents.

Jamie Briggs claimed in his interview that NI infrastructure was “third world”, a ridiculous comment that would typically be made by someone who either does not understand the terminology or has preferred to shock the listening public rather than use facts.

We have a fully functional mobile phone network, although we do not have 4G we have the many wireless hotspots to ensure our visitors and locals can maintain contact with the modern world. Our internet has constantly been above the grade I have found in other islands and small communities, and we have just upgraded our systems to expand our bandwidth and reduce latency through the O3B network.

It was noted with the interview with his honour the administrator the other day that of course the JSC report was written prior to the O3B network being installed, so in effect that part of the JSC document was too..

Too limiting perhaps, I know where you are coming from with regard to the earlier stage of internet before shifting to O3B, the bandwidth wasn’t as expanded, the latency wasn’t as reduced, however he has made broad statements over the whole range of the infrastructure and I would even say that prior to shifting to O3B, our internet service was well in excess of many of the other small islands and small communities.

Well especially third world countries.

Lord Howe, Cook Islands, I’ve worked in all sorts of places and certainly been to King Island, and a range of islands in the Australian network and we compete very favourably I can tell you.

Let me be perfectly clear by pointing out that the islands infrastructure was in a very poor state when Australia handed over self government responsibilities to NI, (there is photographic, recording and legislative evidence however since 1979 we have tar sealed all public roads, upgraded the hospital and associated equipment, replaced the outdated electricity generators, installed new reticulation for power distribution, installed two way metering to work in line with the enormous take up of Photovoltaic systems around the island, built an international airport complete with security and fire fighting equipment and ground handling systems, Extended the school and its facilities to cater for year 12 and the national curriculum requirements, upgraded communications technology on the island, an enormous array of things, I’ve barely scratched the surface. There is evidence of all of those claims as well as numerous reports that identify that at the point of handover, although there were many promises to upgrade the infrastructure, they were not followed through.

This island has carried out the bulk of these infrastructure improvements over the last 30 years within the islands own funding, and skills resource. This has been an enormous win for Australia as NI demonstrated the lowest cost operation of an external territory with the highest level of technology and infrastructure.

Infrastructure capacity and status has been negatively impacted over the last four years with the subsistence funding provided to Norfolk specifically not including normal operational costs or the capital works required to maintain infrastructure or assist the private sector through capital works.

I’ll just spell that out Louci because that is really part of the economic challenge for everyone in the private sector at the moment, we have subsistence budget assistance, although it is appreciated, it is actually causing many challenges by not enabling capital works. Not enabling capital works means that there is a snowball of asset replacement, infrastructure repair coming. In the meantime for the private sector, they are not seeing funds that would normally flow through the private sector in capital works funding.

So by not doing anything we are going backwards.

Absolutely

(EVIDENCE) I would welcome any journalist from around the world to come and view the achievements of this island, particularly when you view the limitations imposed on the successive NI governments. Come and view for themselves, make their own expose’ of exactly what the infrastructure is like on this island and particularly reference it to the fact that this island has largely paid for that infrastructure itself and has not been a burden on the Australian taxpayer to do it.

When questioned on ABC radio about the consultation process and the purported 70 letters supporting the vaguely proposed changes under consideration by Jamie Briggs, not only did Briggs dodge the question as to whether 70 out of a total 90 letters he referred to was an adequate consultation process, he deliberately omitted to acknowledge the 80 letters sent from Norfolk Island community members seeking the two governments to work together on the options for Norfolk Islands future and produce properly constructed models for governance and fiscal operation, so that this community … and the Cabinet for that matter were able to make informed decisions. (EVIDENCE -these letters were tabled in the NI Parliament, Hansard 16/4/2014) This is a concern that I am sure any responsible Cabinet Minister would and should take very seriously. This community has been requesting economic and governance modelling information for at least two years. Minister Briggs has no modelling and as such is taking everyone on a misinformed leap of faith. When we compare Norfolk’s 30 years of success to other islands and the IOT’s recent high profile through Jon Stanhope’s demands for democratic and cost effective process there are some better outcomes for the Australian Taxpayer if we work honestly, with integrity and with good planning and modelling.

The Administrator and the Assistant Minister Briggs have made remarks about the Cascade Pier and how they have funding to support improvements for the pier but are awaiting action from the NI Government.

The fact is that the NI Government and NI Administration were successful in getting grant funding through the Infrastructure Australia Grant Funds to enable repair and minor extension to the pier.

Whose pier is it? It’s the Commonwealths asset.

What does that mean? The Norfolk Island government and administration put considerable time and resource into gaining grant funding to repair the Commonwealths asset. The piers are a commonwealth asset, the grant funding achieved to fund repairs to the commonwealth’s asset, has been manipulated by the Assistant ministers department to introduce unrelated conditionality.

And in the meantime our private sector is in dire need of that funding to enable it not only to make repairs to the pier, but also to circulate that money in the economy.

The bottom line is that the Commonwealth should have gotten on with the job of fixing their asset years ago. We got the funding for them, stop blackmailing the private sector by saying this funding is held up by political process, this example of capital works will fix dilapidated Commonwealth infrastructure and enable a much needed economic injection to the private sector. The Kingston pier was repaired with no fuss for example so the commonwealth should just get on with it. (EVIDENCE Kingston pier refurbishment)

The administrator on local radio last week made statements about the pier funding, including many negative and critical references to the lack of economic strategic planning for Norfolk Island. In his view, what he saw was a lack of economic strategic planning for Norfolk Island.

Let’s have some factual corrections to this ill-informed statement. Norfolk has numerous strategic and economic plans specifically from 2007 through to the present. These plans have encouraged not only local development, these plans have specifically been aimed at collaboration with the Australian Government. Perhaps I can ensure the administrator is better informed by listing these plans and some of the outcomes.

The NIG 2007 strategic plan encompassed economic development, and regulatory review, most importantly I would point out that this plan equally identified the NIG’s push for access to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, ICAC and the Australian National Audit Office. Although these reforms were driven by the NI government and we completed every aspect within our power, due to lack of Australian Government commitment, the ICAC connectivity has never happened, the Commonwealth Ombudsman access 7 years later -  still not fully functional, the ANAO access commenced around 3 years after our initial request, a further example of how we plan initiatives but we are ultimately at the mercy of the department in Canberra.

A further Economic strategic plan for Norfolk Island was the Roadmap committed to by both the NI and Australian Governments. Most importantly page 8 of the 2011 Roadmap clearly states the Australian Governments to facilitate dry run tax returns. Hallelujah this would create some data for modelling and enable private and public sectors to evaluate changes required to keep their businesses competitive, or worst case scenario highlight that the proposal was going to render the tourist destination as no longer competitively or commercially viable.

Louci I think all of us have been looking for those guidelines to make sure that we are headed in the right direction and whether we need to change our business practices.

And three years down the track we are still no further along.

There is no model which makes it very hard for people to bank their future on it.

Fact, the Australian Government did not facilitate the dry run of tax forms, the direct result is that there is no data to inform this community or to inform Cabinet or the Australian Taxpayer. This is an irresponsible and pitiful outcome.

A further economic strategic planning tool for Norfolk Island was the Econtech econometric modelling reports contracted by the NI government to, in the first instance demonstrate what was required for the economy of Norfolk Island to get back to a positive position. 

The latest Econtech report was also used to project impacts of the Global Financial Crisis as a result of our main tourism demographic being the group worst affected financially. The Econtech projections were extremely accurate more than twelve months in advance, and although the NIG used this data to seek GFC stimulus from Australia, we were specifically excluded from GFC assistance.  To date this remains the only economy modelling documentation and it was completed and funded by the NI government. In previous reports Econtech also demonstrated the financially unsustainable outcomes proposed by Jim Lloyd back in 2006, Norfolk Island wanted then and now to be productive NOT a contingent liability on the Australian taxpayer.

The recent appropriation Bill proposed by the NIG included an economic development officer to help drive strategic goals for the island, particularly in economic development – this component of the appropriation was not supported by the Assistant Ministers department and so this priority matter appears to not be a priority for Jamie Briggs department.

A further economic strategic planning tool and I will just re point out Louci that each of these plans and each of these documents is available online. Tourism is Norfolk Islands key industry, as such you will see key economic development strategies within the NI government tourist bureaus 2013 – 2023 strategic plan.

The administrator stated his economic development group was about to complete an economic strategy for the island, this is good news although there does not appear to have been much in the way of consultation or apparently minute keeping to ensure an accountable process, but let’s see what comes out of that.

Lastly I would like to respond to the assistant minister and administrators statements that people like myself who seek a consulted, economically modelled and honest process have a vested interest.  I am a former NI government minister and a 7 year board member for the World Heritage Site on Norfolk – I am not wealthy. I have no vested interest in returning to politics on Norfolk Island, or anywhere else for that matter. The KAVHA Board for the World heritage listed site management for me is an unpaid position and - as many would have seen in the local paper recently the UNESCO approved CMP arrangements are not being adhered to by the Australian representatives on the Board, evictions and operational changes to the site define arrogance taking the place of accountability which I have brought to everyone’s attention (Norfolk Islander 2 weeks ago) – needless to say that does not make me popular with commonwealth officials, however everyone should be accountable I am sure UNESCO want all agencies to operate within the agreed CMP. It’s not just about UNESCO, it’s also about the commitment that was made to this community that World Heritage Listing would not change their access, would not change how the site was a living dynamic for the Norfolk Island community. I have mentioned before Louci that I am also a member of the Australian Small Islands Forum Steering Committee, I am privy to perhaps more information than Jamie Briggs - because I know that none of the islands are financially sustainable, I know they all have infrastructure, resourcing, skilled workforce, waste management and cost of living challenges – the question needs to be asked, why is it that so much negative profile is being aimed at Norfolk when we have largely funded the islands operation in isolation, but with numerous limitations.

There is a degree of intimidation from the commonwealth’s representative on Norfolk Island and the Minister in claiming that only those who are wealthy or have a vested interest are voicing concerns over the minister’s current path, which contains no detail, no modelling, no strategic, governance or economic planning.

Over 700 members of this community placed their signatures on a petition and are rightfully concerned that there is a greater likely hood for disaster than success for both this community and the Australian taxpayer given the examples of misinformation or no information whatsoever.

Louci There is definitely a need for change, lets do it properly and acknowledge along the way that for around 30 years Norfolk Island put more into Australia than Australia put into Norfolk Island,

Andre that is a good point there because people do forget, or don’t promote enough what Norfolk has done in the past 30 years.

Absolutely, one of our biggest failings is we’ve never bragged enough. We have developed infrastructure over here and I’m not saying that all our infrastructure is perfect, obviously our roads need a wide range of repairs and we have other infrastructure areas that are challenged as well. I did mention before that subsistence budgets has mad that problem probably worse by eliminating some of the normal roads programs but prior to that and go back to 1979, talk to any long term residents and you will see that most of the roads weren’t sealed, all of those roads are sealed now. The level of infrastructure and the level of self reliance that this community has worked on should be credited, it shouldn’t be pulled down without some sort of endorsement for the efforts that have gone into that.

Norfolk has always worked towards being productive, rather than moving down a line of welfare dependency or contingent liability.

The money that Norfolk has put back into the Australian taxations system is backed up by documentation tabled in the Norfolk Island Parliament, that document uses Australian Taxation Office industry benchmarks and data from the Commonwealths own Access Economics report and demonstrates a considerable tax contribution to Australia from Norfolk Island private and public sector and community that would in many years be above and beyond the Australian financial investment back into Norfolk Island….. and that is before we start discussing the Fisheries income that Norfolk has had no access to. Australia is the beneficiary of what should have been our EEZ to the tune of more than $45M per year for decades. Now how much have we required over the last four years in total -  $47million, worst case scenario around one years current revenues from the fishing zone around Norfolk Island.

Evidence Seaaroundus.org

My assessment of the Jamie Briggs destination is abject failure, Cabinet in Australia will not be so irresponsible to climb on board an assistant minister’s guestimate that will degenerate one of Australia’s premium performing external territories into a welfare dependent contingent liability on the Australian taxpayer.

As a former Cabinet Minister I would be instructing the junior minister and the administrator to abandon ego and present honest, factual and detailed data to ensure a successful future for Australia and it’s external territories.

There is a natural beauty, a race of people a community and an external self-governing territory who deserve proper process. Perhaps international oversight is required if there is to be un-democratic and insensitive or racially prejudiced progression that has no modelled basis to prevent community displacement, social and economic disaster.

These are some of the reasons people on this island marched, -  out of concern for their island home, their families and the productive future.

This discussion is a big one and I am sure there is a lot more to talk about, is there one last thing you want to say?

I look forward to the petition being handed over to the Senate and the House of Reps by our speaker and our Chief Minister and hearing their feedback.

I know I’ve covered a whole range of topics, I would point out that in the economic strategic documentation, there is a further one I could have mentioned and that’s the Acil Tasman Economic Development Report which had many recommendations that don’t seem to have been followed by the Commonwealth either, even though it was their report, commissioned by them.

I’ll just reiterate, this is really just about seeking an honest and informed way forward for the community and for Australia. Obviously there is a collaboration here.

Yes, because the people of Australia want to know what’s happening as well.

There is a need for change, we just have to do it right.