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.