BACKGROUND
The Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Report (Same country: different world) recommends abolishing self-goverment on Norfolk Island. ( Read the report HERE ).
Since 1979, the small community (around 1880 inhabitants) has managed remarkably well. After the GFC the Island’s sole industry-tourism-was affected. The Norfolk Island Government (NIG) approached Canberra for emergency funding.
The Commonwealth and the NIG agreed on a Road Map to chart a way forward. The NIG proposed handing federal type functions back to Canberra, whilst maintaining the Island’s Legislative Assembly to operate at a ‘State’ or ‘Territory’ level. It would join the federal taxation system, in exchange for the benefits of Medicare/PBS, social security, etc.
For four years the Commonwealth has denied real funding for infrastructure and service delivery.
The JSC report is flawed as it is mostly based on the evidence of two former Commonwealth representatives: Neil Pope and Julian Yates. The line of questioning during the hearings indicate the decison was made long before the hearings. Neil Pope presented no statistics when giving evidence; everything he said was accepted at face value.
Luke Simpkins MP, Chair of the JSC, claims the majority of Norfolk Island residents support the abolishing of self government. He presents no facts to back his claims.
Former NI administrator Neil Pope, and current administrator Gary Hardgrave both claim there is a silent, suffering majority of Islanders who want to see the abolishment of self government. Those that oppose this are “selfish” and have “vested interests”.
This is complete fabrication, to justify the abolishing of a progressive legislative assembly, (eg, same sex marriage and medicinal cannabis). In Australian protocol, in the Territory of Norfolk Island, the Administrator is outranked only be the Governor-General and the Queen. His role is twofold: he represents the Government of Australia and the Crown. A role that is both vice-regal and almost ‘ambassadorial’. For such an office holder to engineer consent and wilfully mislead the Australian Parliament and taxpayer is unaccceptable.
Queen Victoria ‘gave’ Norfolk Island to the descendants of the ‘Mutiny on the Bounty’ (the Pitcairners) as a new homeland in 1856. For her great great-grandaughters representative (Gary Hardgrave) to now demolish self-government (“I was sent here to do a job”.) is something which must echo in both Yarralumla and the Court of St James.
Jamie Briggs is ‘selling’ the takeover story to the taxpayer as necessary as we are “currently spending $7.5 million p.a” on the place. Norfolk Island has the same isolative factors and population as the Indian Ocean Territories ( IOTS ). They cost FY13/14 $170 million to run. The infrastructure upgrades recommended in the JSC report run at around $200 million. Norfolk Islanders are tired of waiting for change. They are protax/proreform and realize maintaining the status quo is not an option. They do not want the IOTs model, which Jon Stanhope has been busily declaring a social, economic and cultural disaster; with the same electoral system the people of North Korea enjoy. Joining the federal fiscal system does not automatically mean the end of self-government. The NIG has proven it can operate the Island’s public service far more cheaply and more efficiently than the economic black hole that is the IOTs.
If Canberra is so assured of the “silent, suffering majority’ it will encourage an independent umpire to oversee a referendum. The precedent was established in Cocos-Keeling Islands when the referendeum was UN supervised.
Norfolk Islanders, with good reason, no longer trust the Commonwealth to run it.
Will the Abbott Government oversee the first extinction of a Parliament by Australia? Assistant Minister Briggs announced the abolishing of self-government on Norfolk Island the day before Gough died. After all he’d done for land rights figuratively he could be said to have broken his heart.
The PM promised “fair dinkum” consultation for Australians. How about a ‘fair go’ for Norfolk Islanders? Norfolk Islanders do not have “vested interests”. They have universal human rights. No more than any other Australians, but certainly no less. One of the JSC committee members during the Canberra hearings guilelessly asked: “Will there be more pushback?”
She forgot we are descended from the most infamous mutineers in naval history and we will ‘rage against the dying of the light’. This is our ‘country’, our land, and our home.
Paul Kelly summed it rather aptly:
That was the story of Vincent Lingairri
But this is the story of something much more
How power and privilege can not move a people
Who know where they stand and stand in the law
WHAT I BELIEVE …
Hands up which other 1800 resident towns around Australia would like $200 million per year spent on them?
The Commonwealth motives and agenda for reform must be questioned, The Commonwealth Government and Parliament have their own pre-determined agenda and outcomes and are not (or will not be) listening to Norfolk Islanders.
It is far cheaper for Canberra to fund service delivery through the administration (public service) of NI under funding agreements, etc than through Commonwealth and state public servants. It also ensures local employment, maintains the community and therefore a critical mass on-island. It also avoids the democratic deficit of the Indian Ocean Territories (IOTs) (Ref: Jon Stanhope’s criticisms of the IOTs)
Norfolk’s problem is the lack of interest, policy skills, courage, compassion and understanding in departments, ministers and administrators, an unwillingness to test or question long held and firmly established myths, and a bureaucratic obsession about retaining money and control.
Lack of consultation. Where is the information and detail on the proposed changes to governance, taxation, services and regulation and how this will impact on the community now and into the future? NOTHING has been provided despite repeated requests, including under freedom of information laws, which have been resisted at EVERY turn.
Dr James Popple – the OAIC – found in favour of Brett Sanderson for the release of the Centre for International Economics Report on Norfolk Island (2006). Why have the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet retained Clayton Utz to fight against its release through AAT? What are they trying to hide?
No details on proposals put to Cabinet or on their impact on the Island. Cabinet decision prepared and lodged. No opportunity to provide input or affect outcomes. There is a lack of trust in the totally Commonwealth controlled and managed consultation process announced by Assistant Minister Briggs at the last moment yesterday. It certainly DOES NOT stand the Prime Minister’s own “fair dinkum” consultation tests. (ABC Doorstop interview)
Why are decisions being made now in Canberra without any real community input or knowledge?
Flawed JSC inquiry process. Obvious bias. No details on proposals put to Federal Cabinet. NI residents were actively discouraged from raising their governance options or preferences (as confirmed by hearing Hansards and JSC media releases on the JSC website) while current and former Commonwealth officials were actively invited and encouraged to put forward their views and options on governance. The Committee recommendations for the abolition of NI self-government were based largely on the views of two people – Neil Pope and Julian Yaes; both Commonwealth representatives.
The manufactured claims (to then engineer ‘consent’) by AM Jamie Briggs, the NI Administrator Gary Hardgrave and the Parliamentary Committee of a silent, suffering majority oppressed and prevented from speaking out by “vested interests”, who control the NI Legislative Assembly is a complete fabrication designed to justify a Commonwealth takeover and remove the problem of a socially progressive Legislative Assembly. eg, Territory support for gay marriage and medicinal cannabis.
The IOTs clearly demonstrate that direct rule by Canberra is undemocratic, despotic and unworkable.
“Such a possibility, as reported by Noel Towell, that Norfolk Island may be facing the prospect of having imposed on it, by the Commonwealth, the electoral system enjoyed by the people of North Korea has to be a desperate beat-up. Surely it can’t be true. Can it?” Jon Stanhope letter The Canberra Times October 15 2014
The JSC Committee recommendations and direct rule would require a huge, unfunded and open-ended commitment by the Commonwealth Government – as shown in the IOTs experience (an interim model that has been going for 30 years) – for little outcome in terms of human rights and services to residents. (Despite the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars being pumped in the IOTs, by Commonwealth and Western Australian Government public servants, basic community needs such as aged care do not get meet.)
A cheaper and more effective alternative exists – retention of self-government and service delivery through the Norfolk Island Government (NIG) and public service (as opposed to remote FIFO Commonwealth and State public servants) This would maintain employment and the local community on-island. Through the NI Act and the restrictive funding agreements (link to latest funding agreement below), the Commonwealth has had and still has total control over the laws passed by the NIG, the decisions made by NI Ministers and officials under those laws, over the NI annual budget and how the NIG spends money once that budget is approved.
So why abolish self government on the basis that Canberra can’t protect the national interest and act for the public good?
Gary Hardgrave spuriously claims to be acting for the “silent majority”, while simultaneously demolishing their democratic voice – the NI Legislative Assembly.
Will we see bipartisan support for the first extinction of a Parliament by Australia?
http://norfolkisland.gov.nf/la/Road%20Map%20Reform%20Process/Funding%20Agreements/Funding%20Agreement_2014-15.pdf
(The Agreement between NI and the Commonwealth relates to the deficit funding required by NI and provided by the Commonwealth. Note the level of control by Departmental officials and the nature of requirements on NI)
Download …
EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …
• Norfolk Island dies while Australian Government thieves and thrives
