CHIEF MINISTER RESPONDS
Legislative Assembly Meeting 19th
November 2008
Response to statements in the Australian Parliament
Mr Speaker, Members will be aware that on 23rd October
2008, two statements were made in the Australian House
of Representatives in relation to Norfolk Island. These
statements were by the Hon Bob Debus MP, Minister for
Home Affairs, and the Hon Sussan Ley MP, Shadow Minister
for Justice and Customs.
As this is the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly
since those statements were made, I wish to place on the
parliamentary record a response to some of the matters
raised. Of course, Minister Debus has in the meantime
visited Norfolk Island and we have commenced a process
of communication and consultation with him about future
governance arrangements. I will continue to keep Members
and the broader community informed about the progress of
those discussions and to consult widely about the
options available and about any firm proposals put
forward by the Commonwealth.
Mr Speaker, I have previously expressed my
disappointment that Minister Debus chose to canvass
changes to governance arrangements for Norfolk Island
without any prior consultation with the Government or
Members democratically elected by the Norfolk Island
community to represent them. He also made a number of
comments about the sustainability of current service
delivery and drew general conclusions that a growing
proportion of people in Norfolk Island were becoming
disadvantaged in comparison with other Australian
citizens. It is significant that many of those
conclusions do not appear to have been supported with
factual data and were made before the Minister had made
any inspection visit to Norfolk Island in his official
role.
Mr Speaker, I know from the many discussions Members
have had about these matters that we agree on several
key points. Firstly, we believe on balance that
self-government has served Norfolk Island well – while
at the same time being aware of the need to constantly
fine tune the structures and implement improvements.
Secondly, we share some frustration that no matter how
much information we make available about our unique
economic, cultural and social models and our success as
a largely self-sufficient community, we are constantly
subjected to reviews by departments, ministers and
parliamentary committees which want to radically change
the way we are governed. We sometimes feel that nobody
in Canberra is listening, or even attempting to
understand our aspirations and vision for this beautiful
place, or to help us with the problems we face as a
small and remote community.
It has puzzled Norfolk Islanders for many years why
there is such a disparity in views between the tens of
thousands of everyday Australians who visit here (and in
many cases return over and over again) and marvel at our
self-sufficient and sustainable service delivery,
compared with the constant criticism from parliamentary
committees and bureaucrats who seem to want Norfolk
Island to conform to some unrealistic model of ideal
government, purportedly delivered in Australian rural
communities.
The Minister’s statement has brought this issue into
stark relief. We in the Norfolk Island Government see
ourselves as being essentially in the business of
service delivery to our community, in partnership with
the private sector, non-government organisations, local
families and individual community members. Our focus is
on good outcomes in delivery of services which are
comprehensive, equitable, accessible and effective. By
contrast, it is clear that the Canberra club of
politicians and bureaucrats are focussed on bureaucratic
processes and massive over-regulation, not on outcomes.
How else could they possibly believe that the way to
improve services in Norfolk Island would be to extend a
massive array of Canberra’s taxes, legislation and
bureaucratic regulation? Do they seriously contend that
their model has achieved better results in remote
Australian communities than the community-based Norfolk
Island model?
Winston Churchill famously said that “…for a nation to
try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing
in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle”. Only last week, the Secretary to the Australian
Treasury again called for major reform to the Australian
taxation system. He highlighted the problems caused to
the Australian economy by a complex web of 125 separate
taxes and some 5,700 pages of legislation. Not
surprisingly, we do not see the extension of these sorts
of bureaucratic regulations and legislative complexities
to Norfolk Island as being likely to achieve positive
outcomes for our community.
The massively complex Australian taxation and social
welfare systems have failed to deliver prosperity – or
even fair and equitable services – to many Australians
in remote and rural communities comparable with Norfolk
Island. Indeed, the recent independent study by a group
of prominent Australians for Desert Knowledge Australia
concluded that many remote parts of Australia are akin
to a “failed state”. They identified the characteristics
of failed states as including poverty, violence, lack of
basic services and lack of government legitimacy, and
concluded that these are everyday realities in remote
regions of Australia.
In a media comment on the same day as his statement to
the Australian Parliament, Minister Debus contended that
Norfolk Island was in danger of becoming a failed state,
apparently because of his belief that we were “…falling
well behind national standards” in some areas of service
delivery. We do not agree with the Minister’s assertion,
and I shall return to the specific details of those
service delivery areas later. But for the moment, it is
interesting to note that the independent definition
above of a failed state related to the complete
breakdown of law and order together with a lack of basic
services. Nobody could seriously contend that such a
definition could apply to Norfolk Island now or in the
foreseeable future.
Any serious study of outcomes in remote Australian
communities puts Norfolk Island at the forefront in
delivery of health, education and welfare services. We
are seriously concerned by the implication in the
Minister’s statement that these services should be
reduced to levels comparable to those delivered to other
Australians in “remote mainland locations”, which do not
have full service hospitals, fully free education from
reception to year 12 or the range of welfare services
provided by our government/community partnerships.
We have consistently provided information on our unique
economic and service delivery models to government,
parliamentary committees and independent studies, but it
seems that nobody in Canberra can absorb that in terms
of good outcomes, our system works well and has
continued to do so as it has been refined and developed
in almost 30 years of self-government. Our unique
public/private partnerships ensure that we retain
services that comparable communities in Australia have
lost – for instance, among many others, we have two
full-service bank branches, our own full post office,
pharmacy, public library, police station and local radio
and free-to-air television stations. Our community,
unlike so many in remote Australia, is not losing
services and shrinking in size or civic pride. Rather
than acknowledging this considerable achievement, the
constant focus from Canberra seems to be on
“normalising” us to a model of a mendicant territory
rather than encouraging our self-reliance and
sustainability.
Minister Debus rightly identifies that in 2006, the
Commonwealth spent a full year studying Norfolk Island
governance, including the commissioning of several
external studies by bodies including the Australian
Grants Commission, the Australian Bureau of Statistics
and the Centre for International Economics. Much of the
focus of those studies was on how to introduce
comprehensive Australian-style taxation measures in
Norfolk Island and on extending many thousands of pieces
of Commonwealth legislation to the Island.
The Minister goes on to note that at the end of that
extensive period of investigation and study, the former
Australian Government “somewhat mysteriously” decided in
late 2006 not to make governance changes to Norfolk
Island. The decision was not at all mysterious, it was
based largely on the old axiom that “if it isn’t broken,
don’t fix it”. Federal Cabinet looked at all of the
information available to it, including independent
econometric analysis by Econtech Pty. Ltd., and made a
conscious decision that no change was necessary to the
basic Norfolk Island governance model. The then Minister
for Territories, the Hon Jim Lloyd MP, said that any
changes would not be in the interests of Norfolk
Islanders. On 20 December 2006, he issued a statement
that governance changes “…would not be in the interests
of Norfolk Island at this time as the Island’s
government works to build a long term future for its
community”.
It may be significant that the only report which was
based on the negative economic or social impacts of
extending Commonwealth taxes and laws to Norfolk Island
– that is, the report from the Centre for International
Economics – has never been made public. Minister Debus
conceded during a recent visit to Norfolk Island that he
has been unable to view the CIE report which was being
treated as Cabinet-in-Confidence. The Norfolk Island
Government has made application to the Commonwealth for
access to that report a number of times, but it has not
been provided to us.
It should also be noted that in 2006, Federal Cabinet
had before it all of the reports of the Joint Standing
Committee on the National Capital and External
Territories (JSC) to which the Minister refers. The JSC
has not made a report to the Australian Parliament since
then, although it is due to arrive in Norfolk Island
later today and will no doubt issue a further report in
due course, although it has no formal reference. In
considering the future governance of Norfolk Island, The
Commonwealth saw no need in 2006 to take action on the
various reports of the JSC.
In fact, for many years it has only been the Norfolk
Island Government which has acted to improve services or
legislation in areas identified by the JSC, with the
sole exception of action taken by the Commonwealth in
2004 to disenfranchise a number of Norfolk Island
permanent residents, who were prevented from standing
for office or voting in elections for the Norfolk Island
Legislative Assembly.
As highlighted in our recent submission to the Senate
Select Committee on State Government Financial
Management, the Commonwealth has routinely ignored
recommendations from the JSC and other parliamentary
committees for action which might have had beneficial
effects for Norfolk Island.
Without wishing to debate every detail of the statement
by Minister Debus, I need to put on the record a
response to some particular matters. The Minister stated
that the Australian taxation system applies in other
external territories such as Cocos and Christmas Islands
“…without detriment to the development and governance of
those islands.” We disagree strongly with this
assertion, on the basis that those territories have
never been given the opportunity for self-government
which Norfolk Island has enjoyed and thus have not had
the chance to develop the sort of self-sustaining and
more prosperous model which applies here. As a
consequence, we have had many years of full employment
and do not experience the poverty and welfare-dependence
of those external territories which have little real
employment and minimal private sector activity.
Norfolk Island receives many approaches from other
external territories, from remote and island communities
in Australia and from our Pacific neighbours, seeking to
emulate the unique community-based self government model
which has served Norfolk Island well since 1979. They
see us as the success story in this region of the world
and a role model for their future development.
Minister Debus perceives that Norfolk Island has a
significant number of citizens of high wealth and a
“growing proportion” of people who are “significantly
disadvantaged”. No evidence is provided to justify this
view, which is not supported by Norfolk Island census
data. There are in Norfolk Island, as in almost all
parts of Australia, a small proportion of some citizens
with substantial private wealth, and some on relatively
low incomes. But the gap between rich and poor is much
less than in most small Australian communities and
substantially less than in Australian cities and
suburbs. It would be hard to find a single example of
destitution or poverty in Norfolk Island to compare with
those in rural Australian towns, much less with those in
central cities and depressed suburbs in Australia.
Minister Debus quotes the differential between the
tax-free minimum wage in Norfolk Island and the taxable
minimum wage in Australia as an example of disadvantage,
without taking into account the direct and indirect
impact of Australia taxes on take-home earnings and on
household costs. For example, since there are no land
rates or property taxes in Norfolk Island, these are not
passed on to wage or salary earners in higher rental or
property costs. Similarly, the Minister asserts that
Norfolk Island pensioners would be better off under
Australian social security rules. However, if the
Commonwealth’s income, assets and citizenship tests were
applied in Norfolk Island, it is likely that up to half
of current pensioners would receive no social security
entitlements whatever.
Norfolk Island has programmes for welfare, employment,
health and education which are carefully designed to
meet the unique circumstances of our community. We
contend that while the details of these programmes are
different from those in the Commonwealth, the outcomes
are comparable, and in many cases more favourable, for
those in need in our community.
Minister Debus asserts that Norfolk Island is “…falling
well below national standards in areas like health…”.
This statement is inaccurate and is not supported by the
facts. We are probably the only part of Australia where
public patients do not face any waiting lists for
elective surgery. We provide free dental care at a fully
staffed dental clinic for all children from birth to the
end of school and to pregnant women. A Norfolk Island
doctor describing herself as “stung into action” by the
Minister’s statement, wrote to the local newspaper
outlining hospital services as including
“…casualty/outpatients, one operating theatre, pharmacy,
Xray and ultrasound and laboratory services. There is a
maternity suite with one delivery room, one intensive
care bed and 20 general care beds, including those for
the aged. A separate building is used for antenatal
classes and a baby health clinic…” I add that other
available health services include physiotherapy,
pathology, blood bank, ambulance and emergency medivacs.
There is universal health insurance in Norfolk Island –
once again, on terms different from those in Australia
but with outcomes designed to ensure a health safety net
for every person on the island.
That said, we recognise the need for new hospital
buildings and the Hospital Board has established two
working groups which have made substantial progress on
projects to replace the existing hospital buildings and
to improve aged care facilities, within the resources of
the Norfolk Island Government and community. These plans
will involve the phased replacement of buildings in
modular form, with first priority being given to aged
care facilities. We are also conducting a current study
into home care options for aged persons in Norfolk
Island.
We welcome the statement of the Shadow Minister for
Justice and Customs that the opposition “…stands ready
to work with the government and people of Norfolk Island
to achieve the best possible outcomes for this unique
people and environment.” We regret that she was unable
to proceed with plans to travel to Norfolk Island this
week, but would welcome a visit from her at some time in
the future. In the meantime, we will be happy to call on
her in a future visit to Canberra to provide further
information on Norfolk Island governance and our
strategic plans for the future. We also agree with the
Shadow Minister that the process of governance reform
should not be rushed and should be based on sound and
detailed consultations.
The Shadow Minister expressed the quite common view that
“…Norfolk Islanders just want to be left alone.” That is
not the case – we wish to work in positive partnership
with the Commonwealth to achieve the best possible
outcomes for Norfolk Island and all of its residents.
While we do not see the extension of full Commonwealth
taxes and legislation to Norfolk Island as being likely
to achieve positive outcomes, we do look to the
Commonwealth for advice and expertise in a wide range of
areas.
This includes two areas highlighted by Minister Debus in
his statement. We are in the process of developing new
measures to enhance workplace safety in Norfolk Island,
particularly in relation to mechanisms to deal with
issues raised by employees or complaints of unsafe
management practices. I am personally grateful to
Minister Debus and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s
Department for providing specific advice on how to
proceed with these matters. Based in part on that
advice, drafting instructions have now been issued for
changes to legislation and regulations and I look
forward to bringing those before the Assembly in the
early part of next year.
Minister Debus also mentioned child protection and
welfare as areas where attention was necessary to ensure
that Norfolk Island measured up to national standards.
We were already working on those areas, having
identified needs to improve mechanisms to protect the
welfare of children and to deal with offences against
children. A bill to provide for children’s welfare has
already been drafted, based on similar legislation in
Australian jurisdictions. That bill is currently under
reconsideration by the legislative draftsman, as we
judged that some of its provisions were overly
bureaucratic, given Norfolk Island’s circumstances.
Draft legislation has also been prepared to provide for
specific children’s court judicial functions. I expect
that both pieces of legislation will be placed before
the Assembly by the respective ministers in the near
future.
Mr Speaker, what we hope to achieve from the discussions
now underway with the Australian Government is a new,
certain and more positive two-way relationship between
Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth. We wish to see the
removal of the uncertainty about the continuation of
self-government which is so damaging to business,
investor and community confidence. We wish to draw on
the expertise of the Commonwealth and others to assist
us with better financial programming and improved public
sector structures and performance. We wish to work
actively with the Commonwealth to ensure that new
economic initiatives to broaden our commercial base are
encouraged and supported by both parties.
We believe that we have demonstrated our willingness and
ability to work closely with the Commonwealth on
environmental and heritage protection and enhancement
(for example in KAVHA and in Natural Heritage Trust
projects), and are grateful to the Australian Government
for the financial support it has provided in these
areas. We believe that this model of close bilateral
cooperation could be extended to other programme areas
as a basis for a new governance relationship. In this
context, we welcome the statement from Minister Debus
that “…the Australian Government are working in many of
the countries of the Pacific to establish political
stability and economic prosperity and we have an
obligation in our own territories to uphold those same
principles”. We would be happy to work with the
Australian Government on that basis, especially as we
believe that there is much we can share with our
neighbours about our successes - and maybe even our
problems – in aspiring to similar goals.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.