Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs about Norfolk Island governance. In summary, the opposition takes note of the minister’s statement; recognises the importance of this issue and the need for changed arrangements to ensure the future sustainability of Norfolk Island; does not propose a course of action but welcomes the opportunity to debate the way forward; and stands ready to work with the government and the people of Norfolk Island to achieve the best possible outcome for this unique people and environment.

In 1879 Joseph Campbell wrote a little account, Norfolk Island and Its Inhabitants, and I would recommend this as reading to anyone seeking an understanding of the origins and culture of the island. Campbell describes a small and exceptionally beautiful place, inhabited then by some 400 people, ‘about 250 who reside in the town, the rest in the small farms in various parts of the island’. There were excellent roads built by convicts, first-rate soils, thousands of lemon and guava trees, native flowers and, of course, the Norfolk Island pines. In those days there were a chief magistrate and jury running the island. Islanders had no taxes to pay but they gave one week’s labour out of every seven months to any public work that needed to be done. Before a person could settle on Norfolk, he needed to obtain the votes of two-thirds of everyone over 20 who could read and write, and the inhabitants were described as ‘very jealous of admitting people as members of their community’. Times have changed, and I now understand that some six-months residency is required and that somebody can move to Norfolk Island; it comes under the Australian Citizenship Act more broadly.

Norfolk Island is the only non-mainland Australian territory to have achieved self-governance. The Norfolk Island Act, passed by the parliament of Australia in 1979, is the act under which the island is governed. The Australian government maintains authority through an administrator appointed by the Governor-General of Australia. Four of the members of the assembly form the executive council, which devises policy and acts as an advisory body to the administrator. This council is headed by the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island. There is no income tax on Norfolk Island; the legislative assembly raises money through a duty on imports. The Norfolk Island government introduced a goods and services tax that is designed to broaden the revenue base. The GST commenced at a rate of nine per cent on 2 April 2007. Considering that the GST has only been in place for 18 months, the full effect has probably yet to show in the Norfolk Island economy.

You only have to flick through Norfolk Island’s telephone directory to realise what a unique place it is. Its phone book lists people by their nicknames. So many islanders share the same surname that it is easier to find them by the sometimes bizarre names their friends and family have given them. As the directory explains in the local creole, which is a mixture of old English and Tahitian words, the list helps you find people quickly by their nickname. Norfolk Islanders have demonstrated fierce independence over the years and even have their own customs service, stamps, international phone code and national anthem—God Save the Queen rather than Advance Australia Fair. I understand that being on the Australian electoral roll is not compulsory and that only about a hundred of the 1,800 residents are on one of our Australian electoral rolls. Australia is regarded by many islanders as a foreign country, and Australians have to bring their passports when they visit Norfolk Island.

Government ministers, various parliamentary committees and visiting Australians, as well as the islanders themselves, have over a long time documented the challenges faced by the islanders, so small in number and so far away from mainland services, with limited options to raise sufficient revenue and diversify an economy largely dependent on tourism. As one sentiment was expressed to me recently, everyone wants to reform Norfolk Island but the Norfolk Islanders just want to be left alone. There have been a number of reviews and economic feasibility studies. The November 2005 report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories suggests—and I emphasise suggests:

… the only sustainable alternative left for the people of Norfolk Island is the adoption of the taxation and welfare system of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The minister has stated:

The government takes the view that the model cannot be sustained in its present form—

and that a ‘growing proportion’ of citizens are ‘significantly disadvantaged in comparison’ to other citizens. He mentions, by comparison, a lower minimum wage on Norfolk than on the mainland and a lower threshold where eligibility for the pension cuts out. Given the non-taxed and barter nature of the economy, I do not know that these points are necessarily critical to the argument, but what I would say is that we must ensure as an Australian government that health needs, security, child welfare and care of the aged, disabled and vulnerable is provided on Norfolk Island to a standard that is acceptable to Australians generally. I appreciate that there is a difference between rural and remote areas and our major cities in Australia, but standards of health and welfare should be broadly comparable with the rest of Australia.

The minister has quoted the Hon. Grant Tambling and his remark that there is an ‘urgent need of governance reform’. As he is the island’s most recent former administrator, from 2003 to 2007, Mr Tambling’s views are relevant. In his submission to the Senate Select Committee on State Government Financial Management, he states:

… the island’s small population base (of now less than 1,800 permanent residents) constrains development opportunities and compounds problems caused by the community’s age-ing profile and international globalisation.

Mr Tambling believes:

… good governance … will only be achieved by aggressive and innovative actions in both public and private sectors.

If Norfolk Island were to receive funding according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission formula then they would, on a per capita basis, be much better off than they are now, when they receive only project support.

The opposition recognise the need for the Australian government to address the issues raised by previous committees concerning the sustainability of the Norfolk Island economy in the long-term interests of its people. I will not go so far as to describe it as heading towards being a ‘failed state’, as others have been quoted as saying. We look forward to further detail that the government may produce following both the minister’s visit to the island and the external territories committee’s visit. It is important that this process not be rushed. The government will, I am sure, carry out sound consultations with the island’s residents and will also recognise the considerable expertise within this parliament from previous ministers for the territories and members of relevant House and other standing committees: I name the Chief Opposition Whip; the member for Hinkler, who has a longstanding interest and is a member of the committee; Senator Ian Macdonald of Queensland; and, of course, the member for O’Connor.

A pragmatic approach does need to be taken, but this approach must be in the best interests of the islanders. We should all support the unique and special culture and history of Norfolk Island—as someone recently said to me, you cannot help but fall in love with the geography and heritage of the place—while reaffirming that no citizen of Norfolk should suffer financial and economic disadvantage just because they are resident there and not on the mainland. If—and it is early days in the debate—the decision is made to bring Norfolk Island in line with Australian tax and welfare systems, we should take a gradual approach and phase in new systems of governance, funding and taxation in order to avoid external shocks to the community and not disrupt the way of life or the expectations of Norfolk Islanders. But, as I said, it is only very early in the debate. It is the next generation of islanders whom we must look after. If the roads and buildings are in dire need of repair and renovation, services to the citizens are deteriorating, and workplace health and safety and welfare are a cause for concern, then let us put Norfolk Island on a sustainable basis for those who are children today but will be the community leaders of the next generation.

See this speech in context