Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 20 February 2006, the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads issued a press release entitled ‘New governance arrangements for Norfolk Island’, in which he outlined new policy directions with regard to the governance of Norfolk Island and indicated that the government would be pursuing a number of options in consultation with the Norfolk Island Assembly. The first option is a modified self-government model with greater powers of involvement by the Australian government than exist currently, and the second option is a local government model in which the Australian government might assume responsibility for so-called state type functions.

The press release was issued after the minister had attended a meeting on Norfolk Island to announce the changes and following a cabinet decision late last year. That decision had been leaked to people on Norfolk Island, including the editor of the Norfolk Island newspaper, who had raised the matters with the government and, I understand, had been told that if they were to be published there would be a prosecution launched under the Crimes Act against the editor of the newspaper. The obvious questions arise: who leaked the cabinet deliberations? Has a Federal Police inquiry been launched into who leaked the matter? Are prosecutions planned for this unauthorised disclosure? If it were not for the leak, there would have been no discussion of these questions prior to the minister visiting the island on 20 February.

The minister made the announcements despite the fact that there have been no substantive responses to a number of unanimous Senate committee reports detailing extraordinarily serious difficulties faced by the people of Norfolk Island concerning the governance arrangements of that territory. There have been repeated financial reports prepared for the Commonwealth government which highlight the parlous state of the economic conditions on Norfolk Island, in particular the finances of the government of Norfolk Island. The Acumen report, which indicated that the territory government would be insolvent in 18 months to two years, was received by the government last November. Despite this series of very strong evidence, the government has chosen to make this announcement with a proposal that no action be taken until 2007.

It strikes me that the parliament has been sitting for three days, and the minister could have taken the opportunity to come into the parliament and put a view on behalf of the government as to what its intentions were and to explain its policy position. I say that in the context of the proposals being considered that go to the issue of the Commonwealth taking back powers over immigration, customs, health, education and social services and addressing the question of the taxation issues on Norfolk Island. These are matters that I have gleaned from various press reports, but I cannot be absolutely certain about them because there has been no clear statement by the government as to its policy position. There has been no clear statement.

This is a program which may well involve hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money to assist the people of Norfolk Island. This policy position is broadly in line with a number of unanimous Senate committee reports. So the government should not fear coming into the parliament to discuss these questions and, of course, should be able to provide the people of this country with a clear insight into what it is proposing, given that there may well be considerable sums of money involved and given the urgency of the questions that are now being addressed.

As I say, there is a territory of this Commonwealth which is potentially facing insolvency, yet the government seeks to go through a series of so-called consultations on matters about which it has privately already made its position clear and about which it has clearly made its mind up, but it is now of course seeking to defer a legislative response, which is what is required, until next year. I find it absolutely extraordinary in that context that there has been no ministerial statement and that there has been no discussion with the parliament about such critical questions, especially in the light of the fact that there is bipartisan support in the parliament for substantial reform. You have to ask: why has the government chosen to adopt this course of action?

It troubles me dearly that we have the situation now where the Norfolk Island experiment has failed. The regime introduced back in 1979 was always on the condition that the Commonwealth had clear and ongoing responsibilities with regard to meeting the citizenship obligations of the people who were actually living on Norfolk Island—citizenship of this country, as Australians. It is of course critically important that there be ongoing and genuine responsibility for the financial obligations that that would involve and that there be considerable direct consultation with the Commonwealth government about the way in which services were actually provided.

Over the last decade, we have heard concerns increasingly being expressed about the adequacy of services that are being provided to Australian citizens on Norfolk Island. There have been considerable concerns expressed about the social welfare programs provided to Australian citizens on Norfolk Island. The official riposte has been: ‘These are matters for the Norfolk Island government because it is a self-governing entity. We wash our hands of responsibility.’ That is just simply not good enough and, clearly, what the minister now has to acknowledge is that that position is not good enough.

The Commonwealth of Australia cannot allow a territory of the Commonwealth to become insolvent. It simply cannot allow that situation. It is intolerable. It simply cannot allow two levels of citizenship in this country whereby some citizens are entitled to a level of services whereas others are not. We simply cannot allow that to occur and I think any reasonable person would actually acknowledge that. And, frankly, we cannot allow a position to continue where the government has a totally inconsistent approach to the way in which territories are governed in this country. Compare, for instance, the attitude that is taken towards Norfolk Island and the attitude that is taken to the Indian Ocean territories. They are just chalk and cheese.

We have a situation in which the Commonwealth is currently expending some $80 million per annum in the Indian Ocean, yet the people of Norfolk Island do not get anywhere near that level of support. We have a situation in which the government is only too happy to pursue service agreements for the Indian Ocean, but with regard to Norfolk Island it is a case of the government turning a blind eye to so many of abuses. We have a situation in which there has been a series of international embarrassments on Norfolk Island. Take the case of Greenwich University. What action was taken? Why did the government drag its chain for so long? Why did the government seek to protect interests for so long on that island and not take the necessary action to defend Australia’s international reputation?

Compare the government’s attitude, for instance, to Christmas Island and the attitude towards the casino there. In that instance, the government unilaterally announced, in a most paternalistic way, that it was not in its best interests to have a casino so the opportunities for a licence were removed. There was no consultation and no discussion with anyone about that matter—unless it was with the tenderers for various other casinos in Australia—and there was certainly no regard for the people of Christmas Island on those questions.

We have a series of problems on Norfolk Island that desperately need attention. A fundamental problem of course is the fact that the wealth of the Norfolk Island community is very unevenly distributed. It has been estimated that there may be 80 millionaires on that island not paying tax, yet the average income for the vast majority of the people there is substantially less than for the rest of the country. There are huge inequalities on the island. There are huge inequalities in terms of economic opportunities. And there are of course disturbing problems with the way in which the government arrangements have been made. These bipartisan reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories to which I have referred—and to which the government has yet to substantially respond—highlight a series of abuses of power and authority and shortcomings in auditing processes. They say there is:

… a popular perception … that … some Members of the Legislative Assembly … are influenced by their private commercial interests …

They make criticisms about conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts on Norfolk Island and talk about the absence of any adequate body of law to enforce acceptable standards of ethical conduct and disclosure. This committee’s seminal report in 2003 concluded:

… evidence available to the Committee points to the fact that elements within the community are able to exploit the current governance system, with its lack of effective checks and balances, for their own ends. It has become increasingly clear that beneath the surface, informal mechanisms can and do operate with relative impunity.

There is the shadowy imposition of a group on Norfolk Island, a self-appointed oligarchy who, according to evidence put to the Senate committee and unanimously accepted by members of that committee, resort to using fear and intimidation to protect personal interests. We had a number of witnesses before the committee who were not able to present evidence in public for fear of retribution.

In both political and administrative terms, it is an experiment that has clearly gone wrong. It is not good enough for the government to simply say, ‘We’ll do something next year.’ There needs to be proper consultation, but the government has to come clean about its position. It ought to take the people of this country into its confidence about the matter. As one Norfolk Islander recently told me:

I strongly believe that the present style of government has run its course ... The Assembly has just about lost the confidence of the community ...

If Norfolk Island were a company, it would be in the hands of administrators and its directors would probably be facing court action. But Norfolk Island is no company; it is part of Australia and the interests of its citizens should be paramount. We should be here to protect the interests of Australian citizens no matter where they live. We should be seeking to review the announcements that have been made, to ensure that there is adequate response from the government and that urgent action is taken to prevent the island from slipping into bankruptcy.

The government have known for considerable time of the urgency of these questions, and I am left thinking that perhaps there are other issues that need to be considered and ought to be explained to us. If the suspicion is justified that they are protecting a self-appointed elite, we should get to the bottom of that. If there are questions concerning the capacity to meet the financial obligations, we should be made aware of that. There ought to be a discussion about the administration of basic citizenship rights on the island. There ought to be a discussion about the taxation arrangements on the island. We ought to be able to ensure that the gross financial inequalities that exist are not allowed to continue with the special needs of a tiny minority being protected. The flawed governance arrangements on that island need to be attended to immediately, particularly in relation to the codes of conduct for public officers. There needs to be proper protection of— (Time expired)