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

I would like to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, Report on the visit to Norfolk Island: 2-5 August 2006. This is a report which the opposition fully supported. The report came after a long-delayed visit to Norfolk Island. The visit occurred after many cancellations, deferrals and postponements. In my experience as a new member of the committee, those delays were not necessarily the fault of the committee. There appeared to be an unwillingness on behalf of the Norfolk Island government up until that time to expedite a visit by the committee, and there was obviously a desperate need for the committee to examine some of the very serious problems faced by that government as well as examine the very grave concerns of Australian citizens on Norfolk Island.

I was obviously very impressed with the work of the committee and the effectiveness of the work of this committee over a period of five years in pursuing issues of basic human rights on behalf of Australian citizens on Norfolk Island. After many years of inaction, I am pleased to see that the Howard government has now finally recognised the true extent of the problems on Norfolk Island and is finally taking action to address them. At the same time it might also be said that the tabling of this report, with its summary of the many issues that have oppressed inhabitants on Norfolk Island, provides an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge the determination—and I say this with all sincerity—of the current Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Mr Jim Lloyd, in pursuing these long-overdue reforms. The task of the parliament now is to ensure that necessary reforms with regard to the governance and the economy of Norfolk Island are fully implemented and done so in a way that ensures that the lives of Norfolk Islanders are changed for the better.

In terms of Norfolk Island, the work of this committee has been marked by a bipartisan approach. The opposition have already indicated to the minister that we are taking the same approach now that reform for Norfolk Island is, hopefully, imminent. But, in the opinion of the opposition, such reform must be thoroughgoing. Such reform must not repeat mistakes of the past and leave the job of reform half done. The relationship between the Commonwealth government and Norfolk Island has, for too long, been marked by piecemeal change or, worse still, indifference and neglect on the part of the Commonwealth and its departments. We should all be aware of the areas of greatest need—the worst of the social, economic and political problems that need to be addressed in this forthcoming reform package.

It should come as no surprise to any senator here that there is indeed a crisis in the governance of Norfolk Island. There are problems stemming from inadequate machinery of government. There are problems arising from a lack of regulatory codes of conduct. There are problems arising from an inability to manage perceived conflicts of interest and improper conduct. There are problems that arise as a result of the lack of any effective separation between public responsibilities and private interests on the island. In the words of the joint standing committee’s 2003 report:

It has become increasingly clear that beneath the surface, informal mechanisms are being allowed to operate with impunity. The Committee is aware of growing community concern over the activities of these elements.

Problems in governance are matched by the increasingly obvious incapacity of the Norfolk Island government to provide islanders with basic service provision in such fundamental areas as aged care, pensions, health and medical benefits. And the list goes on. There are fundamental requirements for reform in auditing practice, criminal justice, child welfare and company law. There are fundamental reforms required in the provision of basic services like telephones, power, water, roads, port facilities and garbage disposal. These are fundamental human rights that every citizen in this country would expect to be provided as a matter of right, but in my judgement they are not being provided on Norfolk Island.

The picture of crisis provided by a series of committee reports since 2003 has now been confirmed by such agencies as the Commonwealth Grants Commission as well as by independent consultants retained by the government. There are those who still suggest that no real change is needed and therefore Norfolk Islanders do not want it. They point to a majority of submissions in recent inquiries that oppose change. We have heard them all before, and we heard them in August. They tell the committee that the island is best left to itself. That is an argument that I regard as superficial at best and, in reality, deliberately misleading. If you look, for example, at the number of submissions marked ‘confidential’ in the appendices of the 2003 and 2005 committee reports, you see a different pattern emerging. These are from people who are opposed to the oligarchy of the rich and the powerful that run the island but who could only do so behind the protection of secrecy. It is true that there are those on the island fighting hard to protect their vested interest and their privileged tax status.

There are public voices telling the Commonwealth to keep its distance, but in my opinion there are a majority of people on the island that desperately want to see substantial reform. There are stories of elderly people who, falling sick on a Saturday, have to wait until the next Monday for medical attention because they cannot afford the surcharges applied for weekend medical assistance. There are those who are spending evenings by candlelight because they cannot afford the electricity bills. There are stories of those waiting for more than a year for the reimbursement of medical expenses under the island’s health insurance scheme.

The committee has seen since 2003, and indeed for much longer than that, well-orchestrated efforts by island diehards who would have us believe that Norfolk Island is some sort of utopia with no social problems, no need for Commonwealth intervention and no need for the application of citizens’ rights for the people of Norfolk Island on Norfolk Island. That is a view that I find very far from the truth. It is my opinion that islanders do want change. Some embrace the prospect; others come to that conclusion slowly. But increasing numbers are doing so.

I suggest that those who support a greater role for the Commonwealth need to understand that there is in fact substantial support amongst the Australian citizens on Norfolk Island who want to see that occur. Most Norfolk Islanders, in my opinion, do want to see the Commonwealth return and do appreciate the grave mistakes that have been made with regard to the self-government act of over 30 years ago.

The simple fact of life is that this parliament proposed a series of administrative reforms with regard to self-government and then walked away and neglected its responsibilities to the people of Norfolk Island. I think the majority of people want certainties in service provision. They want ethical governance. Only the Commonwealth of Australia can guarantee those basic rights. Many have judged that the current arrangements are in fact a failure and must be changed. As I said, most islanders believe that is the case. This is the parliament; this is the opportunity. I hope that, in the forthcoming cabinet submission, the decisions taken by the government will allow the opposition to support legislative change in this chamber and of course in the House of Representatives. As a consequence, Norfolk Island and the people of Norfolk Island can enjoy the full benefits of citizenship and the full benefits of being part of the Commonwealth of Australia.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise as a member of the committee who participated in the two major reports of 2003 and 2005. Those reports were comprehensive reports indeed. They were difficult to put together in some circumstances; nonetheless they went systematically through the problems that were perceived by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories in its role representing this parliament.

While the first report was met with an amount of derision from some people on the island, as Senator Carr has outlined there were a number of people who greatly supported the very logical recommendations that were arrived at by the committee in a totally bipartisan arrangement. There was no hint of any dissent in what came out of that report. As Senator Carr said, this is basically about the democratic right of those people on Norfolk Island as Australian citizens. As an active member of the committee, in the wake of those two reports I was always anxious for the committee to return to Norfolk Island to meet with the government and to meet with the people of Norfolk Island to see the way forward because, simply, what was there was not acceptable to any reasonable person on the mainland, no matter their political persuasion.

To his credit, Minister Lloyd has taken the bit between his teeth and he has, I understand, set about a reform package which is still to be considered by the government. Nonetheless, there seems to be a clear commitment by the government to ensure that reform takes place—and sooner rather than later. That is to be commended indeed. This will lead to legislation that will be presented in both the House of Representatives and then finally here to amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and other related acts to ensure that basic entitlements are given to the people on Norfolk Island.

My purpose in rising this evening is to draw attention to one of the recommendations made in the report of the visit to Norfolk Island. Unfortunately, we were supposed to go on a number of occasions and on each occasion that I made myself available to go the visit was cancelled. When they finally came up with a date on which the committee could travel, I found myself with another commitment that I could not get out of. I would have enjoyed being there to witness the change in attitude that has come across both the Norfolk Island government and a number of the leading players in the business community and in the community at large on the island.

One concern that came out in the report has been an ongoing concern for me. The recommendation at page 17, paragraph 1.67 of the most recent report—which we are addressing this evening—looks at the issue of the right to vote of the people on Norfolk Island. Paragraph 1.67 says:

The Committee also believes that, as per its recommendations in the 2003 report and 2005 findings, Norfolk Island should be included within the Canberra electorate for the purposes of more equitable federal representation and that the voting system for the Norfolk Island Assembly should be changed.

This issue was canvassed in the December 2003 report over quite a few pages, from page 141 to page 144, so it is a fairly important issue indeed.

The Norfolk Island Act does not make it mandatory for Norfolk Island residents, although they are Australian citizens, to be on the roll or to be compulsorily attached to an electorate. They also have the option of enrolling in an electorate that they had an association with or may have lived in. There are a number of other options available to them which I cannot recall off the top of my head. Basically, they are not situated in a designated or specific electorate like every other Australian citizen. They can enrol in an electorate in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales or wherever. Norfolk Island residents do not have a single representative of the House of Representatives that they can collectively turn to when they have a problem with the government of Australia.

The second thing that they lack because of that is the right to access a senator. As we know, in a single electorate you might end up with either a member of the Labor Party, a member of the Liberal Party or National Party, an Independent, a Green or someone else.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would prefer a Liberal, though.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would actually prefer Labor, but that is beside the point, Senator Parry. One of the things about the Senate is that invariably the people in the constituencies of the territories get at least one of either major political persuasion, so if they do not like the Liberal representative they can go to the Labor senator or vice versa. But, in the case of the people of Norfolk Island, they do not have this choice because there are no designated senators for them.

The report back in 2003 made recommendations that the citizens of Norfolk Island should be on the roll attached to the federal electorate division of Canberra. They therefore would be given access not only to whoever the federal member for the federal division of Canberra is but also to two senators. In that case, that would be one from the Liberal Party and one from the Australian Labor Party. I do not care who they choose to go to—that is their business—but it at least gives them a basic and fundamental democratic right that is not available to them currently. That is terribly important.

My call right throughout this—and I am not a lone voice—has been for the government to act on the electoral reform earlier than any other governance reforms that it might implement regarding Norfolk Island. There is a simple reason for that: these people, if they have the opportunity to all have a single designated member such as the member for the federal division of the electorate of Canberra, would have access to that person and to two senators. That would be important in going forward with the legislative package that the government will undoubtedly bring to this parliament. The people of Norfolk Island have the right to go to more than just a member of a single political party, which will happen if they are stuck with just the House of Representatives seat. They will have at least some alternative in terms of having their views represented through the Senate. That is terribly important. As part of their reform program, I urge the government to consider bringing early legislation into this place to enact this part of the reforms so that these people can get proper representation and can use the facilities of the Parliament of Australia to have their voices heard when this legislation finally hits.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories on the committee’s visit to Norfolk Island. I have not studied this report in any detail, but I was pleased to hear the two presentations that have just been made, by Senator Carr and Senator Hogg, on the report. I congratulate Senator Lightfoot, the chairman of this committee, on the work that the committee has done. I was delighted to hear from the previous two speakers of their support and determination to do something because, as I recall, in the years when I was the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government—from 1998 to 2001—I am not sure that the Labor Party was always supportive of some of the reforms that obviously had to be implemented.

I achieved fame far beyond my abilities by being attacked on New York radio by none other than Colleen McCullough, world renowned author and then resident—and I think still resident—of Norfolk Island. I had tried to implement some first-toe-in-the-water reforms, but they were very strongly resisted by many on the island, including the good Colleen McCullough, who had very strong views then, and I am sure still does, about the way life should exist on Norfolk Island.

The voting system in those days—and I assume it is still the same—was such that an individual voter was given a handful of votes and could then cast all of those votes for one candidate or cast one vote for five or six different candidates. I am not sure of the exact detail, but it was a very strange system. The thing that always galled me was that, in such a small community—from memory I think there were about 800 voters and a couple of thousand people on the island—they had a parliament with, in those days, four ministers plus a chief minister and, because it was such a small community, very often those in parliament and those who took the name of minister were actually dealing with themselves. There were a couple of celebrated incidents where contracts were being let by ministers to companies in which they had a very direct interest—and that obviously could not continue.

Some of the remarks that Senator Hogg and Senator Carr have made certainly do highlight some of the difficulties, particularly for those people on the island who cannot fly at the drop of a hat to the mainland for medical or other attention that might be needed. Reform is long overdue. Of course, I have no idea what proposals are going to cabinet, although I am aware, as the two previous speakers are, that there is a package of measures going to cabinet for consideration to try to address some of the quite obvious problems on Norfolk Island. I wish those deliberations well, and I am delighted to hear that there will be, hopefully—depending on what the proposals are, I suppose—bipartisan support.

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

A reasonable caveat.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Obviously something needs to be done, and I congratulate the committee on drawing attention to some of the problems and perhaps some of the solutions for Norfolk Island.

Question agreed to.