JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE Opinion piece

Mary Christian-Bailey

There was general feeling of “ho-hum, here we go again” when it was announced that the Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee was to hold an inquiry into Governance on Norfolk Island. Our previous experience with such committees and inquiries has not been encouraging, and very little that could be called positive has ever resulted. The last one left a very bitter taste in our mouths. The terms of reference were changed midstream from finance and economics to “Governance”. This enabled a former Administrator of the island to recommend he removal of our Legislative Assembly, and the rest is history.

Nevertheless, I believe that many of us decided we would come forward in good faith and try to use the process to speak up for our Norfolk Island, and make at least a handful of Australian Parliamentarians more aware of what is happening here to their island neighbour. After all, for more than seven years we have been virtually “gagged”, and the state of affairs has further deteriorated when our ability to have representation on a local council was removed for a period of time, placing us at the mercy of a bureaucracy and a Council Administrator who has little understanding of the place, and who spends so little time here that his understanding and knowledge of what we really need is unlikely to improve.

The Committee consisted of five members – two from the Government, two from the Coalition, and one independent. We were somewhat comforted that this included Senator David Pocock, who, as a Senator for the A.C.T. has shown a keen interest and concern for Norfolk Island affairs. The inclusion of Ms Nola Marino M.P. raised some clearly voiced objections, on the grounds that, as a former Minister with responsibility for Norfolk Island, she had a conflict of interest, and should bear some responsibility for the removal of democracy from the island.

The public hearings were held over two days. On the Tuesday April 4^th, they were held at the South Pacific Hotel, and on the following day the venue was Governor’s Lodge. On each occasion, a good number of members of the public attended. A number of oral submissions were delivered, supplemented by quite a few written submissions. The written submissions have been available online, and transcripts of the oral submissions will eventually be made public. There were a handful of submissions that were held “in camera”. This usually a concern, and motives are questioned about the need for privacy. However, I have been led to believe that some of these private submissions were to be quite scathing of the current system of administration. However they will remain private, but will hopefully give the Committee a better picture of the damage and distress on the island.

The submissions covered a large range of issues, and many of those making them admitted to finding the terms of reference too limiting. The return of an appropriate form of democracy, the removal of land rates and inequitable waste management fees, the ongoing damage to the cultural heritage of the island, and failure to comprehend the needs, values and anomalies of a small remote island were common themes. I was glad to note that some members of the Committee were concerned about the lack of capacity building and the potential of alternative sources of revenue raising such as a GST type levy.

A handful (perhaps a fingerful) of those who made submissions were content with the current system of governance, but did advocate improved representation. Some of them need to go to Specsavers perhaps?

Through most of the submissions, those present listened with quiet respect. However, when the NIRC Administrator spoke, those present in the room could not resist a vocal reaction when he said that in 2016, democracy had been “installed” rather than removed. And there was a lot of head shaking when it was suggested that the Council’s troubles began right at the start because the some of the councillors were too “combative” and even “immature”, and that the elected councillors and the community in general were responsible for the failure of what he considered to be an appropriate system of governance. Even more concerning was Mr Colreavy’s vision of any transition to reinstating local representation taking place over a period of time under a system of “boards.”

Many of the speakers were understandably nervous, but their words were sincere and heartfelt. Others gave very direct and robust presentations. Some of the speakers were much to be admired, because they seemed to have all the relevant facts at their fingertips. All are to be commended. The Committee were respectful and polite in their responses and questions. I suspect one or two of the official party had a lot to learn about the history of the island and its people, but they freely mingled and chatted with locals on their breaks.

In view of this apparent goodwill, the community was surprised to hear the Acting Administrator the Island, Mr Eric Hutchinson, claim on local radio that “it appears that certain elements want to drag this community backwards” and were “resorting to personal attacks on members of the Committee.” We are quite unaware of any committee member being personally attacked in the media, or in public, or in the Committee’s presence. A query was made to the Secretariat of the JSC Committee, who passed on the concern to the Chair of the Committee. Meanwhile, he said that he was unaware of any such attacks, and stated “The Committee did not consider any of its interactions with Norfolk Islanders to be rude or disrespectful and appreciated the time taken by the community to engage with the Committee for its inquiry.”

The allegations remain unsubstantiated.

What next? We must remember that those five committee members who came to Norfolk Island are only a section of that Standing Committee. And the full membership of that Committee represent only a handful of members of the government and the Parliament. They will have quite a challenging task to educate and inform their colleagues of the background and history of these issues and of the fact that they cannot continue to think of Norfolk Island as part of regional Australia, or even as part of the Commonwealth of Australia.

I think we participated in this process in good faith. I think many of us detected a feeling that some change is needed, but we cannot now sit back and wait for some good news. Some of the participants said in their submissions and presentations that they do not believe it is the job of the Committee, and certainly not the task of the Australian Government, to recommend an improved system of governance. Rather, what is needed is a willingness to work with the Norfolk Island people to put in place a process by which these decisions are made, a process where the stakeholders make the final decisions. The way the Australian Government steers this forward will determine how much good will this community is prepared to rebuild with what has often been termed our “Colonial Overload.”

An Aboriginal leader stated the other day “We have shared our pain with you, now we want to share our hopes with you”.

We can only hope that the Committee, and eventually the Australian Government, will come to understand the distress and damage their actions have caused to the Norfolk Island people, and that they will welcome our vision for our future and for a better relationship as Pacific neighbours.

Mary Christian-Bailey