Working towards constructive solutions for Norfolk Island

Norfolk Action Group  

 

 

  

   

 

Background

The Australian Government intends to introduce one of two broad options for the future governance of Norfolk Island.

1. A "modified self-government model" with greater powers for Australian government involvement.

2. A "local government model" where the Australian Government could assume responsibility for state-type functions.

In both cases, every single Australian law will extend to Norfolk Island unless there is good reason for not doing so in exceptional cases.

The Australian government has made this decision without regard to the will of the vast majority of Norfolk Island residents. The Hon. Jim Lloyd, Australian Minister for Territories, has indicated he is not prepared to allow the Norfolk Island community and its democratically elected government to introduce or negotiate a third option which will lead to financial sustainability and preserve self-government, as promised to Norfolk Island. He dismisses talk of a third option or referendum.

Media Release

20 Dec 2006: Jim Lloyd has publicly announced that there will be no changes to the Governance Arrangements on Norfolk Island, and that he has full confidence in the Norfolk Island Government to do the right thing.

Click here to read a transcript of Jim Lloyd's Media Release dated 20 December 2006

 

NIG Media Release 6 Sept 2006: How are negotiations going?

 

Why Norfolk Island isn't taking the EASY Way out

Two articles below:

Article#1: appeared in Norfolk Islander dated 8 July 2006

Would Australia have made the same decision? Is the basis for the decision vastly exaggerated? Read this and decide.

Click here to read about this. Please provide your constructive feedback.

Article #2: appeared in Norfolk Islander dated 1 July 2006

Review of Acumen Sustainability Models. "What is attractive about this outcome is the wishes of the majority of Norfolk Island for continued self determination can be met.  And the Australian taxpayer will assist by way of a set of negotiated ‘tied grants’ to the value of $3.5 million per annum, rather than the $30 million (plus) in recurrent spend per year that people have heard Australian Government representatives talk about from time-to-time.  

Yes, a win-win is possible".

 Click here to read all about it.

Latest Updates to this Site

  • Norfolk Island wants change - Norfolk Islander dated 13 October. Click here.

  • EconTech Presentation to Canberra of Norfolk Island's Financial Position dated September 2006. Click here.

  • Why demand radical governance changes in Norfolk Island when we are far more sustainable than local councils in wealthy areas of Australia that are struggling to meet their commitments?  Click here to read more.

  • NIG Media Release 6 Sept: How are negotiations going?

  • EconTech Report released 5 Sept 2006: Norfolk Island is financially sustainable without relinquishing self-government. Acumen Report is flawed.

  • Does Australia want Norfolk's natural resources? What benefits will Australia provide and at what cost? Click for Leah Honeywood's letter (dated 1 Aug 06) to Minister Lloyd and Minister Lloyd's reply (dated 23 Aug 06).

  • Does Norfolk Island have an indigenous population - Minister Jim Lloyd's letter to Rick Kleiner. Click here.

  • The Norfolk Island You Want: part 2  - from Norfolk Islander dated 26 August, 2006. Click here.

  • The Norfolk Island You Want - results of Island Survey 19 August, 2006. Please click here.

  • Letter to Queen Elizabeth dated approx. 26 August 2006 by Leah Honeywood

  • Letter to John Howard dated approx. 26 August 2006 by Leah Honeywood

  • Is the Australian Tax system too complex? Find out here

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Events:

May 2006

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey - starts 1 May

CGC visit to Norfolk Island - 3 to 6 May

June 2006

25-page Booklet from Dotars delivered to Norfolk mailboxes

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Norfolk Island Business Survey 2004-5 results announced: Private Sector: $94 mil income, $13.5 mil profit (excl. owners' wages and depreciation)

July 2006

Registration Required for NSL - by 31 July 2006

Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) Summary and Details Reports made public July 14

Economic Impact Assessment - contractor has been selected to perform this exercise

August 2006

Norfolk Sustainability Levy (NSL) starts  1 August at 1%, to be increased to possibly 9% from 1 January 2007

JSC visit to Norfolk Island 3 - 5 August

CGC 2-day Public Conference 17-18 August

First-round Negotiations in Canberra between Norfolk executive MLA's and Minister Jim Lloyd - 21 August 2006

September 2006

Chief Minister David Buffett addresses the Norfolk Community at Rawson Hall 7 September 6pm

EconTech Report to be made public, indicating economic sustainability is possible for Norfolk while retaining self-government

Final Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) Report Due

Centre for International Economics (CIE) Economic Impact Assessment Results  - to be kept confidential by Australian Govt

October 2006

Oct 27: Private EconTech presentation to Jim Llyod indicating Norfolk Island financial viability while retaining self-government

November 2006

Nov 7: Supreme Court hearing:  Norfolk Island vs. Commonwealth of Australia regarding jurisdiction over Election Laws

Final CGC Report released 1 November 2006

2 November 2006: Discussions between David Buffett and Jim Lloyd in Canberra

December 2006

Australian Cabinet decision expected regarding future governance option for Norfolk Island.

 

 

 

 

 

Home

Events

Letters and Submissions (includes every CGC Submission)

An Island Resident's Views

Have Your Say - Norfolk Residents Views March 06

Norfolk Island Government - Contacts, Documents and Submissions

Australian Government - Contacts, Information

Taxes - Australian Taxes, Accountant Letter, Options, Info

Fund Raising Auction - Oil Painting

News about Norfolk Island

Informal Survey Results - large majority reject Fed Proposals

Historical Perspective

What are your Views & Ideas - contact information

 

 

 

 

 

The "Have Your Say" Forum made it clear that Norfolk Islanders are quite prepared to pay their way.

They do not object to paying taxes to support their community. They are also prepared to pay more tax than they do at present. What they are clear about, however, is:

  1. The tax must be equitable and free of loopholes.

    2. The tax should be paid to Norfolk Island and not Australia.

       3. The tax must suit Norfolk Island, its people and its culture.

4. The tax revenue must be managed effectively.

 

BORDER CONTROL AND SECURITY

 Regardless of the outcomes of any other "negotiations" with Australia over issues of governance, sustainability etc., we on Norfolk Island are going to lose control of over who or what comes into this island.

In a letter to a local resident, (who had queried the necessity to take over this area when Norfolk already complies with any Australian Goverment requirements in this area), the Minister Jim Lloyd said:


"regardless of which of the two governance models under consideration is eventually adopted, it(i.e. the Commonwealth Government) had decided to extend federal customs, quarantine and immigration regimes to Norfolk Island.)"
The letter goes on to "explain" that new security threats and a changing international security environment require that Norfolk Island "does not become a weak link in Australia's overall border security chain."


Which does not explain anything much at all, when we already comply with everything they require, when the Commonwealth Government already has power of veto over these areas while we administer them, and when any person or item arriving in Australia from here already needs to go through the same security checks that are required of a person or item coming from any overseas destination. Believe it or not, because I hold British citizenship, I cannot even be checked in here at the Norfolk Island airport to travel to Sydney unless airline staff make a phone call to Canberra to check that is OK to allow me on the plane!


Now if they are sincere, and there really is a weakness in our controls here, wouldn't it have made sense to sit down with our government to talk about it? Don't they think we are also interested in security? Couldn't we have come to some agreement in a spirit of mutual co-operation?


We often ask our visitors who come back time and time again what they like about Norfolk, and they often say that it is because they feel very safe here. We have made our immigration controls work very much in our favour, so that this remains a peaceful and productive community. That is going to be lost.


Our immigration system enables us to preserve our culture, and to protect the rights and freedoms and opportunities of those who call this island home. I often hear the PM of Australia speaking about Australia's Immigration system and controls being necessary to strengthen and protect "Australian values." What about Norfolk Island values?


We have strictly controlled the goods and plant material that arrive here, so we can avoid bringing in anything harmful or undesirable. I consider that we have done a pretty good job in the quarantine area, even under pressure from locals to relax things a bit. But now we are no longer to be trusted.


Our Customs service has worked well. While bringing in a wide range of goods that are attractive price-wise to our visitors, the service has also provided valuable revenue for the running of this island. That money will now go into Australia's coffers.


When the Australian Government talks about security, whose security are they referring to? Whose borders? Whose controls?


They should admit it, this is not about our ability to sustain our governance, or our ability to maintain proper security and border control. It is about bringing Norfolk Island, once and for all inextricably within Australia's borders. It represents more nails in the coffin for our unique and separate identity.

 

UNIFORMITY AND CONTROL.....that is what Canberra has in mind for little Norfolk Island. That is their agenda. The rest is a smokescreen.

From Mary Christian-Bailey, an Island Resident. For more, click here