A Statement of Intent in relation to immigration policy published inthe Norfolk Islander on Saturday 22/1 reflects in part matters required to be examined as part of the funding agreement entered into by the Norfolk Island Government and the Commonwealth.
Extract from the funding agreement;
"The Chief Executive Officer must report in writing to the Chief Minister by 21 March 2011 on the policy objectives of the current Norfolk Island Immigration regime; and provide interim reports in writing by the dates indicated on any issues associated with migration to Norfolk Island, particularly in respect of :
a) self-funded retirees, by 21 February, 2011
b) investors, by 7 March,2011; and
c) entrepreneurs, by 21 March, 2011
The statement of intent published, focuses on the first of the three matters where a specific reporting timeframe is defined. The more general existing policy objectives are due to be reported on by 21st March 2011
In conversations that I have been involved in, it seemed that the Commonwealth was seeking to discover why a specific Norfolk Island immigration regime was necessary at all. And, what was being achieved by a Norfolk regime that could not be achieved by the application of the general Australian regime; and if the continuation of the existing regime which inhibits the movement of Australian citizens, was desirable.
The Commonwealth has in the past expressed the view that matters currently being controlled by the NI immigration regime could more appropriately be controlled by planning laws, or perhaps a permit system within the Australian Immigration Act.
There is no doubt that Tourism on Norfolk Island would benefit from a borderless arrangement between Norfolk Island and Australia and consequent departure from the domestic terminals in Australia.
That's a discussion that needs to be had.
If it was determined that the NI Immigration regime was to be abandoned then the work being done on matters (a) (b) and (c) may be rendered redundant except perhaps as the basis some other form of regulating regime.
It is also curious that the SOI objective refers to a process to be followed to generate a report on new policies and then refers to a set of Recommendations (7.1) that effectively define what the new policies will be as is indicated in (7.2)
Finally, it would seem more appropriate to have the broader discussion about the future of Norfolk's role in immigration/border control than use the limited resources of the Norfolk Island Administration tweaking an immigration process that may have a doubtful future.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Cabinet solidarity means never having to say you're sorry
On Wednesday, Ministers of the Norfolk Island Government successfully moved to reduce their exposure to parliamentary scrutiny by fifty percent, effective forthwith.
This decision, coming at a time when the economy is in tatters and with the Finance Minister signaling even more difficulties ahead through accelerated losses from Norfolk Air and the knock on effect of this throughout the community, is regrettable.
Let’s not forget that Executives and MLA’s have recently secured, roughly, a fifty percent pay rise and that Assembly meetings last, on average, 4 to 5 hours. The Assembly now plans to meet not 4 weekly, but 6 weekly.
The Chief Minister proposed the change and put forward the motion for the reduction seemingly because the workload generated by the 4-weekly cycle of meetings was too much for the Executive and the service. Also, that the workload associated with taking forward the new Commonwealth/Norfolk agenda was causing difficulties, hence the change.
I’m sure that most of us would agree that there are serious challenges ahead. But, by the same token, it is reasonable for the community to expect that the Executive in particular will rise to the occasion and if that means more work, so be it. The Administration also needs dig a little deeper.
It would be apparent to anyone who reads the Assembly notice paper, or who listens to the Assembly, that the proceedings of the 13th Assembly have been dominated by questions without notice and questions on the notice paper. It is also apparent that the government of 13th Assembly has no legislative program to speak of. Hardly surprising when it appears not to have defined any real agenda for itself other than one of reacting to events as they unfold.
Meetings on a 6 weekly rotation will potentially see an even longer question time with more questions on the notice paper and therefore the Assembly, the legislature, will have little ability to progress a legislative program or legislative reforms in areas such as Immigration, Social Security, Public Sector and GBE re-structuring.
At Wednesday’s meeting the Executive members, the Ministers, “Cabinet” as they are now collectively described, were overshadowed by the performances of their backbench colleagues and perhaps it is this reality beginning to bite that is driving the desire for less parliamentary exposure. The debate in relation to Telecommunications was the most “spirited” that has been held in the house for some time and most of the action came from the backbench.
By comparison the input of the Executive could only be described as dismissive, disingenuous, defensive or, in the case of the Finance Minister, disinterested.
Mr King’s at times rather colorful turn of phrase owed more to the Paul Keating school of street fighting adversarial politics than to our allegedly consensus style of government as he tried to goad the executive members into contributing to the debates. One can’t help thinking that the NIG’s new paradigm is, “Cabinet solidarity means never having to say you’re sorry”.
In the context of the “debate” on the 6-weekly meeting cycle, it was somewhat surprising that Madam Speaker did not take the opportunity to enter the fray and defend the role and the relevance of the parliament given her obvious passion for the form, if not the function, of parliamentary democracy. Still, they do say that politics is the art of compromise.
In the final analysis, the Executive, in choosing to go to ground, does itself a serious injustice. In choosing to be less accountable to the people it shows a deplorable level of commitment to the leadership role and trust that we have placed in them.
I guess we just need wait and see if the NIG Executives will follow Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s example and “feed the chooks” through backslapping “information” sessions on Radio 2NI, squeezed in between the weather, the keno results and lost and found.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Norfolk Island's immigration controls
The Norfolk Island Government has indicated that they propose to examine the policy objectives that underpin the current Norfolk Island immigration regime early in 2011.
A total revisit of our immigration regime is clearly necessary as almost daily we hear of decisions made in accordance with the law that, on the face of it, don't make a whole lot of sense.
Get back to basics
It is important that any review undertaken goes beyond the question of "how can we do what we do now better?" However, rather than undertaking a protracted review, maybe we should simply ask the basic question, "why does Norfolk Island have immigration responsibility at all?" Elsewhere in the Commonwealth immigration is a national responsibility. No other state or territory has immigration responsibilities.
It can, and has, been argued that a separate immigration regime in the hands of the NIG is no more appropriate than one in any other state or territory of Australia. Imagine if you needed a passport to go to Canberra!
If you are a British citizen you do not require any clearance from the Immigration Office to live in the Isle of Man. You may require a work permit issued under the Isle of Man Control of Employment Act if you want to work on the Island (or take up self-employment).
Maybe that's all we need?
The role of immigration policy
Governments all around the world seek to develop immigration policies that will achieve social and economic goals through the temporary and permanent movement of people and skills. Important criteria for migrants are that they will quickly add economic value to the place to which they are immigrating. Whatever the policy objectives underpinning the Norfolk Island Immigration Act are, or were, it's difficult to discern any positive outcomes that can be attributed to its application.
If the aim of the policy objective is to achieve managed population development and growth and an environmentally and economically sustainable economy, then those objectives have not been achieved. But we have paid and continue to pay a high price for this gatekeeper role both in administrative cost and lost opportunity. Norfolk Island's population is going backwards and the economy continues to shrink, so, in a nutshell, it's far easier to argue that the current immigration controls have been a failure for Norfolk than to argue that they have been a success.
More reviews than a critics convention
A review of the operation of the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine service to examine the degree to which the legal obligations of these border security roles were being met and to make new policy recommendations, was to commence in 3rd quarter of 2010, take 8 weeks and be completed before Xmas 2010. My understanding is that this will now take substantially longer. Perhaps it has been overtaken by events!
The previous Minister for Immigration in the 12th Assembly apparently spent a lot of time reviewing aspects of the immigration arrangements, but no change resulted. Or if it did, it was not substantial.
Why just make it hard to come to Norfolk when with a little effort we can make it harder!
The Norfolk Island Immigration Act was established shortly after self government and it is fair to say that the intent of the Act was to create a very protectionist regime.
It is apparent, also, that there was a perception that Norfolk would be overrun if the gatekeepers went to sleep. Protectionist policies pervade many aspects of life on Norfolk Island and this approach has not served us well.
The Immigration Act continues to function as a means of regulating commerce on Norfolk and the movement of people and the consequential influx of new talent, even when such movements would be in the interests of the community.
Effective population management for Norfolk Island should accept that people make choices to come and go for reasons of health, education and economic needs and of course a percentage of the population will choose to live out their lives on the island.
Outdated controls based on outdated premises should not get in the way of those choices impeding, as they do, our ability to add to the sum of human capital on the island.
If we wait for the outcome of a review a year from now, nothing will have changed. That's too long. We need something to kick start this economy without delay. Practically anyone you ask on Norfolk will tell you that tourism would benefit if travelers coming to Norfolk departed from the domestic terminal, and that the requirement for a passport is a disincentive for spontaneous travel.
The Commonwealth should put its house in order and fix the Norfolk Island immigration anomaly. Freedom of movement by Australian citizens throughout the Commonwealth, including Norfolk Island, is surely a constitutional right. Maybe now is the time to dispatch the Norfolk Island Immigration Act to the history books and look at more appropriate ways to ensure a sustainable future for Norfolk Island.
A total revisit of our immigration regime is clearly necessary as almost daily we hear of decisions made in accordance with the law that, on the face of it, don't make a whole lot of sense.
Get back to basics
It is important that any review undertaken goes beyond the question of "how can we do what we do now better?" However, rather than undertaking a protracted review, maybe we should simply ask the basic question, "why does Norfolk Island have immigration responsibility at all?" Elsewhere in the Commonwealth immigration is a national responsibility. No other state or territory has immigration responsibilities.
It can, and has, been argued that a separate immigration regime in the hands of the NIG is no more appropriate than one in any other state or territory of Australia. Imagine if you needed a passport to go to Canberra!
If you are a British citizen you do not require any clearance from the Immigration Office to live in the Isle of Man. You may require a work permit issued under the Isle of Man Control of Employment Act if you want to work on the Island (or take up self-employment).
Maybe that's all we need?
The role of immigration policy
Governments all around the world seek to develop immigration policies that will achieve social and economic goals through the temporary and permanent movement of people and skills. Important criteria for migrants are that they will quickly add economic value to the place to which they are immigrating. Whatever the policy objectives underpinning the Norfolk Island Immigration Act are, or were, it's difficult to discern any positive outcomes that can be attributed to its application.
If the aim of the policy objective is to achieve managed population development and growth and an environmentally and economically sustainable economy, then those objectives have not been achieved. But we have paid and continue to pay a high price for this gatekeeper role both in administrative cost and lost opportunity. Norfolk Island's population is going backwards and the economy continues to shrink, so, in a nutshell, it's far easier to argue that the current immigration controls have been a failure for Norfolk than to argue that they have been a success.
More reviews than a critics convention
A review of the operation of the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine service to examine the degree to which the legal obligations of these border security roles were being met and to make new policy recommendations, was to commence in 3rd quarter of 2010, take 8 weeks and be completed before Xmas 2010. My understanding is that this will now take substantially longer. Perhaps it has been overtaken by events!
The previous Minister for Immigration in the 12th Assembly apparently spent a lot of time reviewing aspects of the immigration arrangements, but no change resulted. Or if it did, it was not substantial.
Why just make it hard to come to Norfolk when with a little effort we can make it harder!
The Norfolk Island Immigration Act was established shortly after self government and it is fair to say that the intent of the Act was to create a very protectionist regime.
It is apparent, also, that there was a perception that Norfolk would be overrun if the gatekeepers went to sleep. Protectionist policies pervade many aspects of life on Norfolk Island and this approach has not served us well.
The Immigration Act continues to function as a means of regulating commerce on Norfolk and the movement of people and the consequential influx of new talent, even when such movements would be in the interests of the community.
Effective population management for Norfolk Island should accept that people make choices to come and go for reasons of health, education and economic needs and of course a percentage of the population will choose to live out their lives on the island.
Outdated controls based on outdated premises should not get in the way of those choices impeding, as they do, our ability to add to the sum of human capital on the island.
If we wait for the outcome of a review a year from now, nothing will have changed. That's too long. We need something to kick start this economy without delay. Practically anyone you ask on Norfolk will tell you that tourism would benefit if travelers coming to Norfolk departed from the domestic terminal, and that the requirement for a passport is a disincentive for spontaneous travel.
The Commonwealth should put its house in order and fix the Norfolk Island immigration anomaly. Freedom of movement by Australian citizens throughout the Commonwealth, including Norfolk Island, is surely a constitutional right. Maybe now is the time to dispatch the Norfolk Island Immigration Act to the history books and look at more appropriate ways to ensure a sustainable future for Norfolk Island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)