Norfolk Island - Not Drowning, Waving

Recent articles in the mainland press suggesting the imminent demise of Norfolk Island are premature.  Norfolk Island is clearly experiencing difficult times and given that its main (only) industry is tourism, it's a situation shared with many parts of Australia where tourism is the dominant industry. There's no doubt our government was slow to read the signs and slow to react. The Commonwealth is now involved and that's a positive development, although not all locals would share this view.  Air New Zealand now flys from Aussie to Norfolk, and while you'll have to suffer the safety briefing from this rugby obsessed mob - and yes we know you won the World Cup (who could forget) what is it again, the land of the long quite loud?

Main street Norfolk is quiet and retail is doing it tough but throughout Australia, and indeed the world, consumers are tightening their purse strings. Even on-line shopping, the new engine room of retailing, has experienced a slow down in growth. That's cold comfort but it's the way it is.

The tourism industry is a tough game; deals are everywhere; promotional dollars are being thrown at the problem throughout the country. Norfolk finds it difficult to match the marketing $$ of the big players. Against this background though Norfolk Island still has the product, and it's a unique product, and what's more we get many people coming back for more. What they get for their money is sometimes difficult to describe in a marketing world which often focuses on wow factors, bangs for bucks and artificial attractions.

Norfolk Island is a simple place with sometimes indefinable qualities. We don't have the biggest this, or the fastest that, we don't have the glitzsiest hotel or the fanciest casino. But if you come to Norfolk Island you will enjoy it and, statistically, you will be in the majority who come back for more. So we are not drowning, and if you drive down our main street or around our little island on our windy, bumpy, much patched roads, we will be waving to you.

So C'mon - tweet like you've never tweeted before!

Norfolk Island's waste management practices

Waste management practices continue to be a source of embarrassment for Norfolk Island. The ugly Headstone burning area contradicts much of the promotional material that Norfolk puts out. Headstone is a blot on the landscape and needs to be made right. Over the last few years 10's of thousands of dollars have been spent on studies and reviews while precious little has been spent on resolving the problem. Most recently the Norfolk Island Government has spent $6000 on another consultancy. This was to develop an Environmental Impact statement for a development application to permit the use of a locally constructed pit burner at the waste management centre. The EIS failed to convince the Planning Board because of the lack of emission data. This is not surprising as Pit Burners are not designed for the disposal of mixed waste but generally only used for the disposal of timber and forestry waste.  
A properly configured and located air curtain incinerator would give improved burning efficiency no doubt, but locating it at the Waste Management Centre would not be acceptable. 
A purpose built high temperature with emission scrubbers would be more likely to gain approval, however it appears that the former CEO, George Plant did not support such a development. 
In the meantime the Headstone burning area is a disgrace. The Norfolk Island Island Government needs to, at the very least, provide some basic infrastructure at this location to demonstrate its commitment to progressive improvement of Norfolk's waste management practices.  

Innovation

Back in 2003 a report called "Innovation in Rural Queenland - Why some towns thrive while others languish was published" At the time I circulated a copy of the report to NI Assembly members. I reckon if it had been read and acted on back then, things might be different on Norfolk Island today. Anyway this summary by one of the authors, Ian Plowman makes interesting reading. 

Innovation in rural Queensland: Why some towns thrive while others languish

Queensland academic, Ian Plowman, set out to answer the big question about why some towns thrive while others languish at Country Arts WA’s state conference. He began his address with a few fundamental truths.

All people have mobility choices – to move towards somewhere satisfying, to stay somewhere that is satisfying, or to move away from somewhere that is not satisfying.
It is the exercise of mobility choices and the resulting net inflows or net outflows that determine whether or not a town is innovative.
The question is: Who moves, who doesn’t, and why?

The research was conducted in 2003/4 in eight towns scattered across the breadth of Queensland using interviews, surveys and census data.

He found that:

Innovative and creative people have the highest mobility. They seek a location that is welcoming and attractive.

Innovative people move out of a location that is unwelcoming, leaving behind a conservative monoculture. The innovative talent that we crave, we may already have. We often chase it away.

Our responsibility is to create a welcoming environment that permits our communities to reinvent themselves and to thrive.

Surprisingly, patterns of mobility are not random. Those who move tend to be younger, to have higher levels of education and to have travelled overseas more frequently and for longer duration.

Research examining the antecedents of innovation in eight Queensland towns found that what made a difference was not necessarily size, prevailing industry or scenic attractiveness; instead it is mobility of people. Those towns with net inflows tend to have a vitality and energy that other towns lack. Conversely, those with net outflows tend to lose their innovative talent, leaving behind an increasingly conservative monoculture.

It is axiomatic that no community has a ‘right’ to survive. Almost no Australian town existed 200 years ago. Each town sprang up to address an emerging social or economic need. Towns on railway lines often grew out of the camps of fettler gangs. In wheat growing areas, storage or transport nodes often determined by the technology of the day, determined town location. For most towns, their original purpose has now altered. Unless a community is able to reinvent itself in a contemporary world, it will join the ranks of ghost towns that already litter rural Australia.

The research distributed 300 surveys to randomly selected residents in each town. People were asked to indicate whether others would regard them as: (a) a community leader; (b) somebody with knowledge and expertise that could be called upon if required; or (c) a support person. Surprisingly, the least innovative towns reported the highest number of leaders and support people; the most innovative town reported almost no leaders but had the highest proportion in category (b). Interview evidence seems to suggest that ‘leaders’, particularly incumbent leaders, are conservative stalwarts whose grip on power chases away the very creative talent that the town says it needs to attract and retain.

Leadership is a two-edged sword. It is an act of civic responsibility and it is also an act of denying someone the opportunity to gain civic experience. The more that leadership responsibility can be experienced and shared, the more innovative is the town.

So where might philanthropic bodies best invest to foster the social capital of rural Australia? The recommendations arising from the research provide some suggestions.

Firstly, mobility should be supported. Mobility alone results in the most able people going to those communities that are more likely to be receptive to the inflow of talent. It also serves to help more capable people move out of environments that are barren.

Secondly, newcomers should be supported. Newcomers need to establish a sense of place, purpose and social acceptance. It is newcomers who are most willing to invest in the social and economic fabric of a community. The more they are made to feel welcome, the more willing they are to invest.

Thirdly, young people should be supported. Young people need to invest in relationships and in careers. Unlike their parents, their array of options is vast and they are increasingly citizens of a global village. Communities need to consider how accommodating or otherwise they are of young people, their interests and their careers.

The fourth suggestion is to invest in diversity. Innovation and creativity are commonly the fortuitous by-product of the blending of diverse ideas and experience. Diversity has a prerequisite – tolerance. Communities that are intolerant of diversity are destined to die.

Finally, communities need to invest in capacity building. Communities that are dying have incumbent leaders and passive supporters. Thriving communities have a constantly evolving dynamic of creative coalitions made of people who roll their sleeves up without being asked and who seek no credit for doing so. Any support given to the willing will provide a handsome return.

Finally, invest in celebration. Communities that celebrate are offering their citizens a sense of unity and identity, characteristics that are essential in underpinning the previous five investments.

Ian Plowman, PhD, is a psychologist, social researcher and community facilitator whose practice is centred on building social capacity. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland Business School, the University of Queensland.

 See the full report