WHAT HARBOUR DESIGN REPORT?

A major failing of successive Norfolk Island Governments has been in the procurement of goods and services,  a weakness alluded to in both the Review of the Norfolk Island Public Service and the ACIL Tasman Report on the Economic Development of Norfolk Island.

An unfortunate aspect of this for Norfolk Island is the ease with which these shortcomings can be hidden.

Norfolk lacks the robust form of parliamentary protection afforded other States, Territories and the Commonwealth;  we lack a serious press that can expose wrongdoing;  and  we lack an effective solution to ineffective government when all else fails.

An example of the NIG's inability to effectively manage its affairs lies in the harbour facilities design work commissioned by the Nobbs government.

Many will recall that the government of the 12th Assembly engaged the engineering firm, Worley Parsons,  to do some design work on an improved harbour facility for Norfolk. It appears that $124,000 has been expended on the project and still no report of any kind appears to have found its way into the public domain.  This has not been for lack of trying on the part of at least one MLA.  Ms. Ward has asked a number of questions of Minister Nobbs over almost two years in an effort to get the report released but all to no avail.

The ACIL Tasman report on Economic Development for Norfolk Island, and many other reports over the years have emphasised the need to improve our port facilities. The Worley Parsons report can potentially add some momentum to the resolution of this problem, but only if it gets out into the open and talked about. 

There is some speculation as to why the report has not yet surfaced. Some suggest it is because Worley Parsons have not been paid, others suggest that the report is of minimal value and essentially a waste of $124,000.  Whatever the reason or reasons if the work is to have any value in assisting progress towards improved infrastructure for the island, it must be released immediately.

New Policies Set to Boost Norfolk Island tourism

New policies announced this week by the Norfolk Island Government have the potential to take Norfolk Island to another level in tourism.
Strong protectionist policies supported by island legislation have up till now contributed to an ageing of the island's accommodation stock and done little to encourage innovation in tourism product with no real way of overcoming the problem.
Restrictions on "foreign" ownership have effectively prevented any major tourism players from investing on Norfolk Island and have meant that little has been done to bring properties up to national or international standards.
Those restrictions are to be removed. New strategies aimed at capturing higher yield tourists are being developed and these should assist Norfolk Island to once again become a highly favoured tourist destination.

In common with many tourism destinations in the Australia and the Pacific, Norfolk Island has been under extreme pressure, with falling tourist numbers, increasing costs and a crippling air services contract all combining to take Norfolk Island to brink of insolvency.

The Australian Government has provided substantial funds to assist Norfolk Island, including the funds necessary to extricate the island's Government from the unfavourable air services contract with Our Airline (Nauru), and to sign up and underwrite Air New Zealand to the route.

In providing the funds the Australian Government has insisted that the Norfolk Island Government commit to a wide rangeing suite of reforms aimed at stimulating the island's economy. Reforms include dispensing with competition and immigration barriers to encourage investment and to increase and diversify the skills of the island's population.

In a very real sense the perception is that the brakes are coming off Norfolk Island's economy and while tourism will remain the principal industry for the forseeable future, locals are hoping that a broader economy can develop on the back of the growth that the new policies will drive.

From the day the new policies were announced enquiries have been coming in. It's clear that there are investors out there looking for opportunities and Norfolk Island may be just the ticket. For full details go to;
info.gov.nf

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

 

Community Capacity Building on Norfolk Island

One of the major points to come out of the recent review of the Norfolk Island Public Service was the need to build the capacity of the Public Service to better serve both government and the community.
In so many areas the service was found wanting but most particularly in the areas of policy development, policy advice, and strategic planning. In addition, the Administration does not have a good reputation for client service, a weakness it shares with many in the business community on Norfolk.
Business owners are also patchy when it comes to business planning and in the timeliness of their responses to changing demands for goods and services, so there is some work to be done there also.
While it is understood that the Public Service review was specifically aimed at lifting the performance of public service the whole community, not just the public service, needs an investment in capacity building. It also needs to be understood that many of the skills not found in the public sector already exist in the private sector and vice versa, so there is an opportunity for some cross fertilisation.
There is cause for concern that in the next tranche of funding from the Commonwealth, resources will be focused predominantly on public sector improvement, with the rest of the community left to fend for themselves.
There also reason to believe that the Norfolk Island Government will accede to this push because of the continuing symbiotic relationship between government and the public sector and the government's poor track record in supporting the productive sector of the community, small business.

With every likelihood that the submission to the Australian Cabinet for 2012/2013 funding is close to finality, and with the strong likelihood that Canberra bureaucrats will implement what they understand, it's likely that the private sector will be forgotten again.
Lets not kid ourselves, the Norfolk Island Government and its Administration are in the scheme of things, small potatoes. The team that conducted the Public Service review is accustomed to reviewing organisations which are significantly more advanced in the sophistication of their public administration than the Norfolk Island Administration.

If the solution to filling the skills gap is to task a team of Canberra oriented bureaucrats who will arrive with an entirely new lexicon of pubic service jargon and acronyms, and courses delivered by slick corporate consultants. Then the first encounters for the Norfolk Island Administration staff will be eye-glazing experiences.......with free mints!  It's important therefore that any capacity building exercises are accessible and relevant. There is some serious catch up needed to be sure, but what we don't want is a jump from where we are to the APS's next best thing.
It's a given in all this that Norfolk needs to reconstruct the private/public sector activity mix. In our new paradigm the only sustainable approach is a contracting public sector and an expanding private sector.

It follows then that capacity building needs to occur widely throughout the community with less emphasis of the development of skills that are more aligned to the demands of a less relevant public sector and more aligned to the needs of a tourism focussed service economy.

To date the funding from the Commonwealth has done little to improve the lot of the private sector and it would be a serious mistake for the Commonwealth to support a strategy that perpetuates the public private, them and us feelings that exist in the Norfolk Island community right now.

A strategy that delivers community capacity building regardless of employer, that deals with career aspirations for locals both on and off Norfolk and that enables people to move from public to private sector and vice versa,  is what is called for.

Norfolk out of gas

The Norfolk Island Government took on the delivery of air services, "in
the national interest" and history shows what that did to our financial
position. Then they took on fuel supplies with the establishment of
Norfolk Energy and we have had a continuing upward trend in fuel prices
despite lower crude oil prices. They took over fuel supply and
distribution once again "in the national interest" and have used and
abused this role as a taxing mechanism. Now we have run out of fuel the
day after Minister Nobbs announces rationing on the radio. How can this
happen? No doubt we will hear a flurry of excuses and no one held to
account for a blunder that will cost the island dearly. Given the
importance of petrol to so many aspects of our lives, where was the risk
management strategy that should have guided those responsible for ensuring
continuity of supply.
Barring some sort of natural disaster, there  is no way the island should
be in this position. Anywhere else, the Minister would fall on his sword,
but don't hold your breath waiting for that, or even for the Chief
Minister to sack the Minister for the economic damage and the damage to
our reputation as a tourist destination, a reputation which we spend
substantial amounts of time an money building. Who will count the cost of
this blunder?