Embargo

Polynesian Status In International Law

NZ Discusses The Australian Immigration Embargo

THE immigration disabilities which have been placed upon Polynesians and part-Polynesians by Australia came under discussion in the New Zealand Parliament on August 17 when the British Nationality and NZ Citizenship Bill was before the House.

In the course of a speech, Mr. F. W.

Doidge pointed out that the Minister in charge of the Bill had said that the people of Western Samoa and of Tonga had no British status in international law. “That seemed rather drastic” commented Mr.

Doidge. “Tonga, it is true, is a kingdom, but it acknowledges allegiance to the United Kingdom, and the Tongan Group is a responsibility of the British Colonial Office. In the case of Western Samoa and the Cook Islands, surely New Zealand is directly responsible for the welfare and protection of those areas. The Minister said those island people were not British subjects, nor were they aliens and they were to be treated under the Bill as an intermediate class.

“I want to call attention to what recently happened in Australia where an Australian Minister shocked New Zealanders by refusing to grant members of the Maori race the rights of British subjects. The NZ Prime Minister interceded, with the result that the decision was revoked, and the order withdrawn.

“In Sydney there is published a very influential and widely read journal, known as the “Pacific Islands Monthly,” which was interested in this incident, and called the attention of the Prime Minister of New Zealand to the fact that this injunction,

,~ , A issued from Canberra, applied to other Polynesians; and it quoted the case of a blood relative to the Queen of Tonga, who also happened to live in Sydney, and was married to a Briton That publication urged the Prune Minister of New Zealand to take a similarly insistent stand in regard to the people of the Cook Islands and Samoa, inasmuch as they are under the aegis of the New Zealand Government.

“Our Prune Ministers reply was pubfished in that journal and he said. It does not appear that these are matters in which the New Zealand Government could concern itself.’ So that it would seem that our Prune Minister is denying responsibility for these people and their welfare. .

“I suggest that this debate provides an opportunity for our Prime Minister to explain just what he meant, because the Maoris, the Cook Islanders, the Samoans, and the Tongans are all of the same blood, and, it must be obvious to us all, it is our duty always to strengthen the ties which bind these people together, and which bind them to us. The Prime Minister’s statement received very wide publicity throughout the Pacific.”

Mr. Osborne: The Prime Minister made a further statement which was reported in the “Auckland Star.”

Mr. Doidge: If that is so, I have not seen it. As far as I know, the Prime Minister has not made any further statement in the journal to which I have referred, and that is the journal which circulates to a far greater extent throughout the Pacific islands than does the

“Auckland Star,” good a newspaper as the “Auckland Star” is, and wide as its cir culation is. This debate clearly indicates that there is no doubt about where the sentiments of members on both sides of the House lie.

Dr. Finlay said that the Islands referred to are not part of any nation, as such, known to international law, and they have no nationality. Their status in the British Commonwealth is somewhere between that of a British subject and that of an alien.

They are, in fact, “British protected per sons,” as defined in the Bill.

THE Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) said that Mr. Doidge’s statement that he, as Prime Minister, had limited his interest to one section of the Polynesian people, (the Maoris) was derived from an article in the “Pacific Islands Monthly” by the editor, Mr. Robson, and arose out of letters sent to him by Mr. Robson and his reply.

“I should like briefly to put the matter in its proper perspective,” said Mr. Fraser.

“It is well known that the statement was made in Australia about Maoris—Poly nesians. That was cleared up quite satis factorily at the time. A Maori wife living in Australia was informed that she could not be allowed to be permanently resident in Australia. I am not going to comment on Australia’s attitude or on the question of various races in Australia or in the the dependencies of Australia. There are many problems there, and there are prob lems extending far beyond the shores of Australia that affect the people of Aus “I am going to say, however, that we in New Zealand cannot divide up the Polynesian race—the Maoris of New Zea land, the Maoris of the Cook Islands, the people of Samoa, the people of the Toke laus, and the others for whom we have no direct responsibility or jurisdiction over, as, for example, the people of Tonga. Our responsibility as the Government of the

country is confined to the Polynesians who are under the Government of New Zealand, and if we endeavoured, as Mr.

Robson wanted me to do, to make repre sentations on behalf of members of the very fine Tongan people, we would be told to mind our own business, and that that was the business of the United Kingdom Government and not the New Zealand Government.

“I made it very plain in a statement which appeared in the “Auckland Star” of July 8 that that was the position, and if members are sufficiently interested they can see there the view that I put forward.

I have just paraphrased what I said on that occasion.

“I stated that the interests of the Poly nesian people in the Cook Islands (an in tegral part of New Zealand) of Samoa, and of Tokelau Islands, were our concern, and I felt sure that, if we made represent ations to Australia, we would meet with the same result that we achieved pre viously.

“I have never hesitated to express my admiration for the Tongan people, placing them on the same level as the others, and entitled to the same human rights as the other Polynesian people; but it would not do for us gratuitously to interfere in the interests of citizens looked after by an other Government.”

Editorial Note.—The “Pim” Never

suggested that New Zealand should make representations to Australia on behalf of the Tongans—that, clearly, is the respon sibility of the British Colonial Office.

The Polynesians for whom New Zealand is responsible are the Cook Islanders, the Samoans and the Tokelau Islanders; and it is gratifying to see that the NZ Prime Minister does now agree that it would be his responsibility to make representations to Australia on their behalf. There are other Polynesians who are just as much entitled to admission to Australia as the

Maoris, Cook Islanders and Samoans—the Ellice Islanders, the Tahitians, the Hawaiians, for example—but they are re spectively the responsibility of Britain, France and the United States.

We now have written to the ever-cour teous Prime Minister of NZ, asking him if he yet has made representations to Aus tralia on behalf of Cook Islands, Samoa and the Tokelaus.