Polynesians Barred!

Ridiculous Immigration Law Being Offensively Applied

By New Zealand

TRAVELLERS of Polynesian or part- Polynesian race are still being dis criminated against by New Zealand, and a protest has been made to the NZ Government against the practice.

We have, for example, the case of a well-known Sydney resident, whom we may call Mrs. A B. Mrs. A B was born in Samoa over 50 years ago, of a German father and a part-Samoan mother: She is one-eighth Samoan. Quite early in life she settled in Australia, and married a European—a Britisher. She is well edu cated, and a woman of culture, well-known for her acts of charity.

Recently, she decided to visit her home country (Samoa), travelling via New Zealand and Tonga. She planned to stay for some time with her sister in New Zealand. She holds a British passport.

To her astonishment, the New Zealand Government Office in Sydney would not give her a Permit to enter New Zealand, and referred her application to Welling ton. When she and her friends demanded an explanation, they were informed that such a permit could not be given to persons of part-European race, unless evidence were given of their intention to leave NZ again within a certain time. In the opinion of the learned clerks of New Zealand, such are “coloured people.”

The case of Mrs. A B is still under con sideration.

ANOTHER recent case affects the three children of a well-known Samoan resident Mrs. C D, widow of a former German professional man. The latter settled in Samoa a long time ago, and married a well-educated young woman who was half-Samoan, half- European. Some time between the wars, :heir three children were sent to Germany tor education. They were highly educated —but they were caught up in World War tl and, owing to political and economic lifficulties, they could not get from Ger nany to Samoa, until recently.

In April they arrived in Sydney, en 'oute to Samoa, via Auckland. There, they were held up on the Permit matter, n the same way as Mrs. A B, until their ipplication had been specially considered n Wellington. They underwent great mxiety in Sydney, because their resources yere getting low; they could not book on rom Auckland to Samoa because of the shipping strike; and they wanted to get o New Zealand, where they had relations ind friends.

Finally, the bureaucrats of Wellington, laving made them intensely conscious of their “colour,” allowed them to proceed. rHESE two cases deal only with persons of part-Polynesian blood. But travellers who are full Polynesians ilso can make a claim for special con sideration.

There now are many Polynesians who, n education, deportment and the ac ceptance of the responsibilities of citizen ship, are fully the equals of Europeans; ttew Zealand is a sort of cultural and commercial centre for the different countries which constitute Polynesia; New Zealand’s own Maoris probably are the most notable race in Polynesia; and it is manifestly absurd that the NZ oureaucrats should place Polynesians, for classification at ports of entry, in the same category as Africans and Asiatics.

In fact, it is difficult to find any argu ment at all to justify the attitude of New Zealand towards the Polynesians.

SOME years ago, when both Australia and New Zealand were under Socialist Governments, the PIM drew attention to the way in which Polynesians are treated by these countries —for the Australian law is similar to that of NZ.

There were discussions in both Welling ton and Canberra —which became pointed and piquant when the Australian bureau crats bluntly applied the no-entry without-permit law to New Zealand Maoris. Wellington literally howled its indignation against Australia. (The fact that the NZ Socialist Government was then being kept in office by four Maori votes, of course, had nothing to do with

the case!) Canberra almost fell over backwards in its haste to remove New Zealand Maoris from the application of the silly law; and the NZ Prime Minister (the late Mr. Peter Fraser), being harried by the FIM for an indication of policy re garding non-Maori Polynesians generally, made a long and involved statement which seemed to promise sympathetic considera tion.

Since then, the matter has been more or less forgotten. The PIM assumed that the new non-Socialist Governments in Australia and New Zealand would interpret their immigration laws in a more reasonable way.

But, as shown above, the bureaucrats are applying the laws with the same in discriminating faithfulness as formerly; and cases of rank injustice are being reported.

The matter now is being brought directly under the notice of both the New Zealand and Australian Governments; and, this time, it will not be shelved.