For New Guinea Asians
p. 21 · Read in the full issue
[?] They or Can't They?
Clarification Needed On Entry Policy
Does Australia’s decision to confer Australian citizenship on selected New Guinea Asians mean the Asians will be able to live and work in Papua and Australia without restriction?
HE answer, apparently, is maybe.
If it is anything else, nobody in authority has made a firm nouncement on it.
Australia’s decision was made ne months ago, and the details naturalisation requirements nounced only recently.
Qualifications include full age and jacity (although the Minister i grant naturalisation to aliens i of full age), good character, equate knowledge of English or ernatively residence in Australia New Guinea for a continuous •iod of at least 20 years, intention continue to live in Australia or w Guinea, continuous residence Australia or New Guinea for a ir preceding application, m alien woman doesn’t have to fil these requirements but she i be granted a certificate if she the wife or widow of an Aus lian citizen and has lived in stralia or New Guinea for at st a year. n hoss eligible for naturalisation [owing the new decisions are; 1) Asians, or persons of part ropean and part-Asian birth, ler living in the Territory with exemption or born there; 2) An Asian or part-European t-Asian wife of an Australian zen or of a person eligible under for naturalisation and apply , provided she is living in the ritory; 3) Children of Asians and part ans themselves eligible for uralisation, over the age of 16 i under the age of 21, provided y are living in the Territory.
HIS seems to cover the naturalisation problem pretty fully, but the problem of entry 3 Australia is another one. It governed by the Immigration Act 1901-49, and as a matter of icy non-Europeans are not per ;ted entry. lowever, in the Territory Legisla j Council in October, in answer a series of questions, the :retary for Law for Papua-New inea, Mr. W. Watkins, said ans, together with those of Led-blood, Papuans and indi lous inhabitants of New Guinea, •e permitted entry into Australia limited periods if they: lad a clear bill of health, agreed to accept employment in the nmonwealth, had enough money maintenance, had a return
ticket or proof they could get one, plus a re-entry permit, and had evidence of accommodation. (In his reply, Mr. Watkins stated that Papuans had no need of naturalisation as they already had Australian citizenship. It is interesting to note that, according to the above paragraph that not withstanding this citizenship, they are specifically excluded from permanent residence in Australia).
Does this mean that naturalised Chinese from New Guinea cannot live permanently in the Australian territory of Papua, or Australia?
The immigration Department in Sydney, and the Sydney office of the Territories Department, through no fault of officers of either depart ment, were not able to clarify the position in early November.
As far as the Immigration Dept, knew, naturalised New Guinea Asians had the same right as any Australian citizen to enter and work permanently in Australia.
The Territories’ Dept, said there was machinery in the Immigration Act to keep Asians out of Australia if need be, but it knew nothing of how the entry policy would operate in the future. As yet, there appeared to be nothing concrete.
Can it be stated that New Guinea naturalised Asians can live per manently in Australia? Or can’t they? Or will each case be a matter for the Minister?
Possibly the policy has already been worked out, and this would be a good time to end the confusion. It is understood that 150 New Guinea Chinese have already applied for naturalisation.