Commentary

Many Unanswered Questions

On Fiji's Future

AT long last, the British Colonial Office has given Fiji an indica tion how it proposes to shape the Colony’s future system of govern ment; but there is nothing to show what that shape finally will be.

The retiring Governor, Sir Kenneth Maddocks (who leaves in September) told the Fiji Legislative Council on August 22 that “the Secretary for the Colonies will be glad, in consultation with representatives of the people of Fiji, to work out a constitutional framework which will preserve a con inuing link with Britain, and within which further progress can be made n the direction of internal self government”.

He stated, also, that the future of he Colony would be discussed at a inference in London—“to be con vened by the Secretary of State for he Colonies, in 1964 or early 1965” —where the British Government, and ‘leaders of representative opinion in 7 iji would try to agree on concrete iroposals”.

The Governor—speaking, of :ourse, on behalf of the British Sec etary for the Colonies—referred to: • The “uncertainty” created by the ecent debate on Fiji in the United Nations Committee on Colonialism. • The Fijians’ request in 1962 that he tie between Britain and Fiji be ontinued and be akin to that be ween Britain and the Isle of Man or he Channel Islands. • The 1962-63 proposition (not ccepted by the Fijians) that a “mem er system” be introduced in 1964 to ;ive unofficial Legco members in reased responsibilities in administra on.

The Governor made the under tatement of the year when he said le British Government believed “the me was approaching when the iture relationship between Fiji and iritain should be clarified and codi ed”. Better late than never, of ourse; but much clarification still is eeded.

It is clear that, next year, an at ;mpt will be made to introduce the member system”—that is, adminis •ation of departments by members of egco—and that preparations will be »ade in the coming 12 months for conference in London between the olonial Office and representatives

of Fiji, which will try to agree on a plan for Fiji’s future government.

There is no surprise in all this: it merely gives official shape to pro cedures that have been forecast by in telligent observers for some time.

Otherwise, there is vagueness and uncertainty in the announcements.

For example: How will the “representatives of Fiji” at the London Conference be chosen—by election, or by nomina tion, or both?

Will those “representatives” repre sent the Colony as a whole, or will they represent the clearly-defined communities?

Necessarily, in planning future gov ernment, each Fiji community will seek special consideration in one direction or another—how will that be taken care of?

If it is proposed to hammer out, at the London conference, what will be virtually a new Constitution, will machinery be provided under which the people of Fiji will have a final opportunity of accepting or rejecting the new Constitution?

What measures will be taken, be fore the London conference, to create in Fiji an atmosphere more favourable for unity of thought and action, between the racial communi ties, in relation to future government?

Does the Colonial Office really appreciate the fact that, before serious preparations can be made for a Lon don Conference, it first must deal with the memorandum placed before the Secretary for Colonies by the Fijian Affairs Board in Fiji last Jan uary, in which it was made clear that the Fijians will not consider any con stitutional changes (that is, any change in the spirit or substance of the Deed of Cession) until certain es sentials have been dealt with. Those essentials are : • There must be a precise re statement of the guarantees on Fijian land ownership. • Fiji must remain a Christian State. • The Fijian people, through the Fijian Affairs Board and the Council of Chiefs, should continue to be con sulted in advance on any proposed legislation affecting Fijian rights and interests.

Does the British authority realise that this Fijian attitude of wariness and suspicion has been created by

decades of uninformed fumbling at the British Colonial Office?

The retiring Governor of Fiji— who will be remembered mostly for his unfailing courtesy and urbanity— departs on a note of cheery optimism.

But much more than optimism will be needed by his successor, whose task will be to find answers to the fore going questions.

They've Been

Too Long In The Bush

WHETHER the colour of their politics is “extreme” or just “somewhat”—as a NZ journalist alleges—it is obvious from the tone of two recent petitions on the Cook Islands to the United Nations that their authors have been too long in the bush. The petitioners, who claim that NZ is frustrating the political ambitions of the Cook Islanders, are Messrs. Julian Dashwood and Ronald Syme. (See p. 21).

Julian Dashwood—who writes as Julian Hillas—has been in the Cook Islands since 1929 when he became a trade-store manager for A. B.

Donald & Co. Ltd. Before that he was a farmer in the Transvaal and a rubber planter in Malaya.

Ronald Syme arrived in the Cooks in 1953; he had previously been a newspaper correspondent and a PRO in the UK. Shortly after he took up residence, he espoused what he thought was the cause of the local people—-especially as it related to re organising them along commercial lines nearer his heart’s desire. He succeeded in getting the backs up of many people, including Cook Islanders.

Epidemics of criticism of the NZ Government’s role in the Cooks break out every time a correspondent visits the Group—and the criticism is not always without foundation.

Nonetheless, the worst thing that could happen to the 18,000 people of the Cook Islands at this stage would be for them to be cast off on to their own unviable economy.

Possession of the Group has never been of the slightest benefit to NZ.

But without NZ’s Support the Cook Group would be unable to maintain itself in the manner to which it is now accustomed.

All the Group’s exports go to NZ and NZ grants in the last financial year amounted to £730,000 against only £500,000 raised locally. These simple book-keeping facts make nonsense of the mischievous petitions of Messrs. Dashwood and Syme.