Up Front

with the Editor

Chances are that Australia’s immi gration policy is about to become as colourful as Australia’s new Immigra tion Minister, Mr Al Grassby. Mr Grassby is noted for his colourful dress and speech. He loves talking.

He talked too much on a national television interview the other day.

He was explaining the new Labor Government’s immigration policy, which he said had three guiding prin ciples: I—Compassion; 2 —respect for human rights; 3 —the Australian national need. He said the new gov ernment had abandoned the practice of bringing in migrants merely to keep the numbers up, and was now collect ing information so that it could put together a practical, long-term policy on population for Australia.

There’s nothing wrong with any of that. Mr Grassby spoiled the new image by an off-the-cuff exchange with a member of the television audience, a gentleman who grasped at the opportunity to raise the case of Nancy Prasad, the Fiji-Indian girl who was deported from Australia to Fiji in 1965 as a youngster. Her parents are living in Fiji, but in Australia she was staying with her sister and overstayed her permit.

The gentleman asked the minister whether he “would be prepared to re consider Nancy’s case if it were brought back to your attention?”

“She wants to come back,” said the gentleman.

“Does she?” asked the minister.

“How old is she now?”

“She’s 13.”

“Well, if she’s still as nice as she was when we deported her when she was five. I’ll be delighted to welcome her back!”

“Thank you very much!” (AP

Plause.)

Within hours Mr Grassby an nounced firmly that Nancy would be allowed into Australia, and within 24 hours the entire Prasad family from Lautoka had applied for entry (see picture, p 11).

Now let me make myself clear.

Australia’s immigration policy is

racist. Any Frenchman or American, providing he is white, can walk into a job in Australia and take up residence without any special reason or qualifi cation. A Cook Islander, or an Indian, will get a visitor’s permit and no encouragement to stay perma nently.

For years PIM has drawn attention to the iniquity, especially in reference to the Cook Islanders, who are New Zealand citizens, able to move in and out of New Zealand without restric tion. New Zealand citizens can move in and out of Australia without restriction —but not if they are Islanders —from the Cook Islands or anywhere else.

Mr Grassby’s new government is now fixing that. As you can see from the report on page 11, there is now to be no restriction on any New Zealand citizen entering and working in Australia so long as he has resi dent status in New Zealand.

That decision shows the respect for human rights that is one of Mr Grassby’s guiding principles. It gets my warmest applause.

And I support any policy that does not use skin colour as the criteria for entry, whether or not they happen to be New Zealand citizens.

But everybody who wants to work and live in Australia clearly can’t enter. There wouldn’t be enough jobs; the social services couldn’t stand it. Mr Grassby’s third principle, national need, has a part to pl a Y- So how do we decide who is to be permanent and how many?

When Mr Grassby puts together the facts that will give him his long-term policy I hope he will come up with something practical, such as a quota system, or a requirement that ca Is for a migrant to have special skills (such as Fiji requires now), in addition to compassionate grounds for entry. . £ , 1 hope that the new colourful criteria for entry to Australia is not going to be “who you know”, or how many strings you can pull. Im mediately after that television show

some Islanders of my acquaintane were asking rather bitterly whi special skills Nancy had develop* between the ages of five and 1 not to mention the rest of her famill They had friends and relatives whor they submitted, were more deservii migrants than the Prasads.

Perhaps so, perhaps not, but tl point is that Mr Grassby’s off-the-cu approach has too many anomalies, will develop a smell that will stir most in the nostrils of Islanders bao home, who already resent the way which some of their compatriots ha T been able to wangle entry into Au tralia. Last year we aired the ca. of the man who had the gall to g himself appointed a lustice of tl Peace in Sydney, although here on temporary permit issued by the pr vious government and with a cou conviction to his discredit in Fi When Mr Grassby’s party was elects to power in Australia in Decembi this persistent fellow promptly pul lished a letter in the Sydney Mornir Herald, congratulating the new Prim Minister on his “sweeping victory which he said he had supported, ar criticised the “selfish motives” of tH previous government.

Australia doesn’t need him. Bi we’ll get him and more like hi: unless Mr Grassby makes the ruli clearer than they are now.

Meanwhile, good news on ai other facet of Australian Imm gration. This time Fiji Prime MinisU Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and tH previous Australian Government ai responsible. In February last yej Ratu Mara asked Australia to allot Fiji technicians into Australia to woi to gain more practical experience. F wasn’t talking about trainees, bi fully qualified tradesmen.

In a few weeks Australia gets th vanguard—just two to start witl sponsored by the Australian Soul Pacific Aid Plan while any bugs g<; worked out of the new systerr There are 20 more to follow sod after, who will work in Australian ii dustry for periods of from six montH to two years—being paid directly tt their employers here.

That’s a breakthrough worth re cording.

THE first of the changes in Pin that I mentioned in this column in January are to be found on pp 6?e 76. MANA is a big new monthlj collection of Islands creative writim and art, and I’m excited at being abk to introduce it to PlM’s wide] audience. For South Pacific Creativ Arts Society subscription details se. p 127.

Stuart Inder