Luxury of your own viewpoint

your own viewpoint

In an ABC commentary last week I made passing reference to the mat ter of immigration of South Pacific Islanders to Australia.

I said that Island leaders have pointed out over the years that the right of Islanders to work in Aus tralia on temporary permits, a right which many Islanders already have in New Zealand, would help the economies of the poorer Island nations. It was, I said, a matter for the next Australian Government, of whatever political persuasion, to come to grips with.

I had one or two calls after that commentary, suggesting there was no reason why Australia should have to follow New Zealand’s immigration policy . , . and that in any case, as I myself had pointed out, Mr Mul doon had threatened to reduce Island migration into New Zealand.

Now the point of my reference last week was that I believed the election of Mr Muldoon’s govern ment in New Zealand, with his policy on immigration, would draw attention to Australia’s immigration policies as they affect the people of those South Pacific Island nations around our perimeter. Whether we are speak ing of temporary or permanent migra tion doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t matter what I think of Island immi gration to Australia (although I hap pen to support a quota system of entry). In the years I have been broadcasting on South Pacific mat ters, my task, as I have seen it (in my notoriously humble way!) is to inform my fellow-Australians about the problems and attitudes of Islanders.

Well, this matter of immigration has been for years one of the great talking points in the Islands, and Australians can continue to ignore it only at their own peril. And the subject has many facets.

Not long ago, for instance, it was important to a vocal number of Papuans. This was before Indepen dence, when Papua and New Guinea could be said to have had different political antecedents. Papua was an Australian territory, New Guinea a United Nations Trust Territory.

All this disappeared with Indepen dence, but not before the Papuan

This is the script of a broadcast made by Stuart Inder, publisher of the Pacific Islands Monthly, over the Australian national ABC net work on December 10, a few days before the Australian general election.

nationalists had argued that they were Australian citizens, with more rights than New Guineans who were merely Australian-protected persons.

But unfortunately it became obvious to both Papuans and New Guineans at that time that the so-called Aus tralian citizens had no citizenship right of entry to Australia, so it was rather an inferior “citizenship”.

Now I believe this question of easier Papua New Guinean access to Australia is merely dormant tempo rarily, while Papua New Guineans get on with the task of absorbing their independence, but in time it will become a live issue in that virile nation, with its population of almost three million.

Meanwhile, lying to the north-east of Papua New Guinea is a British colony of 7,000 people called Tuvalu —you can be forgiven for not having heard of it, because it was established only on October 1. Tuvalu was pre viously the Ellice portion of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. I happened to be at Funafuti, capital of Tuvalu, on the day the new “state” came into existence, where I talked with the members of the new House of Assembly including the man who next day became the Chief Minister.

Their colony had only a fish-and coconut economy virtually at sub sistence level and a promise of a yearly handout from Britain, but they said surely Australia and New Zealand would do something for them? At the very least, they said, Australia would allow Tuvaluans to work in Australia and send money home?

I have had that question asked of me, as most Australians have, in all parts of the Pacific.

Another example—At a recent high level seminar held in Tonga, both the Australian and the Tongan Governments were criticised for their immigration policy—Australia be cause of its restrictions, and the Tongan Government because, it was said, it failed to safeguard the in terests of its own citizens in this wider sphere.

There was criticism that perma nent migration to Australia was only for those of developed skills, thus creating a brain-drain in the very

• Continued on p 73

nintries that receive aid from Aus alia in order to build up their skills. was said that Australia and New ealand had a responsibility towards teir Pacific neighbours as well as to icmselves, and a wider variety of jople and age-groups should be Imitted.

Now this point about wider res msibility has been made by Ratu r Kamisese Mara, Prime Minister : Fiji, among other leaders. In Aus alia a few years ago Ratu Mara ade it clear that he thought Aus alia’s Island migration restrictions ere not the policy of the govern ent, any government, but of the ustralian people.

They were the work of a series of wernments doing what the Austra m people wanted, he said.

“But my problem in Fiji”, Ratu ara explained, “is to work the irious races together into multi cial harmony. If Australia treats y citizens differently according to eir race, it is working against my vn domestic policy”.

As I said, there are many facets this question of Island immigration Australia, and my point in this oadcast is that Australia will not ways have the luxury of viewing e question only from its own point view.

I present that as a simple state ent of fact.