Canberra Plans Big

Year For S. Pacific

From a Canberra correspondent

The South Pacific is not often dis cussed in the Australian Parliament, although Papua New Guinea generally gets its fair share.

But 1977 looks like a big year for the South Pacific as far as Canberra is concerned. An Australian parlia mentary delegation was visiting several countries in the area during July.

In addition the influential Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is conducting an inquiry on “the need for an increased Australian commitment in the South Pacific’’, the first inquiry on the region conducted by the Australian Parliament. One was started some years ago, but never completed.

The committee’s terms of reference on “the need for an in creased commitment” suggest there is a healthy recognition by Australian parliamentarians that there is such a need in some areas more than others. It also seems to represent a welcome move away from more paternalistic attitudes and a growing recognition of Australia’s obligations to its near neighbours in the South Pacific.

At this stage, the committee is ex pected to report to parliament about October.

Its recommendations could have an important influence on the future direction of Australian policies in the South Pacific.

It is perhaps symbolic that the committee did not receive an over whelming response to its requests and advertisements for submissions.

There is a continuing interest among Australians in the South Pacific but much of this seems to re main superficial and too often centred on tourism.

The lack of response probably reflects the general lack of concern among Australians with the South Pacific. It is considered a stable, friendly part of the world.

The Senate committee’s enquiry is, therefore, a good opportunity for greater attention to be drawn to some of the area’s problems, Australia’s role and the future

development of international rela tionships in the region.

It is particularly interesting that the committee has apparently re ceived no response from some of the big Australian companies estab lished in many areas of the Pacific.

The companies have been criticis ed by the committee’s chairman.

Senator Peter Sim (Liberal, WA) for their failure to respond. He has warned against the companies developing an “ugly Australian” im age among the nations of the South Pacific because of this sort of at titude which is not altogether new. At least one member of the committee has said he believes the companies should be called before the committee. If the inquiry is to be comprehensive it will be essential that the committee does hear from companies like Carpenters and

Burns Philp.

One submission from Professor H C. Brookfield of Melbourne University, provided some pointed criticism of Australian commercial activities in Fiji.

There was also a fairly disap pointing response from the academic community.

The first people to appear before the committee were from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

They placed emphasis on Australia’s

expanding diplomatic relations in the region: • A consulate now established in Honiara; • The announcement that a High Commission will be established in Apia and • A proposed consulate in the New Hebrides.

These will give Australia an ex tensive network of diplomatic rep resentation in the region, sup plementing its offices in Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia, Nauru, Fiji and New Zealand.

Emphasis was also placed by the Development Assistance Bureau on Australia’s rapidly-expanding aid commitment to the South Pacific; $l5 million was programmed for the current year.

The committee’s inquiries indi cated that probably about $l3 million will be spent though it could be more.

It was made clear to the com mittee that this will not reduce the total of $6O million committed over the current three-year period.

Perhaps the most important aspect of evidence presented by the Department of Foreign Affairs is the awareness by the department of the importance to Australia of the South Pacific as well as Papua New Guinea. Australia has come a long way in this respect in just a few years.

To this extent, the committee has already covered a lot of familiar ground the traditional issues such as Australian economic dominance in the region, trade, aid and so on.

But the committee has also ven tured into some important new areas.

They questioned officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs on Law of the Sea issues. These are im portant to Australia and probably of even greater significance to the Is land nations of the Pacific.

Members of the committee have raised questions about the “200 mile economic zone” as it might affect trade and communications. It might also raise problems in the Islands with the development of resources of the sea and seabed.

This, in turn, raises the issue of how the proposed “zone” can be policed and the right to resources defined.

Some pertinent questions have

also been asked about prospects for increased defence co-operation be tween Australia and its Island neighbours.

There is already some co-op eration. But, with the new “econ omic zone” concept and with poten tial for increased difficulties over fishing rights, there may be more scope for such co-operation. Sur veillance, if it is to be effective, might be an area for some co-op eration it will obviously be an enormous and complex task.

The committee has also shown in terest in the problems of cultural preservation in the South Pacific at a time when tourism is having an in creasing impact on traditional cultures and lifestyles.

It is unlikely that the committee will be able to provide any solution

to these problems but they might be able to suggest some guidelines for future Australian policy. That, in it self, could be of value to the govern ment.

Another issue, potentially of even greater significance in the future than in the past, is immigration poli cy.

There are, currently, some rum blings among Islanders in Australia about alleged off-handed treatment by Australia.

While they may have received the same visa treatment as anybody else, some are beginning to ask whether Australia should show a little more recognition of the particular needs of Islanders.

This might be an area where “an increased commitment’’ will be con sidered by the committee.

Proposals have also been put to the committee for a significant health research programme on such problems as diabetes and hyperten sion among Islanders as develop ment is stepped up. It is an idea in which members of the committee showed considerable interest.

The committee has asked Foreign Affairs for some supplementary material directed more specifically to its reference. As a result. Foreign Affairs will go back before the com mittee later.

The whole inquiry raises some in teresting issues as to the role of parliamentary committees in such an important area. These com mittees do, on some occasions, have influence on government policy.

They can certainly act as a sound

ing board for community reaction.

But a committee such as the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has a particular problem.

As a committee, members have no right to overseas travel to pursue such a reference. Its perspectives could, therefore, be limited and this, in itself, could limit the value of its findings.

However, one of the committee members is travelling through the South Pacific with a parliamentary delegation. Another member is making a visit to the region under his private overseas travel entitle ment as an MP.

It also emphasises the problem facing the committee since it re ceived almost no response from the Pacific Islands despite adver tisements in newspapers.

Nevertheless, they are trying to draw on the expertise of Islanders in Australia. For example, they will be having discussions with the High Commissioners of Papua New Guinea and Fiji in Canberra.

With vital new issues relating to international economic develop ments and signs of some significant changes in the Island nations, the Senate committee’s report could come at a critical time for Australia’s relations with the na tions of the region.

A lot of people hope that its scope will be broad enough and influence sufficient to consolidate the begin ning of what seems to be a new ap proach by the Australian Govern ment to relations with the South Pacific.