Rabuka’s triumph in Australia
p. 11 · Read in the full issue
FIJI’S Prime Minister has come away from his first official visit to Australia not just with the warm echos of I endorsement ringing in his hears but with his new kindler, gentler image cemented in the mind.
A photograph in the Sydney Morning
Herald said it all the smiling Rabuka walking in a finely cut suit and overcoat under a canopy of Canberra’s flowering blossom trees. 11 was a far cry from his previous big splash in the media in the aftermath of the 1987 coups. Since that time images such as that of the new coup leader cradling his automatic weapon in his lap, for the duration of an interview with Chanel Nine’s Jana Wendt, have been etched in the Australian mind.
While the change of image may be gratifying for the Prime minister person ally, perhaps more important is the new
I tone in relations between the two countries. As a result of I Rabuka’s visit Fiji-Australia relations are widely perceived I here to be better than they ever have been and they are also I on a genuinely more equal footing.
As Australia’s Prime Minister, Paul Keating, put it, I relations with Fiji have “entered a new phase”, one which I had both the Australian Prime Minister and his deputy, Brian I Howe, falling over themselves with effusive praise.
While the language remained that of diplomacy, Howe’s I comment that Australia had been “greatly encouraged and impressed” by the manner in which the parliamentary process had been restored in Fiji and the depth of Paul Keating’s warm welcome, made their mark. Howe’s comments, made as they were to the 600 or so potential investors who attended “Lako Mai Fiji”, Fiji’s big trade promotion exhibition in Sydney, are likely to have been
particularly welcome.
A part of the new tone in relations stems from both sides having found a means of dealing with each other on the basis of equal partners. That was best seen in the fact that neither side felt forced to back down on strongly held views for the sake of sensibilities on the other side.
Australia for instance still believes Fiji’s constitution is “representative” rather than “democratic”, while Fiji has criticisms of the “rules of origin” in SPARTECA, Australia’s preferential trade agreement with the Pacific island nations.
Those views were expressed, but as part of a full and open dialogue.
As Paul Keating put it after his talks with Rabuka, “We (Australia) meant to restore fully our traditional ties of friendship on a basis of equality and mutual respect.”
Australia, he said, was “committed to help Fiji take full advantage of the opportunities now available to promote national reconciliation and harmony, and to help advance that country’s economic development.”
The new equality was also seen in Rabuka’s insistence that Fiji was interested in trade rather than aid, and in the thrust of Fiji’s economic policy which the Prime Minister outlined to business audiences in Sydney. “Previous governments have sometimes taken the view that we should redirect our foreign policy and trade initiative away from traditional partners such as Australia and New Zealand, in order to avoid dependency and as a reaction against political differences of opinion.
My government holds a different view. Whilst we should
continue to sensibly seek new markets and alliances ... we should at the same time build upon and consolidate relations with our traditional partners
and regional neighbours,’' Rabuka
said. □
Islanders vs Aborigi
nes The Australian Human Rights Com mission is investigating the plight of the descendants of Pacific islanders taken to Australia last century as virtual slaves to work on sugar plantations. The South Sea Islanders, as they are known to distinguish them from the tens of thousands of more recent Pacific island migrants, are making their presence felt. The Hu
man Rights Commission investigation, which includes the first ever detailed cpnsus of South Sea Islanders came at the request of former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, after lobbying by the island community.
The islanders’ fledgling political organisation (the Austra lian South Sea Island United Council ASSIUC) wants recognition of its members as a disadvantaged black minority and they want the same rights as Aborigines with the exception of land rights. With justification they say they have suffered the same discrimination and in particular want the same special benefits in health housing and education.
But the campaign is not just a sign of a new pride and vigour in the South Sea Island community. It is being spurred along by a bitter dispute between the South Sea Islanders and the indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island commun ity a dispute which has intensified as the islanders’ voice is heeded.
Essentially the problem has been caused by a clamp-down on eligibility for Aboriginal benefits. Up until the last few years South Sea Islanders, although they have never been legally entitled to Aboriginal benefits, have been able to claim them with the knowledge and apprroval of the bureaucracy right up to ministerial level. Increasing pressure for budget cuts and the advent of ATSIC (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), which two years ago gave Aborigines more control over their own resources, has led a tougher policy against islanders.
In some places the row is so bitter that islanders have been evicted from their houses by Aboriginal Housing Co operatives they helped establish or had vital educational benefits withdrawn as a result of anonymous letters. Many individuals working in the Aboriginal affairs bureaucracy, for a long time the only real career path open to islandsers, now fear the sack because they no longer meet the Aboriginally criteria for their jobs.
For people like veteran islander activist, Faith Bandler, rift with the Aboriginal community is appalling. In the 50s and I 60s she was one of the founding members of the campaign I which eventually led to the 1967 referendum which gave I Aborigines citizenship and paved the way for the very benefits I now in contention.
The census being conducted by the Human Rights I Commission is designed to provide the first hand evidence on I these difficult questions and to establish a socio-economic I profile on the islander community. □ I