salary
pp. 4-5 · Read in the full issue
Letters To The Editor
A
common
bond
Madam, Thank you to Tarcisius Tara Kabutaulaka, lecturer at the University of the South Pacific, for his report on the racism and prejudice that is present at the university (“Incubating a time bomb”P/M, November 1994).
Hopefully, it has opened minds of stu dents and lecturers alike to the prob lem.
As a university student in Australia, I have experienced and witnessed many occurrences of the same kind but no incident has resulted in such tragic cir cumstances as those that have occurred at the South Pacific campus. It is incred ibly amazing that people of the same race, such as the Fijians and the Solomon Islanders, are so racist towards each other that one island group can think itself superior to another.
It is a great shame as Fijians and Solomon Islanders are of one ethnic group, even though they are separated
by physical boundaries.
Melanesians, just as Polynesians, are beautiful people and, to a certain extent, share similarities in their culture and customs which are unique. To think of oneself as higher than the other is wrong as we share similar ancestral backgrounds.
To have different ethnic groups who live together in one ocean brawl about their superiority in that part of the world is ridiculous and shameful.
Let us not forget that whether we are Melanesian, Polynesian or Micronesian, we are one people - we are the people of the South Pacific and nothing will change that.
After all, it is our generation that will take our nations into the future through supporting each other.
So, please, fellow students of the University of the South Pacific, be civilised and together show the world what a proud and intelligent race of people we are.
Elizabeth Kurai,
Cairns, Qld, Australia
Forum's
salary
package
Madam,
I was interested to see the article “New Salary Structure Causes Dismay” (PIM, January 1995). It has some good points (I agree, for example, that we all need to live within our means), and some that call for correction.
The article implies that, for a range of underhand motives, Australia and New Zealand are largely responsible for reducing salaries at the Forum Secretariat to a level where that organi sation can no longer attract suitably
qualified people. There is no truth in this or in the other theories advanced in this article.
The decision to introduce a new salary structure at the Forum Secretariat was taken by representatives of all Forum island countries at the November Forum Officials Committee meeting. It was taken by consensus. It was not a case of Australia, or any other country, forcing its views on others.
The suggestion that Australia wishes to run down the Forum Secretariat is similarly untrue. Australia has complete confidence in the excellent job being done by the Forum Secretariat. Nor is there any truth in the suggestion that Australia is seeking to reduce its com mitment to the region. Indeed, Australian development cooperation with Pacific island countries has increased over the past few years. While future commitments will depend on the overall size of the aid budget, there are no plans to reduce our assistance to the Pacific.
The simple fact is that current salary packages for contract staff in Pacific regional organisations are higher than required to attract high calibre staff. The heads of some organisations earn a tax free salary higher than any regional prime minister. Directors of divisions and equivalents earn considerably more than any Pacific minister.
At a time when we are all trying to do more with less, such salary packages can no longer be justified. Sensible reduc tions in salary packages for contract staff in all regional organisations can be made while ensuring that they are suffi ciently attractive to ensure excellent people continue to be attracted to serve in these organisations.
Very importantly, however, it also means that up to Fsl million more per year can be spent on programmes that assist the intended beneficiaries, the cit izens of Pacific island states. This is in all our interests.
John Trotter,
Permanent Representative of Australia to the Forum Secretariat, Suva, Fiji
Hazardous
waste
issue
Madam, Alfred Sasako has provided excellent reasons for the development of a haz ardous waste convention for the Pacific region (“For a cleaner environment”, PIM January 1995). As an observer of the negotiating process for this conven tion, I have been both fascinated and disturbed by what I’ve witnessed.
A working group of Forum countries has now met three times to steer the Waigani Convention through the sur rounding politics. Its task hasn’t been easy because, despite the seriousness of the hazardous waste issue, the aims and
mechanisms of the Waigani Convention have been shaped by the politics and vested interests of the waste trade as much as by the good intentions and merits of the arguments.
Australian hazardous waste exports have been a significant factor in the position taken by Australia during these negotiations. For example, an internal Australian briefing paper cites haz ardous waste recycling as a viable devel opment path for Pacific island coun tries: “As PICs become more industrialised, they may wish to engage in trade in recyclable materials. Indeed this is a tra ditional development model followed by Japan and a number of Asian tigers. It would therefore be unfortunate if devel opment of this trade was nipped in the bud.”
Obviously, if a developing country is encouraged with foreign assistance to invest in capital intensive facilities for reprocessing imported hazardous waste, a continuous stream of hazardous waste is then necessary to justify the investment. This leaves the recipient of the dirty ‘technology transfer’ with the toxic by-products, residues and emis sions, and removes any incentive for industry to clean up its production processes at home. At the last working group meeting in Suva, one delegate understandably referred to this kind of development as‘immoral’.
For the Waigani Convention to protect
the people and environment of the Pacific from hazardous waste, it is criti cal the next negotiation sessions resolve to: 1) Ban imports of hazardous sub stances and products which cannot be used, for human health or environment reasons, in the country of manufacture.
In 1991, for example, 42 pesticides ille gal for use in the USA were exported to Pacific islands; 2) Support the globally ag *eed ban on exports of hazardous wastes from OECD (industrialised) countries to non- OECD countries; and 3. Reject a proposal by the USA to exempt military aircraft and vessels from outside the region from adhering to the Waigani Convention.
Papua New Guinea deserves congratu lations for recognising the need to pro tect the region and initiating action within the South Pacific Forum. The Forum deserves congratulations for tak ing up the challenge and keeping it moving. It is now in the hands of the Forum working group to ensure the spirit and integrity of the Waigani Convention is defended in the home stretch of negotiations. This observer will be watching with keen interest.
Noni Keys,
Greenpeace Pacific Campaign, Canberra, ACT, Australia