Regulations Explained

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31335, 4 April 1967, Page 22

Regulations Explained

Mr Sadler’s article was referred to the Minister of Immigration, Mr Shand, who in reply makes it clear that his comments apply to Fiji workers generally, whatever the racial group to which they belong. The Minister's reply follows. In drawing up and administering our immigration programmes we take several factors into account. Not the least of these is our two-fold duty of protecting New Zealand’s interests and the interests of the people concerned whether they are coming here for permanent residence or for visits. The arrangements to which your contributor refers were designed accordingly. ' By mutual agreement between the two Governments, Fiji residents have been coming to this country on threemonth permits for a very long time. Increasing Number In 1956 we approved the entry of approximately 500 such visitors from Fiji. During the ollowing ten years the numbers rose very sharply and in mid-1966 we were faced with the prospect of accepting 15,000 to 20,000 during that calendar year. A number of them were already having difficulty in finding work and we reached the conclusion that if we did not overhaul the system, several thousand people . who had committed themselves to the expense of coming here would find there were no jobs for them when they arrived. This was not the only thing that concerned the Fiji and New Zealand Governments. There was evidence that a growing number of people in Fiji were setting themselves up as employment agents for the express purpose of exploiting visitors intending to come to this country. The prospective visitor was being encouraged to submit bis application through the agent who would lend him the money for his return fare to New Zealand at exorbitant rates of interest, and with the promise of an unspecified job which did not always materialise. Similarly, in this country, there were some unscrupulous people who were prepared to take advantage of the Fiji worker. On top of this, the New Zealand immigration authorities were faced with a difficult task in tracing too large a number of Fiji visitors who had overstayed their permits and who were quite prepared to continue evading our immigration laws.

The Fiji Government was concerned about this aspect also because the attendant publicity did not improve the public image of Fiji in New Zealand. Reasons for Limit

By a mutual agreement, the two Governments decided to introduce a more rational procedure so that everyone’s interest, including that of the Fiji visitors, would be protected.

Over the years, the New Zealand Government has considered requests to grant to Fiji visitors longer periods of stay than the traditional three months, but successive Governments have been convinced that they should not extend the period for the following reasons: A shorter period enables a greater number of -Fiji visitors to share the opportunities of working here. It is not desirable that the workers be separated from their families for longer periods; The longer people are here the greater the difficulties of immigration control.

The article suggests that the rule that Fiji visitors are not allowed to change their employment savours of an indentured labour system. This would be more true if the visitors were coming here for long periods and New Zealand was actively recruiting Fiji labour. Furthermore, a New Zealand employer offering work to a Fiji worker can reasonably expect to retain him for a period long enough to make the engagement worth-while. This would not happen if the visitor was allowed to change his job several times during a period of three months.

It must also be remembered that while the employment of Fiji workers is of benefit to this country and the New Zealand Government facilitates their visits for this purpose, the need for the present arrangements has been generated by the widespread interest and desire of Fiji people to come here for work. Privileges to Fijians On occasions we have been accused of imposing on Fiji visitors restrictions to which visitors from other countries are not subjected. On the contrary people from Fiji and from some other Pacific Island territories enjoy a privilege which is not extended to our general run of visitors. It is our general policy not to permit visitors from other countries to work here. Instead they must show evidence of being able to maintain themselves in New Zealand without working. We do not, therefore, discriminate against non-working visitors from Fiji. I do not propose to repeat in detail the various reasons

I have given on previous occasions for not allowing

certain Fiji visitors, who have married New Zealanders, to remain in this country. Our general policy is to allow New Zealand citizens to bring in their husbands, wives or fiance(e)s irrespective of their racial origin. However, in the cases about which there has been so much publicity I have insisted on the departure of the people concerned and refused their re-entry meantime, not because they married whilst they were here as visitors, but because they have resided here illegally, some of them for long periods, in the full knowledge that they were committing breaches of our immigration laws.

Evidence we have shows that the majority of these offenders entered into marriage for the express purpose of avoiding the consequences of their immigration offences. No country can afford to condone deliberate and continuing breaches of any of its laws. Until I am satisfied that the practice is disappearing, I shall have no alternative but to continue taking a