Aust, racial decision said to be insulting to N.Z.

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32679, 7 August 1971, Page 3

Aust, racial decision said to be insulting to N.Z.

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) SYDNEY, August 6. An Australian Cabinet immigration policy decision was regarded by New Zealand as “nothing but an insult,” a front-page report in the “Australian Financial Review” by a Canberra correspondent, Fred Brenchley, said today.

“Somewhere in the Australian Cabinet runs a hard streak of bigotry,” the report said. “While our restrictive immigration policy has been a constant source of friction with Asian countries, Cabinet has now made a decision on entry policy which Australia’s closest ally, New Zealand, regards as nothing more than an insult," Brenchley reported. “And the ' New Zealand feeling is not without justi-i

» fication. For some years, 5 the New Zealand Government . has expressed concern about [ hurdles which Australia has • placed in the way of entry of some coloured New Zealand - citizens to Australia.” i Since the 1920 s there had i been an arrangement wh.eret by white citizens could move i freely to and from New Zea- - land and Australia this in- - eluded Australian Aborigines i and New Zealand Maoris - but other coloured people had to obtain visas. 1 - “N.Z. more liberal” I New Zealand had been much more liberal than Aus-j tralia, however, ’ and there: (had been few problems with, the New Zealand entry of Australian-born Chinese or other coloured Australians. “But a succession of incidents at Australian airports - have raised hackles, in New , Zealand,” Brenchley wrote. “Coloured New’ Zealanders other than Maoris arriving , without visas have found . themselves subject to quest-' toning and delays while an entry permit is obtained.” ( New Zealand was upset by . what is regarded as racial discrimination against its citizens. After a New Zealand sug- ( gestion that there should be an open Tasman policy under , which all Australian and New : Zealand citizens could move across the Tasman without, visas, regardless of colour,. the Autralian Immigration De-! partment had “swung round” : behind the move. ( Thrown out < < A Cabinet sumission was prepared. However, the Cabinet had thrown out the proposal last month. “Small wonder that the Im-1 migration Department shud- < ders every time somebody i points the finger and raises the cry ’racism’,” Brenchley i wrote. f “The New Zealand Govern- |

;, ment, however, has not taken t the Australian Cabinet decist ion lying down. s “Giving Canberra the f thumbs up sign, Wellington 1 last week decided it would go ahead with its side of the pro1 posal.” - The Wellington move had 5 been received with an an - embarrassing silence in Can- - berra, Brenchley said, and s Australia had not explained - its rejection of the proposal. Minister comments Asked to comment yesterday, the Minister of Immigration (Dr Forbes) said in '.Adelaide that the Australian ’ I Government was “obliged to J take into account wider ad-1 ,’ministrative implications and. , issues. “In any event, there is no embargo on the travel of such persons in Australia. The only requirement is that they obtain prior permission for entry,” Dr Forbes said. Brenchley commented to- | day: “The ‘wider administra- • tive implications’ which Dr ( Forbes mentioned are really , the fears of the Australian j Cabinet that agreeing to the New Zealand proposal would i create a precedent.” ( Brenchley said the prece-, dent could be embarrassing . for Australia if Fijians and New Guineans, for instance, c claimed the same right of f entry. “The logic of this line of approach would appear to be that while it is fair to discriminate against coloureds in favour of whites in the over-all immigration programme, it is unfair to discriminate among coloureds on entry policy.” “Bad time” The decision had come at a bad time for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Brenchley said. Australia had entered negotiations in the South Pacific for some "post-colonial grouping.”

1 The Minister of External Territories (Mr C. Barnes) and other officials were representing Australia now at a meeting in Wellington to discuss this. “Mr Barnes will have a hard time persuading Commonwealth South Pacific leaders of Australia’s deep interest in the region when everybody present knows full well that the reason behind rejection of the New Zealand scheme was that Australia: did not want to establish a precedent which would allow their citizens equal right to enter Australia as their white British national counterparts,” Brenchley said.