Samoans pack House for bill submissions

Press, 1 September 1982, Page 1

Samoans pack House for bill submissions

Parliamentary reporter

Normal select committee protocol was waived at Parliament Buildings yesterday when about 300 Samoans crammed the Legislative Council to make submissions on the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill. Some engaged legal counsel to speak for them; others read their own written submission, some squatted on the floor in the island tradition, some spontaneously asked to make submissions.

Families ■ were present from throughout the North Island.

The spokesman for the Samoans present, Mr Puni Raea, said that he had told Samoan groups of their rights to make submissions, but had put no pressure on them to attend. The level of attendance reflected the intense interest of Samoans in the legislation, he said. Many had taken leave from work. More than 50 submissions had been received by the committee yesterday, and 17 of these were spoken to. A predominant theme of submissions was the fear of New Zealanders and the

Government — regarded as unfounded — that thousands of Western Samoans would seek entry to New. Zealand if the Privy Council ruling stood. It did not occur before independence in 1962, when Western Samoans had almost unrestricted access to New Zealand; it was not happening now with Cook Islanders and Tokelauans, or with Australians. From 1971 to 1976, the average net long-term migration of Western Samoans to New Zealand was nil, on Statistics Department figures, said the Pacific Centre, Auckland. From 1976 to 1981, the average figure was minus 24.8 people. “This clearly shows that more Western Samoan people are leaving New Zealand than are arriving,” said Mr Tuiasau, for the Pacific Centre.

“In the 10-year period, total net Pacific migration did not exceed 4000 people. One may well be excused for wondering what all the fuss is about.”

A Western Samoan speak-

ing on behalf of a Christchurch Samoan group, Miss Louisa Crawley, said that fears of ah,influx were unfounded.

"But if it does happen, so what." she said, to applause. “I know it might worsen your unemployment, but don’t be so selfish. “When Samoa was a mandated territory of New Zealand a lot of revenue came into New Zealand,” she said. “Samoans coming here, who were born between 1928 and 1949, will not be using any service they did not earn.” “We look after our own people," said another. “They are no charge to your old people's homes.”

“We cannot immediately apply for your benefits just because we become citizens. We have to live here for months first." “The real reason for the legislation,” said a Western Samoan permanently resident in Wellington, Mr P.

Field, “is that the Heylen poll showed that 70 per cent of New Zealanders want to see the Privy Council decision overruled. It is an easy way out for the Government.”

A spokesman for the Church and Society Commission of the National Council of Churches, Dr B. Hucker, said that the Privy Council decision should have been given time to work. If a large influx occurred, voluntary restraints could be negotiated with the Western Samoan Government and the Samoan community, or the Government could review its trade and aid policies to help diminish the “immigration push factor,” he said.

: Legislation should have been a last resort and should not have deprived citizenship status, but provided for choice. ■ Submissions protested about the lack of time to prepare submissions, and explore the ramifications of the legislation, and alternatives lo it. * The Taga-I-Uma group in Western Samoa lodged a submission by telephone from Apia, saying that there was little public discussion in Western Samoa of the proto-' fol before it was signed. ‘‘People did not know what was in it,” they said. : “We suggest." said Mrs Sofia Godfrey and 15, other Samoans, “that the agreement of the Western Samoan Government to this bill was motivated by the fear that the Privy. Council decision might be totally set aside if it did not agree." - “A change in the immigraJion procedure to address reasons for overstaying would be sensible. These jvere family reunification, education of children, and Support of old and sick relatives. * The Attorney-General, Mr McLay, asked Mr Puni Raea jf he realised that his submission that-family reunification in New Zealand be pelaxed would be a special arrangement, applying only to Western Samoa. 4 Mr Raea said that the protocol emphasised the special relationship of friendship between the two countries. and that the relaxation could occur on that basis. s At present permanent residence on grounds of family reunification is permitted .when only one family mem-

ber remains living outside New Zealand. Mrs Tala Cleverley asked that the 1100 permanent immigration quota should make allowance for the number of resident Western Samoans leaving New Zealand to take up permanent residence in Samoa. At present the rate was fixed regardless of net migration loss of Western Samoans. Mr McLay said that the committee would give careful consideration to a submission asking that citizenship: be granted "immediately” . on application to Western Samoans entitled under the bill to apply, and not be subject to administrative delays “amounting to months.” Mr Raea said that Western Samoans should not need to make application for citizenship if they qualified under the bill. They should obtain immediate grant of citizenship on leaving; Western Samoan soil, “so that the moment they set foot in New Zealand they are fully

fledged citizens, no whit inferior to other New Zealand citizens." Mr McLay said that this amounted to foisting citizenship on people who did not want it, but Mr Raea said that Samoans would accept it if the Western Samoan Government permitted dual citizenship. The committee will meet again today to consider submissions from groups other than Samoan. Changes in the basic purpose of the bill— to overturn the Privy Cpuncil ruling, and to grant citizenship to all overstayers in New. Zealand at time of enactment, and to those entering in accordance with immigra-. tion procedures applying before the council decision — seem out of’ the question, although a relaxation of some immigration provisions is likely. Because the bill ratifies an agreed protocol, changes cannot be made to its substance.