Samoa Bill non-racist and fair — Mr Tauroa

Press, 8 September 1982, Page 3

Samoa Bill non-racist and fair — Mr Tauroa

Parliamentary reporter The Human Rights Commission yesterday considerably diluted its allegations of last week that planned Western Samoa citizenship legislation had "unfortunate racist implications."

The first admission came from the Race Relations Conciliator, Mr Hiwi Tauroa, under questioning by the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee set up to hear submissions on the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill. He said towards the end of five hours of hearing on the commission's statement that having heard Government justifications for the legislation he believed the bill was "fair and non-racist." “We could have looked at using the word ‘racist’ a little more closely,” he said. “It w T as an unfortunate choice of word. “I am a little wiser. The commission is a little wiser. We have a broader view of what happened.” Under further questioning. Mr Tauroa said that he had been approached by Western Samoans who feared the bill — at that stage not yet introduced — would be racist.

New Zealanders were sensitive to the dangers of racism, and a bill depriving Western Samoans of citizenship rights could be construed to be racist, he said. The bill had been misinterpreted and misunderstood, he said, because it had been rushed through “very fast.”

“Racist” was a term he never used, said the Chief Ombudsman, Mr G. R. Laking. “It was unfortunate we used this term.”

The problems raised by the bill were not “so directly related to the question of racial discrimination,” he said, but to discrimination of a different kind. “The bill takes New Zealand citizenship away from everyone (on whom the Privy Council decision confirmed it), and gives it back to a proportion of them on a preferential basis,” he said. The third member of the

commission. Miss M. M. Hutchison, said that she ‘ largely shared” the opinion that the word “racist" was unfortunate.

“If the word is going to bog the committee down, I will withdraw it,” she said. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Mr P. J. Downey, when asked almost at the close of the hearing whether the bill raised “repugnant” human rights issues, said only that it raised serious issues that could lead to misunderstanding by the public, and use of the word “racist.” ,

At the outset, he had told the Attorney-General, Mr McLay) that the emphasis of the statement was intended to be on the qualifying words, “unfortunate” and “implication.” Mr McLay: Come now, Mr Downey, every newspaper in the country has picked up the word ‘racist,’ and that was what everyone would have expected. Mr Downey said that racism was discrimination on the basis of colour. He was asked if there was anything in the bill that singled people out on the basis of colour. Mr Downey: Not specifically. Mr Tauroa said he regretted that so many people had not heard the material canvassed by the committee. “We would have quite a different range of reactions now,” he said.

Mr Downey argued that the legislation discriminated against Western Samoans particularly, because it withdrew New Zealand citizenship rights from them, but did not take them from citizens of other countries who also held New Zealand citizenship. They had done nothing to deserve losing rights given them by New Zealand legislation in 1928, he said. Mr McLay said that it was never the intention of Parliament in 1928 to grant New Zealand citizenship rights to Western Samoans; that it was contrary to the terms of the madate New Zealand exercised over Samoa from

1924 to 1948; and that Western Samoans themselves rejected New Zealand citizenship overwhelmingly in a referendum before independence in 1962.

Dual citizenship was ruled out by a 1959 Citizenship Ordinance in Western Samoa, that expressly forbade it. Mr McLay; If during the term of the madate, it was discovered that the 1928 legislation had conferred New Zealand citizenship would there have been “unfortunate racist implications” in passing New Zealand legislation to remove that citizenship right? Mr Downey: I don’t think so.

If in 1962 the Government realised that the 1928 act had conferred New Zealand status, and repealed that act to deprive Western Samoans of that status would it have had unfortunate racist implication? — No. I don’t think so.

If 20 years later, after independence, the 1928 act is found to have conferred New Zealand citizenship, what gives this bill the unfortunate racist implications that neither of the other two repeals had? — Western Samoa is not becoming independent now. We know now that Western Samoans born during 1928 and 1948 were New Zealand citizens. The bill is different from what would have been done at those times.

Mr Downey said that whether New Zealand citizenship was conferred by accident of New Zealand legislation or by design, Western Samoans born during the period were by law, New Zealand citizens.

Mr McLay said the bill did no more than legislation passed in a number of countries from 1947 that “separated” citizenship of old Commonwealth countries from the United Kingdom. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mr Merwyn Norrish, said that such legislation in New Zealand in 1948 removed British citizenship from New Zealanders, and was “the inevitable conse-

quence of the emergence of fully independent States." The commissioners said that more time should have been allowed for consultation. and that wider consultation would have been "of considerable value."

Mr Downey said that affected Western Samoans should have been given freedom to choose to be New Zealanders or Western Samoans.

Mr D. R. Lange (Lab., Mangere): It would have been cultural arrogance to override the Western Samoan Government and ask Western Samoans to make a choice.

Mr Downey: With the agreement of the Western Samoan Government. A different bill with a “sunset” clause was another way in which the Privy Council decision could .have been handled. Mr Downey said. Under such a bill the rights confirmed by the Privy Council decision would be deferred but not denied, as they were under the planned bill. The entry of Western Samoans could be regulated for the first seven or 10 years according to economic circumstances, and the desire of Samoans to take up permanent residence in New Zealand. At the expiry of the 10-year period, the Privy Council declaration would apply without restriction. Mr Downey said. Mr G. W. F. Thompson (Nat., Horowhenua): Isn’t that also discrimination? Mr F. D. O’Flynn (Lab., Island Bay) asked whether it was sufficient justification to take away a right because those who gave it were not aware they had given it? Mr Downey said that if ignorance of the law was no excuse, the law obviously applied when people thought it did not. The committee’s chairman, Mr P. I. Wilkinson, said after the hearing that he did not know when the bill would be reported back to the House. He did not know how long the committee might deliberate on the evidence.