WHILE THERE IS ALWAYS A CLOSE LINK BETWEEN THE SOUTH PACIFIC ISLAND NATIONS AND THE TWO REGIONAL SOUTH PACIFIC BIG BROTHERS AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND,IT IS ALSO IN MANY WAYS HAVE BEING THE RESULT OR THE EFFECT OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE ISLAND PEOPLE THROUGH MIGRATION AND SOME WERE THROUGH OTHER FACTORS AS BRIEFLY OUTLINED BY THE STATISTIC BELOW... Pacific-born NZ citizens in Australia, June 2008 Country Number Western Samoa 12,137 Cook Islands 6,293 Fiji 2,858 Tonga 1,450 Niue 890 Other Pacific 1,113 Total 24,741 Source: DIAC (2008: 44) However, the trans-Tasman movement of Pacific peoples is not all one way. The 2006 census results revealed that the major ethnic/ancestry populations of Pacific indigenous groups living in both countries included people born in their ‘home’ countries as well as New Zealand, Australia and other countries (Table 18). There were quite marked variations in the distributions by birthplace, but in several cases the share of New-Zealand born in the ethnic/ancestry group living in Australia was much bigger than the other way around. This indicates the trans-Tasman movement has tended to favour Australia. An interesting exception (shown in Table 18) is Cook Islanders, Niueans and Tokelauans—their share of New Zealand-born people in Australia (8.4 percent) was much smaller than the share of Australia-born in New Zealand (14.1 percent). However, the number of New Zealand-born Cook Island Maori, Niueans and Tokelauans to Australia (5,758) was much larger than the number of Australia-born in this ethnic cluster resident in New Zealand in 2006 (693). Also, far fewer New Zealand-born Tongans were living in Australia (8.5 percent) than NewZealand-born Samoans (15.7) or Fijians (15.1 percent). Between July 2001 and June 2006 the net migration gain to Australia of Pacific-born permanent and long-term trans-Tasman migrants was around 3,200—more than half of this gain (1,713) was Samoa-born migrants who had lived in New Zealand (Table 19). The second largest group was the Fiji-born (747) comprising Fijians as well as Fiji Indians. The ethnicity of arrivals and departures in New Zealand’s border statistics is not so easy to determine. With the total flows of Pacific-born migrants across the Tasman, New Zealand shows a net gain of Fiji-born (900), a larger net loss of Samoa-born (2,471) and a much smaller net loss of all Pacific-born to Australia. However, these net gains and losses derived from the total flows (PLT plus short-term) need to be interpreted with some caution, because only a sample of the arrival and departure cards for people entering and leaving New Zealand for less than 12 months are processed. There is a sampling error associated with the statistics for numbers entering and leaving the country, and this error becomes significant when small flows are examined. Pacific island-born populations, New Zealand and Australia, 2006 Subregion/country New Zealand Australia ANZ Source: Unpublished tables, Statistics New Zealand and Australian Bureau of Statistics The migrant populations from Fiji in both countries include a significant number of Indians. The Fiji-born Indian populations in Australia (29,735) and New Zealand (29,733) in 2006 were almost identical in size. Both countries received some migration of Fiji Indians in the 1960s and 1970s, but the main movement has come since the military coups in 1987. Most Fiji Indian migrants admitted in recent years have had the skills and/or capital to qualify under Australia’s and New Zealand’s points selection systems and business migration categories. Access to residence in Australia and New Zealand Theoretically, in policy terms at least, Pacific peoples have the same opportunities as people from other countries to seek work and residence in Australia and New Zealand. This access is framed in the form of the destination countries’ current points-based selection systems; provision for family reunion and sponsorship; and a range of international or humanitarian categories that accommodate small numbers of migrants each year. In practice, however, the skills-based points systems do not target the skills of most Pacific peoples, especially those from rural areas. The main routes to residence in New Zealand have been through: the special arrangements negotiated when its Pacific colonies gained self-government temporary seasonal work schemes the family reunion and international/humanitarian streams in immigration policy. In Australia’s case, Pacific numbers have built in the post-war period through a combination of: the survivors of a 19th century labour recruiting era in Melanesia the movement of family members born in Fiji and Papua New Guinea (often married to Australian citizens) the movement of Polynesians across the Tasman from New Zealand under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement the more recent migration of Pacific-born skilled migrants, especially Fiji Indians, who have gained entry under the points system. As we have already noted, these two countries have differed quite markedly in their approaches to migration from the Pacific (Bedford et al 2007). Since The Second World War, New Zealand has generally given more priority to its Pacific neighbours in both immigration policy and foreign affairs. Australia has played a key role in developing the commercial economies (especially the plantation, retail and service sectors) of all of the Melanesian countries except New Caledonia. However, its immigration policy has never prioritised the Pacific, and only Papua New Guinea has been a consistent element of the country’s aid and foreign policy in the region. Indeed, Australian immigration officials have persistently denied any special relationships with Pacific countries—they are treated the same as other countries Pacific ethnic/ancestry populations resident in New Zealand and Australia in 2006, by birthplace Source: Unpublished arrival and departure statistics, Australia and NZ The main point to take from the data above is that flows between the two countries are complex—the often cited expression ‘exodus’ of New Zealand residents to Australia does not do them justice. Pacific societies, which have major population concentrations in the islands as well as New Zealand, Australia and the United States, are linked through complex overlapping circuits of people, money, goods and information. These are best viewed as interconnected trans-national societies rather than as separate populations of Pacific peoples. The dynamics of population movement between the islands and Australia and New Zealand are very much affected by these interconnections. The importance of the Australian connection in the PLT arrivals and departures of Pacific-born migrants between July 2001 and June 2006 varied considerably by country of birth. Not surprisingly, trans-Tasman PLT arrivals and departures accounted for much higher proportions of those Pacific-born people who were New Zealand citizens by right (Cook Islanders, Niueans or Tokelauans) or who had special arrangements for access to New Zealand citizenship, such as the Samoan Quota (Table 20). Table 20: Trans-Tasman share of all Pacific-born PLT migrants entering and leaving New Zealand, July 2001 to June
Posted on: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:38:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015