Australia nearly pre-empted discussions on the issue of seasonal migration of Pacific workers by releasing a report just before the Forum, that the country did not have a need for Pacific workers in the country.

Dev Nadkarni
Events just before and outcomes at last month’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting clearly showed the markedly different ways in which New Zealand and Australia view their relationships with the islands nations. 

Following developments in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea that brought diplomatic relations between those two countries and Australia to near breaking point, a dark cloud of uncertainty hung ominously over the meeting when it began. 

As soon as she landed at Nadi, Helen Clark set about meeting key leaders to soothe ruffled feathers. “No one wanted the Forum to fail,” she told the media. She is reported to have worked hard behind the scenes to set the overall conciliatory manner in which the meeting later proceeded.

John Howard, in contrast, appeared aloof and cocooned in his security ring, even not being available for a meeting with one of the leaders.

Australia nearly pre-empted discussions on the issue of seasonal migration of Pacific workers by releasing a report just before the Forum, that the country did not have a need for Pacific workers in the country.

New Zealand, on the other hand, used the opportunity of the Forum to announce its policy that will see 5000 workers from seven Pacific nations working in the country as early as next year. If Australia’s push for the Pacific Technical Training College is meant to look like it is promoting human resources development in the islands, there is a loud ring of self-interest to it than altruism. The country has a dire shortage of tradespersons and the college is bound to suck out Pacific islanders trained to Australian standards at the islands’ expense.      

On the issue of refugees—both political and environmental—Australia was non-committal as always. Over the years, Australia has made deals with the islands, especially Nauru and Papua New Guinea, to use their sovereign territories for dumping refugees and asylum seekers who land up on its shores in lieu of financial compensation and aid.

Also, just weeks before the Forum meeting, the Australian environment minister stated that environmental refugees from the islands as a result of sea-level rise were unlikely to be resettled in Australia. New Zealand has not only shown willingness to resettle some of those political refugees and asylum seekers but also islanders from atoll nations like Tuvalu who would be inundated first in the event of a sea-level rise or even a tsunami of moderate intensity.

Clark said she and New Zealand were sensitive to Tuvalu’s concerns. But Tuvaluan Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia went on record saying that although he tried to meet with Howard during the Forum, he did not have the time for an appointment.

And though it didn’t push its idea of a common Pacific currency this time given the obviously hostile dispositions of some of the member nations, it has time and again tried to moot the idea of such a currency pegged of course to its own Australian dollar.

As in the past, New Zealand has clearly shown a far more compassionate approach towards the islands and the many difficult issues facing them. It is for this very reason that the United States wants to learn about the islands from New Zealand, than from its close ally across the Tasman.

And given the continued belligerent posturing of both Australia on the one hand, and PNG and the Solomons on the other, even after the Forum meet, New Zealand has its role as a mediator—whether official or unofficial—cut out for it. Thanks to its longer, deeper and friendlier relationships with the islands and also its close ties with Australia, New Zealand can and will have to play that role in the coming months.