Table of Contents
The area now known as the Pacific was settled from west to east in surges of movement between island groups over hundreds of years, eventually taking people as far as Hawai’i in the north, Rapanui/Easter Island in the east and Aotearoa/New Zealand in the south. Throughout this process people maintained networks of contact between some of the islands, travelling in various kinds of seagoing vessels. Epeli Hau’ofa (1993a) has described the pre-colonial Pacific, the area he prefers to call Oceania, as a ‘sea of islands’ within which people moved freely and frequently, created social networks, traded and exchanged goods, and at times engaged in conflict and attempted to exert dominance over one another. His depiction of the Pacific is constructed in opposition to the ‘Western’ perspective which emerged during the colonial period and emphasises the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the small size and isolation of the areas of land dotted across it. The worldview Hau’ofa describes suggests a Pacific model of migration and transnationalism in which the ocean connects migrants to their homelands and is not regarded as a hindrance to their ongoing, enduring ties.
The early patterns of inter-island mobility, such as that between Tonga, Samoa and Fiji (Kaeppler 1978), continued and expanded once Europeans entered the Pacific and colonised all but Tonga. The colonial era afforded opportunities for movement within and beyond the Pacific, initially for men working on European and American vessels in the late 18th century. By the mid–19th century a labour trade had emerged in which Islanders, mainly from what had become known as Melanesia, spread across the Pacific to work on plantations and into Queensland, Australia, to work in the sugar cane fields. Other Islanders found their way to port towns like Auckland in New Zealand, and Sydney in Australia, and settled there as the earliest Pacific migrants. Some of this movement was voluntary as people sought new ways to access the goods and money that were rapidly transforming their home economies, while some was part of the notorious ‘blackbirding’ in which people were taken against their will (Howe 1984). Movement between the islands also involved Islander missionaries, from the late 19th century to mid–20th century, with the mainly east-west flow of these missionaries reversing the direction of the initial migrations into the Pacific. As Hau’ofa (1993b) has shown, these are just some of many forms of movement within the Pacific in the period before World War II.
The Pacific was the last region of the world to be affected by European and American imperialism and after World War II it was also the last region to undergo the often difficult process of decolonisation. This began in 1962 when Western Samoa (now Samoa) gained independence, and continued throughout the 1970s and ’80s, although even today some of the islands are not fully independent. It was during this post-war era that people began to migrate from the Pacific in significant numbers and this movement was influenced by the colonial history of the islands. The USA and New Zealand opened pathways for migration for Islanders with whom they had colonial ties, whereas other nations with colonies in the Pacific, such as England, Germany and Australia, did not follow suit; in the case of French colonies there was significantly more movement of French settlers into these countries than of Islanders to France. To some extent this influenced the predominance of migration from the regions known as Polynesia and Micronesia, with far less movement from the region known as Melanesia in the Western Pacific.
Tonga is an unusual case in the Pacific because it was the only country that escaped colonisation. In the colonial era its main links were with Britain, of which it was a protectorate from 1900 to 1970, but there was no preferential treatment encouraging Tongans to move to England. However, even without any access to migration through colonial ties, Tongans have managed to migrate in significant numbers since the late 1960s, mainly to New Zealand, the United States, and Australia, keeping Tonga’s population relatively stable since that time. There are now more Tongans living overseas than in Tonga, if the overseas-born are included, as is the case for many Pacific populations.
One of the most recent developments in Pacific migration has been a rapid increase in the mobility of Fijians and Indo-Fijians. Although Indo-Fijians began migrating to Canada and the USA in the mid–1960s and have also moved in large numbers to Australia and New Zealand, fewer indigenous Fijians migrated internationally until late in the 20th century, when increasing political and economic problems in Fiji led to a surge in migration by both indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians (see Schubert, this volume). Migration from Fiji expanded rapidly in the aftermaths of the coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006. For example, Carmen Voigt-Graf cites Fiji’s National Planning Office as claiming that ‘over half of Fiji’s stock of middle to high-level labor was lost over the 10 years following the 1987 coup through emigration’ (2007, 149). However, migration from Fiji is not simply motivated by its political crises and Hannan describes the economic problems caused by downturns in the sugar and garment industries that also have motivated migration (2006; see also Stahl and Appleyard 2007).
Mohanty provides a useful overview of the history of migration from Fiji, describing the ‘“great waves" of outflow of skilled human resources during the 1980s and 1990s and again after May 2000’ (2006, 111). This skilled migration has included nurses and other health workers migrating to a range of countries (Brown and Connell 2004; see Connell, this volume), and movement of Fijian soldiers working for the United Nations as peacekeepers and members of the British Army in Iraq (Connell 2006a, Mohanty 2006). Many former Fijian soldiers have found employment as security guards for private companies in the major Iraqi cities and other Fijians are employed in support roles in Kuwait, covering engineering, mechanical and information technologies (Connell 2006a, 67).
There also has been some movement of Fijians within the Pacific, working as temporary skilled migrants in many Pacific countries in a wide range of professions. Rokoduru (2006) provides an interesting case study of Fijians working in the Marshall Islands and Kiribati in 2002, most of whom were indigenous Fijians and most of whom were remitting. She found that they moved ‘in order to make the most of better economic and social opportunities elsewhere, and that they have every intention of returning to Fiji’ (2006, 184). Rokoduru concludes that ‘the success and future of this trend of intra-regional migration in the Pacific rests largely on one crucial aspect of temporary labour migration: that it remains just that—temporary’ (ibid, 185).
What follows is a brief overview of the patterns of Pacific Islander migration to the three main destination countries—New Zealand, the USA and Australia.[1] This chapter also introduces the topic of transnationalism and surveys the literature on the Pacific that has addressed the many ties that have now been formed by Pacific peoples at home and abroad since the post-war migrations.
New Zealand’s role in the Pacific during the colonial era has shaped its history of migration, as have frequent changes in immigration policies over the years (Bedford 1984). In the post-war era New Zealand gave citizenship to people from the Cook Islands and Niue, which it had formally annexed at the beginning of the 20th century, and Tokelau, which it had administered since 1926. The Cook Islands and Niue are now self-governing territories in free association with New Zealand, while Tokelau remains a non-self-governing country. Each of these countries continues to have close ties to New Zealand and so many people have used their citizenship to migrate that the populations remaining in the islands are now considerably smaller than the migrant and overseas-born populations living in New Zealand.
In contrast, Western Samoans did not gain citizenship rights in New Zealand. Samoa was split into Western Samoa and American Samoa during the colonial era and after a period of German rule, New Zealand administered Western Samoa on behalf of the League of Nations then the United Nations from 1918 until 1962, when it gained independence. Nevertheless, many Samoans have migrated to New Zealand, and the Samoan Quota was established in 1970, permitting 1100 Samoans to immigrate each year.
In the 1950s the New Zealand government began actively recruiting labourers from Pacific countries to work in its rapidly developing industrial and agricultural sectors and from the late 1960s formal work-permit schemes were introduced, first for Fijians then for Tongans and Western Samoans, mainly for work in agriculture and forestry. The scheme ended with the 1987 coup in Fiji (Bedford et al 2007, 257). New Zealand also tried a brief period of visa-free entry for some Pacific Islanders in 1986, however, the net migration from Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa in the late 1980s was ‘more than double the number during the previous five years’ and this surge of immigrants led to the scheme being abandoned after only a few months (Stahl and Appleyard 2007, 23).
At that point the New Zealand government decided to shift immigration policy to favour skilled migrants, such as teachers, health professionals and others with a range of qualifications, and reduced migration options for unskilled workers. This was a significant change which has had an ongoing impact on the nature of Pacific Islanders’ movement into New Zealand. Another shift in policy in 2002 introduced the Pacific Access Category (PAC), which allows 250 migrants from Tonga, 75 from Kiribati and 75 from Tuvalu, and, since 2003, a further 250 migrants from Fiji. These migrants are accepted under certain conditions, and a ballot system is used to decide which applicants are successful. As with the Samoan Quota, the number of applicants through PAC has fluctuated and at times the quotas have not been filled. In late 2006 New Zealand again shifted its migration policies towards the Pacific and reopened access for seasonal agricultural workers, including those from Melanesia, first through the Seasonal Work Permit Policy (Stahl and Appleyard 2007, 35) then most recently the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme, specifically aimed at eligible Pacific Islands Forum member nations and offering 5,000 places per year (Department of Labour, 2007).
In addition to the Pacific Islanders who have entered New Zealand under these various policies and schemes, others have settled in New Zealand as illegal immigrants, or ‘overstayers.’ This became a contentious issue in the 1970s and although the New Zealand government responded with heavy-handed tactics for removing those that could be found, it also held amnesties that enabled many to gain permanent residence and remain in the country. Today, the many pathways that have led Pacific Islanders to New Zealand have resulted in a ‘Pasifika’ population in which Samoans are the largest group, followed by Cook Islanders, Tongans, Niueans, Fijians and Tokelauans (Stahl and Appleyard 2007, 22).
Australia did not instigate any preferential treatment for Papua New Guineans, despite its colonial ties to that country, nor did it assist migration from the countries of origin of the ‘South Sea Islanders’ (or ‘Kanaks’) working in the sugar plantations of Queensland. More generally, Australia tended to discourage migration from the Pacific through its ‘White Australia’ policy, in place from 1901 to 1973, and an emphasis on skilled migration. Nevertheless, there has been significant migration into Australia from the Pacific by various means, particularly the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA) which allowed Australians and New Zealanders to move easily between the two countries to visit, live and work. Many pakeha and Maori New Zealanders have taken advantage of this arrangement to move to Australia, as have many Pacific Islanders, who first became citizens of New Zealand.
The TTTA has generated considerable tension between Australia and New Zealand over the years, particularly when New Zealand instituted amnesties for Pacific overstayers and work schemes for unskilled and low-skilled Islanders. Australia was concerned that this would lead to poorly skilled Islanders entering the country and circumventing its stringent, skills-based immigration policies (Bedford et al. 2007, 258). By the end of the 20th century this tension led to a review of the trans-Tasman relationship aimed at restricting access to social security payments to New Zealanders in Australia.
Not all Islanders have entered Australia via New Zealand, however, and many of the early migrants were students who married and settled in Australia then sponsored their relatives to migrate. Australia’s family reunion policies have enabled these early migrants to initiate chains of migration in which the later migrants sponsored still more family members. Others have entered on short-term visas and become overstayers, working mainly in rural areas in the eastern states (see Schubert, this volume). In Australia today the largest group of Pacific immigrants are from Fiji, mainly Indo-Fijians who have entered as skilled migrants, followed by Samoans, Tongans and Cook Islanders (Stahl and Appleyard 2007, 40).
As in the case of New Zealand, the history of Pacific migration into the USA has been shaped by its colonial ties and ongoing political associations (Ahlburg and Levin 1990). The USA controlled American Samoa from 1900 and since 1951 these islands have been an unincorporated territory of the USA, granting American Samoans the status of US Nationals and free entry to the USA, but fewer rights than American citizens. The USA also grants free access to citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Belau (Palau), known collectively as the Compact States since the Compact of Free Association in 1986. In addition, Guam, which has been a US territory since 1898, has the 1950 Organic Act of Guam which gives its inhabitants US citizenship (Levin and Ahlburg 1993, 96).
Other Islanders, particularly Tongans and Samoans, have migrated to the USA by various means such as ‘step migration’ through American Samoa and Hawai’i. Many others had their moves to the USA facilitated by membership of the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) and they have settled around Mormon centres in Utah and Hawai’i. Some Pacific Islanders also have been able to migrate through the Green Card lottery system. Today, Samoans are the largest Pacific population in the US, followed by Micronesians, Tongans and Fijians (Ahlburg and Song 2006, 111).[2]
The populations of Pacific Islanders in these three main destination countries are large relative to the populations remaining in the islands. Attempts to describe this diasporic spread include Gerard Ward’s discussion of the ‘expanding worlds’ of Pacific Islanders (1997) and Hau’ofa’s depiction of the ‘enlarged world of Oceania’ and ‘expanded Oceania’ (1998, 392). More recently, Manuhuia Barcham has proposed the term ‘new Polynesian triangle’ to describe the population that stretches beyond the Pacific to North America, New Zealand and Australia (2005; see also Barcham, Scheyvens and Overton 2007). If we extend this idea to include the mobility of people from Micronesia and Melanesia we could speak of a ‘new Pacific triangle’. Macpherson and Macpherson (this volume) refer to a Samoan ‘meta-culture’, an idea that could be applied to other Pacific populations.
However they are described, the diasporic populations of Pacific peoples are so large, relatively speaking, and have maintained such strong links to their island homes, that they cannot be ignored in any discussion of the Pacific. The case studies presented in the remaining chapters of this book explore those ties to the islands: the multiple and complex forms of transnationalism that have developed since the first movements out of the Pacific and continue to shape the lives of Pacific peoples both at home and abroad.
These ties were first established by the early migrants who, for the most part, settled permanently in their new homes. From the start, many expressed an intention to return home, but relatively few have done so, at least not permanently, and there are now second and third generations of these populations established in the destination countries. There also has been some temporary migration, particularly to New Zealand where, as we have seen, various short-term labour schemes have been introduced. In recent years the opportunities for temporary migration have been expanding, as people with different skills—teachers, rugby players, soldiers, health workers, and so on—look globally for opportunities for mobility. Pacific Islanders now live and work in places such as the Gulf States, the Middle East and Japan (Voigt-Graf 2007, 151; see also Voigt-Graf, Iredale and Khoo 2007). This movement of skilled workers and professionals adds to the concerns about ‘brain drain’ that have also been expressed in relation to longer-term migrants (Connell 2004, 2006b, 2007).
Whether they move away from the islands temporarily or permanently, few Pacific migrants do not maintain ties with their homelands and there is an ongoing flow of people, money, goods, ideas and so on, between those at home and overseas, and across the diaspora. This flow is captured by the term transnationalism, which has become a central preoccupation of scholars of migration worldwide in recent years.
[1] More detailed overviews of Pacific migration can be found in Connell (1990, 2002, 2006a, 2006b), McCall and Connell (1993) Stahl and Appleyard (2007) and, for Australia and New Zealand, Bedford et al (2007).
[2] In the 1990s there was a surge in Samoan migration to the US, ‘increasing 70% in the 1990s compared with 22% in the 1980s’ (Ahlburg and Song 2006, 110). Shankman provides a useful overview of migration from Samoa, showing the fluctuations in numbers migrating and shifts in favoured destinations as host countries changed their immigration policies (1993; see also Janes 2002).