Scientific Study Of Native Labor

Sir Hubert Murray Explains Why Indenture System Is Still Necessary in Papua

From Our Own Correspondent.

PT. MORESBY. December 19.

HIS Excellency, Sir Hubert Murray, the Lieut.-Governor of Papua, was invited early last year by the Australian Association for the Ad vancement of Science to be one of the representatives at the centenary meet ings of the British Association, which was held in London last September.

Unfortunately, Sir Hubert Murray was unable to leave the Territory at the time, and Papua had to forego the honour of being represented at these meetings of world-wide scientific in terest.

Sir Hubert had prepared a paper for the Association, namely, “The Scien tific Method as Applied to Native Lab our Problems in Papua.” and this was read by his brother, Prof. Gilbert Mur ray, before a large gathering of scien tists. It attracted considerable interest to those concerned with the problems of native welfare of the present day.

The paper, which is a clear exposi tion of the labour legislation of Papua, expresses the sincerity of the Govern ment in seeking to be guided by cer tain fixed principles, the most import ant of all being the welfare and the development of the native race en trusted to their care and the develop ment of the country in which they live, in their interests as well as in the in terests of the white settlers who have been attracted to the Territory.

The development is in most in stances a combination of white capital and native enterprise. The enterprise is supplied by voluntary Papuan labour —indentured or free —the indenture system being the most usual in prac tice and found to be satisfactory under

the existing circumstances of Papua to day.

To quote Sir Hubert Murray: “The indenture system is a necessary insti tution at the present stage of Papuan development, and its retention for the present can be fully justified, not only from the point of view of the em ployers, but also from that of the na tive.

“Still, the indenture system, though necessary under the existing circum stances of Papua, is not a system I should care to make permanent. Per sonally, I should be glad to see inden tured labour replaced by free labour, but I do not think that this will come about until the native has developed a sense of responsibility that will hold him to his contract without penal sanc tion; and it appears to me that when we can do without penal sanction we can do without indentured labour alto gether.”

In conclusion, Sir Hubert calls atten tion to development of native enter prises. In Papua, this is a slow and tedious affair, for the Papuan does not take kindly to continuous and mono tonous tasks on his own behalf. It would be extremely difficult to educate him to establish and maintain plan tations for himself on his own initia tive without supervision or punish ments. He makes no provision for the future; “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” is his motto.

Still, in time this policy of purely native enterprise will eventually be successful, though, Sir Hubert Murray states, “The danger is that the per sistence of the white man may break down before the vis inertiae of the Papuan’s ‘masterly inactivity.’ ”

The attempt to form a scientific lab our policy in Papua is no easy task for an administrator, for it means (to quote Sir Hubert Murray once more) “Imposing upon a primitive people a form of activity involving a conception of duty—which is really strange to them.”