Bill Creating Council For New Guinea

Is Passed—An Uproarious Scene.

REPORT AND COMMENTS BY R. W. ROBSON.

THE New Guinea Bill, which confers a new Legislative and a new Executive Council upon the Mandated Territory of New Guinea, in place of the recent Advisory Council, passed its second and third readings in, the House of Representatives on 2nd November, and was immediately transferred to the Senate.

It is expected that the measure will be put into operation as soon as it is through the Commonwealth Parliament —which will be this month.

THE debate on the second reading and committee stages of the Bill occu pied 45 wearisome pages of Han sard —which provide an example of the futility and hopelessness of the modern form of Parliament.

I sat down to read this verbatim report of the debate, intending to con dense it somewhat and re-publish it for the assistance and encouragement of New Guinea residents. I ended the task in a condition of mental exhaus tion and physical disgust—and with a strong feeling that someone ought to apologise to New Guinea on behalf of Australia.

A few of the speeches were well-in formed and helpful; but most were either the silly outpourings of men without any knowledge or conception of tropical administration, who babbled about New Guinea problems in terms of the trades hall and the shearing camp; or were the uninspiring plati tudes of hopeless politicians.

One reflects that it is bad enough to give the government of Australia into the hands of the gentlemen, thick in the head and myopic as to vision, who are thrust into high places by dear old Mr. Demos; but it is terrible to think that our trained and educated officials, who rule over huge tropical areas and hundreds of thousands of primitive natives, must do the bidding of such people.

Therefore, I shall not waste the time or insult the intelligence of my readers by attempting to reproduce the debate.

I shall give some of the principal points from the more thoughtful speeches; and, for the rest, I perhaps can add something to the gaiety of the New Guinea nation by describing some of the quaint views held regarding Is land administration by the represen tatives of the great Australian democ racy.

A Careful Minister.

The provisions of the Bill were pub lished in full in our September issue. They were described in detail by the Minister in charge of Islands affairs (Major C. W. C. Marr) in a careful speech, which contained an excellent historical summary. It ob viously was a speech prepared to tickle the ears of Geneva and placate the great Australian Labour Party, which is quite convinced that oruel and rampageous “bosses” are exploit ing the country and enslaving Brown Brother.

Major Marr, in a speech of an hour’s duration, did not say much about the need for assisting and en couraging private enterprise in the

development of this Territory’s rich natural resources, and in creating conditions suitable for white settle ment; but he spoke at length concern ing what the Administration has done, and will do, in civilising and educating the natives, and in creating better health conditions.

In many ways it was an admirable speech. One could almost hear the cheers in Geneva, and even the sullen Langites purred a little. Although subjected to an irritating battery of uninformed and silly interjections, the urbane Major kept his temper and per formed his task creditably, and left everyone with a comfortable feeling that the whole resources of Australia are being devoted to building up a magnificent New Guinea for the native New Guineans.

There was nothing new in the speech —simply a review and, in a sense, a defence of Australia’s administration in N.G. The minister said that the following were the “main heads’’ of the Government’s policy at the present stage of the Territory’s development: 1. The preservation of native laws and customs so far as they are not repugnant to our sense

of morality, and the cultivation of a better under standing of native thought and native habits of life. 2. The eradication of native diseases and the acceptance of responsibility for the medical care and treatment of natives. 3. The prohibition of traffic in arms, liquor and opium. 4. The protection of the native labourer in his contractual relationships. 5. The inauguration of a system of native agriculture for the cultivation of foodstuffs and economic crops by the natives. 6. The participation of natives, to an increas ing extent, in the administration of the territory.

Splendid!—as far as it went. But what about the encouragement of the planters, and the miners, and the founders of industries, and the trans port firms (shipping and aviation), and all the others who are really doing Australia’s work of developing these tropical regions?

The minister, with one timid eye on the League of Nations, and one calcu lating eye on the Red corner where the Langites snuffled suspiciously over his Bill, had very little to say about those things.

Interjections!

The Minister said that more cadets would be appointed, to become patrol officers presently, and penetrate into unknown territory.

Mr. A. Green: And look for a bit of gold in between times!

The Minister (sternly): If they go prospecting they will be obliged to leave the service. (Residents of New Guinea will please refrain from making disrespectful re marks.) The Minister described the Constitu tion of the new Legislative Council. (See P.I.M., Sep., 1932.) Mr. James (who is a particularly noisy member of the Lang Group): Are the natives not to have their representa tives?

The Minister, instead of ignoring the quaint gentleman, patiently explained

that the N.G. natives are hardly yet in a condition to accept political responsi bility.

Mr. James insisted that in five or ten years the natives might have developed sufficiently to take a share in Govern ment.

The Minister said that the N.G. na tives were the most backward in the world.

Mr. James: But the Government is educating them!

The unfortunate Minister kept his temper, and patiently explained that there are about 520,000 natives in New Guinea, and only a very small section are reached by schools. He said the League of Nations was pleased with Australia’s record in N.G., where the na tives had responded in gratifying man ner to kind treatment by the whites.

“And where they have been belted to death by plantation-owners,” interjected the ineffable Mr. James!

Rabaul’S “Hell”!

Mr. Makin, a thoughtful, moderate Labourite from South Australia, ap peared to generally approve of the Bill — but voted against it on the second read ing! He considered that greater protec tion should be given the paid-off labourer against exploitation by Asiatic tradesmen. Chinatown, in Rabaul, was one of the worst hells through which a native had to pass.

Mr. Makin thought the natives should have a trade union, and suggested that, in due course, they would organise! He thought, also, that N.G. should have, in stead of the dictatorial Administrator, a system of local government, providing for representation by franchise. Evi dently, Mr. Makin is quite willing to thrust the horrors of democracy (farcical Parliaments, unstable Governments and professional politicians) upon New Guinea.

Mr. Makin considered that the Gov ernment was missing a golden opportun ity to amalgamate the Papuan and N.G. administrations.

Plea For Amalgamation.

The outstanding speech of the debate was made by Mr. R. F. H. Green, the Country member for Richmond, who has a wide experience of tropical adminis tration and an excellent knowledge of conditions in Papua and New Guinea.

Mr. Green’s speech was informative and well-reasoned in character, and moder ate in tone, and is worth preserving as a valuable contribution to the literature dealing with New Guinea affairs. Only a summary is possible here, Mr. Green strongly urged that the Papuan and New Guinea administra tions should be amalgamated. The con ditions in the two territories were prac tically the same, although there is some diversity of native types and consider able differences in the languages—not as between the two territories but as be tween the very numerous tribes and communities throughout the two terri tories. There should be one Legislative Council, one Executive Council and one administrator or governor. The advan tages of amalgamated control far out weighed the disadvantages. The advan tages were fundamental and would go to the root of administration. The dis advantages were merely the difficulties of co-ordinating two systems of admin istration that had been built up from different bases. There were also ob stacles to amalgamation in the finances of the two territories. But these diffi culties could be fairly easily solved, to the great future advantage of the two territories and Australia. One immediate advantage would be the co-ordination of the laws of the two territories —a re vision and consolidation of the laws of New Guinea were most urgently needed and were long overdue. Amalgamation had been urged by Sir Hubert Murray in 1921 and subsequent developments had strongly supported the views of that able and far-visioned administrator. Mr.

Green feared that the passing of this bill would make amalgamation less likely.

Mr. Green made a strong point of the fact that the bill and past acts were deeply concerned with native welfare, while giving little attention to the needs of those who were settling in the territories and improv ing the lot of the natives. He empha sized that the mandate instructed Aus tralia to consider the welfare of the Ter ritory’s inhabitants, which did not ne cessarily mean only the native inhabit ants.

Administration Praised.

‘‘I have visited New Guinea several times and most tropical countries,” said Mr. Green, “and being thus qualified to form a judgment, I have no hesitation in saying that the Australian administra tion of that Territory has been particu larly good. It was initiated by officers who had to gain their experience, and they can be justifiably proud of the re sults they have achieved.”

Mr. Green then dealt in detail with the work of the various departments. His review was favourable, his criticism kindly, and his numerous suggestions constructive and helpful. Most residents of the Territory will heartily endorse his remark that New Guinea has suffered from too much centralization and that Rabaul is inclined to regard itself as the whole Territory. He hoped that the ap pointment of the new council would check that tendency.

“Stone-Age People.”

Another good speech was made by Major R. G. Casey, D.S.O., M.C., a new member of the house, who attended the League of Nations meeting and, with

Mr. P. E. Coleman and Mr. E. W.

P. Chinnery, explained to a critical com mission what Australia is doing in New Guinea. Major Casey gave particular praise to the medical services in the Territory and the education activities of the missionaries.

“These natives are stone-age people,” said Major Casey. “They have the men tality of children. I speak on the author ity of persons who know the anthropo logical development of New Guinea na tives when I say that for generations to come the natives will not reach a posi tion appreciably above their present cul ture. Their participation in the conduct of the territories’ affairs is out of all reason.”

Dictators And Mr. Beasley.

In spite of this definite statement of fact, the Langite leader, Mr. J. A. Beas ley, entered the debate with a strong plea that the natives of New Guinea should have some direct representation in the new council. And, of course, be ing Mr. Beasley and a product of the great Australian democracy, Mr. Beasley insisted that the 3,000 white residents of New Guinea were much more competent to govern New Guinea than any single individual who might be selected by the Federal Government for the post of ad ministrator and given dictatorial powers.

Mr. E. J. Harrison made some thought ful remarks about the need for main taining the high type of official in the services; and then came another con tribution from the Lang corner this time from Mr. J. S. Rosevear, a hitherto un known gentleman who was used by the machine to throw the Napoleonic Theo dore out of the Dalley seat in the last election.

Mr. Rosevear, of course, expressed his lively hatred of the administrator’s dic tatorial powers and insisted that there shall be “representative government.”

He declared that “the eyes of the civil ised world are upon New Guinea.” We may also pass from this speaker with the pertinent reflection that his appear ance in public life is the result of the form of “representative government” which he advocates.

The main contribution to the debate by Mr. Moses Gabb (the gods were in a jovial mood when they created a poli tician with a name like that!) was a statement that the difference between what is now proposed in New Guinea and what now exists is the difference between “tweedledum and tweedledee.” The final authority still lay with the adminis trator.

Which is perfectly true —and, on the whole, a very good thing.

The next speaker was Mr. R. James, the Langite giant from the coalfields.

He is the gentleman whose mental horizon is limited to New South Wales and the magnificence of Mr. Lang and who, nevertheless, lifts his voice on all possible occasions, as a self-constituted authority on industrial conditions in New Guinea. He is of the opinion, which he expresses noisily and nastily that Pacific Islands natives have been gen erally enslaved by brutal and ruthless planters. He talked for 20 minutes about the Larkin case, in defiance of the Speaker, who tried to make him keep to the Bill; and when the House refused to allow him to incorporate in the de bate a lot of newspaper matter relating to the Larkin case, he blazed with wrath.

A Lively “Scene.”

Then occurred an incident which had a lively sequel.

Mr. James contended that the brutal handling of natives had been going on for a long time before the Larkin case.

Mr. R. Green: Nothing of the kind!

Mr. James: How do you know?

Mr. R. Green: I know the Territory and the honourable gentleman does not.

Mr. James (nastily): I have not put the country to the cost of paying my expenses to New Guinea as the hon. member has frequently done. I am not prepared to accept the cock and bull stories which he brings back with him.

Mr. R. Green (savagely): And I have not put the country to the expense of maintaining me in gaol, as the honour able member has done more than once.

This section of the debate closed in uproar, but it was re-opened on Novem ber 9.

Mr. Green then pointed out that Han sard had reported Mr. James’s attack on him, but not his reply to Mr. James.

“It is well-known that he has served more than one sentence, including one for indecency,” added Mr. Green.

There were cries of “Shame,” uproar and a demand for a withdrawal and apology.

Mr. Green complied; but complained bitterly of an obvious campaign of studied personal insult. He could not get protection, and had to protect him self.

The Speaker sternly refuted the sug gestion.

Mr. James, white with fury, said it was 25 years since he was last in trouble.

Chorus of members: Let it go we don’t want to hear it!

Mr. James declared that he had never been convicted of indecency. He added that Mr. Green was the greatest drunk ard in the House.

There was more uproar.

Mr. James was compelled to with draw.

Mr. Green demanded an apology owing to “the utter untruth of the state ment,” but the Speaker ordered no fur ther action.

More Of The “Debate.”

We return to the New Guinea debate.

The Minister spoke for half an hour in reply to various points made concern ing his Bill; but he did not have much to answer. He declared that in no other

part of the world are the native workers so explicitly protected by law as in New Guinea—a statement which New Guinea people will heartily support. No native in New Guinea is compelled to work.

He did not receive a high wage—and he did not expect it. His needs were simple —so long as he was well fed and kindly treated he was happy and contented.

Commenting on Mr. Green s plea for a jury system for white men charged with criminal offences, the Minister made the interesting announcement that if the New Guinea people desire the jury sys tem may make representations to new legislative council, The Bill passed its second reading on what apparently was a party vote—the United Parties supporting it, and the Labour Parties opposing. Even on a non-party subject like New Guinea, these unfortunate politicians cannot rid themselves of the habits of the environ ment in which they are trained.

In committee, Mr. A. Green made fur ther sapient remarks about N.G., con tending that there should be no change there, such as handing over the Terri tory to the planters, traders and miners, until natives can take part in the Gov ernment.

Mr. Beasley again insisted that the workers be given representation, Mr. Makin said that could be done through the shop assistants’ organisa tion.

The patient Minister explained that the shop assistants are black, though departmental heads are white, Mr. Scullin opposed the idea ot capital punishment and boasted of how he, while Prime Minister, sent a radio to Sir Hubert Murray, stopping an execution of a native murderer that had been or dered by the Lieut.-Governor and his council.

So it went on, hour after hour, while the few men in the House who know something of tropical conditions writhed in their seats.

The Bill went through, about 11.30 p.m., and the Minister assured Mr. R.

Green that the new Legislative Council will, at an early date consider various urgent questions relating to the native labour ordinance, indentured labour, education, clothing of natives, and the

goldfields road.