Deportation Of Macarthur Onslow

Boomerang Effect of Newspaper Agitation

IN the middle of July a youngish man, named Captain Macarthur Onslow, arrived in Sydney with the astonishing information that he had been thrown out of Norfolk Island because he could not pass a dictation test in German. He said that he had crossed swords with the Island’s Administrator, Captain C. R.

Pinney, and that the latter had im properly used his dictatorial powers to deport him.

Immediately, certain newspapers ‘‘bawled their heads off.” They noisily insisted that this was an outrageous case of interference with the liberty of the subject—a monstrous perversion of British justice—a damnable reflection upon the fair name of democracy, and so forth. They joined their howl with the howl of Macarthur Onslow in de manding the head of Captain Pinney

upon a charger. Even the “Sydney Morning Herald” gave prominence to the statements of Mr. Onslow. It was an extraordinary chorus —but perhaps the magic lay in the name of Macarthur Onslow, which is not quite unknown in Australia.

The newspapers should have known that a man of Captain Finney’s type and reputation would not have taken the drastic action which he did unless there were extremely grave reasons for it.

They might at least have waited to hear the other side of the story, instead of falling under the hypnotism of a Macarthur Onslow.

This particular Macarthur Onslow, however, overplayed his hand. There was such a clamour in the newspapers, that the Prime Minister was compelled to deal with the case on the floor of Parliament and was obliged to make public, under the protection of Parlia mentary privilege, certain matters relat ing to the unfortunate man which, in other circumstances, need not have re ceived publicity. Macarthur Onslow had only himself and his newspaper friends to blame for what happened.

Speaking in the House on July 25, the Prime Minister said that the Nor folk Island Administrator was a man in whom the Government placed the utmost confidence, and he had supplied the following information: ‘‘Mr. Macarthur Onslow arrived at the Island, a recognised dipsomaniac, and he was allowed to land only on condition that his subsequent conduct was satisfactory. . . . Before he was allowed to land his case was dis cussed with the captain of the vessel which conveyed him there, with the manager of Burns, Philp and Co., and with the Government Medical Officer at NI. He was permitted to land on 24th.

April 1933, on sufferance. As a known dipsomaniac, his return ticket was held by the shipping company and, during the time of his stay, he was under the constant supervision of the Medical Offi cer and surveillance by the police.

During his stay his conduct was such, as in the opinion of the Administrator, did not justify his remaining there. He joined with many of the disaffected citizens and, according to the Administra tor, encouraged them. . . . Some exsoldiers, in association with Mr. Macarthur Onslow and others, held a meet ing at which they voiced their dissatis faction in respect to the actions of the Administrator. Mr. Macarthur Onslow encouraging them. At the same meet ing, officials of the then defunct organization, most of whom had held executive positions, did their very best to dissuade the others, but failed.

It was stated that the police visited the premises of Mr. Macarthur Onslow in regard to illicit liquor brewing and had found nothing. That is so. But on that visit Mr. Macarthur Onslow admitted that he had been brewing, and said that the liquor had been stolen.

Mr. Lyons then made a spirited defence of the Administrator and emphasised the difficulties of that gentleman’s position The debate, according to Hansard draped on for about an hour, and cer tain notorious talkers of twaddle took

full advantage of the opportunity, with out saying one word to assist or illuminate the Norfolk Island situation, it was clear, however, that the well-informed opinion of the House was behind Captain Pinney.

Mr. Scullin, leader of the Federal Labor Party, closed the debate with the following admirable summary: “This man was admitted to the Island under surveillance, and in a community in which there is only one police con stable, a very serious situation would be created if a man were allowed to do just as he liked. Of course, it may be only one man’s word against that of another, but I do not think that the man who was deported has denied having brewed liquor on the Island, and that it was stolen from him. He has not denied that he was under the influence of alcohol, and was in an un controllable condition. He has not denied that he created a disturbance in the Church of England, or that he was involved in an assault, convicted, and fined. Everywhere he went he was a nuisance, because of his unfortunate weakness. In the circum stances, the kindest thing that could have been done to him was to send him back to his home. I am not going to join in a tirade against a public servant for carrying out his duty. If the present complaint against the Administrator were supported by other complaints from residents of the Island, I should be among the first to press for the holding of an inquiry; but there is no justification at present for placing this official under suspicion of maladminis tration by instigating an investigation. The very fact that the captain of the vessel which brought the man to the Island held the return half of his ticket is evidence that he could not be relied upon even to do that much for himself. In my opinion, his friends have been badly advised to work up this agitation.”

That was the end of the matter. Mr.

Macarthur Onslow disappeared from the front pages of the newspapers—and is not likely to be heard of again.

Certain charges of “gross dissatisfaction” in Norfolk Island, and directed against the administration of Captain Pinney, were left in the air. The Prime Minister only com mented upon them to the effect that the Norfolk Island people are a little different from an Australian community, and corres pondingly difficult to handle. Mr. Roland Green in the course of a statement in the House, said that a public meeting in Norfolk Island attended by 404 residents described Mr. Macarthur Onslow’s deporta tion as “a gross miscarriage of justice.”

We have no other information on this subject. This is the first time that we have heard that there is dissatisfaction in Nor folk Island with the administration of Captain Pinney. All other reports to date have been definitely in the contrary direction.