Bureaucrats Of The Pacific

bureaucrats sit high in the saddle, in these days of degenerate democracy, and the harassed and over burdened taxpayer knows not how to unseat them. If that is so, in countries where there is a “Parliamentary form of government,” how much more is it the case in the Pacific territories, where the Administrators derive their authority from overseas!

This is not a condemnation of Pacific administrations generally. As a matter of fact, taking them by and large, the territories of the Pacific are admirably governed. Provided that the head men are chosen successfully, there can be no better form of government —for example: Papua, under Murray; Fiji, under Fletcher; New Guinea, under Griffiths.

European history tells us that there were no freer, happier, or more progressive nations than those led by benevolent tyrants.

The weakness of the system is this, that if the man on top is not very wise and very strong, there soon will spring into being, under the shelter of his authority, a gang of officials who are sycophantic in their relationship with

the High Command, and autocratic and intolerant in their dealings with the people they are supposed to serve. In a hundred petty and irritating ways, they abuse the governmental authority which necessarily is delegated to them. There are hundreds of them in Australia, com missioners and departmental heads of all kinds; and it seems sometimes that for every one who exercises his delegated power wisely and justly, there are two or three who take a peculiar delight in stamping upon the little remaining per sonal liberty of the people, and generally in showing what splendid little Napo leons they are. But, in Australia, we can at least make a protest against the bureaucrats, and the public newspapers, even now, are filled with our howls.

Residents of the Islands territories have no recourse —they must simply swear and bear it. Judging by some of the echoes which reach Sydney, the swearing fre quently is loud and deep.

A newspaper editor, to whom come the attacks on bureaucracy, is often in a difficult situation. He knows full well that in all public services there is a proportion of men who are permitted to

occupy positions of responsibility, yet who are temperamentally unfitted exercise authority over their fellow-men; and he knows, also, that in every com munity there are people who naturally will always resist authority, and who dislike all officials whether good or bad, and who can be controlled only by the forthright exercise of authority. There is not a public officer anywhere in the Islands who has not met some of these curious misanthropes, and been vastly puzzled as to the best way of handling them. It is often impossible, on the data presented, to judge whether the official concerned is a power-drunk bureaucrat, or the complainant merely a trouble making crank. Of course, when the real crank gets into holts with the bull necked bureaucrat, the wisest Solomon of all would flee from the judgment.

We have a case in point, at Rabaul.

The report is that the Administration is coolly filching the land of the Matupi villagers, for purposes of an aerodrome, and that the natives are talking of revolt.

This is an incredible story; but an uncer tain and disturbing factor in the situa tion is the presence in Rabaul of certain officials who enjoy a first-class reputation as dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats. We heard hair-raising stories of their activ

ities and exploits during the Wisdom regime; but they faded into the back ground in June, 1932, when Thomas Griffiths took charge. The report to which we refer is quite clearly an attempt to create the impression that, under the new Administrator, the bureaucrats are seeking power again; and, therefore, until more is known, the report must be treated with caution. But it cannot be ignored. We may not forget what hap pened in Samoa. An organisation of bureaucrats, of the heavy-footed militar istic school, treated the native Samoans with ignorance, tactlessness, and intoler ance, and, being unchecked, created in Samoa a situation that will remain, for all time, a blot upon the British colonial system. Yet it was not the fault of Britain, nor of the Colonial Office, nor of the system. It was the fault of a little, pin-headed bureaucracy, which was left unchecked by an inexperienced Mandatory.

Australia cannot afford to let anything like that happen in New Guinea —even although Australia itself is the happy hunting-ground of every size and de scription of bureaucrats. Far more hangs upon efficient administration in New Guinea than merely the welfare of New Guinea. The reputation of Australia as the controller of Pacific territories must be protected. Australia's record in Papua is an excellent one; and, so far as New Guinea is concerned, there is noth ing for which either explanation or apology is needed. General Wisdom, as Administrator, earned no coronet; but General Wisdom had to mould a public service out of very rough and unpromis ing material, and he did the job well.

General Griffiths was the ideal Adminis trator, only he did not possess the tem perament to enable him to bear fools gladly —especially political fools. Gen eral McNicoll has gone to the Territory with a splendid record of administration in other spheres, and Australia hopes for much from him.

But it is a critical time. If Australia's record justifies it, Australia may be con firmed in the possession of New Guinea, and her guardianship may be extended over the Solomon Islands —a develop ment which can be justified on a score of grounds. But if Australia muddles her administrative work —and especially if she displays indifference towards na tive interests —that consummation is not likely to occur; and, moreover, support will be provided for the inevitable appeal by Germany for the return of her colo nies.