New Shipping Law Disturbs New Guinea and Papua

Unexplained Haste by Federal Authority Causes Resentment

C CONSIDERABLE disturbance of public ■* opinion in New Guinea and Papua has been caused by the introduction in the Legislative Councils of both Territories of ordinances containing new provisions for the regulation of shipping in those Territories. The ordinances appear to have been drafted in Canberra and intro duced into the two Councils with instruc tions from Canberra that they must be passed in toto and with no delay.

As there is in each Council a majority of official members, these instructions have been carried out. The ordinances have been passed and await merely the ratifica tion of the Commonwealth Government.

The ordinances have been the subject of violent protests in both Councils by the non-official members. In both cases, the latter objected strongly to being “merely a rubber stamp for the Commonwealth Government.” In the case of New Guinea, Mr. J. C. Mullaly, who is president of the Planters’ Association, resigned from the Council.

Very strong protests against the nature of the ordinances and the manner in which they were introduced and forced through the Councils have been sent from both Territories to the Commonwealth Govern ment and to the Australian newspapers.

Indications, however, are that the ordin ances will become law and operate forth with.

The new law provides that overseas shipping may not trade along the coasts of the Territories, but may call at the main customs ports; and trading along the coasts generally may be carried on only by local shipping—that is, shipping operat ing within the Territory. The Adminis trators are given the power to regulate fares and freights charged by the local sh pping, and they may in special circum stances license oversea vessels to engage in coastwise trading.

The new law affects particularly the vessels of Messrs. Burns, Philp and Co., Ltd., which run from Australian ports, and the vessels of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Company, which run from Hong Kong to New Guinea and Solomon Islands ports and back to Hong Kong. These vessels are now to be prevented from calling at any except the main customs ports.

Papua is not directly affected by the new law; but in the case of New Guinea a con siderable re-arrangement of transport ser vices becomes necessary. There has been keen competition between the N.D.L. steamers and the vessels of the big Aus tralian trading firms—Messrs. Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. and Messrs. W. R. Carpenter and Co. Ltd. The Germans literally went anywhere, and bought and sold anything: and many New Guinea planters contend that as a result of this they got higher prices for their copra and bought necessary goods at lower rates.

Feeling in New Guinea is high and bitter. There is some indication that this sudden and drastic action by the Common wealth Government is the outcome of con siderations which affect Empire unity and defence, and which cannot be publicly dis cussed. The New Guinea people, however, have been stirred by the argument that the new law. by delimiting the German competition, gives a special advantage to the two b’g Australian firms, whose in terests in New Guinea now are so powerful that, it is contended, they may impose whatever conditions they please. The fierce opposition of the New Guinea people apparently is evidence of their belief that the Commonwealth Government “is play

ing the game of the big financial and com mercial interests.”

The first rumour of the new ordinance reached Rabaui on February 26. On Feb ruary 27 the ordinance was introduced without warning, and opposed by all except one of the non-official members. On Feb ruary 28, it was passed through all stages. Messrs. Mullaly, Grose, Pratt and Neal left the session of the Council as a protest against the way in which the measure was being forced through. Mr.

Mullaly subsequently resigned.

The new ordinance was introduced in the Legislative Council of Papua, at Port Moresby, on March 12. It was strongly opposed by the non-official members; and when it was seen that it would be forced through by the official members, the non official members left the chamber as a protest.

Many protests from both Territories against the ordinance and the circum stances of its passing have reached us.

We also have received from interests, representing the big firms who have been attacked, certain material in support and defence of the ordinance. The arguments tor and against are set out hereunder.

It is useless to comment —the thing is fait accompli. We are bound to say, how ever, that the method of introducing and passing this measure is extraordinary. Mr.

Mullaly in New Guinea was justified in saying that “it would be warranted only by a state of grave national emergency.”

Does a grave national emergency exist?