Debates On New Guinea Affairs
pp. 59-61 · Read in the full issue
THE New Guinea shipping bill was de -*• bated at some length in the Federal House on March 18 as a result of an ad journment moved by Mr. A. Blain, who is the non-voting member for the Northern Territory.
Mr. Blain was extremely critical of the bill. He said that the development of New Guinea, as of the Northern Terri tory, depended on the maintenance of a service of tramp steamers that would go anywhere; that the planters, outside those bound to the trading companies, unanimously desired the continuance of the German service; and that the New Guinea Legislative Council itself in 1934 resolved in favour of freedom of ship ping. He said that the new bill had been introduced in New Guinea by hole-and corner methods, and that it necessarily gave offence to Germany. The bill had been passed by official members on the direct orders of the Federal Government —yet no reason was given for this most undemocratic action. The planters who resisted the bill were returned soldiers who would be the last to ignore Imperial interests. The removal of the German service would reduce copra prices and in crease transport costs against the small isolated soldier-planters and would strike what possibly would be a death-blow at this section of an important New Guinea industry.
The Federal Treasurer (Mr. R. G.
Casey) said that New Guinea was simply being brought into line with practically every other country in the world, which confined the trade of its own out-lying territories to its own ships. The Germans were not being debarred from the terri tory; they were simply being confined to a considerable number of proclaimed ports—probably six or seven. Tenders for the service between Australia and the main ports of New Guinea had been invited and “the Government proposes that there shall be a specified inter-island and inter-port service, and tenders for that will be called soon. In the mean time and before the inter-island and inter-port service becomes fully estab lished the new ordinance will be in sus pense and existing arrangements will continue.” There had been a considerable fall in freights and fares during the past five years, and the Government was de termined that the present low level would be maintained—by proclamation if neces sary. Any dispute arising in this mat ter would be settled by a committee of re ference consisting of a chairman ap pointed by the Administrator, one repre sentative of each shipping company con cerned, and the planters.
Mr. Curtin (Leader of the Opposition) said it was of first importance that they should have the complete assurance that a penalty was not being imposed upon the New Guinea community. Privileges were to be conferred upon the shipping com pany controlling this service which allowed them to dominate the trade and commerce of New Guinea. The House should be given evidence that the course which the Government was following in forcing these new conditions upon the territory was necessary, and furthermore that the interests of the New Guinea planters and traders were really being safeguarded. Mr. Curtin proceeded t o argue that the company which was to re ceive special privileges “has for years systematically and unjustly used its privileges to the detriment of traders on islands other than those which are served
by ships which it controls.” He urged the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole position.
Sir Charles Marr said that certain as pects of this matter were of so delicate a character that they should not be de bated. His defence of Messrs. Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. is reported elsewhere.
The Prime Minister (Mr. J. A. Lyons) said the Government could not agree to a Select Committee. Messrs. Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. had been asked to carry on the Pacific Islands mail services—that is, extend the expired contract —from March 31 to December 31. Tenders for the new contract would close on August 31. These arrangements would give other companies ample opportunity to submit a tender.
“The Government has given the fullest consideration to every phase of this sub ject and ... must accept every respon sibility for what has been done.”
The debate was continued by Mr.
Riordan (a Labour member from Queens land) who insisted that the competition of the N.D.L. line in buying copra from
planters in New Guinea had considerably raised the average price which planters received. In the first year of its opera tions the N.D.L. Co. removed only 500 tons from the territory, but last year it removed 14,000 tons. He alleged that Messrs. Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. acted as agents for the Unilever monopoly, which thus had complete control of the New Guinea business before the advent of the N.D.L. service. Since the advent qf the N.D.L. line, freight rates in New Guinea had been reduced 40 or 50 per cent. If Australia was to retain the New Guinea mandate, she was under an ob
ligation to build up a European popula tion there, but development along those lines was unlikely so long as the New
Guinea people were left at the mercy of exploiters. Members of the Federal Par liament should make themselves better acquainted with what was going on in New Guinea.
Mr, E. J. Harrison (U.A.P. member from Sydney) said that even the keenest competitors of Messrs. Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. agreed that that company gave a fair deal to those with whom it had trans actions. It was not at the instigation of Messrs. Burns, Philp that the new shipp ing law had been brought into operation in New Guinea. He acknowledged, how ever, that his main concern was the wel fare of soldier-planters in New Guinea and “there must be something seriously amiss when returned soldiers prefer to, patronise a German shipping line instead of an Australian line.” He questioned the usefulness of the New Guinea Legislative Council, and he charged the Federal Gov ernment with having originated this legislation in Canberra and forced it upon the N.G. Legislative ..Council by using the official members who have a majority.
The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) interjected that there was nothing to prevent the N.D.L. line continuing to run an inter island service from plantation to planta tion, linking up with its Hong Kong ser vice at the main ports.
Mr. Roland Green (U.A.P. member for N.S.W.) defended the constitution of the N.G. Legislative Council which, he pointed out, was in accord with the prin ciple generally observed by the British Colonial Office, which was that in every colonial dependency the official members usually outnumbered the elected or nom inated members, so that on questions of high policy nothing might be done against the interests of the nation of which it is a part. That was a very necessary safe guard. He was satisfied for the present with the assurance of the Prime Minister that the Government was fully acquainted with all the factors of the situation and took full responsibility for its action. Mr.
Green pointed out that the trading in the territory was done by a company originally formed in New Zealand, and transferred to Australia, and that the N.D.L. ships acted for that company merely as freight vessels.
Mr. J. Garden (a Sydney Labour mem ber) pointed out that the Legislative Council of New Guinea had passed a re solution asking the Commonwealth Gov ernment to inquire into the ramifications and activities of the Unilever combine, and that the Council had also by formal
resolution expressed the opinion that it was unnecessary and contrary to the interests of the territory that shipping companies should be subsidised for carry ing cargo and freight between New Guinea and Australia. Mr. Garden pro ceeded to argue that there was an asso ciation between the Unilever combine and Burns, Philp and Co., and that the Com monwealth Government was now propos ing to give this combine “an absolute monopoly of the copra trade of New Guinea.” He also declared that “the W.
R. Carpenter service was linked with Burns, Philp and Co. and the Unilever combine”. He protested strongly against the Commonwealth Government by sub sidy “backing up the combine which is exploiting the planters of the Mandated Territory”. He admitted that there were certain matters which could not be dis cussed in open debate, but he urged that the Government take the Opposition into its confidence in regard to these matters.
Mr. Prowse (Western Australia), who was chairman of the Royal Commission which inquired into the effect of the Navigation Act in the Pacific Islands, said, as a result of the special informa tion he held: “I take off my hat to Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. —a firm which for over half a century has pioneered the Islands trade. It built up that trade and is more entitled than any other shipping com pany to that trade in its palmier days.
But monopolies, however, have a ten dency to take more than they are entitled to, and a little competition is a good thing.” He advocated that, in view of financial conditions in the territory, the subsidy be withdrawn and that New Guinea be allowed much more discretion in connection with the provision of a suit able shipping service.
Mr. Beasley (a Sydney Labour mem ber) discussed at length the point that under the present system planters may ship their copra direct to foreign markets in the German ships which call at their plantations, thus avoiding the additional freight charges that will become un avoidable under the operation of the new law, by which all copra must be shipped in small inter-island vessels to a main shipping port for transhipment there.
In the course of exchanges between Mr.
Beasley and the Treasurer, the latter said “there is nothing to stop foreign traders or other inter-island services from being continued exactly as at present. There is nothing to stop an oversea liner run
ning from the home ports to the territory and establishing a feeder service running around the islands ports.”
Mr. Beasley, however, argued that that must necessarily increase the cost of handling copra. He contended that the effect of the new law was to increase and strengthen “the monopoly of Messrs.
Burns, Philp and Co. Ltd. and Messrs. W.
R. Carpenter and Co. Ltd.”
Protest In Papua
A copy of the debates of the Legislative Council of Papua shows that when the same shipping bill was introduced there on March 5 it met with similar opposition from non-official members and for sub stantially the same reasons as in New Guinea. Mr. J. G. Nelsson voiced the opposition and urged that the bill be postponed as only two out of five non official members were present. When he was informed that the bill was urgent and must go through, Mr. Nelsson wanted to know why it was so urgent and why it was to be forced upon the Territory of Papua without Papuan residents being given a chance to consider it. He argued that it would hamper and restrict free dom of trade and travel in Papua.
The Acting-Governor (Hon. H. W.
Champion) agreed to postpone the bill Tfor 24 hours.
Mr. A. Jewell (non-official member) asked why it could not be postponed for a further period. There might be ur gency as far as New Guinea was con cerned, but there was no urgency in regard to Papua, where shipping condi tions were quite satisfactory.
The Acting-Governor: “I wish to inform honourable members that there is a real urgency for passing this bill.”
The following day (March 6), the bill
was forced through by the official vote.
When Mr. Nelsson was informed that no amendments would be permitted, he asked permission to withdraw from the Council while the bill was under con sideration.
Mr. Jewell pointed out that at present Papua had a satisfactory and comfortable shipping service between the territory’s ports: but under the bill that would be withdrawn. Papua was being made to suffer for no apparent reason. Mr.
Jewell said that in the past they had had the right to travel between Port Moresby and Samarai by the Australian steamers.
Under the new bill they would be com pelled to travel by coastal steamers.
The Acting-Governor said that he thought Mr. Jewell was exaggerating— conditions would continue much as they were at present.
Mr. Jewell read Clause 5b of the bill which says “an oversea ship shall not take on board any passengers or cargo at any proclaimed port to be landed or discharged at any other proclaimed port.’’
After further discussions between the official and non-official members, in which the official members argued on the assumption that permits would be given to allow the present shipping services to continue, the two non-official members retired from the Council room and the bill was passed.