“Restlessness In New Guinea”

M.L.C.’s Reply to Charge that Bureaucracy is Abroad Again

Letter to the Editor

JN the July number of your magazine, you published under the heading of Restlessness in New Guinea,” a letter from “Trader,” dated 9/5/36.

From the subject matter and the state ments therein, I feel certain that the majority of your New Guinea readers will imagine, as I do, that “Trader” is the nom de plume of some disgruntled civil servant.

Usually, the average reader does not give a great deal of thought or concern to contributions of this nature, savouring as they do of anonymity and aimed at persons who are denied the privilege of reply. It becomes an entirely different matter, however, when an editorial note of twice the length of the original letter is appended thereto, and, wffiilst admitting that “we do not know exactly what it is our correspondent complains of,” goes on to generalise in a manner which can only be described as dangerously mis leading to a great number of the unin formed non-residents who subscribe to the Pacific Islands Monthly and who are naturally more impressed with statements having the weight of editorial authority.

At this juncture, when there exists so much doubt and uncertainty as to the ulti mate fate of New Guinea —I refer to Germany’s demands for the return of pre war colonies—it is unfortunate to find your journal, circulating as it does throughout Australasia, also the British Crown and foreign colonies in the Pacific,

aligning itself with the “defeatist” element in this Territory and a certain section of the Australian press, which also seizes on half-truths and enlarges upon them in a manner calculated to do -New Guinea the greatest possible harm.

The extraordinary manner in which purely domestic affairs of this Mandated Territory have been “written up,” whilst for our Papuan neighbours—not under mandate —are claimed all the virtues, has become suspect. In Papua, we are told the Administration is a model for the whole world. Some of its officials receive a bigger “press” than many well-known moving picture actors; but for New Guinea, its Administration, its official and civilian population who together have done more to develop this Territory in 16 years, than has been accomplished in Papua in 60 years, is reserved the role of a land governed by a Bureaucracy “continuing unchecked on its distressing way, and the life of the Administrator .. . made increasingly miserable by the discontent within the service, and the growling of the populace without.”

Admitted that there are discontented officers in the service, and growlers amongst the residents—point out a ser vice or community where these do not exist—but the discontent is not with the efficient officers, or with individuals out side the service who are “pulling their weight.”

The discontent and growling that exists

to-day in New Guinea is not caused by, or is at the Administration, it is by and at the lack of administration caused by the Bureaucracy of Canberra. The statement of “Trader,” that “the new Administrator leaves most of the important decisions to Canberra” is unfortunately only too true, but “Trader” knows —being, as he claims, in daily touch with officials, traders, planters etc. —that the Administrator has no option. He is not permitted to use his own good judgment, not even with the aid of the Executive Council.

Does “Trader” seriously expect us to believe that any individual who has the capacity to attain the rank of Brigadier- General, and possessed of the ambition to undertake “a job of work” at an age when most of us would be counting the days to retirement and ease, is going to refuse to grasp with both hands every opportunity to make himself secure in the hearts and minds of the community whose goodwill and respect are so neces sary to successful administration, but from choice defers to the good judgment of the politicians and lobbyists in Aus tralia?

Unfortunate and undesirable as it is, there is another half-truth that calls for comment, and that is in the comparison of the methods of General Griffiths, and those of the present Administrator, General McNicoll. Too much cannot be said of the virtues of General Griffiths as Administrator, and as “a kindly, humane man,” but to infer that the dis cipline under General McNicoll is “harsh” is juggling with the truth. The discipline in the service has never been harsh— everything else but —and he is a brave civil servant who will state with truth that his officers preferred the personal contact method of General Griffiths to the existing “discipline, routine, and official formality.”

Despite his personal dislike of formality when it affected himself, General Griffiths introduced mast of the official formality existing to-day, and accessible as he was to everyone, I have yet to learn that the civil servants availed themselves of this to any greater degree than they do under the present system.

Mention of official formality and its effect on those of us not in the Public Service, prompts the question—what is wrong with it? For many years this Territory suffered from a decided lack of formality, and it can still do with a little more of it even now. As it exists to-day, it is something approaching that which most of us would expect to find in any Crown Colony or Protectorate the size of Matupi Island, but because it exists to a limited degree in this Australian Man dated Territory, it is all wrong. The real reason of this attitude is, I suspect, the perpetuation of the “myth” that Australians generally dislike all for mality, despite the fact that most of us would cheerfully risk our necks, rather than be out of it, particularly if it happens to be of the social brand.

On the other hand, I doubt if the excess of formality complained of by you, would be remedied by the importation of an experienced British Colonial Office Gover nor, as recommended by “Trader.” If the complaint arises out of an impression that difficulties are placed in the way of individuals anxious to interview the Administrator personally, I can assure you that exhaustive inquiries have failed to reveal an authentic instance of this.

Should it be meant to apply to the regard the Administrator evidently has for his own personal appearance, I can assure you that he has not yet disciplined quite a few of his senior officers into the formality of even wearing a tie during official hours, and permits other odd dis crepancies which one might reasonably expect to be present as the outward and

visible sign of a re-established “Bureau cracy.”

The truth of this particular matter is: General McNicoll has raised the dignity of his office of Administrator of New Guinea to the plane where it rightly belongs. He has considered it necessary to make a point of extending courtesies and entertainment to distinguished and influential visitors, prominent and not so prominent out-station staff going and coming from furlough, and generally doing all those “extra duties,” the lack of which was so noticeable, and commented upon at other times. If this is the formality complained of, particu larly as practically all of it is at the expense of the Administrator, I am not alone in saying that I am all for it.

Referring to “Trader’s” statement that '“he has not heard a good word for the Government for months,” I hasten to

assure him that most of us who have been here since the commencement of civil administration, have not heard it yet, and have no expectation of it hap pening in the immediate future.

If “Trader” and others would only remember that for 13 years, the residents of this Territory were denied any voice— even an expression of opinion—in the

management of the affairs of the Terri tory, and that all the accumulated grievances, real and imaginary, of that period, have been aired ad lib and to some effect in the short life of the Legislative Council, they will then per haps realise that all these complaints and growlings are not peculiar to the existing Administration, but to a system which, until recently, had been in exist ence since 1921.

That the Administrator has come through this most hectic period of the

Territory’s history with so few scars, and retained the respect of those who have been in opposition to his policy, or rather the policy of the Government which he represents, is an answer to those whose object is not only to “white-ant” the Administration, but anything and every thing calculated to advance the interests of New Guinea.

I am, etc.,

H. L. Clark, M.L.C.

Rabaul, New Guinea.