A New Policy In New Guinea?

THE recommendation of the Federal Committee on the subject of a new site for the administrative estab lishment in New Guinea should be known very soon; and, following that, quick action may be expected.

There are three confident predic tions. One is that the administrative establishment simply will be moved twenty miles to the westward of Rabaul, on to a tableland 1,200 feet high, and out of the volcanic belt, and with communication with Rabaul by a good motor road. Another is that a suitable site will be found on the south coast of New Britain, near the western end. The third is that the new capital certainly will be placed on the mainland of New Guinea, and probably on the table land near the Markham River, at a spot which will be suitable for a junc tion of roads leading to the seaport ‘of Salamaua, the airport of Lae, the mining towns of Wau and Bulolo, and the vast, fertile and as yet undeve loped plateaus drained by the Mark ham, Ramu, and Purari Rivers.

The foregoing is all speculation, of

course. Knowing the character of the three gentlemen who comprise the investigation committee, we may take it as certain that no decision will be reached until every proposal and plan has been carefully and honestly examined. Furthermore, the repu tation of the chairman of the Com mittee (Brigadier-General Griffiths) is sufficiently well known in New Guinea to provide a guarantee that no selfish interest will try to bring influence to bear upon him or his associates.

The “Pacific Islands Monthly”, nearly a year ago, expressed the opinion that it would be necessary to remove the administrative establish ment from Rabaul; and arguments then were adduced to show that it would be to the advantage of the Territory if the Administrative centre were placed upon the mainland, as part of a policy of using the facilities and funds provided by the gold in dustry to actively exploit the mag nifleent natural wealth of the Mark ham, Ramu, Purari tablelands, and thus establish permanently in this

rich territory an agricultural industry which would give a livelihood to Europeans.

There is no need to go over the ground again. International events, during the past year, have made it clear that Australia cannot expect to hold New Guinea if she continues to treat New Guinea as she has done since 1921. Except Greenland, New Guinea is the largest island in the world, and Australia is responsible for more than half of it. It is a country of incalculable natural wealth, and capable of enormous develop ment. The newly-discovered central tablelands will provide a home for large numbers of Europeans. The clearly-defined aspirations of three land-hungry nations Germany, Japan and Italy—suggest to us that, so far as New Guinea is concerned, Australia must get busy or get out.

There is a consideration even more urgent than that. This great terri tory of New Guinea provides Australia with a natural barrier, imposed be tween the restless masses of Asia and the Commonwealth. A new Japan has arisen—aggressive, militaristic, determined to gain the mastery of the Western Pacific. It is absolutely essential, as part of Australia’s de

fence plan, that Australia shall hold New Guinea and the adjoining islands.

What better system of using New Guinea could there be than that of encouraging the settlement there of Europeans, so as to create there suit able bases for air-squadrons, sub marines and warships?

We may take it as certain that these important considerations will weigh with the Federal Committee in making its recommendation concern ing the new administrative centre in New Guinea. The volcanic eruption in Rabaul last May was a disaster; but this unfortunate event may be turned to good, if it forces the Australian authorities, in seeking a new capital, to recognise the urgent need for a vigorous policy of development and defence in New Guinea.