Australia's "Colonising" In New Guinea

An Open Letter To Mr. Green, M.P.

Dear mr. green,— The following was published here, in our radio news-sheet, on July 30;— “Green, M.P., returning from New Guinea, said Britain, in all her colonising, could not equal what Australia had done in New Guinea in her first colonising ef fort.”

Your remarks came as a surprise to those who are doing the colonising.

Those who have been resident here for any length of time are far better judges of this “colonising effort” than those who take a quick trip and return to the com forts of Southern civilisation.

One of the “colonising efforts” no doubt referred to is the fact that even our flour, and the Australian foods we import, are taxed 10 per cent. ad. val.

Thus, Australian manufacturers see foreign milk, meats, and other foods com peting with those made by our own Aus tralian people, and against whom they have poor chance of competing.

Again, take mining machinery, essen tial for our “colonising effort”. This was at one time free of import duty; but as soon as the miner and mining concerns got on their feet, an import duty was im posed of 10 per cent. ad. val., on the very means by which miners and mining companies secured the gold on which they paid a royalty of 5 per cent. Mining machinery, dredges, and even the planes used in freighting are taxed. This tax was imposed after mining operations had started, no allowance having been made for the extra cost originally. This is a wonderful example of “colonisation”!

Under article 2 of the Terms of Man date, we read: “The mandatory shall have full power of administration and legis lation over the Territory, subject to the present mandate, as an integral portion of the Commonwealth of Australia, and may apply the laws of the Common wealth of Australia to the Territory, sub ject to such local modification as circum stances may require, etc.” Can we ima gine Australian goods being dutiable in Darwin, or any other part of Australia?

Of course, some will say, in the case of New Guinea, that “modifications were made subject to local conditions”. In which case we can truthfully say that Britain, in all her colonisation, could not equal what Australia has done in New Guinea in her first colonisation efforts— namely, taxed the very Australian foods on which a new colony must exist.

Quite a few improvements have been made by the Government since our oc cupation. The importation of a score of European police, and the erection of a substantial European jail is one of them,

thus suggesting to the outside world the £ need for keeping the Australian com- munity under control. Yet, with all this ? police protection, all Government dwell- ■ ings have to be wired to make them “boy 1 proof”, in order to secure the safety of ’ the wives and children of Civil Servants. .

It is generally understood, here, that the! nearer you get to Government head quarters, the closer you get to “uncon trolled areas”, as far as native behaviour ■ is concerned.

There are to-day many genuine miners i who have spent all in their endeavour to < keep their heads above water, now seek ing a job. A practical step in colonisation would be to subsidise such miners, with the surplus they have helped to create, in order to prospect for new fields —a costly procedure these days for an individual.

Most of the ground to-day is tied up by companies under certain mining laws peculiar to New Guinea, made to suit certain vested interests, regarding which no doubt some of your Parliamentary friends could give you information.

Take paper pulp, for instance. What has been done by the Commonwealth to assist this industry, so important to Aus tralia? Some time ago, it was hoped we should see this industry established in the Markham Valley. Why has it languished?

In agriculture, it is the same. No settled land policy; and, so keen were the Administration about “colonisation”, that with one sweep of the hand practically the whole of the experimental stations, other than at Rabaul, were swept away as by a tornado.

No information can be obtained regard ing lands available for selection, unless one “knows the ropes”, and can get the right side of a local kanaka—which pro cess the ordinary outsider would not be able to do.

Compare this with Canada’s “coloni sation”, and see the joke.

No, sir! Please do not make such rash statements from the deck of a “round tripper” steamer, without knowing some thing of the practical side of the lives of those who are endeavouring to colo nise this Territory. Tramp the bush for a few months, live on kanaka foods, sleep in native huts, be driven mad by fleas, sucked dry by leeches, be overhead in debt; and I venture to say you will learn more in a month about Australia’s “colonisation” scheme than you will in a dozen round trips under congenial social conditions.

I am, dear sir, Most respectfully yours,

Henry G. Eekhoff.

Lae, T.N.G., August 1, 1938.