Concerning The Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes,

P.C., M.P.

WHEN it was announced, ten months ago, that Australia’s Pacific Territories would be under the control of Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes, P.C., M.P., residents in Papua, New Guinea, etc., exclaimed “Thank God! Now some thing will be done”. To-day, they are re garding the verbal cavortings and political twistings of Mr. Hughes with dismay.

It is not that they love the amazing little man less; it is only that the oc casion calls for something more than mere political clowning. Mr. Hughes can stand securely on his record; and every one who remembers 1914-20 always will give honour and respect to him who so hap pily represented the tough and tenacious character of wartime Australia. But that does not mean that Mr. Hughes can re main forever upon the political stage, without embarrassment to his friends and admirers.

Misgivings were first expressed by Islands interests, when Mr. Hughes—for some reason still mysteriously hidden— threw aside the Griffiths Committee’s re port on the new capital site; and, jump ing into an aeroplane, dashed off to New Guinea personally to select a site. He was 73 years old, he never previously had seen New Guinea, he knew nothing of the peculiar difficulties and complexities of tropical administration, and he spent

only three or four days fluttering around the vast Morobe district in an aeroplane.

But without apparent hesitation he selected Salamaua —and thereby precipi tated a first-class argument. While in New Guinea he greatly embarrassed the Lyons Government by his “what we have we hold” speech. There was such a row about it that when he returned to Aus tralia he repudiated the speech, making an explanation so feeble and unconvinc ing that even the sober ‘“Sydney Morning Herald” jeered.

Mr. Hughes, while in New Guinea, de cided that a road should be built from Wau to Salamaua. But he could not put even this worthy plan upon a practical foundation. He has left the route vague, and a subject of argument—no one knows yet whether the road will be merely a super-expensive local undertaking, or whether it is to be a really worthwhile highway, part of a developmental read ing plan.

Back in Australia, Mr. Hughes gave a diverting performance. It dawned slowly upon Australian press and public that the selection of Salamaua as New Guinea’s capital was as indefensible as it was im pulsive and hasty, and criticism mounted from a murmur to a roar. At first, Mr.

Hughes was merely cocky, and garru lously funny—he would not discuss the

matter seriously. But soon he was on the defensive; and then he declared (see full report elsewhere) that his selection was based upon the most authoritative official advice. But no one has been given even a hint of the official concerned; and no “authoritative” official would give such advice, anyway.

Next, we have the appointment of an Administrator of Nauru. There were over 150 applications; and one would suppose that Mr. Hughes would have gone to Cabinet with the “possibilities” reduced to a half-dozen. We know that actually he took about 60 of the applications to Cabinet, and Cabinet officials finally re duced them to four. When someone asked what amount of experience in tropical ad ministration Colonel Chalmers (the man selected) had had, the reply was; “Tropi cal experience! That did not enter into it”. To use an Americanism: We’ll say it didn’t!

A day or two later, the “little Digger" crossed swords with Mr. Fairbairn, M.P.

Mr. Fairbairn had asked some obvious questions that would occur to any logical, well-trained man of business habits who examines the administrative machinery of Papua and New Guinea. “Why have two capitals?” asked Mr. Fairbairn. “Why all the expense of duplication? Why not one administrative machine, and one ad ministrative centre? The two territories lie side by side, with exactly similar con ditions of administration, separated only by an imaginary line”.

Instead of accepting this as a serious

and practical contribution to a difficult discussion. Mr. Hughes sneered and snorted. He said it was a pity that Mr.

Fairbairn had not studied his subject. He said that one territory was a mandate, and therefore had to be developed in the interests of the natives, and one (presum ably) was to be otherwise developed. He suggested that it was impossible to con trol the two territories properly with the one set of machinery.

Which is sheer balderdash, and the kind of political twaddle of which Mr.

Hughes is master. There actually is not one sound practical reason why the two territories should not be administered as one, always provided that in certain minor matters a distinction is made, so that the terms of the Mandate may be observed.

Certain classes of officials —especially those with hen-like minds, who love to scratch around among the dotting of i’s and the crossing of t’s —insist that Papua and New Guinea must be kept separate.

So. to-day, we have the ridiculous spec tacle of two groups of officials remaining jealously on either side of en imaginary line, and not even consulting each other on such subjects as land, agriculture, health, transport, native welfare, mining, etc., concerning which their problems and duties are exactly similar.

As a matter of simple, well known fact, it is probable that Papua, under the wise Murray policy, is being developed more in the interests of the natives than any other territory in the Pacific; whereas New Guinea, by comparison, is not.

If, as Mr. Hughes says, New Guinea must be developed solely in the interests of the natives, why does he insist that Australia shall continue to hold New Guinea? And why does he propose to spend £150,000 there on a new road, and £500.000 on a new capital? Why did he ask the N.G. Legislative Council, the other day, to amend the ordinances controlling companies, and the oil search?

The various controversies at least have this saving grace: They show that, at long last, the Australian people and news papers are trying to understand living conditions and public problems in the Territories. The most exasperating fea ture is that the Minister, who really should know something of the Territories, and be capable of informing and directing public opinion, seems to think that each occasion calls simply for a display by him of humour, or impressive erudition, or just plain fooling.

He cannot realise, seemingly, that the control of these northern tropical terri tories, and their proper development by Europeans, is a matter of vital importance to the future of Australia.

It seems strange, in the light of history, to be writing thus of W.M.H. One vividly remembers a day in 1919, when Mr.

Hughes, fresh from the framing and sign ing of the Peace Treaty, was publicly adored by half a million people in Mel bourne. It took him an hour, in a soldier drawn carriage, to get from Spencer Street Station to the Town Hall. To-day, most of us would gladly escort him back to Spencer Street, if only he could cancel Versailles—that vicious international dis position, made by victory-drunk politicians, that is at the root of nearly all the world’s troubles to-day. A queer thought, that

Hughes of Versailles, Hughes “the Little Digger”, Hughes who leaped to the skies in 1919—and fell like a stone in 1922 Hughes the always lovable satirist, should now be Hughes of Salamaua.