The War Of The Capital Site

Salomaua Selection Under Review—Some Unusual and Remarkable Circumstances

By R. W. Robson

TEMPERS have been frayed and one or two reputations have been tarnished a little; but the controversy about the new site for the New Guinea administra tive headquarters has moved towards its logical and inevitable end. Already, it seems certain that: — The selection of Salamaua has been abandoned, as hasty and impractic able.

Another site will be selected (either on the mainland tableland or, in ac cordance with the Griffiths Committee report, at Lae)) at a series of Cabinet meetings, to commence on September 12.

The plan to build a road, so as to give the Morobe towns communica tion with the coast, has been attacked, but still stands.

The sequence of events since the Aug ust “P.1.M.” was published has been in teresting and, at times, amusing.

In August, we ventured the prophecy that Mr. Hughes’ h#sty and impulsive selection of Salamaua would be revised.

It really was no prophecy, but simple de duction.

Messrs. Hughes and McNicoll, flying around there in June, seemingly failed to notice a big swamp between the base of the isthmus and the foothills. But when the Administrator returned to Salamaua with his technical advisers in July, he was given the dismal news that it was not

possible to lay out a town unless the swamp was filled in; and said reclamation would cost £250,000.

As no such financial provision had been made, it was safe to assume that Can berra would be consulted; and Canberra, of course, would say: “For heaven’s sake, get busy and make another selection—and this time consult a few engineers and medical officers before reaching a decision.”

And it was so. But a good deal hap pened in the meantime. The Minister for the Territories (Mr. Hughes) contin ued to play the comedy part.

Mr. Fairbairn’S Visit

A PROMINENT member of the Com monwealth Parliament, Mr. J. V.

Fairbairn, piloting his own plane and accompanied by Mr. R. E. Elford, of "The Argus”, flew from Melbourne to the Morobe district of New Guinea, visited Wau, Lae, and Salamaua early in August and, after a quick examination, flatly condemned the Minister’s choice of Salamaua.

The Public Service Association of New Guinea, at a general meeting held on Aug ust 5. “viewed with alarm” any departure from the reports of the expert commit tees which recommended (a) the early removal of the capital from Rabaul, and (b) the establishment of the capital on a safe plateau on the mainland. The

meeting also “strongly opposed the sel ection of Salamaua as the capital site”.

By about August 20, it was beginning to dawn upon the Australian newspapers that the Salamaua selection must be re viewed. Sydney “Telegraph”, on August 22, published an interview with Mr.

Hughes. The Minister quoted Pliny the Elder, and was vague, and referred to Adam and Eve, but said this:— “There has been no alteration of the view that Salamaua should be the capital.

“Lae is not a port and Salamaua is.

People with axes to grind are saying that Salamaua is unhealthy, a death trap, but people still seem to go on living there.”

On August 23, Mr. Fairbairn entered the controversy with great spirit—he called the Salamaua selection “a major blunder”, and sought an interview with the Prime Minister—and Mr. Hughes ceased to be vague and humorous, and was seen on the defensive.

Mr. Hughes’ Defence

BY August 24, every newspaper was in full cry against Salamaua; and, that day, Mr. Hughes made this remarkable statement: — “It is proper that I should correct Mr, Fairbairn’s impression that by recom mendation (of Salamaua) was made in the face of adverse official opinion. The very contrary is the case. My recom mendation was based on the best and most authoritative official advice.”

That left a few people gasping. Who was the “authoritative” official who gave the Minister advice of such significance that he turned doVn the Griffiths re port and chose Salamaua?

We still are trying to find out!

On August 26, it was announced that the Legislative Council, in New Guinea, had “severely criticised the selection of Salamaua, and that the Federal Cabinet, meeting in Melbourne, had formally asked Mr. Hughes to submit a report upon the position generally.

By this time, it was reported freely (1) that Mr. Hughes’ position in the Cabinet was in danger and had been made worse by his “what we have we hold” speech m Rabaul, and the trouble over Salamaua; and (2) that there was now some likeli hood that the decision to build a Wau- Salamaua road would be reviewed.

The writer admits that, up to now, he had noted events with complacency, not to say pleasure— everything had fallen out exactly as he had foretold.

But this attack upon the road was a horse of another colour. We made cer tain urgent representations that the abandonment of the road plan, at this stage would be a tragic blunder. And this, despite the fact that we were sup posed to be “anti-road”!

Which introduces the remarkable story of the boycott.

The Wau-Salamaua Road

WHEN Mr. Hughes, late in June, an nounced his selection of Salamaua, and the building of a road “dir ectly over the mountain to Wau”, I sent a letter to every member of the Aus tralian Parliament, and attacked both plans. So far as the road was concerned, I said that the proposal to build a high way “directly over the mountains” was unsound and uneconomic; that “I am not opposing a Salamaua-Wau road, for which there long has been a demand”; and that, if a road could be built, the long way round, from Salamaua to Wau, so as to “form part of a permanent read ing system for the future development and security of New Guinea”, it would be welcomed and supported by all interests.

That was published in July “P.1.M.”, and surely was clear enough. Judge of my amazement, therefore, when I learned, late in August, that the Wau Mining Association had adjudged me an enemy of the road, and had called upon its mem bers to boycott the “P.1.M.”.

What made it more embarrassing was the discovery that the Mining Association favoured the Salamaua-Buangs-Snake River-Buiwa route; and this was the route which, in the August “P.1.M.”, I had noted and advocated, as the next best alter native to the Markham. (There is now a report that the best route now may prove to be an entirely new one, called the “Middle Bitoi”. De tails —received too late to discuss in this article —are published elsewhere in this issue.) In the very week that the unexpected attack on the road developed (August 22- 26), I received letters from half a dozen stout lads (five to be exact), cancelling their “P.1.M.” subscriptions. All were old readers; and, also, all were loyal mem bers of the Mining Association.

I will admit that we were tempted to sit still and do nothing, and let the Min ing Association stew in its own juice.

However, we decided to lay the blame for the boycott upon the impulsive tem perament that usually goes with red hair, and to argue it out amicably, at some later date. We “hopped in”, and sub mitted all the data at our command to show the powers that influence Cabinets that the road should go on, no matter what happened to Mr. Hughes and to his Salamaua selection. 1 am not sure that we achieved any thing. The withdrawal of the Road Loan

Bill from the business paper of the Legislative Council in Rabaul, without adequate explanation, on August 25, had a nasty appearance. Until that Bill is passed, there can be no finance for the road, and therefore no road.

A Peculiar Situation

THE situation is peculiar, and puzzling— but probably the explanation will be known before this is read in Wau.

M y Cabinet? that th" auction of his further connection with the Cabinet has been

postponed pending the early return from abroad of three senior Ministers (Messrs, Earle Page, Menzies and White), and that the confirmation of certain acts of Mr, Hughes (such as his New Guinea decisions) is held up, likewise.

That opinion is supported by the fol lowing facts.

During the last week of August, Mr.

Hughes was like Byron’s young lady who “swearing she would ne’er consent, con

ofA^l

ust - he ™ tuall y admitted that Salamaua

(Continued on Page 55.)

was “gone”, and indicated that the choice lay between Lae and Wau.

Incidentally, on August 30, in “Sydney Morning nerald”, Mr. Hugnes said his • withers were unwrung”, and proceeded; “The Government rejected the re commendation of the expert com miaee that Lae should be the capital, and that was why 1 went to New Guinea and inquired into the matter. 1 consulted the officials, and my re commendation of Salamaua was based on their advice.”

Almost as extraordinary a statement as that in th,e newspapers on August 24. Why aid the Government reject the Griffiths report? Echo answers, why!

The Prime Minister announced, on Sep tember 1, that the capital site decision would not be made until the three senior Mmisters returned, and a series of Cab inet meetings commenced, about Septem ber 12.

Mr. Hughes, meanwhile, continued to in sist that Salamaua is a healthy place; and therein he was cordially supported by oaiamaua residents, and ex-resiaents. No one had the heart to point out that the question is not concerned with the health i ulness oi tne present Salamaua, prettily and cleanly situated on its little isthmus.

The real question is whether anyone can hnd £250,000, wherewith to fill in the Salamaua swamp, and so make room for a bigger town.

Mining Association And “P.I.M”

SO the Mining Association has reason to remain alert, and keep its powder dry.

Fortunately—as we pointed out in July —the association has a shrewd and ener getic president in Mr. H. T. Allan, and he should be capable of handling whatever situation, unfavourable to the road, is cre ated by political earthquakes and erup tions at Canberra. Morobe residents should get ready to support Mr. Allan vigorously in any project he may make against any move to cancel the promised road.

Mr. Allan’s proposal to boycott the “P.1.M.” was ill-judged and hasty, and based on a misunderstanding; but we are not going to quarrel with him about it, because he did it as part of his good fight lor what he believed in—namely, the road.

If the route finally chosen is via the Bitoi or Francisco, we probably will cross swords with Mr. Allan in the future. But that is unlikely. We are concerned only with the sound future development of New Guinea; and, for that reason, we shall do all that we can to urge a road from Sala maua (the only port) into the Bulolo Valley, via the Buangs or the Markham, or any other route that has national rather than local value.

As a journalist with a sense of respon sibility, I should like to say something pointed about the boycott weapon; but the occasion is against it—especially as not more than a dozen or two of our 450 sub scribers in the Morobe district have been affected by it. It Is better that we con serve our energies and our belligerency lor the fight for the road. The committee of the Mining Association might remember, however, that no journal worthy of the name can be intimidated by threat of re prisals, either economic or personal.

Salamaua—Pro And Con

DURING the month, numerous state ments have been made by various institutions and persons, relative to the selection of a new capital site. They all have been published at length in Aus tralian newspapers. A summary here will suffice.

At a session on August 24, all the non official members of the New Guinea Leg islative Council, led by Mr. R. L. Clark, expressed opposition to the plan to place the capital at Salamaua.

On August 26, the N.G. Public Servants’

Association “viewed with indignation and dismay” a report that they did not want to leave Rabaul. They urged an early transfer, as recommended by the vulcano logists; but definitely not to Salamaua.

On August 25, non-official residents of Salamaua sent to the Australian Prime Minister a strong protest agamst reports that Salamaua was subject to bad malaria and in danger of tidal waves. The “S.M.

Herald” published, on August 27, a letter from Mrs. Allen Innes, to the same effect.

A Claim For Wau

MR. N. R. H, NEAL, on behalf of Wau residents, sent the Prime Minister a long radiogram on August 31, urging that Wau could advantageously be chosen as the new capital. He said: “In the event of the reconsideration of Salamaua as the capital site, the citizens of Wau urge the suitability of their town as a capital, Wau is an existing town ship with facilities equal to Rabaul, and it can function immediately as a capital without any large expenditure. There is ample space for all future developments and expansion. The principal objection of the Griffiths report—namely, high transportation costs—has been removed by the authorisation to construct a road between Salamaua and Wau, which was not contemplated wh,en the Capital Site Committee made its investigations.

“If Wau is selected as the capital, the main expenditure will be the provision of port facilities, which are already pro jected. The huge expenditure of laying out Salamaua or Lae for the new capital will be obviated, thus relieving the Com monwealth of Australia and the Man dated Territory of New Guinea of heavy financial commitments.

“Timber and agricultural developments

will ensure the permanency of the town ship after the goldfield is exhausted

Some 1,200 Europeans are now residing in Wau and the vicinity, (at 3,500 ft. above sea level) under healthy conditions and in an invigorating climate. The existing Administration tacmties include large European and native hospitals, schools, telephone service, electricity supply and excellent roads—all capable of expansion at low cost.

“Thp other obiection in the Griffiths ine otnei oojeciiun m me repoit namely, endemic tropical typhus iS not regarded seriously by the Wau population. Cases are now rare, and medical treatment has been successful! Ample water supply is available in close proximity for all public health requirements.”

Courageous Statement By

Mr. H. H. Page

rvNE of the most interesting contrlbutions Was a short speech by Mr.

Harold H. Page (Chief Secretary) before

the New Guinea Legislative Council, on

August 24, as follows;

“The question of a site for the future head quarters of the Territory is one that claimed the thoughtful attention of all the residents of Rabaul and most of the people of the Territory from within a few weeks of the eruption.

“Despite the imaginings of a certain publi cation, that seems to delight in a malicious campaign based on baseless or unconfirmed re ports to belittle not only my own, but also the public service of others in this Territory—a campaign, incidentally, in which too few op portunities are accorded to the public servant to refute —at no stage have I thought that Salamaua could get the selection.

“I felt in the first few months that, in the absence of any scientific data regarding the potential danger of our local volcanoes, the solution w'ould be found in the establishment of a residential suburb in the Tavui-Nodup area.

Rabaul would remain the office and shipping centre, and only those persons required for duty in Rabaul would need to be within the caldera, and only then during working hours.

The risk did not appear to me to be too great.

“However, the report of the Geologist, Dr.

Woolnough, and the Vulcanologist, Dr. Stehn, put a different aspect on the matter; and, in due course, after consideration of that report, the Commonwealth Government decided that at least Administrative Headquarters must be moved from Rabaul.

“Towards this end, action was taken by the CommonweaJth Government to have examined several possible locations; and, ultimately, an announcement was made that Salamaua had been selected.

“To the residents of Babaul, and particularly to the majority of the public servants who were more vitally interested, the announcement was received with grave misgivings. To those of us who had personal knowledge of Salamaua and its environs, there appeared but one thing that could have brought it any consideration, and that was that it had a harbour. It may be said that of all the possible places available for more or less immediate occupation, it had a harbour equal to the best.

“It is submitted, however, that the presence of a harbour is not sufficient reason for its acceptance as the future capital of the Terri tory. There are so many disadvantages, and there are lacking so many of the essentials for the laying-out of a big town on modern lines, that the existence of a harbour carries prac tically no weight.

“Moreover, the need appeared to require an early movement from Rabaul; and, from this aspect, the choice was bad, for much time must pass before even the small area of only possible bad building land could be prepared to permit of buildings, to enable the transfer of the smallest of Departmental Headquarters.

“That the Headquarters of the Territory must be moved from Rabaul has now been accepted as the wisest course. Much has been said and written about the relative merits of alter native sites, and it is not my purpose here to enter the lists in such discussion. I feel, how ever, that I would be failing in my duty to the public servants, who are vitally interested in their future permanent location and to the future of this Territory, for which we have high hopes and in which we have the greatest faith, if I did not utter a protest against the selection of Salamaua.’’

This speech, caused, something of a stir.

In the difficult situation that existed, no other official member of the Council was prepared to offer any comment on the subject. The silence of the Administra tor was remarked upon—especially as, in the absence of any other indication, it was believed that the Administrator and the Government Secretary had given the recommendation in favour of Salamaua to which the Minister has so prominently referred.

The courage of Mr. Page in making his statement, in the circumstances, has been

warmly praised.