“Monopolies” In New Guinea

Some Considerations Which Apparently are Overlooked

THERE are several indications that a strong campaign is proceeding among the non-offifficial Europeans in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea, directed against what are called the “monopolists”.

These activities have been seen in representations made to the Federal Government by deputations and organ isations in the Morobe and Rabaul dis tricts; in circulars issued by some or ganisations—especially the Mining As sociation of Wau; and in articles and letters published in the “Rabaul Times”.

The attack is directed primar&y against the big trading firms of Bums, Philp and Co. Ltd. and W. R. Carpenter and Co. Ltd. which run stores, own and operate plantations, and control sea and air transport) and against the aerial

transport companies operating in the Morobe district. The leaders of the at tack contend that these firms now are so powerful that it is practically im possible for any smaller trader or trans porter to commence operations in the Territory—in other words, that trading and transport in New Guinea now are in the grip of combines.

One person, writing very bitterly in the “Rabaul Times” recently, repudiated the argument of the big firms that their financial strength had helped the plant ers and miners through the depression.

He contended that the depression had been definitely of assistance to the big firms, because in giving financial as sistance they had completely guarded themselves with liens of all descriptfon over solid property, and they emerged from the depression more powerful and richer than ever, while for the most part the people they had assisted had lost their properties.

This may be an obvious exaggeration: but it shows how some people are think ing and talking.

There are indications, also, that this campaign is taking a political angle. It is likely that certain representations will be made, via the N.G. Administration, to the Commonwealth Government— and especially to the Australian Labour Party, in the belief that if and when Labour comes into power it will be con vinced of “the need for checking mono polies in New Guinea”.

THAT is the position from the point of view of the average resident of New Guinea. That there is a monopol istic tendency in New Guinea is bevond question—the power and influence of the big firms are apparent everywhere.

But there are two points which, in justice to the big firms, the residents should bear in mind.

The first is that it is not proved that the operations of the firms are cruel, vicious, or oppressive. On the contrary, there is evidence that, in at least the majority of cases, the local managers of Messrs. Burns. Philp and Co. Ltd. and Messrs, W. R. Carpenter and Co. Ltd. definitely carry out a headquarters pol icy designed to assist and encourage the industrious and thrifty man and to get him upon his feet again and out of debt.

For every man who complains of oppres sion there may be found two men who will frankly acknowledge that they have had a very fair deal from the so-called monopolists: and it is a fact that if New Guinea business had been in the hands of a lot of small firms in the 1929-1934 period, instead of in the hands of n couple of big firms with huge financial reserves, the whole Territory would have gone smash.

The second point to remember is that New Guinea, in providing scone for mononolistic operations, is not in the least peculiar.

On the contrary, every country in the world to-dav—and the more “civilised”, the more marked is this thing—is in the grip of combines and mononolists. It seems to be a development inseparable from the conditions of this particular time, which may be called the era of international money power. In Austra lia, -for examnle it would be difficult to name one trade or industry connected

with a general public service—such as food supplies, transport, amusements, finance, etc. —which is not more or less completely controlled by a combme or a monopoly.

It is natural that the big firms op erating in XMew Guinea —just as is tne case with big firms operating anywhere else —should display extreme sensitive ness on the subject of possible compe tition. The monopoly may be IUO per cent, benevolent in its ouuook and op erations; but it becomes fierce and mer ciless as soon as it is threatened wtih effective competition.

IT would be idle to deny that trade and transport in New Guinea—as in most other Pacific Territories —are large ly controlled by monopolies, but, to re peat, New Guinea is not at all peculiar m that respect. We may deplore the existence of monopolies; but we can say, in the case 01 New Guinea, that tne nrms that exercise this power are at least controlled by men of human quali ties, who are quite well known to all of us. We know their history and their habits and, however we may dislike the autocratic powers they possess, we at least need not picture tnem with two horns and a tail.

As a matter of fact, it would be pos sible to go further and say that, if the New Gumea Administration could for muiate a vigorous and long-visioned pol icy of development, it would be possible to use the strength and resources of the big firms in a manner most beneficial to the Territory.

The history of European colonisation in primitive countries everywhere indi cates that, if there is to be real and substantial progress, the backbone of the effort must be large Companies, oper ating in harmony with the Govern ment, on the one hand, and with the individual settlers, on the other.

In New Guinea, at the present time, there is a tendency for European set tlers and the big firms to get snarling at each other. Cannot the blame for this be laid at the door of the Administra tion in that it apparently has failed to recognise that it is responsible for holding the balance fairly as between the two sets of Interests?

There was the famous Shipping Bill, for instance. It is held up by planters as “an iniquitous instrument of monop olism”, although it clearly was based on the necessity for protecting British shipping in the Pacific. The Govern ment gave the big firms protection and privileges—and left it at that. Surely, having gone so far, it was under an ob ligation to protect also the interests of the settlers —at least to the extent of seeing that their various complaints and fears were submitted to the big firms for attention and action.

The directors of the big firms are not fools. They are well aware that their first care must be, not profits, but the protection of their investment; and no investment can be considered secure if the people upon whom it is based are in a condition of growing discontent.

The first care of any wise directorate is to have a satisfied clientele. But, in that regard, so far as New Guinea is concerned, it must have a helpful and not an aloof Government.

The Administration clearly has a re sponsibility, as between individual set tiers and the big firms; and, if it ap proaches the latter from the right angle, it should discharge that responsibility to the satisfaction of the settlers and the credit of Australia.

R.W.R.