Administrative Power

on Nauru Island

Letter to the Editor.

THE information published in your July and August issues relative to the position of Commander Garsia as Ad ministrator of Nauru, appears to be of a clumsily “inspired” nature, obviously in tended to save somebody’s face.

It may have been an astute publicity move to work the defence business; but rather maladroit to the minds of think ing residents of the island, who realise that the place presents an obvious case of the best defence being no defence at all. Nor will it be agreed, I think granting the need for an elaborate sys tem of defence—that a retired lieutenant commander of the Royal Australian Navy is necessarily the best or most authori tative adviser on the subject. After all, the Commonwealth Government may have its own plans in the matter; and it is possible that the trained defence experts

(of whom we still have a few in Aus tralia, from A.I.F. times, products of Duntroon and Camberley), have other views and more far-reaching plans than those of Commander Garsia.

The idea of danger to the Europeans on the island from the 1,500 well-treated Chinese labourers in the employ of the British Phosphate Commission is ludi crous to anyone who knows the condi tions. A walk through the Chinese com pound, to-day, in the company of the very efficient Labour Inspector, will ef fectively dispel any such idea.

There have been two so-called “riots” amongst the Chinese coolies on the is land, in my experience. The first was effectively quelled by General Griffiths, who employed a few dozen local natives, armed with waddies, for the purpose The second “riot”, which happened during the Newman Administration, had no possible connection with Europeans, and arose from a tong feud within the compound.

It resulted in the death qf one native po liceman; and this, it was believed at the time, might have been avoided had the situation been less inexpertly handled.

I have no doubt that the Europeans who have lived on the island through the Gar sia regime, feel gratified at the sudden and very recent administrative solicitude for their welfare. But I think they will be disinclined, from their experience, to credit the suggestion that this solicitude has been the cause of Commander Gar sia’s “retirement”.

No; the plain facts in the case are that Commander Garsia’s initial appointment was for a term of five years. That term expired early this year. For reasons of expediency, it was extended for six months, and has now expired. During the extension period, Commander Garsia was notified by Canberra that his term would not be further extended. There is no question of Commander Garsia’s deciding as you suggest, “that he would rather re linquish the post than remain in Nauru and be fettered by the red tape of Can berra”.

After all, Canberra has to take the ini tiative in some circumstances. Or is a petty island Administrator to “rule the roost” on his own judgment alone?

Remember that the situation in Nauru is unique; there is no legislative or even official advisory body in existence, and this gives an Administrator absolute power over the destinies of the people and in terests of the island—except in the mat ters that concern the actual work of the

British Phosphate Commission. A danger ous situation, I think you will admit, in certain circumstances, and one which Canberra must recognise.

You say Commander Garsia is a “trained naval man”. Does it not oc cur to you that the narrow regimen of naval training is not necessarily the right or best training for such an ad ministrative post as Nauru? One seems to remember that Evans of the “Broke”, whose standing and seniority as a naval man cannot be questioned, did not make an unqualified success of the job of High Commissioner of Bechuanaland. At all events, his term was not extended.

I am, etc.,

Nauru-Ite.

Nauru, August 27, 1938.