Fate Of New Guinea And Samoa

WE do not think that Australia is likely to lose New Guinea —but she deserves to.

Consider the situation as it is to day. All New Guinea commercial interests are in a state of suspended animation, awaiting a four-months overdue decision about the new capital and the Morobe road; Ger many is carrying on a fierce, insistent demand for the return of her colonies, among which New Guinea is listed as one of the richest undeveloped tropical territories in the world; land hungry Japanese are snooping around the northern borders, placing upon Australia a clear obligation to develop and defend the Territory; public meetings are being held all over New Guinea by exasperated European re sidents, asking for one thing and an other, but all summed up in a demand for a clear-cut announcement of policy, in relation to the future of the Territory.

And, on the other side of the pic ture, what? An Administration which, although admirably staffed, cannot move without permission from Can berra. An Administrator who has chosen this time, of all others, to go

away on a four-months’ holiday. An Australian Government that has sub ordinated all matters (including Ter ritories affairs) to its miserable, unedifying squabblings, and actually has given us three Ministers for Territories within three days!

All this is not peculiar to the oc casion and the moment. It is typical of the way in which the coteries of professional politicians, who success ively take charge in Canberra, have treated Australia’s magnificent natural heritage in the Pacific. We despair of any improvement in the future.

Two or three times, lately, Aus tralia’s record in New Guinea has been publicly criticised; and on each occasion Mr. W. M. Hughes (then transient Minister for Territories) arose and sneered, and quoted blister ing figures to show how New Guinea trade and European population have increased under Australian rule. But neither Mr. Hughes nor any other Australian apologist has answered this journal’s repeated charge that all those comforting figures are the re sult of the activities of persons and companies engaged in the Morobe

gold industry, and that, apart from the Morobe district, very little has been done by the Administration to develop the country’s enormous re sources or improve the condition of the natives.

A dozen times, in the past month, Australian Ministers have babbled about “Australia’s sacred obligations to the native peoples of New Guinea”.

How, as a matter of simple, literal fact, have those obligations been ful filled?

Has any system of village-school education been operated, apart from the missions? No! Has any scienti fically-designed system been put into operation (as in Papua), to ease the impact of European civilisation upon the social organisation of these primitive peoples, and so preserve their simple culture, their village in stitutions, and their lives? Nothing has been done. Has the Government taken steps to train selected natives as native medical practitioners, on a systematic plan, so as to improve native village health and hygiene, as has been done in every other Pacific territory, from Papua right across to the Cook Islands? Not a thing has been done.

But the Government has permitted

many, many thousands of primitive natives to be engaged and transported long distances, to be housed in bar racks and used as labourers for plan tations, mines, wharves, etc.; and re turned to their villages at the end of three years with a fragmentary and improper knowledge of the ways of the white man and of “civilisation”.

There is nothing seriously wrong with this system, so long as it is intelli gently and scientifically handled, and the effect on native life of the return of discharged labourers to their vil lages is controlled. Under present conditions, it is not controlled and is having a disturbing and deplorable effect.

There are competent, trained men in the Territory, quite capable of governing it in a manner creditable to Australia, and satisfactory to those who put “native welfare” in the fore front of their considerations. But we shall have the present unsatisfactory conditions so long as professional politicians rule at Canberra, and send ex-politicians and ex-soldiers to act as administrators in the Pacific. * * * Were it not that control of New Guinea is absolutely necessary to Australia, as a defence barrier against Asia, there might be an agi tation for a return to German control.

As it is, we can say that the idea of allowing any other nation to con trol New Guinea is intolerable to Aus tralia; and that Germany is not mak ing the return of New Guinea a major issue, anyway. We have ex pressed that opinion a dozen times; and, from information received dur ing the month from many authori tative (including German) sources, we repeat it.

The sensationalist newspapers of Australia—and they nearly all are in that category now—have been fea turing “Germany’s demand for the return of New Guinea” almost daily, and the politicians have added their defiant squeals to the general clamour.

It can be ignored, almost wholly, as newspaper stunting. Germany, natur ally, will lay emphasis upon the enormous wealth of New Guinea, actual and potential, when colonies are under discussion; but that will be done to strengthen her position when her demand for territory is focussed, ultimately, upon a slice of Africa.

British investors in New Guinea and Western Samoa may sleep in peace.

We say it with regret. It would have been a very good thing if fear of losing New Guinea had scared Aus tralian politicians into some sem blance of real activity in New Guinea, along lines of clear-cut policy. * * * As we go to press, and since the foregoing was written, the Prime

Minister of Australia has formally announced, in unequivocal terms, that Australia does not, and will not in any circumstances, contemplate the return of New Guinea to Germany.