Amalgamation?

Inquiry About Papua and New Guinea to Commence in May

The following was included as a special supplement in the March issue of the “P.I.M”:— ON March 15, a few hours after this issue had been printed, it was an nounced from Canberra that the Committee to consider amalgamation proposals in relation to New Guinea and Papua would comprise;— Mr. F. W. Eggleston (chairman). He is a Melbourne barrister; was a member of the Victorian Parliament for some years (1920-2 0, and held several port lolios; is cnairman of the Common wealth Grants Commission; and has written frequently on Pacific subjects.

Mr. H. Leonard Murray, representing Papua. He has been Official Secretary to the Lieut.-Governor of Papua (who is his uncle) for 22 years; is a member of mat iemtory’s Executive and Legislative Councils: and he has had a long, close experience of the Papuan Administration.

Mr. H. O. Townsend, representing New Guinea. He is well known as Treasurer of New Guinea, since 1922, and he is a member of both Executive and Legislative Councils.

An outline of the terms of reference (Committee’s instructions) shows that the Committee is to report on:— Whether an amalgamation of the Gov ernment of the Territories of Papua and New Guinea is practicable.

Whether amalgamation will be bene ficial to either or both Territories, and, if so, in what way.

If amalgamation is favoured, the form it should take.

Any special feature that should be pro vided for the Territory of New Guinea under the amalgamation, having regard to the provisions of the Mandate under which the Territory is administered.

Recommend a suitable site for the ad ministrative headquarters of the com bined Territories if amalgamation is favoured, or. alternatively, a site for the administrative headquarters of New Guinea if amalgamation is not favoured.

It was announced in April that the Committee would commence its inquiries in May. bo lar as personnel is concerned, it is an excellent Committee —all are known as capable and experienced men. The criticism that will be made, however, is that this Committee, probably, will think too much of the purely administrative and public service side of the problem, and not enough of the future of the Territories, which necessarily embraces most important considerations affecting commerce, transport, development and settlement. These things are vital; the machinery of government is comparatively unimportant, so long as it includes good men. who will get things done and not spend public funds foolishly.

Arguments Pro And Con

NUMEROUS letters, on the subject of the possible amalgamation of Papua and New Guinea, have reached us; but, as the ground covered will be traver sed thoroughly by the Committee of In quiry, very soon, we think it better to leave the subject alone, for the present.

Our best-informed correspondents say that they cannot see how there can be complete amalgamation. Eighty per cent, of the administrative records of the Man dated Territory must be kept, separately, so as to comply with the requirements of the mandate. The Australian High

Court is of opinion (Ffrost v. Stevenson case) that the guardianship created under Article 22 of the Covenant must continue “until the natives are able to stand by themselves”.

“Get rid of the mandate conditions,” says a learned correspondent, “and then amalgamation may be seriously consid ered.”

The present indications are that there will be an amalgamation of services, and a levelling-off of differences in admini stration, wherever possible; but that, while the Mandate remains, separate ad ministrative machinery will remain also.