Papuan Arguments

Against Amalgamation

Prom Our Own Correspondent

Port Moresby, June 25.

OP the eight men who presented their views to the Amalgamation Com mittee, at the sittings here on June 19 and 20, only two favoured amalgama tion; and one of them, though favour ing a combined administration, opposed any evasion of the obligations of the Mandate. The other held that complete amalgamation would result in a closer binding of the Mandated Territory to Australia, and would eventually lead to annexation.

The Public Service Association, repre sented by Messrs. W. R. F.

E. Williams and R. Barwick, put in a memorandum pointing out the admini strative difficulties that would follow as a result of amalgamation, in view of the terms of the Mandate.

Mr. Gerald Smith, representing the Planters’ Association of Papua, stated that the planters did not at this stage feel competent to discuss the question of amalgamation, but they were alarmed by what appeared to be the inevitable consequences—namely the absorption by New Guinea of the Papuan labour supply (20,000, now, nearly all employed) and an influx of Chinese artisans and traders from New Guinea to Papua. Mr. Gerald Smith considered that amalgamation should result in economies, and probably better administration.

Mr. Lewis Lett, in a considered mem orandum, set out arguments in answer to the statements that amalgamation or unification would result in increased efficiency of administrative services. He said that, at present, the N.G. service is fully efficient for New Guinea, and the Papua service for Papua; but transfer either to the other’s Territory, and the

result would be chaos. The instance is extreme; but the same result, on a small scale, would occur with every in dividual transfer.

The following are extracts: — “Continuity, according to every author ity on administrative matters, is one of the most important elements in success ful administration; and it is through continuity of policy, of methods, and of personnel, that the Papua Administration has achieved its high standards. Con tinuity in Papua has been preserved through the continuous control of its Lieutenant-Governor; in New Guinea by the long service of permanent officials.

But continuity would be broken by the transfer of officers from one service to the other, or from one territory to the other, if the services were one; and loss of continuity must involve decreased efficiency. Papua and New Guinea differ in too many ways to leave any hope for the success either of amalgamation or of unification of the Services.

“They differ in policy, in that New Guinea is not and never can be a part of Australia, and that the purpose of the Mandate is the safeguard of the native inhabitants until such time as they are able to take care of themselves; while the object in Papua is to raise the status of the native population with a view to fitting them to take their place in the Australian Commonwealth.

“They differ in method, in that Papua has been developed, so far as she is developed, by pioneers who have experi enced the rawest and most primitive conditions, and who have been obliged to depend upon native help in their pros pecting and mining and exploration, de veloping the country gradually and naturally; while in New Guinea the early pioneering was done by an alien nation, and later development has, under the urge of gold, been rapid and in some re spects artificial. And they differ, again, in that to the Papuan Administration the interest of the natives is paramount, while in New Guinea force of circum stance has demanded that native inter ests become, at least in some respects, secondary to commercial considerations.

“The finances of the two territories differ widely. New Guinea is far wealthier than Papua, and usually has a surplus of revenue over expenditure. Papua, on the other hand, is forced to the most rigid economy, and can with difficulty make revenue cover essential expenditure, even with the help of a subsidy from the Commonwealth. Unification of the Ser vices would mean, presumably, that the Papua Administration must be staffed on a scale comparable with that of New Guinea; and this could be done (since no part of the New Guinea revenue would be available to Papua) only by heavilv increased taxation in Papua—an added burden that her few industries would not be able to support—or by means of a very greatly increased Commonwealth subsidy.

“There are hundreds of different tribes in Papua whose peculiarities must be considered. There are hundreds more in New Guinea as diverse in their customs and traditions: and unification would only multiply the problems to which di versity of custom and of language give rise. Pidgin English is not understood in Papua, nor the Motu language in New Guinea; and the necessity for learning a new tongue would add to the many diffi culties that a transferred officer would experience.

“Geographical considerations add weight to the arguments against unifi cation, The combined areas of the two

territories cover a distance of about 900 miles from north to south, and as much from east to west; and to place nearly one million square miles of land and water under one Administration, an area in which there are no railways, nor possibility of them, and where communi cation and transport must be by walking, by slow sea travel, or by expensive air freight, must be to reduce efficiency by abandoning the intimate knowledge of native tribes and of individual settlers which has done so much to bring content ment and mild prosperity to Papua.”

Mr. Stewart Mill, of the South Sea Evangelical Mission Society in the Solo mon Islands, will marry Miss Molly Jen kins, formerly of New Zealand, early in August.

Rev. W. J. Westerman, of Sydney, who is field secretary of the Seventh Day Adventist Mission, arrived in Nukualofa by the “Matua” in June to visit S.D.A. stations in the Tongan Group.

Monsieur E. Buteri, Joint Court Registry Clerk in the New Hebrides Condominium, is at present on seven months’ leave in Europe.