Australia’S Record In N. Guinea
pp. 34-37 · Read in the full issue
And Papua
A Demand For Constructive Thinking at Canberra
EDITORIAL NOTE : No one—no one whose opinion matters, anyway—is happy about Australia’s record of administration in New Guinea. Australia is governing the great Territory quite conscientiously, and efficiently enough; but she has done, and is doing, nothing to justify her continued hold there, in view of the insistent questions being asked by Japan, and other land-hungry nations.
Australia, for defence reasons, must hold New Guinea; but she can justify her continued hold, in the face of world opinion, only on economic grounds. She has not done that, yet.
For those reasons this thoughtful article, by “Judex” (the nom-de-plume of a well-known Australian, experienced in public administration ) has much value, at the present time.
THE challenging article bv Mr F W cnanengmg amcie oy ivn r . w.
Eggleston m the Austral-Asiatic Bulletin, opens the way to a discussion of many problems and aspects of tive administration of the Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. I would like m this article to carry the intelligent review by the editor of the “Pacific Islands Monthly ’ a little further and to open up some of the avenues for improvement. which Mr. Eggleston indicated could be found, but on which he made few practical suggestions; and which led to the comment by the man “deeply
experienced in Pacific administration”, that “his article shows that he is theo retical rather than practical”.
First, a few general remarks. Mr.
Eggleston, speaking of administration generally, suggests “a review at reason able intervals by some unofficial publicist, and occasionally an official review of a Royal Commission”. I doubt whether any good purpose would be served by the first portion of his suggestion. No one person could be competent to review all the activities of all phases of government administration. This is one of his sug gestions which is decidedly not practical.
If, however, a means of satisfactory review could be attained, then there would be no necessity for the cccasional costly Royal Commission.
The necessity for some kind of review of the type suggested, was perhaps in dicated by the difficulty experienced by the original committee, appointed to find a site for a new capital of New Guinea, in arriving at proper conclusions, due, firstly, to the very inadequate informa tion available in convenient form, on the Territory generally, and to the apparently complete absence of any stated views of the present or any former Administration, as to the general lines which development of the Territory should follow. This committee apparently had to completely formulate its own views in respect of how such development should proceed, and where and how it was likely to pro ceed, under the existing more or less laissez-faire methods of administration.
Mr. Eggleston makes a case for greater recognition of its responsibilities to the Territories bv the Commonwealth Gov ernment, and suggests that, when recog nized fully, the organisation “suitable to the task in hand” will follow.
But, will it? Most parents recognize their responsibilities to their children, but does such recognition automatically make for the correct background and training to produce ideally balanced citizens? We must admit that, once recognizing re sponsibility, the party concerned, whether a parent or a government, must usually be shown the way.
And who is to show it in this case?
Surely not the politically-appointed mis fits who have often occupied the chairs of Administrators, but rarely deserved the title? (This is not intended to apply generally. There have been outstanding exceptions, such as the late Sir Hubert Murray, and General T. Griffiths.) MR. Eggleston has given a summary of four points for a successful policy, namely:— 1. A competent department at Canberra, and a full sense of responsibility on the part of the Government and the Federal Parliament for the policy pursued. 2. Ample financial provision for the Terri tories. The old idea that Territories must pay for themselves and pro vide their own capital must be abandoned. 3. The organisation of the territorial ser vices so as to provide for scientific development of the economic poten tialities of the Territories and the expert handling of native problems. 4. A well-thought-out economic policy; the interest of the Territories should be given at least the protection which Australian industries get, and special encouragement should be given to industries which have difficult problems of development.
T have already touched on point No. 1.
His second point will, I think, be ad
mitted by all who give the matter any thought. The only question is, as to whether such help should be by way of grant or loan. Australia has done the lion’s share of its development by means of loans from the mother country; but, then, the natural resources of Australia are such as to have made it almost certain from the outset that such loans were capable of repayment. Is this the case also in Papua and New Guinea? Many knowledgeable people would answer emphatically in the negative.
I incline to the view that, in the initial stages, grants are unavoidable. In any case, the enabling Acts for development loans could be framed in such a way as to provide for the Commonwealth Goveminent being given considerable latitude as to the conditions of repayment, which could be made subject to review after taking into account the extent of progress achieved, as a result of the loan.
In regard to his third point, there is the question as to whether the organisation he suggests does not alreadv exist.
It may be that a good organisation is lacking in direction either from its own administration, or else from the Commonwealth headquarters at Canberra.
My own feeling is that, whether the organisation is good or not, it is unlikely to get the best direction either from Canberra, or its own administration, unless the way is pointed by some competent authority, not fully occupied with routine problems and decisions of the moment, and having little time to think and to investigate the larger problems of organisation and policy.
In his fourth point, Mr. Eggleston again leaves us in the air, as to who is to do the thinking out of the policy in the interests of the Territory.
He speaks in glowing terms of the zeal and ability of the officers at Canberra, carrying on the administration of the
Territories Branch, and with this, I fully agree. Nevertheless, these officers are cluttered up with the thousand and one small routine matters, and have little opportunity for the larger technical problems on which they have to advise their Minister. As a result, there is always the question: Does the Minister get sufficient and good enough advice?
I would opine that he gets the most and the best advice possible under the circumstances: but, whether it is sufficient and good enough to offset the sometimes bad advice he receives from outside vested interests with an “axe to grind”, is perhaps better answered by Mr.
Eggleston’s quoted instance of the choice of the Wau-Salamaua road, "sponsored by one or two powerful bodies”. „ „ , , It/fR-. E £g les t°n Soes on to suggest the raising of the status of the Territories Branch, and suggests: “A departmental head of professional standing, capable of advising the government in the problems, economic, social, ethnological, and educational, involved in the government of a tropical dependency”. He admits that one man could not be an expert in all, but claims that “a man of learning and culture will be able to appraise values in these departments of knowledge”. I wonder! Whose values will he appraise? Surely other experts will have to submit them?
His proposal of seconding to Canberra, from the Territories, officers who are experts in certain fields is good, but somewhat imoracticable. There would not be sufficient volume of work at Canberra for an expert in any one field, and he would, for a large part of his time, be “cooling his heels”.
He also makes reference to the exhaustion of the gold in New Guinea, a theme so often touched upon by various people, and he further on deals with a
crisis in the supply of native labour, and the necessity for pushing on with public works.
All these matters are inter-related. You cannot expect the population of miners to settle in the country when the gold cuts out, unless there is some other means of livelihood for them, and you cannot settle them on land which they can reach only on foot, and with pack-mule, or by aeroplane, and expect them to make a living in a depressed market, after paying aeroplane freights in on their require ments, and aeroplane freights out on their production.
In public works lies the key to the situation, and this raises the question of native labour shortage. The answer is: Mechanisation. The natives must be trained to operate mechanical plant, in which event the labour supply will not be so inadequate. I dare say there would be a terrific labour shortage in each of our Australian States, if we still used stone-age methods.
This also offers a way out of the dilemma of increasing wages of the na fives in New Guinea to Papuan standards, without deleterious reactions on the natives themselves, and without in creasing costs of production. The higher wage could be restricted to those who learn to operate mechanical plant, and this would serve as an incentive to other natives to learn to do likewise, Once the mechanisation was achieved, public works could be carried out cheaply and efficiently, to open un the country, to provide roads, bridges, and essential lines of communication of modern commerce. which, if started at once, would enable displaced miners to settle on land which they could acquire cheaply (crown leases), and reasonablv exoect to make a living.
The alternative, of course, must be gra dual depopulation by white residents, or, at best, very little growth of white popu
lation, and consequent retarded developpent; and we cannot any longer afford to retard the development of a country which Asia regards with hungry eyes.
Mr. Eggleston refers to the lack of encouragement given to enlightened district officers in the expression of their views.
This is definitely a field for reform and calls for further investigation.
Lastly, he refers to the desirability of laying down an agricultural policy based on native activity and native lands. Such a policy cannot be self-contained. It is inevitably bound up with education of the natives in agricultural pursuits, as well as the problems of general education which must go hand in hand, and with communications and public works to permit of the movement of produce. 1, . , , ... have raised several questions in this article to which I now go on to suggest answers, which, if inadeouate, may at least stimulate discussion.
What I envisage, for the Territories
Branch, is the formation, at Canberra, of what I shall call a Territories Standing Council. This Council should act as an advisory body—not to the Federal Gov ernment, but to the Federal Parliament i.e., its deliberations should be tabled in both houses of Parliament, and thereby become public property, incapable of sup pression if inconvenient to the Govern ment of the day Another costly government body, you will say. But, no! The Commonwealth Public Service has, within its ranks ex perts in practically every kind of govern mental activity. The Council should be composed of these experts, and as a body would be competent‘to advise on almost any subject that came under its notice I have before referred to the insuffi ciency of work of any one kind to fully occupy an expert from the Territories at Canberra. Such an arrangement would not work. But of the members of the Territories Standing Council, each would carry on his ordinary duties of his own
department, but deal with any Territory matter as part of those duties, in pre paration for the meetings of the full Council.
The cost to the Commonwealth of such a Council would be very little, because the secretarial work would be done by the staff of the Territories Branch. This would provide a body of men “of learning and culture, able to appraise values” in all departments of knowledge, and also having considerable experience in Public Administration. Such a Council could act as Mr. Eggleston's “publicist”, to critically review the activities of the Territories from time to time, as suggested by him, and each phase of the work could be first dealt with, for the Council, by its ex pert member on that particular phase.
It could be arranged that each Depart ment of each Territory should produce an annual report of its activities, which re ports could be the basis for the critical review by the Council, as well as to pro vide it with the necessary data on which to formulate recommendations to the Government as to general nolicy. Current problems requiring immediate decisions could also be dealt with by the Council or its members, as necessary, working through the Secretary for Territories.
I have raised the question; Who will show the way to the Commonwealth Government, in formulating a Territories policy? Who could better advise, than a body of independent experts, with no vested interests to serve, and no personal “axe to grind”? A necessary provision is that the findings of the Council should be referred to the Territories concerned for any comments before tabling, which comments should be included in the mat ter tabled in Parliament. Parliament, and the public, would thus have complete un biassed information from every angle. lam fully in agreement with Mr. Eggle ston’s suggestion that the status of the Territories Branch should be raised, but join issue with him as to the question of the Permanent Head. This position should, I think, be the pinnacle of the administrative structure of the Territories, considered as a whole group.
The Permanent Head should, I think, be the ablest and most experienced head of all the territorial services, and be paid a salary higher than any one of these.
As such, he would be the logical chairman of the Territories Standing Council. His staff should be subject to constant in terchange with officers from all Terri tories. Such an arrangement, of course, presumes a Territorial service common to all Territories, which is highly desirable.
The New Guinea Service is. as far as I am aware, the only one in which specia lized administrative training is given to selected young officers. The only question is: Does the training go far enough for Permanent Headship? I feel that there should be a further selection of one or two a year of the best Assistant District Officers, who should be required to un dergo further training to university degree standard. The choice of course may be difficult, but the list of subjects covered by prospective ADO’S, does not anpear to include any science subject at all.
It is a matter for consideration, whether, in order to round off a broad general education necessary for an ad ministrator. there should not be - included some training in the scientific method and approach, in addition to. and not in place of. the present subjects, which would, of course, all have been covered before attaining to the rank of ADO.
Such graduates would be the proper group from which to choose future per manent heads of administrative depart ments, and ultimately the Permanent Head at Canberra. The Government could, with logic, go a step further and appoint future administrators from this class, if so desired.
LACK of encouragement to enlightened District Officers in the expression of
their views causes such a potential loss to any administration, that it must be regarded very seriously. In an organ isation scattered over a large area, divergence of ways and means of getting things done, is inevitable. Each is likely to develop ideas which would be of value to the others.
Periodical conferences of such officers are of extreme value, and if the con ference is held in a different district each time, the practical results of administra tion can be seen. Around a conference table, not only can each air his individual views, but is subject to the criticism of each and all members, and this is usually of extreme value.
The laying down of an agricultural policy for natives is not an easy matter.
Perhaps one of the most suitable steps to be taken is to arrange with other tropical countries, with similar problems, for an interchange of agricultural officers of each administration. Whether or not the problems are identical is not of much account. It is the method of approach to the problems which is all important and each country which participated in an arrangement of this kind, could not fail to benefit.