South Pacific

Confederation

Australia Has Nothing to Lose

Letter to the Editor rE suggested Confederation of South Pacific Territories (Papua, New Guinea, British Solomon Islands, Fiji, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Cook and other Island groups), suggested in the “PIM” of January, 1943, and again in May, 1943, has been of interest to many Island people.

What disadvantage would there be for Britain to hold Fiji, British Solomon Islands, Gilbert and Ellice, and sundry other islands now under the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, as a Dominion rather than Crown Colonies and Protectorates?

Britain's policy is to grant her possessions freedom, and it is not doubted that she will be willing to do so in the South Pacific. New Zealand follows the policy and guidance of the Motherland closely, and it is believed she would be equally helpful:—New Zealand’s South Sea possessions have brought her little credit—for years we have read of trouble in Samoa—and must have cost her much.

The Condominium of the New Hebrides must surely terminate after this war; such a failure dare not continue and the division of the Group between Britain and France seems possible and indicated.

But Australia, it is thought, will be very unwilling to liberate the Territories of Papua and of New Guinea. Yet she

has the most to gain and the least to lose.

AUSTRALIAN taxpayers have spent a fortune on these Territories, Grants, loans, bonus’s, subsidies and prefer ences galore. These will increase, not decrease, after this war, and the luxury of primitive possessions run on a non paying basis will be an added burden. I say non-paying basis because Australia has a history of Government-controlled affairs on a non-paying basis dating back half a century.

Further, from reading Australian news papers and journals, it appears that it is Australia’s desire to keep Papua and the Territory of New Guinea as a public benevolent land for some excellent native peoples they designate “Fuzzy-Wuzzy Angels” or, more agonising and insulting, as “Boongs”—whatever they may be.

Anyone who cares may search the files of the Australian newspapers published in the last twelve months and find not one sound, constructive suggestion as to the future of the Australian Pacific Territories. One thing is constantly reiterated, “the exploitation of the natives must cease.” Australia has held these territories for over a quarter of a century, and I thought exploitation had ceased many years ago and Australia was proud of her record in the Territories. It is rather contradictory to find this pride ful boast linked with colums of maudlin sentimentality and demands about “ex ploitation.” This even appeared in “Salt” under authority of the Army Education Branch. They also advanced the soldiers’ education by displacing the correct and euphonious name of the Papuan in an article, “Salute to the Boong.”

MONEY, in peace or war, is of no consequence to Australian politi cians—we can blame Britain’s past

generosity for this. Now that the British financial fountain shows signs of running dry there is a murmur of “I think America should ‘take over’ Australia”— the ‘take over’ meaning, financially. Why anyone imagines the astute Yank will pour millions into a union-controlled country such as Australia —a country that never attempts to run anything national on a paying basis and un remittingly attacks all big, or successful, business as “exploitation” is beyond com prehension. An alternative suggestion that the Pacific Territories should pay for themselves causes gasps of horror in some quarters, “Keep New Guinea for the natives,” is a popular catchcry, but you cannot re tard progress. The world cannot afford it, and will not permit it. If Australia’s Pacific Territories are not to be retained as the world’s greatest native reserve (by one of the world’s poorest and weakest Powers) it must be put on a paying basis. The only suggestion so far forth coming in Australia is closer settlement, though how Australia can afford this when she so urgently needs population and closer settlement herself it is hard to see. This closer settlement means obviously the treatment of the Pacific possessions as another State which in turn brings a million natives in direct competition with the seven million people of the Commonwealth. Where then is the White Australia Policy? One can carry on brisk reciprocal trade with a sister Dominion, but a million natives in a White Australia Policy is going to be very indigestible.

Many Australians will say: “We fought for the Territories!” But is that true?

The fighting in Papua and New Guinea has been for Australia’s own safety, with never a thought for Papua or New Guinea.

Australians generally don’t care a damn for these Territories, except as a political playball or for their own defence.

An independent Dominion can provide for its own defence to a greater degree than Britain, Australia or New Zealand has, provided for the defence of their territories in the past, and an infant Dominion would almost certainly have special guarantees from Britain, and, we hope, USA.

This desire for freedom is no rebel move; Islands’ residents are passionately loyal to Britain and the Empire, but they feel that Westminster, Canberra and

Wellington are far too distant to under stand their special problems, and that their political “pull” is too small to be of importance in those capitals.

IF Britain, Australia and New Zealand will save money by giving the Islands their independence, how will the new Dominion carry on financially? Because distant disinterested Governments cannot run a multitude of small Territories economically, it does not follow that those Territories, moulded into one centralised self-governing Dominion, cannot be economically and financially sound. These islands are fertile, rich in raw materials and minerals, with ample rainfall and good harbours, but they must be governed by men who are interested in them and know them. feritain, Australia and New Zealand have only benefited by trade with these islands. That trade will not be lost to them; in fact, it would be increased a hundredfold by allowing the Islands to progress as they must under self-govern ment, Canberra, Whitehall and Wellington have all to gain and nought to lose in granting independence to their Pacific Territories, but independence will not be granted until the residents of these Terri tories raise their voices and demand it.

Now is obviously the time.

I am, etc.,

Island Soldier.

Sydney, October, 1943.

Mr. A. C. Rentoul, who was a Resident Magistrate in Papua, and was attached to the New Hebrides District Service after the evacuation, is now stationed in Malekula, after some months in Tanna.

Mrs. Rentoul joined him recently in the Condominium.

Mr. O. F. Bonnell, who served in the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles in Lae, and was later in the Australian forces at Port Moresby, was discharged from the forces as the result of an accident which smashed his knee. He is now a resident of Townsville, Queensland.

Flight-Lieut. Norman Fader, RAAF, well-known commercial pilot in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea before the war, has been awarded the Air Force Cross for his exploits in the Bismarck Sea Battle.

Eion Field, formerly of the staff of Kasi Mines, Fiji, was an accountant on a British tin mine in Thailand when the Pacific war came. He got away to Sin gapore, where he joined the RNZAF. He later escaped, with difficulty, to Java, and since has not been heard of. His brother, Staff-Sergeant R. O. Field, who was with the Shell Company in Fiji, is now with the. AIF in New Guinea. Both are sons cf Mr. Orton Field, a resident of Suva.