Pacific Territories Association Continues the Fight

What Now In New Guinea?

WHILE the clouds of war roll away from the Australian portion of New Guinea, Territorians watch the political skies more closely for signs and portents. To date, without avail.

No statement has come from Mr.

Ward, Minister for External Territories, who recently returned from a tour of New Guinea, other than that of June 1, when he said that return to civilian administration was at present out of the question—and that the Army was doing a good job. (This statement was later reiterated by the Commonwealth standing sub-committee that was created in February to deal with all Territories’ affairs.) In the meantime, Territories’ evacuees continue to live in a vacuum in which no news must generally be taken to mean bad news, and supported by nothing more sustaining than persistent hope.

In every case where Allied forces in the Pacific have reoccupied Japaneseheld, non-Australian territory, civil administrative officers have gone in close behind the troops. With reoccupied Australian territory this has not been the case. ANGAU goes in: but ANGAU is part of the Army.

Territorians, worn out with the seemingly useless effort of butting their heads

up against the brick wall of bureaucracy, are beginning to wonder if anything will break the iron grip of military official dom on their Territory, or if they must wait some unknown number of years until such time as the Allies sit down together at a peace conference. Austra lia seems to be a natural breeding ground for rule-by-the-book bureaucrats, mili tary and otherwise, who, once tasting power, become permanent institutions that cannot be dislodged by even the politician of the moment.

What Territorians are suffering, at present, is the direct result of having their affairs run by Canberra officials who are only nominally responsible to a Minister, who knows no more about New Guinea’s proverbial coons and coconuts than an Eskimo.

The Pacific Territories Association is continuing its fight for evacuees and is concentrating its main strength on two issues: (a) the return of civil administra tion in the Territories as soon as pos sible, and (b) civilian representation on any committee or inquiry into any aspect of post-war reconstruction in the Ter ritories.

It reflects small credit on the Com monwealth Government that it should be necessary for Territorians to beg repre sentation. Every little pin-headed poli tical, semi-political, religious or charit able group in Australia has been able to have its say. Territories’ folk are denied a voice in what, after all, is pre-eminently their concern.

LATEST entry in the “post-war New Guinea” Derby is the Communist Party of Australia, which is bom barding Sydney at present with pam phlets setting forth the Party’s post-war ideals. For New Guinea these long haired theorists demand: (1) Non-native enterprise and commerce restricted and ultimately eliminated. (2) No further expropriation of native lands; and, where this has taken place, land to be returned to the tribes. (3) Government assist ance in the development of native agri culture along up-to-date lines, with the provision of tools, seed, expert advice and the establishment of agricultural colleges. (4) The organisation of health and medi cal services. (5) An all-embracing educa tion scheme to be based upon the lan guage of the people concerned. Particu lar attention to be paid to the provision for technical students. Training of native teachers. (6) Abolition of indenture system. An immediate rise in wages.

Opportunity for native workers to become skilled tradesmen. The application of Australian labour protection laws to the native workers. (7) These measures to be aimed to assist people of New Guinea to advance towards nationhood and to exercise their right to self determination.

The best that can be said about some of these “seven points” is that many other people have thought of it first—it’s old stuff. The rest is tripe, based on a totally inadequate idea of New Guinea history, culture or conditions. All of it is impertinence, when one considers that European residents of the Territories are still debarred from representation on any past, present, or planned investigation into the post-war set-up in the Territories concerned.

ON the question of the abolition of indentured labour, and civilian re presentation, the PTA has circular ised the memorandum printed below.

They are asking that all former resi dents of the Territories—and members of their families over 16 years of age—sign it and return it to the secretary of the Association as soon as possible. This will be forwarded to Canberra.

Chairman, Ministerial Sub-Committee in charge of Australian Territories, Canberra, A.C.T.

We, the undersigned residents of the Aus tralian Territories of New Guinea and Papua, strongly urge upon you and the Federal Govern ment, that sympathetic consideration be given to the following submissions made by us, whose work has assisted largely in developing these Australian Territories. Being without Parlia mentary representation either in Australia or in the former Civil Administrations of the Terri tories, we have no opportunity of placing our views before the Federal Government other than by direct approach to you.

We view with alarm the reported decision of the Federal Government to abolish the system of indentured labour in the Territories which has been in vogue there for many years, the abolition of which, we believe, would be con trary to the interests of the native inhabitants and result in chaos in the economic develop ment of the country.

In addition to that question, there are many matters of policy concerning the future adminis tration and development of the Territories in the post-war years yet to be considered, and we ask that before any such matters be decided by the Government, the views of European re sidents of these Territories, a big majority of them returned soldiers of the 1&14-18 war, be heard and given due consideration. Apart from the rights of those persons to be heard on matters of policy affecting their country of re sidence and one they have helped materially to develop, it is obvious that their experience of the problems of the Territories, after long re

sidence there, must be of value in any planning for future administration and development, both in the interests of the native inhabitants and of Australia.