Australia

Territories' Plea For Severance From

Motion Deferred After a Lively Discussion

RESIDENTS of Papua and the Man- V dated Territory, weary of being “pushed arolmd,” or ignored, by ustralian Ministers and officials, made move, in June, which possibly may'have tr-reaching effects. They have pre ired, for submission to all Territorians ho are members of their Association, a otion that they appeal to Great Britain ir the removal of the Territories of apua and New Guinea from Australia’s iministration.

This motion will be dealt with at the 3xt general meeting of the Territories ssociation —probably in September. If is passed, a committee of the Associa- Dn will prepare, for submission to En in, a detailed case to prove that Aus alia, through past neglect of, and pre nt indifference towards the interests of □ropean residents, should no longer be emitted to exercise administrative ithority.

At the annual meeting of the Terri fies Association in Sydney, on June 27, te following motion was moved by Mr. . A. Laws and seconded by Mr. A. T. allins: IHIS Association, representing over 75 per cent, of the European popu lation of the Territories of Papua id Mandated New Guinea, having iled to secure any promise of just eatment at the hands of the Govern ent of the Commonwealth of Australia, ESOLVE that urgent representations be ade forthwith to the Government of reat Britain in the hope that, in what rer arrangements are made for the Iministration of the Pacific Territories ter the war, due consideration shall be ven to (a) the claims of Papuan and ew Guinea evacuees for assistance in ie re-establishment of their homes and isinesses; (b) their plea that Papua id the Mandated Territory of New uinea shall no longer be Territories of ustralia; (c) their appeal for some easure of self-government.

This Association instructs the Exe itive Committee 'to proceed accordingly, id prepare, for submission to the ritish Government, a statement of our ise in which the following points may ; clearly set forth: I.—Although it had ample warning, the ustralian Government failed to prepare r the Japanese invasion, and the vilian populations of both Territories 3re so hurriedly evacuated that the ajority of people arrived in Australia ithout any property other than what iey carried upon their persons. 2—The Australian Government paid a nail sustenance allowance to persons bo were without resources; but it was ade clear in every case that this was it a gift, but was to be regarded as a an and was to be repaid out of any ims received through Governmental •encies in- the future, such as war dam re insurance, payment for Pool copra, c. 3. Although the great majority of r acuees arrived without even adequate othing, the greatest difficulty was ex ;rienced in inducing the Australian overnment to even slightly relax the othes rationing system, so as to allow lese people to obtain sufficient clothes wear. 4. —Although the Australian Govern ent, by means of a special tax on build gs, described as compulsory war damage surance. created a War Damage Com msatlon Fund, the Government has

refused to admit liability for “indirect” war damage. It is contended that all Territories’ residents who were driven out hurriedly by the invasion, and com pelled to abandon their properties to the ravages of weather, looting and uncon trolled jungle growth, are as fully entitled to war damage compensation as those residents who were fortunate enough to have their properties blown to pieces by shells. The Australian Government, although frequently appealed to, will not permit any change to be made in its definition, announced in 1942, of “direct” and “indirect” war damage. The present position is that a large proportion of the former residents of the Territories will suffer complete economic ruin unless they receive compensation for what is called “indirect war damage.” 5. Although a year has passed since Papua was cleared of the enemy, the Australian Government has not restored civil administration to Papua, but has left administration solely in the hands of a branch of the Army. Consequently, the channels through which civilians cus tomarily approach the administrative authority have been closed to us. 6. —Our representations, made to the only authority available to us—namely, the Australian Department of External Territories —have been regularly and consistently ignored or side-stepped for two years. We have sought information and assistance concerning innumerable matters connected with our present and future condition; but we seldom, if ever, have been given, by any of the three Ministers who have held office since the evacuation, or by the Departmental heads, any information which would en courage us to believe that our rehabili tation in the Territories is a matter of any concern to the Australian Govern ment. Not by one single official word or deed has the Australian Government ex pressed sympathy with the Territories evacuees, or eagerness to assist in their rehabilitation. 7. —Much of our property in the Terri tories was taken possession of and used by the Australian Forces; and we were assured that full and proper compen sation would be allowed to us by the Australian Government. Instead of that the Australian Army, in order to handle claims for compensation, created a Special Branch that constituted itself judge and jury respecting all claims, in accordance with a set of rules which it framed for itself; and against which there was no appeal. The result was that the majority of our claims were “chiselled down” to awards that were offered to us on a “Take-it-or-leave-it” basis; and many of our people, being hard-pressed for funds on which to live, were forced to accept a settlement that was generally unfair and often cruel. Our appeals to the Departments of the Army and of Ex ternal Territories were either ignored or side-stepped. 8. —Although the Australian Govern ment has set up a Sub-Committee of Cabinet “to deal with matters affecting the future policy of the Australian Terri tories,” the Government has refused to give former Territories residents any opportunity to make representations in connection therewith. The present Minister, Mr. Ward, refused in May to receive a deputation from this Association; and, on being again appealed to, side stepped the issue. 9. As an indication of the way m which we have been treated for two

years, we may cite the subject of native policy and native labour. It is clear that the Australian Government is formu lating a new policy in relation thereto.

Two professional anthropologists have been given high military rank and sent to the Territories to report concerning the future treatment of natives —while scores of former Territories residents, who prob ably have a better practical understand ing of the native problem than all the anthropologists south of the Line, have been completely ignored. Two Australian Ministers (Mr. Beasley, in America, and Mr. Ward, in New Guinea) have an nounced that the system of indentured native labour in the Australian Terri tories is to be abolished —quite irrespective of the fact that that system was evolved during 25 years by practical men to meet .the needs of the Territories, and that its abolition would make necessary very far reaching economic and industrial re adjustments, and ruin the majority of industrial enterprises in the Territory.

Although such a change would pro foundly affect the livelihood and future of every Territories resident, the Aus tralian Government made its announce ment without in any way consulting the views of Territories residents. This Association is entirely sympathetic towards plans for the betterment of the natives —a thing essential to the future welfare of the Territories —but we cannot see why there should be so much concern for the welfare of the natives, while the plight of the European residents is ignored, and their appeals treated with contempt. 10.—Because of the inability of the Australian Government, both now, and during the past 25 years, to appreciate the needs of the Pacific Islands Terri tories, and to understand the principles

of administration which should be applied there, and because of the expressed deter mination of the present Australian Government to discourage and abolish private enterprise in the Territories, it is the wish of a large section of the European residents that the administra tion of these Territories should become the direct responsibility of Great Britain, so that our interests may be better under stood and properly protected.

MOVER and seconder made a number of effective points against Austra lian administration, as experienced in the past by the Territories.

Mr. Laws pointed out that Australian Ministers generally were indifferent to the welfare of the Territorians, Decause they had no vote. New Guinea, several years ago, was promised a measure oi self-government—but what happened?

Represen tauves of various non-official classes were appomted, on the nomina tion of the Administrator, to the Legis lative Council, where they were com pletely out-voted by the official members (mostly heads of Departments). Nearly ail the Territories residents were Aus tralians, with Australian connections, and with a warm regard for Australia; but they felt that, if their past experiences were any indication, they had nothing to hope for in the future from Canberra control.

Proposed Appeal To America

MR. R. W. ROBSON supported the motion; but moved, as amend ment to it, that certain: words be added, the effect of which would be that the appeal would be made, not only to Great Britain, but also to the United States as well. Mrs. Wilmott seconded the amendment.

Mr, Robson said that the policy of some Australian Ministers was to destroy the principle pf private enterprise. “Ii these Ministers cannot do it openly in Australia,” he said, “they are trying to do it by subterfuge in the voteless Ter ritories, and that is why they are attack ing the indentured labour system.” It was essential that the system of inden tured labour in the Territories be con tinued. There was nothing wrong with the system, as it had brought about a better standard of living for the natives.

The discussion that followed was lively and, when it touched on the question of appealing to America, somewhat acri monious.

The president (Mr. E. A. James) and members of the executive opposed the motion, expressing the belief that evacu ees would yet receive some fair considera tion from the Australian Government; and they strongly condemned the amend ment.

All speakers, however, expressed their bitter disappointment with the treatment they had received in Australia. They emphasised that they did not seek char ity, or expect any more«consideration than that given to unlucky wartime suf ferers everywhere. But they did feel that they had been treated with indifference, almost amounting at times to contempt, by the only authority to which they could appeal—namely, the Australian Government. The Government’s high handed action in planning the abolition of the indentured labour system, without any consultation of the wishes or inter ests of European residents, was especially referred to as an example of the treat ment residents were receiving from the Australian Government.

Mr, Robson, replying, said he was not advocating anything anti-British. On the contrary, it would be a happy day for the Territories if they could get away from Canberra control, and be placed in

the care of the British Colonial Office.

The personnel of the Papuan and New Guinea administrative services would bear comparison with anything in the Pacific —there was no complaint on that score.

The seat of all their troubles was Can berra control—a Canberra dominated by professional politicians, who know noth ing and care less about the tropical territories.

He said he urged the appeal to the United States because he was a realist.

The dominant power in the Pacific now, and probably for a very long time, was America—and all who had been saved from the Jap invasion could thank God for American power. Britain and America would control the post-war world—why, then, should their appeal not be directed to the two Powers, jointly, instead of to one?

The amendment was defeated, the vot ing being about 2 to 1 against.

Discussion of the motion continued at length. The executive, having given all members a chance to blow off steam, wished to reject the motion; but it was clear that a majority of those present were in favour of the motion; so a sug gestion by Mr. Tex Thomas, that the pro posal be deferred for consideration by all members, was accepted.

Enter Mr. Ward And

Missionaries

fl\HE proposal that the Territories should X be taken from Australian adminis tration was reported at length in the Australian newspapers, and referred to in Britain and the United State; and it naturally stirred up the Australian Government—which had been trying to ignore Territorians for many months.

The Minister for External Territories (Mr. Ward) came into the newspapers forthwith as the champion of the Gov ernment. He ignored practically every thing that had been said about Terri tories adminstration, except Mr. Robson’s references to the plan for the abolition of indentured labour. Mr. Ward attacked Mr. Robson with the invective and innuendo of the typical politician. He suggested that Mr. Robson was disloyal even seditious—and that Mr. Robson had defended the labour system merely be cause he was “the mouthpiece of the capitalistic interests which had been exploiting New Guinea.” He said that the Australian Government would see that the exploitation of the Territories ceased, and that the natives were properly pro tected in future, and given a fair deal.

It was obvious that Mr. Ward was using the opportunity for purposes of extremist propaganda, and that he has no more regard for the primitive natives of New Guinea than for the Llamas of Thibet.

Therefore, it was with astonishment that Territorians saw that Bishop Cranswick, of the Anglican Mission, and Rev. J. W.

Burton, of the Methodist Missionary Society, had decided to make common cause with Mr. Ward —they supplied the “Sydney Morning Herald” with the fol lowing letter. It is republished in full hereunder, so that Territorians may clearly understand the viewpoint of people with whom they may be closely associated in future: Without taking any political attitude, we wish to support the declared intention of the Federal Government, as stated by the Hon. E. J. Ward, Minister for External Territories, in your issue of, yesterday, “of giving just treatment to all residents of the Australian Territories, including the native inhabitants.” We would go further and, in the terms of the Mandate, declare that the well-being and development of the native peoples should have priority and be regarded as a sacred trust. It is this conviction which leads us to support the avowed policy of the present Government to abandon the indentured native labour system as soon as possible and to sub stitute a more humane method.

We strongly dissent from Mr. Robson’s view, which favours the retention of this effete, noxious, and discredited labour arrangement in the interests of a handful of Europeans. This is a legacy from the old German Government, and of an inhumanity that is now alien to our modern thought. We are not suggesting that all employers of natives have been personally unjust or cruel; it is the system itself, of which they also are victims, to which we object. It denies the right of private enterprise to tens of thou sands in order to bolster up the private enter prise of a few. The arguments used by Mr Robson are precisely those advanced against the abolition of slavery, and they ignore the ele mental human rights of defenceless people.

We submit that the system is a great social injustice, in that it seriously disrupts native life, drawing away the best young men, and potential fathers, from the villages, thus leaving the heavy work to be done by old men, women, and children. It is also a great economic in justice in that it is a blind alley, and condemns the brown man, for all time, to be a mere serf of the white man, instead of being given the opportunity, by training and encouragement, to cultivate his own soil in modern and more productive ways. We could wish that the im petuous pen of Mr. Robson would attack this monstrous injustice of paying labourers less than threepence per day in New Guinea and less than flvepence a day in Papua. Even though food, shelter, and rudimentary medical care are in cluded, surely here is “responsibility to fight against injustice.”

There are serious moral dangers that cannot be dissociated from the system, but of these we can only hint. We would point out that all the more enlightened Governments of the world have abolished this system, and we trust that, in spite of opposition from vested interests, the Federal Government will stand firm by its declared policy.

G. H, Cranswick,

Bishop, Chairman, Australian Board of Missions;

John W. Burton,

General Secretary, Methodist Overseas Missions.

It is not necessary to reply to this remarkable document. The answer to every point made by the reverend gentle men is known to every man or woman who has lived in the Territories and handled native labour.

The arguments for and against the sys tem are published elsewhere in this issue.

Royal Commission Is Possible

IN public replies to the Australian Minis ter, Mr. Robson said the indentured labour question was only one of many grievances which the Territorians had against Australia, but Mr. Ward ignored or side-stepped all the others; that proof of Mr. Ward’s political cunning was seen when he chose to weep loudly over the so-called ill-treament of , the natives, while ignoring the plight of thousands of his fellow-Australians, who had been compulsorily evacuated from the Terri tories and economically ruined; that any administration would be better than that received at the hands of Canberra poli ticians; and that it was useless to argue with Mr. Ward, anyhow, because Mr.

Ward actually has no administrative power in the Territories —all power lies with ANGAU, under Army control.

Many Territorians, burning with indig nation at Ward mis-statements and the one-eyed missionary views, sent letters in to the “SM Herald,” but only one or two were published—further evidence that the Australian public is not interested in Territories affairs, and is quite indiffer ent to the fate of Territorians.

The discussion probably will be revived when the motion for severance comes again before the Pacific Territories Asso ciation, or if it should be brought up in the Commonwealth Parliament.

There is some possibility that the whole situation in relation to future Territories administration (including indentured labour), will be investigated by a Royal Commission.