University Professor's

Indentured Labour

Again

University Professor's Attack

THE invasion of New Guinea by Japan ese had severely disrupted native life, and very many natives had been killed by enemy action and by introduced diseases, said Professor Elkin (Professor of Anthropology) in an address to students at Sydney University. New Guinea employers, seeking indentured labour after the war, might find that the labour pool was not available, even if the system were retained.

The question of whether the natives would have confidence in us again would depend upon how we treated them. He advocated honesty and frankness and an admission of our earlier failures. Our future NG administration should be based on: (a) Gratitude towards the native population; (b) strict adherence to all the principles of the Atlantic Charter. He said we should help the natives stand on their own feet, particu larly economically.

The question arose, What part will the planters play in such a new set-up—those who have given years of their lives to wards building a livelihood in the islands?

The professor explained that he did not wish to attack the planters, and there was no objection to their work in NG, so long as it did not jeopardise the develop ment of the natives. This could only be a success if: (a) The alienation of land is prevented. This fortunately, has never been a great problem in NG. (b) The indentured labour system is abol ished, the reasons for this being: (1) The natives are away from their homes for an extended period and consequently lose touch with the folks at home; (2) the natives learn little of future value to them.

Professor Elkin believed that force of circumstances would condemn the con tinuation of the indentured labour sys tem after the war. It would then be necessary for planters to employ natives by personal arrangements, on suitable terms to the natives.

It had lately been suggested that NG should have some form of self-govern ment. He could well imagine the kind

of self-government that that would be — the representatives of 6,000 Europeans governing a million natives.

Professor Elkin expressed the hope that New Guinea and Papua would become part of a regional mandate, these regional mandates being in the hands of good-thinking nations.

Editorial Note.

THIS report is published to show the kind of comment one hears and reads all over Australia to-day, and which, presumably, is calculated to influence the Australian Government when it gets around to fixing a policy for the future administration of Papua and New Guinea. Is it any wonder the Territories people seek separation from Australia!

It is comment informed by excellent intentions: but it is so impractical, and so divorced from realities in a world that is geared to the most selfish considera tions, that it is useless.

Professor Elkin is a distinguished scientist. In relation to the future of New Guinea, he insists on remaining a scientist. If he were a realist, he would step down into the common market place, and help us to find a solution of the New Guinea native and labour prob lems. There is no solution in his vague suggestions that New Guinea should remain a native preserve (everyone bar red out except missionaries and anthro pologists) and that the work of the Ter ritorian plantations, mines, etc., should be carried on by free labour.

Australia has to be protected; Austra lian security requires organised settlement in New Guinea; organised settlement requires dependable labour; and there is no such labour available except (a) indentured native labour or (b) imported Asiatic labour.

The indentured labour system is not enslavement—it is only a method, evolved in some 40 years of trial and error, by which the primitive hatives are compelled to observe a labour contract into which they enter freely and without compulsion.

The system can be employed for the definite benefit of the natiyes, under wise administration.

We have no record of even one person, who really knows and understands the Territories conditions, ' condemning the system in the manner of recent Austra lian critics. None of the latter appears to know anything whatever of the prac tical side of the problem.