The New Guinea Set-Up

Future Policy Discussed at a Sydney Forum

mHREE angles on post-war New Guinea X were presented at the forum on “Post-War Pacific” held in the Methodist Church, Waverley, on Satur day, November 4.

The Rev. J. W. Burton, General Secre tary of the Methodist Mission, who was to have spoken, was delayed in North Australia, and was unable to attend. His place was taken by the Rev. John Bodger, of the Anglican Mission.

Professor Elkin, who was not well, spoke first and left as soon as he concluded.

Representatives of the Sydney daily press left with him; thus the professor stole what little publicity was attached to the meeting and was not there to join in the discussion which took place at the con clusion of the addresses.

Professor Elkin took, as his central theme, a contention that commercial enterprise in New Guinea was concerned only in making profits and was not at all interested in the natives as such. He said that, in the post-war period, the natives must be given every opportunity to develop their own country, with the ultimate aim of becoming a self-support ing and self-governing community. To this end, any plantations or other pro perties held at present by Europeans should be taken over where necessary, the owners thereof compensated, and the property handed back to the natives to whom it rightfully belongs.

The professor condemned the system of indentured labour outright.

MR.. G. J. A. MOORE, representing the Pacific Territories Association, said that he thought the first considera

tion in the post-war set-up should be the defence of the New Guinea territories in the interests of the whole Commonwealth of Australia and, of course, in the in terests of the natives in the Territories themselves. The only practical way in which this could be done was by com mercial development of the Territories by European settlers, who would work in co-operation with an Administration charged with the proper care of the native inhabitants, with the various missions and with the natives themselves.

Pre-war Administrators of the Territories had succeeded along these lines and, while doubtless they could have ■ done more, none could say they had worked on principles which were inimical to the natives.

Recent* talk of “exploitation,” “slavery” an<* ill-treatment of the natives was plain nonsense. The several Administrators of the Territories, including the late Sir Hubert Murray, and numbers of mis sionaries #n the field, had paid tribute to the assistance of commercial settlers in the development of these native races.

The policy of the Australian Adminis trators of New Guinea and Papua had undoubtedly been in the best interests of the natives and of Australia, and any violent changes in that policy, not only might do grave injustice to those Euro pean settlers who had implemented it, but would certainly react unfavourably on the natives themselves.

Mr. Moore said that he believed the ultimate survival of these native races was possible only by co-operation with Europeans in the existing economic order,

and not by any attempted segregation in an endeavour to create a “native” sovereign State or States. The Pacific to-day was no place where such States could hope to exist in peace. rE Rev. John Bodger, who was on the eve of returning to Papua, said that he had spent 17 years with his mission in Papua and was the represen tative on the Papuan Legislative Council of all the Christian Missions. He could

then, he claimed, speak with first-hand knowledge on the subject of Papua.

While mistakes undoubtedly had been made, and much more could have been done for the natives (and would have been done but for lack of Government funds) none could deny the lasting bene- Sts which had been conferred on the Papuans during the past 70 years. To these benefits could be attributed the help the Papuans had given us since the Japanese invasion. There were three factors contributing to this state of af- Administration and its officers; the Missions; and the European settlers —particularly the old-time miners. The Papuan was developing slowly and surely rr citizen when war came to me lemtory.

Since the war, the Papuan had suf-

fered much. His lands had been taken from him; his labour had been impressed* much of his property‘had been destroyed * and his way of life disorganised We must not forget, Mr. Bodger went on, what the Papuans had done for us in this war. We owed it to them to see that their rehabilitation was commenced at the earliest possible moment, that their lands were restored, and their re turn to their villages expedited Their spiritual and bodily welfare must be our immediate concern and their return to a normal life at the earliest possible time was essential. As the late Sir Hubert Murray had put it—“ The capacity of the Papuan to learn is only limited by our ability to teach.” In those words lay our duty to the native.

In answer to a question, Mr. Bodger

said that he did not think the time had yet arrived when the system of inden tured labour should be abolished in Papua.