Mysterious Papuan

Inquiry

Commissioner Seeks Data on Events of Feb., 1942

AN official inquiry, concerning which there has been speculation, was formally opened in Melbourne on December 1 by Mr. J. B. Barry, KC, who appears to have the authority of a Royal Commission issued by the" Commonwealth Government. The subjects of the inquiry are: 1. Whether the Administrator of Papua, and/or any member of the Legislative or Executive Councils, failed in their pub lic duty to safeguard the Territory. 2. Whether any action taken or omitted to have been taken by the Military Com mand of the Bth Military District prior to noon on February 14, 1942, contributed to any failure on the part of the civil administration of the Territory. 3. Whether there was adequate co operation between the civil administra tion and the military authorities in the Territory: and, it not, who was respon sible for the absence of such co-operation. 4. All other matters deemed relative to the above.

The inquiry was formally adjourned until December 12, in Melbourne; and it was decided that all proceedings should be in camera. Mr. J. H. McClemfens, of New South Wales, instructed by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, appeared to assist the Commissioner, and Lieut.- Colonel F. B. Gamble, of the Victorian Bar, appeared to assist any military wit nesses who might be called. Sittings in Sydney will commence on January 4. It was announced that any person who wishes to give evidence may communi cate with the secretary of the Commis sion, Mr. Kruger, of the Department of Supply and Shipping, 125 Swanston Street, Melbourne. rpHE terms of the inquiry suggest that X there was friction of some sort between the civil and military authorities in Papua in the very critical days following the Japanese invasion of New Guinea; but the clam-like silence of the Commonwealth Government (which ordered the inquiry) and the refusal of Mr. Leonard Murray (Adminis trator of Papua) and his senior officials to discuss the matter, plus the Commis sioner’s decision to hold the inquiry pri vately, leave the whole development more of a mystery than ever.

Bureaucracy rides high—and the pub lic, in these days, has no right to infor mation, or anything else.

It is assumed that an attack by the military authorities upon Mr. Murray is the basis of the thing—an assumption borne out by the appearance of counsel for the Army. Extraordinary as it may appear, there is no appearance of counsel for the Civil Administration. Is it to be assumed that the Brass Hats, who have exercised autocratic power, complete and unchecked, in Papua since February, 1942, are to have things all their own way in this inquiry? If there were no counsel for the Army, we might place our con fidence in the fundamental fairness of mind of Mr. Barry, KC. As it is, the posi tion is bewildering.

Mr. D. M. N. McFarlane returned to Fiji in October after a visit to Australia.