the Newspapers

AUSTRALIAN PRESS DOES NOT DO JUSTICE TO

Leonard Murray

Inadequate Summaries of Barry Report by the Newspapers

rE way in which the four Sydney daily newspapers handled the Barry report is typical of the way in which the Australian press usually deals with Australian Pacific Territories and Territories’ affairs.

Generally, they featured the material about muddling and inefficiency, and ignored the background of the inquiry and its special purpose, namely, to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the cessation of civil government in Papua, in February, 1942.

These newspapers were interested in the “Australian angle,” and, although their summaries of the report appear to treat Mr. Murray unjustly, it should be remem bered that this was caused mainly by their ignorance of the terms of reference.

The worst that can be said of them, with regard to Mr. Murray, is that they chose to print the more critical, instead of the more complimentary, of Mr. Barry’s re ferences to the Administrator—and there were many complimentary references to Mr. Murray and his administration in the full report.

The basis of the inquiry, and a sum mary of the report, are published else where in this journal. From the former, it will be seen that the primary object of the inquiry was to inform the Aus tralian Government of the relations which existed between the Civil Government (led by Mr. Leonard Murray, CBE) and the Military Government (with Major- General Morris as Commandant) which suddenly displaced it in February, 1942.

There appears to have been some feeling between the officials of the two regimes; and it is generally believed that the mili tary set-up tried to justify its high handed actions, its inefficiency, and its eagerness, after 1943, to hang on to power in Papua, by making a series of charges against Mr. Leonard Murray and his officers. The Commissioner (Mr.

Barry), in order to get the circumstances of that period into correct focus, found it necessary to examine the whole struc ture behind Australia’s defence of Papua in the first few months of the Pacific war—and he unearthed and published a very ugly story of gross muddling and inefficiency. rE “Sydney Morning Herald,” because it is Australia’s leading newspaper, and is expected to provide that coun try with a reliable record of public affairs was the worst sinner. Its long report was headed “Untrained men were sent to New Guinea—Peril of 1942 revealed in report.”

There is an excellent summary of the report on the military conditions existing betw e en December, 1941, and February, 1942; but the newspaper fails to report properly the Commissioner’s findings upon the matters specially referred to him Here is all the “Herald” says:— esran'p that ifc WaS to a feel * ng that an Administrator who felt it necessary to refer constantly to Canberra for instructions could never cope with the un precedented sittration of early 19'42 Mr. Barry said that he thought that the ?r°aToT and nt r S prf Ctlon fl n directing the Adminis and cer tam other officers to leave the Territory was the only course open. approach to problems of major administration would very likely have caused them to disagree with measures to which tSe I?s?rT andant W ° Uld alm ° St cei ’tainly have * to tv^ h ° read the fuU report will agree that that is not only an inadequate sum

mary—it also conveys a completely wrong impression regarding the finding in rela tion to Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray’s actions, in some respects, are criticised: but he is not held blameworthy to the extent sug gested. rE report of the “Daily Telegraph” is not only short and inadequate, but is inaccurate. This, for instance, flared in black type across two columns: — “The civil administration, the was unable to maintain order, and looting, rape, and panic took place before the Army was able to obtain control.”

That is a grotesque mis-statement of the position as disclosed by the report.

The “Telegraph” publishes various paragraphs (from a memo, by General Blarney) which excuse and defend General B. M. Morris, and refer to his “courage and determination”; and other paragraphs which inferentially put blame upon Mr.

Murray: but does not adequately publish the parts of the report which completely exonerate Mr. Murray from most of the charges brought against him by the Army.

The “Daily Mirror,” in a short article, summarises the report effectively, in re lation to the primary purpose of the inquiry. But the mental obfuscation of all these people when they deal with the Ter ritories is illustrated by the facts that the “Mirror” connects the report with “the Mandated Territory of New Guinea,” and Mr. “Hubert” Murray. The Barry report has nothing whatever to do with the Mandated Territory; and Hubert Murray died with his boots on in Samarai In 1940.

Sydney “Truth” carried on the error by actually publishing, in its comments on the report, a photograph of the late Sir Hubert Murray, and making no reference at all to Mr. Leonard Murray. rE best effort was made by “The Sun,” which divided the report into two parts—one dealing with the mud dling and confusion of the Australian Army staff in arranging the defence of Papua; and the other with the Commis sioner’s findings on the charges brought against Mr. Murray. The idea was good; but, unhappily, the gentleman who sum marised the report apparently knew nothing of the terms of reference, or the background of the Papuan scene and, in reading “The Sun,” one gets the wholly incorrect impression that Mr. Murray, in January-February, 1942, cut an unimpres sive figure, and that the hero of the occasion was General Morris. How far that is from the truth can be ascer tained by anyone who takes the trouble to examine the report in detail.

Some Australian dailies, in other States, published better summaries of the report than did the Sydney dailies.