Guinea

Future of Papuo-New Guinea

Letter to the'Editor AS one who has climbed over the razor backs and down the gullies of a large portion of Papua and New Guinea since 1921 In various activities, and personally controlled all types of native labour, from “calaboose” from in terior bush areas to sophisticated “townies” with chests besmaUered with betel-nut and metal tokens, I have been rather struck by the pessimistic outlook of many ex-European residents of Papua and New Guinea.

The main thought behind this pessim ism is that the native has been spoilt and will not be the useful economic unit he was in the “good old days” of pioneer ing.

The logical answer to such a point of view is that what is happening is a per fectly natural racial and economic development in a land full 9! natural amenities and boundless possibilities. You can no more set back this evolution than you can back-pedal on history.

The natives of New Guinea are no bet ter or worse than their past environ ment has made them, and a cross section of native psychology compares very favourably with a similar cross section of any other race of human be ings. . . . .

Adverse influences have certainly been thrust on these people during the re cent war years, and this will make the task of those responsible for their im mediate control and guidance much more difficult than heretofore. To have a clas sical and not entirely self-interested out look on native control, the following salient features of native character should be borne in mind;— • The average native has a fair amount of commonsense and natural ability, and the task is to develop these traits. , . . x , © Control must be firm but fair. No native has much respect for an ingratiat ing approach, which tries to cover its uncertainty of what is required by un due familiarity or a cajoling attitude. • The native is quick to appreciate a person’s worth, whatever his immediate social grading, and consequently responds to examples of conduct and character.

Political economy will naturally en velop the Territories, but why not do it gracefully and with as much con sideration for its indigenous inhabitants and European pioneers as possible? It may be a long-term investment, but will eventually pay a good dividend in a very important field of Australian interest.

As the poet laureate John Masefieid hoped for post-war England, we do not want the New Guinea of our discontent “where life-long weariness just paid the rent, and long dead custom set the dreary tune”; but a country controlled by a progressive Administration unfettered oy the absentee Canberra “lobbyists,” and opened up by finance with a more local interest than making profits there to feed interests elsewhere. . .

A suggestion to employ these principles in native and natural development would

be the formation of a Native Manpower Directorate firmly operated by experi enced European and native personnel, and governed by a Board composed on similar lines to the former Legislative Council, plus a delegate on the spot from the Minister for External Territories. The direction to employment should be, as far as possible, in the native’s home area.

Exceptions from direction could be made at the Board’s discretion, but its general application under protected con ditions would be a practical intermediate stage between the old indentured system and the maturing of academic and poli tical objectives for the native’s welfare, and advancing his education and stan dard of living.

I am, etc.,

H. C. Strong.

14 Wallace Street, Greenwich Point, Sydney.