Four Men and a Forum

New Guinea On the Air:

(By a Member of the Audience )

1F thought-provoking (current pet phrase of the public-spirited) can be con sidered an end in itself, then the Australian listening public achieved it on May 15, when the question: "What should we do about New Guinea?” was discussed over the ABC network.

The four men chosen to put their views by Forum-master H. B. Black were: Colonel John Kerr, principal of the Aus tralian School of Pacific Administration; Mr. R. W. Robson, “PIM” editor and pub lisher; the Rev. Dr. J. W. Burton, Presi dent-General of the Methodist Confer ence of Australia; and Mr. Alexander Rentoul, a well-known ex-Resident Magis trate of Papua. They spoke in that order. . , With the exception of Mr. Rentoul — who, apparently, like the late President Roosevelt, travels a little bit left of centre —the gentleman concerned pulled no punches. There was none of this sweet reasonableness, this co-operation of the best elements of brown, white, brindle, commerce and culture which Dr. Burton himself has advocated in his booklet “Brown and White in the Pacific.”

Colonel Kerr and Dr. Burton were as one in wishing to make a clean sweep of the old system, of ridding the Territory of "exploiters” and running it on behalf of the natives. Mr. Robson was equally single-minded in his contention that the natives were well enough before the war. and that it was much more Important to develop New Guinea, by private enter prise, as one of Australia’s defence bul warks, than to create there a preserve for Mr. Ward’s Fuzzy-wuzzies.

Perhaps it was due to the fact that each speaker had to compress his remarks into a rigid eight minutes that none of the debaters (again with the possible ex ception of Mr. Rentoul) took time off to as much as hint that there might be something in the other fellow’s views.

The audience was 95 per cent, pro- Fuzzy-wuzzy. None of them, obviously, had been nearer the jungle than King’s Cross; a large number came from Colonel Kerr’s own School of Administration.

They found it easy, therefore, to jeer, or laugh in derision, every time "old-timer” or “pioneer” was mentioned; and to ap plaud enthusiastically when each fresh scheme for the betterment of the down trodden native was propounded. Even the fact that they, as taxpayers, would have to pay for this uplift (a fact realis tically introduced to them by Colonel Kerr) failed to stir them. Nothing, appa rently, stirs the Australian taxpayer these days—they are past that, COLONEL KERR, is a dark, dour Scot; he delivered his address without a flicker of humour. One got the im pression that Colonel Kerr was going to uplift the gosh-darned Fuzzies, if it killed them, and that said uplift would be ad ministered at regular intervals with the same determination as the late-Victorian mother dosed her offspring, once weekly, with senna-tea.

The past, no matter what purpose It served in the past, was, in his opinion, now of no moment. The old systems, the pioneers, the so-called old-hands— all must go before Australia’s new con

ception of her duty in her Territories.

The eyes of the world would be on Aus tralia’s manner of carrying out her obli gations. The new economic policy must be fashioned for the benefit of the native people and exploitation must cease.

Later, in reply to an excited-looking soldier who demanded when the value of the gold taken out of the Territory by Europeans would be returned to the natives, Colonel Kerr said that, in his opinion, the mineral wealth of the Ter ritory should be worked only on behalf of the natives.

The soldier, thereupon, looked very pleased and sat down, presumably com forted.

MR. ROBSON’S address might have been sordidly realistic, and therefore unpopular with at least the seen

audience, but it did provide the fireworks in what would otherwise have been a group of high-minded gentlemen discuss ing rosy visions.

He said that New Guinea must be held by Australia against the invasion that, within the next 50 or 100 years, will come from the north, where hundreds of millions of Asiatics were learning the arts of war and Communism. This was best done by the encouragement of Euro pean private enterprise in New Guinea and the retention of the indentured labour system, the abolition of which, last year, had thrown the Territory into chaos.

Dr. Burton was of the opinion that the interests represented by Mr. Robson must be subservient to the welfare of the natives, who in the past had been de nied a fair chance. The ending of inden tured lab9ur meant the end of cheap labour which had been a disgrace to Aus tralia. It was now Australia’s solemn re sponsibility to train those natives to be capable, self-reliant farmers.

MR. RENTOUL—who, apparently, had not made a study of the life-stories of Colonel Kerr and Dr. Burton— prefaced his remarks with the rather surprising assertion that as the natives had no one to speak for them, he pro posed to do it. He did, however, present what was probably the least biased ad dress of the evening; and it should be remembered that he, of all four debaters, knows what it is to live in the New Guinea bush in intimate contact with the country and its people.

After four years of war, he said, what the natives really wanted was not reform and interference, but to be left alone for a while. Later they could be encouraged to become peasant farmers; but, at the same time, he was perfectly satisfied that the indentured labour system was a good one, and that it provided efficient safe guards for the natives.

He ended his discourse with an eloquent shrug: “The future ?’• MOST people, like Mr. Rentoul, regard the future as a very elusive rain bow. After their thought-provok ing hour, the majority of Australian lis teners, no doubt, shoved New Guinea and its problems into the back of their minds.

To Territorians, the general trend of the discussions and the temper of the audience actually in the auditorium was clear evidence that they are out of step with present events.

It is, however, an undeniable fact that in spite of Colonel Kerr’s threats and promises, and Dr. Burton’s high hopes, the rascally exploiters (in the guise of planters, miners, traders, etc.) are now pouring back to the Territories. In the next five years the theories so much ac claimed now will be tempered in the crucible of experience. Some will be burnt out and discarded. Others will have stayed the course. The cub-admin istrators, now being turned out of Colonel Kerr’s school, will have gained that highest of New Guinea qualifications— experience and their ideas may be worth hearing.

In the meantime: four men may talk and four million Australians might listen —but upon the efforts of four thousand Territorians rests the real answer to the question: “What are we going to do about New Guinea?”

Further Discussion on New Guinea NOT content with the Forum on May 15 (the complete proceedings, in cluding questions by the audience, are published in booklet form and may be purchased from the ABC office in any Australian capital city) the ABC is

attacking the New Guinea question again over its network. Mr. Norman Bartlett, ex-RAAF Public Relations Officer, is pre senting three discussions under the title, “What about New Guinea and Papua”; the first was broadcast on June 3—-two others will follow on June 17 and June 24.

The first discussion was dealt with in the form of an interview between Mr.

Bartlett and Mr. Gordon Thomas, for merly editor of the “Rabaul Times,” and Mr, E. Ward Oakley, a member of the Civil Administration.

Both Mr. Oakley and Mr. Thomas were agreed that the Territories should be developed commercially, and by Euro peans, as well as natives, although they did not altogether agree as to how it should be done.

Presumably, in future talks, mis sionaries, anthropologists and others will be permitted to advance their views.

Mr. Thomas believed that New Guinea could be made to produce all the tropical requirements of Australia and that, under the guidance of an up-to-date Agricul tural Department, European and native planters could benefit themselves and the Commonwealth.

In Mr. Oakley’s opinion, the copra in dustry would soon be a thing of the past, and, as far as Europeans were concerned, they should be encouraged to settle in the high and healthy plateaux of Central New Guinea, where they should concen trate on cocoa and coffee production, as well as “quick” crops for the Australian market.

Both Mr. Oakley and Mr. Thomas were agreed that no obstacles should be put in the way of America retaining the air sea base at Manus.