achieve" mUe sense°

New Guinea Grievances Aired In

Australian Parliament

The Demand For Rabaul Inquiry

a t 01

Canberra, June 21.

ALTHOUGH Territorians are not officially represented in the Australian Pederal Parliament, several champions of their cause have emerged durmg the last year or so. These members are J a l w ?7 s P re P. ared . to . <*9 verbal battle on behalf of residents of Papua and New Guinea; but all sit on the Opposition

achieve" mUe sense°

Through them, however, Territories’ grievances at least are given a public airing.

The Papua-New Guinea record of former Australian Governments is no better than that of the present Labour Government. All that can be- said favourably of them is that they had a negative quality, rather than the positive passion for sometimes ill-considered “reform” that characterises the present Administration. in parliament recently on benaif of tne Territories are: Mr. H. L. Anthony, Country Party member for Richmond, NSW; Mr. J. P. Abbott, Country Party member for New England, NSW; the Deputy and d Mr°A t o for Barker* Stith 1 mb for Barker, South Australia.

These four members have constantly demanded an inquiry into the fall of Rabaul, not only on behalf of New Guinea people who lost relatives there, but on behalf of relatives of Servicemen who were sacrificed when the Japanese took the port in January, 1942. They also led the attack on the Government when Mr.

Ward introduced his Provisional Adminis-

x .. „.„ . , „ tration Bill into Parliament last year, anc * have consistently taken the part of the planter against the Governs?™ m lts attempt to socialise New Guinea.

They took the part of Mrs. Baker (plantation manageress, of Witu Islands) when red tape methods were used to block her return to the Territory. .. When Mr Bryson, a Victorian Labourite, said in Parliament last year that New Guinea P?°Pv: had done little to protect the islands they had called their homes, the four members rallied to Territorians’ defence, and showed that the war record of island residents was second to none.

Mr. Harrison demanded action from an unwilling Government to disarm members of the NGIB, to quell mutinees in the brigade, and to protect the post-war New Guinea settlers. rESE members are still carrying on the Territorians’ fight.

This month Messrs Anthony and Abbott are putting pressure on the Goveminent to find out what plans it has in New Guinea; what part former residents will play in those plans; what the Goveminent is going to do about discontent amongst members of the Provisional Administration; when a Legislative Council J-° r , 4 and wh at the Chifley Government is going to do about demands for an in- Q uir Y into uabaui s fan. (After the following was written, Mr.

Chifley flatly refused an inquiry into Rabaul. and Mr. Ward was prominent in a disgraceful scene in Parliament, reported elsewhere.)

“Criminal Indifference”

“fpHE tragedy of Rabaul cannot be X. remedied by a post-mortem; but a post-mortem might provide suffi cient information to enable steps to be taken, if on any future occasion, a simi lar emergency arises,” said Mr. Anthony to the “PIM” representative. “I have re peatedly pressed for an inquiry, not only into the loss of Rabaul, but into the Am boina expedition as well.

“In the case of Rabaul I feel that there was something which amounted almost to criminal indifference on the part of the authorities in Australia, including the Government, for the fate of those who were left to face the Japanese attack.

“It was manifest, after Pearl Harbour and the fall of the Philippines and Java, that Rabaul and Papua would be next attacked. It was known to the Australian Government that there were not adequate forces in any of these places to repel an attack when it came, and that the alter native facing the residents and military personnel in these places was either flight or remain and be massacred.

“Although women and children were evacuated, the civilian men were not taken out, although it was obvious they could not help stem the Japanese ad vance. Of 300 civilians who were left behind and who should have been eva cuated long before January 23, 1942, only a handful survived.

“Shipping available in Rabaul Harbour before the Jap landing, included the 9,000 ton Norweigian “Hoerstein.”

“TT might be said that it is easy to be X wise after events, but in view of the fact that Rabaul was an obvious tar get for the enemy and that a period of 46 days elapsed between the December 7 (Pearl Harbour) and January 23, when the enemy attacked Rabaul, there was ample time to take measures to at least

safeguard the lives of Australian non combatant civilians.

“This lack of concern for Australians in Rabaul in early 1942 is in sharp con trast with the concern which certain Commonwealth Ministers exhibited for their personal safety at the same time.

“When it was thought that Sydney was likely to be attacked certain Ministers removed themselves and their families, with all possible haste, 200 miles from the city to Canberra. They returned to their homes only when all fear of enemy invasion had passed.”