Labour Supply tor South Pacific Territories

What the New Regional Commission Could Do

WHILE the Socialistic planners are directing their thoughts and energies to the uplift of the South Seas natives, and the confusion of “exploiters” and private enterprise generally, the biggest over-all prob lem in the South Pacific is only partially recognised and seldom dis cussed. It is the problem of providing the South Pacific Territories with an adequate supply of labour.

Let us make a quick survey, taking the Territories from West to East.

In Papua-New Guinea, where there are the important, European-owned industries of planting and mining, the Australian Government, up until the Japanese invasion, provided an adequate labour supply by permitting primitive natives to be indentured as labourers, on a system that had been evolved through a quarter-century of trial and error, and which was very strictly policed. In 1945 Australia, making a magnificent gesture calcu lated to impress the ILO and similar institutions, swept away the inden tured labour system. Nothing ade quate has been put in its place and the Australian Territories, indus trially and commercially, are crippled.

Before the war, those Territories produced copra, gold and rubber worth at least £3,000,000 p.a. If there is to be any future there for Euro peans, if anything like that produc tion is to be restored, Papua-New Guinea must be provided with from 30,000 to 40,000 labourers. Where are they to come from? The declared

policy of the Ward Administration — which is one of training 1,000,000 natives, at the Australian taxpayers’ expense, to become “peasant farmers’’ —makes no provision for a labour force.

BEFORE the invasion, the British Solomon Islands produced each year some 25,000 tons of copra, worth £300,000. This came mostly from plantations operated by Europeans, with indigenous natives, employed on a system similar to that in New Guinea. So far, the British Adminis tration has given no indication that it wishes the European planters to return; but it has been making elab orate plans for training natives to produce copra and other crops for themselves. Out of the estimated 90,000 natives in the group, some 5,000 Malaita-men were indentured as labourers. If any future use is to be made of the Solomons by the “ex ploiters,” at least 5,000 labourers will be needed.

Before the war, the French in New Caledonia required, for the operation of important industries based on minerals, a labour force of at least 15,000; and two-thirds of this was pro vided by indentured labourers from Java and from Indo-China. During the Pacific War, this system com pletely collapsed. For a couple of years, some 9,000 Indonesians were roaming around, some working but most of them undergoing some kind of social ferment. However, most of the Tonkinese and some of the Javan ese now have been repatriated. New

Caledonian mining interests are try ing desperately to find labour. The latest report is that they are planning to bring in Chinese.

The French planters in the New Hebrides Condominium could not depend to any extent on indigenous labour, and they brought in Tonkin ese. There were about 1.000 of them there when war came, and many have been repatriated. The labour prob lem remains.

I FURTHER east, in the Colony of Fiji, there are at least 125,000 Fijians and 125,000 Indians; and, as the majority of these people now are consumers of European goods, one would imagine that economic needs would provide a labour force. But Fijians generally, being landowners and free Islanders, are disinclined to labour. Some thousands of them work, but not enough to represent a dependable and calculable economic factor The Fiji Indians are industries enough; but all available Indian labour is divided two ways in cane growing, for the CSR, in the country, and trading, on their own account, in the towns.

By and large, the demand for labour, for the plantations and indus tries, is just as keen in Fiji as else where; and all development in that rich Colony definitely is governed by the labour supply in sight. 11THEN we reach Samoa, we are in n Polynesia; and all future calcu lations must take into consideration that, in the Polynesian countries, the Europeans are moving out and the indigenous people are taking over whatever industries are necessary to the economy of those countries.

Samoa is a good example of that.

When it was a flourishing German colony, just before World War I, there were about 1,000 Europeans there, 1,100 Euronesians and some 30,000 native Samoans. Today, there are 60,000 Samoans, nearly 4.000 Euro nesians and only some 300 Europeans.

In the German time, the 1,000 Euro peans employed over 2,000 Chinese and 1,000 Solomon Islanders all indentured. To-day, only a few score of the Chinese remain. Samoa is producing copra and cocoa on an impressive scale but an increasing proportion of the producers are in digenous, and most of the work is being done by Samoans and Eurone sians.

There is a somewhat similar story to be told in the other Polynesian Territories Tonga, Cook Islands.

French Oceania, and the Ellice and Gilbert Islands. It is a pleasing pic ture for those eager planners who are so anxious to rid the Pacific of the European “exploiters”; so it is neces sary to emphasise that what has been done in Polynesia, in bringing the native races along to the stage where they can handle their country’s in dustries, cannot be done in Melanesia —anywhere west of Fiji—for another two or three generations, at least.

BEFORE discussing the question of a co-ordinated labour-supply policy for the countries of Melanesia, it is desirable that the nations con cerned should have a common policy regarding European residence, settle ment and development in those countries.

Take New Guinea, for example.

Until 1941 brought the twin curses of War and Wardism, it was the deli berate policy of Australia to encourage Europeans to enter her Pacific Terri tories, and develop their great natural wealth. In doing that, the Europeans most definitely paci fied and opened up the Territories, assisted the Stone-Age natives to wards better standards of life, and made the Territories self-supporting.

Thousands of Europeans, assisted and encouraged bv the Australian Government, made their homes there.

They were displaced by the Jap invasion; but during all 1945-6-7 they have been struggling back to what they regard as their homes and trying to re-establish themselves.

If these people are expected to re establish themselves and their industries, they must as part of administrative policy be provided with an adequate labour force.

But if it is now Australian policy to discourage European settlement, knock back private enterprise on the ground that it is “exploitation,” and generally keep the Territories as a close preserve for those primitive natives, then a clear statement of policy should be made. The present muddled set-up, in which baffled settlers and well-intentioned but un instructed officials are stumbling around in the murk and gloom created bv professional politicians, is most un fair and unjust to everyone con cerned including the natives.

The same need for a clear-cut policy is apparent in the case of the British in the Solomons, the French in New Caledonia, and the Anglo- French in the New Hebrides. The French, being realists, already are out after indentured Chinese labour. The others, like Australia, are just fumbl ing about.

Here is a chance for the new South Pacific Regional Commission to do something really worth while in co ordination and enunciation of policy.

Then, if European settlement in those Territories is to continue, the prob lem of providing a dependable labour supply can be attacked in a scientific manner.