Short Indentures

Labourers Do Not Like

Letter to the Editor MESSRS. WARD and company has de cided that Brown Brother must not engage for a longer period than one year under indenture. Brown Brother, however, has other ideas.

Yesterday I presented five recruits to the District Labour Officer and asked him to sign them on to me for the stipu lated one year, at the stipulated 15/-.

DLO went through the usual routine of asking the natives whether they wished to work for the Taubada for the period stated.

I must confess I was rudely shocked when, with one accord, they all said “No,” and meant it.

Such a blow to the proverbial ego was rather hard to take, but the spokesmen for the recruits soon settled that. He said: “We do not want to sign for one year because we will not get enough

money for only a year’s work. But we will sign for two years.’’

DLO explained that the Government would not permit them to engage for more than one year, but they might be rtDle to sign for a further term when their first year was completed.

This they considered a lot of unneces sary humbug; but eventually agreed to touch the pen only if I would allow them to work here; for two years. I made the promise and will stick by it. Perhaps by this time next year we will have a sane Government and a saner Native Labour Ordinance.

Canberra idealists have laid it down that the native will not work for more than one year at a time. It is, indeed, unfortunate that the only people who weren’t consulted were the people this decree affects most —the natives them selves.

The argument that a boy does not re ceive sufficient money at the end of one year (as against a two-years’ period) is a good one; and I’m game to stake a hefty wager that if a Gallup poll of this question were taken among the labourers themselves they would plump for a two years contract.

I am, etc.,

Arthur L. Ethell.

Milne Bay, Papua, 27/3/47.