T the writer and"heretorl it sloXhave
p. 56 · Read in the full issue
Editorial Note
mms ipttpr run nni
gone directly to the wpb. It contained some sharp, but quite effective criticism of PIM articles on New Guinea, and some
practical and useful comments on the present condition and the future of New Guinea.
We have printed “Kiap’s” letter be cause of the value of his constructive criticism; but, as he failed to supply his name, his attack on the PIM (which we appreciate and would readily have published) has been cut out.
“Kiap” makes a summary of what he believes to be PIM policy in relation to New Guinea, and jeers at it; and then, in an excellent, cogently-reasoned article, he gives chapter and verse to justify practically everything we have said about the Territories.
Most people who know the Territories will subscribe heartily to the policy he has outlined—and especially will they appreciate the points he makes about the need for roads and the unreliableness of the native labour supply. “Kiap” has made a really worth-while contribution to the discussion on the future of Papua- New Guinea.
The only great difference between “Kiap’s” views, and the suggestions offered from time to time by PIM is that “Kiap” apparently does not like the Big Firms, and the encouragement of private enterprise; whereas the PIM in sists that the only way to secure the quick and efficient development of these primitive tropical Territories is to give every possible assistance to private enter prise to go in there and get rich. We do not like “exploiters, greedy traders and ruthless morjey-power” any more than does Mr. Ward; but we keep our feet on the ground, and we know that, human nature being what it is, we can get no pioneer effort worthy of the name in anything, unless the motive force is the desire for profit. Only “starry-eyed planners” would imagine that New Guinea could be developed by public servants as Australia’s bastion of defence against Asia.