The South Pacific Commission Is Launched

MOST thoughtful people who know anything about tropical adminis tration will approve warmly of the purpose of the South Pacific Com mission, which was brought into being in January, 1947, and which now is beginning to function. The mem bers of the carefully-selected, expert staff, as they apply themselves to their new tasks, may expect the sympathy and goodwill of the Territories interests concerned.

It must be admitted, however, that at this stage most people are blankly ignorant of the character and objects of the SPC. Their natural suspicion of any new “Government institution” is strengthened by the fact that this body is composed wholly of bureau crats and academicians—types of planners whose recent activities in this unhappy, post-war world have done nothing to endear them to the common man. Therefore, the pur pose of the SPC should be widely publicised, as soon as possible.

Broadly stated, the SPC has been brought into being to study the con ditions of life in all the Pacific Territories south of the equator, and north of Capricorn; and to assemble data and make recommendations which will assist the six nations re sponsible for those South Pacific Territories in their task of adminis

tration, especially in relation to native welfare. There are some 15 Territories in the area and the con ditions of life in each are in most respects similar. Yet those 15 Administrations have gone along, generally, in separate and water tight compartments, each tackling its problems in its own way, indifferent to the experiences and conclusions of the other Administrations, dealing with almost precisely similar prob lems. Generally, each of those Administrations has been animated by the same desire to improve the living standards of the indigenous peoples, and assist them towards self government; but, although they have been dealing with the same types of natives, there has been no effort to consult with each other as to the best ways of attaining those ends—there has not even been a channel of com munication available.

The creation of such an advisory and co-ordinating body, to work in co-operation with administrative bodies in a particular area, is not new. One, the Caribbean Com mission, created about 1946 and now functioning in the West Indies, is very similar in scope, purpose and structure to the South Pacific Com mission. The SPC has come into be ing as a result of the “Anzac” Agree

ment, signed by Australia and New Zealand at the end of 1944, and deal ing with their mutual interests in the South Pacific. The Australian Minister, Dr. Evatt, saw the necessity for something like the SPC, and made provision for it in the Agree ment. In due course, the four other nations concerned (Britain, United States, France and The Netherlands) accepted the idea; and the SPC was born at a conference in Canberra in January, 1947, when all six nations were represented.

THE SPC has no direct authority in relation to administration—it merely investigates and advises. Its most important work will be done by its Research Council, the members of which are recognised as experts and authorities in their particular fields.

Their reports and recommendations will go, through the Council’s per manent officers, per medium of the SPC Secretariat, to the Commission itself; and, when considered neces sary, the delegates of the six nations comprising the Commission will carry those recommendations back to their respective Governments, for con sideration and, if thought desirable, for implementation.

As will be seen from the report of the Commission’s Second Session, published elsewhere in this issue, the services of a number of distinguished men, some already well-known in connection with Pacific Islands

administration, have been secured for the Research Council; the officials who have been appointed to the Secretariat have a first-class repu tation; and the SPC steps off, to face its interesting Work Programme, under happy auspices.

AT this stage, only one criticism can be offered, and one fear ex pressed. The criticism is that there is not one representative of the com mercial classes in the personnel of this new set-up—all are bureaucrats and academicians, whose feet are not always planted very firmly on the hard earth. Quite apart from the fact that this organisation cannot func tion with complete efficiency unless it has the goodwill and co-operation of the commercial interests, it is desirable in all such bodies to have the advice and hard commonsense of men who are accustomed to demand ing, in organisation, the qualities of industry and efficiency, as an alter native to starvation.

The fear is that the influence of the Australian politicians may dom inate the SPC . . . which, it is admitted, is actually the creation of an Australian politician. If the methods of the Australian Socialist Administration in Australia and in Papua-New Guinea—which consist chiefly of inaugurating Utopian schemes, multiplying expensive staff to the point of absurdity, and ignor ing fundamental economic considera tions—are to be extended to the SPC, then the SPC is doomed. Because of her extravagance and her politicians’ apparent ignorance of economic law, Australia presently must face an economic blizzard; and, if Australian tentacles are too closely wound around the SPC, the SPC will go into the blizzard with her.

There is more than a suspicion that Australian political hates have been given an airing in connection with this SPC. If not, why has that skilled and experienced Pacific Administrator, Mr. Leonard Murray, not been given some part in this new organisation? We say, without hesi tation, that there is not one SPC delegate, connected with the Mela nesian section of this set-up, who has one tithe of Mr. Murray’s knowledge

and experience. Most people believe that the Australian Government’s failure to restore Mr. Murray to his place in Pacific administration—from which he was removed by the out break of war in his area—is con nected with the notorious hate complexes of Australian Minister Ward; and that belief is coloured by Australia’s failure to send Mr. Murray as a delegate to the SPC, for which he so obviously is fitted.

There is comment, also, on the fact that Australia voted for Noumea, as headquarters, instead of for Suva.

The selection of Noumea probably will work out quite well in the end— especially as the SPC seems to have the goodwill and co-operation of the French—but it was expected that Australia would have supported Britain and New Zealand in nominat ing Suva (which so obviously is the correct place for SPC headquarters) even if it was obvious that the cast ing vote would have gone in favour of Noumea. It is not forgotten that, at the birth of the SPC, in Canberra, Australia put forth the surprising claim that Port Moresby should be SPC headquarters.

It long has been felt, in British Pacific Territories, that there is ill will on the part of the Australian Pacific Administration towards the British. That feeling did not have its origin in Papua and New Guinea— it emanates from Canberra, from the little, pin-headed, professional poli ticians who make a feature of their anti-British hates. Australia’s sur prising vote for Noumea, instead of Suva, will not lessen that impression.

Any tendency to allow Australian political hates to influence important SPC decisions could be an evil thing, which would do untold harm to the SPC, SPC represents a good plan, which has been launched under pro mising auspices. It could contribute much to the advancement of the Pacific Territories. But, if it is to succeed, the politician and the place seeker must be kept out.

Mr. John McWhinney, secretary of the Norfolk Island Administration, has been spending furlough in Sydney. He re turned to Norfolk Island by air this month.