Why Ng Administration Escaped

Hostile Criticism

Summary of Debate In Australian Parliament

THERE still is no indication of when the Papua-New Guinea Act (passed by the Australian Parliament in March) will come into operation.

The debate on New Guinea affairs in the Australian Parliament was stultified by the ruling that any critical references to the Wardist adminis tration could be regarded as sub judice.

THE second-reading and explanatory speech of the Acting-Minister for External Territories (Mr. Chambers), on the Papua-New Guinea Bill, was re ported at length in the March issue of

Pim.

The bill, whose main purpose is to place the Australian territory of Papua, and the Trusteeship Territory of New Guinea, under one administration, was first introduced to the Australian parlia ment in mid-1948, but due to interference by the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations (to whose opinions Dr Evatt and the whole Australian Labour Government are very sensitive) the bill was with drawn, to be amended in certain details.

The amended bill was expected to pro vide the Opposition with an opportunity to attack Mr. Ward's administration in the Territories and to publicise some of the grievances of Territories’ residents.

But, after hanging fire for some time, the bill was suddenly introduced and rushed through Parliament at the short February-March session, at a time when Mr. Ward had been relieved of his port folio and was attending the New Guinea Timber Lease Inquiry, and when Mr.

Chambers was Acting-Minister for Ex ternal Territories.

The Speaker held that anything critical said about the Wardist regime in New Guinea was sub judice, and not permitted.

This drew the teeth of the Opposition, and whatever attack they made on the bill was generally from the defence angle.

Little objection was taken to the amal gamation of the administrations of the two territories; but it was strongly argued that, as Australia had lost over 5,000 of her sons in the New Guinea cam paigns in the last war, there should never have been any question of Trusteeship for the old Mandate —New Guinea should have been claimed outright, as an Aus tralian possession.

The fact that Australian administration in New Guinea was now subject to the whims and fancies of international busy bodies and disruptionists was also resented —except by members of the Government.

It was evident from the speeches that both sides of the House have learnt some thing about New Guinea since they de bated the Papua-New Guinea Provisional Administration Bill, .in July, 1945. But most Socialist members have still Quite a way to go before they can contribute anything constructive to this kind of de bate.

Hereafter is a summary of points made by some of the speakers in the debate.

Where comment seems necessary it is given in parentheses.

Mr. White (Lib., Vic.)

ALTHOUGH, in 1938, some members of this House urged that New Guinea should be fortified, the terms of the Mandate did not permit this. We, how ever, fortified Port Moresby in the south ern part of the island. It is a pity that

we were unable to fortify the Mandated Territory, because its unpreparedness to resist invasion enabled an enemy to gain a foothold there and menace Australia.

Although New Guinea became a battle ground for the Australians —and a grave yard for many—this territory has been given away to the Trusteeship Council by the Minister for External Affairs (Dr.

Evatt). South Africa did not permit such a thing in connection with her Mandated Territory of South-West Africa, which is adjacent to the Union of South Africa.

Already Russia, which is a Pacific power as well as a world menace, has taken a sinister interest in what we are doing in NG.

The measure provides for a form of local government which is commendable and in line with that set up by the Lyons Government before World War 11. Then Papua and "the Mandated Territory of New Guinea each had a distinct administra tion.

We must not forget that the white settlers, to whom every encouragement

was given, formed a solid buffer against the Japanese invader after World War I.

Properties expropriated from the Germans were made available to Australian ex servicemen.

During the debate which took place in this House in 1945, when the Government sought to apply its former policy with respect to the civil administration of the territories, Mr. Bryson, the former mem ber for Bourke, the member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) and the Minister for Ex ternal Territories (Mr. Ward) made scathing comments about the planters in the territories. Those comments evoked strong protests from servicemen in New Guinea.

The Minister who is now acting for the Minister for External Territories recently visited the territories. If he visited Bulolo he would have seen the graves of many white planters who died when serving in the New Guinea Rifles or as coast wat chers, in which roles they gained valuable time for us when the enemy was launch ing his attack. Therefore, I hope that

the Minister now will deny the statements that were made by his colleague In 1945.

Nearly two years ago I moved that a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the set-up under the New Guinea Act in respect to the inadequacy of the administration, its failure to main tain production, its lack of economic policy, the unbalanced native labour policy, and the unrest in the Public Ser vice. fTIHERE is a tendency for some sup- JL porters of the Government to believe that a man who goes to the tropics to battle for a living must be an exploiter.

They forget that the British peoples have given a striking lead to the world in colonisation and that one of our brightest examples of colonisation is in the admin istration of New Guinea. This Govern ment has failed in its administration of the Territories mainly because of its re fusal to consult with residents of the territories on the spot. I quote from an article in the Sydney “Bulletin” on the editor of' the “Pacific Islands Monthly,”

Mr. Robson, who said that ladies and other theorists, anthropologists and the like, comprised the panel of so-called ex perts called together to advise Mr. Ward —he would not seek the advice of those he branded “exploiters.”

Before Japan entered the war, I and my colleagues drew the attention of the Government to the inadequacy of defences in New Guinea. At that time Mr, Ward retorted that, so far as he was concerned, those who lived in New Guinea could de fend it themselves. I repeat that the defence of New Guinea is our trust and responsibility. We should not abdicate to the Trusteeship Council, which no doubt will have its headquarters at Lake Suc cess, or some other distant centre, where it may decide to interfere in our domestic affairs.

(Continued page 32)

The Acting Minister should examine carefully the matters which I have raised. and he must also study the points of view of white settlers on the plantations.

The setting up of local government under this legislation is a progressive move; except that the country will come under the constant surveillance of an inter-

national body. The change is not to the advantage of Australia. . . . The proposal that some of the natives should be ap pointed to the new Legislative Council emanated from Russia, which also sug gested that the natives should be given their independence. If the Territory of New Guinea is to be an effective front

line of defence for us, we require a healthy, intelligent and loyal native popu lation and a permanently resident white industrial population with a stake in the country and the capacity to direct native effort.

Unfortunately, the white settlers have been checked in every way. Before the advent of the Labour Government the Lyons Government encouraged the pro duction of rubber in southeast Papua and ensured that that commodity was sold at a reasonable price. But this Government has discouraged the opening of addi tional country suitable for the production of rubber. (Mr. Chambers, Acting Minister, here interjected that the Government had done nothing to hinder the production of additional rubber; that there was no hold up in encouraging more white settlers to the Territory; and that no reasonable people regarded the white settlers as ex ploiters.) When the Minister replies to the de bate, I should like him to explain why the Government is not allowing planters the full benefit of copra prices, and why it is retaining £8 or £lO a ton. I remind the Minister that there is supposed to be a stabilisation fund. World parity for copra is about £6O a ton, but the producers are lucky to receive £4O from the Production Board, which the Government has ap pointed, and in addition, they have all the shipping difficulties to overcome.

I have questioned certain appointments that have been made. For example, I read a statement in this House about the appointment of the Controller of Shipping at Port Moresby. That appointment was unpopular, but the officer in question happened to be a friend of the Minister.

The, inter-island shipping services are not satisfactory, the planters are not get ting a fair price for their copra, and their difficulties have been increased by the, one-year indenture system. (COMMENT: The reference made by Mr. White to what might have been done to fortify New Guinea before World War II is interesting. But Australia (or any Democracy) is not given to fortifying anything until it must. Whatever the Australian Government of the 1938-41 period did to Port Moresby, it could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called fortifying it. Rabaul folk are not likely to forget that when the Japs struck, the complete air-force in their area consisted of half a dozen obsolete Wirraway planes.

The Australian mainland, in early 1942, had virtually no modern fortifications and its air strength was on a par with that of Rabaul. Nor, looking back on the pre war era in Papua-New Guinea, can we remember any positive encouragement given to planters and others. The best that can be said for the Australian gov ernments that preceded the present Labour set-up was, after taking native requirements into consideration, they gave the Territories a “free go,” nor did they sit up at nights devising ways and means of driving them to despair with un necessary “reforms” and frustrating re strictions. No Australian government yet has had a really vigorous, forward looking, adequate policy for the advance ment of Papua-New Guinea.)

Mr. Anthony (C.P.)

NOTHING that this Parliament can do is likely to alter the effect of what already has been done by the Min ister for External Affairs in handing over, to the custody of an international organ isation, a territory that is vital to the security of our Commonwealth . . . the interests of Australia have been sacrificed to the aggrandizement of the Minister, as an individual.

The blood and treasure that the people of Australia have poured into New Guinea (Continued on Page 57)

have given them the right to assert com plete authority over that part of the world —authority at least as great as that demanded by the United States in respect of the Mariana, Marshall and Caroline Islands.

The New Guinea Trusteeship Agreement was signed on December 13, 1946, but only now is it being discussed by Par iament.

It is too late. New Guinea has been vested in the Trusteeship Council and there is little we can do about it.

The USA can, at any time, close the r islands to representatives of other nations which are members of the Trusteeship Council. Under our agreement we must permit representatives of Russia, India, China, Peru or any other nation which happens, for the time being, to be a member of the Trusteeship Council, to inspect what we are doing in New Guinea.

Mr. Haylen (Lab.)

IT would have been much better if Mr.

Anthony had been honest and said that mandates mean nothing to us and that we should have annexed the Mandated Territory of New Guinea as South Africa annexed South-West Africa.

He uttered a lot of rambling nonsense about our rights to the territory. At the time of the declaration of the last war the British Prime Minister said that we were not fighting a war for self-aggran dizement but for the preservation of democracy. There is no justification for saying that we should have done what South Africa did.

The Constitution of the proposed Legis lative Council for Papua-New Guinea provides for 29 members. There will be

16 official members, exclusive of the ad ministrator. I do not think that there is reason for criticism in the fact that Government members will be in a sub stantial majority.

Surely it is not suggested that the natives of Mount Hagen should be given autonomy before we have induced them to, at least, remove from their noses the pieces of bone with which they disfigure themselves. A great deal has yet to be done in New Guinea before the natives are sufficiently enlightened to co-operate in the government. A lot of Idealistic nonsense has been talked about improving the natives’ lot. It should be borne in mind that our first task is to feed them.

We must ensure that their forward pro gress . . . shall continue in accordance with the plan that was prepared long be fore the war.

I shall never assert that New Guinea is a planters’ paradise, although there are opportunities for exploitation, nor shall I assert that it should be left entirely to the black man, because the utilisation of the world's resources is something that concerns all the peoples of the world. An important feature which has charac terised the administration of New Guinea and Papua, and which I stress, is the humanitarian approach, not only of the present Government, but also of preced ing governments.

It has fallen to the lot of the present Government to implement some most im portant plans. One of these is the aboli tion of indentured labour. When ’Slaffery, as such, was abolished throughout the civilised world, new methods of enslaving native races were devised. In the West Indies the method adopted was euphemis tically termed a system of “apprentice ship.” In the South Pacific, where the Polynesians and Melanesians were ex ploited, the system of enforced labour be came known as “indentured” labour.

However, past strictures and imposi tions on the native peoples in New Guinea are being slowly but surely lif.ed by the present administration, under the inspira tion of the Minister for External Terri tories.

It is abundantly clear to any observer in New Guinea that the natives are croud to co-operate with the administration.

The more enlightened of them bel.eve that the chains of enforced labour are being slowly struck from their ankles. An ob server must realise how greatly the natives of New Guinea are suffering from the effects of war in their island, because of the virtual disappearance of their villages and gardens and plantations. The native women, to whose lot fell the tending of gardens during the absence of men on war service, became too weak and ill to attend to them. The supply of natural foods has become so short that the Ad

ministration has had to remove some of the natives to more fertile areas.

Quite frankly, I admit that I have changed my mind about reparations and

I now believe that Japan should be made to replace the fleet of small ships which formerly traded around the coast of New Guinea. Britain and the Netherlands have made claims upon the Japanese and I be lieve that Australia would be justified in claiming, from Japan, the cost of replac ing the small ships which used to trade along the New Guinea coasts carrying the trade that is vital to the country’s economy. (COMMENT; Mr. Haylen seems to have modified some of his ideas since he went on record, in July, 1945, as saying that an Australian community dedicated to the White Australia policy could not see the second largest island in the world ex ploited by a handful of white men. He now infers that all planters need not ne cessarily “exploit.” However, he is still riding his old hobby horse —the slavery of indentured labour. If Mr. Haylen has not learned, by now, just what consti tuted indentured labour in New Guinea, he will never know. His reference to the chains of enforced labour slowly being struck off the ankles of New Guinea natives is mere hyperbole. So also are his references to the post-war sufferings of the natives. The vast majority of Papua-New Guinea natives never came in contact with the war. Those who might have been affected have been allowed “to write their own tickets” in relation to war damages. It is doubtful if repara tion payments from Japan on account of the small coastal ships would improve the inter-island shipping position. The greatest factor in this muddle has been Mr. Ward’s shipping regulations, which banned the private operation of inter island ships and made it a government monopoly.)

Mr. Archie Cameron (C.P., SA)

INSTEAD of being led astray by the United Nations and all the bag of nonsense that goes on over there, we should have done as South Africa did.

What Australia does in New Guinea is Australia’s business. It must be remem bered that Mexico is a member of the Trusteeship Council. The internal ad

ministration of that country is one of the worst in the world. It is therefore fan tastic and stupid that Australia, which stands in the front rank of democratic states, should have to make reports to countries such as Mexico and Peru, which are the ragtag and bobtail of modern civi lisation, Added to that is the everlasting fact that so long as the United Nations remains, it is only necessary for Mr. Molo tov of Russia to say “no” to a proposal and that is the end of it.

Part IV of the bill deals with adminis tration and the functions of the adminis trator. The administrator will be a most important person, for he will be clothed with all the powers that Mr. Molotov now exercises. There is to be no act. adminis trative or legal, that he may not veto.

Clause 71 is one of the most interesting provisions of the measure. Sub-clause 1 provides:— The slave trade is prohibited in the Territory.

I did not know that the slave trade had been carried on in the territory. I have not heard any reference to it in this House, and I know of no references hav ing been made to it before the now de funct League of Nations.

Mr. Hughes (Lib., NSW)

BEFORE the end of World War I, the Imperial Cabinet decided that the German colonies in the Pacific and South Africa should become integral parts of the dominions contiguous thereto. But the armistice was based on President Wilson’s 14 points, under which annexa tions and indemnities were prohibited, and this involved some re-adjustment.

Annexations then became mandates, and indemnities became reparations. The fight for the New Guinea Mandate was prolonged and opposed by the President of the US, and although he finally ac cepted it under protest he was bitterly opposed to it being granted to Australia.

As I saw it, the full control of New Guinea was vital td the security of Australia. (Mr. Hughes was Australia’s representa tive at the Peace Conference after World War I, and it was he who fought tena ciously for Australia’s right to govern New Guinea. It was he who devised the “C” Class Mandate, which provided for the 1919-1945 administration of New Guinea and Western Samoa.) If the mandate had not been given to Australia, and if I had agreed to the in sertion, in the League of Nations Coven ant, of a provision for racial equality, as I was urged to do, New Guinea would have been swamped by Japanese long ago.

I believe in a White Australia policy but I believe that in the administration of that policy we should not give offence to our coloured neighbours. It is important to note that part of New Guinea is held by the Dutch who have been, between the wars, our very good friends. Their occu pation of New Guinea has strengthened our hold on our territory . . . yet where does the present Australian government stand? Is it for the white races or for the coloured races?

The Australian government has cham pioned the cause of the Indonesians and denounced the Dutch . . . but let me sav a word about the Indonesians. In 1942, when the Japanese had overwhelmed the Dutch, had sunk Repulse and Prince of Wales, and were at our very doors, Dr Soekamo, now the president of the Indo nesian Republic, said that they would fight a life-and-death struggle, together with Japan, in order to smash and destroy America, England and the Netherlands.

But the Australian Government has now voted for the admission of Indonesia into the Economic Council for Asia and the Far East, and Australian delegates have

voted for the Indonesians against the Dutch and Americans.

When I hear trade union leaders talk ing about the rights of the Indonesians, I cannot help thinking that if an Indo nesian applied at the wharfs of any Aus tralian port for a job he would have a better chance of jumping to the moon than he would have of getting one. The attitude of the Government and the trade unions to the Indonesians is canting hy pocrisy. Are we or are we not for the White Australia policy?

I look at trusteeship from the point of view of defence, which is what matters most to people of this country. A trustee ship is a mandate under another name.

Whatever it may be called it is something to which we have been accustomed and that we must continue to support.

Mr. Dedman (Lab., Vic.)

In the Trusteeship Agreement which was approved in December, 1946, provision is made for Australia to take the ne cessary steps to defend New Guinea, and, of course, in defending it, we shall be de fending Australia.

Non-Labour governments failed to spend, in New Guinea, enough money for its development. Had they done so we should have been able to check the advance of the Japanese in the area at a much earlier stage.

This bill provides for the setting up of a Legislative Council to assist in the Ad ministration of the Territory. It is true that before the war there was a Legisla tive Council in Papua but there has never been one in New Guinea. It is provided that the Council shall come into exis tence before the expiration of 12 months after the proclamation of the act. The bill also provides for the setting up of native village councils, which represent

a progressive step in advance of any taken by non-Labour governments. (COMMENT, The ignorance of this Minister is remarkable. The Mandated Territory of New Guinea had a Legisla tive Council from 1933 until civil adminis tration ceased in the Territory, in 1942.

It consisted of the Administrator, the eight official members of the Executive Council, seven non-official members, nominated by the Administrator. The Territory of Papua had a Legislative Council consisting of nine members of the Executive Council (eight* of whom were heads of departments) and five others nominated by the Administrator (who presided) to represent non-official in terests.)

Mr. McEwan (CP)

THE principal significance of the speech delivered by the Minister for Post War Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) lies in the fact that he is also Minister for Defence. He has assured us that on the matter of defence, we need have no fear that anything contained in this measure will impair the capacity of Aus tralia to defend New Guinea.

It is on record, however, that in the early days of the recent war, every mem ber of the Australian Labour Party under Mr. John Curtin opposed, with his vote, the application of the Australian Defence Act to the Territories of New Guinea.

Honorable members who have told us, in this debate, that we should rest con tent because they will attend to the de fence of New Guinea, opposed the estab lishment of the Australian Imperial Force at that time.

The member for East Sydney (Mr.

Ward) said at that time; “It is amusing to hear people say that we shall not give up New Guinea. To those people I would

say that if it should become necessary to defend our Mandated Territory, they should defend it themselves," . . . The British abolished slavery'over 100 years ago, yet we are to vote on legis lation whereby we undertake that there is to be no slavery in New Guinea. What a fantastic and degrading proposal!

Could more potent propaganda be placed in the hands of our enemies? What fool wrote that into this legislation?

In order that there shall be no more slavery in New Guinea we are to place ourselves under the supervision of a group of other countries . . , and report upon our responsibility to Soviet Russia, China, Iraq, Mexico and the Philippines. . . . The natives cannot be taught how to engage in gold-mining, commercial fishing, timber milling, etc., by sending civil servants to the Territory. That can be achieved only by encouraging Aus tralians to go there and start industries.

Mr. Beale (Lib., NSW)

rE Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) in July, 1941, almost two years after the beginning of World War II said: “I have not made any bones about where I stand in regard to conscription.

I am opposed to conscription for home service as well as for service overseas. 1 am opposed to it on religious grounds, because I do not believe that any man or any government ought to force any in dividual to take up the art of killing his fellowmen.”

This is the gentleman who now tries to convince us that, as Minister for De fence, he is doing more for the defence of New Guinea by means of this peculiar bill, than any anti-Labour government has done, —- I am in favour of making the territory completely and absolutely the Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia —of annexation, if members like that word.

Mr. Harrison (Deputy Leader of

of the Opposition)

THE United States effected a compro mise and obtained administrative control of the Mariana. Marshall and Caroline Islands, as a strategic area and to-day it virtually wields sovereignty over them. The Security Council ac cepted that agreement. I invite the House to compare that arrangement with the proposal contained in this bill. The United States of America need not report to the International Trusteeship Council or permit supervisors to visit the islands that it holds in trust. That arrangement is infinitely better than annexation, be cause the control of the islands is backed not by one nation, but by the United Nations.

It is perfectly true that we shall be permitted to place defences in the terri tory, but I was always under the impres sion that the value of defences lay in the preservation of secrecy about them. Se crecy cannot be maintained if we allow, for example, the representatives of Russia to inspect our defences, as they can easily do under the guise of investigating the manner in which we are treating the natives of New Guinea. Another member of the Trusteeship Council which will de termine whether we are fulfilling our responsibilities in the territory is China.

I have no doubt that Communist China will be recognised, as Communist Indo nesia has been recognised. Other mem bers of the Trusteeship Council are Costa Rica, Iraq and Mexico. Until those countries have put their own houses in order, they cannot make an effective con tribution to decisions about the manner in which we are carrying out the terms of our trust. Therefore, defence con siderations alone dictate that we must retain complete control of Papua and New Guinea. I believe that we have

committed a major mistake in not insist ing that we should hold New Guinea as a strategic trusteeship.

Reply by Acting Minister

MR. CHAMBERS said that since August, 1946, Opposition members had known of the Government’s in tention to bring the Mandated Territory of New Guinea under UN Trusteeship.

They had had plenty of opportunity to

discuss the matter. Nor could he un derstand their reference to “giving New Guinea away." Australia had never owned the Territory but had held it under a League of Nations Mandate. When the League had given place to*the Trusteeship Council, New Guinea had become the sub ject of a Trusteeship Agreement. He could not agree, either, that Australia had lost anything by accepting the trus teeship of New Guinea.

In respect of defence, upon which Op

position members had based their main criticism, he was confident that the present Labour Government would do more for the defence of Papua and New Guinea than all the pre-war, anti-Labour governments had done.

Any person of open mind would have to admit that much had been done in New Guinea since the end of the war, although both Papua and New Guinea had- suffered the same shortages of men and materials as other parts of the world, As well, many of those who had the finest knowledge of the Territories were killed during the war, and it was a matter of starting all over again. The Government

had given every assistance to the rehabili tation of Territories residents and vast sums had been paid out by the War Damage Commission, With regard to copra—Mr. Chambers had himself discussed this with planters at Koitake and Rabaul during his recent visit to Papua-New Guinea, and they had stated that they were happy about the agreement then being negotiated with the United Kingdom for a guaranteed price for a term of years. More recently the Prime Minister had given him a letter from a Mr. Paul, secretary of the Rabaul Planters’ Association, who expressed pleasure at the way Mr. Chambers had

met planters and had had discussions with them. No letter had been received from any planter to say that he did not approve of the Government’s policy in this regard.

It should be clearly understood that to day, no attempt was made to keep anyone out of the Territories who had real busi ness to take him there. He, personally, believed that if the best is to be got from Papua-New Guinea it will be necessary to tempt many Europeans there. The natives are not yet ready to develop it as it should be developed. Every facility will be given to people who want to go there and work.

Under the Trusteeship system, with a union between New Guinea and Papua, with united public services and an ad ministrator anxious and ready to give as sistance, not only to Europeans, but to natives, Mr. Chambers was confident that great prosperity will be the Territories’ lot.