Another Viewpoint In Relation To

New Guinea

Writer Denies There Is Socialist Policy—Says There Is No Policy At All Letter to the Editor

YOUR leading article in January flays the Wardists for the sorry mess they have made of Papua-New Guinea.

That there is a mess cannot be disputed, but your analysis of its causes seems rather too superficial.

The theme that New Guinea has been made the victim of a Socialist policy de liberately designed to stifle private enter prise and uplift the blacks may be fervently endorsed by labour-hungry plan tation interests, but is not altogether borne out by the facts. A Socialist policy would definitely not suit New Guinea’s needs any more than it is suiting those of Great Britain; but the truth is that the Territory is suffering acutely from lack of any defined policy at all. (The ill-timed and badly-thought Labour legis lation introduced since the war can scarcely be called a general policy). Gen erally speaking, Europeans and natives seem to be suffering about equally, though in different ways.

Australians have yet to realise what more experienced colony-owners have now accepted—that the particular measures required to administer a tropical depen dency in the 20th century are essentially beyond the scope of domestic party poli tics.

For some time past I have been en gaged in compiling information on New Guinea conditions and trends for a large commercial concern not at present operat ing in the Pacific, and can claim a reasonable degree of objectivity for my views. The following points from my findings may interest your readers:—

• The Federal Government has not yet evolved an overall policy (Socalist or otherwise) for Papua-New Guinea.

The ignorance of politicians on both sides of the House (including Mr.

Ward), and of senior Public Servants of the problems involved in the Terri tory, is staggering. • Among Labour members there is a vague appreciation that the invest ment of private capital is essential to New Guinea’s development, but there is no clear idea how this is to be equated to strategic needs, the low native man-power potential, native social and economic development, and • Australia’s Trusteeship commitments. • There is amazingly little collated in formation on New Guinea’s physical resources and little recognition of the need for physical resources surveys to fill the gaps. • The obvious fact that comprehensive development entails enormous capital expenditure on installations and trans portation systems does not seem to be appreciated at all. • The Commonwealth Department of External Territories is most inefficient.

Its lack of vision, and procrastinations (not to mention pure ignorance) have been the greatest obstacles to the Ter ritory’s advancement since the War’s end. The Department’s staff does not seem to include one officer with any expert knowledge of the classic prob lems of colonial administration, and as an advisory body to the Federal Gov ernment it is beneath contempt. Its

inadequacies are the subject of caustic comment even by officials of other Canberra departments. (Compare these comments, based on my per sonal experience, to your . . the skilled assistance of Mr. Halligan— who knows only too well the things that are wrong with the Terri tories . . • Naturally, perhaps, the Port Moresby Government heads seem little clearer in their ideas on general policy than does Canberra. As executives they do not impress. It is impossible, either in Canberra or Port Moresby, to ob tain any clear idea of future New Guinea land policy. • Most Government officers on out stations frankly declare that they have no idea of what general policy is supposed to be and content them selves with endeavouring to maintain the status quo. • There is no decision —vital, incidentally, to planters in the Gazelle Peninsula and Kavieng areas—regarding future policy on migrant native labour if the present restricted indenture system is abandoned. There is no policy on the equation to be worked out between European and native economic produc tion. • I see no signs of the “full-blooded Socialist set-up for Melanesian natives” your article mentions. In fact, the re sults of the CRTS and Native War- Damage Compensation schemes will have the opposite effect, • Commercial interests themselves have no solutions to offer other than the immediate need for labour. Compared with settlers in British colonies their outlook is very narrow. • Judging by their balance-sheets, the “Big Firms” interested in New Guinea seem to have done well in the post war era. The copra industry is at present at the peak of its boom period; a slump will drive a majority of small

men out of the industry. The idea of stabilisation is sound, but I could learn little of whether such a scheme is really contemplated. • The bungling manner in which the Government, without adequately con sidering future developmental needs, allowed the huge quantities of heavy equipment left by the Services to be transferred out of the country will ultimately come to be regarded as the gravest error of the many made by the present Administration.

Emphatically the best statement on

Territorial policy I have ever read was contained in an anonymous article pub lished in your last October issue. Whilst by no means perfect, it marked the first attempt I have seen to correlate the various separate problems and get them in perspective. May I be pardoned for suggesting that the leading article in your informative little magazine could learn something from it?

I am, etc.,

Passer-By.

Cremorne, 18/2/49. (See Next Page)

(Continued from Page 51)

EDITORIAL NOTE: Our correspondent is not quite fair to the Departmental heads of Papua-New Guinea. Imagine their position. The majority of these experienced men know well what is wanted, and would think clearly and act decisively if given authority and direc tion. But, because their administration is tied helplessly to a Minister who seems pre-occupied by politics and motivated by

his hates, and is guided by a Govern ment whose policy (if it is anything) is muddled Socialism, they can take no positive action by themselves. So they just carry on, doing the routine task at their hand, sheltering behind regulations, and counting the days to long leave and retirement. Pity the man who tries to do anything else, under the present set up!