Australia As P-Ng’S Fairy Godmother
p. 21 · Read in the full issue
Remarkable Aspects of £7 Million Budget
LGHT months after the begin ning of the financial year, the Papua-New Guinea Adminis bion submitted to Legislative mcil its “estimates” of expendi e for the year. Non-official tnbers pointedly said that there 5 little “estimating” about it— st of the expenditure already I been incurred. a the current year, the Adminis tion is spending approximately K)0.000. and this total includes: £ file health 1,354,500 ;ive administration .. 967,100 •iculture and Forests 482,000 ication .. 417,000 tal, Marine, Police .. 869,500 ■he £7,000,000 of revenue, it is icipated, will come mostly from: £ itoms, gold royalty, mber rights 1,263,000 pedoring, postal, rentals, be 289,600 es of goods and service 201,900 mt from Australia .. 5,371,000 [r. E. A. James made a dissection, L pointed out that about £280.000 revenue came from copra export y: and directed attention to the owing interesting items of ex iditure: —
R Damage Compen
Sation To Natives .. .. £270,000
treasurer, Mr. Reeve, replied that over 000,000 had been paid under this head, another million was still being med.)
It Of Administration
Messes £22,000
Dreasurer said the messes cost £36,000 .950-51, and an attempt to make them -supporting was being made.)
I Radio Receivers For
Education Dept £Lo,Ooo
Education Director Groves said it was cy to develop the broadcast session native people: and to make the session ctive the sets were bought speciaUy le in Australia and supplied to the ives at slightly above cost (£22-£23)).
I'ice Requisites £24,000
treasurer said that all stationery was ?ht in bulk and distributed to Depart its according to requirements.) It. Don Barrett described some the figures—particularly those icerning wharves and roads —as rtling. He doubted if P-NG was ting value for money spent on rks carried out by the Depart nt of Works and Housing. He imed that wherever this depart nt went it spent considerable ounts setting up elaborate offices, sses and quarters.
Ax. James (in private life an iitor and public accountant) said : accounts were presented in such vay as to be confusing. They did : give unofficial members a clear ture of how the seven million mds were to be spent. Why were >arate ventures, such as the sup r of electric power, not shown as >arate accounts?
Editorial Comment
Little wonder that Senator Roy Kendall, addressing a private meet ing of the Government Party in Canberra after two months in P-NG was sharply critical of the Port Moresby Administration.
Some of the items of the 1951-52 expenditure, shown above, suggest that, despite the Menzies Govern ment’s promise to reform policy, the chief purpose of the Administration is lavish expenditure on natives.
That might bt defensible if P-NG were anywhere near self-supporting.
But more than five-sevenths of the money spent there comes directly out of the pockets of Australian taxpayers. Yet more than £1,000,000 already has been spent on that scandalous appropriation, “war damage compensation for natives,” and another £270,000 is proposed. £1,354,000 for health measures; £lO,OOO for radio receivers for a native broadcast session, the educa tional value of which is debatable —surely it is time that some realism were introduced to the P-NG Ad ministration.
What does Port Moresby imagine will happen when —as seems in evitable —the financial cold breeze hits Australia, and those generous millions of Australian funds cease to come along. Why cannot the Territory show some sense of pro portion? Why. in the matter of native welfare, does it not try to walk sanely, before it gallops?
All Australian funds spent on the development of the country, so that it may become self-supporting, and contribute towards native health, education, and whatnot, can be justified; but many of the items
in that £7,000,000 budget represent merely the airy-fairy dreamings of well-meaning theorists, who seem to have no conception of the present precarious condition of Australian economy.