Time to End Australian Namby-

Pambyism in New Guinea

IF Australian interests—which are the practical interests of humanity are to be better served in New Guinea, an effective summary of recent speeches by Legislative Councillors Don Barrett and Father Dwyer should be placed \ n the hands of members of the Australian Parliament.

Under present conditions, Aus tralia s administration of Papua- New Guinea—but especially New Guinea—is represented mostly by a seemingly endless waste of talk and £° n , ey - u T £ ere w , in be little change tor the better unless we have a dif ferent interpretation of the terms the U i l . lt , ed Nations Trusteeship K r which Australia holds the E ory ; and an approach to the Territory 5 chief problems based less on departmentalism and more mi plain cornmonsense.

Father Dwyer and Mr. Barrett, -xpenenced Territorians both, were their faith in the Terri- SSh f , utur 6> their plea for a « a *£ lca * P° llc y development, and n their condemnation of the pre sent absurd economy, built around in uncertain Australian subsidy of I?™ 0r se Z en million pounds per they differed widely n their reading of the future. pw* D wyer says that European eluctance to invest is due mainly r ° °f labour supply.

Ie said that the NG labour potential vafinhUp 9o,o^? Vu but only 45 ’ 000 are eralfcp lo^ and S lO number dwindles 00a V s f H? e A a , tlves increasingly re ognise that they are better off in

their own villages as peasant pro ducers. He therefore made an im pressive plea that future adminis tration should largely ignore the Europeans and direct its main energies to encouraging Chinese acceptance of citizenship respon sibilities and developing a large and growing community of native peasants, at least semi-literate and trained in agricultural knowledge.

Mr. Barrett, with characteristic and refreshing vigour and forth rightness, demanded an end of the present Trusteeship system, so that investors and pioneers might be encouraged, with promise of security to develop the natural resources of the country and establish there a self-supporting economy, as they already have done in most other South Pacific countries. Challeng ing Father Dwyer’s argument that investors were discouraged chieflv by lack of labour, Mr. Barrett pointed out that, if investors were shy in the Trusteeship Territory the spunt of enterprise was definitely manifest right next door,'in Papua, where title to land could be secured.

There was no suggestion that Australia should avoid her obliga tions to the natives, declared Mr.

Barrett. But there could be neither social nor political advancement of natives, or of others, unless there

was far-reaching development of

natural resources on a soundly based, co-ordinated plan; and the events and conditions of the past few years had proved, beyond any

argument, that there could be no such development under the trustee ship system.

MR. BARRETT’S robust plea was for “straight-out” annexation by Australia. But doubtless because he is a practical man with a cynical appreciation of politicians' ways—he offered an alternative to defiance of UNO and all its works, which annexation would mean.

He argued—and, we think, with knowledge and logic—that the pre sent interpretation and implementa tion of the terms of Trusteeship are narrow, restricted and un imaginative to the point of absurdity; and that, if the Aus tralian Government showed pur pose and strength in demanding of UNO a complete review of the Trusteeship set-up, most of the con ditions which now are shackling NG administrative personnel and crippling NG development could be swept away.

Mr. Barrett made an important point when he reminded the Council that the Trusteeship does not function only in respect of natives, but for the “inhabitants” as a whole.

There are three important com munities—not one—in New Guinea; and, in relation to the future, the present condition and planned activities of both Europeans and Chinese are at least as significant as that of the natives. All experi ence has shown that the best and quickest way of lifting the living, standard of a very primitive people 15 .integrate the natives’ lives and. activities with the developing economy established by the new comers, while closely guarding the liberty and welfare of the natives.

Under a wiser interpretation of Trusteeship terms, the viewpoints of Father Dwyer and Mr. Barrett could be completely reconciled.

AUSTRALIA is pouring an ex traordinary amount of money into P-NG. Australia has sup plied both Territories with an administrative service that in character, ability and sincerity, will compare with any similar service in the world. Australian investors and pioneers stand ready to enter both Territories, to develop in dustries and wealth that will materially extend the economy of Australia and the food resources of the world. Grandiose plans of settlement and development have been made, and re-made, until one is almost weary of them all. Pro gress of a sort has been made since 1946, and is being made; but the over-all picture is depressing and discouraging. Top-level adminis trative men have broken their hearts over it already; others are breaking. There will be no worth while development while investors are unable to base their interests on land security.

Australian administration of Papua-New Guinea has been ham strung apparently by Ministerial in ability to envisage the whole pic ture, and by Canberra Bureaucracy’s deep preoccupation with the Trusteeship machinery and with its own jealous guardianship of bureaucratic control. There is a growing volume of outskopen critic ism against Canberra’s iron rule.

There are some who say that it is gravely handicapping Brigadier Cleland, who probably is the strongest and most competent man ever in the Administratorship.

To put it quite frankly and brutally: If New Guinea is really going to benefit from Australian administration and control, there must be, first, a revision of the Trusteeship system, followed by an examination of the Canberra system of departmental govern ment, as applied to vast tropical territories. If neither of these things—especially the first—is pos sible, then Australia might as well withdraw most of its subsidies and its skilled personnel from Papua- New Guinea, and leave the Terri tories to the care of the Christian Missions, plus a kind of peacetime

Angau.

So much already has been given.

So little now is needed to make the Australian achievement really creditable. But that little is ex tremely important. It can be pro vided by an intelligent understand ing in the Australian Parliament of what New Guinea really needs, and by an Australian determination that Government and Bureaucracy shall no longer truckle to a narrow and hopelessly academic interpretation of the Trusteeship.

Mr. Barrett, Father Dwyer and others have delivered some well

reasoned and well-informed speeches in their new Legislative Council.

But they are not reaching the right audience. Why leave this material, unread, in the pages of thedr Hansard? They should create some sort of propaganda organisation, so that a summary of their valuable points should be thrust mercilessly, month after month, upon the notice of members of the Australian Par liament. Only that way can they save New Guinea from the wolves.