Says Minister

No Penal Sanctions, Says Minister But Native Labour Desertions Go On

SHORTLY before he left Port Moresby on October 25 to re turn to Australia, Minister for Territories Hasluck said that all matters relating to the F-NG Native Labour Ordinance were being closely examined and that during the examination there would be fur ther opportunity for all interests in the Territory to make their views known. But in order that there should be no misunderstanding, he could state definitely that re-intro duction of penal sanctions was con trary to government policy.

Last May, when some minor amendments were made to the fre quently amended Native Labour Ordinance, the Administrator, Brigadier D. M. Cleland, said that by the end of May, the Director of District Services would submit to the Minister a review of the whole basis of the Ordinance and policy in regard to native labour generally.

The review and Ministerial recom mendations would then be further considered by the Administration.

Apparently (as the Minister said in Moresby) the whole Ordinance is still being “closely examined” — somewhere along the rosy red-tape way between Moresby Departments and Canberra.

Of interest to Territorians—par ticularly those on the New Guinea side —will be the Minister’s re ferences to penal sanctions.

These so-called penal clauses were dropped from the NL Ordinance some years ago in order to soothe the tender feelings of socialists who believe that all indentured labour is slave labour, and to placate the equally tender susceptibilities of members of the UN Trusteeship Council.

Before the war, when a New Guinea native ran away from his

employment or otherwise broke his indentured labour agreement, he was proceeded against in the Courts and usually compelled to return to his employer. Since the removal of penal sanctions from the Ordin ance. a native labourer, even although he still works under an agreement to remain with a specific employer for 18 months or 2 years, as the case may be, can desert and there is very little the employer can do about it.

Mr. Don Barrett, Member for the New Guinea Islands in the P-NG Legislative Council, who has spent a great deal of time and energy on the problem of labour desertions, es timated that in 1952 there were 600 desertions from New Britain alone.

Although a native cannot be pro ceeded against for desertion, as such, theoretically it is possible for employers to take civil action against a native for the recovery of moneys to which they hold he is not entitled. In practice, civil action proves completely abortive. The deserting native rarely has re coverable money of that sort, and the only recorded proceeding of the kind was an attempt by New Britain planters to bring some of these de serting natives to book by charging them with not working the number of hours prescribed in the Ordin ance.

A verdict for the employers was obtained in a lower court, where upon the District Services appealed against the verdict and had the de cision reversed —thereby completely nullifying what the employers had set out to do.

Residents of the Territory will therefore be interested to see what solution to the problem—other than the reintroduction of penal clauses —the revised version of the Native Labour Ordinance has to offer.

As things stand, the employers go to the expense of recruiting labour, paying expensive air-fares, equipping them, providing for the necessary guarantees demanded by the District Services Department, and take the chance as to whether the labour will remain or not.