Development!

Less Bureaucracy And More

Fighting Speech Before Rabaul Chamber of Commerce

Fierce criticism of the Australian Government policy in Papua and New Guinea, and a demand that the non-official classes of the 'Territories should insist on the Australian taxpayers getting some value for the millions which the Australian Government is distributing so lavishly in the Territories, was made at a recent meeting of the Rabaul Chamber of Commerce by Mr. J. L. Chipper, one of the town’s leading business men.

Mr. Chipper had just returned after a visit to other Territories centres, and the main Australian cities, and Canberra—and he said emphatically that he did not like what he found.

‘IIIHAT has concerned me since f? my return,” said Mr. Chipper, “is the condition of these Territories—the anaemic attitude of the Administration from the Mini ster down —a condition reflected in the apathy that I find everywhere— even among ourselves. This lack of progress—this pathetic lack of progress and development—the vague promises dispensed by those in authority!

“Where are the thirty million pounds that have been spent since 1946? A lot of houses in Port Moresby, a very much smaller num ber elsewhere, lots of staff, some permanent improvements (but amaz ingly few). But ample evidence of a colossal reacurring expenditure.

I must plagiarise Churchill: Never before has so little been done, for

so long, at such a fantastic cost, by so many!

“What is at the root of this lack of progress? Is it policy, or fear of criticism?

“I know that we have a Minister who reflects in every way Australia’s fear of criticism. This in turn is reflected by our Administrator and by his staff, with lew exceptions.

Why this fear of outside criticism by a country that has asked its citizens to fight for this Territory, in two world wars? Have we gone democracy-crazy? It is due to sentimentalism?

“England passed through the phase, and allowed European leader ship, which was the only thing that held the Western world together, to change. What did the change

bring? The only logical result — chaos.

“Having watched these events, Australia is following along the same lines —pandering to UNO and the votes of countries which, only a few years ago, were staging re volutions.

“We watched America push the British out of India and Burma with undue haste. We watched them try hard to get the French out of Indo china, and keep them out. We watch as they realise their mistakes, and now are engaged in the costly process of trying to rebuild and re coup the losses the Western powers have suffered.

“How they, or we, can expect to see an honest and strong govern

merit in Indonesia is beyond my comprehension. It is against all logic. All we have done, with our support of the Indonesians, is to hamstring Holland, to their and our loss. The tragedy of the Dutch is our tragedy also.

“'SI/’HAT have we learned from ▼ 7 these tragic blunders. Our leaders lived through this sorry phase of history, and yet take no heed of it.

“Our Minister has stated: ‘That Australia’s major consideration in Papua-New Guinea is the advance ment of the natives and the win ning of their loyalty and friend ship.’ Mark well those words: The major consideration.

“For Advancement of the natives I read social development. What is this prating of loyalty and friend ship? Are loyalty and friendship something we can buy? Can we purchase it with free medicine, free education, free passages to see the Queen —free this and that —with a court system that makes perjury an offence for white men but heeds not perjury by the natives?

“Are the Raluana people more amenable to reason after years of cherishing? Have the Hanuabada natives benefited or become better citizens because of all that has been handed out to them? Will the aver age native, walking along the road, stop to throw a stone or broken bottle off the road? Will they

hesitate to put a stone or bottle on the road?

“It is all very well for Master O’Donnell, in his mouthings to Aus tralian Trade Union leaders, to rant and roar and suggest that most of the residents here are Simon Degrees. . The searchlight might well be turned on that gentleman’s own record. . .

“The policy of giving something for nothing is a tremendous drag on the Territories, and is accom plishing nothing. Are we getting a better day’s work for a better day’s pay? Have the manifold new native labour ordinances benefited either side?

“Our towns are untidy and often a disgrace to the community. I

sought the reason, and realised that so long as it takes five and six native employees to do what one should do, we cannot hope for change. The cost alone is pro hibitive.

“Walk along our streets and watch the Administration labour lines on the roads, and the private lines at various jobs. I say that 50 per cent, of the labour employed in this Territory to-day is in effective. If this is ‘advancement’ of the native peoples, we are de veloping a race that will be a drag on any community.

“ A FTER the Minister’s statement, we must realise that the social development of the indigenous population has been placed ahead of economic development.

“What are we faced with? Aus tralians fought for these Territories.

Some of us here to-night served in two world wars, most of us in one. Did we fight, and were we asked to fight for these Territories so that might become a native state, a preserve for anthropolog ists and a reserve for the various churches? Anthropologists and churches have their place in every civilisation but that place is not in the vanguard.

“Are these Territories to become native states? Is this the Min ister’s pipe dream? Such a state would be ripe for the plucking by the first invader. Unless we develop and substantiate our own claim to these Territories, representations made to UNO by any of the countries to the north of us, seek ing room, would be fair and reason able.

“Statisticians tell us that 50,000 surplus people are being born into the world every day. What are doing in Papua and New Guinea to fill our share of the food bowls?

What is the Administration doing to encourage us to produce? Seventy or eighty thousand tons of copra a year (the greater percentage of which was planted by the German settlers before our time) and a rising, meagre tonnage of cocoa— what does that represent?

“What have we done here in New Britain during the last eight years?

We are doing nothing but hold a vast undeveloped country, like the dog in the manger that couldn’t eat the hay, but kept the hungry horse away. Mark my words —the hungry horses that are champing to get at this New Guinea manger are powerful factors in the world to-day?”

WHAT was the magnet which drew early pioneers and settlers across the world, to face certain hardship, and often death? It was not free education, free medicines, free passages here and there. It was free or cheap land—the chance to work for themselves, independ

ence. Did social development of the indigenous population precede Th? °™iv It did not.

The o n iy true, lasting and honest social development of indigenous populations must follow the economic development of their country. , The Australian taxpayer could not carry the burden of these Territories for ever. They must develop and produce, stand on their own feet and the impulse to develop and produce must come from the top The man in th« street rould no*?' do it 6 Ndther could tee business community of Rabaul. They needed a new policy which would encourage the investment of capital,

TO Australians seeking advice, during my recent visit, as to the possibility of investing in the Territory, I had but one answer.

Unless the present policy in regard to land is changed, there is nothing worth investing in. To the query, ‘But you say there is plenty of land’ I could only answer: T know there is; but make application for it, and you will be fobbed off with vague and empty promises for year after year. You may be able to buy a property, but you will break your heart in dealing with the Ad ministration, if you want un developed land.’

“Let our slogan be: Let us have the land and we will do the rest.

“Is the present policy to continue?

I see no reason, after the Min ister’s utterances, why it should change. If he continues to dictate such a policy, we must have a new Minister, a new Administration. We must fight this apathy and break this chain that is making this country moribund. Let us try to awaken the electors to what is hap pening. . . .

“I¥/’E must fight, and we, the TT Chamber of Commerce, should be in the van of the fight. If we do not, the day will come when our Administration bureaucrats will have gained in strength and num bers, and public opinion will not be allowed to function at all.

“We have Advisory Councils, rep resenting a cross section of the population, but uncoordinated — sincere men working for the com munity. Where do they go? What do they achieve?

“This Chamber cannot give ad vice. But by virtue of the fact that we represent the business interests of Rabaul we can voice our opinions, and criticise, and take the van in hammering our opinions and critic isms home to the people whose pockets and future are affected — the long-suffering taxpayers.

“Let us attack this Minister’s policy, this pernicious, bureaucratic control that is being exercised over this land of such vast potential.

Let us strive for a house-cleaning, root out the corrupt, torment the

apathetic. Let us not echo Aus tralia’s greatest war casualty— public opinion, the public opinion that is now too supine to rise up against the rackets and corruption that exist in Australia to-day.

“It will be a stiff and expensive fight, and we shall be exceedingly unpopular with the bureaucrats that surround us. It may affect our own businesses, and we may be victim ised —but we must take the long range view. Unless this country prospers, we cannot prosper. Un less this country is developed we shall lose it. Unless we are pre pared to fight for the saner and more logical administration of this country and safeguard its economic development, we do not deserve to hold it.”