SP Commission?

Editorial Note

What is Wrong With the SP Commission?

WEAKNESS is now apparent in the implementation of the Evatt plan which, soon after ;he war, took shape in the South Pacific Commission.

An instrumentality for the ex ;hange of experience, and for plan ling future activities, while provid ng for the co-ordination of Admin strative action in the round dozen >r more separate administrations n the South Pacific, had been leeded in the South Pacific for nany years. Full credit must go o the post-war Socialist Govern nents of Australia and New Zea and that they recognised the need, ,nd sought to provide for it in the reation of the Commission.

But, like so many Socialist Plans, t was not near enough to the cold arth, and took too little account f the vagaries of politics and of luman nature.

The Commission has two funda mental weaknesses. The first is the ication of its headquarters. Noumea s far too isolated from the re mainder of the South Pacific, both m geography and in language. It B becoming increasingly difficult or Commission personnel to main ain close and frequent communica- Lon between Noumea and the rest f the South Pacific. Except for lew Caledonia and French Oceania, he whole of the South Pacific ?erritories are governed in the 3nglish language; and the isolation f the Commission in a French peaking community created Tactical difficulties almost from the irst.

We said at the time, and events lave proved us right, that Suva hould have been chosen. Sydney might have been more suitable.

The other, and even more im lortant disability, is the weakness f the liaison between this expert, act-finding, conscientiously-report mg organisation in Noumea, and the

Slx independent Governments which constitute the Commission.

The machine, as envisaged by Dr.

Evatt and Prime Minister Fraser, is functioning; but there seems to be no soul in it. It may be that each of the six Governments, before it shapes new legislation, new laws and regulations for its Islands dependencies, does consult its representatives on the Commission, and ascertains what should be done in the light of experience, and in order that its plans may be co-ordinated with those of the other member nations. But there is no evidence, so far, that the six nations are doing this, as a matter of duty and

routine. On the other hand, there are various indications that each of the six member nations could not care less about the views and actions of the other five.

The Commission, functioning steadily since 1948, is accumulating a vast amount of valuable data about the conditions of Islands life, and the simplest and most effective way of improving them. In other words, the administrative staff and the Research Councillors are doing an excellent job. But the machinery for putting the Commission’s dis coveries and recommendations into effect is either non-existent or out of gear.