Shackled by Canberra

New Guinea Progress is Shackled by Canberra

Despatch From Port Moresby by R. W. Robson.

HHE future of these Territories L was affected by the announce ments from Canberra on August t that (a) in addition to the annual -ant of some £6 million, Australia lis year will give Papua-New uinea another £2 million, to which in be added a further £500,000 (in eased value of exports in 1954); id (b) a plan for allocation of nd to non-natives has been jproved.

The promise of so much new oney has almost staggered the immunity.

Already, most classes are wallow g in money. Before the war, Papua »t an occasional £40,000 grant in year, while New Guinea mostly fed comfortably on its revenues om copra and gold. Since the ir, the two Territories have had 'tween £3O and £4O millions as se gifts from Australia; plus some 0 millions in War Damage Com nsation; plus substantial revenues im copra, gold and rubber; plus 0 millions spent by the oil com mies in their search. So much Dney has been pouring in from tnberra that expenditure has been /ay behind grants—the various ending machinery just couldn’t pe with it all. Nonetheless, in the neral economy, there is far more an enough for all.

The Administration chiefs now e cracking the whips—the De rtments must not only produce ms for absorbing this huge addi

tional gift to the best advantage. but they are asked to do something more difficult—namely, to see that the money is spent effectively be fore June 30, 1955.

But—what is “effectively?” ]\/fOST thoughtful people agree ItJ. heartily with the comments of Papua’s MLC, Mr. E. A. James.

He urges that, in planning ex penditure for the benefit of the Territories, the order of priority should be: 1. Roads. 2. Agricultural experiments and Research. 3. Health services. 4. Education.

Leaving aside the vociferous group whose preoccupation with native welfare obstructs and dis torts their view of the future, most people will agree that the only thing which can justify Australia’s huge and continuing expenditure here is the rapid development of New Guinea’s natural resources. This will serve a three-fold purpose—namely, the creation of a stronger defence barrier against Southeast Asia; improvement of native living standards; and, above all, the firmer occupation by Australia of this vast, empty land against the day when the Orient’s hungriest and most overcrowded nation, Japan, will seek again to take over. Even while she still possessed Manchuria, Korea and Formosa, Japan had de

cided that the possession also of empty New Guinea was vital to her future. Since then, she has lost Manchuria, Korea and Formosa.

Roads and bridges should go in the forefront of any developmental plan—they are wanted in every section of P-NG. A lead in agri culture is also essential: but that pre-supposes the availability of land.

And this is where we part company with Mr. James.

LAND in quantities sufficient to justify a big development plan, worthy of Australia’s staggering grants, is not being made available in Papua and New Guinea. And it is not likely to be available while the policy just announced by the Australian Minister calls the tune and shapes the Administration’s activities.

Land is the biggest subject here, and can be adequately dealt with only in an article longer than this.

For this commentary, it is enough to say here that— • The Australian Territories Min ister (or the Government of which he is the mouthpiece) has in the past year muddled the P-NG lands policy and discouraged the de velopmental impulse in P-NG in a way that is deplorable. • The system announced by the Minister on August 24 will not and cannot meet the present, let alone the future needs of the Territories.

According to the bulletin officially published here yesterday, the follow ing is the Minister’s statement: In Parliament to-day the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) said the basic land policy for the Territory was un changed. He said only the Administration

could acquire land from the natives, and it would be acquired only if the natives were willing: to sell it, and if it was not considered essential for their present or future needs. Mr. Hasluck said, however, that the procedure for allocating: land would now be changed. The Government would now decide in advance what land should be made available to land-seekers, and it would then advertise for appli cations. He said this procedure was fairer to land-seekers than the old procedure, where a man picked out the area he wanted. Mr. Hasluck added that there was really no shortage of land in the Territory. • The kind of development that New Guinea needs (to keep out the Asiatics and assist in the protection of Australia) must be closely in tegrated with settlement by Euro peans of all lands not required by natives; and the selection and dis posal of such lands calls for co operation between official and non official Europeans, and not for the set-up outlined by Mr. Hasluck.

THE Minister’s recent statement on land is interpreted to mean tbat (a) the search for land: (b) assessment of its agricultural value; (c) its purchase from the natives: and (and) its sale on long lease to Europeans, will be strictly a matter for the Administration. If that is so —if this is what Mr.

Hasluck has hatched in nine months’ cogitation—then he (but not the country!) deserves all the troubles that such a system inevit ably will bring.

The Minister’s plan has two fundamental errors. Space does not permit of discussion of them, here.

Baldly, they are (1) the search for, and agricultural valuation of, land should not be left to young Admin istration officials, no matter how brilliant they may be; (2) “disposal of lands by tender” should be only a small part of the disposal tech nique, because it is vital to the wel fare of the natives, and the future economy of the country, that the right type of man be settled upon these spare lands.

“The highest tender” should be the last, not the first consideration.

Before any new settler is accepted, a Board dominated by the most ex perienced men of the Administration should screen the tenderer, and have the absolute right to reject the applicant, without giving any reason.

The natives, the Missions, the Ad ministration and the established settlers are entitled to that measure of protection against the introduc tion of square pegs into holes that specifically demand certain other angles.

Why cannot these Canberra Czars make use of the system developed by young lan Downs, Eastern High lands DC, which appears to have been working quite successfully until it was squashed flat by the incomprehensible Canberra ukase of last October? By this method, no obstacle was placed in the way of suitable Europeans going out and locating spare land, for settlement; but no man was allowed to settle

until the District officials had care fully examined native land needs in that area; the price to be paid; and the suitability of the man in relation to both land use and his probable relationship wi th the natives.

Definite and satisfactory progress was made in Eastern Highlands under that plan. They are a happy and enterprising community in the Highlands. Someone, not long ago, asked lan Downs: “If you had free dom to chuck out some of the Euro peans in this District, whom would you chuck out?” He thought for a while and then said: “Not one of them!”

That is indicative of the feeling between District Commissioners and non-official Europeans in most of these places. Brigadier Cleland knows he can trust his DC’s, and does trust them, with very happy results. Why cannot these people in Canberra follow that line in the vitally important matter of control ling and shaping European settle ment?

Papua-new guinea to-day is literally bursting with money and the spirit of enterprise— it has to be seen to be believed. The relationship between Administra tion and all communities generally is excellent.

Contrary to popular belief (which includes the Canberra Czars) the good class of non-official Europeans here (and they outnumber all other Europeans) have long since accepted the ukase that native welfare must stay in the forefront of Adminis tration policy; and, wherever they are given a chance, they co-operate with the DDS men in this policy. That co-operation is beyond price. There never was any serious exploitation of natives: and there is not the slightest possibility of it now, while the whole set-up is under the jealous scrutiny of missionaries, Trust Council peripatetics and starry-eyed planners.

I said 20 years ago—and I repeat it to-day more emphatically than ever—t hat the Administration’s soundest policy is to enlist the co operation of t the worthwhile non officials —not 'only in the develop ment of the country, but also in the education and training of natives, and in lifting their standard of life.

If employers, in return for certain privileges and trust, were obliged to impose a measure of technical and social instruction upon their native employees, the Administration would have a native uplift factor quicker in operation, and more effective, than all the official and Mission education machinery combined.

ALL the Dual Territory wants from Canberra are abundant funds, encouragement of enter prise, a realistic policy based on de fence—defence of the natives against exploitation, and de fence of both New Guinea and Australia against Southeast Asia —

and unfettered implementation 1 Australian policy by the chiefs < the P-NG administrative servic than which there is none better : the world.

Canberra has given all the, things quite generously, except tl last. For some reason that no ms here can understand—w het h e ignorance, conceit, mule-heade bureaucratic stupidity, or fear the funny people of the Truste ship Council Canberra will n leave the Administration with m tied hands, free to act on its ov responsibility within a define framework. And this land matt is a good example of it.

If this new land policy mea: what it seems to mean, and is thi implemented, all sorts of undesi able European settlers may be ii troduced—bad for industry, for tl settled Europeans, and for tl natives. Wherever one goes hei one finds experienced young men the servicemen type literally cryii aloud for land. When they.learm that they must compete, as tende ers, with any rich man, beggarrm or thief who wants to try his lucl marble in a Territory he may nev before have seen, their disgust ai disappointment were very great, I do not know what is behind all—but it does seem, at the momer that another obstacle has be( created by a Canberra that nev has learned that the secret of re progress and success here is to ke( its meddlesome nose out of tl activities of the Administratio Provide the money and the polio ; leave the job to the Administrate and his District Commissioners a?

Departmental heads —and the Au tralian achievement then here Papua-New Guinea really wou astonish the world.