Administrative Reforms In New Guinea
pp. 59-61 · Read in the full issue
What Is Canberra Planning
Now?
Land Reforms Linked With Slow
Administrative Reforms In New Guinea
LTO one—except some sections of .1 high officialdom —seems to be happy about Australian Terri fies Minister Hasluck’s new land nd settlement policy in New ruinea.
The Minister and his Canberra dvisers have inaugurated a policy nder which the acquisition of land i Papua-New Guinea, its allotment, s sale and its use are to be rigidly mtrolled by a Land Board and by series of instrumentalities subject i the Board.
A section of the well-informed id experienced people of Papua ew Guinea (with which the CM associates itself) has crit ised the Hasluck plan as too ealistic and impractical. These itics favour a much more elastic stem, directly controlled by the perienced high officials on the ot in the Territories—a system der which lands may be selected serve certain purposes, and the ;ht type of settler may be en gaged, so that he may fit into ; native as well as into the Euro an economy of the country.
Ct is argued that, for purposes
of successful land settlement and development, in a country like New Guinea, rigid control by Canberra minded bureaucrats is about the last factor which should be intro duced.
WHEN we expressed these views, some four months ago, we re ceived official assurances that the dangers we feared would be countered by a new system of Dis trict administration, about to be in troduced. The plan apparently pro vides that the District Commissioner will be relieved of the shackles of routine administration, but instead will become a sort of sub-governor, responsible directly to the Admin istrator in Port Moresby; that the Department of District Services will disappear, to be replaced by a De partment responsible for Native Affairs; and that the DC will have a very influential voice in all that is done in his District in land alloca tion and settlement.
That seemed a more flexible and therefore a better arrangement and to answer the complaint that land
settlement is in danger of becom ing too rigid, impersonal, and sub iect to bureaucratic machinery. The majority of DC’s are men well qualified by experience and outlook to direct and influence the right kind of European land settlement.
But later information from the Dual Territory indicates that this reform of District Services is lag ging and stumbling. High Official dom has announced that it will not be given effect to until after the end of this financial year.
More disturbing is the report— from a source usually authentic — that Canberra does not propose, as a matter of course, to use the present District Commissioners under the new set-up. Instead, in most cases, the present DC is to become merely the head of the reorganised Native Affairs Department in his particular District; while the new District Commissioners are to be beings of a superior class, specially vetted for the job—and, doubtless, specially chosen by Canberra.
WE can only express the hope that this is not true. But we fear that it may be true—it would be so typical of the Canberra planners—typical of the gentlemen who, for example, almost always go off into the blue and choose an ex politician or a superannuated Army man when an Administrator is wanted for Norfolk Island or Nauru, and who ignore the obvious claims
of the trained and experienced men with good administrative records in the bigger Territories.
However, nothing is to be gained by an outcry at this stage. The Dual Territory can but wait and see what the Canberra set-up of politicians and bureaucrats is going lo produce on July 1.
Meanwhile, time will pass. T> years were wasted while N Hasluck cogitated, and laid a; painfully hatched his land-settl ment egg. All the proposed N» Guinea soldierTsettlers became years older and more discouraged and many drifted away to oth fields. Now, we shall add anoth
six months—while the Land Board threshes around looking for adequate staff, and wraps itself in endless cocoons of red tape. ( In comparison with what could be [lone with the Eight Millions Per innum which Australia is pouring nto the Territories, that which is jeing accomplished in land settle nent by Europeans is pitiful and ihameful. But Australia, appar sntly, could not care less. Politicians md bureaucrats can get away with inything, in these days. |/|EANWHILE, we receive many jl comments upon the land and development situation in New guinea.
From a former high official ; What lakes you think that Canberra is irepared to surrender one iota of ts power? Nothing will convince
them that any part of an admin istrative job can be done better by the man in the field.
From a Former New Guinea Civilian, now resident in Queens land: I think an important prin ciple—very vital in this regimented age—is involved in this land-settle ment matter in the Highlands. . .
Obviously, the method of personal selection, co-ordinated by the re sponsible DC on the spot, and in agreement with the natives con cerned, is the only one whereby Papua and New Guinea can be fairly and adequately opened up.
Keep hammering away!
The Tamworth (NSW) branch of the Graziers’ Association, anxious
to see European settlement increase In New Guinea, and disturbed by reports of Governmental failure to get on with settlement plans, de cided to recommend the annual con ference to make representations direct to the Minister. t The Annual General Meeting of Guadalcanal (Solomon Islands) Club members elected the following office bearers: President, Mr. P. N, Dalton; Vice-President, Dr. R. F. Payne; Secretary, Mr. A. P. Peebles; Treasurer, Mr. A. Whiting; Com mittee Members, Mrs. R. Raffles, Mrs. M. Symes, Mr. K. Hain and Mr. L. Wiseman.