Png Registrar Has

Soul-Searching For Higher-Ups

Co-Operatives

rHE frank report of the P-NG Registrar of native co-operatives, Mr. G. Morris, released at end if July, has caused one or two lifted ye-brows.

The co-operative movement, in roduced with some vigor in the territory after the war, was re arded originally by private residents f the Territory as one of Minister ddie Ward’s socialistic experiments.

There was some outright opposi ion to it early, but in recent years ; has —with certain reservations— een accepted without comment.

The growth of the movement has

een extraordinary; turnover, which

as a few thousands of pounds in )48. is probably now well over 1 million per annum.

P-NG’s co-operative movement as been pointed out all over the outh Pacific as the outstanding sample of what can be done in lis type of enterprise.

Anyone who knows anything about aciflc Islanders will not be sur rised at the rifts in the lute pointed Lit by Mr. Morris. What does sur rise Territorians is that it should e so frankly admitted. They aturally wonder if Mr. Morris’ re ort opens a new era of public nil-searching by the heads of Gov :nment departments; but they fear ot.

Mr. Morris said that; It was not pessimism but fact which ompted him to record serious misgivings as the present state of the co-operative move *nt in the Territory.

The deterioration in society operations was rgely due to the unsettling effect of Euro an staff transfers and withdrawals. Of 16 eas where co-operatives were established, ren were now without European officers.

"However," continued Mr. Morris, "close amination shows another factor involved— ere appears to be an element of basic dis nesty in many communities and this has ntributed to society regression."

He said there were such irregularities as fts to members. Theoretically this was credit t in practice the obligation to pay was ntingent on detection.

There were perquisites of office (free trips fh "pocket money") and directors' honoraria arks of respect and appreciation totally un nnected with efficiency or attendance to ties).

In the Kairuku district of Papua, Mr. Morris id two major thefts resulted in successful osecutions.

"It is interesting comment on the efficiency co-operative training courses to note the mdard of embezzlement in each case was rticularly high," he said.

Mr. Morris said these irregularities probably smmed from a grafting of traditional native haviour patterns on to co-operative technique.

Comments made on individual districts showed t position in New Guinea generally satis fy but in Papua unsatisfactory.

There are a few comments we would like to make: • ONE: The idea of co-operatives was that of the Administration’s advisers. They were “sold” to the natives (as native village councils are also sold).

If the co-operatives do fail, the natives will not blame themselves, even if it is due largely to their ineptitude or “basic dishonesty”.

In their view, the Government encouraged them to form co operatives, explained the benefits, showed them how they should be run. If these things do not work as described—then, according to the natives, it clearly is the fault of Government. • TWO: Mr. Morris’ statement that the “basic dishonesty” probably stems from a grafting of traditional native behaviour patterns, etc,, is a well-worn truth.

Anyone who has had anything to do with Pacific Islanders —Fijians, Polynesians or Melanesians —knows that the obligation that these people feel when a member of his family or social group asks for any thing, is far stronger than any fear of the legal consequences if they are caught tickling the till.

Thousands of native enterprises in the South Pacific have foundered on that same rock. It is a fact that has to be guarded against and pro vided for in any organised attempt

to introduce commercialism to Pacific Islanders. • THREE: Mr. Morris is correct when he says the deterioration in Society operations is due to lack of European staff.

Co-operative personnel come under the Department of Native Affairs which has, as well, two other branches—m agist e r i a 1 (Patrol officers, District Officers, etc.) and that which deals with the setting up of native village councils.

The personnel of these two branches are interchangeable—that is, an ADO can become a native village council officer, and a native village council officer can become a District Officer.

But if a man is put into the third branch of the Department co operatives—he apparently is stuck with it for life, and the best he can hope for is ultimately to become the Registrar (although on past per formances, even this seems chancey).

There is only one Registrar—but there are about 14 District Com missioners. Naturally, if given a free choice in the matter, a young man does not choose to go into the co operatives branch; and of those who do, many have resigned from the service from sheer frustration.

The result has been that men of little experience with natives, who know nothing of their frailties, are put in charge of large districts — with the results outlined in Mr.

Morris’ report.

The whole difficulty might be overcome if all Native Affairs field personnel were eligible for postings to or promotions from any of the three departments (magisterial, co ops, or native councils).

Originally, native co-ops and native village councils ran neck and-neck as prestige-builders: both

were designed to show that Australia was doing something to advance the natives. But of recent years the village-councils appear to have beer getting favoured treatment.

Oddly enough, outside of Ne'w Guinea, everyone who knows any thing of Native administratior knows about P-NG co-ops., and whal is believed to have been theii phenomenal success. And few have heard about the Councils.

Whether or not the former are permitted to fail therefore affect! not only the Territory itself, bu similar movements in other parts o; the South Pacific.