Dictatorship

Australia Due For [?] Shock

Where New Guinea Is Going Under Hasluck-Lambert Dictatorship

Written by R. W. Robson, while recently in New Guinea.

I never have been in a Territory where the European community (despite much present if ephemeral prosperity) was split into so many vociferous and frustrated groups all critical of various aspects of Administration, but completely united in their hatred of Canberra.

TOST believe that it is time that 1 suicidal policy being followed by Australian Territories Min ter Paul Hasluck, in relation to e future control of New Guinea, id the possible establishment there the Chinese as supreme rulers, is exposed to the Australian people.

It is shown in an article elsewhere this issue that Mr. Hasluck has ntrived a new set-up, under lich practically any New Guinea linese who wishes may move from e status of “Australian protected rson” to “Australian citizen”.

It was also indicated that this velopment was regarded in Papua th acute alarm. Hitherto, despite e administrative union with New ainea, Papua has maintained a hey of keeping the Chinese out the old Australian Territory. The 'ect of the new Hasluck measure, the opinion of the Port Moresby in-official classes, will be the in sion of private trade and com srce in Papua by the NG Chinese.

Reaction among non-official people New Guinea was strong, but less

vociferous. They are, as they now express it, “resigned to anything.”

“Ever since Hasiuck became Dictator”, they say, “the movement against Australian private enterprise has been steady, gradual and quite perceptible. It clearly is the inten tion of this man that European enterprise and investment in this country shall be limited and dis couraged by lack of title, so that there may be the fewer obstacles to handing over the country com pletely to international control.”

“Paul Hasiuck is an mter nationalist, and Australia’s worst enemy in this country”, was an opinion I heard firmly expressed in the New Guinea Club, in Rabaul, and warmly applauded, rw\ HE New Guinea Europeans are X not in any way antagonistic to the New Guinea Chinese, The latter have long been settled in the country, and are entitled to a share in the country’s future. But (argue the Europeans), the Chinese are not entitled to any advantages

over the Australian Europeans, who have pioneered and developed the: country since they took over from the Germans nearly 40 years ago..

Hasluck’s policy (being intensely pro-UNO) denies long-term titles toi the Europeans, while giving im proved status and encouragement: to the Chinese. The result, of’ course, is that the Europeans, more' and more, are selling out to the!

Chinese.

LIKE most people who know the; Islands world nearest Asia, I have a genuine admiration for 1 the thrift, probity and industry of: the Chinese. They have a valued! role to play in these countries, whichi arc changing over from barbarismi to higher standards of culture and! orderlinesss.

But the Chinese is not a pioneer,, or developer of a national economy' —he is an infiltrator, with a singular capacity for coming in after the pioneering work is done and estab lishing himself as a useful small trader and artisan. From his trader’s profits, he will buy ready-made plantations and factories; and so su small proportion of Chinese become rich and influential, and their sons go to European colleges, and be come accepted practitioners in the various professions.

But they are not planners, non suited by temperament to be directors in pioneering work.

That is the story in New Guinea, as in many other countries; and it) is quite a creditable story, as fan as the Chinese are concerned.

But Mr. Hasluck seems determined to establish the Chinese as the future trading and artisan and pro fessional classes in New Guinea, at) the expense of the Australian pioneers and Australian enterprise and capital which created the pre sent rich and flourishing set-up.

From the viewpoint of the long haired theorists of UNO, the Hasluck plan may be due for pra i s e.; From the viewpoint of Australian manhood and Australian enterprise; and especially as a factor in Aus tralia’s future defence, it is an utterly damnable policy, which should be exposed to the Australian people.

AS the non-official Europeans in New Guinea see it, the most puzzling feature in the situation is the attitude of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies, and his External Affairs Minister, Mn Casey.

New Guineans regard both those Ministers as pro-Australian and anti-UNO. Yet they are the men who permit Mr. Hasluck to proceed with a policy that is increasingly anti-Australian and pro-UNO.

In my opinion, Australian in-, dividualists in both Papua and New Guinea are not going to remain silent much longer. Some forthright, representations are going to be<