Australian Thinks
pp. 51-53 · Read in the full issue
Islands’ Federation Idea
Australian Thinks In Terms of Melanesia
A very wrong impression may
have been given by the following
Press message, broadcast from
Canberra on January 26:
A new British Dominion the Federation of Melanesia—might be the natural outcome of a close economic, cultural and defence partnership between Australia and the Dutch, according to Pacific affairs expert, Mr. J. R. Kerr.
Mr. Kerr, a Queen’s Counsel, who was the first Principal of the Aus tralian School of Pacific Adminis tration, and who was Organising Secretary of the South Pacific Com mission when it was formed in 11)48, was addressing the Summer School of the Australian Institute of Political Science here.
He said the new Dominion would include Dutch New Guinea, the Australian Trust Territory of New Guinea, Papua, and the British Solomon Islands. — AAP-Reuter.
IN explanation of which it is neces sary to state, categorically and specifically; • No such development is im minent or even probable. • Mr. Kerr is not a “Pacific affairs expert”. He is a Sydney barrister, practising in a modest way.
He was admitted to the NSW Bar in 1938; but he does not appear to nave practised until 1948.
In the meantime, and especially luring World War 11, Mr. Kerr was me of a group of “brilliant young planners” who circulated more or ess in an orbit around the turbulent Australian politician, Mr. Eddie Ward, while that gentleman was Minister for Territories. This little jroup insisted that they knew all ;he answers to the problems created n the Southwest Pacific by the fapanese invasion.
Supported by their counsels, Mr. tfard proceeded to create a Socialist leaven and an anti-capitalist earth -c function in Papua and New Guinea after the war; but the dealistic conception was already lollapsing when the Australian electors took a hand, and Mr. Ward etired into obscurity with his plans md his planners. • Mr. Kerr was nominally the irst Principal of the Australian School of Pacific Administration, fhe man who actually started the nstitution was Colonel J. K. Murray, ater Administrator of Papua and 'Tew Guinea. Late in the war period,
while in charge of Duntroon Military College, Murray was also “Chief In structor” of the “School of Civil Affairs, Duntroon”, where young officers were trained for adminis trative duties in P-NG. Mr. Kerr was given charge of it in 1946, when it was given permanency and its present name, and transferred to Sydney. He was only a brief time in this position—then he became a practising barrister. • To describe Mr, Kerr as “the organising secretary of the South Pacific Commission when it was formed in 1948”, is to give a wrong and unfortunate impression. Mr.
Kerr, while Principal of the School, appears to have carried out some work for Messrs. Evatt and Ward
when the SPC idea was being shaped up in 1947-48. (He was asked to act as Secretary of the Com mission, in April, 1947, and the Com mission’s temporary headquarters were established near Mr. Kerr’s office at the new School of Pacific Administration, St. Georges Heights, Sydney—see PIM of August, 1947, page 13.) But it never appeared to me that he had much to do with the Com mission, and I then was keenly in terested in this new organisation.
Mr. W. D. Forsyth, OBE (now a top official of Australian External Affairs Department) came into the picture a few months later (in 1948) as Secretary-General—he created the organisation and between 1948
and 1951 he put more life into the thing than all the rest put together. • Use of the term “a new British Dominion”, to describe the set-up advocated by Mr. Kerr (a “federa tion” of Trustee New Guinea, Papua, Dutch New Guinea and perhaps the British Solomons) is unfortunate — but that probably is the error of a reporter, and not a phrase used by a lawyer with some knowledge of constitutional development.
Federation Debated MR. KERR’S plan for a Federa tion of Melanesia was debated in an ABC broadcast of 45 minutes on January 29. Mr. Kerr briefly outlined his idea, and then various people from the Canberra “Summer School” shot questions at him.
The picture thus presented was not impressive. The constitutional difficulties (transfer of NG Trustee ship and the old Territory of Papua from Australia, transfer of Western New Guinea from Holland, transfer of the Solomons from the British Colonial Office) were barely touched upon. Two or three commentators, who seemed to speak with some authority, emphasised that so many decades must pass before the Mel anesians could be regarded as capable of self-government that the plan was scarcely worth considering at this stage.
Mr. Kerr, in reply, emphasised two things: (a) That it was important that the Melanesians, groping their way upwards towards nationhood, should be kept closely within Australian influence, and grow up to regard themselves eventually as a Federa ;ion closely associated with Australia within the British Commonwealth. (b) That the Europeans in New Guinea should understand from the beginning that they would have no dominant or deciding voice in the future of the country—that the future belonged to the Melanesians.
Few will dispute argument (a) t represents the general idea of nost observers, as far as they have jone. It is the main argument de veloped by Minister Hasluck him self.
But (b) carries the ancient ear narks of the Evatt-Eddie Ward 'egime. Mr. Kerr says that these toropeans (greedy, exploiting, cap talist-minded, according to Mr.
Ward) must understand that they lave no future in Melanesia. This istener was almost tempted to shout icross the ether: “If you allow Chinese to settle permanently in 'few Guinea, and give them Aus ralian citizenship and presumably i voice in the future of the country, rtiy cannot you give privileges and ncouragement to Australian settlers •nd Australian enterprise, whose )resence there is vital to the de relopment of Melanesian citizenship md a Melanesian economy.”
Finally, Mr. Stuart Inder—in Can
berra as a PIM observer —asked Mr.
Kerr what he thought of the idea, not of a Federation of Melanesia, but of a Federation of the South Pacific, bringing in at least all the Territories administered by the British —somewhat along the lines indicated by the formation of the South Pacific Commission.
Mr. Kerr said he had given con sideration to the idea of a South Pacific Federation, but had dismissed it as undesirable and impracticable.
He also indicated that he did not think that the South Pacific Com mission, on its record, had served its original purpose. 1 may appear critical of Mr. Kerr’s plan, because it appears limited in
scope and vague in character. But, as shown elsewhere, the South Pacific people should be grateful to Mr. Kerr because, of all the worthy thinkers who spoke at the Summer School, he was one of only two who lifted their eyes beyond the political borders of P-NG.
It is a small thing; but at least it is a move in the right direction.
Australia, by her growth and virility and strength, must accept far wider responsibilities than are represented by Australian Adminis tration in Melanesia. That is, if Australia is going to fulfil her apparent destiny as the politico economic leader of the South Pacific.