"Should Be Swept Away"

Although Generally Speaking, the Picture is Bright, Discrimination In New Guinea "Should Be Swept Away"

By a Staff Writer in Sydney

It’s so rare for an official handout to say anything worth while, that a handout issued by Sir Hugh Foot in Sydney on May 15 at the end of a six-weeks tour of New Guinea by his UN Mission deserves to win some kind of an award.

SIR HUGH’S handout said every thing that mattered, and although Sir Hugh obligingly answered re porters’ questions, what came out there didn’t alter the importance of the original handout. In fact, unless his answers were weighed against the broader canvas of his handout it was very easy for a careless reporter to write a distorted picture.

As Sir Hugh himself good naturedly warned Pressmen during the interview: “I know how some of you fellows work. You are asking me now about racial discrimination.

All that will come out in the reports is that we don’t like discrimination, and you won’t say anything about the rest of it. Isn’t that right?”

One reporter replied frankly that that was probably right—and in fact it was. Next day few newspaper accounts bothered to touch on any thing but the discrimination angle.

But here is what Sir Hugh’s pre pared handout said in full—the italics being the sections that were under lined by Sir Hugh in the original: “Our duty is to report to the Trusteeship Council, and this we hope to do next month. You will understand that it would be quite wrong for us to anticipate in any way what that report will contain.

All I can say now about that is that we are determined in everything we propose to be constructive.

“But you ask me what our im pressions are after our six-weeks tour, in which we have visited every dis trict and devoted every day of that six weeks to hearing and seeing as much as we could.

“Perhaps there are four main im pressions which come first to mind.

First, we are deeply grateful for all trouble taken by the Administration the kindness and ready co-operation shown to us and for all the care and trouble to make our tour so extensive and so intensely interesting.

“Secondly, we have been struck by the way people speak out freely and

clearly. We have met many good leaders who think hard and speak straight —and that goes not only for New Guinea leaders but also for many Australian planters. That is in deed a good augury for the future.

Thirdly, we have been struck by the good relations between all sections of the population. At the same time we have found impatience with re maining survivals of discrimination.

For that reason we welcome yester day’s announcement about the Com mission on liquor restrictions. Our view is that the sooner all survivals of racial discrimination are swept away the better.

“Fourthly, we believe that the Territory is on the threshold of fresh constructive advance. Particularly in the field of education the groundwork done since the last war is now about to show rapidly expanding and pro gressive results. We feel confident that the way is now clear for rapid new progress”

During the questions that followed,

Sir Hugh explained that prohibition on liquor and the censorship of films shown to the native people, were the two matters that the natives mostly considered discriminatory. The ques tion of liquor had come up in every district.

“We are not concerned whether the bans are right or wrong,'’ he said.

“We are pointing out that they are regarded by the natives as discrimina tion against them, and for this reason they should be swept away.”

Pressed for other examples, Sir Hugh said the Mission had received complaints that in shops, natives were made to wait out of their turn while whites were served.

“It’s only an example—don’t make too much of it,” he said. “And also we are aware that when it comes to natives being forbidden hotels there are matters of licensing laws and not necessarily personal discrimination.”

Sir Hugh said the West New Guinea question was raised at many meetings and there was no doubt that it was much concerning New Guinea people. However, West New Guinea was outside the scope of the Mission’s report.

Although Sir Hugh skilfully avoided direct questions as to what would be in the UN Report (which is not expected to come up in the Trusteeship Council before late June) there was not much doubt that the report would give the Russians little reason for cheer. Australia would be criticised, certainly, but construc tively, and overall its trusteeship over New Guinea would emerge unstained.

Sir Hugh’s mention of the Com mission on liquor restrictions referred to a statement that had been made in Port Moresby the previous day by the P-NG Administrator, Sir Donald Cleland, who said that the liquor pro hibition would be reviewed (see p. 22).

The day after Sir Hugh’s handout to the Press, Sir Donald made a further statement—saying that P-NG film censorship laws would be changed “by next month”.

Sir Donald added that Australians shouldn’t misinterpret the Territory’s discriminatory laws. Any discrim inatory ordinances were “designed to protect the indigenous population in a primitive state”, but were being amended as new stages of develop ment were reached.

The speed in which these two par ticular matters of discrimination were attended to is proof that Canberra, too realises that Sir Hugh’s Mission, unlike some of his predecessors, has earned the right to be taken seri ously.