Native administration and local government in Papua, 1880-1960
Abstract
The term 'Native Administration’s ie used
in the rather restricted sense in which it has
been defined by Lord Hailey, having particular
reference here to the ways in which native«
have participated in ’procedures of local
administration'.
The jurisdiction of the Western Pacific High
Commission was found Inadequate everywhere)
this inadequacy was particularly marked in New
Guinea before and under the protectorate,
because of the lack of chiefs.
Under Sir William MacGregor's administration
of the colony the search for chiefs who
could be made responsible for co-operation
with government continued for a time; initially
MacGregor sought to adapt methods and institutions
from Fiji. The delegation of responsibility
to Government Chiefs proved tedious
and unsuccessful. Local control through
appointed village constables was accepted as
a substitute, MacGregor was so involved with
pacification - to some extent involuntarily -
that a simple police system was found expedient.
With a small European staff of poor quality,
it seemed to offer relatively easy and uncomplicated
control.
In the period 1898-1908 central control of
pacification techniques deteriorated, and the
trend to direct police rule accelerated; a corollary
was the total ecolipse of the Government
Chiefs. Sir Hubert Murray had as his firet task the
close regulation of pacification. In addition,
pressures for settler development forced the
rapid extension of the frontier. These
faotors, in relation to insufficient funds
and staff, inhibited the evolution of new
methods of native administration. Indeed, the
hurried appointment of village constables came
to be looked on in hope (or desperation) as
the talisman of law and order.
After 1918, when systems of native tax and
of native plantations were introduced, the
deficiencies of the simple village constable
system became progressively more patent* This
led to experiments with non-statutory village
councillors and assessors. A few enlightened
officers, and the missions, conscious of social
stresses for which native administration did
not provide, even initiated approaches to
native councils and courts. Murray’s administrative
preconceptions, essentially assimilationist,
precluded any real or substantial
delegation to natives.
Murray's death and the war brought a period
of re-thinking. Increasing centralization of
control in Australia opened the way for a new
group not steeped in the Murray traditional to
exert influence: methods similar to the British
Native Authority system were mooted. Entrenched
opposition and the traditional conceptions
eventually proved too strong, however,
Native local government, as implemented, thus
constituted only a segment of the more comprehensive
system of native administration Even in the executive sphere, the lack of an
integrated approach by central government frustrated
co-operation by councils in developmental
responsibilities, although they had notable
achievements in the erecting of buildings, the
sinking of wells, etc. Forms of co-operation
were slowly and painfully worked out with the
central Education and Health Departments. Broadly, however, the disorganization and delay
to which many councils were subjected, together
with the discouragement by central government of political expression through local government, often eroded interest, inhibited the assumption of local responsibility and thereby perpetuated reliance on central government. Paternal welfare was accepted by government as a substitute for (rationale as a preparation for) administrative devolution. (The analogy with former Belgian policy is striking). This emphasis, inter alia also frustrated approaches to other forms of local government.