Port Moresby, 14 June 1967
240.
New political party1
The following are some preliminary observations:—
(a) Parliamentary support
At first sight this is not repeat not impressive. This could be due to ‘wait and see’ reaction from majority of members. It could also be due to the fact that party’s instigators Voutas and Holloway do not commend themselves to majority of older electorates and have tended to be treated with some scorn in the House. It is also true that older members have a suspicion of some of the younger executive members of the party outside the parliament such as Oala. The representatives from other areas such as the Sepik and the Highlands are not heavy weights. But other members will no doubt be thinking in terms of getting re–elected next March and their attitude could well be conditioned by the likelihood or otherwise of membership of this party helping them in their own electorate. Lepani Watson says he has refused to join although invited. Position of Guise uncertain.
(b) Representative character
The party has succeeded in getting broadly representative character but only Yin Tobaining is regarded as a man of some substance. The remaining areas are not represented by persons who carry great weight locally. Indeed Nicholas Brokam will be in some danger in his own electorate of New Ireland.
(c) Finances
On Oala’s own admission money will be a considerable problem and this will limit the amount of party organising that can be done.
(d) The programme
This clearly is a compromise between a number of points of view. We know that some members have reservations on the question of public service salaries. But the overall strategy of the programme is toward moderation.2
[NAA: A452, 1967/2735]
1 See Document 120.
2 On 24 June, Pangu released a statement accusing ‘other political parties and a few individuals through the press as well as some officers of the PNG Administration’ of ‘misrepresenting the Pangu objectives and platform in regard to self government and independence’. The statement said, inter alia, that Pangu wanted internal self-government to begin in 1968, meaning ministerial government; that PNG needed ‘years of experience’ under self-government, with Australian assistance, before it would be ready for independence; that the party had not set a target date for independence; that Pangu supported a strong party system and did not want a one-party state; and that it was not anti-Australian and desired Australian help and a multi-racial society (telex 963, Hay to Canberra, 25 June 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/2735; for further development of the party’s platform, see submission, Ballard to Barnes, 6 September 1967, ibid.). Earlier in the same week, Barnes had commented publicly that ‘the amount of publicity being given [Pangu] is out of all proportion to how it is regarded by the people of New Guinea. This is because the aims of the party fit in with the ideas of many people outside the country’. Barnes thought that the people wanted self-government, but not independence. Shortly after ward, during a visit to Lae, he added that ‘Parties should form naturally’ and should not be ‘force-fed’. On the question of independence, Barnes said he ‘stood by’ his previous estimate that it could come in 20 years and he said that ‘a seventh State would not be contemplated by the present Government’, though he could not predict what ‘in years to come … will be agreed between the Governments of Australia and Papua–New Guinea’. The latter comments were characterised by the Canberra Times as ‘demolish[ing] the main plank of the [new] conservative United Christian Democratic Party’ (Wolfers, ‘May–August 1967’, in Moore with Kooyman, A Papua New Guinea political chronicle, p. 18, and Times Courier , 24 June 1967, NAA: A1838, 936/5 part 6).