Canberra, 25 August 1967
Dr. Taureka explained that they had been invited to Australia by Mr. Beazley, M.P.,2 on behalf of Moral Re–Armament. While they were in Canberra they were taking the opportunity for informal discussions with various people. They did not come here to lobby on behalf of the Pangu Pati.
Visitors to Territory
• Mr. Goava said that when the Minister and Senior Officers visited the Territory provision should be made for discussions with people who could put Territory views. The Administration arranged itineraries for the Minister etc and it was impossible to see visitors.
• Mr. Kiki said that the Administration always put in ‘yes’ men like the under-secretaries who would say the right thing.
• Dr. Taureka stated that many people felt that they were blocked off from putting their views officially. This was a bad thing. The opportunity should be available to all groups to meet the Minister etc for discussions.
• The Secretary appreciates these points. The difficulty appeared to be when visitors were in Port Moresby. It was not easy to make arrangements to take into account all the people who might want to have discussions. Outside the Port Moresby area the same problem did not apply. On his recent visit to the Territory he had met a lot of people informally. One of the reasons for visiting the Territory was to hear other views and criticisms of what was being done.
Local officers’ salaries
• Mr. Goava referred to great discontent among local officers with present salaries.3 The Government had gone back on promises given by Mr. Hasluck that local officers who qualified for higher positions would receive the same basic salaries as overseas officers.
• They wanted an appeal to three judges from the Arbitrator’s decision. Would the Government agree?
• Local officers should receive as a basic salary two–thirds of the Australian basic wage.
• The Public Service should be paid higher wages than other people. Many local officers were becoming disillusioned with the Service. Australia should meet the extra cost of raising salaries.
• There was discrimination in housing; local officers had to pay for rent but overseas officers had a special allowance for rent.
• Mr. Kiki said he had a petition signed by 1000 local officers asking for provision for appeal from the Arbitrator’s decision.
• The Secretary—explained Government’s views on salaries for overseas and local officers. P.N.G. would not be independent if in fact it had to rely on {heavy} financial grants from Australia and other countries.
• The question of an appeal from the Arbitrator’s decision was a difficult problem. He could only repeat what the Government had already said. It was appreciated that the local officers felt concern at this matter—the position of the Government had to be appreciated also.
• If higher salary was paid to local officers than to other members of the community what would those people think? If you raised local officers’ salaries this would affect salaries elsewhere. Costs of production in agriculture would rise and Territory would not be in a position to compete with other countries for markets for these products.
• Mr. Goava referred to mixed-race people who received salaries based on rates for overseas officers. Why should a person who was half-Papuan receive more than a Papuan who worked hard?
• The Secretary—a line had to be drawn somewhere. Realised that this raised difficulties and could be unfair in some circumstances. The test was whether a person could be allowed to enter Australia and work here. If this was so he was paid at overseas rates. (This led to discussions on Australia’s immigration policy. Australian policy was explained. In P.N.G. the Government’s policy was to avoid the problem of mixed racial communities met in Fiji, Ceylon. All the Government was interested in doing was holding the position in P.N.G.—when self-government came P.N.G. would determine its own policy in this regard.)
Political development
• Mr. Goava questioned the Government’s policy that the move to self-government must be supported by a majority of the people. The Government had established a Legislative Council for the Territory without seeking the people’s views on this.
• The Secretary—the watershed of political development in the Territory was, in his view, the establishment of the House of Assembly. The stages of political development should be counted from when the Territory legislature was given a majority of elected members.
1968 Elections
• Mr. Kiki said that some Administration field officers were opposed to the Pangu Pati and were influencing people against the party. They knew the officers concerned but it was up to the Administration to find out the names of these people. There had been influence by Administration officers in the 1964 elections. It was important to the Pangu Pati, which was at this stage expressing a minority view, that it should have a fair deal in the elections.
• The Secretary—did not accept that field officers had acted improperly during the 1964 elections. He had no reason to believe other than that the Administration attitude to political parties was one of {impartiality}. He agreed that the Pangu Pati was entitled to a fair deal at the elections in accordance with democratic principles.4
[ matter omitted ]
[NAA: A452, 1966/4576]
1 Goava, Maori Kiki, Walo, Taureka, Osineru Dickson (executive member of the National Progress Party, which was formed in November 1967) and Gadosisi Siliki (occupation unidentified).
2 K.E. Beazley, ALP member for Freemantle and vice-chairman, Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs.
3 In its assessment for August, the TIC judged that ‘While there is Territory wide dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Local Officers Salaries Determination, the reaction has not be nearly as forceful as was anticipated in assessments made prior to receipt by Local Officers of their actual wage under the new award’ (MIS no. 8/67, 8 September 1967, NAA: A1838, 936/3/15 part 4). Assessments for September and October were that the situation in the Territory was ‘quiet’ (MIS no. 9/67, 6 October 1967, ibid., and MIS no. 10/67, 3 November 1967, NAA: Al838, 3036/14/1/6 part 7).
4 In a letter of 7 September, Warwick Smith wrote to Hay that ‘Predictably’ much discussion with the group had centred on the arbitrator’s decision and that while ‘Nothing new in the way of argument was put forward … the discussion was very useful as an opportunity for the exchange of views’ (NAA: A452, 1966/4576). On return to PNG the group told Hay they had ‘been much impressed with the Australian leaders and ‘with their understanding and sympathy with the Territory … They had come back with a firm conviction that what this country needed was dedicated, and not fanatical, leaders. They were asking themselves the question whether those who were standing for the House of Assembly had this spirit of dedication or whether they were motivated by such things as fanaticism’. The group also said they ‘believed firmly in the message of Moral Rearmament’ and wanted to get its message across to the people of PNG—perhaps by building a centre in Port Moresby ‘where all races could get together’ (minute, Hay to Fenbury, 7 September 1967, NAA: Ml866, 1).