Canberra, 28 December 1967
Papua and New Guinea—political education tour of Australia by a party of Local Government Councillors during October, 1967
A report has been received from the Administration officer who accompanied the above party giving his impressions of their tour of Australia. This report and comments by the Director of the Department of District Administration1 are attached.2
2. These reports confirm this Department’s impression that the tour was a successful one, especially from the point of view of political education; and that it is desirable to continue running such tours in the future. The escort officer from the Administration stated that:—
(a) the Councillors felt there is general dissatisfaction with present members of the House of Assembly but realise it is up to the people to elect good representatives;
(b) the Councillors are against early independence and this feeling increased when they realised the amount of hard work ahead of them, even with Australia’s help to develop their country;
(c) the Councillors from ten different districts realised the value of unity and wished to unite Papua and New Guinea under one name—Melanesia;
(d) The Councillors are certain that stability and internal development must come from the local government councils;
(e) the Councillor’s tour of Australia convinced them of their need for friends and foreign capital. To assist this they must lease land to companies and for mining exploration;
(f) in all the Councillors’ learned that the development of a country takes many years of hard work, by a law abiding united people under stable government.
It is clear from these comments that the local government Councillors reacted somewhat differently from the M.H.A.’s3 and that future tours should be adopted to meet these differing interests and attitudes.
3. From another angle the tour was also a success in that it gave an opportunity for ordinary Australians and many organisations, in government, private enterprise and community activities, to meet and entertain these visitors from P. & N.G. In particular, the visits to private homes in Canberra arranged through church people could be mentioned.
4. The reports are submitted for your information.4
[NAA: A452, 1967/6847]
1 T. W. Ellis, who was chosen over Grove and Fenbury as McCarthy’s successor. Barnes considered Fenbury disloyal and Hay—while regarding him as ‘a man with a very good record as an Administration officer, a well–educated chap and a man with a mind of his own’—said he ‘never knew where [he] stood with him’. As for Grove, Hay thought him an ‘admirable character [who] didn’t have the strength … to handle a department with as many prima donna as District Administration; it really needed a strong man’. Both Barnes and Hay had a high regard for Ellis, in spite of ‘others who had reservations … because of his … rather old–fashioned methods [as a District Commissioner] in the Highlands’. Hay described Ellis as a ‘very dictatorial sort’ who ‘had a certain style which didn’t lead some people to admire him, because it was too rough and in some senses brutal’; he was also ‘controversial … because he was very outspoken. It was always thought that he was pretty active in politics. He was by natural outlook rather conservative, very suspicious of people like the Pangus and suspicious of academics and that sort of thing. But he had qualities of loyalty and a deep sense of responsibility which caused me to be quite satisfied that he was the right man for the job’ (Hay interview, 1973–4, NLA: TRC 121/65, 2:2/40–1, 3: 1/39–41).
2 Not printed.
3 Presumably, the members referred to in footnote 4, Document 114. In a discussion between Barnes and the MHA’s, Yauwe Wauwe ‘brought up the need for more schools generally, more agricultural schools and more foreign companies’. Barnes replied ‘with a simple basic statement on [the] prior importance of economic development’. At the same meeting, Poio Iuri had complained about the difficulty of procuring vehicle spare parts in the Highlands, while Momei Pangial said the MHA’s ‘had difficulty in really comprehending what they were seeing in their visits to places of interest’ (notes of discussion, 14 April 1967, NAA: A452, 1966/2211 ).
4 In a marginal note of29 December, Barnes wrote: ‘A most interesting consensus’.