Canberra, undated
Notes on the House of Assembly Elections 1968
General
The people of Papua and New Guinea again went to the polls from 17th February to 16th March, 1968, to elect a new and enlarged House of Assembly.
The new House was enlarged following the report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development appointed by the House of Assembly on 19th May, 1965. The changed composition is as follows:
| 1964 | 1968 | |
|---|---|---|
| Open electorates | 44 | 69 |
| Special electorates | 10 | nil |
| Regional electorates | nil | 15 |
| Officials | 10 | 10 |
| 64 | 94 |
The number of people registered on the electoral rolls had increased by 15% to approximately 1,180,000 since the 1964 election.
In the event 484 people stood for the 84 seats available, an increase of 185 over the 299 who stood for the 54 seats in 1964, showing the growing awareness of the people of their civic responsibilities. 70% of these 484 people had some degree of education, the remainder having had no formal education.
The occupations and backgrounds of the candidates were many and varied, the bulk describing themselves as follows:—
| 110 | Farmer |
|---|---|
| 80 | Local Government Councillor |
| 65 | Planter |
| 46 | Teacher |
| 44 | Public Servant |
| 43 | MHAs |
| 23 | Trader |
How sitting members fared
Of the 54 non-official members of the House of Assembly, 8 did not stand again. Of the 46 who stood, 23 were successful and 23 were defeated.
9 former MHA’s stood for Regional electorates but only 3 were successful, one of whom. was Tei Abal who was elected unopposed.
37 former MHA’s stood for Open electorates, 20 were successful.
Significantly, sitting members fared worst in coastal areas. In New Guinea Coastal electorates 8 of 11 candidates who stood again were defeated, 6 out of 8 in open electorates and 2 out of 3 in regional electorates.
In Papua coastal electorates 8 of 11 who stood again were defeated, 7 out of 10 in open electorates and 1 in a regional electorate. The only counter–trend was in the Milne Bay district where John Guise and Lepani Watson were returned although John Stuntz was defeated by Cecil Abel of the Pangu Pati in the regional election.
In Island electorates 5 of 7 members who stood again were successful, 4 in open electorates and 1 in a regional electorate.
In Highlands electorates 12 out of 17 were successful, 11 out of 14 in open electorates and 1 out of 3 in regional electorates.
The trend AGAINST SITTING MEMBERS IN THE COASTAL AREAS is seen in the performance of parliamentary under–secretaries. The 4 under-secretaries defeated of the 9 who stood were all standing in coastal electorates. Lepani Watson was the only undersecretary standing in a coastal electorate to be returned.
Those defeated were Zure Zurecnuoc, Dirona Abe, Robert Tabua and Edric Eupu. Those successful were Matthias To Liman, Sinake Giregire, Lepani Watson, Paul Lapun and Tei Abal.
The other 18 former MHA’s returned are John Guise, Percy Chatterton, Yauwi Wauwi Moses, Siwi Kurondo, Momei Pangial, Koitaga Mano, Poio Juri, Kaibelt Diria, Leme Iangalyo,1 Paliau Mal oat, A.C. Youtas,2 R. T. D. Nevilie, Bono Azanifa,3 O.I. (Roy) Ashton, Koriam Urekit,4 Pita Lus, James Meanggarum and Muriso Warebu.5
[ matter omitted ]6
Who are the new members?
Following the elections there will be 61 new elected members in the House of Assembly, 8 from Island electorates, 18 from Highlands electorates, 21 from New Guinea coastal electorates and 14 from Papuan coastal electorates.
This compares with the balance of seats:
| N.G. Coastal | Highlands | Islands | Pap. Coastal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Seats | 24 | 30 | 13 | 17 |
| New Faces | 21 | 18 | 8 | 14 |
It would seem that the bulk of new faces in the new House of Assembly will be members from Coastal districts. This was where the Pangu Pati was most successful.
A list of new Members is given on Page 3 of the Papua and New Guinea Newsletter Vol. 2 No. 8 dated 18th April, 1968.7 The only result not given was for Goilala Open where L.S. Mona was successful.
How Pangu fared?
It is not certain exactly how many Pangu Pati candidates have been elected. The most quoted figure is 12. Albert Maori Kiki claimed in a recent interview to have 13 supporters with expected support from 7 others. Our best figures are 11 known supporters and 6 or 7 possible supporters.
Dealing With The 11 Known Supporters. 8 hold open electorates and 3 are from regional electorates. 7 are from Coastal electorates. 2 are from the Highlands and 2 are from Island electorates.
Pangu Supporters Defeated. Aside from the 11 successful known Pangu supporters, a further 9 known Pangu Pati supporters were defeated. These included former M.H.A.’s Barry Holloway and Wegra Kenu, the Party’s general Secretary Albert Maori Kiki, and Epel Tito.
Two prominent members defeated in the New Britain district were Vin Tobaining and Thomas Tobunbun.8
Vin Tobaining was defeated by Oscar Tammur9 who attracted attention in the electorate by demonstrating in the Raniola land dispute.10
Thomas Tobunbun who played down his Pangu associations during the election was defeated by Epineri Titimur,11 a candidate who has made some remarks calling for the repatriation of all expatriates.12
Oala Oala Rarua who won the Central Regional Electorate was a former Pangu member expelled from the party in 1967 because of his emphasis on early self-government in a speech at Sydney University.
The key point about Pangu’s performance is that in at least two seats, Pangu supporters were defeated by candidates with more extreme views.
Pangu does seem likely to vote as a bloc in the House and to rely on its young men, Anthony Voutas (25), Michael Somare (31),13 and Ebia Olewale (27).14 The other prominent Pangu men elected are Paul Lapun, Siwi Kurondo, Pita Lus, James Meanggarum, Paliau Maloat, M. Kakun15 and Kaibelt Diria.
The Co-Chairman of the Party, Cecil Abel, won the Milne Bay Regional seat.
Other parties
The only other party to achieve any success was the All Peoples’ Party which had 2 candidates, Dennis Buchanan16 and James McKinnon17 elected in the Highlands. The platform of this Party is opposed to home rule.
Other parties that emerged and appear to have been less successful or even completely unsuccessful are—
— National Progress Party
— the Territory Country Party
— the New Guinea Agricultural Reform Party
— the United Democratic Party.
Sitting of the new House
The new House of Assembly will sit in the first week in June, probably on June 4. Ministerial Members are unlikely to be elected for 3 to 6 months after that. The first procedure is to elect a Nomination Centre18 for the House of Assembly and these19 to have procedures agreed to by the Minister.
[NAA: A452, 1968/1922]
1 Wapenamanda open electorate.
2 Youtas had changed from an open to a regional electorate (Morobe ).
3 Henganofi open electorate.
4 Kandrian–Pomio open electorate.
5 Okapa open electorate.
6 Matter omitted includes a list of other MHA’s defeated: Don Barrett, Barry Holloway, G.E. Karava, Wegra Kenu, Tambu Melo, Stoi Umut, John Stuntz, J.K. McCarthy, Keith Levy (Hagen open electorate), Paul Manlel (West New Britain open), F. Martin (Madang–Sepik special electorate), Makain Mo (Lumi open), H.L.R. Niall, Singin Pasom (Lae open), G. Pople (Gumine open), Eriko Rarupu (Moresby open), P. Tamindei (Maprik open), Keith Tetley (Gulf open), and Handabe Tiaba (Tari open).
7 Not printed.
8 Tobunbun was a founding member of Pangu and President of the Rabaul Workers’ Association.
9 Kokopo open electorate.
10 The Administration later reported to Canberra that Tammur ‘made statements prior to his election that his land policy was to control and take over overseas business and land and transfer them to his own people. He directed the unlawful occupation of Raniola Plantation from which he and his people were finally ejected [see footnote 10, Document 148]. He made statements that he was not in favour of Council taxation and that he would have provisions for it withdrawn if elected. In this matter he has sought an exemption from Council taxation but this was refused. On employment matters he seeks that preferential treatment be given by local enterprise to his own Tolai people. He has also enquired into the reasons for the small number of Tolais attending Vudal Agricultural College. Since the election he has admitted at village meetings that some of his statements were of an extreme nature and that he realised now that they were not wholely practicable. It is understood that this moderation of his statements has caused some dissatisfaction amongst the electors with a resulting loss of support. Mr Tammur stood as an independent candidate and to date professes disinterest in the Pangu Party and is not known to have any contacts with other parties. All Members have been receiving invitations from the Pangu Party for a special conference at Port Moresby and no doubt these pressures will continue to be used on all independent Members. Currently Tammur is appointing a representative in each village who is to sponsor his view. Oscar Tammur received strong support from members of the Roman Catholic Mission’ (attachment to memorandum, Administration (Hay) to DOET, 7 June 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/1999). When interviewed in the 1970s, Hay said the Raniola incident was Tammur’s ‘first brush with the Administration … it made quite a deep impression on him. He always said afterwards that the police were arrned–well of course the police were armed, all police were armed in Papua—New Guinea, but they didn’t use their arrns on him. On the other hand, it was a case in which … the Administration had a backing of force for the unpleasant task of removing squatters who were illegally trespassing on a plantation’ (NLA: TRC 121/65, 3:2/27)
11 Rabaul open electorate.
12 The Administration reported that Titimur’s ‘policy has changed considerably from that which he expressed in the 1964 elections. It is reliably reported that during the 1964 election campaign he expressed strong views for the taking over of alienated land from the Ex-Patriates and early independence. Mr. Titimur’s views have ostensibly changed since then as he professes to believe in the need for continued Ex-Patriate investment in the Territory, jointly with indigenes, and that a secure climate for investments should be encouraged. He also believes that independence should not be unnecessarily postponed, though is unwilling to indicate how soon it should come. He recognises the need of retaining Ex-Patriate public servants after independence. He is not known to have any affiliation with any political Party and in fact is not aware of the meaning or activities of a party … Like other candidates he has received invitations from the Pangu Party but is unlikely to commit himself for some time to come. Rabaul open elections made quite clear that the people do not wish their Member to belong to a Party, nor do they wish him to accept a ministerial or assistant ministerial position as such appointees lose contact with the people. Mr. Titimur has never been known for lucid proposals and arguments and is considered by a large number of Councillors and the educated elite to be mentally deficient. He is a charismatic speaker and this has brought its support from the politically restless but uneducated rural people’ (loc. cit.).
13 East Sepik regional electorate.
14 South Fly open electorate.
15 Munya open electorate.
16 Eastern Highlands regional electorate.
17 Middle Ramu open electorate.
18 Apparently, this should read ‘Committee’.
19 Presumably, this should read ‘then’.