Port Moresby, 19 June 1968
Restricted
Report on the first sitting of the House of Assembly 4–14 June 1968
The purpose of this report is to draw attention to the significant features of the sitting.1 Details of the legislation passed and of the business conducted have been separately reported in daily teleprinters.
The Speaker
Mr. John Guise was elected Speaker of the House. He performed his task with confidence and with dignity. But only the constant help of the Clerk of the House2 and of the Official Member for Law, Mr. Watkins, avoided occasional procedural confusion. It will probably take the Speaker a number of sittings to fully master House procedures.
New system of Official Members
There was, as anticipated, some opposition to the appointment of four Official Members from the Department of District Administration.3 Most of this opposition came from members of Pangu. But not altogether. There probably would have been more said on this score had it not been for Michael Somare’s initial attack. His remark that the appointment of ‘Kiaps’4 was an Administrative ploy to control the ‘unsophisticated’ Highlands bloc irritated Highlanders,5 and Mr. Foley’s able reply defending the Highlanders, (seen by some as promoting regionalism),6 and concerning Somare’s comments about ‘the stigma of the Kiap’s authority’, lost Pangu the sympathy of the vast majority of the Members. From the Administration’s point of view, the new system has already been useful in helping it explain its legislation to Members of the House.
The Pangu Pati
The number of members of the party remains uncertain. Of those stated to be members … 7 Mr. Siwi Kurondo has denied membership, as has Mr. Kaniniba. At least one other member is going to discuss his membership with his electorate which is believed to be opposed to it. There has therefore been some falling away, and as yet no tendency on the part of other younger members to join. The strongly anti-party attitude of many rural Members, and their electorates, is no doubt partly responsible. But I do not by any means discount the possibility of an accretion to the party strength as time goes on. The party showed discipline and, on the whole, restraint in its policy statements.
During the sitting Pangu announced Mr. M. Somare as Leader of the Parliamentary wing, Mr. Paul Lapun Deputy Leader, and Mr. Peter Lus as Party Whip. There is little doubt that during the first sitting, at least, Pangu received a set-back. Firstly, the party itself suffers from a sort of stigma—that of demands for early independence,8 and although Pangu has made strenuous attempts to put the record straight, it has met with only limited success. There was certainly nothing radical in Voutas’ Pangu policy speech which called for progressive political development by three stages—‘immediate home-rule, internal self-government after considerable real political experience with home rule, and ultimate independence’. But to many conservative Highlanders, and to some coastal Members as well, the words ‘home rule’, ‘self-government’ or ‘independence’ are anathema and, consequently, so is ‘Pangu’.
Additionally, Pangu’s failure to lobby, Somare’s tendency to dictate to Members of the House, and their refusal to accept Ministerial positions,9 compounded this opposition. It would, however, be premature to say that Pangu’s set-back is permanent. There was, both in the lobbies and outside the House, a good deal of sympathy for the Party rejecting Ministerial positions, at this stage. And many of the younger and more educated people regard Pangu Pati as being the most progressive and able group to help them realise their aspirations.
Additionally, an attempt by some elected European Members to lead the attack against Pangu (Neville, Watts,10 McKinnon), if continued, could lead to a re-action and support for the party by some of the non-committed coastal Members.
All Peoples Party
Little was heard of the only other party represented in the House, the All Peoples Party, other than an announcement by Mr. Jim McKinnon that the name had been changed to the All Peoples Group.
The ‘Independent Group’
A large number of independent Members have formed themselves into an informal ‘Independent Group’. It is believed that the first meetings were organised by Mr. Watts (Western Highlands Regional) and another European Member and was an attempt to ‘put Pangu in its place’. At one of the group’s meetings the decision was made to oppose Somare’s motion for an enquiry into the Territory’s electoral system.11 If the group continues to operate it could be a potent force in the House, and a means of helping rural Members to understand new legislation. It is too early to draw any conclusions as to the attitude of the leading members of this group towards important Administration policies. There may be an attempt to use its voting strength (though there is no obligation on those who attend its meetings to vote in any particular way) to promote policies of regional interest (e.g. the Hagen–Madang road) or sectional interest (members of the group are known to be in touch with business leaders outside the House who will no doubt have strong views on such matters as taxes and growth of the public service). But in general the group is conservative and moderate in outlook, and for the foreseeable future the cooperation of its members is likely to continue, provided the Administration is able to put its views to Members in good time and provided the Official Leader retains some room for manoeuvre within the limits of policy.
The Younger Members
Although it is too early to ascertain who will be the influential leaders in the House, a number of speakers spoke eloquently and displayed promising qualities. Notable among these were: Mr. Michael Somare, Mr. Tony Voutas, Mr. Ebia Olewale (all of Pangu Pati), Mr. Tei Abal, Mr. Julius Chan12 and Mr. Walter Lussick.13 Among the new Official Members, Mr. M. Foley, District Commissioner, showed himself to be a forceful and persuasive speaker and a person who ‘spoke the people’s language’, —especially the Highlanders’. The contributions of other younger Members, such as Mr. Paulus Arek,14 Mr. Daniel Bokap,15 Mr. Oscar Tammur and Mr. John Maneke,16 will improve as they gain experience.
There is now a very noticeable gap among indigenous Members in the House, between the levels of articulation and comprehension of the younger and more educated men, and the less sophisticated, the latter of whom are mainly Highlanders. There is clearly evidence of some envy and resentment on the part of the less sophisticated towards the former group.
Main themes in questions
Questions were numerous and in the main parochial. Members regard the answers to questions (even if negative) as evidence to their electors that they have been doing their jobs.
Main themes in address-in-reply and adjournment debates
The Pangu Pati put forward three coherent and moderate statements on its political, constitutional and economic aims.
Many speakers emphasized in maiden speeches and during Adjournment Debates the need for unity in the Territory, and especially between Papuans and New Guineans. This discussion was somewhat stimulated by the disturbances which occurred in Port Moresby on the week-end 8/9th June.17 Some Members accused Pangu of being a potentially disruptive force which would work against unity. In connection with this discussion, the need for a vigorous political education programme was often expressed.
Another matter consistently referred to was the need for the Administrator to give more financial assistance to teachers in Mission schools. The Catholic Mission has been most active on this matter in seeking support of Members outside the House. We can expect increasing pressure.
Some Members referred to what they termed as ‘Canberra interference’.
Private Members motions, etc.
Pangu initiatives for a select committee on procedures and a Commission of Enquiry into the electoral system were adjourned. This was forced in both cases not because the proposals were unacceptable but because certain Members (notably Mr. Tei Abal) were not prepared to vote for any Pangu initiative at this stage. It is likely that alternative means will be found (e.g. through a younger independent Member) to introduce them again at the next sitting.
A private motion by Mr. Lepani Watson for a parliamentary mission to Tonga and Western Samoa to investigate the use of volunteers was defeated 28 votes to 46 but not before supporters of the motion had scored a point regarding Administration expenditure on sending officials overseas. Also, some Members expressed in the lobbies the view that the Administration was ‘afraid’ of allowing Overseas volunteers into the Territory.
Five Members were appointed to a select committee to investigate ways and means whereby a superannuation scheme for Members could be implemented. This is to report to the House at its third meeting.
There were no overt suggestions for the revival in some form of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development, but the matter is evidently in the minds of some Members.
The committees
There was a tendency for European Members to lobby hard (and successfully) for membership of what are regarded as the two main committees (Public Works and Public Accounts), both of which are not well balanced on that account. But we see greater hope for keeping the latter within reasonable limits than in the last House. The Ministerial Nominations Committee has established the practice of its members resigning if nominated for Ministerial office, but there is a danger that membership of it may be regarded as a necessary stepping stone to office.
Use of pidgin
It is significant that Pidgin English has gained wide usage in the House. Those articulate in Pidgin, particularly among the European Members, are more likely to strongly influence proceedings in the House. House translation services, incidentally, especially from Pidgin to English, were on the whole deplorable. The Hansard records must consequently suffer.
Degree of understanding of proceedings by generality of Members
Since the great majority ofMembers were new to the House; it was only to be expected that their understanding of the procedures and of the proceedings Would be limited. This, in fact, proved to be the case but it did not cause any particular complaint or, so far as is know, feeling of frustration on the part of the new Members. Many of them took it for granted (and this included the new, more educated and younger group) that it would take them some time before they were able to participate with a reasonable degree of understanding. However, the main limitations on the possibilities of understanding proceedings remained. These include the speed with which often business has to be conducted, the difficulty of getting prior notice of legislation and adequate advance explanation of it, difficulties of adequate translation into Pidgin, the complexity of the system, and finally the fact that new Members do not know where to turn for advice on what to say in debates and how to say it. The latter fact is one which will matter increasingly to the younger Members who will no doubt feel that they ought to contribute positively to debates, but who need assistance and advice from persons who have experience in the House of Assembly to ensure that their contributions are positive and to the point and do not cause them to lose face so far as their colleagues and the general public are concerned.
[NAA: A452, 1968/3178]
1 The second House of Assembly was opened by Australian Governor-General Lord Casey. An External Affairs summary of the speech reads: ‘the Governor-General repeated his earlier statements to the Commonwealth Parliament [see editorial note ‘Territories: changes to the department and portfolio’] about the Australian Government’s basic policy for [PNG] being to develop it for self-determination, and for the destiny of [PNG] to become a self-governing country developed for independence if and when it is clearly demonstrated by the majority of the indigenous population that this is what they wish. Later in his address the Governor-General said the Territory was moving towards self-determination—to self-government and later to a decision about its final status. He said advance was essential but a proper balance had to be sought between economic and social, and political, advance, as well as between moving too fast and not moving quickly enough. The Governor-General also referred to the new arrangements for Ministerial Members and the Administrator’s Executive Council as transitional in character, and that they therefore could not be as clear cut as arrangements in the past or as when full Ministerial responsibility and self-government is reached. He foreshadowed that the present arrangements could lead on to new steps forward in the years to come, and that in these matters the Australian Government would be guided by the wishes of the majority of the people of the Territory’ (anonymous and undated paper entitled ‘T.P.N.G. Political Developments’, NAA: A1838, 936/4 part 3; for full text of speech, see savingram AP 63, Canberra to UNNY, 7 June 1968, NAA: A1838, 936/4/11 part 1). The Administrator had criticised an earlier draft speech as relating too much to the past: ‘I can see no point in the speech constituting a defence of the past record of the Government. What Members will look for and what I hope we can give them is a look at the Government’s intentions for the future together with some inspiration which they would expect from a person like Governor-General and which would give them cause to support what the Government intends to do’ (telex 4933, Hay to Warwick Smith, 15 May 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/1540).
2 W.B.P. Smart.
3 For Administration and DOET preparation of the appointments, see Documents 180–2.
4 A pidgin word for government field officers.
5 In his maiden speech, Somare questioned why the Administration had chosen official members who had knowledge of ‘patrol in the bush’ rather than ‘specialised’ knowledge. He expanded: ‘the Government made a selection of Official Members from a power department. Is this to control the Highlands bloc in this House? Is it a fact that having a team such as this in the House is to gain support for the Administration? I do not mean to say that they are inexperienced men, their knowledge and experience could be of value to the more inexperienced Members, like myself. If this was the reason for their appointment, then surely field officers from specialist departments could have equally performed this task without the stigma of the kiap’s authority. As it is, it looks as though the newly appointed Official Members were put there purposely to herd and shepherd the unsophisticated Members of this House, thus exerting a subtle form of direct rule’ (telex 5423, Port Moresby to Canberra, 6 June 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/1922).
6 Foley argued: ‘If [the District Commissioners in the House] add up all our years of service, we find that in the collective period of service of over 100 years, only 25 of those years have been spent in the Highlands. Therefore, the statement that new official members have a Highland bias, is wrong … I now speak on something that worries and angers me … [Mr. Somare] used the term “stigma of the kiap”. What is stigma? We can only use the Pidgin term “shame no good”. I am not ashamed of my work in this country—and I know my colleagues here are proud of what they have done’. Foley continued, listing a group of kiaps who he said had made sacrifices for the country, and asking rhetorically whether they were ‘shameful men’. He also denied Somare’s suggestion that the Highlanders were simple: ‘By “simple”, did he mean unintelligent? I can assure the leader that in my long time with the Highlanders, they are not unintelligent. Before the Government came, the tribal people had a fine cultural organization … They had an intensive agricultural system … In a few short years since they have come under Government influence, they have developed their districts in a manner unparalleled in this country’. Foley concluded: ‘I repeat that we are men of Government, and men of good will. We are not here in support of one group and, therefore, in opposition to another … We are here to help the House, the districts and the country’ ( House of Assembly debates , 6 June 1968, NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, p. 41). Hay, for his part, has said that the appointment of DC’s to the House was ‘widely interpreted as a … nefarious means of keeping Members … in order. It could have been open to this interpretation, only it was not the intention of the Administration to do this … and nobody, and this was typical of the critics, ever came and said … it looks like this, is it in fact the correct interpretation?’ Hay explained the job of the DC’s as ‘liaison with the Members … there was a real need for that because of the… difficulty of getting the Administration’s view on legislation and government policy understood by Members’. More broadly, he has said that ‘Many commentators have seen the House … as a group … who were under the thumb of the Administration. I never saw it that way… the wide latitude that the House had to legislate on almost anything … made it so difficult for the small number of Official Members who were charged with the responsibility of giving effect to the policies of the Australian Government’ (Hay interview, 1973–4, NLA: TRC 121/65, 4: 1/24–6).
7 Matter omitted is a list in parenthesis of 11 ostensible members of Pangu including Somare, Lapun, Lus, Voutas, Abel, Olewale, Kurondo, Meanggarum, Maloat, Mangobing Kakun (Munya open electorate) and Michael Kaniniba (Huon Gulf open electorate).
8 See footnote 2, Document 122.
9 At the beginning of his maiden speech, Somare announced that Pangu would not accept ministerial appointments because this would involve conflicting loyalties to the party and to the Administrator’s Executive Council. He also argued that a ‘loyal opposition’ was central to the development of democracy in PNG (telex 5423, Port Moresby to Canberra, 6 June 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/1922). Warwick Smith informed Barnes that he had spoken to Hay about whether the ‘Senior Official Member ought to point out the difference between the situation referred to by Somare in the House of Reps. and the situation in the House of Assembly’. Barnes responded: ‘I see no good purpose in taking this matter further’ (marginal notes by Warwick Smith and Barnes, 10 and 13 June respectively, on telex 5479,7 June 1968, ibid.).
10 John Watts, MHA, Western Highlands regional electorate.
11 Somare called for an inquiry into, inter alia, minimum voting age, residential qualifications and use of the ‘whispering vote’ designed for illiterate people ( House of Assembly debates , NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, p. 93).
12 M HA, Namatanai open electorate.
13 MHA, Manus and New Ireland regional electorate.
14 MHA, ljivitari open electorate.
15 MHA, Kavieng open electorate.
16 MHA, Talasea open electorate.
17 See Document 207.