Port Moresby, 7 October 1968
This letter contains an account of a discussion which I had on 4th October with Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members on the question of Bougainville.
There was general agreement that the situation of opposition to the Administration and receptiveness to the idea of a referendum on independence and/or joining with the Solomons as an alternative to continued inclusion in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, 1 was due to the following causes:
(a) The long-standing feeling in Bougainville that the island had been neglected over the years by the Australian Administration. It had been included in the map of the Territory but had not received its fair share of assistance.
(b) Administration officers had, in supporting the introduction of C.R.A. survey parties into the Kieta area, not shown sufficient respect for the people.
(c) The use of police to ensure protection of ‘scientists’ and C.R.A. personnel.
(d) The imprisonment of a councillor and other persons in Kieta recently for opposition to the police. 2
(e) While recent Administration economic assistance was admitted, it was felt to be coming so late in the day that it amounted to an attempt to bribe the people.
(f) Bougainville has contributed greatly to the Territory revenue but has not got the equivalent back in terms of assistance from the central government.
(g) The law which the Administration claims it is supporting is not the law of the people.
(h) The Government refused to agree to a separate development fund for Bougainville.
(i) The amount of royalty available under the Territory law to the people of Bougainville was too low. After independence it could be substantially increased.
The extent of public support for the holding of a referendum was discussed. The opinion of the only Bougainville member present (Mr. Lue—Assistant Ministerial Member for Education) was that the referendum would be supported by the majority of the people. He quoted an estimate of the percentage of people in favour as being 60% in the Nagovisi, 40% in the Siwai and 70% in the Buin areas. In his opinion, the people would not wish to join the British Solomons because that area was backward in terms of education and economic development and would be a drag on Bougainville. Mr. Lue, of course, comes from South Bougainville and the opinions quoted by him are the opinions of the South Bougainville people. Mr. Lue gave it as his opinion that if the House of Assembly and the Australian Government refused to agree to the proposal for a referendum, then that decision would be accepted by the people providing they got some substantial ‘compensation’ in return. There was no attempt to define what would be considered adequate compensation, but clearly this was intended to be of an economic nature and no doubt it had some reference to the Bougainville Development Fund.
There was some discussion as to whether the students who had recently been meeting in Port Moresby on the question of a referendum were subject to outside influence or not. One or two members thought that this was likely and also thought that a good deal of the stimulus for the referendum was coming from British Solomon students. However, Mr. Lue gave it as his opinion (he had not himself attended the original meeting) that there was no significant stimulus from outside. I know, however, that the organisers of the meeting consulted Professor Davidson of the A.N.U.3 before the meeting took place. l do not know what contribution Professor Davidson made, either to the holding of the meeting or to its substance. He had left Port Moresby before the meeting took place.
I discussed with Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members what might be done to ensure the unity of the Territory which the Government had proclaimed as one of its main objectives. One suggestion was that there should be a special mission of, say, two indigenous Ministerial Members and one expatriate Ministerial Member which would go to Bougainville fairly shortly and hold formal meetings with groups of people in order to ascertain their views and place before them the views of the Members themselves. This proposal received some support at first but in the later stages of the meeting it was felt that a better effect would be obtained if no such formal mission were sent but if the matter were treated at a lower key and if, for instance, Ministerial or Assistant Ministerial Members whose duties required them to visit Bougainville in the ordinary course of events took the opportunity of having discussions with leaders of the people on a more informal basis. It was pointed out that Siwi Kurondo has scheduled a visit during the coming week to Tonolei. There is also to be a Regional Local Government Association conference late in October at which Mr. Kaibelt Diria, Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government, will be present. It was felt that these two Members could have some discussions and report back in due course to the present meeting. There was general agreement that it would be better not to have an Australian elected member or officer accompanying these office holders in respect of this particular kind of visit.
Differing views were expressed on what should be said to leading persons in Bougainville by visiting Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members. On the one hand the view was expressed that the objective of any discussions should merely be to ascertain the views of the people of Bougainville. Others favoured a more primitive attitude. It was felt that it would be possible for the Ministerial Members to smooth down ruffled feelings. As Mr. Tei Abal put it, it was important that we should not put the unity point of view in such a way as to arouse a reaction. As he put it in Pidgin, ‘Ol man bilong Bougainville bel bilong im i hot lik lik. Orait yumi ken fixim. Yumi ken pinisim wori bilong ol.’4 The way to do this was to emphasize the respect in which the people of Bougainville were held throughout the Territory. He had himself seen them as teachers, policemen, soldiers; Members of the House of Assembly and in many other situations, and felt that they and the people of the rest of the Territory were truly friends and that it would be a tragedy if the Territory were broken apart (‘Mi nolaik dispela kantri i bruk na baut.’)5
The low key approach was generally supported at the close of the meeting. Mr. Lue himself strongly opposed any formal delegation. He also felt that this was a matter which could not be handled by the Administration as such. As he put it, the Administration officers tended to wear ties and never got down to the level of the village people. Before the close of the meeting I took the opportunity to present to those present some of the facts which had governed the Administration’s actions and attitudes in Bougainville in recent years. 1 said for a start that the amount of aid and assistance to Bougainville was considerable. Moreover, there were many institutions in the Territory, such as the University, teachers colleges, technical colleges and many others, which directly benefitted Bougainville because of the opportunities for Bougainville students to attend them. The island of Bougainville was on the point of a tremendous leap forward economically. The Administration officers in the field had a duty to ensure the observance of the law. The law in relation to mining and in relation to law and order was not a foreign imposition. It had been passed by the House of Assembly and had been accepted by the then Member of the House from Bougainville. It was therefore truly a Territory law and the people ofBougainville could not have a different one. In these circumstances it was inevitable that Administration officers in the course of their duties should find themselves taking action which was not popular with individual people. However, instructions had been issued that on all possible occasions, Administration officers should put themselves out to explain before any force was used the reason for the activities of C.R.A., the position of the people under the law and also their rights. I read out extracts from the confidential instruction to the District Commissioner which had been issued in February 1967. 6I believe that this explanation was sympathetically received.
A formal assessment of the situation in Bougainville by the T.l.C. on the basis of the most recent information available is nearing completion. A copy of this will be sent to you through the Department as soon as possible.
I hope to discuss the action which should be taken by the Administration in the light of the present situation with you and the Secretary when I see you in Canberra on 15th October next. One important element in the situation will be the content of any statement of Government policy in relation to the referendum proposal. It has already been put out on the A.B. C. (and some concern has been felt on this) that the Government would give consideration to a referendum proposal. What was not included in the report was that this would only happen after a favourable report from the House of Assembly. The opinion is, therefore, in existence that the Government is well disposed towards a referendum. This arises from the fact that to consider a proposition in the eyes of Bougainville people (I am told) is the equivalent of considering it favourably. My own view is that the most that should be said at this stage on a Government view is that it would be influenced very much by the opinions of the House of Assembly.
Whatever may be the arguments for and against a Government acceptance of a referendum proposal, we need to consider its effect on the unity of the remainder of the Territory. There is some restiveness amongst the Tolais, to some extent fostered by European people (who are distrustful of Port Moresby) that the islands of New Britain should go it alone. This has come to my notice most recently in the form of statements by Tolai leaders that they should have absolute preference in respect of newly developed oil palm blocks in the Nakanai (although this is quite outside the Tolai area). If Bougainville has the resources to go it alone, the lesson will not be lost on the almost equally wealthy Tolais. In my view, therefore, and in advance of any expression of opinion from the House of Assembly, the Administration ought to be taking every step possible (with due discretion) to promote the idea of the unity of the Territory. We have as a basis the paragraphs in the Governor General’s speech at the opening of the House of Assembly on 4th June,7 and I believe these could be used effectively.8
l am sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary, Department of External Territories.
[NAA: A452, 1968/5430]
1 See footnote 1, Document 223.
2 See Document 224.
3 J. W. Davidson, Professor of Pacific History, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University.
4 That is, ‘People of Bougainville you are angry. But together we can fix the problem. We can end our troubles’.
5 As translated: ‘I don’t like the country being broken and bent’.
6 Date suggests the instruction was based on Document 88.
7 Casey had commented, inter alia, that ‘People in different parts of the Territory must regard the whole country as one country and different peoples of the Territory must come to think of themselves as one people. One of the best ways to do this is to work for a common purpose. I commend to the Members of the House, as a common purpose, the rapid development of this country … There are things which divide this country—differences in language, difficulties in moving from one part of the Territory to the other, differences in wealth among different areas. But there are also many things unifying the country. There is a common cultural background. Against this background there is being built up a national education system, a national system of law and various institutions which bring people together’ (see savingram AP63, DEA to UNNY, 7 June 1968, NAA: A1838, 936/4/11 part 1).
8 After hearing news of a proposed referendum, Hay had suggested to S.J. Pearsall (Assistant Secretary, Secretariat Services, Administrator’s Department) that the Administration engage in ‘a deliberate campaign to keep Bougainville in’. ‘This’, he wrote, ‘requires careful preparation and should be long term’—and it could begin with Administration ‘plug[ging] on radio and elsewhere the advantages Bougainville has had from the Territory budget in development’ (minute, 10 September 1968, NAA: M1866, 2). He appears to have made a similar suggestion when he met the Minister in mid-October. Warwick Smith telexed Hay: ‘This message is to confirm that in your discussion with [the] Minister re Bougainville it was agreed that [the] Administration should start [a] move going to counter succession [presumably, ‘secession’] ideas. This might be done when practicable in [the] House of Assembly as well as by broadcasts of appropriate material on Administration radio’ (17 October, telex 282/7403, NAA: A452, 1968/5430).