Canberra, November 1968 2
Points of interest arising from discussions with visiting M.H.A.’s3
I discussed many different topics with the Members whilst accompanying them on the Queensland tour. The more pertinent items raised during these discussions are briefly summarized below.
(i) Site for a capital city. Only two places were seriously mentioned—Port Moresby and Lae. Support was fairly evenly divided between these sites. Those who favoured Lae appeared to do so mainly for political reasons—more central location, whilst those in favour of Port Moresby seemed to do so mainly for economic reasons—facilities available, cost of shifting the government to another city, etc.
(ii) All members stated that they felt the islands should remain a part of the Territory. However, the attitude of Epineri Titimur appeared to differ from his stated position and I gained the impression that he favoured some sort of emancipation from the mainland. He several times remarked on the ‘uncivilized behaviour’ of the Chimbus and Sepik people.
(iii) Warren Dutton is a member of the procedures committee of the House of Assembly and we had several discussions about activities in the House and the use of standing orders. When I suggested that sections of standing {orders} are suspended very readily he agreed but felt it was justified at times in order to rush a piece of legislation through the House. He agreed that many members were often almost completely ignorant of what they were voting for and simply followed the example of the official members. This is not without its {amusing} sidelights at times. For example, there was the occasion of Somare’s motion for a Commission of Inquiry into the Electoral System on 11 th June 1968.4 Somare is a Pangu member.
The independent members organized themselves to defeat this motion mainly because it was proposed by the Pangu Pati. They had decided who would move to have the debate adjourned for 6 months and who would second the motion thus effectively killing Somare’s motion. However, Somare got wind of this and when he had finished speaking to the motion moved that it be made an order of the day for the next meeting. This motion was defeated. Mr. L.W. Johnson then spoke to the motion expressing the administration support for the motion provided Somare agreed to an amendment. Somare moved the amendment, then before the Speaker had time to put it, Giregire moved that the debate be adjourned for 6 months in order to ‘kill’ the motion. However, this was (incorrectly, Standing Order 80) ruled out of order by the Speaker ‘because the period of 6 months no longer is provided for in Standing Orders.’ The Clerk of the House then informed the Speaker of his mistake but the Speaker apparently decided not to alter his ruling. He then put the amendment. However by this time many of the members did not know whether they were voting for the amendment or for the adjournment and the amendment was defeated. This meant that the Administration was now unable to support the motion. Fielding by this time realized that the best way out of the predicament was to simply put the question thus gagging the debate and so allowing the motion to be defeated by the vote of the House. However most of the indigenous members were by now completely lost and when the motion that the question be put, was put, blindly followed the lead of the Government members who had to vote against the gag in accordance with their instructions although by this time they were no longer going to support Somare’s motion after amendment being defeated and seeing the reaction of the House. Thus the gag was defeated, the independent members looking askance at their fellow members who realized what was happening and voted for the gag. At this stage the Speaker called for a tea break.
The independent members retired to rally forces, and find out what had happened and then decide what to do.
However after resumption Somare beat them to the draw and asked leave to withdraw the motion, thus allowing him to bring it up again at the next meeting if he wished. Leave was granted and so he suffered only a partial defeat.
This example brings to light several interesting features of the proceedings in the House.
(1) That the independent members do at times organize themselves, ineffectively this time, against the Pangu Pati.
(2) That the independent members, particularly when unsure of themselves simply vote with the government members.
(3) That many members have a poor knowledge of standing orders, even the Speaker on this occasion was at fault.
(iv) Several members stated that they felt a Pidgin version of the Hansard would be very valuable as although many members have some knowledge of English it is not sufficient to be able to understand the present Hansard. Also a Pidgin version would be more widely understood by the population. This measure would only be needed for 10 to 20 years until more people became proficient in English. They realize the difficulties involved in having the present Hansard prepared and the even greater problems of preparing a Pidgin version. The tape recording of procedures in the House are available to members, but are of limited value only.
(v) Members did not have any complaints about the translation service; as they live in an environment where translation is frequently necessary they realize the difficulties involved. Some of the interpreters in the House are still relatively inexperienced and members felt that the standard of translation would improve.
(vi) Questions asked in the House. John Poe mentioned that two questions which he had asked of official members had been inadequately answered. One reply had nothing to do with [the] question which he had asked which is in complete contradiction of Standing Order 133. Many other members had also experienced this.
(vii) Attitude to M.M.’s and A.M .M.’s. The attitude was generally one of understanding the problems and difficulties of these members and backbenchers usually gave them what assistance they could. This even extended to assisting them in their electorate and explaining to their electors the importance of the M.M.’s or A.M.M.’s position and the value of the work they were doing. At the same time they explained why the M.M. or A.M.M. could only spend a little time in his electorate. 5
[NAA: A452, 1967/6847]
1 R.A. Procter, liaison officer, DOET.
2 Exact date not cited.
3 The group had been in Australia on a political education tour, 13 October– 2 November, and visited Sydney, Port Kembla, Canberra, Brisbane, Mt lsa and Townsville. Members included Papuna Aruno (Lufa open electorate), Ninkama Bomai (Gumine open), Tegi Ebei’al (Nipa open), Tom Koraea (Kikori open), Patik Nimambot (Nawae open), Mek Nugintz (Mul-Dei open), John Poe (Rai Coast open), Wilson Suja (Sohe open), Warren Dutton (North Fly open), Urekit, Awol and Titimur. See NAA: A452, 1967/6847.
4 See footnote 11, Document 200.
5 Ballard wrote in the margin: ‘An interesting report’ (date indecipherable). Warwick Smith later reported to Hay that ‘the most important topics raised [by the visiting MHA’s] in discussion with the Minister and with me were the proposals for secession of part of the Territory and local officers’ wages. Titimur spoke at times as though he was in support of secession; on other occasions he seemed to be puzzled about what ought to be done. The other New Britain Member, Koriam Urekit, was definite in his opposition … Titimur pressed the Minister on local officers’ wages and an interesting aspect of the ensuing discussion was that the other members seemed quite surprised when the Minister explained that the effect of increasing the Public Service wages bill would be to reduce the amount of money available elsewhere. No member suggested any further political advance and many reiterated the view that they wanted no more political changes until economic and social development had caught up with the present political situation. Several members were critical of Pangu and one, Patik Nimambot, said he thought that the initiative for this party had come from Australia and not from within the Territory. Their general attitude was one of considerable conservatism as concerned political advance and there was no little touch of doubt whether the Territory, (in view of the gap between its situation and that of Australia) was not being pushed along at too fast a rate’ (letter, 4 November 1968, NAA: A452, 1967/6894).