Port Moresby, 11 November 1968
8941. Confidential
House of Assembly—motion on unity
Tactics and approach were discussed in A.E.C. on Friday.
2. It was thought likely that Lapun’s national name bill 1 would be debated first and that debate would inevitably encompass question of unity. This would give holders of ministerial office and others an opportunity to put forward their views on unity. General opinion was that a separate motion on unity would best be moved after the Lapun bill had been disposed of.
3. On the name question opinion was fairly divided with Toliman Angmai and Lokoloko in favour of ‘Niugini’ (though not necessarily this spelling). Kapena non-committal and the two highlanders against, at any rate until the question of unity is settled.
4. In these circumstances, and on the assumption that we can persuade Lapun to move a motion rather than a bill (your 7973),2 my recommendation is that MM’s and AMM’s be regarded as free to talk and vote as they think best on the substance and that official members confine themselves to commenting on the legal implications but do not get involved in the substantive debate. In this connection we urgently need your comments on the Lapun draft.
5. It is not possible to foresee exact situation facing official members at start of meeting. Issue may be complicated for instance by a bill for a referendum in Bougainville. But we will base our attitudes on the need to get at some stage a clear motion on unity which can be used both within the Territory and at the United Nations (where it could counter separatist propaganda). A secondary objective will be to ensure that credit for motion goes to suitable person or group.
6. In my view it is becoming more important that Minister state quite clearly and firmly that a united Territory is a fundamental assumption, both of the development programme and of the Government’s willingness to back it. Alternatively Minister could authorise leader of the House to include such a statement when he introduces motion on development programme. Ashton 3 told me he would find such a statement helpful in dealing with Tolais who were behind the Melanesian Independence Party.
7. A further consideration is that debate on unity may spark off a proposal for a new constitutional committee to consider such issues as statehood or federalism. Our aim will be to head this sort of thing off.
[NAA: A452, 1968/50 13]
1 See footnote 1, Document 223.
2 6 November. It read in part: ‘Firm legal advice from Attorney-General’s Department is that substantive provisions of [Lapun’s] bill are inconsistent with [the] Papua New Guinea Act and if passed will be invalid … As discussed [by] Administrator/Secretary … correct procedure if [the] House desires name change is [a] resolution of [the] House asking Government to give consideration to [the] matter. This would not exclude [a] committee seeking [the] views of [the] people prior to [the] resolution being put’ (NAA: A452, 1971 /2197).
3 0.1. Ashton.