Port Moresby, 14 April 1969
Restricted
House of Assembly
Fourth Meeting
I enclose copies of the Administration’s Report on the last meeting of the House of Assembly.1
Attachment
[ matter omitted ]2
Debate On Bills
6. Most Government Bills went through all stages with little or no debate. The following Bills attracted some attention.
7. (A) Public Service Conciliation And Arbitration Bill 3
The relatively easy passage of this Bill was due as much to intensive action by official members as to a general feeling of respect for the opinions of Professor Turner and Mr. Chambers and the views expressed in their report. Mr. Lussick made it clear that the Government’s legislation on any matter could be easily defeated but the members generally were responsible, and did not want to defeat legislation merely for the sake of registering a protest. However, he indicated that Members felt they should be fully consulted on major issues and that they would not hesitate to defeat legislation if they were not consulted. A big factor in the defeat of the many amendments for which the P.S.A. were pressing was the flexibility of the Government in relation to the one regarded by Mr. Lussick as the most important (the Rota system). Many of the indigenous Members who voted in favour of the new legislation were obviously confused as to what was involved, and did not have much understanding of the Bill or the amendments. They did show, by voting with the Government, that they were prepared to trust the Administration on this matter. Members holding Ministerial office solidly supported the Administration.
8. (B) Evidence Land Titles Bill4
It is hard to predict what will happen when the land legislation debate continues at the next meeting of the House of Assembly. However, there is a possibility that in the three months interval before the next meeting the Pangu Party, and possibly other critics, will have found many real or imaginary deficiencies. This is a topic which will capture the interest of all indigenous members. The debate on the Bill will probably be a lengthy one, and it could become quite heated. Opposition can be expected to come from New Britain, Bougainville and Central District. It is quite possible that the Highlands people will all support the Bill as they have not had the same land experiences as the people from Port Moresby and Rabaul. Grievances against early purchases of land for trade goods will certainly be aired.
[ matter omitted ]
11. (D) Local Government (Administration) Bill5
This item has resulted in a good deal of publicity in the local press, not so much as to the Bill itself, but to the reaction of Pangu Party, which considered it had been gagged.
12. The Bill was introduced by Mr. Mangobing Kakun. Mr. Ellis detailed the achievements of Local Government operating under the existing system. He detailed the difficulties that would be incurred in changing the existing system. He said that the creation of a separate Department of Local Government was a possible future development. Mr. Lussick then spoke against the Bill. Immediately afterwards he asked that the question be put. Mr. Lussick took this action without prior warning, allegedly as a reprisal against Pangu Party’s action in inducing a number of his group members to attend one of their private meetings several days previously. The Bill was defeated. There was some procedural confusion at this stage. The motion for the second reading was defeated. Mr. Lus called for a Division and thereupon the Pangu Party left the Chamber. The Speaker then ruled that as the mover of the motion had left, no Division was called for.
13. The press reported Mr. Somare as saying that the Administration was responsible for the gag. The Administration issued a special press statement stating that it was neither practice nor policy for official members to stifle debate, and in this instance had a Division been held, Official Members would certainly have voted against a closure, particularly as there were six speakers including the Assistant Ministerial Members, waiting for an opportunity to speak against the measure. This statement was given front-page treatment in the ‘South Pacific Post’ on Wednesday, 19th March. It was referred to in the A.B.C. local news session, the previous evening.
14. (E) Crocodile Trade (Protection) (Amendment) Bill
This bill was introduced by Mr. P.G. Johnson, and was carried 45 in favour, 33 against.6
15. Feelings in the Sepik and Ramu are high, and strong in support of this measure. The original Bill has never had support there. If this Bill is rejected7 we could be embarrassed unless we give relief in regulations. Sepik elected Members spoke strongly in support of the Bill, except Mr. Langro (A.M.M.) who spoke against it. Ministerial Members Oala Rarua, Giregire, and Ashton, voted in support of the Bill. Administration attempts to gain support in opposing the Bill were largely based on statistical information which clearly demonstrated a steep decline in the crocodile industry. We asked that the Ordinance be left as it is, but that the Regulations be subject to further examination in view of possible amendment …
Other Issues
16. Motions
The most important of these were:
(A) W. Lussick—Rejection Of Resolution Of U.N. General Aassembly8
Strong criticism was directed against the U.N. during the debate on this motion. Members Arek, Uroe, Middleton, Kofikai,9 Abal, Bomai, Somare, Nugintz and Maneke, all rejected any suggestion that the U.N. should supervise any Territory elections. Somare and Uroe drew attention to West Irian, and said the U.N. should concentrate on ensuring a valid act of free choice in that Territory. The motion was unanimously adopted.
17. (B) Ebia Olewale—Self-Government And Self-Determination10
This motion attracted the attention of all elected members, and most wanted to comment on it. Generally, Members supported the motion and felt that the United Nations should not interfere with Territory affairs. Arek, Tammur, Maneke, Somare and Langro urged that target dates for self-government and independence be set by the Australian Government.
18. Predictably, the Highland Members were very much against setting any form of target date. However, Langro said that the Highlands Members’ attitude would probably change before long, when educated Highland graduates started to come out of the University and represent the Highland people.
19. Speakers like Arek, Tammur, Maneke, Somare and Langro all said that the country would benefit if a target date was set for self–government. These Members did not urge an early target date, and 20 years hence seemed to be generally acceptable to the group. These Members also said that the date should be flexible, and could be lengthened or shortened depending on progress.
20. Mr. Toliman spoke of self-government in 1974 while Mr. Lus said that there should be immediate self-government so that the people could be trained for independence while Australians were still here. The point was made by several Members that if a target date were set, both the people and the Administration would be better able to plan ahead. Those advocating target dates felt that there would be more stability amongst Europeans if public servants and private people had some indication of when self-government would eventuate. They also felt that the declaration of a target date would provide more certainty, and thus attract investment capital to the Territory. It seems likely that target dates will be discussed again at future meetings of the House.
[ matter omitted ]
23. (E) P.G. Johnson’s Motion For Proposed Select Committee On National Unity11
The Administration spoke in support of this motion. The point was made that the Government would give sympathetic consideration to amending the Papua–New Guinea Act, were it the wish of the people, to decide on a common name for the Territory. Debate on the motion was adjourned until the next Meeting.
24. (F)Paulus Arek’s Motion For Proposed Select Committee On Constitutional Development12
Mr. Arek introduced the motion, emphasising the need for a constitutional programme for future Territory development. Such a programme would counter secessionist movements, reduce the rate of resignation of public servants, and provide additional security for potential investors.
25. The motion was adjourned until the next meeting. This question will probably provoke a good deal of interest and discussion.
THE PANGU PARTY
26. Mr. Chatterton continued to lend his support to Pangu on a number of occasions. Pangu could also sometimes count on the support of Tammur, Titimur, Arek and Yauwe Wauwe, and sometimes on a few New Guinean elected (non-Highland) members. It is possible that the almost blanket and automatic opposition Pangu receives from the European elected members, will, in effect, win them increased sympathy and support from uncommitted elected indigenous Members.
27. It was clear from the Meeting, that although Pangu is a minority group, it is not an insignificant minority group, and as such, it should be given a hearing. It would be in the Government’s best interests to continue doing what it can to ensure that the Party is heard.
The Independent Group
28. The Independent Group continued to hold meetings during the House sittings. They did not always vote as a group. Mr. Lussick emerged as the group’s main spokesman in the House, during the last meeting.
The Speaker
29. The Speaker’s inability to handle involved, and some not so involved, procedural questions, and his reliance on the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, clearly emerged during this meeting. On at least two occasions, and when advice on Standing Orders was not quickly available, there was confusion.
The Ministerial And Assistant Ministerial Members
30. The Government did not always have the support of MM’s and AMM’s. Both Langro and Toliman, during debate on the Self-Determination Motion, spoke in support of setting target dates. On the Crocodile Bill, Oala Rarua, Giregire and Ashton voted in support.
31. There would be advantages in allowing MM’s and AMM’s to speak more in support of Government Bills. Additionally, it would be desirable to have them speak in Pidgin. This is particularly important in view of the fact that the interpretation from English to Pidgin is frequently inaccurate or incoherent. MM’s and AMM’s who continued to answer questions well, to speak clearly and with confidence, were Toliman, Abal, Oala Rarua, Giregire, Ashton and Leahy. These Members made a good impression in the House. The performances of other MM’s and AMM’s ranged from medium to poor.
Interpretation
32. The interpretation during the meeting was poor. This is apparent from reading the draft daily Hansard prepared by stenographers at the House, and Members were quite critical of the standard of interpretation. Simultaneous translation is extremely difficult for anyone, and it becomes even more difficult for the Papuan and New Guinean interpreters whose command of English would not be as good as that of people who have English as a mother tongue. One solution might be to bring in more overseas field officers from outstations to undertake interpretation duties during meetings, but staff shortages in the field could prevent this. However, it is important for the Administration to get around this interpretation problem so that the Administration’s point of view can be communicated clearly to Members.
33. One way of assisting is to provide second reading speech translations in Pidgin for the interpreters, but on a couple of occasions when this was done at the last meeting, the interpreters appeared not to make use of the translation provided. To overcome this problem it might be necessary for any important speeches or statements made in English to be followed up by a full Pidgin outline by one of the Pidgin speaking Official Members, or by Ministerial Members or Assistant Ministerial Members. The Ministerial Members and Assistant Ministerial Members would have to be well briefed beforehand, if this proposal were to be put into effect.
[NAA: A452, 1968/3178]
1 The House met from 3–14 March.
2 In matter omitted it was noted that the report ‘again draws attention to the main issues and the significant trends and attitudes evident during the meeting’. Also listed were bills which passed all stages and those which were defeated.
3 See editorial note ‘Tensions in the House: the Chatterton arid Lussick bills’.
4 During the bill’s second reading, Watkins said that the ‘purpose of the bill is to give more certainty as to the ownership of land in Papua and New Guinea by making sure that the Administration has good title to what the bill calls “Administration land”’. The bill deemed that laws of evidence should be the sole basis for decisions on land claims and that compensation could be paid once only ( House of Assembly debates , 14 March 1969, NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, p. 1087–9).
5 The bill provided for a local government section in DDA and was designed to improve the functioning of local government councils (ibid., 10 March 1969, p. 959).
6 Johnson’s bill was intended to remove restrictions on the crocodile skin industry in Papua while leaving them intact for New Guinea. Pointing to the decline in the crocodile population, the Administration had opposed the bill (ibid., 12 March 1969, pp. 1031, 1034).
7 That is, rejected by the Governor-General on the advice of Government.
8 See editorial note ‘Reaction in PNG to the United Nations resolution of 1968’.
9 Sabunei Kofikai, MHA, Goroka open electorate.
10 See editorial note ‘Reaction in PNG to the United Nations resolution of 1968’.
11 See footnote 5, Document 246.
12 For background, see Documents 258 and 261. Details of the motion are given in footnote 4, Document 263.