Port Moresby, 25 July 1969
Confidential
House of Assembly
Fifth 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
4. The Bills which aroused most interest were as follows:—
(A) Evidence (Land Titles) Bill 19693
The Evidence (Land Titles) Bill was supported strongly in debate by Highlanders such as Abal, Kurondo and Matiabe Yuwi. Titimur, Tammur and Lapun spoke against the Bill as did Chatterton and Voutas. The Highlanders spoke of the importance of safeguarding national land. Voutas felt that the landowners should be permitted to enjoy windfall gains and that if they were successful in proving ownership of developed land they should be entitled to the rent. He felt that the law would not remain in force for long. Chatterton told the Highlanders that they did not appreciate the land problems that had affected the coastal people. Lapun asked that the Land Bill be totally rejected. Tammur reminded the Highlanders that the Tolais had assisted them to develop their own areas and he suggested that they should repay their debt to the landless Tolai by rejecting the Bill. In a very sincere speech Matiabe Yuwi said that his people would make land available in the Southern Highlands for landless Tolais. The Second Reading vote of 54 to 24 showed that the Bill had a considerable amount of support but it is safe to say that those from areas likely to be affected apart from Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members voted against the Bill. The Ministerial Members and the Assistant Ministerial Members did not support the Bill as a matter of duty. They had been extensively briefed on a number of occasions; they had raised objections and these had been remedied. It is considered that the visits to districts by field officers and legal officers contributed to the successful passage of the Bill. Oscar Tammur was well aware that very little Gazelle Peninsula land was affected but even where a clear title exists to alienated land the Tolais are generally dissatisfied.
(B) Discriminatory Practices (Amendment) Bill 19694
The tone of the debate was moderate and basically a plea for greater understanding and tolerance between the different tribal and ethnic groups. There was support for the concept of a future multi-racial society.
(c) Gaming (Playing Cards) Bill 19695
This Bill was the subject of lengthy debate. Highland members were affronted at the attempt to wipe this piece of legislation off the books and most speakers, apart from Uroe and Evenett, spoke strongly against the Bill. It may be that Mr. Uroe has succeeded in retaining this piece of legislation for a few more years. It is now most unlikely that it will be repealed in the life of this House.
Debate on motions
5. The most important motions were:
Bougainville Copper Project
The paper was delivered on 16th June6 and debated on 19th June. Mr. Middleton, in opening debate, amended the motion to take note of the paper and endorsed the copper venture as being a major and essential development. 7 Lapun then criticised the Government for its bad handling of the situation, for deceiving the people and for ignoring the people’s wishes. His speech did not appear to impress the House. Mr. Giregire strongly supported the statement and he spoke of the benefits to the people in the immediate area and to the Territory. Most of the other speakers also supported the motion although some, including Neville and Olewale, felt that it was necessary to go slower on land negotiations and take more time with explanations. Somare criticised the handling of the matter to date although he wanted economic development and knew it was necessary. Arek wanted the project to go ahead but had reservations about the handling of matters so far. Lapun added a further amendment asking for consultation with landowners regarding levels of compensation. This was acceptable to the Administration and the original motion with both amendments was carried on the voices.
The members seemed to appreciate the Administration’s frankness in putting up the detailed paper. They believed that some errors had been made in dealing with the people but they considered that the national project had to go ahead in any case.
The whole subject was raised again when Middleton’s motion regarding resettlement of displaced native landowners on Arawa Plantation was debated.8 This had the support of Pangu and Lapun, Lus, Voutas and Abel spoke in support. It also had support from a number of Independent Group members and it would seem that this group had no stated policy on the motion and left it to individuals to vote as they saw fit. Middleton’s concept had a fair amount of support as although the motion was defeated 50 to 34, 20 of the Noes were recorded by Official, Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members.
Select Committee On Constitutional Development
The main points made by those speaking in support of this motion were that:
(i) there was a need to stimulate the people’s thinking about their political future;
(ii) the Committee would perform an educational role;
(iii) political and constitutional stagnation at this time would be dangerous;
(iv) establishment of the committee would not commit the Administration to a policy of early independence;
(v) the committee would help establish ties of unity and overcome existing fragmentation throughout the Territory.
6. There were few highlights in the debate. All speakers emphasised that the setting up of the Committee did not foreshadow early self-government or independence. There was criticism that the Administration was not prepared to take a stand on this issue by Mr. Oala Rarua. The main controversy arose on the selection of committee members. Arek and his advisers had included Mr. Lapun and Mr. Tammur in their list and were prepared to try and force their nominations through until the last few minutes before Mr. Watson made the nominations. The lndependent Group apparently hinted to Mr. Arek that he would be embarrassed if he went ahead without making at least two changes. As a consequence Toliman and Mola replaced Tammur and Lapun. One further change in Arek’s list was the substitution of Matiabe Yuwi for Siwi Kurondo.
Superannuation Scheme For Members9
7. This scheme was strongly supported as shown by the vote 50 to 28 in favour. The Administration’s attitude to committal of public funds on such a scheme was clearly stated by Mr. Johnson. 10 Two Ministerial Members and six Assistant Ministerial Members voted in support of the Superannuation Scheme motion.
[ matter omitted ]
Gazelle Peninsula Local Government Cosuncil11
9. In the debate Voutas questioned the Government assumption that the majority of the people in the Gazelle supported the multi-racial council. Tammur and Titimur reiterated all old arguments in opposition to the multiracial concept.
10. Assistant Ministerial Member Langro called for a review of the situation in the Gazelle by the Administration and suggested that the Administration should consult all local leaders. Mr. Langro, in the House and in public statements seems to come out in opposition to the Administration more often than any of the other Ministerial Members or Assistant Ministerial Members. Mr. Watson is inclined to withhold support from the Administration on many issues. He achieves this by absenting himself from the House at the appropriate time.
11. Olewale said land was [the] basis of the current problems and said that emotional and racial aspects should not be introduced into the debate.
12. Somare said the foisting of a multi-racial council upon Gazelle people would work against unity for the Territory.
13. Neville made a strong attack against Tammur and particularly against the racial overtones contained in Tammur’s arguments.
Other matters
14. Questions
The number of questions asked appears to be on the increase, no doubt partially as a result of an increase in the size of the House. This growth in the number of questions also indicates an increase in the confidence of the members.
15. For the most part, questions were related to electorate problems. It was difficult to provide satisfactory answers on the many questions related to road and bridge development proposals as final decisions were very much dependent on the U.N.D.P. report decisions 12 which were not to hand. Members commented critically on the delay that has been taken to come to decisions on the report recommendations.
16. Another point of interest was the number of questions that were asked on the Army. Some Highland members including Kambipi lived in Army quarters during the meeting and their hosts may have asked the members to take matters up on their behalf.
17. Donatus Mola asked a series of highly technical questions (Nos. 1675–1680) on C.R.A. matters 13 and he probably had some assistance in preparing them. However, he did not put the answers to use in debate.
18. The Speaker
Once again the Speaker was inclined to become confused when complex procedural questions arose. On one occasion he refused to acknowledge a point of order called by Mr. Voutas and he made a statement to the effect that it was wrong for Europeans to use their superior knowledge of Parliamentary procedures to try and confuse native members, including himself. The next day he apologised for the confusion and said that he would ensure that, in future, every member’s right to speak was upheld. He did not refer again to his criticism of European members.
19. On the last day of the meeting Mr. McKinnon drew attention to the fact that he had not been called upon to speak at all, although he had tried to catch the Speaker’s eye on 42 occasions. He said that this contrasted poorly with the record of members such as Voutas, Arek and Lapun who had been called upon to speak several times. The Speaker told Mr. McKinnon that he could either apologise or face suspension. When Mr. McKinnon signified that he accepted suspension and started to leave the chamber he was requested by the Speaker to sit down. He did so and the meeting continued. That evening when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair Mr. McKinnon apologised and said that he had not intended to insult the Speaker.
20. There was some private criticism of the Speaker amongst the members. Members of the Independent Group and one or two of the Ministerial Members felt that the Speaker was too closely involved with Pangu Pati politics and they said that Pangu Pati decisions were being made in the Speaker’s office with the Speaker in the chair. One such decision was the composition of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development which, in its original form, included Lapun and Tammur.
21. Target Dates
At the last meeting of the House several members commented on the need to set early target dates for self-government and independence. It was noteworthy that during the course of this meeting, target dates received little mention except from Mr. Peter Lus who said that he would be happy to have self-government ‘tomorrow or even tonight’.
22. Attitude Of Members Towards Europeans
During the meeting some of the members commented on signs of anti-European feeling while the meeting was in progress. In debate on the Gaming (Playing Cards) Bill one of the indigenous Highland members made the point that legislation introduced by New Guineans should not be tampered with by Europeans. Most European members felt that the Playing Cards Repeal Bill was doomed from the start as they were aware that indigenous members regarded it as a symbol of their law-making ability. Highland members were also satisfied that it has had good results in the Highlands. Mr. Uroe decided to go ahead with the Bill although he had been advised that it had little chance of success.
23. Mr. Lepani Watson, on two occasions, accused the leader of the Independent Group of using ‘sweet talk’ to confuse indigenous members. He also claimed that official members were inclined to rely on the same ‘tok gris’.
24. Messrs. Titimur and Tammur also made statements critical of European members and of Europeans generally. The Speaker also accused European members of using their superior knowledge of procedures to confuse their indigenous colleagues.
25. Pangu Pati
The Pangu Pati did not play a very significant part during the meeting of this House. They accepted that economic development was inevitable and they criticised the handling of the Bougainville people rather than the idea of going ahead with the C.R.A. project.
26. In the West Irian debate, 14 Mr. Chatterton, who can usually count on Pangu Pati support, did not get any assistance from Voutas on the West Irian motion. Mr. Voutas felt that injustice was being done to a small group of West Irianese but he felt that the whole of Indonesia could be thrown into chaos if any other course were adopted and he supported the stand taken by the Australian Government. He did not doubt that the act of free choice would result in the final firm inclusion of West Irian as part of the Indonesian Republic.
27. Although the Pangu Pati has nine regular members they seem to be able to muster 20 or more votes on most issues.
28. Interpretation
The interpretation was of a higher standard than at the March meeting. At the March meeting the Chief lnterpreter had just resigned and the next senior man’s resignation was pending. The new officer-in-charge has had a great deal of previous experience in the House and two D.D.A. field officers on loan for the meeting strengthened the section. Despite the improvement a great deal is always lost in the simultaneous interpretation and a pidgin speech should be made on the floor of the House on all the important matters by follow-up speakers—either official members, Ministerial Members or Assistant Ministerial Members after the leading government speaker has introduced the subject.
29. The provision of a ‘teach-in’ on the Bougainville Copper Project by the Acting Assistant Administrator (EconomicAffairs)15 clarified matters for a number of members. After delivering his paper the Acting Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs) advised members that he would be happy to answer any queries in the Conference Room on the following morning. A number of members took up the offer. This technique could be used again with advantage.
30. Ministerial And Assistant Ministerial Members
This group, but in particular the Ministerial Members, acquitted themselves well in debate. The Ministerial Members gain a good understanding of matters before the House as a result of their attendance at A.E.C. meetings and they speak with confidence and authority. This was particularly noticeable in speeches made by Mr. Giregire, Mr. Lokoloko, Mr. Tei Abel and Mr. Ashton.
31. The Independent Group
The Independent Group continued to function fairly effectively. The Group certainly influenced the membership of the Constitutional Committee. The Group was also responsible for carrying over the report on House of Assembly Procedures. 16
32. Originally the group intended to support this report apart from a number of key clauses which Mr. Voutas had apparently agreed to hold over. Lussick supported the motion on these agreed lines. After the Senior Official Member had stated the Government’s view it appeared to Mr. Lussick that Voutas might seek acceptance of the whole report without excluding those clauses as agreed by Lussick and Voutas. Neville, prompted by Lussick, then successfully moved that the entire report be held over until August.
33. The Independent Group split on Middleton’s second Bougainville motion 17 and Group members P. Johnson and Counset18 attacked Lussick’s air transport motion.
34. Motions
There is a tendency for an increasing number of motions to be put forward by elected members. A motion provides an easy way to air a local grievance and requires little notice or preparation. It is probable that the trend will increase in future meetings.
35. When the House votes in favour of a motion to take note of a paper it is doubtful whether this indicates that the House supports, in its entirety, everything that has been referred to in the paper. It may be desirable on very important issues to add a few words to Administration motions to obtain an expression of full support but this could be risky. On the Bougainville debate if full support had been sought for all developments to date members like Neville, Olewale, Arek and others may not have supported the motion as these speakers qualified their support in their speeches. The House could also have divided on the Gazelle Peninsula Local Government issue although when Pangu takes a stand on a particular issue a hard core of Pangu opponents vote to oppose Pangu. Pangu’s opposition to the Gazelle Peninsula issue would probably have led the majority to support the Government if the Motion had asked for such support.
[NAA: A452, 1968/3178]
1 The House met from 16 to 27 June.
2 In matter omitted the purpose of the report was identified as drawing ‘attention to the main issues and the significant trends and attitudes evident during the meeting’. Listed also were bills which passed all stages and a bill that was defeated.
3 See footnote 4, Document 263. Preceding the debate, the Social Change Advisory Committee had warned that it was ‘highly important [for the Administration] to appear fair and just rather than to try to push [the land] legislation through with weight of Highlands members’ (minute, Besley to Warwick Smith, 25 June 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/2169).
4 Chatterton proposed amendment of the ordinance so as to make it an offence to engage in racially offensive behaviour in all public places; previously, the act had applied only to places where liquor was sold ( House of Assembly debates , 18 June 1969, NLA: Nq. 328.952 PAP, p. 1173).
5 The bill was an attempt to repeal the Gaming (Playing Cards) ordinance, which prohibited informal gaming houses and lotteries (ibid., 17 June 1969, p. 1135)
6 Document 286.
7 For the motion as adopted, see footnote 8, Document 286.
8 Middleton moved ‘That this House requests the Administration to urgently adopt a CRA proposed town site on Arawa native lands conditionally on acquiring Arawa Plantation to resettle people displaced from the town site and port site, provided the people in the affected areas are agreeable’ ( House of Assembly debates , 20 June 1969, NLA: Nq. 328.952 PAP, p. 1239).
9 In March, Somare had moved that the House adopt a select committee report on a superannuation scheme. He also moved that the House declare the scheme ‘necessary and justified’ and that it request implementation by the Administration (ibid., 14 March 1969, p. 1085).
10 Johnson said that members of the House were ‘already among the very well paid members of the … community’ and that the Government would not support a scheme which required a contribution out of the budget (ibid., 16 June 1969, p. 1122).
11 Voutas had moved that the House take note of a statement by Ellis on the Gazelle Peninsula local government council elections (ibid., 18 June 1969, pp. 1183–4). For details of the elections, see footnote 4, Document 277.
12 McKinnon had asked why a first draft of the UNDP transport survey report (see Document 68MAY25) could not be made known publicly. Johnson replied that the UNDP and the Government would not agree to release until the report was finalised (ibid., 10 June 1969, p. 1220).
13 Not printed.
14 Anticipating action by the House on the West Irian question (see Document 281), the Administration had made an official statement on 17 June. Watkins reiterated procedures for dealing with lrianese refugees and said the Government was considering alternatives to Manus for permissive residents because of the numbers now involved (cablegram 1488, DEA to Geneva, 2 July 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/3050). Watkins tabled an associated paper, where after Olewale successfully moved ‘That the House takes note of the paper, and (a) commends the Administration for, and supports it in, its handling of the current situation on the Papua New Guinea–West Irian border; (b) while not committing itself to an opinion as to what the result of a genuine act of free choice in West Irian would be, expresses its deep concern in regard to the manner in which the forthcoming act of choice is to be conducted, and the possibility that dissatisfaction resulting from it will confront Papua New Guinea with a continuing and increasing border problem; (c) considers that, whatever the merits of the method of reaching decisions by consultation and consensus (‘bermusjawarah’) may be when the participants are free to express their views without the constraint of fear, the current situation in West Irian is such that the only way in which the true wishes of the West lrianese people can now be ascertained is by a properly conducted referendum; and is deeply dismayed that the United Nations, which should be and claims to be the upholder of self-determination, is not prepared to insist on the holding of a genuine act of free choice in West Irian; and (d) recognising that Australia has no legal standing in this matter apart from the fact that it is a member of the United Nations, requests the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to transmit the text of this motion to the Secretary-General of the United Nations’ (memorandum, Administration (Johnson) to DOET, date illegible, NAA: A452, 1969/3367).
15 A.P.J. Newman.
16 The report was compiled by a select committee which had been established in August 1968 for the purpose of considering ‘all aspects of parliamentary procedures and matters connected therewith … so that the elected members will be able to have a greater understanding of the work of the House and to take a greater part in it’. The report was printed in hansard ( House of Assembly debates , 18 June 1969, NLA: Nq. 328.952 PAP, pp. 1165–9). Debate was adjourned on 27 June (ibid., p. 1436).
17 See footnote 8.
18 V.B. Counsel, MHA, Western and Gulf regional electorate.