Port Moresby, 8 October 1969
Confidential
Report of the sixth meeting of the House of Assembly
Attached, herewith, is the report on the Sixth meeting of the House of Assembly.1
Attachment
[ matter omitted ]2
Debate on Bills
4. Most of the Bills were non-controversial and there was little debate. The Appropriation Bill did attract a lot of speakers most of whom—
(i) congratulated the Acting Treasurer on the Budget;
(ii) thanked the Australian Government for the Grant; and
(iii) asked for more money for roads, bridges, housing etc. in their electorates.
5. European members such as Evenett and Neville were inclined to be more critical than indigenous members but their criticisms were generally mild. The Pangu Party was also satisfied with the Budget. In the Committee stages Neville, P. Johnson, Somare and Fielding raised a number of queries and these were dealt with on the spot.3
Debate on motions
6. The most important motions were:Mr. Meck Singiliong’s Motion Regarding Restrictions On Movement Of Persons To Towns4This motion found a considerable amount of support. Members were concerned that in many areas only the old people remain in the villages. They also felt that because of the drift to towns, Local Government Council revenue in rural areas was not as high as it should be and as a consequence rural development suffered.
7. The point was also made that agricultural development is lagging because many potential agriculturalists are amongst the ranks of the urban unemployed. Other Members drew attention to the fact that urban unemployed get involved in illegal activities and also place demands on the accommodation and food of their employed relatives. Members were less concerned about restricting freedom of individuals than the Administration or the Australian Government would be.
[ matter omitted ]
Committee Of Privileges5
10. This debate was probably of more interest to the sophisticated members. Some members did not seem to fully understand the issues involved.
11. Understandably, the Pangu Pati opposed the recommendations contained in the report. Feelings ran high in the debate and Members such as Neville, Dutton and Lussick were quite incensed with the Post’s attitude to the Dutton Report and they would have fought strongly to ensure that the ban was not lifted. Langro withdrew his motion to lift the ban on the advice of Somare who had been informed by the Independent Group that the Pangu Pati had not been opposed in getting its Migration Bill6 through the House and that if it lent support to Langro’s motion, that motion would be defeated and Pangu would have a great deal of difficulty in getting anything through the House in the future.
12. Most members considered that it was necessary for them to give support to the Privileges Committee. In voting against the ban they would have been supporting Pangu and taking support away from the Dutton Committee. Dutton himself felt that the Committee had acted correctly and would probably have resigned if the House had not accepted the report and recommendations without amendment.
13. Outside the House there was a great deal of criticism of the fact that official members voted in favour of the ban. The voting figures indicate that if they had abstained from voting the ban would still have had majority support.
Mr. Olewale’s Motion On Papua/Queensland Border7
14. Olewale spoke very sincerely on this motion. He felt that the boundary should not have been settled at a time when Papuans were not aware of the significance of international boundaries and he thought it very important for steps to be taken to remedy the present situation which is, in his view, highly unsatisfactory. He said that he knew the motion would be defeated but he predicted that in the future the existing border would not be acceptable to the Papuan people and they would endeavour to get it changed.
15. Olewale is a thoughtful and intelligent speaker. He appears to make up his own mind on any topic and this sometimes makes him appear to be speaking in support of Pangu. However, it is believed that he does not have any links with that group at the present time.
[ matter omitted ]
Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members
17. The Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members continued to answer questions and participate with confidence in debates. Their performance, in representing departments in the budget debate, was markedly better than last year, although some speeches could still have been shorter and with less statistical content.
18. Before the Privileges debate, Ministerial Members had expressed their concern on the issue and stated they wanted Administration support for their stand on the matter. In the debate itself Messrs. Abel and Wabiria spoke against Maori Kiki and his statements, although the latter seemed somewhat confused on the matter. However, Assistant Ministerial Members Kurondo, Langro and Watson showed some sympathy for Maori Kiki in their speeches.
General Comments
19. On the whole the Meeting was lifeless and Members, for the most part, appeared to be fairly disinterested. Of the thirty-five Bills that went through the House, there was little debate on any apart from the Appropriation Bill. The Privileges Motion was the other main item which attracted Members’ interest. There could be a number of reasons for the dull tone of the meeting and these are as follows:
(i) A number ofleading members were absent for a large part of the meeting. These included Tammur, Lapun, Ashton, Toliman, Titimur and Leahy. Tammur and Lapun, in particular, usually contribute a lot to debate when they are in the House and their absence was noticed at this meeting.
(ii) The Privileges debate may have left a nasty taste in some of the Members’ mouths. While the debate itself was quite lively, Members may have been inhibited, to some extent, by the amount of public criticism that followed their action in banning the newspaper.
(iii) There were a number of interruptions which may have prevented the Members from taking much interest in the business of the House. The South Pacific Games activity and the Mt. Hagen Show break may have distracted some Members and events in Bougainville8 and Rabaul9 may also have taken some of the interest away from the House.
(iv) Members elected to the Second House have now attended six meetings and have, in a number of cases, not played much part in the business of the House. It may well be that some of the less sophisticated members found the House interesting for the first few meetings but they may now be bored with sitting in the House day after day and not participating much in debate. There is a hard core of regular speakers, apart from official members, such as Arek, Tammur, Somare, Chatterton, Abel and Giregire but many members who often stand to speak seldom get the call.
Pangu Party
20. The Pangu Party was generally quieter than it had been at earlier meetings and it came in for less criticism from the Independent Group. The Party opposed the majority on the Privileges case and was supported by Chatterton and Olewale in its stand.
21. Somare stands out as leader of the Party. He has a good presence and his delivery is excellent. Voutas’ speeches are well researched but he is long-winded and his delivery is poor. Many of the intricacies of his arguments are lost in Pidgin translation. His speeches read better in Hansard than they sound when they are being delivered.
22. Lus is something of a liability to Pangu. He is regarded by Members, generally, as something of a court jester.
23. The Migration (Permits) Bill which was introduced by Voutas passed all stages. This can be regarded as one of Pangu’s few successes to date.10
Attitudes
24. There was occasional criticism of Europeans, Australia etc. although there was nothing of major significance. It is probable that such criticisms will increase.
25. Arek, who is a very impressive speaker and inclined to be deliberately provocative, said that Australia had discouraged the development of sugar, rice and banana industries in the Territory so as to avoid the possibility of competition. Mr. Ritchie11 outlined the real situation with regard to these crops but Arek was probably aware of the facts already and was more interested in making headlines. He also suggested that many overseas officers should not be paid expatriate allowances and he said that all primary ‘T’ teachers should be paid local rates only. Arek would be aware that there are a large number of overseas primary teachers, including married women, who would seek alternative employment or cease work altogether if they were to lose expatriate allowances but he would also be aware that there are many people in the electorate who agree with his proposal wholeheartedly and his statement could only enhance his reputation as a politician. Members of the Independent Group feel that Arek is often putting the views of the Speaker rather than his own. His approach as Chairman of the Constitutional Committee will be interesting to observe.
26. Most members expressed their gratitude for the generous Commonwealth grant although one or two felt that as there was so much to be done, more funds should have been provided. One member felt that Australia’s assistance to other countries should be reduced and the saving channelled to the Territory. The votes of thanks far outnumbered criticisms of the grant.
27. Bokap, Langro and one or two others were critical of the Administration’s birth control policy. Their remarks indicated that they were not too clear on the policy as they spoke as if birth control was to be mandatory.
Interpretation
28. The standard of interpretation during the Meeting was very poor. This is apparent from perusal of the daily type-written Hansard in which sections of speeches are left out and other sections are mangled beyond recognition.
29. Most of the Interpreters during this meeting were indigenes. Their translation from English to Pidgin was of a far better standard than their translation from Pidgin to English. Even so, it was difficult to comprehend a lot of what was being said as reproduction through the earphones leaves a lot to be desired.
30. Members who only understand Pidgin English prefer everyone to speak in that language and whenever a bi-lingual speaker starts talking in English a number of Members make loud requests for the speaker to ‘Tok Pidgin’. Arek, Somare, Neville, Lussick and Tammur always speak in Pidgin when they wish to get a message across.
The Speaker
31. The Speaker did not appear to get as flustered during this meeting as in previous meetings. He continued to rely on the Clerk12 for advice on all procedural matters. He is inclined to let proceedings become fairly noisy before attempting to restore order and he usually waits until his attention is drawn to something requiring his action rather than take the initiative himself.
32. On a few occasions when asked a question without notice he was able to read out a fairly detailed reply.
33. The Speaker does not lack dignity and all things considered he carries out his duties as efficiently as the previous speaker.
[NAA: A452, 1968/3178]
1 The House met from 20 August – 9 September.
2 Matter omitted lists bills that passed all stages and that adjourned (Land (Underdeveloped Freeholds) Bill).
3 On 26 August, the Administration tabled in the House a review of ‘development progress during [the] past financial year’. A summary of the report commented that progress ‘was broadly in line with the objectives and targets of the development programme … [and] prospects were good for an increased level of performance in 1969/70 … economic activity was in general well maintained in 1968/69, and the economy expanded at much the same high rate of growth in government expenditure. The price level remained generally stable … Accelerated expansion this year, and in the future, seemed probable because of the large public and private investment in view … investment relating to the copper mining project on Bougainville would play an important part in development. Apart from timber, primary export industries generally had a good year, despite some weakness in the coffee market … Manufacturing expanded at a high rate during 1968/69, and continued growth this year seemed assured … The building industry had experienced some difficulties, but now seemed to be emerging from these. Skilled and semi-skilled manpower remained in generally short supply, and there was little immediate prospect of significant improvement … Expatriate recruitment difficulties also continued to be a constraint on development in both public and private sectors. Land purchase difficulties may have an effect on agricultural targets later in the programme or in subsequent years’ (Administration statement, 26 August 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/3712). A month later, a meeting between McCasker and DOET officials noted that the development program had ‘some weak areas but no need [to] revise targets [at] this stage’. It was added that a ‘Supplement to [the] programme to be produced for [the] next budget … would: [1] incorporate [the] Bougainville copper project and any other major projects developed since the initial programme, [2] revise targets where major revisions considered necessary, [3] reinforce weak spots in the programme, e.g. manpower and transport, [4] be policy oriented, [5] embrace [a] summary of district development planning. [It would be] Necessary to determine whether [the] supplement would be [a] major revision or a new programme covering [a] new time span’ (notes of discussion, 22 and 23 September 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/4440). District plans, which were nearly complete by September (loc. cit.) were part of the ‘next stage in development planning …. the translation of the national programme into programmes for individual districts’ (policy submission by McCasker, 28 August 1969, ibid.).
4 Singiliong moved that ‘this House is of the opinion that serious consequences detrimental to village life result from large movements of people to towns and that unemployment follows and therefore requests the Administration to reintroduce restrictions on movements to towns except where a person is guaranteed employment or visits a town for a limited period for a bona fide reason’ ( House of Assembly debates, 20 August 1969, NLA: Nq. 328.952 PAP, p. 1461).
5 During his visit to Australia in late April–early May (see footnote 2, Document 276), Maori Kiki was reported to have said publicly that MMs were ‘stooges of the Minister for External Territories’ and that they were persuaded to accept their positions by offers of ‘money, status and cars and all sorts of things’. He also claimed that European planters provided $60,000 to the independent group on condition that it adopt a platform drawn up by the planters (MIS no. 6/69, 4 July 1969, NAA: A1838, 3034/10/1/4 part 8, and undated and anonymous DOET paper, NAA: A452, 1969/4056). Maori Kiki’s statement was criticised in the House on 16 June and the next day a motion was passed establishing a Committee of Privileges with Dutton as chairman. The speaker was then asked to refer to the committee ‘a grave breach of privilege amounting to contempt of the House’. Dutton reported on 25 August that Maori Kiki’s offence had been serious but committed in ignorance and without malice toward the House. The committee recommended that the House accept a public apology from Maori Kiki and from the editors of three PNG newspapers who had published Maori Kiki’s statements. The report was adopted by 58 votes to 10—and afterward the House adopted a motion by Oala Rarua that the representatives of the Post-Courier (which incorporated the other two papers) be excluded from the precincts of the House for the remainder of the meeting or until an apology was received. Meanwhile, the Post-Courier’S lawyers sent a letter to the clerk of the House denying wrongdoing and suggesting that the House take legal action if it thought otherwise (undated and anon DOET papers, ibid., and Waddell, ‘May–August 1969’, in Moore with Kooyman, A Papua New Guinea chronicle , pp. 86–7). The anger in the House had presented a problem for the Government. Hay had phoned Territories on 27 August saying ‘that the independent group is out for blood and wants to prosecute [the] newspaper’, but he was told that Barnes had affirmed Warwick Smith’s view that ‘honour would be seen to be done’ by a brief exclusion of reporters from the House (minute, Besley to Ballard, 27 August 1969, ibid.). There were fears that a prosecution would fail (telex 8388, DOET to Administration, 27 August 1969, ibid.). Watkins also expressed some doubt as to the legality of a ban on reporters, yet Barnes was concerned that ‘this matter does not degenerate into any sort of confrontation between the House … and the Govemment’—a development considered possible if the House were not provided a ‘face-saving device’ (telex 8412, Besley to Hay, 28 August 1969, ibid.). Hay was also told that ‘it might be useful’ for the Administration to state that it did not condone Maori Kiki’s remarks—‘after all we are trying to nurture a fairly tender plant and allegations of the kind made … are not helpful and indeed they border on the irresponsible notwithstanding the fundamental right to freedom of speech’ (telex 8459, Besley to Hay, ibid.).
6 Read by Voutas, the bill reworded the Migration Ordinance so that indigenes who left the Territory without a permit would no longer be guilty of an offence. The Administration made clear that it had no objection to the changes ( House of Assembly debates , 2 September 1969, NLA: Nq. 328.952 PAP, p. 1560).
7 The motion declared the border ‘most unsatisfactory and [one] that will become more unsatisfactory as time goes by, both because of the facts (which have been recognised since at least 1885) that the customary fishing grounds and reef of many Papuans, as well as other natural resources that ought to belong to Papua and New Guinea, are … situated in Queensland waters, and also for other reasons’. The motion called for readjustment of the border and asked for the Administration’s assistance in this regard (ibid., 21 August 1969, p. 1485). For Government consideration of the issue, see Document 217.
8 See, for example, Document 307.
9 See, for example, Document 310.
10 Commenting on a report of late October that the formation of a party of ‘responsible indigenous Members’ was possible, Barnes wrote: ‘The suggestion … is attractive especially as Pangu are active in increasing their influence’ (marginal note, 30 October 1969, on letter, Hay to Warwick Smith, 22 October 1969, NAA: A452, 1967/2735; see also letter, Warwick Smith to Hay, 3 December 1969, ibid.).
11 J.E. Ritchie.
12 W.B.P. Smart.