Port Moresby, 1 April 1966
Secret1
[ matter omitted ]
A number of reports have been received during the month of unrest amongst students about the pay and conditions laid down under the Public Service Ordinance 1964. We consider that the students’ unrest and the allied unrest amongst the younger indigenous members of the Public Service is serious and could lead to incidents of public disorder if in their view the results of the arbitration hearing are unsatisfactory.
[ matter omitted ]
Political Trends—T.P.N.G.
Further to Item 6 of M.I.S. 2/661 there are indications (F3)2 that Mr. J.D. GUISE, the most prominent indigenous political figure in the Territory and leader of the elected Members of the House of Assembly, is losing support within his own electorate.
2. It has also been reliably reported (C2) that during the recent sittings of the House of Assembly in Port Moresby, (1st to 9th March, 1966) GUISE was loath to leave the confines of his place of residence at HOHOLA (a low–cost housing development near Port Moresby) during the hours of darkness, due to his firm belief that he would be assaulted by ‘political enemies’.
3. Three indigenous M.H.A’s, two of whom are Under Secretaries, are reliably reported (C3) to have stated that since the death of William BLOOMFIELD, formerly the Member for the Kaindi Open Electorate, there are no European Members, Official or Elected, who will assist the indigenous Members in the House. One of the group also stated that a small group of European Members are openly derisive towards indigenous Members and belittle them at every opportunity. In this respect, some indigenous Members are incensed at what they consider discourteous behaviour on the part of certain Official and Elected European Members who remove their earphones and do not appear to pay attention when some native Members speak in the House.
4. Many indigenous M.H.A’s are dissatisfied and at least three including one Under Secretary, have publicly stated that they are resentful of what they believe to be ‘pressure tactics’ adopted by Official Members to force legislation through the House. Others have also been out-spoken regarding their frustration in not being able to obtain satisfactory answers to questions raised by them in respect of matters affecting their own electorates.
(i) Although previous reports indicated that GUISE was losing the confidence of other Elected M.H.A’s, this is the first significant indication that he may also be losing popularity in his own electorate. The reasons for his fears of assault by ‘political enemies’ are not known and could possibly be the figment of his own imagination.
(ii) The late William BLOOMFIELD was known to maintain excellent relationships with indigenous M.H.A’s and other native people with whom he came in contact. However, whether or not the criticisms levelled at some of the European Members are valid or just reflect the inability of indigenous Members to accept the banter and/or informality of Parliamentary debate and proceedings, they could lead to the House of Assembly becoming divided on racial rather than political grounds.3
[ matter omitted ]
[NAA: A452, 1966/842]
1 The MIS for February reported ‘indications that most elected members of the House of Assembly are dissatisfied with the leadership of Mr. J.D. Guise and may take action to either censure him or elect a new leader’—though there had ‘been no signs to date that any other individual member is prepared to challenge GUISE for the position’ (no. 2/66,4 March 1966, NAA: A452, 1966/842).
2 Bracketed text refers to the frequency and reliability of information provided by a given source.
3 Hasluck had earlier expressed doubts over methods of collecting political information for the MIS. Referring to a draft item on ‘Developments in political awareness’ (not found), which had apparently involved covert observation of legal political gatherings, Hasluck cautioned: ‘I know personally and intimately both [patrol officer] Albert Maori Kiki and [MHA for Esa’ala Losuia open electorate] Lepani Watson and regarded them as two of the best influences among their particular groups. I would be very sorry to think that they are now being “watched” and “reported” upon as though they were engaged in some wrongful activity. If these two men have gone bad or were to go bad in the future I believe it would be entirely our fault and, in my opinion, nothing would have a more harmful effect on them than if they were to be treated as persons who needed “watching” instead of persons with who we should discuss freely the needs and aspirations of their people. There is unfortunately the tendency in all intelligence work to be on the look-out for plotters. We must guard against it’ (marginal note by Hasluck, 28 February 1966, on submission, Davis to Hasluck of same date, NAA: Al838, 936/3/15 part 2). In a meeting of the TIC on 4 March, the External Affairs representative suggested that ‘the primary responsibility for submitting reports on the political situation in T.P.N.G. should rest with the Administration representative if a partial and possibly misleading picture were not to be given to recipients of the L.I.C. summary’, but he reported to DEA that the ‘unfortunate fact seems to be … that the Administration does not have its finger on the pulse of local developments’ (minute, Woodard to Booker, Jockel and Davis, 8 March, ibid.). Hasluck was subsequently informed that ‘On their admittedly brief visits to the Territory in recent months officers of the Department have formed the impression that at the highest level there is not that intimacy of contact and discussion which would seem clearly to be desirable if the indigenous leaders are to be able to develop satisfactorily in the evolving political situation in T.P.N.G … In the specific case of Albert Maori Kiki the Administration has made a number of attempts to meet his wishes over the last fifteen months but it would appear that nevertheless he has increasingly lost confidence in and become alienated from it’ (submission, Davis to Hasluck, 14 March 1966, ibid.).