Port Moresby, 17 December 1969
Unnumbered. Confidential Priority
Minister had three meetings today.1
1. With Toliman alone.
2. With 11 back-benchers (Fielding, Arek, Uroe, Lussick, Mola, Chatterton, Somare, Middleton, Yuwi, Cecil Abel, Olewale) and Maori Kiki.
3. A.E.C. (Tei Abal, Toliman, Bilas, Kapena, Ashton, Leahy, Lepani Watson and Oala Rarua).
The elected members of the A.E.C. unanimously condemned all activities of the Mataungan Association and were particularly concerned at the precedent for other areas.
Members specifically criticised the part played by Nwokolo and felt that a foreigner should not be allowed to play such a part.2 Kapena specifically included Australians in this comment.
In the A.E.C. Bilas and in the second meeting Somare said that there was a special feeling in the Gazelle that the local economy was dominated by Chinese and Europeans to a much greater extent than in other parts of the Territory.
Toliman stressed the need to back the Multi-Racial Council. The offers that had already been made in connexion with land were substantial and should meet real grievances.
The A.E.C. were quite firm in support of present policy. Reports were received from Whitrod, Curtis and Ellis on Gazelle position and although meeting is not over seems clear that there will be no special meeting.3
In the second meeting there was a hankering after an arrangement under with the M.R.C. and the M.A. nominate negotiators to try to reach agreement. There was, however, no respect.4 No support for Kaputin and Tammur and even the Pangu group seemed to accept that neither the M.A. nor the M.R.C. were in the mood to accept this text5 of arrangement today. There was also agreement that the law must be respected and enforced. A.E.C. meeting continues at 4.00pm but yet to touch the budget.
[ matter omitted ]6
[NAA: A452, 1969/5256]
1 For context, see footnote 4, Document 346.
2 Aside from the MRC’s accusation that Nwokolo had been involved in the planning of the 7 December attack (see footnote 2, Document 341), there were reports from Rabaul that he had encouraged violence on the basis of its success in Africa (see telex 10100, Hay to DOET, 10 December 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/4001, and telex 6113, naval base Manus to Department of Navy, Canberra, 13 December 1969, ibid.). It is unclear if the AEC was aware of these reports.
3 Presumably, a reference to the proposed special meeting of the House of Assembly (see Document 346).
4 The meaning of this sentence is unclear. It perhaps results from corrupt transmission and may be combined with the following sentence to read: ‘There was, however, no support for …’.
5 This should perhaps read ‘type’.
6 Matter omitted indicates that more of the message remained to be transmitted. A subsequent telex—which appears to be the remnant—reads in part: ‘[The] A. E. C. meeting [was] enlivened with some criticism of [the] university. It was then agreed not to have [a] special meeting of the House of Assembly’ (unnumbered telex, Ballard to Warwick Smith, 17 December 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/5256). After the meeting, Barnes stated publicly that he was in ‘full agreement’ with the desire of the AEC to enforce the law so that ‘actions on the part of the Mataungan Association might [not] have a bad effect on stability elsewhere in the Territory’. He said ‘there were fundamental principles which the government was not prepared to see abandoned’—such as the right of lawfully elected Council members to conduct business without fear and for individuals to vote without intimidation. It was understandable that some ‘may not wish their institutions … to be exact replicas of those in Australia’, but the MA’s leadership had condoned bloodshed and ‘challenged the good faith of the Australian government at a time when increasing resources from Australia were being allocated to a national development programme for the Territory’. He said the Government aimed at acceptance of the local government system by those opposed ‘once respect for the law was re-established’ (ibid.).