352

Brief By Hay For Barnes

Port Moresby, 18 December 1969

Points for use in talks with Kaputin1 Friday 19 December 1969

1. He has virtually rejected the normal, western principles of bringing about change peacefully. He has told me he does not believe statements by the Australian government that the destiny of Papua and New Guinea is to become a self-governing Territory developed for independence if and when the majority of the people clearly demonstrate that that is their wish. He also seems to be rejecting, at any rate so far as the Tolais are concerned, the principles of one man one vote and majority rule. There is thus very little common ground between him and the Administration on which to build a compromise on the future of local government in the Gazelle.

2. His conclusion is that therefore the Administration, and the older generation of Tolais, must give way to him completely, now , or else there will be bloodshed, for which the Administration must take all the blame.

3. His only compromise suggestion has been the ‘two Councils’ proposal. In effect this means that the present Council and the Mataungan Association should both be legally authorized to perform all Council functions, and to receive taxes from their supporters, in the same area, with co-ordination effected by joint committees for education, roads, etc. The proposal is on practical and constitutional grounds not acceptable. Kaputin has shown no disposition even to listen to the other kind of approach envisaged in Mr. Johnson’s statement in the House dated 13th November.2

4. Kaputin has few positive ideas. Looked at in the most sympathetic way, he has a burning wish for the Tolais to do something for themselves without European help. Because he cannot find what to do, he is blaming the Administration and the older generation for his own frustration. He sees violence and revolution and the gaining of power in the Gazelle as the only current way out.

5. In these circumstances, it seems important for you to try to get through to him (he is a bad listener) the following points:

(a) The government means what it says in its policy statements about economic development and political advancement;

(b) There is ample scope for effecting change by peaceful means. The Mataungan Association could become, for example, a political party, or it could become an economic organization. But this must take place within the framework of the law. The Council must be recognized unless and until its membership is changed by democratic means at the next election.

(c) To insist on the Mataungan Association having its own way without taking part in an election is arrogant. He has claimed majority support but he is unwilling to submit to the normal democratic test of a secret ballot. His views are negative. Why does he not think out a positive policy that will appeal to an electorate?

(d) His present statements, and the Mataungan Association actions, will have disastrous economic effects. The Tolais need industry to utilize their manpower. He is driving away those who would set up new industries in order to satisfy his personal political aims.

{(e)The immediate aim should be to ensure that the land which is becoming available in the Kerevat area [is] put into the hands of people—

(a) who most need it;

(b) can use it best.

(f) Atmosphere of co-operation needed to ensure this happens—at present MA’s may be excluded}

6. From the Territory point of view, it is important that Kaputin come away with a clear impression of what has been said to him, and that in any press statement this aspect be emphasized. We will hope to make very full use of such a statement in the Territory. I hope that the statement will not be drafted so that Kaputin can claim he gained some advantage for himself or the Mataungan Association from his meeting. He will be looking for this and would be able to turn to his advantage, for instance, any list of what in fact the government and the Administration are doing on land matters, outstanding court hearings, new schools, etc.

[NAA: A452, 1969/5256]

1 Kaputin and Tammur had addressed a crowd in Rabul on 16 December, the day ofTammur’s appearance in court (see footnote 2, Document 351). Kaputin’s speech ‘was inflammatory and he exhorted the people to fight for their own type of government … He claimed that he would expose Government lies and wrongs in [scheduled] discussions with [the] Minister … in Brisbane’ (telex 10143, Hay to DOET, 16 December 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/4001).

2 See footnote 1, Document 333.