Brisbane, 19 December 1969
Mr Kaputin started by saying that the Multi-Racial Council means that the Territory is leading to political independence in a multi-racial situation. He said that on the 3rd June, 1967 Tobunbun proposed a referendum on the multi-racial concept. This was rejected in the Council on the advice of the Adviser on the grounds that it was costing too much. Then in May 1969 the Council resolved against the Multi-Racial Council. On May 30th Kaputin was a member of the delegation which went to see the Administrator;1 then came the election.
On 1st July there was confrontation between the Administrator and the Tolai people.2 On the 14th November there was another march of some 7,000 people3 and the members of the Mataungan Association closed the Council Chambers and offices.4
‘Three weeks ago we had talks with the Multi-Racial Council and the Administration but we failed to reach any conclusion. At this stage we suggested the establishment of two councils. My people have suffered unnecessarily in the past. Policies determined in Canberra have not involved my people.’
Two councils proposal
Kaputin said that the Tolai people were divided into two groups. They had proposed a referendum but this had been turned down. (Ballard referred to Johnson’s statement in connection with referendum).5 Kaputin continued—‘People don’t trust the secret ballot any more; how would the supporters of the Multi-Racial Council feel if they lost the referendum?’
The Minister gave a brief explanation of the principles of the democratic system. Kaputin replied that people will take a long time to accept this sort of thing and they need changes quicker than this. ‘I think we should let the Multi-Racial Council carry on. I respect their ideas but we want to be able to make our own decisions.’
Minister— We operate through a democratically elected House of Assembly.
Kaputin— I can see the reason for the Administration helping us with land but unless you can solve the problems of the majority you won’t get very far. There are resources within the Gazelle Peninsula which we can see the need to develop. Tolais have decreasing respect for the white people; we need some of our educated people to come back to help in our own villages. We would like ourselves to—
(1) deal with our land problems
(2) assist business ventures
(3) improve coconuts on native land
I am suggesting that we could do these things if we had our own council.
Minister— You can do all these things now. We are doing all we [can]6 to get co-operatives going.
Kaputin— Co-operative movement in the Gazelle fell flat 15 years ago.
Minister— Why is it succeeding everywhere else and failing in the Gazelle Peninsula?
Kaputin— The economic development programme is for the benefit of foreigners.
Minister— How would you get $60 for every man, woman and child without Australia’s assistance?
Kaputin— I agree with this but if we had utilised it differently there might have been a different situation today. We need our own native economy so we don’t have to rely on your people all the time. By engaging themselves the people get something for themselves. When they have done this they can accept your concept of democracy. I don’t agree that the struggle is for political power between old and young; we also have old people in the Mataungan Association and there are some young people on the Multi-Racial Council. I don’t know what you see as a solution—you can imprison us.
The Minister said that it was necessary to start with respect for the law and recognition of the will of the majority of the people.
Kaputin replied—‘I respect the law if it takes account of what I want, I have no respect for it if it takes no account of the wishes of my people’.
Kaputin then implied that Australia was administering Papua and New Guinea in the interests of the Caucasians and the Chinese. The Minister said that Papua New Guinea is a financial drain on Australia and that it has no defence significance. ‘We administer the Territory in the interests of the majority of the people, not just the Europeans, but if they want us to go we will go immediately’.
The Minister asked Kaputin whether he held any office in the Mataungan Association, but he said he did not, but had come down in a purely private capacity.
In answer to a question by the Minister Kaputin said the Mataungan Association had no objection to Sepiks and other natives on the Council, only the Chinese and Europeans.
Kaputin then asked the Minister what solution had been put to him. The Minister replied by saying ‘why did the Mataungans boycott the elections?’
Kaputin— We are fighting against established institutions. Where does the majority lie?
Minister— Only the ballot box will show.
Kaputin— We can’t stop people taking action.
Minister— I will oppose minorities trying to impose their will by violence.
Kaputin— You can only stop violence by what we can do for ourselves.
Minister— At the expense of peaceful people?
Kaputin— Maybe there is reason for violence; we can only decide this ourselves.
Minister— Are the people not ready for democracy?
Kaputin— We are not wanting to throw out the Multi-Racial Council; they can stay on. It is wrong to accuse the Mataungan Association of being racist, they only fear domination and are not prepared to sit at table with Chinese and Europeans. I want to see Europeans stay on. There is a need in this country for capital and we can only safeguard their position by looking after the interests of the native people. I don’t think you are right in saying that Australia has no interest of its own in being in Papua New Guinea. We don’t have to expropriate so long as my people are involved in ownership and participation in economic development. We only own about 10% of our country’s economy; this may mean that we have to resort to expropriation.
Minister— This is how development of all countries takes place. The local content just goes up as it has in Australia, but unity comes first.
Kaputin— That is for us to accomplish. Some day people will have to understand what they have been led to believe. There is no reason why the plantations should not be taken over, my people work them now. The land on these plantations was our property. The companies have recouped their investments and we are not able to do this ourselves.
Minister— The steps taken for subdivision of Matanatar and Ravalien show a fair way of going about the problem of the plantations. The great problem of Papua and New Guinea is its productions compete with the products from other countries with a low standard of living. We would be dishonest if wages in Papua New Guinea were tied to circumstances in Australia. They must be related to your own economy. It is things like C.R.A. which will raise your people above the standards which can be reached from primary products.
Kaputin— I don’t think I remember saying I was accusing you of dishonesty. All l was saying was that our programme for economic development could be expressed in a different way.
Minister— Did you come down to put any specific proposal?
Kaputin— No; only to let you know the views of my people.
The Minister concluded by stressing the need for the rule of law and that violence could not be countenanced.
Kaputin commented—‘I can only do my part to show them how to get something for themselves.’
[NAA: A452, 1969/5256]
1 A delegation of pro-Mataungan Tolais attempted to see Hay in late May, but in his absence were met by Johnson (see letter, Hay to Warwick Smith, 5 June 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/2889).
2 See footnote 2, Document 309.
3 See editorial note ‘Gazelle Peninsula: Government responses to the Connolly commission, the Mataungan court case and the land issue’.
4 Presumably a reference to the 1 September incident during which the Council keys were seized (see Document 310).
5 See footnote 1, Document 333.
6 Word missing here in the original.