Canberra, 20 October 1966
Bougainville
[ matter omitted ]1
5. We have always thought that the main objection to the existing law had not come from owners of the land themselves but came from the people in the adjoining area who would not directly benefit if the royalties were to go to the owners.
6. There may be possibilities here of a compromise which would not challenge our basic premise that the minerals belong to the Administration and their proceeds should be available, generally, for the development of the Territory.
7. It might, for example, be possible to propose an amendment to Paul Lapun’s bill to provide that the 5% which he proposes should go to the owners of the land should go into a development fund which would be used for the development of the administrative district from which minerals came. A provision of this kind would probably make very little difference to the money available to be spent in the area and although it might offend against precedent, it might help to secure greater acceptances in Bougainville and the defeat of Lapun’s proposed Ordinance.
[NAA: A452, 1966/2475]
1 Matter omitted includes mention of an article in the Australian that claimed Paul Lapun’s proposed amendment to the mining ordinance (see paragraph 7, Document 69, and Document 73) would result in payment of royalties into a special development fund. Ballard objected: ‘This is not of course what Mr Paul Lapun’s bill would do … The Ordinance provides for the Administration to pay the owner 5% of the total amount of royalties and for the Administrator-in-Council to vary the amount payable to the owner’.