Canberra, 24 October 1966
Bougainville
The Minister saw the Apostolic Delegate1 in [the] Sydney Office on 21st October.2
2. The Minister started by explaining the background of his present concern over the activities of the Bishop in Bougainville. The Archbishop agreed that the situation was dangerous and asked whether it would not be possible for the Government to move from its position so that a compromise solution might be sought. The Minister said that the Government had already done this and he thought the compromise reached in the last House of Assembly would have been accepted had it not been for the intervention of Bishop Lemay and some of his priests.
3. The Archbishop seemed generally sympathetic with the Government’s approach to the substance of the matter but said there was little he could do to direct Bishop Lemay; he could only counsel. What he had in mind would be to suggest a meeting of all the Bishops of New Guinea in order that their combined influence could be brought to bear. This could not, however, be brought about before the House of Assembly met in November.
4. In view of the time element the Archbishop said he would write to both Bishop Lemay and Bishop Copas.3 The letter to Bishop Lemay would not refer to an approach by the Minister but would express his concern at the various publications he had seen, particularly the South Pacific Post,4 on his return to Australia. He would point out that this attitude might lead to violence if the House of Assembly refused to accept Lapun’s Bill. The letter to Bishop Copas would seek his views and advice generally. When the Archbishop had received replies he would write to the Minister again.
5. While the meeting was definitely worthwhile in that the Apostolic Delegate has heard, and appreciates, the Government’s view the Minister doubts whether his intervention will have more than a restraining influence upon Bishop Lemay.
6. After the meeting I mentioned to the Minister the possibility of asking the American Embassy whether pressure could not be placed upon Bishop Lemay’s Mission headquarters in the U.S.A. The Minister asked that this should be pursued and I am taking this up with the Department of External Affairs.
[NAA: A452, 1966/2475]
1 Archbishop Dominica Enrici, Apostolic Delegate for Australia and Oceania.
2 Barnes had written to Enrici on 11 October, asking for a meeting and noting that the Roman Catholic mission on Bougainville had been ‘expressing opposition to the existing laws relating to the ownership of minerals and the payment of royalties on minerals’. Barnes described a meeting of ‘over 35 Roman Catholic priests’, presided over by Leo Lemay (Vicar Apostolic of the Northern Solomon Islands) which passed a resolution that the Bougainville mission ‘make known the voice of the people in protesting against the present Mining Ordinance’. Forwarding a number of documents, including communications from Lemay to Cleland, Barnes commented: ‘I appreciate that there are circumstances in which a Bishop will feel he must speak publicly against the policies of a Government which he feels are contrary to the precepts of his Church. The basic issue involved here, however, is whether the proceeds of the development of Bougainville should be made available for the benefit of all the people of Papua and New Guinea or should go to the enrichment of relatively few people. In the circumstances of the Territory continuance of the public disagreement between the Government and the Mission on this matter can do great harm … I regard maintenance of the Government’s position as vital to the orderly development of the Territory and the advancement of its people. On the other hand, it is apparent that an open and deepening breach between the Roman Catholic Mission on Bougainville and the Government is something to be avoided if practicable’ (NAA: A452, 1966/5311 ).
3 Virgil Copas, Roman Catholic Bishop of Port Moresby.
4 Lemay’s defence of the Bougainvillean ‘right to speak’—and against what he termed the Administration’s attitude of ‘We pay; so please do what you are told’ ( South Pacific Post , 23 November 1966, NAA: A452, 1966/5530)—created controversy in the Territory, and was liberally reported in the South Pacific Post (see, for example, excerpts from 18 and 25 November 1966, ibid.).