Port Moresby, 3 January 1967
898.
Following summary of Aitchison’s report on Bougainville. 1
Summary
1. Earlier reports on Guava people’s opposition to C.R.A. prospecting activities confirmed. People wish C.R.A. to withdraw. Father Mahoney2 says a group of 3 Guava men claim they represent the people and would be willing to consider a request by C.R.A. to prospect Guava land subject to complete withdrawal of C.R.A. men, installations and equipment before discussions commence. There is no guarantee the people would agree to C.R.A. resuming activities as result discussions. Further, if it agreed C.R.A. resume activities, people would require a say in when, how and where mining or prospecting carried out …
2.The attitudes of Fathers Wiley,3 Moore4 and Mahoney are as previously advised.5 The attitude of Bishop Lemay is as expressed in publications. None of this group will change.
3. Assistant District Commissioner Brown6 told to advise C.R.A. Kokorei operation should not proceed if physical resistance offered. Drill grid or plan indicates 2 years’ work required on present rate of progress to complete and could continue within grid area without interference.
4. Guava people confused and find difficulty in making clear decision.
5. Paul Lapun amendment mining legislation unacceptable to Guava people despite fact he spoke to representative[s] gathering in support of his amendment for more than 8 hours.
6. From evidence available, the mission has major influence in people’s attitudes and will continue to encourage them to oppose C.R.A. development.
7. The mission have emphasized to the people they must not resort to violence.
8. The people want a ‘Traditional Court’ established to consider land rights. Note: This is impracticable and in any case we have the land titles commission.
9. The people want an international lawyer to represent them. Note: Public solicitor could act in the first instance.
10. If mission attitude changed it would have no immediate effect.
11. Bishop Lemay appears to enjoy embarrassing the Administration and ignoring laws.
12. Moore is parochial and stubborn, with strong views and personality, using the well-known technique of speaking loudly to impress natives, whether addressing them or not. Is from evidence dominant factor in resistance [to] C.R.A. and Administration developmental policy.
13. The mission appear to be aligning themselves with the people in preparation for self-government and independence.
14. I believe the missionaries have found a ‘cause’—something to give them an interest other than religion and moral welfare of the people they are charged with when taking up their appointments.
15. There is an emotional relationship between the people and their land which no settlement schemes will satisfy. This is being exploited by the Mission.
Aitchison recommended
(a) A top level meeting of Territory missions.
(b) C.R.A. to proceed with work inside grid area.
(c) The Bishop should be told to drop militant attitude and Moore removed.
(d) Administration should continue with present laws to support C.R.A. activity until such time as laws changed. The Kokorei operation should proceed as planned, as delay may aggravate the situation.
(e) Consideration should be given to providing the Guava landholders with legal aid.
Administration recommends
(a) C.R.A. to be encouraged to proceed to next stage of prospecting, including the locating of drills and roads to Kokorei land and any other land to which native land owners wish to deny the Company access.
(b) The Administration to be prepared to protect Company personnel carrying out these operations, if necessary, with an adequate Police detachment.
(c) A conference of Territory missions can achieve no immediate benefit in the present situation, and should not be planned at this stage.
(d) Attempts to influence Bishop Lemay to secure a more temperate attitude by his priests, or to remove them from areas of present influence, should be pursued through the Apostolic Delegate.
(e) The normal services of the Public Solicitor are always available to the Guava people if they are sought. The provisions of the mining legislation are clear cut however and legal intervention appears unnecessary and should not be encouraged.
[ matter omitted ]
[NAA: A452, 1967/1347]
1 For context, see editorial note ‘Lapun’s bill and the situation on Bougainville’.
2 Roman Catholic priest, Deomori Mission, Bougainville.
3 Roman Catholic priest, Tunuru Mission, Bougainville.
4 Roman Catholic priest, Monotora Mission, Bougainville.
5 In a later section amplifying Aitchison’s comments, it was reported that Wiley ‘thinks [CRA] are fair game and that the people should make demands on them’ (though he denied trying to influence the people); that Moore believed ‘the people will lose independence and have their moral codes destroyed as a result of industrialisation’ and would ‘advise the people to try all legal means to prevent CRA’; and that Mahoney ‘fears the social consequences of industrialisation’ and would be a ‘spokesman’ for the people. Moore and Mahoney claimed they were strong advocates of non-violence.
6 K.A. Brown, Deputy District Commissioner, Bougainville.