Canberra, 16 February 1967
Papua and New Guinea—article in ‘New Guinea’ critical of Special Branch
The main points of the article were:—
• The methods of the Special Branch are intimidatory;
• Some indigenes are ‘greased’ and ‘brainwashed’ by Special Branch;
• Many Special Branch men are ‘former African colonial masters’;
• The activities of the Branch suppressed freedom of expression, political opinion and criticism against the Government.
2. It was written under the pen-name of Bramaig Damai who claimed that it represented the views of many young indigenes. Its first sentence included the phrase ‘we Papuans and New Guineans are aware of … ’.2
3. The Administration’s views were sought in writing3 and the reply is at folio 27.4 The reply covers memoranda from the following but does not summarise or assess those papers … 5
4. Little attention is given to the main issue, that is, whether there are in fact defects in the methods used by the Special Branch.
5. The main and relevant points brought out by the reply are:—
• There is no certainty about authorship but the article is thought to have been written by one or a combination of three indigenes probably with some assistance from a European (Mr. H. Crocombe of the A.N.U.’s6 N.G. Research Unit is mentioned).
• The three indigenes are—
Michael Tom SOMARE
Lahui Tau EGI (who wrote an article in ‘New Guinea’ as Pondo Moagan)
Lukas Joseph WAKA
Somare is recorded as an ‘angry young man’ overtly anti-European and anti-Australian who has had numerous brushes with the authorities and is on record as having expressed sympathy with the Communist cause.7
Egi already had published a long letter on this subject in the ‘Pacific Post’. He applied to the Communist paper ‘Tribune’ to be its representative in P.N.G. He has been active in [the] Workers’ Association and Tertiary Students’ Federation. Waka was contacted by members of the Communist Party of Australia while in Australia.
• There is general agreement that the functions of the Special Branch need better and more effective explaining to the public. Mr Cole states ‘ … 8 the public has a right to question our methods’; ‘respect and confidence of the public is vital to our work’; ‘I am satisfied that we have not given enough attention to public relations and while remedying this we will make statements regarding the role of Special Branch’.
• Mr Newby has noted that the article excluded A.S.I.O. from criticism and states ‘I would think A.S.I.O. officers have been concerned about their public image and have done something about it’.
• There has been agreement by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Branch and Regional Director, A.S.I.0.9 to give addresses explaining their functions but they insist that to avoid accusations of ‘brainwashing’ they must be invited to give such addresses.
• While admitting that Special Branch has coverage of some institutions and colleges the Assistant Commissioner Special Branch denies ‘emphatically’ having persons employed in the University. Erskine states also ‘our main interest is to determine whether or not the bullets that are being fired are of local or foreign manufacture’.
• Mr Newby states ‘I have formed the impression that on one and perhaps more occasions incidents connected with Mr Somare were handled clumsily by police’.
6. It could be stated that the Department’s enquiry has not been properly answered by the Administration. The purpose of the enquiry should be regarded as being—
• to meet the needs of the enquiry by the Department of External Affairs; and
• to permit some timely ‘stocktaking’ about the methods used by the Special Branch.
7. Whether the Department needs to do any more depends on whether the Secretary followed up the matter last week. I provided a briefing note for his visit. 10
8. The papers have not yet gone to Mr Ballard to deal with his reply to External Affairs.
9. One comment that seems relevant to the reference to clumsiness by the police is whether too much emphasis is being given to police background in selecting staff for Special Branch work. I have not looked into this. It seems likely that the basic requirements for selection as policemen, their training and experience, do not tend to produce the sensitivity needed for this work. They need more than native cunning and toughness. It is worth noting that A.S.I.O. has moved away from a police background for its staff.
{10. For information.} 11
[NAA: A452, 1967/8076]
1 Bruce Bray, position unidentified, DOT.
2 Ellipsis in the original.
3 Warwick Smith noted that DEA had requested comments from DOT and he asked for ‘observations on the article and its implications’ (memorandum, DOT (Warwick Smith) to Administration, 9 January 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/8076).
4 Not printed.
5 Matter omitted lists the Principal of the Port Moresby Teachers’ College (partially illegible-appears to read F.R. Ibbert); the Director of lnfomation and Extension Services (L.R. Newby); the Commissioner of Police (Cole); the Assistant Commissioner of Police—Special Branch (Erskine); and the Principal of the Administrative College (D. Chenoweth).
6 Australian National University.
7 According to a Special Branch report, Somare came to ‘prominent notice’ when in September 1964 he criticised the Public Service Ordinance 1963 (see Document 2). The report continued: ‘At the same time, he made reference to the House of Assembly as being a “puppet of the Administration”, and added that if students were unable to achieve their demands by negotiation, they must do so by force. At this time students were very restive over the reduction in salaries allowed for under the Public Service Ordinance … In September 1965, SOMARE was assessed as being “critical of aspects of the Administration policy, but in no way disloyal or subversive” … In December 1965, SOMARE was transferred to WEWAK by [his employer,] the Department of Information and Extension Services. An Officer of that Department who formerly knew SOMARE as a “friendly, personable, co-operative individual” then found him to be “sullen, with a chip on his shoulder and an anti-European attitude” … There are strong indications that SOMARE will contest the ANGORAM (Open) Electorate in 1968 and that his supporters are already canvassing on his behalf … SOMARE has been described by competent observers as being “an angry young man”. As far as is known, he has not indulged in any subversive activity and his loyalties are not in doubt. He has a propensity towards speaking out on matters concerning the conditions of employment of Local Officers regardless of the consequences, and could seriously embarrass this Administration by so doing. By virtue of his education and proven ability to speak and organise he could become a formidable force in local affairs in the near future’ (attachment to memorandum, Erskine to Cole, 13 January 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/8076).
8 Ellipsis in the original.
9 Name remains classified.
10 See note of 2 February, NAA: A452, 1967/8076.
11 In ‘notes for possible questions’ on the article, Bray wrote: ‘[a] Quite a normal development for the Territory Police Force to have a Special Branch which is a part of any developed police force. [b] Basic function is to discover any acts or plans for acts against the laws relating to the security of the Territory. It is our “eyes and ears of the Administration”. [c] Article has no quarrel with need and states “very proper” to set up a Special Branch … [d] Branch is new and functions can be easily misunderstood. The Commissioner is conscious of the need to keep operations and development under notice and is looking at ways of making functions better understood … [ e] There is freedom of expression in the Territory and the Government is anxious that this should continue to be so’ (note by Bray edited by Warwick Smith, I March 1967, ibid.). On 6 March, Watkins was asked in the House to explain the functions and methods of Special Branch and to give an assurance that ‘the liberties of individuals will not be infringed’. Watkins replied that the formation of the Branch was gazetted on 15 October 1964 and had the same purpose as ‘in Australia and most other countries of the world, including developing countries. Its responsibility is to detect subversive activities and thus contribute towards the maintenance of internal security … Officers of Special Branch … collect information and make it available to the appropriate Authority in Government who decides what action, if any, should be taken. They do not take action themselves … our Special Branch is not a clandestine organisation. It acts overtly and collects the greater part of its intelligence from District Intelligence Committees which are comprised of the District Commissioner and his District staff. I will gladly give the assurance requested … with respect to freedom of speech … This right is respected in the Territory because it is the tradition and policy of the Australian Government to respect it’ (Administration press statement, 7 March 1967, NAA: A1838, 936/3/7/1 part 4).