Canberra, undated
Minister’s speech in Melbourne, 3rd March, 1967: reporting, reactions, comments and conclusions
The speech by the Minister for Territories in Melbourne on 3rd March drew immediate and widespread reaction in the Territory and in Australia.
The purpose of this paper is to record the sequence of events as the speech became an issue in the daily press, the Australian Parliament and the Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly, to analyse the reporting and comment by Australian newspapers and to offer tentative conclusions that may be useful as guidelines for the future. Some of the propositions will need to be followed up in more detail when additional information is available, before they can be regarded as conclusive. No attempt has been made to give a verbatim account of what the Minister actually said. The Minister has stated that his remarks were made ‘off the cuff’ and has issued a statement incorporating one newspaper’s report which he says is an accurate report of the substance of what he said.
The purpose of this paper is to record the sequence of events as the speech became an issue in the daily press, the Australian Parliament and the Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly, to analyse the reporting and comment by Australian newspapers and to offer tentative conclusions that may be useful as guidelines for the future. Some of the propositions will need to be followed up in more detail when additional information is available, before they can be regarded as conclusive. No attempt has been made to give a verbatim account of what the Minister actually said. The Minister has stated that his remarks were made ‘off the cuff’ and has issued a statement incorporating one newspaper’s report which he says is an accurate report of the substance of what he said.
Mr. Barnes spoke briefly to open a Papua and New Guinea display which showed the progress of the Territory towards nationhood.
Reporters covered the opening for two newspapers—the Melbourne ‘Age’, and ‘Australian’ and for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
There was a sharp difference between the stories which appeared in the ‘Age’ and the ‘Australian’ the following morning. The A.B.C. did not use a report of the speech.
The ‘Australian’ used as its front page lead the fact that ‘Papua–New Guinea might never be granted independence, the Minister for Territories, Mr. Barnes, said yesterday’. The story was headlined:
MINISTER SAYS INDEPENDENCE WILL NOT COME SOON—IF AT ALL
Barnes: Ng May Not Break Away
The ‘Australian’ quoted Mr. Barnes as saying ‘independence for Papua/New Guinea will not be achieved for very many years, if at all’. This was the only section quoted from what was purported to be Mr. Barnes’ speech. The ‘Australian’ said Mr. Barnes had not elaborated on his remark. The paper ran a further six paragraphs which it said were given to an ‘Australian’ reporter who asked the Minister to qualify the statement. A member of the House of Assembly in Port Moresby, Mr. John Pasquarelli,1 called the speech ‘insolent and imprudent’.
In the next few days the crucial part of the report became the ‘independence for Papua/New Guinea will not be achieved for very many years, if at all’ quote.
Concurrently with its report of the speech, the ‘Australian’ ran a reaction story from its correspondent in Port Moresby, Donald Hogg. This report quoted the Speaker of the House, Mr. H.L.R. Niall,2 as being amazed by Mr. Barnes’ statement. The report also quoted Mr. Gaudi Mirau3 who said he could not understand why the Minister had said such a thing. Mr. Tei Abal was quoted as supporting the Minister. In addition, Hogg said that most members from the primitive Highland areas agreed with Mr. Barnes.
It was on these statements that the ‘Australian’ based its assessment that the Minister’s statement had been received in Port Moresby with reactions ranging from ‘shock to complete agreement’.
About half the reaction story consisted of Hogg’s own views based on a quick survey of members.
Hogg reported: ‘There is a widespread feeling here, particularly in the coastal areas, that the next House election in 1968 will mean a change from the present system of paternal government to a form of ministerial government; and that independence in 1972 is not only highly likely but desirable’.
The ‘Age’ merely said that the Minister for Territories doubted whether Papua/New Guinea would ever be completely independent of Australia. The report quoted Mr. Barnes as saying that the people of the Territory would decide after they had self-government whether they wanted to be independent of Australia.
Later, according to the report, Mr. Barnes said discussions with natives of the Territory led him to believe that their choice would be to remain closely associated with Australia.
The ‘Age’ did not use the ‘if at all’ quote.
The week-end gave the Australian Associated Press in Port Moresby an opportunity to provide a more complete reaction story which was taken by many papers which had not run the original statement. The A.A.P. story perpetuated the ‘if at all’ quote even though the ‘Australian’ which is outside the A.A.P. organisation, had originated it.
The ‘Age’ itself ran the A.A.P. reaction story, allowing it to be based on the ‘Australian’ quote and not modifying it to conform to the ‘Age’s’ original story. Even in its editorial comment on Monday, 6th March, under the heading ‘Not Well Said’ the ‘Age’ appeared, in view of the ‘Australian’ story, to have second thoughts about what the Minister had in fact said.
The ‘Canberra Times’ which picked up the story for the first time on Monday morning was more guarded in its treatment of it, referring to a ‘reported statement’.
The reaction story in the ‘Age’ said that members of the Papua/New Guinea House of Assembly disagreed with the Minister’s ‘if at all’ statement. The general feeling according to the story, was strongly against Mr. Barnes’ view, although some members agree[d] with him. Seven House of Assembly members were quoted. Their statements did not substantiate the general conclusion of the story or the ‘Age’ headline:
NG REPLY TO BARNES: ‘WE WILL HAVE INDEPENDENCE’
Only one member, Mr. Barry Holloway, spoke of independence inevitably coming within a certain time—eight years. All others either spoke of self-government or were even more cautious.
Mr. Matthias Toliman said Papua/New Guinea should have self-government now.
Mr. Don Barrett4 suggested only that ‘the political situation in this country is changing yearly’.
Both Mr. Gabriel Ehava Karava5 and Mr. Tei Abal agreed that independence was a long way off.
The Rev. Percy Chatterton6 asked how the Minister’s statement squared with the assurance that the people of the Territory would be given their independence if and when they wanted it.
Mr. Kaibelt Diria7 said his people feared independence because they believed Europeans would then leave en masse.
The ‘Canberra Times’ somewhat more accurately summed up the reaction in its headline:
NEW GUINEA MP’S SPLIT ON INDEPENDENCE
Faced with the reaction, particularly in Port Moresby where the House of Assembly was in session, the Minister on Monday 6th March sent a message to the Administrator saying that the report in the ‘Australian’ was a complete distortion. He then quoted the ‘Age’ report as being the substance of what he had in fact said. Mr. Barnes telegraphed the text of the message to all metropolitan daily newspapers in Australia and to the ‘South Pacific Post’ and the A.B.C. in Port Moresby.
Mr. Barnes said in his message that, as shown by the accurate report in the ‘Age’, the substance of what he had said in Melbourne was no different from what he had been saying for some time past and did not represent any change in the policy of the Australian Government. This was that the Government’s basic policy for Papua and New Guinea had been and still was self-determination.
The ‘South Pacific Post’ in Port Moresby, having received the telegram, used as its lead to the story the fact that the Minister for Territories had said that he doubted whether Papua/New Guinea would ever be completely independent of Australia. This conformed to the ‘Age’ report.
The text of Mr. Barnes’ statement to the Administrator was read to the House of Assembly. A report in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ quoted Mr. Pasquarelli as saying subsequently: ‘If the Minister was reported incorrectly, Iowe him an apology’.
At his press conference on Monday afternoon the Prime Minister was asked a question about Mr. Barnes’ statement and he reiterated that there had been no change in Government policy towards independence for Papua and New Guinea. This had been and still was self-determination.
Most papers on Tuesday morning gave prominence to Mr. Holt’s statement. The ‘Canberra Times’ also ran the text of Mr. Barnes’ message to the Administrator in full. It further commented editorially under the heading ‘Clumsy talk’.
The ‘Australian’, in an editor’s note, defended its reporting of Mr. Barnes’ statement and said that when approached for further comment on Sunday Mr. Barnes had not denied having made the ‘if at all’ speech. The paper pointed out that Mr. Barnes had, however, emphasised during his speech and in talking to a reporter from the ‘Australian’ afterwards: ‘But it’s not for me to say. The people of the Territory have this right’. This was considered to be a crucial qualification of the ‘if at all’ statement, reiterating as it did Australia’s basic policy.
In Parliament on Tuesday, 7th March, Mr. Barnes was asked three questions about his speech. In reply to the first question Mr. Barnes repeated that the ‘Age’ report was an accurate record of the substance of what he had said.
In reply to the second question, Mr. Barnes said that he was unable to present a written copy of his speech because it had been made off the cuff. He added, ‘The people of the Territory have the right to choose self-government or independence at any time. It has been made perfectly clear that they have this right. But they should not be forced by any nation or outside body to make a decision. I think this arrangement is best for the people and I do not think it can be improved’.
Asked if he would categorically deny that he made the ‘if at all’ statement, Mr. Barnes said ‘The objective …. 8 is to have me admit to a part of my statement taken out of context, and this I refuse to do. You can read my full statement in the Melbourne “Age”, as I mentioned earlier’.
The ‘Australian’ gave prominence to the reply to the latter question and ran a special article on 8th March by Peter Hastings9 in which he assessed Territory opinion towards independence, contrasting his interpretation of it with Mr. Barnes’ discussions with the more conservative element of the Territory.
Hastings said Mr. Barnes honestly believed that the people of New Guinea did not want independence. At this stage, he was right to the extent that the Territory’s less sophisticated natives did not want it. But this was not true of the coastal politicians, as agency reports indicate. It certainly was not true of the emerging elites, the indigenous public servants and the student groups.
These groups, of increasing importance and ever-increasing influence, saw independence as the only sensible constitutional solution.
Hastings said the intriguing question was ‘which natives told Mr. Barnes what?’ Mr. Barnes had a predilection when visiting the Territory for the company of the most conservative native politicians, especially those from the western highlands.
‘Surely this is dangerously misleading,’ Hastings said. ‘While the older politicians of the Territory speak for a generation of natives psychologically and economically dependent upon continuing Australian skills, they are not representative of either the younger political generation or the sophisticated coastal politicians.
‘The plain fact is that Mr. Barnes and his chief advisers in the Department of Territories, have never liked the notion of independence and have always fought shy of proclaiming it as the end goal of Australian political tuition in the Territory’.
The ‘Australian’ was to elaborate further on its stand over Papua and New Guinea in a subsequent editorial.
On Wednesday, 8th March, Mr. Barnes was again asked a question in Parliament on his Melbourne speech, this time in relation to the ‘Age’ editorial. Mr. Barnes was asked if he agreed that the editorial gave a completely accurate interpretation of a statement about which the same newspaper gave a completely accurate report. Mr. Barnes replied that he had referred to the report, and not to the editorial. Where the editor got his material for the editorial ‘I do not know’.
In an editorial on 9th March under the title ‘Answer to Mr. Barnes’ the ‘Australian’ tried to make it clear its own views on independence for Papua and New Guinea.
‘We believe in independence for New Guinea as an inevitable and proper constitutional discharge of Australia’s political responsibilities in Papua/New Guinea.
‘We do not urge target dates for independence, believing very firmly that the problems of political development are too many and too complex for such a procedure.
‘We do believe, and have often said, that independence should not be thrust on New Guineans but granted to them at a time of their own choosing.
‘This may be sooner or later. In our opinion it will be a good deal sooner than Mr. Barnes credits.
‘We do not believe that the native people of the Territory should be encouraged in the current improper Government inspired fashion to imagine certain constitutional courses may be open to them at a future date when they most probably won’t be.
‘We do believe that New Guineans should be told now and unequivocally that they can only look forward to independence which they will get when they want it and that any other arrangements with Australia must follow, by mutual agreement, after that act.’
The last word for the week was had by a Labor member in the House of Representatives, who called on the Prime Minister to remove the Minister for Territories.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of the word ‘independence’. There is a sharp, though nevertheless, subtle distinction between Papua and New Guinea becoming independent of Australia and the Territory becoming independent. The ‘Australian’ version implied the withholding of political independence as distinct from the Territory being to some extent dependent on Australia.
The incident illustrated how one newspaper report can be seized on by other newspapers where it is a more appropriate story to follow up. Quite obviously no attempt was made by A.A.P. in Port Moresby to check the accuracy of the original ‘Australian’ story and this perpetuated the quote that caused all the trouble. Headlines and story summaries also bore no relation to the balance of opinions in the reaction stories.
It would appear that comment of the kind published tends to be sought firstly from those people who knowingly favour the journalists’ intention. There is of course no attempt at genuine sampling.
The reaction stories suggested that there is no clearly articulated support among members of the House of Assembly for early independence. There appeared to be in the stories filed lack of foundation for what the Press Corps in Port Moresby considered to be the prevailing opinion in favour of independence. One would not get this impression from day-to-day newsagency reports from the Territory, particularly of proceedings of the House of Assembly. One conclusion that may be drawn from this is that the Press Corps have a bias towards independence that is reflected in their coverage of Territory events. Agency reports taken as a whole would tend to be misleading as to the true state of developing opinion.
The importance of all this is in the reliance that is placed on the agency reports in assessing Territory opinion, and the influence they must inevitably have on the future course of opinion in the Territory. The Press Corps forms its o[w]n elite in the formation of Territory opinion.
While it may have been possible to ignore the Australian reaction to the press reporting, the situation arose where Territory opinion and reaction became important. Even though the original ‘Australian’ story did not appear in the Territory, reporters seeking comment and reaction used it as their basis and thus gave credence to it. Any discussion that took place in the Territory was on the basis of the report in the ‘Australian’.
Such a situation resulted, in some measure, from a failure of journalistic responsibility. It was taken for granted that, despite a conflicting report in the ‘Age’, the ‘Australian’ report was accurate enough for the purpose of seeking reactions.
The ‘Australian’ has been a consistent critic of Australian Government policy in Papua and New Guinea and more particularly of Mr. Barnes. The controversy, which was confined to the ‘Australian’ for whom it became a ‘major’ story, provided some clarification of the ‘Australian’s’ stand, as expressed in its editorial of reply to Mr. Barnes. One gets the impression from this that a deliberate attempt is made, not to report Australian policy, but to seek out areas of difference with it, even if they do not really exist.
The incident also produced further discussion of Australia’s role in Papua and New Guinea and, for an Australian electorate that is somewhat complacent about Papua and New Guinea, was a reminder of Australia’s responsibilities there. No assessment is possible of Australian reaction, since apart from questions in Parliament which concentrated only on trying to embarrass the Minister personally, this was ignored by the Press. On the other hand, the issued produced discussion, at least in the Territory, and the various paper reports themselves reflected a real division of opinion.
There would appear to be insufficient expression of those views which in fact are cautious towards the movement towards independence. Those who favour more rapid movement tend to be more vocal or are reported more consistently.
Mr. Pasquarelli’s retraction may serve as a reminder to a House of Assembly growing in sophistication that in the field of news and comment on issues as important as independence for Papua and New Guinea it is better to wait to see what someone actually said before commenting on a newspaper version of it. For this reason, Mr. Barnes’ message to the Administrator may have served a useful purpose by being read in the House.
The incident emphasises, for this reason, the desirability of providing transcripts of speeches as soon after speeches are delivered as possible for circulation to the Administration, the House of Assembly and other interested Departments such as External Affairs. There would then be no doubt about the Government’s stated position.
Private contact with the Canberra Press Gallery revealed mixed feelings and opinions. Commenting on the ‘Australian’s’ story, one senior gallery reported said: ‘That’s what happens when you have a paper which has a lot of space to fill.’
The general reaction of gallery reporters was that the Minister had held off too long before refuting the story in the ‘Australian’. ‘He should have cast doubt on Saturday before the story gathered its momentum,’ was how one reporter summed up. ‘People then would have been less willing to believe it.’
One reporter was concerned that no denial had been made of the Minister having said the words in dispute.
The questioning of Mr. Barnes in the House coincided with the introduction of Labor tactics to concentrate attacks on one or two ministers in the hope that persistent questioning would weaken the Government’s position. One important result of the controversy will be that close attention may be given to Territory subjects, both in Parliament and in the Press. Newspapers who feel they missed a story will make sure they do not do so again, and for this reason there is likely to be interest in future Ministerial speeches, at least for a while.
The continuing problems of relations with the Press and how they are handled both Ministerially and Departmentally would appear to require close examination.
[NAA: A452, 1967/2042]
1 MHA, Angoram open electorate.
2 MHA, North Markham special electorate.
3 MHA, Markham open electorate.
4 MHA, West Gazelle special electorate.
5 MHA, Lakekamu open electorate.
6 MHA, Central special electorate.
7 MHA, Minj open electorate.
8 Ellipsis in the original.
9 Asia and PNG correspondent of the Australian ; also executive officer, Council on New Guinea Affairs and editor of its quarterly, New Guinea.