Port Moresby, 13 December 1969

Confidential

Report of the seventh meeting of the House of Assembly¹

Attached herewith is the report of the seventh meeting of the House of Assembly.'

Attachment

[matter omitted]²

Debate on Bills

Most of the Bills were not controversial and attracted little debate. However, the Land (Underdeveloped Freehold) Bill 1969,³ was debated at some length, and this Bill seems to have re-activated considerable discussion both inside and outside the House, on the topic of expropriation. In the debate, Lussick proposed a fund to take over plantations upon independence, and a method of phasing in local management. Since the House adjourned, Voutas has also advocated a somewhat similar fund and a management training scheme. This legislation was, no doubt, partly responsible for prompting Lussick's subsequent motion calling on the Australian Government to clarify its position on the status of expatriate property at independence.

The introduction of the P.N.G. Development Bank (Amendment) Bill 1969,⁴ was the occasion for an attack by several members of the alleged Government practice of introducing important legislation without notice in the dying stages of meetings. The Department of External Territories was blamed on this occasion, and the fact that the Secretary of the Department was in Port Moresby for a Development Bank meeting at the time, seemed to have added zest to the attack. Mr. Neville was the main speaker and he warned that the House would not pass legislation at such short notice in the future.

Debate on motions

The most important motions were:

S. Rowton Simpson's Report On Land⁵

The debate following the tabling of this report and prior to the motion to take note of it, brought out the fact that most members were in general agreement with Mr. Simpson, and that reservations were held only on a number of relatively minor points e.g. that referring to auctioning of blocks. The report was welcomed by the House, and members will be looking for land policy changes resulting from the report's recommendations.

[matter omitted]

Weeden Report On Education⁶

In debating the motion to take note of this report, all speakers spoke in favour of the Committee's findings, with the exception of Wesani Iwoksim⁷ who felt that Mission teachers' pay was a Mission responsibility. However, most speakers addressed themselves only to the question of equal pay for Mission teachers, and did not display an understanding of the many wide-ranging proposals in .the report.

[matter omitted]

Mr. Oala Rarua's Motion On An Investigation Into A Possible National Pension Scheme⁸

All speakers supported this motion. One point made was that without adequate pension provisions, the dissatisfaction of many employees could easily be exploited by radicals looking for grievances as a means of increasing industrial unrest.

Motion To Take Note Of White Paper On Urban Local Government⁹

This motion was debated on 12th, 20th and 21st November. During the debate on the motion that the House take note of the paper, Mr. Chatterton moved his amendment that the House 'support the early introduction of urban local government but considers that the date of introduction in each urban centre should take into consideration the recommendation of the Consultative Committee, provided that the date is not later than 1st January, 1971'. The motion as amended was carried on 21st November.

There were eleven speakers to the motion and amendment. Predictably, Tammur spoke against the introduction of Local Government as it would cause further unrest in Rabaul, and because services were already being provided. Additionally, many town dwellers would not be able to afford the rates. Kaibelt Diria supported Urban Local Government and felt that urban taxes might discourage the urban drift. He blamed Tammur for causing the unrest in the Gazelle Peninsula. Ebia Olewale supported the concept of Urban Local Government as a political education tool and as a possible counter to urban drift. He felt that the Administration was going ahead too fast with the establishment of Urban Councils and should spend more time on informing illiterate town dwellers of what was proposed.

Other speakers included Galloway and Ellis, who delivered explanatory speeches to inform members of what was involved in the Urban Local Government proposals. Chatterton spoke in support of the concept but considered that further time was needed to plan and establish a well developed ward system, and to determine an appropriate law and order role for the Urban Councils.

Voutas supported Chatterton and suggested that additional powers should be given to Urban Councils.

For the most part, members did not show much interest in the debate, mainly because the matter concerned four urban areas. The only interest of rural members was in the effect that Urban Councils might have on urban drift and rural council revenue.

The motion as amended was carried on the voices on Friday 21st November. At that stage members were more interested in hastening the adjournment until February, rather than continuing to debate a subject in which many members had little interest.

Gazelle Commission Of Enquiry¹⁰

Prior to delivering the prepared text on this topic, the Senior Official Member¹¹ moved an amendment to the motion that the House take note of the paper by adding–'and endorses the Administration's proposals to support the lawful activities of the Council and to offer the opportunity for consultation with all interested groups in the Gazelle Peninsula.'

Voutas sounded out the Senior Official Member as to whether a further amendment to be moved by Lapun would be acceptable to the Administration. The amendment read –'and further considers that if the interested groups show that they want a referendum on whether there should be a multi-racial council in the Gazelle Peninsula now, or whether such multi-racial council should be deferred until the people indicate at some future date that they desire it, such a referendum should be taken as soon as possible amongst the Tolai and non-Tolai natives of the area of the present Council, and strictly on the basis of a secret ballot and not otherwise.'

Voutas was later informed that the motion was not acceptable and he did not press it.

The debate attracted a considerable amount of interest and there were more than twenty speakers including two official members and nine speakers from the New Guinea Islands including the three Tolai members.

Tammur was strongly critical of the membership of the Commission, the manner in which it operated and the report generally. He also said that the Council was not validly constituted. Toliman criticised Tammur's role in the unrest and stated that the majority of Tolais wanted a multi-racial council. Titimur who had previously sided with the Mataungan Association strongly criticised Tammur and fully supported the Council.

Most members supported the motion although Lapun and Lus were inclined to support Tammur's assessment of the Commission. The majority of members wanted peace restored in the Gazelle Peninsula as quickly as possible, and suggestions to achieve this aim included a more positive approach to land problems; provision of National Institutions, and increased government spending in the Gazelle; further discussions aimed at reaching a compromise between the parties involved in the dispute; a referendum and control of unscrupulous political misfits.

The motion was carried without one dissentient voice.

Mr. Lapun's Motion On Direct Leasing Of Land¹²

All speakers supported this motion, and there seemed to be agreement amongst members that some provision for direct leasing of land would be necessary to stimulate development, and to enable landholders to have some say in the type of development that occurs in their home areas. The hope that such a move would lead to partnerships between native landowners and expatriate entrepreneurs was also expressed. Some indigenous members stated that there was underlying resentment amongst people who had sold their land for what are now regarded as worthless trade goods, and they advocated leasing to enable owners to maintain a continuing interest in their land, and to ensure children were not deprived of their birthright.

[matter omitted]

General Comments

Pangu Pati

With the addition of Mr. Langro to Pangu ranks, the Party now has the open support of nine members in the House. Pangu representatives were generally restrained in debate, and there were not the clashes that occurred in the last meeting, when Mr. Kiki's statement on Ministerial Members was an issue.¹³

The Speaker

The Speaker was the subject of one or two minor criticisms during the meeting. On the second day he was asked in a question without notice to relax rules preventing members from working at their desks before formal sessions commenced. The Speaker pointed out that he was merely enforcing a ruling made by the former Speaker and supported by the House Committee. Subsequently the ruling was relaxed to enable members to work at their desks while the House was not formally meeting. A number of members were also critical of the short infrequent periods allotted to adjournment debate, and the Senior Official Member was questioned on this. He replied that this was a matter within the control of the House. Less time than usual was allotted to adjournment debates during the meeting and this was keenly felt, as many members speak only during this period and they welcome this opportunity to outline electorate problems.

The Speaker planned for the House to adjourn from Thursday, 20th November, even if a late sitting was involved on that day. Many members made bookings to return to their electorates on Friday, 21st, although no formal announcement was made. Attendance on 21st was not large and the House finally adjourned through lack of a quorum early on the afternoon of Friday 21st November.

A number of European elected members have been privately critical of the Speaker's alleged Pangu affiliations; his influence on the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Development, and his preference for a Presidential System. These members have not hesitated to communicate their attitude to the Speaker to indigenous elected members.

Independent Group

Mr. Lussick was elected Chairman of Committees on the strength of the Group's vote. Initially the Group had Mr. Casey as nominee but his suitability was questioned, as Casey had played such a minor role in the House to date. No European member has contributed less than Casey to debate. In a subsequent pre-selection ballot, Lussick defeated Casey and Dutton (by 24 votes to 21 and 9 respectively). The vote for Casey is believed to be more an anti-Lussick gesture than an indication of a Casey following. Leahy and Chatterton declined nomination.

During the meeting, there was considerable discussion and lobbying on a proposal that the bulk of the Independent Group form themselves into a Party. Mr. Ralph Hunt, President of the N.S.W. Country Party visited Port Moresby at the invitation of the Group. He had talks with Group members on formation and organisation of a Party. A group of M.H.A's has since been formed to continue planning. Leahy, Neville, Lussick and Buchanan are included. The indigenous M.H.A's include Lokoloko, Giregire, Tei Abal and Oala Oala Rarua.

If the proposed Party develops, it will be probably subject to a number of shake-outs in terms of both personalities and platform, before stabilising into a reasonably coherent organisation. It is understood that Pangu Pati welcomes the move as it will enable Pangu attacks to be more specifically directed, particularly if most Ministerial Members belong to the new Party.

The formation of the Party probably arises to some extent from concern of European members at the type of radical statements recently made by Kaputin, and in the past by Maori Kiki and Pangu supporters generally. The majority of indigenous members appear to share the concern of the European members and will probably join the Party with alacrity, although a number such as Arek, Tammur and Olewale, etc., may prefer to remain uncommitted.

Ministerial And Assistant Ministerial Members

The Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members continued to answer questions and engage in debate with confidence. The general atmosphere of this meeting was quite relaxed, and this was an indication that most members of the House were feeling more at ease in their roles.

Mr. Toliman performed well in a number of debates–particularly those concerning the Gazelle Inquiry, High School Boarding Fees, and the Weeden Report. He is an imposing figure and his addresses in pidgin are very effective.

Mr. Oala Rarua indicated that he had some reservations regarding the efficacy of existing government policy, when speaking in the indigenous participation debate.¹⁴ He felt that the Development Bank and the Business Advisory Service were not achieving their aims, and that we needed to develop methods of operation better suited to the Territory. His speech did not offer much in the way of solutions to the question of increasing indigenous participation, but it highlighted the fact that a fair number of people are not satisfied with the rate of growth of indigenous participation, and they are looking to the Administration to find the answer.

Mr. Oala Rarua has shown other signs of dissatisfaction. Before the November meeting he expressed the view that important documents, such as the Weeden Report and Report of the Gazelle Commission, were not being referred to holders of Ministerial Office in sufficient time for them to study such reports and decide whether or not to support them.

Interpretation

The standard of interpretation remained quite poor. It would appear that no major improvement in interpretation can be expected, and that from the viewpoint of members, the only way to have a satisfactory meeting is to utilize pidgin to the utmost.

It is unfortunate that major statements such as the statement on the Gazelle Commission of Inquiry were not made in pidgin, although a written pidgin translation was provided, as so much was lost in the translation. Given this situation, it is highly likely that many members gain a distorted and inadequate impression of proceedings at meetings, and that any recounting of events given back in their electorates would also be inaccurate and confusing.

This problem may have implications in terms of general political education. It seems that in some cases a credibility gap must develop–either between members and their electorate, or the Administration and the electorate (where radio and press reports of proceedings are discounted because of conflict with local members' versions).

Other Matters

The Public Works Committee flexed its muscles during the meeting, when the Chairman, Mr. Neville, advised the House that the Committee would not approve any further roadwork items until it was provided with information on standards and costs of all Administration roadwork over the past three years. This action was brought about by the Committee's concern at considerable variations in the costs per square foot for various projects–variations which the Committee could not understand unless they implied standards were also varying.

Arek's impartiality as Chairman of the Constitutional Committee was questioned during the meeting by Counsel. Mr.Tei Abal asked Arek in a question without notice whether he was a member or supporter of the Pangu Pati, and whether he favoured a Presidential System for the Territory. The question arose from a report in the 'Canberra Times'. In his reply Arek said that he was independent and not affiliated with Pangu. He did not make any comment on his attitude to a Presidential System. Members of the Committee will continue to watch him carefully during future Committee meetings.

[NAA: A452, 1968/3178]

1 The House met between 10 and 21 November.

2 Matter omitted is a list of bills passed and adjourned.

3 The bill was described by Groves as one that 'introduces no new principles or new policy. It is simply designed to make a number of minor drafting amendments and to tidy up the principal Ordinance' (House of Assembly debates, 21 August 1969, NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, p. 1484).

4 The bill gave the Bank the power to 'buy land and to sell it or to lease it to people who wish to develop the land'. Curtis said that 'It is because of the need for development of available land in the Gazelle Peninsula ... that I will be asking the forbearance of the House in passing this Bill through all stages, without its having been circulated for the usual period beforehand' (ibid., 20 November 1969, pp. 2127–8).

5 In June 1969, the Administration had recruited British land tenure expert, Rowton Simpson, to produce a report on the Territory's problems in this regard. The report was detailed and made numerous recommendations including that 'a system of auction of building blocks be considered' (see statement by Grove, House of Assembly debates, 26 August 1969, NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, p. 1561–2).

6 The report was produced by an advisory committee established by Barnes in February. It recommended various measures intended to create a more integrated education system in the Territory (see This week in the House, no. 16, 21 November 1969, NAA: Al838, 936/4/11/1).

7 MHA, Upper Sepik open electorate.

8 Oala-Rarua put that the House request the Administration to 'examine the practicablity' of such a scheme and table its findings in June 1970 (House of Assembly debates, 12 November 1969, NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, p. 1919).

9 The paper was introduced by Seale and dealt with the introduction of urban local government (ibid., 5 September 1969, p. 1731 ).

10 See editorial note 'Gazelle Peninsula: Government responses to the Connolly Commission, the Mataungan court case and the land issue'.

11 L. W. Johnson.

12 Lapun called for a report by the Administration into the pros and cons of direct leasing by holders of native land title and of limitations on the Administration's acquisition of land for leasing (This week in the House, no. 16, p. 6).

13 See footnote 5, Document 321.

14 Following the request of the House in September 1968 for a report by the Administration on methods of increasing indigenous participation in economic development (see footnote 6, Document 228), Newman made a lengthy statement to the House on 27 June 1969 (House of Assembly debates, NLA: Nq 328.952 PAP, pp. 1413–16). Oala-Rarua's response was, inter alia, that the 'various organizations that are really trying their best to bring economic development ... may be failures–nevertheless they are trying'–yet he added that 'It is all very well for us to put down on paper that we are trying to achieve maximum participation of indigenous people, but ... I fail to see how this can be done in the light of present developments ... Those who are in charge of implementing policy need to take heed of the advice of Papuans and New Guineans as to how this local participation should come about' (ibid., 11 November 1969, p. 1897).