Lesson For

Is Darwin A Lesson For New Guinea?

Prom our Canberra Correspondent* It’s all quiet in Canberra a present, so this is a good time U review a little matter which is o> great importance to the people a Papua-New Guinea—the fight bein? waged by Australia’s Northern Ter ritory for a greater say in its om affairs.

THOSE New Guinea people wk might already have a generf idea of the long battle that has bees going on in Australia’s north, hav probably realised by now that it’s ? case of, “There, but for the love f Allah, go I!”

For the Darwin fight is centrs around the Legislative Council, an the man who has been most involvd in it is the Minister for Territorio Mr. Paul Hasluck. The trouble i Darwin could well be a pointer I possible developments in Pc Moresby.

The fight which has been going 0 for more political power for tl people of the NT is an example i the resentment of remote control f a paternalistic Government.

As one member of the NT Lego Mr. R. C. Ward, put it recently: 50 years of Canberra control ( the NT), the Government has n once voluntarily conceded a sfc forward to democratic control.” I Here is the outline of events the fight between Darwin and Ca berra: NT v. Canberra In April, 1958, six elected mej; bers of the NT Legco resigned] protest against the “off-hande: manner in which Territories Minisj< Hasluck had treated the Count* suggestion for political reform. I After they were re-elected at by-election, Mr. Hasluck invited Council to Canberra for a two-® conference.

The Council urged him to cc sider recommendations put forwfc by its select committee on refon It asked for a Senator to repress the NT; full voting rights in 1 House of Representatives for 1 member for the NT; establishing of a NT Executive Council coj prising three official and three elect: members of the Legco; some fo. of limited autonomy on finance

;rs; and five-yearly reviews of itutional progress. e representative of the NT can o more than a voice on Terri affairs in Canberra. :e the member for the Austra- Capital Territory he has no except on motions for the dis ance of Territory ordinances, s Minister’s reply was pretty ll —he promised that the Legco •sals would be considered ” and that the plan for a NT or would be reviewed when the -nment received the report of oint Parliamentary Committee onstitutional Review. : report has been gathering in pigeon holes almost ever because the Government felt ts proposals were too radical. • Minister pointed out that a enator would create difficulties ic evenly-balanced Chambers :ed so often by proportional sntation voting. ther, that if a vote were given s member for the NT in the of Representatives the NT iv —representing only relatively oters—could have the power fide the fate of the Govern- Hasluck’s answers clearly did isfy the Council. As he stepped a plane at Darwin a month MLC’s Ward and H. Brennan writs on both him and the Administrator, Mr. J. C. . The writs sought to compel 0 call the Council into session. y in 1959, there was a new )ment.

Hasluck introduced bills appeared to go part of the Dward meeting the Council’s by providing for a non majority in the Legco; 1 voting rights (on Territory ) for the NT member in the of Representatives; and an 'strator’s Council comprising ministrator, two official mem id three non-official members.

Legco criticised the conces is “inadequate” and several members threatened “direct Pest-Exterminators 1960, quickening interest in co was shown by 20 nomina )r the six vacant seats. Five “rebels” were returned, the w member being one of the omen who had nominated, yn Berlowitz. opriately enough, Mrs. Berio

witz was in partnership with her husband as a pest exterminator.

The Legco continued on its stormy way. At one session “Tiger”

Brennan denounced the Government for seeking to run the Legco, “not on a shoe-string but on the smell of an oily rag”. Then came the Council’s big show-down.

It passed two bills of considerable local moment, which were subse quently vetoed in Canberra.

One licensed betting shops in the Territory; the other gave magistrates power to impose fines in offences in volving the supply of liquor to aborigines- Resigned in Protest Mr. Ward and another member, Mr. L. H. Purkiss, resigned in pro test when the bills were vetoed and when Mr. Hasluck rejected bills a second time, on the ground that they were against the public interest, the Council challenged him by deferring for six months two measures de signed to raise money by rates and stamp duties.

Elected members spoke of Mr.

Hasluck’s “contempt” and said that the sooner they had a Boston Tea Party the better.

Late last year, Mr. Hasluck again called five members of the Council to Canberra for talks with himself and the Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick.

The two Ministers in a joint state ment commented on the “quite strong views” submitted by the depu tation and promised to submit the case to the Government.

But the delegation claimed that it was “not quite happy” with the Government attitude. It repeated its demands for better Parliamentary representation and also sought greater freedom from disallowance of ordinances, particularly those dealing with local matters; consulta tion before disallowance; increasing and continuous self-government; and greater participation by Legco mem bers in the executive functions of Government.

Federal elections and the Christ mas recess have temporarily put the problems of the Northern Territory in the background. They are certain to be raised again, even more vigor ously, this year.

The people of the NT are not likely to be slow in seeking to use the finely-balanced Twentyfourth Parliament to their own advantage.