Embarrassing Problems Of NG's Half-Way House

NG's Half-Way House

From a Port Moresby Correspondent

The most interesting aspect of the recent meeting of the Papua-New Guinea house of Assembly was the bombshell dropped by Mr. Graham Gilmore, member for South Mark ham, when he took it upon himself to outline what he thought should be the future trend of political development in the Terri tory. It was interesting because of what Mr. Gilmore said; interesting because of the reaction of other members; but most interesting of all because of the House’s inability to deal effec tively with it.

IT has been said many times that Papua-New Guinea is not yet ready for political parties, and especially not ready for party govern ment. This may well be so, but it also poses the question as to whether or not the present form of govern ment in P-NG should not have been held up until such time as the people themselves have a better idea of where their allegiances lie.

The House consists of a minority of 10 official members who are— or who act as though they are —the government in power. The other 54 members, less the Speaker, are there fore placed in the position of being the opposition.

Of course they are not. They con duct their parliamentary life as 53 separate entities, playing a continuing game of political musical chairs. As individuals they sometimes support the government; sometimes they support another unofficial member.

Within half an hour, when some other question comes up, they all change places and are supporting someone else.

In theory this is excellent—true political democracy. In practice it leads to the House’s time being taken up with private member’s bills fre quently so unworkable that some where along the line they are sure to get nipped in the bud. It also allows bombshells of the Gilmore variety—although in many instances this is no bad thing.

Watching the present P-NG House of Assembly at work is to understand perfectly how, in the interests of some discipline, parliamentary politi cal parties developed.

In order to place his Matter of Public Importance before the House, Mr. Gilmore needed the support of three other members—which he got.

His purpose was to bring before the people of Papua and New Guinea the fact that the present administra tive union of the two territories— Papua an Australian territory and New Guinea a United Nations trusteeship territory—was merely a union of convenience.

But some people, he said, were seeking to make the union permanent in an “unholy and quite illegal marriage—a marriage that would be to the detriment of both territories and would produce bastard mutations that would grow and grow more prolific and which would in time end in disaster”.

Mr. Gilmore appeared to think that one of the matchmakers at this

unholy wedding was the chairman of the Select Committee on Con stitutional Development, John Guise, who has called for ideas for a new name for the territory that will cover Papua and New Guinea, a national flag and a national anthem.

Mr. Gilmore accused Mr. Guise of deliberately seeking to implant in the minds of the New Guineans the thought that there was only one political future available to them— political unity with Papua and sovereign independence for that union.

Having made it clear that New Guinea need not join Papua, he then went on to outline how he hoped

that they would do just that— through a series of plebiscites.

The first would be held in New Guinea and through it New Guineans would choose whether they would (a) be a sovereign independent state; or (b) join in free association with an independent state; or (c) be integrated with an independent state.

The next step, said Mr, Gilmore, would be to hold a plebiscite in Papua, where the people would be asked to choose whether or not they would surrender their present Aus tralian citizenship in favour of union with New Guinea “along the path the New Guinea people had already chosen”.

In the event of their electing to join New Guinea, it would then be necessary to hold a third plebiscite in New Guinea, this time to decide whether New Guineans were willing to have Papua as a political partner.

About the time that the first plebiscite was being held in New Guinea, that territory would enter into a series of negotiations with Australia in respect of future rela tions.

Mr. Gilmore felt that if New Guinea made its first act of self determination at once it would dispel much of the feeling of political in security that at present was rife in the territory. He intimated during his long speech that he intended to introduce a bill that would call for this. (He did not in fact do this).

Mixed Reception

Mr. Gilmore’s one-man attempt to solve the combined territory’s politi cal difficulties got a mixed reception.

Some members of the Select Com mittee on Constitutional Develop ment (it was set up last May) felt slighted, or said that they were. They took the view that Mr. Gilmore was trying to usurp the powers that had been specifically given to them.

Nonetheless, within a couple of days the chairman of the committee was able to present an interim report on its deliberations to the House— something that had not been ex pected at that meeting. The report said virtually nothing but it presum ably proved something to someone.

Some of Mr. Gilmore’s European colleagues went to some pains to paint him as a sort of New Guinea lan Smith, cooking up a sneaky plan for a unilateral declaration of independence behind closed doors.

He was also accused of having had secret meetings with the last UN visiting mission to NG.

Dr. John Gunther, Assistant Administrator (Services), made one

of his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger speeches; and many of Mr. Gilmore’s native colleagues were obviously confused by the whole thing, and said so. Some, of course—and this is fairly frequent in the House— appeared to both support him and oppose him in the same speech.

It was left for New Guinean Paul Lapun (Bougainville) to bring the whole thing down to ground level.

“Can you”, he asked, “put one flag on two houses? This is what my people ask me ... I tell you it is hard work to get the combination of these two countries”.

He went on to say that not only was it difficult to get Papua and New Guinea together but it was

almost impossible to discover what Manus Islanders (for example) thought, or Chimbus or a dozen other people, on any question, Mr. Lapun spoke nothing but the truth. So did Mr. Gilmore, in parts, Although some of what he said in dicated woolly thinking he was right about one thing: the present half-way stage of P-NG politics is frustrating for everyone.

Although the eggs have been scrambled, there is still nothing to bite at. To wonder whether the eggs should have been scrambled at all now, however, comes within the realms of the purely academic, • For Tolala's comment, see p. 53.