Not Much Science, But

Ng's Message Was Clear

By Stuart Inder

Any attempt to appraise the results of the Budget session of New Guinea’s House of Assembly from the standpoint of whether it was the Government or the elected members who were defeated, seems to me to be the way to miss the vital message.

AS an exercise in parliamentary one-upmanship, the September session did little for the political reputations of members on any side of that House of many mansions.

But then, the Assembly as a body has never been strong on political science.

The theme of the session was plain.

It was a protest against too much Canberra control of New Guinea affairs.

The entire session had the anti- Canberra bias; there was not a real issue raised throughout the nine sitting days that did not have some where in it the Canberra blight.

The attacks on the Budget which highlighted the session were not a protest at how the territory’s $l2O million should be spent so much as a demand for Canberra generally to ease up on the reins.

Mr. Barnes' Comment

Even an especially blunt personal attack by Mr. Don Barrett (West Gazelle) on the secretary of the Department of Territories, Mr. G.

Warwick Smith, was precipitated more by the anti-Canberra at mosphere than by the particular sin of omission of which Mr. Smith was accused.

When the smoke cleared the Administration indicated it had got the message and that it would try to bring elected members into the kitchen when the next Budget is being prepared. Visiting Port Moresby later, the Minister for Territories, Mr. C. E. Barnes, referring to the Budget protest as “a reflection of healthy attitudes”, assured territorians that Canberra didn’t really intend to pre-cook all the Assembly’s victuals.

But the proof will be in the eating.

A palatable receipe may well be in the hands of the Administrator-elect, Mr David Hay, who takes over from Sir Donald Cleland in January.

Nobody knows for sure just how much of the territory’s growing impatience with Canberra has been due to Sir Donald’s handling at the Moresby end.

In September, when the new man bravely made a private tour of the territory, some territorians thought they saw the man who might assuage both the territory’s impatience for political progress and Canberra’s recent predilection for the Hasluck days of unhurried “uniform develop ment”.

Trouble Came Early

The first sign of trouble at the Budget session came out of a blue sky as the Treasurer, Mr. A. P. J Newman, was blithely answering members’ questions on the effects o] a bill designed to tax New Guinean: who earn a minimum yearly income of 5416, or $8 weekly (P/M, Sept.

P- 9).

Bringing up the rear end of th< questioners came Mr. Don Barrett who coolly explained to a puzzle* Speaker H. L. R. Niall that h didn’t want to ask a question, bu merely to move that “this bill b adjourned and made an order o the day for the first sitting of th next meeting of this House”.

Before the Government couL ponder this cheeky move, a divisio had been forced, with a 45-15 resu] for Mr. Barrett, and the tax bill wi now have to be approved at th November session if it is not to b lost completely.

Mr. lan Downs (Highlands) ne? day launched the Budget debate wit a strong attack on the expansion c the Public Service, and on the fa< that the Administrator’s Coimcil, c which he is a member, received tl Budget “in printed form a few before it was seen in the House and thus could not advise on i preparation.

“There is a very importai

principle here which I think has to be put to the test before this debate is over,” said Mr. Downs, “I believe we have to decide whether we are mere rubber stamps for propositions in which we are not consulted or whether we are here to do the job the best way we can for the terri tory.”

Downs’ attack set the pattern for the remainder of the session.

It was now common knowledge that the elected members were out to embarrass the Administration. On the floor of the House criticism grew, especially on the issue of Public Service recruitment. Why shouldn’t most clerks be New Guineans, the Government was asked?

It was thus surprising that the Gov ernment permitted Mr. Keith Tetley (Gulf) to get through the House, on a vote of 39-16, what amounted to a censure motion on Canberra for not allowing the House a greater say in the Budget. Although the Government leader, Mr. Frank Henderson, had an inkling that some thing was afoot and moved the adjournment, he was defeated on a point of order by Mr. Don Barrett, who knows his standing orders.

Members Aroused

When the debate resumed a day later after this sorry show, the Gov ernment members were finally aroused. Mr. Newman fiercely asserted that members of the Ad ministrator’s Council had indeed on two occasions during the year been invited to advise on the Budget.

This direct attack resulted in violent warfare, with Mr. Newman being called “despicable” by Mr Downs, and being “offered” a right hook, presumably to the jaw, by the fiery Sepik trader John Pasquarelli.

But the exchange was notable more for its lack of real information and the House was left little the wiser as to whether the Administrator’s Council does or does not have an opportunity to advise on the Budget.

Members of the council are under oath not to reveal what goes on there, A clue as to one root of the trouble was the comment by Mr.

Downs during the exchange that if Mr. Newman would like to see the Administrator’s Council play a real >art in the preparation of the Budget, he should make representations to the Administrator.

Sir Donald Cleland doesn’t suffer gladly the Administrator’s Council.

It is an advisory body whose advice he doesn t want, and its members have never been left in any doubt of

Its seven elected members have not been encouraged to advise on the Budget.

But could the elected members of it have altered this situation by standing up to the Administrator for the way he runs it? It’s an interesting point which requires light.

As the debate continued, elected members indicated that in the com mittee stages they would seek to re duce some items of expenditure as a protest against Canberra control. Mr.

Downs said specifically he would move that $50,000 be knocked off the Public Service recruiting figure.

But when the time came it was Mr. John Guise (Milne Bay) and not lan Downs who moved that the item be reduced, and no other member sought any other reductions.

The division on Guise’s motion was tense, with a 28-26 decision for the elected members. One more vote for the Government and it would have won, for Government member Mr.

I. K. McCarthy was in the chair, with a casting vote.

Direction From Canberra

It was left finally for Mr. Newman to admit that the $50,000 reduction could be used elsewhere, perhaps in training local public servants as Mr.

Guise had suggested, but only if Canberra so directed. Everything depended on Canberra, which was just what the members had been com plaining about for nine days.

During the entire exercise the main point of public speculation was on the degree of political organisation behind the various moves.

Organisation varied. As usual it was better on the Government

benches than among the unwieldy elected group, which still has no leaders, and which works from crisis to crisis.

The original move by Mr. Barrett was made on his own initiative. Mr.

Tetley also acted on his own, with Messrs. Downs and John Stuntz (East Papua) helping to keep his plan from the knowledge of the Speaker and the official members. Mr. Tetley himself as usual did little lobbying for support, and his convincing win was due to the fact that the Government was off guard, and most elected members were unaware of the significance of his motion.

Showdown

It was a different story when the showdown came with Guise’s key challenge. Elected members had held no meetings and the organisation on that side involved lobbying of in dividual members. But the Govern ment did more lobbying, working particularly on the Under-Secretaries and gaining their full support.

The important Highlands vote was swung for the Government after some hard work by Western District Com missioner Tom Ellis, which probably hurt lan Downs. It was significant that the Government had more New Guineans voting for it than had the elected whites.

Both sides later saw missed oppor tunities—men they think would have given their vote—but this was merely the parliamentary one-upmanship at work, and in the present dis organised state of the House it is of little importance against the simple fact that elected members “did the job the best way they could”