sane, political gradualism

Assembly says New Guinea needs sane, political gradualism

From a Port Moresby correspondent The P-NG Select Committee on Constitutional Develop ment presented its final report to the House in June, in an at mosphere of anti-climax. Most people had expected some fairly radical proposals, but what resulted was a conservative, gradual step, which at the same time had just enough adventure in it to keep the more vocal critics in check.

THUS the committee’s proposals will help to put a welcome and reasonable restraint on the political light-headedness that has developed in the territory in recent months — mainly because of the elections due early next year.

It’s all well and good to have political progress, but you don’t progress fast by putting the cart be fore the horse, and to hear some of the urban elite these days one would think that independence will be here tomorrow. You have to follow steps to reach self-government and the steps offered by the select committee’s final report are on a firmer founda tion than those of the Home Rule exponents who want pie in the sky in the morning.

No apologies

The select committee made no apologies for taking the middling view. After having taken a great deal of evidence throughout the territory— and that means in the bush as well as in the towns —it pointed out that “one large sector of the community was against any change and wanted the present position continued, at least until 1972” (when the next House will finish).

There was “also a small group which put forward far-reaching recommendations amounting to limited self-government” (a reference to the Home Rule group). But, said the report, “the majority maintained an intermediate position. They desired a further step forward so that mem bers of the House could participate more in the government”.

And it is a step and not a leap forward that the committee proposes.

It supports a ministerial system following the 1968 elections.

It suggests an Administrator’s Executive Council, to consist of the Administrator, three official members of the Assembly, seven ministers, and one additional member of the As sembly appointed at the discretion

of the Administrator should he decide that the member could be of special assistance.

The members of the council are to be nominated by the Administrator and to hold office during the pleasure of the Minister for Territories.

The executive Council would be the principal instrument of policy in the territory and the seven ministers would be responsible, with the per manent departmental heads, for departmental policy, and represent their departments in the Assembly.

For departments not represented by a minister, assistant ministers (the number is unspecified) would be ap pointed from the House to work with departmental heads.

Budget committee

The new proposals also include appointment of a budget committee of five to provide an additional link between the House and the Admini stration in budgetary matters; it would have no executive authority but be able to make recommenda tions. The Executive Council would have final responsibility of advising the administrator on budget policy and planning.

The ministers are to be selected “without racial qualification”. If the minister and a departmental head dis agreed on policy the matter would be referred to the Administrator for decision.

The report added, “It is realised that at this stage of the territory’s development, conditions could alter considerably over the next four years.

Therefore the framework of any proposals adopted now should make allowance for changing circumstances.

The capability of a minister could develop to the extent that he is able to assume sole ministerial respon sibility for the department”.

Powers and duties of ministers would be reviewed by the House after two years. The responsibility of

nominating ministers and assista] ministers would be shared by the A sembly and the Administrator.

The House would also be involve in the removal of a minister or £ assistant minister.

No decisions now

In its conclusion, the commits stressed that it did not think th a decision on the system of goven ment best suited to the territoi should be made now, so it had n stricted its recommendations to tho; affecting the 1968 Assembly. It pr< posed that a further constitution committee be appointed after tl elections, as constitutional develo] ment “was a continuing process”.

The select committee was aj pointed in May, 1965, to develo for consideration of the House, “a s< of proposals to serve as a guide fc future constitutional development i the territory”.

Two interim reports were pn sented before the final report in Jun —the first in November, 1965, whic was of little importance, and th second in August, 1966, whic recommended that the House size i 1968 be enlarged from the preser 64 to 94 —with 69 open electorate! 15 special “regional” electorates an 10 officials.

These earlier recommendation have been followed by the Australia] Parliament, which virtually is certai] also to follow the recommendation of this final report.

Under chairman John Guise, th committee has comprised Mr. W. W Watkins (deputy chairman), an< Messrs. Tei Abal, Dirona Abe Nicholas Brokam, lan Downs, Edri< Eupu, Sinake Giregire, L. W Johnson, Wegra Kenu, Paul Lapun J. K. McCarthy, Dr, R. F. Scragg

Mr. John Guise, chairman of the Sele[?] Committee on Constitutional Development[?]

•ita Simogen, and John Stuntz. One riginal member, Mr. Bill Bloom eld, died last year and was replaced y Edric Eupu.

The debate in the House on the ommittee’s report was short almost 1 the point of embarrassment. Mr. an Downs complained that “during ae short space of taking a trunk ne call outside the House” he found ae debate was over and the com littee’s report accepted without im having had a say. Mr. Downs ius had to give his opinions during ae adjournment, as did Mr. Don iarrett.

Attack on Canberra

Mr. Barrett’s comments amounted > an attack on Canberra, and they aren’t very enlightening as far as le report was concerned. Mr. Downs lid that in the report the people of le territory had got what they asked ir. And that seemed to be that, xcept that the leader of the louse, Assistant Administrator Frank lenderson, said at another stage that le terms “minister” and “assistant linister” might cause misunderstand igs during the days “of our progress iwards self-government”, as the term linister would have only one mean ig outside the territory.

The implication was that they ouldn’t be really and truly ministers; 2t the committee obviously had in find that the people selected as finisters should take over real athority just as soon as it could 2 given to them.

There was an echo of the decisions f the second interim report when the louse debated an electoral bill which ill make it necessary for a candidate > have lived in the territory for at :ast five years before nominating.

"Served well"

In its original form this bill meant lat Mr. Toni Voutas, the new lember for Kaindi, would not get le opportunity to stand in the next lections. But the House passed an mendment which specifically ex ludes sitting members. As Mr. L. /. Johnson pointed out, last year the eople of Kaindi had elected Voutas y a substantial majority and “he had jrved his electorate well”, so his lectors were entitled to have the pportunity of saying whether they ere still confident in him.

No doubt there were some mem ers of the House who would have een glad enough to see the amend lent lost. After a wobbly start Toni r outas has been making his mark i the House and now some consider im to be a threat to their leadership.