P-Ng's "Sunny" Democratic

Future Takes A Tumble

From JOHN RYAN in Port Moresby

The ‘police actions’ on Bougainville and New Britain have cast a pall over the sunny democracy being so carefully nurtured in the New Guinea House of Assembly.

After five years of democracy, Parliament has discovered that it just cannot advise, cajole, demand or legislate to wipe out or decant New Guinea’s absolute tribalism and, in the case of Bougainville and New Britain, emotionalism.

Among the more constructive and serious of Parliament’s elected mem bers, the rot has set in.

The House’s prestige, privileges and immunities have taken a tumble re cently at the hands of Pangu’s Mr.

Albert Maori Kiki and the Post- Courier Press ban.

Piled on top of the trouble, was the realisation by elected members that nothing they could do in the House would solve or ameliorate the tribal-emotional-breakaway outbursts of Bougainville over the copper and land row, and the perhaps more serious campaign by the Tolais of Rabaul against the newly-proclaimed multi-racial Gazelle Local Govern ment Council,

Native police

After so much talk of Parliamen tary prestige and power in the emerging, rapidly-developing New Guinea, elected members had to sit back nervously while Executive Government at Konedobu and Can berra (the Australian administra tors) had to “solve” Bougainville and Rabaul with planeloads of native policemen.

More than 100 policemen camped near Rorovana to help the govern ment win its confrontation with native landowners who, according to latest reports, have now agreed to sell their 150 acres to Conzinc Rio Tinto for the first stage of the copper project.

Rorovana was a small scale affair, albeit the first real police action since 600 police were flown into Buka Island (northern end of Bougainville District) in 1962 to put down John Teosin’s Hahalis Welfare Society, In 1962, because of the reverberations, everybody thought

that the days of police actions were over.

But those people, convinced that New Guinea’s tribalism was on the way out, that the rule of law was entrenched and that Parliament, with technical-professional help from the Australians, was now running New Guinea, received the shock of their lives when 1,000 policemen were rushed to Rabaul.

One-third of New Guinea’s entire police force in one town at the one time!—the largest police action in New Guinea’s history, including the police in Rabaul for the 1961 Sepik- Tolai street-fighting, in which two rioters were shot dead.

Tolai tribalism

The Rabaul trouble (land, racism, local government and sheer Tolai tribalism) has been mounting for several years, but was ignited in May when the Gazelle (Native) Local Government Council asked the Administrator to proclaim the new council multi-racial; with three Euro peans, one Chinese and 34 Tolai members.

Local government began near Rabaul in 1952 but for years, several influential Tolai groups resisted— leading to the police confrontation at Navuneram in 1958. Recently, Gazelle Council and government men have tried to bring into council influence the resisting Tolais, with moderate success.

The Tolai Cocoa Project which grew out of Tolai demands for economic advances, received technical help from government men—but the private planters were indifferent, and some were guilty of working against the highly successful scheme.

In European business eyes, it was simply good business—and in the business world quite legitimate—to put the opposition out of the running.

In Tolai eyes, it was another proof of lordly Europeans trying to run everything.

When the multi-racial council was

proclaimed and Tolais realised that Europeans and Chinese would be elected, thousands marched in protest.

Nothing was achieved, and the Tolai Mataungan (Alert) Society began a concerted underground campaign, with the help of Mr. Oscar Tammur, M.H.A. (Kokopo), to defeat the Gazelle Council, The Tolais were afraid the Gazelle Council and its European-Chinese members would run the Tolai tribes —and also the cocoa project.

Mataungan began collecting tax— the $l2 which by law, was due only to the council. Battle was joined, and Mataungan less-sophisticated mem bers began making threats of violence against councillors and some Euro peans.

By escalation, it was soon open conflict and three Mataungan leaders were in court (proceeding) for stealing and/or having in their possession Gazelle Council keys to the council chambers and council vehicles.

Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Papua-New Guinea, Nigerian, Mr. Ikenna Nwokolo, defended them in court and spoke of “government proclamations legalis ing the council retrospectively”.

After years of simmering dis content among many Tolais, it was now open war—and the Local Government Ordinance and the Administrator’s manner of using it was coming further into the spot light.

Right thing?

Back in the Port Moresby Parliament, seven elected Members with ministerial rank were wonder ing if, when involved in the police action decision in the Administra tor’s Executive Council, they had done the right thing.

And in Sydney, an educated young Tolai involved in the Rabaul problem, Mr. John Kaputin, was telling an Australian audience that the Tolais had now begun to fight and that the Tolais would win.

Many of the older elected members, including the Speaker Mr. John Guise, were voicing increasing con cern at New Guinea’s tribalism and the threats of breakaways by Bougainville and New Britain—and trying to track down rumours that some leading Papuans were tired of being “dominated” in Parliament by New Guineans and were thinking of a break way Papua!

If all these cracks in sunny democracy weren’t enough, in Sep tember Mr. Joe Paul Langro an nounced he would resign his ministerial rank in the Assembly.

(Continued on p. 135)

In June, 1968, when the House met for the first time, Pangu declined any ministerial responsibility on the grounds that elected members could not serve two masters: their electorate, AND the government.

Mr. Langro, 30, representing the West Sepik electorate, told the gov ernment much the same thing in September in pulling out of the gov ernment benches. Amid strong re ports that he was joining Pangu, Mr.

Langro said that his job as Assistant Ministerial Member for Informa tion and Extension Services had been too demanding.

His electorate had seen little of him ... and the electorate was what would count when election time came round again in 1972.

But there were other factors in Mr.

Langro’s planned resignation—dismay ing reports that the Department of Information and Extension Services was to be dismantled, with its vari ous divisions (broadcasting, libraries, films) going into other departments.

Once Canberra approved these changes, Mr. Langro could have be come a Member without portfolio.

Most of the 15 Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members have had problems in working with, under standing their government depart ments and satisfactorily representing them in Parliament. Some govern ment decisions do not come easily ... and many of them come with out the support or approval of elected members with ministerial rank.

There have been many divisions of loyalties, and it’s quite clear that few Ministerial Members yet appreci ate the Westminster tradition of Ministers submerging their electorate or personal feelings in the interests of a government decision.

Mr. Langro’s loss is the first crack in the cornerstone of Westminster in Papua-New Guinea. More are ex pected—another very soon, but for different reasons. The Ministerial Member concerned is beset by the illness of a member of his family, and may be forced out of the gov ernment ranks.

Chairman of the recently appointed Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional and Political Develop ment, Mr. Paulus Arek now faces a new task—the patching up of the Ministerial system as Westminster and Australia prefers it, a “marriage” of New Guinea and Westminster, or a workable alternative . . . and this may be the Presidential federalism now being promoted so strongly by Speaker, Mr. John Guise.