Footnotes

THE way in which “self-government” has become a dirty word in Niugini has been entertainingly illus trated by the case of a Niuginian who felt so strongly on the subject that he smashed his radio when it uttered the hated word. He bought another one, but it too started to talk about self-government and was similarly bashed to pieces. When he acquired his third radio, someone was able to persuade him that it would be simpler and cheaper just to switch it off when it uttered the 14-letter word.

“Home Rule,” oddly enough, has not acquired this stigma, though no one seems very clear as to what the difference is.

Surprisingly, few people seem to realise how close we have in fact got to home rule. Since 1964 there has been not only an unofficial majority but also an indigenous majority in the House of Assembly. At any time during the last six years the Niuginian members could have combined to defeat the expatriates.

Yet the skies have not fallen on us; and that final bulwark of white supremacy, the Governor-General’s veto, has been used, as far as I can remember, only twice. In both these cases the unacceptable legislation

had been initiated by European, not by indigenous, elected members; and in one of them the proposal which was vetoed in 1965 was re-activated by the Government itself in 1968.

True, wide powers are still vested in the Minister for External Territories, but many of them are now delegated to the Administrator in Council or to Ministerial Members, and the pace of this process of delegation is accelerat ing.

What more is needed before we can be said to have achieved home rule?

First, full ministerial responsibility to the House of Assembly for all depart ments of the Administration. The present distinction between ministerial

and assistant ministerial members, could be replaced by a distinction between senior ministers who would be members of Cabinet (i.e., the Administrator’s Executive Council) and junior ministers who would not. But all must accept full responsibility for their several depart ments.

If at the start this leaves ministers very heavily dependent on the advice of their permanent depart mental heads, is that a situation so unknown in Australia as to be repulsive to us?

Second, formal transfer of the Minister’s already delegated and still undelegated powers to the appropriate authorities within Niugini, including, most importantly, his powers in relation to the Public Service Board.

TTie Government’s present unwillingness to reveal how far this delegation has gone in respect of the Public Service Board shows what appears to be an unnecessary secretiveness, and is certainly bad for public relations.

Third, local control of the budget, subject only to such checks as may be reasonably conceded to safe guard the proper use of Australian financial aid.

And that’s about the lot. I have come round to the view that it might be a very good thing to retain

the Governor-General’s power of veto during an initial period of home rule. Its retention would do a lot to allay the fears of those who are still afraid of self government; it would be unlikely to be frequently invoked; and it would be much cheaper than an Upper House.

The question of a review chamber could then be postponed till the time for independence draws near. * * ♦ NIUGINIANS are not by tradition tolerant people.

In the small, vulnerable communities in which they lived before the coming of the white man they could not afford to be tolerant of dissenters. Moreover, it was their belief, as it has been the belief of many peoples throughout the ages, that the failure of a single individual to conform to traditional customs and rituals could bring down the vengeance of gods or spirits on the whole community.

One might have hoped that nearly a century’s contact with the more democratic manifestations of western democracy would have produced an atmosphere of

With Percy Chatterton

in Port Moresby

tolerance among Niuginians, but I am afraid that this has not happened to any great extent.

For this state of affairs the mis sionaries must take some of the blame; the growth of tolerance between churches is a fairly recent phenomenon, and many of the earlier missionaries in Niugini were as fiercely intolerant as the tribesmen they sought to convert.

The Administration must also take its share. A “Native Regulation” of pre-war Papua ran: “If any native appears on reasonable grounds to a magistrate—to be engaged, or about to engage, in any act which is likely to prejudicially affect the good govern

ment and well being of the natives, the Magistrate may order him to desist”.

The magistrate had apparently unfettered freedom to decide what was prejudicial to good government, and penalties for disobedience to such an order were prescribed. And it should be noted that “magistrate in pre-war Papua meant what we would now call kiaps, not legally trained magistrates.

There were, of course, some tolerant magistrates, just as there were some tolerant missionaries. But the general atmosphere was not one of tolerance of dissent, and we cannot be surprised that Niuginians have been slow to learn a lesson which we have been slow to teach them. Can we now inculcate the lesson before it is too late?

This question was provoked in my mind by a debate during the recent meeting of the House of Assembly on a motion advocating the deportation of Mr. Barry Middlemiss, who has recently been active in promoting a public opinion poll or unofficial referendum on Bougainville on the secession issue. A fiery debate led to a watering down of the motion by deleting the reference to deportation and settling for “investigation”.