End-of-term mood in New Guinea Assembly

New Guinea Assembly

From a Port Moresby correspondent

Papua New Guinea’s House of Assembly reassembled on August 30 for its Budget meeting in an “end of-term” mood. After a final meet ing in November it expects to be pro rogued, and the thoughts of members are already straying from the business on hand to the general election billed for next February.

Indeed, when the Speaker read prayers at 2 p.m. on August 30, there was barely a quorum present, and throughout the first two weeks of the meeting attendances have been well below the fairly high level normally maintained in this parlia ment.

The House was due to rise for a week’s recess on the afternoon of Friday, September 10, so members could return to their electorates for National Day celebrations on Sep tember 13. However, the sitting lapsed ignominiously at 11.30 a.m. for lack of a quorum.

Of the many matters introduced few had been carried to a conclusion.

The 1971 Budget had been intro duced by our new Treasurer, Mr. H.

P. Ritchie, on August 31, but when the House rose 10 days later the debate on it had still not begun. Nor is it likely that, when the debate does come on, there will be many fireworks.

Gone are the days when that re doubtable trio—lan Downs, Don Barrett and John Stuntz—could be relied on to get up and trounce the Treasurer.

And indeed there is little enough to get worked up about in the 1971 Budget. No change in personal tax, a small rise in company tax, and a bit extra on beer and baccy about sums it up.

Of far greater interest than the Budget itself was a White Paper on taxation, the homework of a com mittee of inquiry. At the rising of the House this had only been tabled and adjourned for later debate; and this debate may be a lively one.

At present Papua New Guinea has a dual system of income tax —on “chargeable income” for low income earners and on “taxable income” for higher income earners.

“Chargeable income” is virtually pay-packet income. “Taxable income” is gross income less the usual range of concessional deductions for de pendants, medical expenses, etc. The two systems were designed to dovetail

into each other, but have been found to creak badly at the joints.

The White Paper proposes a single system starting off with a 5 per cent, tax on pay-packet income for low income earners. As income rises tax percentage will rise too, but it will rise more slowly for those who have dependants than for those who have not. Thus a concession on tax per centage will replace a concession on income.

The plan seems to this writer a very sensible one, but it will prob ably provoke protests from expatri ates accustomed to the orthodox Aus tralian system.

The White Paper outlines other ingenious schemes of revenue raising, including one designed to catch up with indigenous producers of cash crops, many of whom, being illiterate, are currently netting substantial tax free incomes due to their inability to keep records of their transactions.

Another White Paper presented but not, at the rising of the House, debated is one called “The Develop ment Programme Reviewed”. This attempts to revise and bring up to date the “Five Year Plan” introduced in 1968. We can but hope that when 1973 comes round the Administra tion’s new fairy tale will be found to be a bit nearer the truth than the old one.

Two further papers awaiting dis cussion relate to Papua New Guinea’s Public Service. One deals with accelerated localisation and training, and the other with the future security of permanent overseas officers. The former is uncontentious and will be generally welcomed. The latter has already come under fire from over seas officers who consider that the “golden handshake” offered is still not hearty enough.

Finally among matters still un debated is the report of the Electoral Boundaries Distribution Committee, which has had the unenviable task of redrawing the electoral boun daries in order to raise the number of open electorates from 69 to 82.

The committee’s proposals have in evitably caused a good deal of heart burning in districts which find that they are not getting even one of the 13 new seats, and the debate will almost certainly be a lively one. The government, alive to the thorny constitutional problems which will be created if at this late hour the pro

posals are rejected, has been using the recess to lobby like mad for their adoption.

With all these and other matters raised and deferred it may well be asked, has anything at all been accomplished during two weeks of sittings? The answer is, yes, but not very much.

After extensive debate and amend ment the Public Officers’ Super annuation Bill, which aims at pro viding a suitable pension scheme for an increasing localised Public Service, was finally agreed to.

The Business Licences Bill, which transfers to local government councils authority to grant or refuse certain business licences was agreed to, after some members had expressed their doubts as to the wisdom of trans ferring too much power of this kind to local bodies.

Then there was the Building Bill, which emerged from the committee stage with the truly fearsome title “A bill for an ordinance to regulate and control construction within Papua New Guinea, including the classi fication, construction, maintenance, alteration and demolition of build ings, the use of a building and the land upon which the building is erected, both during and after the construction of the building, and the erection, maintenance and demolition of hoardings, and for related pur poses”.

A stunned House gave it its third reading.

The House “took note of” Mr.

Tom Leahy’s statement on Citizen ship, but only after a debate in which so many diverse points of view were expressed that the problem

(Continued on p. 129)

seemed likely to be shelved in definitely. Which is a pity.

A proposal from the leader of the People’s Progress Party, Mr. Julius Chan, for the setting up of a Com mission of Inquiry into Land Prob lems seemed quite a sensible one, following the withdrawal of a series of government land bills in June.

But for some inexplicable reason it aroused the ire of senior official member Tony Newman, and conse quently the opposition of the govern ment benches. After considerable debate it was defeated by 32 votes to 22. On this occasion the Pangu Party voted with the PPP in support of the motion. The United Party offered a wry comment on its name by splitting its vote.

The smouldering embers of the “Papua” issue burst into flames again with the refusal of the Australian Government to accede to a request from the June meeting of the House for a parliamentary delegation to visit Papua “to determine the wishes of the Papuan people and to learn of their concern at first hand”. The flames died down again, for the time being at any rate, when it was an nounced that the Minister for Ex ternal Territories had agreed to meet five Papuan members of ministerial rank in Canberra to discuss the issue.

Finally and most importantly the House heard with satisfaction that the Administrator’s Executive Council had accepted in principle proposals for the setting up of a National Broadcasting Commission to take over the broadcasting services now being operated by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Administration respectively.

Prior to this announcement the House had taken a hearty swipe at what it described as “an exercise in linguistic discrimination”, to wit the practice of the ABC, during meetings of the House, of broadcasting a Saturday evening round-up of events in the House in English and Pidgin, but not in Papua’s lingua franca, Motu. The House firmly endorsed the proposition that Papua New Guinea has three “national” languages.

So, after a week’s break including the celebration of National Day, which seems to have been a great success all over Papua New Guinea, members took their places in the House again on Monday, September 20. What transpires during the pro jected further two weeks of sittings must be chronicled later.