Up Front

with the Editor

hen, in 1970, British Solomon ders decided to introduce a imittee system” of government, ;ook a step away from the West er system, some well-wishers long experience of constitutions ' didn’t give it much hope of ing. theory the scheme was okay. It sd reasonable to adopt a type of nment that was related to the nesian way of doing things tting down and talking it over a solution emerges. As old and Dr Charles Fox says, “Melane do things in groups”, ere were a number of critics. I liber one was Honiara business- Eric Lawson, who had served a •er of terms on the old Legislaand who said the new iment would make a wonderful ng ground, but it wasn’t a step ds self-government. Members 1 learn by being on the commit but they wouldn’t get any closer kerning than they had before, he IP Financial Secretary at the Tom Russell, told a Port sby seminar in May, 1970, that ew system was what the Mela is themselves wanted as an ative to “the expensive trappings ministerial system, the prestige offices and houses”, the committee experiment, he ht, the traditional patterns of lesian authority were being syn ed, and it was worth trying out. iting the Solomons on the eve le new council’s launching I everywhere hope, but not over lence, that the experiment would 11, it now seems that the system ’t work. Not well enough to 'ere with. After many noises off over the last 12 months, it is : ormally acknowledged by mem }f the Governing Council them that a cabinet system, under a minister, would be more prac- J report of the BSIP constitu select committee, released in

November (see p 7) proposes that the Solomons establish such a system as the next constitutional step in 1973, and it’s a safe bet that this will now be done.

What went wrong with the com mittee system?

Ideally, said a constitutional report in the Solomons as far back as 1968, what the Solomons needed in its legislature was a system that would make the best use of available leaders; aim at unifying the diverse geo graphical and cultural elements of the protectorate; be in a form readily understandable by the electorate; and as far as possible be in accord with Melanesian custom, and allow for leaders with initiative to emerge with the support of the majority.

The committee system simply has not measured up to that criteria. It has got bogged down in trivialities, and has been unable to keep up with the fast pace needed by governments today. It has stifled leadership rather than promoted it, and Eric Lawson’s doubts were justified. It hasn’t been a big step towards self-government.

Yet it was a brave and necessary attempt, and not completely aban doned. The islanders have indicated in their report that there is still need to find a recipe which will involve traditional leaders in national decision making, and that everybody should go on looking.

Perhaps there is a pot of gold at the end of the constitutional rainbow, JULIUS CHAN, Papua New Guinea’s new Minister for Finance (he was, until a sudden name change a few weeks ago, the Minister for Internal Finance), had something in teresting to say in Sydney in Novem ber about Island attitudes to the well established Western practice of col lective cabinet responsibility and solidarity.

It was at a general news conference I attended (and at which I was im pressed by Mr Chan’s skill and in tegrity in handling a great number of direct and pressing questions from financial journalists). Mr Chan had been in Australia making an effort to

drum up some loan funds, and the response hadn't been too good.

Some of his questioners indicated that there wasn’t exactly confidence in PNG investment opportunities at the moment, as ministers (including PNG’s chief minister), had been uttering all sorts of noises to the effect that projects already signed might be renegotiated (such as Bougainville Copper). Why would anybody want to invest in that climate of uncertainty?

Mr Chan replied that there was no uncertainty; it might sound like it because in New Guinea cabinet ministers were able to give their own opinions publicly, or the opinions of their electorates. New Guinean people understood that what they had to say wasn’t necessarily supported by the cabinet.

This was a fact of New Guinea life, and needed to be understood by people outside.

He agreed, though, that by express ing their personal opinions publicly, ministers could help lose the con fidence of overseas investment, and that there could be an argument for collective responsibility in the PNG cabinet. He personally thought it would come. 1 can hardly wait till it comes. In vestment in PNG has had a bad knocking in recent months. Although it’s natural there should be trade un certainty with an untried government shortly taking full control, the knock ing is overdone. There are and will continue to be good, safe investment opportunities in Papua New Guinea —more, not less. In the long term, PNG must be a major economic force in this area of the world.

When the smoke clears and that fact becomes obvious to all the faint hearts, manv Australian investors will realise they have missed the boat.

But in the meantime, Chief Minister Somare could be getting a better share of investment capital now by keeping a rein on some of his talka tive cabinet ministers who are under mining confidence with word pictures of things that may never happen.

Stuart Inder