Towards independence,

or something

From a Port Moresby correspondent

Papua New Guinea’s Constitutional Planning Committee’s report, the minority report by Chief Minister Michael Somare and Deputy Prime Minister John Guise, and the Govern ment White Paper on the same issue, were all under fire at the House of Assembly’s August meeting. Views were so divergent, even among the government benches, that the whole thing threatens to split the country wide apart.

The only consoling feature of the whole debate in which expatriates accused New Guineans who accused expatriates, is that politicians rarely, if ever, mean anything they say in parliament.

The debate raged over several days but got nowhere and was adjourned until the Budget meeting scheduled to begin on September 23.

The White Paper was tabled along with the CPC report and met wtih bitter comment from Fr John Momis, the CPC’s working chairman, and his supporters. It listed the government’s objections to the CPC report and is

almost the same as the minority report. Fr Momis said it represented the vested interests.

The first hot shots when the debate really got under way on August 19 were fired by Mr Ron Neville (Southern Highlands Regional) who accused Fr Momis of being totally dominated by his white advisers.

Mr Neville based his accusations on what he called “racial elements” in the final report which were not typical of the views of most New Guineans.

The underlying theme of the re port, he said, aimed at getting revenge on expatriates or anyone who had been employed for expatriate benefit. The committee was more paternalistic to the people than the whites whom it condemned.

To back up his argument, he pointed out that of the four perma nent consultants to the CPC, three.

Professor Jim Davidson (now dead).

Dr David Stone and Mr Edward Wolfers, together with its legal

officer, Mr John Ley, were whites.

Various features of the report, Mr Neville said, were known to be the personal views and ideas of one or another of the advisers. One example he gave was that when Mr Ley came to Papua New Guinea the question of a leadership code was one of “his pet hobby horses”.

“Now, we find it an integral part of the constitution,” said Mr Neville, who was supported by Mr Tim Ward.

There was more in the same vein which constrained Works Minister Mr Yano Belo, speaking on the third day, to warn members that if a com promise was not reached, Papua New Guinea could be split apart.

Opposition Leader Mr Tei Abal put the people before any of the reports and called on the House to keep the people in mind when they voted on the constitution.

“The constitution is very impor tant,” he said, “and it will set down the basic rules on how our country should be run after independence.”

Mr T. Kambipi thought the debate had come much too soon and pointed a suspicious finger at the “educated members of the backbenchers—such people as Michael Pondros and John Momis because some of them are tricky”.

As to the White Paper, Mr Damien Kerebu said it might have been drafted down at Canberra, and if it provided a way for outsiders to come into the country to live, there would be trouble soon.

There were other calls for unity,

notably one from Minister for Mines Sir Paul Lapun who, from the fence on which he sat, said some members had criticised the CPC and the Chief Minister but, he said, “instead of making a lot of nonsense, we should be working together to come up with a better solution”.

There were many more speeches but the target for some of them, Fr John Momis, remained silent until the debate had been adjourned. Then, surprise! He came in On the motion for the adjournment, something he wouldn’t have been able to do, in Fiji for example where, under the rules, nothing already debated can be resurrected in the adjournment de bate.

He fired an angry broadside at the two white MHAs, Mr Neville and Mr Tim Ward, who had taunted him with being brainwashed by white advisers.

Those two members, said Fr Momis, had demonstrated that they were not prepared to accept and

identify themselves with genuine

Papua New Guinea nationalism.

“Aliens of this kind not only want to be accepted by the Papua New Guinea community but also to be entrenched in their privileged positions as businessmen,” he said.

“They are part of the system which

purports to support and promote the welfare and the development of the people, but, in fact, entrenches the privileged position of these expatriates and denies the opportunity to Papua New Guineans to become less de pendent and achieve real self-reliance and full human dignity.”

The claim that the CPC had been manipulated by highly-educated white advisers was a gross misrepresenta tion of the working relationship be tween members and staff of the committee. Such a claim was a blatant negation of the ability of New Guineans to think for themselves.

There had never been any question of the members of the CPC being brainwashed by their advisers whose role was to provide advice when it was sought and not otherwise.

“This was clearly understood by members, staff and consultants alike,” he said, “and the advice given us was accepted or rejected by the com mittee as it saw fit.”

Replying to a charge that the com mittee had not consulted the people enough, Fr Momis said letters ex plaining the main issues went to 200 discussion groups throughout the country and almost 1,000 written sub missions came back from those groups.