Up Front

with the Editor

When Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s Labor Gov ernment was first elected at the end of 1972, Mr Whitlam suspended the Queen’s Honours List—which meant that the Australian Govern ment henceforth did not recommend to Queen Elizabeth that she bestow knighthoods and lesser honours on Australian citizens.

The Australian Government has not supplied a list since, although various Australians still receive honours in the two traditional lists each year (June and January), be cause the State governments have the right to put in their own nominations.

Australian Labor is traditionally anti-Honours List, but Mr Whitlam gave the matter a new twist after his appointment by announcing it was time Australia developed some kind of national honours system of her own in place of the knighthoods and Commanders of the Order of the British Empire, etc, which were part and parcel of the present system.

He managed to make it sound as if Australians thought knighthoods were just a load of old rubbish, which isn’t true; but Australians do object to seeing year after year the Queen’s honours being handed out often to people who have done nothing more to earn them than sub scribe to the right political slush fund, or the right club.

Australians have yet to learn just what sort of a system Mr Whitlam will give them in place of the tradi tional royal honours, although there have been many and irreverent sug gestions made by the public—such as the “Order of the Dead Wombat” and “Commander of the Raw Prawn”.

But what has any of this to do with the Pacific Islands?

The other day in Sydney I un expectedly got involved in a dis cussion with three New Guineans on the future of the British honours system in Papua New Guinea. These were people, you might say, of some substance and authority; certainly New Guinea nationalist but not anti- British or anti-monarchist.

They were doubtful about the rea sons why the Queen apparently thought it necessary to hand out honours to New Guineans, and I can sum up their attitude this way:

“The Chief Minister says we must all stand together as one country, which we should. But we don’t stand together, and perhaps w© never will.

“So the Queen announces honours presumably on the recommendation of both the Chief Minister and the Australian Government. A Bougain ville man gets a knighthood. The Tolais and the Papuans, among others, are not impressed, any more than Bougainvilleans would be im pressed if a Tolai got one. Perhaps the Bougainvilleans are impressed with Sir Paul Lapun’s knighthood, but if Papua New Guinea has to have an honours system then it has to have something that everybody understands.

“There is just no word of mouth in Papua New Guinea which says that so-and-so is a great man because he has the Queen’s medal. There is no word of mouth which widely values the Queen’s honours (which means no disrespect to the Queen).

A man can be a bigger man in his own area, because of his personal reputation”.

The men then debated why it is that the Queen, who knows nobody personally in Papua New Guinea, should allow her name to be used in giving honours. Not surprisingly, the conclusion was reached that she was allowing herself to be used for political purposes—“to help hold the country together”. And all three deplored the fact that the Queen was involved in politics.

Their last question was directed at me. “What do the other Pacific Islands with a British background think of the honour’s system? Is this attitude of ours unreasonable?”

Frankly, I don’t know what the Islands think of it. I should imagine attitudes vary from island to island.

I don’t think the New Guineans’ attitude is at all unreasonable. I sim ply don’t know if it is representative.

Stuart Inder