Did Whitlam & Somare disenfranchise millions of PNGns?
26 March 2016
CHRIS OVERLAND
HAVING studied history for the last 55 years or so, I have learned the wisdom of Oscar Wilde's famous aphorism that "the truth is seldom pure and never simple".
This is manifestly the case when it comes to Australia's relationship with Papua New Guinea.
I entirely agree with Ted Wolfer's central proposition that Australians were and remain woefully ignorant about Papua New Guinea.
As a young ex-kiap returning to Australia in 1974, I remember all too well that my experiences in PNG were regarded as being largely about police work. The true scope of the kiap's job was not understood, perhaps because there was no direct equivalent within the Australian workforce.
Typically, there was very little interest in or knowledge about PNG itself beyond the stereotypical image of "fuzzy wuzzy angels". I soon gave up even attempting to explain either what kiaps did or to describe anything about the country itself.
I also agree with Sean Dorney's assessment that there remains a lingering sense of embarrassment about Australia's colonial past. One manifestation of this has been what I regard as a deliberate attempt at a governmental level to forget that past.
The Whitlam government was determined to be rid of the stigma of being a colonial power at a time when decolonisation was occurring all over the world.
I think that Whitlam himself had a lively contempt for Australians living and working in PNG, believing them to be the very worst sort of Australian: ignorant, patronising, exploitative and racist.
There were, of course, enough Australians who fitted this description to give it real credence.
In part at least, this led him, and the key policy makers who shared his views, to dismiss out of hand any suggestion that undue haste towards independence would not be in PNG's best interests.
They saw this as an obvious attempt to needlessly prolong an unjust and inequitable colonial regime.
While this is defensible at some level, what was not was the way in which the unease of many Papua New Guineans about Australia's hasty withdrawal was completely ignored.
Whitlam and his colleagues listened only to the voices of Michael Somare and his Pangu Pati, effectively disenfranchising millions of ordinary Papua New Guineans.
Had Canberra resolved to pursue a planned, careful and purposeful decolonisation process that extended over a decade or so, and included a much longer period of self-government, then there is little doubt that PNG would have been much better prepared for independence.
If ever there was a missed opportunity, then this was it.
I think that it is open to historians to conclude that Whitlam did PNG no favours at all by engineering its precipitous abandonment, an action that, while satisfying the international demands for decolonisation, left PNG disgracefully under prepared for independence.
A countervailing view is that Whitlam merely did what had to be done: the anti-colonial forces at work in the world at the time demanded this and Australia simply acquiesced to the inevitable.
In relation to the awarding of the Police Overseas Service Medal to ex-kiaps, I was not embarrassed to receive it, believing that it reflected a very belated recognition of the nation building efforts undertaken by a woefully under-resourced handful of colonial officers.
This is especially the case for those who first explored and opened up the country. Their truly remarkable efforts have received virtually no recognition at all.
I was also delighted to accept the RPNGC Centenary Medal awarded by the PNG government, for very much the same reason.
Like Paul Oates, my hope is that by talking about the shared history of Australia and PNG through sites like PNG Attitude, we might bring this topic more to the front of mind amongst the broader public in both countries.
That would be a good thing for our future relationship, which must inevitably be a close one.
Missionaries explored the highlands of PNG in the early 1930s, followed by the government. Independence came almost 40 years later, still a lot of the places were rural,traditional and were isolated from the rest of the world.
The coastal region like Wewak and Rabaul on the contrary saw civilisation more early and are much exposed to the outside, hence representatives at the time of self-government basically represented people from different perspective and understanding.
Typically, the first members to the house of assembly leading up to self government and first parliament were illiterate and some cannot even communicate is better English.
Sir Tei's view is correct and given that he has the opportunity as the opposition leader, he pushed for PNG to delay independence from Australia, until such time when we are ready.
Sir Somara represented a different view and given the situation where countries around the globe, and the Pacific to be specific were given independence, it was the inevitable and he is confident that PNG will be independent and grow as a country.
It was upon the colonisers to really decide and make a decision for the best interest of the colony, given these opposing views. Australia acted in favour of independence and here we are 40 years old and even understanding that before.
It is about time we think and act as an independent nation in the best interest for our nation.
Posted by: Chris Kiayal Banga | 28 March 2016 at 01:10 PM
If we had independence referendum now, png would be 122 countries within this landmass and islands
Posted by: Patrick Seleng | 28 March 2016 at 08:59 AM
Paul, thank you. Don't think I hate all Aussies or anything like that. There are plenty of good ones I’ve worked with and known over the years. I just feel that Australia as a country has let the people of PNG down in more than one ways (in the past and even today).
But as you say ‘when the going gets tough, the tough gets going’. PNG will progress.
Posted by: Marcus Mapen | 28 March 2016 at 08:21 AM
Well Marcus, some of us 'grandfathers' are old enough to have been around during the time PNG attained self government and Independence. We have also taken the time to read about and study human history. Some of us have also been lucky enough to visit other countries and learn from that experience as well.
The more we know however the more we find out how much we don't know.
It's like climbing a mountain. The higher you climb, the better the view. You just have to take the time and effort.
Everyone in the 1960's and 70's and who actually talked with the people in the villages were told much the same thoughts. The PNG people did not want early Independence.
It is now clear that Gough Whitlam, the Bully Beef Club or the PANGU Pati and Michael Somare at the time did not want to listen to those of us who suggested caution. That's now water under the bridge.
What is now important is to learn from history and to work out the best way forward based on what we know works and what we know doesn't.
PNG is currently at the crossroads and desperately needs leadership and direction as to which road to take.
The basic questions that must be deliberated, discussed and resolved are really no different from any nation:
1. The nation's leaders need to think about their people and not concentrate on how they can enhance their own egos, wealth and prestige.
2. The nation has many fine and worthwhile attributes, not the least being her people and their energy, drive and enthusiasm. But these attributes must be marshaled and led in the right direction.
3. There are now many PNG people who have the education, experience and skills to lead their nation forward. They must be supported and encouraged. The problem is that this support is not very apparent or organised at the moment.
4. Those leaders who have proven ineffective, ill equipped and only possessing of self interest need to be discarded. It is the responsibility of those who do know what to do to inform and educate the electorate so that the best leaders are in future elected to lead.
5. The problem that was apparent to many of us at the time and is still a stumbling block is there is really no cohesive, national spirit that transcends clan, tribe and ethnic loyalties to the point that PNG as a nation can go forward as one entity and not hundreds of competing groups. Disunity is the reason why poor or bad leaders have gained the ascendancy.
That of course is easy for people like me to say but hard to achieve. Still, any journey begins with the first step.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
Husat inap a?
Posted by: Paul Oates | 27 March 2016 at 09:11 PM
In 1973, I remember Sir Tei Abal come to St Paul's Lutheran High school. He told us Michael Somare was trying to do the impossible by pushing Australia to give us indpendence when we didn't yet feel the effects of self government.
Sir Tei described this situation graphically in tok pisin. 'Wanpela man ino inap kaikai kaukau wantaim suka long wanpela maus, wanpela bilong daunim na narapela blong tromoi.' (A man cannot eat sweet potatoe and chew sugarcane at the same time. But Michael Somare is tying to do the impossible"0
So, here we find ourselves 40 years later.
But like Barbara Short says lets 'dream that one day law and order will come to PNG, and Wewak, and other parts of PNG, like Alotau and Rabaul, will become great tourist destinations and that Australians will flock there to relax on their beaches and PNG will become well known in Australia.'
Posted by: Daniel Kumbon | 27 March 2016 at 07:20 PM
I am not old enough to know all the historical stuff and I didn’t study a lot of history in school to know much. But what I do know (and even a 10 year old will know) is that the Australian prime minister at that time always had all the wisdom, knowledge and power to decide, not Michael Somare or anyone else.
Also, I can’t expect my grandfather (even in his prime) to come out of the bush and start operating a 4x4 utility vehicle. I think government systems, leadership, social progress etc. are no different.
I also know that my past decisions determine my present situation and the decisions I make today will decide my future. To be able to make the correct decisions I must be educated and knowledgeable in these things. I don’t think there was much of these qualities around in this country in the years leading to 1975.
Posted by: Marcus Mapen | 27 March 2016 at 05:55 PM
In 1969 my 4th grade teacher was my first Australian teacher who talked about someday PNG gaining independence. In 1975 (my tenth grade), we gained our political independence...only seven years since my grade teacher said something about independence. I used to spend sometime at the home of the late Sir Tei Abal, Member for Wabag Open and the leader of United Party in opposition government at the time would tell us both in private and in public his stance on his opposition to self governance. However, the wheels of the inevitibilty seemed to have been set in motion between Waigani and Canberra. The voices of the leaders like the late Sir Tei Abal and the late Matias Toliman were ploughed under by pro independence movement. The majority of the PNG highlanders opposed to early independence They happened to be the majority of the population at the time...the irony of the concept of majority and democracy.
Posted by: Joe Herman | 27 March 2016 at 03:38 PM
Very well said, Raymond.
Having committed appalling acts of murder, rape and pillaging in the land we now occupy, we Australians were hardly well-qualified to colonise another.
But for Queensland’s (and Britain’s) audacity in annexing Papua, we may never have done so. And some would say that we did so reluctantly.
And those of us who served there left reluctantly – with an abiding sense of a job half done and what might have been had we stayed longer.
But how much longer did we need to ‘finish the job’? Ten years? Twenty years?
It is all very well to beat our breasts about the ‘what ifs’ and ‘what might have beens’ and what we could/should have done better.
But to what end?
Papua New Guineans took ownership back then and, as you say, should continue to take ownership today – and leave we colonist lapuns to revel in our reflections, remorse and railings at the might have beens that we will never know.
Posted by: Ed Brumby | 27 March 2016 at 10:43 AM
Concerning the independence issue, I can only agree with what Paul Barker has enunciated here.
The history of higher learning started late for PNG, the decolonisation process was very much in full gear during that period, the Australian political leaders and PNG aspiring leaders had a multitude of tribes and language groups to contain amidst rising ethnic nationalism for some, and the independence leaders have their reasons which we are overlooking here (it's in Sana, Kiki: 10000 years in a lifetime, My Childhood in New Guinea, etc).
Review the historical recollections of people like John Guise, Pita Lus and other founding fathers. Independence, though rushed, came at a crucial time for PNG then.
Just imagine what the elitism now would do to unite hundreds of differing tribal and language groups in this country (it will be disaster because every bigman would want to become the PM of their own tribal groups).
I believe independence came about earlier for PNG to contain ethnic nationalism that would otherwise destroy the still fragmented unity we hold today. That is something PNG should be proud of rather than having second thoughts or guesses about what it would be like if we waited for some years.
The kiaps, teachers, military, police, missionaries, etc during the colonial period did a proper job of raising some outstanding people to take over the country post independence and they did their jobs.
Problems PNG now faced is of our own doing - we let tribalism and wantokism dictates, we skip checks and balance to maintain standard, we became complacent when in position of authority, we corrupt the systems put in place by the colonial power ourselves, and the list goes on.
We had the opportunity to steer our own path, we must take ownership of that rather than having second thoughts. Somare, Momis, Chan, Lus and some others are still around. They have their reasons.
Posted by: Raymond Sigimet | 27 March 2016 at 08:06 AM
I entirely agree with what Warren Dutton has said. The villagers around Watabung could not understand what Independence was all about.
When I explained what it meant they were horrified to think that anyone would consider that time had come for PNG's Independence.
They explained that none of their children had completed their education and they considered that it would be at least ten years before they were ready.
The one thing they insisted on was that the Australians needed to continue their good work during this transition. The Australian government did not make any attempt to evaluate the work of the Australians.
The other huge mistake was not to understand the role the Kiaps played. The Kiaps lived in an area, knew and understood the people they were caring for. They managed law and order extremely well.
When the system was changed to the Australian system it was a total disaster and law and order became uncontrollable especially in the Highlands.
Attitudes in the Gazelle Peninsula were certainly different to those in the Highlands. However the coastal teachers I worked with in the Highlands could understand the feelings of the Highland people.
The future depends on the people selecting members who are honest and trustworthy and who are determined to make PNG into the great country it has the potential to be.
Posted by: Trevor Freestone | 27 March 2016 at 07:44 AM
The institutional and human resource development period was very compressed from the time that the Australian government realised that there'd be an independent nation coming up in the next decades.
So government educational development really only started in the late 1950s and early 1960s (the churches had been running schools with substantial numbers up to certain levels much longer).
UPNG was established only from 1965, so you only had a small educated elite of public sector (and private sector) professionals and politicians just cutting their teeth come 1970. And then the process became highly rushed.
By the time of his election in 1972, Whitlam was finding it both embarrassing and costly running a fair sized colony. It was clear in the 1960s that independence was inevitably coming at some point, but the question was when.
Some groups, especially in the New Guinea Islands and parts of Papua and Momase wanted it sooner, and, as highlighted during the Constitutional Review Committee's deliberations, others wanted less of a rush and to obtain more out of the Australians before they went to ensure Independence provided a better footing and balanced for all regions.
But once the bottle was out of the cork, how much longer could Australia (and some of the PNG leaders) have hung on ensuring useful capacity building without really stirring up trouble and frustration in places like East New Britain, Bougainville and elsewhere, and in the face of international pressure from the Decolonisation Committee and other developing (and many developed countries - including the United States).
The answers to those questions must come from the players who were engaged at the time, including the likes of Warren Dutton, Chan, Somare, Momis, Kaputin, Namaliu et al in PNG as well as participants down south plus academics here and there; recognising that there were different views then and there will be now too.
Posted by: Paul Barker | 27 March 2016 at 06:45 AM
Whitlam's abdication of Australia's responsibilities to all Papua New Guineans, who were, in every moral sense equally with Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, Australians from the moment of Federation, is his greatest crime!
Unfortunately, it seems that, none of his successor Prime Ministers has realised how greatly this (real politik) crime has damaged and reduced "Australia".
It is now so much less of a nation than it would have become if it had honoured it responsibilities to all its peoples in the same spirit that it had honoured its responsibilities to its heritage through two world wars.
The fact that Sir Michael, and so few others, in their youth and inexperience, could not be expected to anticipate the difficulties of attempting to create a new nation from such an unprepared Territory (when will the Northern Territory be deemed ready for statehood, let alone nationhood?) is no excuse whatsoever for such irresponsibility on the part of any Australian federal government.
The anarchy, which will surely follow the current oligarchy in Papua New Guinea, will be a direct result of Australia's abdication of not only of its responsibilities, but also its own self-interest, in 1975.
Between 1964 and about 1992, largely minimally educated elected representatives showed that they could handle the Westminster Parliamentary system, almost as well as most Australian Federal and State Houses were then being run.
(The oratory, whether in Pidgin or Australian English, often surpassed that heard in Australian Houses!)
With the support of an Australian trained and partially manned public service, Her Majesty's PNG Ministers were also doing a better than passable job of slowly beginning to develop our nation, with the slender resources available.
Papua New Guinea and Australia have both suffered from their separation from each other in 1975.
Both their futures will depend on how closely they can re-associate with each other again, and how soon.
If the same sort of hubris, which separated them, continues to drive them further apart, the "real politic" of the Asia Pacific will surely subsume them both.
Posted by: Warren Dutton | 26 March 2016 at 10:36 PM
Chris - interesting to compare this with the growth of independence in Western Samoa under the New Zealand administration. Sure mistakes were made, the most notorious being the incident in 1929 known as 'black Saturday' when ten peaceful protesters were killed.
Western Samoa was the first Pacific territory to become independent in 1962 and in 2002 Helen Clarke gave a full and frank apology for historical wrongs committed by NZ.
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/samoa/towards-independence
Posted by: Peter Kranz | 26 March 2016 at 05:03 PM
This article from Chris is virtually what I also believe. Living in Kundiawa at the time of self government and Independence the ordinary Papua New Guinean really had little idea what was coming his way except that a lot of people in remote areas were afraid. This was especially true when the Kina was introduced. I was doing some road building up toward Nambyufa at the time and saw a couple of villages take down the new Flag.
If the transition had not been rushed and was done with nation building in mind I believe PNG would have been very successful with a people of high intelligence and motivation working with Australia much to the betterment of the country. Like everything Whitlam did it was his way or the highway.
Posted by: Trevor Shelley | 26 March 2016 at 04:57 PM
I agree, you can't change history. A slow change-over to self-government would have been great. But the Mataungans would not have liked it at all.
There were certainly racists around on the Gazelle in those times.
I think Somare and the Pangu Party were trying to steer a path through all the troubles of the late 1960s. Over in Wewak the old plantations were never replanted after World War II, there were no rich "planters" wanting to control the place, and the very talented Sepik people were slowly being educated.
I feel there were few racists around in the Sepik in those days and Somare had excellent relationships with the whities! He even "held court' down at the old Windjammer. He got on very well with the likes of Ted Hicks and Kerry Leen.
I have a dream that one day law and order will come to PNG, and Wewak, and other parts of PNG, like Alotau and Rabaul, will become great tourist destinations and that Australians will flock there to relax on their beaches and PNG will become well known in Australia.
Posted by: Barbara Short | 26 March 2016 at 07:24 AM