Port Moresby, 6 July 1967
Resolution of the House of Assembly concerning appointment of Papuans and New Guineans as liaison officers overseas
I attach copy of a resolution passed by the House of Assembly on the 7th June, 1967 concerning the above matter.1 You will note that it is a recommendation to the Australian Government as well as the Administration.
2. The following matters were considered in the Interdepartmental Co–ordinating Committee on the 29th May, 1967:—
(a) Training in international relations for career officers. A submission had been made to the Department of Territories proposing the establishment of a formal Territory Diplomatic Service and was to develop a scheme to prepare indigenous officers for service eventually as Diplomatic Officers. It envisaged long term training of suitably qualified officers to start now. The proposals were rejected by the Department of Territories.2
(b) The Department of Territories’ proposal that suitably qualified local officers should spend a year on attachment to the International Relations section of the Department followed by a year’s attachment to the Australian Mission to the United Nations at the rate of one officer each year.
(c) Mr. Lepani Watson’s motion which, at that time, had not been amended.
3. My conclusion, after discussion in the I.D.C.C., was that the first need was to get suitable local officers into positions connected with policy work and that such officers might then be used for ad hoc missions overseas. Generally speaking my advisers supported the idea that suitable officers could get experience by participating at various International Conferences, including attachment to the United Nations, and that formal training of a Diplomatic Corps would be premature at this stage.
4. Mr. Lepani Watson, in moving the motion, and his supporters, stressed its importance because they believed that the Territory should stand on its own feet; that there was a lack of understanding about the Territory in international circles and that the officers, when appointed, could disseminate information; the experience would possibly benefit trade and would be broadening; the officers must speak for the people and not for themselves; they would not only correct misunderstandings and supply facts and figures, but would be able to advise about what the ideas and wishes of the people are, what the majority thinks and what the minority thinks. By being attached to Australian Ambassadors and High Commissioners they could see for themselves what is happening in other countries and learn about programmes and what they learnt could be told back in the Territory. Public servants would have to be selected with care and would have to be some of the best educated Papuans and New Guineans; they must have the proper attitude of public servants to serve the people of the Territory. The idea would be worthwhile if these officers could persuade representatives of some nations to drop their opinion of some of the people of this Territory. The image of the Territory must be created in the proper perspectives.
5. Only one European spoke, apart from the Assistant Administrators, and that was Mr. Downs who supported the idea but thought that it should be modified. One or two native Members of the House said that the idea was good but should be shelved for five to ten years. The House finally accepted the motion with the amendments which had been proposed by the Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs) and the Official Members did not oppose its passage.
6. After studying the debate 1 feel that the Members supporting the motion were not clear as to what the duties of the officers would be except in the very short tern. Obviously the thing uppermost in the minds of the mover of the motion and his supporters was the need to correct opinions about when the Territory should have self-Government. In the short term, the views of the Members of the House of Assembly and the Government coincide but it may be only a short time before there are areas of difference. Such areas of difference would lead to complications for information officers if they were to do what the mover of the motion expected them to do, that is to explain the viewpoint of the majority and minority of the people in the Territory. These difficulties would exist while ever in the minds of the information officers they were there to represent a Territory point of view. If they were just public servants who were being trained as Diplomats by the Australian Government without any requirement that they should try to interpret the Territory to people overseas, their positions would be considerably different. In any case, it will be a couple of years before suitably qualified people are available if, as Mr. Lepani Watson suggested, these people must be amongst the best educated people of the Territory. Even the best educated officers will need quite a long period of training and tuition if they are to advise merely on matters of fact, let alone on policy matters.
7. It is my intention to have this matter discussed in the Administrator’s Council but I would think that the Administration should oppose the appointment of officers for the purposes envisaged and that it would probably be best to try to develop the idea of marrying present practice with what the House wants by stepping up the number of people who go overseas with Missions and that is where the Territory is affected. This, of course, is the line taken by the Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs) in the House.
8. I shall advise you further after the discussions in the Administrator’s Council.3
[NAA: A452, 1966/3850]
1 The resolution, moved by Lepani Watson, recommended that PNG public service officers, ‘perhaps six initially’, be attached to the DOT and to DEA’s foreign service ‘to act in the capacity of information liaison officers on matters which affect this Territory at both the Australian and international levels’. One of the officers would be attached to the Mission at the United Nations ‘for a period of three years for general information duties and to advise and assist Papuans and New Guineas selected to attend meetings at the United Nations’. Henderson moved that reference to ‘six’ officers and ‘three years’ be omitted, and that the latter be substituted for ‘a substantial period of time’. The amended resolution was passed by the House.
2 See Documents 55 and 74.
3 In a note to Ballard of 21 July, Warwick Smith wrote: ‘What are we doing about the House of Assembly suggestions from time to time about cadets overseas? Why don’t we immediately station a couple of local officers with the Department in Canberra and one in the mission in New York, and one in Australia House?’ (NAA: A452, 1966/3850). In the Territory, Hay discussed Watson’s resolution with his Council on 13 November. The Council agreed with views put forward in a paper placed before them that PNG would not be able to provide suitable officers for some time—and that when these did become available, they would best be employed in the Territory in accordance with the Administration’s localisation policy. The paper suggested that the ‘aims of the House could best be achieved by the inclusion of Papuans and New Guineans, both members of the House and Public Servants, in missions proceeding overseas for specific tasks’ (memorandum, Administration (Hay) to DOT, 2 December 1967, ibid.).