Canberra, 17 February 1966
Secret
Papua and New Guinea: ultimate status
I refer to the draft Cabinet Submission2 forwarded for comment and to subsequent discussions between Mr. Swift and Mr. Ewart Smith.3
2. As was pointed out by Mr. Smith during these discussions, there appear to be two fundamental constitutional questions arising in relation to this matter. The first is whether it is possible, under the Commonwealth Constitution as it stands, for a Territory to be admitted as a State. While opinions in this Department on this question have been far from unanimous, my own firm view is that the answer to it is ‘Yes’. But I think some warning note might still be sounded in the draft.
3. The second question is whether complete independence-which I understand to be envisaged by the use of the expression ‘disengagement’ in the draft-could be granted in the case of Territories of the Commonwealth. While I have little doubt that, in the case of the Trust Territory of New Guinea, independence could be granted, relying upon the external affairs power, I think the position cannot be regarded as being as certain in the case of the Territory of Papua. I do not think it should be assumed without qualification that the Commonwealth could at this stage grant complete independence to Papua under the Commonwealth Constitution as it stands. A great deal more work would need to be done, and much serious consideration would need to be given, in relation to the question of the power to grant independence to Papua before I would be justified in expressing a definitive view on this question. Indeed, this could be a question on which it might prove difficult to give a definitive view at this stage of constitutional development.
[matter omitted]
[NAA: A452, 1965/3353]
1 E.J. Hook, Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department (AG’s).
2 Final is Document 25.
3 Senior Assistant Secretary, AG’s.