Canberra, 12 August 1968
Confidential
The Torres Strait islands
I have been meaning for some time to prepare a paper on this subject. I have made notes on the characteristics of the islands and had discussions on the subject when I visited the Western District of PNG in 1966. I have not, however, had or made the opportunity to discuss it in detail with Territories or Attorney General’s, and in particular to consider the constitutional position. I am not therefore in a position to write a paper before I go on posting. The following short notes may be of some interest though.
2. There are over 100 Torres Strait islands but only about 20 are inhabited. Total island population in 1960 was 7½ thousand. This is likely to have doubled by 1975. The islanders are predominantly Melanesian in origin (i.e. [akin]1 to the majority group in PNG) but with some aborigine, Polynesian and other admixture. The islands group themselves into four more or less distinct groups: the Northern group (particularly Boigu and Saibai) which hug the Papuan coast and are to a large extent mangrove swamp; the Eastern group (particularly Murray) some of which are volcanic; the Central group, many of which are mere sandbanks or reefs; and the Southern/Western group (Thursday, Prince of Wales, Horn) which are larger, granitic islands.
3. Queensland annexed the islands within 60 miles of Cape York in 1872, and the remainder (going as close as it could to Papua New Guinea) in 1879. Where the boundary runs is clearly set out (for example in an annex to the Papua New Guinea Act). As part of the boundary of the State of Queensland any proposal to amend it would appear to require the concurrence of a majority of the voters in Queensland. If the boundary is not amended we will one day face a situation where islands within several hundred yards of the coast of an independent Papua New Guinea, and populated (sparsely) by people, who in terms of ethnic origin and culture are the same as those on the coast, are sovereign Australian territory. Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the illegal immigration (from the Western District to Saibai or Boigu and then often to Thursday Island) which takes place now would cease after PNG becomes independent. Apart from family connections, people from the Western District emigrate because of the belief that by so doing they can get the social services and education and employment opportunities available in Australia. The temptation thus offered would certainly be no less after PNG becomes independent.
4. Territories’ position (as I understand it) is based on the view that the Islanders themselves want to remain part of Australia. As well, Australia has ‘sound’ historical rights. Therefore, no boundary revision is justified or required.
Historical rights
5. The history of the border is given in some detail in Van Der Veur’s book on New Guinea’s boundaries.2 I don’t propose to rehearse this. As Saibai and Boigu are ‘offshore’ islands to Papua, so Prince of Wales, Thursday and others can be regarded as ‘offshore’ to mainland Australia. There is, I think, a tendency in Territories and perhaps Primary Industries (Mr Setter3 has spoken in this vein to me) to think of the islands from one side of the straits to the other as an indivisible group. Examination of the navigational channels and the islands that are inhabited shows that this is not necessarily the case. Moreover, in the past, boundary lines other than that which has been adopted have been suggested, and rejected or ignored for no good reasons. Underlying the record of the acquisition of the islands and the adoption of the present boundary there is a strong element of Queensland chauvinism.
Self determination
6. There seems little doubt that the islanders themselves wish to remain part of Australia. They are in general much better off (in economic and political terms) than either the Papuans of the Western District or the Australian aborigines. There is a developed local government organisation (native councillors). However, in both political organisation and economic strength there seem to be marked differences between various island groups and particularly between Northern and Southern groups. The trend for economic and social reasons is towards resettlement in the Southern islands. Population of the Northern islands appears to be very low ([indecipherable]4 in ‘Human Organisation’, No.2 of 1965 estimated that of Saibai at 250), and the difficulties of transferring the whole population of the Northern group in the event of a political decision to transfer those islands to PNG would not be insuperable.
The future
7. It would be wise for Australia to take this problem seriously and to work out a new boundary before independence comes to PNG, consulting with the PNG House of Assembly and Torres Strait Island local councils in its preparation. After independence it could be more difficult to do so (because inter alia our own attitude may become even more inflexible) and some international, including particularly Indonesian interest in the situation could be generated. There is no defence, economic or other interest for us in the Northern group of the Islands. There are no great difficulties in settling on some median line, having regard to navigational channels. There are no insuperable problems (given the transmigratory trend) in self determination. PNG could be expected to welcome such action by us.
8. The principal problem is how to handle Queensland. Some quid pro quo is obviously required. In the inter-departmental discussion on oil search boundaries which took place in 1966, I attempted to put forward the idea that this quid pro quo could be found in the field of oil exploration rights in the Gulf of Papua. I was not able to make any headway at that time. I wonder if the quid pro quo cannot now be found in the field of fishing controls in the Barrier Reef and Gulf of Carpentaria areas.5
[NAA: A1838, 689/1 part 4]
1 In the original, this word is typed ‘alien’ but a handwritten correction appears to render it ‘akin’.
2 Presumably, P. W. Van der Veur, Search for New Guinea’s boundaries: from Torres Strait to the Pacific, Canberra, 1966.
3 C.G. Setter, Assistant Secretary, Fisheries Branch, Department of Primary Industry.
4 Author’s name appears to read ‘Becket’ or ‘Seckel’.
5 For Territories consideration of the boundary issue during 1968-9, see NAA: A1838, 1577/3/211 part 1. Evatt warned in June 1969 that ‘We seem to have lost sight of the fact that basically this is a political problem. The longer the delay in solving it the bigger will be the political storm which one day must break … No solution will be possible without agreement with the Queensland government yet no official approach has yet been made to that government’ (minute, Evatt to Ballard, 13 June 1969, ibid.).