Canberra, 11 March 1966
Top Secret
Papua and New Guinea—ultimate status
The Minister for Territories is seeking the views of Cabinet on the long term intentions of the Australian Government in relation to the Constitutional status of the Territory, and particularly on the line which should be taken by Government representatives in discussions in Canberra with the Select Committee on Constitutional Development of the House of Assembly of the Territory.
2. The submission opens up a wide range of issues on which it is not possible to prepare adequate comments for you at this stage. Many of them, e.g. trade policy, migration policy and programmes of assistance, require a good deal of separate study before there could be a balanced expression of the alternatives available to the Government. However, since there is a need for an early expression of views by Ministers, the following notes have been prepared to raise what seem to be some of the central issues.
3. It is a matter for question whether the Government should endeavour to tie itself at this stage to anything but the most general statement of policy in relation to the long term future of Papua and New Guinea. To do so would inevitably have a strong influence on the thinking of the inhabitants of the Territory, whose wishes it is the stated intention of the Government to respect. On the other hand, the Government may well think it reasonable to give some lead. If so, is it best for it not to foreclose any of the options available to it, such as the (admittedly remote) prospect of integration, but rather to concentrate on the importance of continued association, the details of which could be worked out in the light of the emerging desires of the people of the Territory and Australia’s own developing concerns? The range of possible association is wide, and need not preclude full independence plus treaties or agreements. But it would seem to be a pity, at this stage, when there has been no expression of views by the people of the Territory, to attempt to define the nature of future association. After all, this might well change from year to year.
4. Since the nature of the future association with Australia is the key point in the submission, it maybe worth examining the problem a little further. In general, the recommendation contained in paragraph 62(a), that the Government should accept an eventual close association between the Territory and Australia if this is what the people of the Territory want, seems reasonable. There are many grounds for wanting to see continued close association. But does the Government wish to tie itself publicly at this stage to answering the question how far it is willing to look to the integration of the Territory in the Australian polity? (The words in parenthesis at the end of para.62(a) suggest that the Government should state that any future association would exclude integration of the Territory with Australia as a State.) If the suggestion about excluding integration has been made in the knowledge that, unless the Government expresses a firm view, the Committee will probably look towards integration with greater expectations than the Government would wish, perhaps the point should be made. If, on the other hand, the Government does not wish to preclude some form of integration, it may be best to remove the bracketed words in recommendation (a).
5. In considering the nature of Australia’s future association with New Guinea, it has to be remembered that the world is changing fast, and particularly the area to our near north. Regionalism is becoming an increasing factor in international relations. Who knows whether, in perhaps 10–20 years we may not be looking to a regional association which might include possibly Fiji and other neighbouring islands and New Zealand? Public opinion in Australia at the moment is certainly very favourable to the Territory, and any firm posture in the Committee against ever considering the possibility of integration of the Territory would be likely to come as a jolt, both here and in the Territory.
6. The submission refers at some length to a paper endorsed by the Defence Committee on the defence considerations which are relevant in considering the future of Papua-New Guinea.3 The defence paper indicates that the closest association with the Territory will be in Australia’s best defence interests. But the submission notes that trade and other aspects are not so important. The really vital thing seems to be to preserve, as far as possible, friendly feelings in the Territory towards Australia. Without these, it is unlikely that even our defence interests in the Territory could be adequately preserved. The importance of goodwill in the Territory emphasises the need not to affront too heavily any aspirations towards integration which may currently be entertained by the people of the Territory. If there is a body of opinion which actively desires integration, this would seem to be another reason for not wishing at this stage to rule out integration as an available form of future association.
7. In paragraph 59 there is a suggestion that the Committee may not pursue the question of the range of possible special relationships with Australia. The paragraph continues with the suggestion that, whether or not the Committee pursues this line, ‘there appear to be advantages in the Government taking the opportunity to state a view’. For reasons suggested above, Ministers may want to look carefully before deciding voluntarily to disclose a relatively final position on such vital matters. There has been no opportunity for full consideration—let alone inter-departmental discussion—of the forward policy.
8. Some of the lines which it is suggested the expression of Government views should take (para. 61) seem questionable, and certainly need further study. Is it really only when the Territory achieves internal self-government that the views of the people about the nature of the association with Australia will be important (first asterisk)? One might reasonably hope that there would be clearer concepts emerging from public discussion in the Territory a good deal earlier than that. Why, in any case, should the Australian Government state firm positions ahead of the people of the Territory discovering their own real political aspirations? There is also a danger that paternalism will creep into the expression of Australian views—e.g. in the third asterisk, it is suggested that ‘Australia will go on helping in the Territory’, but it is then added that ‘the co-operation of the people is necessary’. Should it not be the other way round—that Australia is willing to co–operate with the people of the Territory? The final asterisk deals with migration: in the light of the Government’s recent decision,4 would it not be better at this stage to withhold any firm expression of views on the conditions likely to be applicable in some years’ time to the movement of Papuans and New Guineans to Australia?
9. All in all, the thinking in the previous paragraphs seems to boil down to the proposition that, if the Government genuinely wishes the Territory to find its own way to independence, with Australian help, the Australian Government itself should be most cautious about any close definition of its view of the nature of future associations with the Territory.
10. It is not altogether clear how significant a body the Select Committee on Constitutional Development is. But if it is likely to produce a report which will be the keystone of developments for some time to come, it may even be worth considering whether, in addition to the Minister for Territories, other Commonwealth Ministers might not appropriately be included in the discussions.
11. The future of the Territory involves many broader policy aspects on which it is not reasonable to expect the Department of Territories, unaided, to prepare advice for its Minister. Would it be desirable for the Cabinet to establish an interdepartmental committee composed of main interested departments? The Committee might include, in addition to Territories, Treasury, External Affairs and ourselves, with power to co–opt other departments as their interests are concerned, e.g. Defence, Trade and Industry and Immigration. The Committee might be directed to keep an eye on developments, and to report on any matters which seem necessary following Cabinet’s discussion of the submission. The main points which Cabinet may wish to consider with a view to briefing those who will discuss the issues with the Select Committee from the Territory are—
• The Australian view of the desirability of continued association with the Territory.
• Whether Australia favours virtual unity with Papua and New Guinea.
• How far the Government is willing to commit itself to continued aid, and to close trade ties.
• Whether a warning should be sounded about the prospects for easier migration from the Territory to Australia. Whether the points it makes in discussions with the Committee, if reported, will cause it embarrassment with the United Nations (its attitude to the nature of the future association may be particularly affected by this consideration).
While Ministers will no doubt want to be as forthcoming as they can with the Select Committee, the issues raised in the submission are very far-reaching, and Cabinet might wish some of the matters to be left in play for further consideration after the discussions with the Committee.
[NAA: A4940, C 1724 part 2]
1 P.H. Bailey, First Assistant Secretary, Cabinet and External Relations Division, PMD.
2 Document 25.
3 Attachment to Document 25.
4 In March 1966, the Australian Government decided that it would reduce from 15 to five years the time before which those with temporary Australian residency could apply for resident status. It was also decided that those who wanted to settle in Australia with wives and children would be measured according to suitability, qualifications and ability to integrate—and that they would be given five year temporary permits, under which their families could accompany them, as opposed to the previous 15 year waiting period (speech by Hubert Opperman (Minister for Immigration), 28 May 1966, in Current Notes , vol. 37, 1966, p. 267).