Canberra, 14 March 1966
Top Secret
Papua New Guinea: ultimate status
I attach a memorandum from Booker1 on the draft Cabinet submission.2 We have not seen it in its final form, and our comments are based on the draft which is attached.
2. I agree with a great deal of what Booker says, particularly on the desirability of avoiding tying our hands more than we have to at present to any specific future constitutional status for New Guinea. We should allow as much flexibility to persist as possible.
3. One thing to which Booker draws attention, validly in my view, is that public presentation of our policy is at some points as important as the substance of the policy. Moreover, presentation to the people of New Guinea is often more important than the presentation to the people of Australia.
4. One point on which I disagree with Booker is on the statement of attitude on New Guinea becoming a state of Australia. I agree with Booker that statehood should be ruled out. He believes however that we should not let this be known publicly because the people of New Guinea might feel rejected and because the Australians up there might react in a way that would cause damage politically and economically. I think however we should, as soon as possible, let it be known that statehood of Australia is not one of the possibilities that will be open to the people of New Guinea; this will prevent expectations being raised for something that cannot come about. I would not envisage an abrupt announcement that Australia would not allow New Guinea to become a state, but I think we should work subtly to let this attitude be known.
5. I also disagree with the way in which parts of the draft Cabinet submission speak of ‘independence’ and ‘close association with Australia’ as being necessarily different. It would be possible for an independent New Guinea to be closely associated with Australia. We should avoid creating in the minds of New Guinea people the impression that, if they maintain close association with Australia, they will not be genuinely independent. Benelux3 is an example of complete independence of members despite close association.
Attachment
PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA: ULTIMATE STATUS
Attached is a draft Cabinet Submission prepared by the Department of Territories and passed to us on Wednesday, 8th March, for comment—Annex A.4 We understand that the submission will be presented to Ministers on Tuesday next, 15th March, in a form substantially the same as the present draft.
2. The need for some broad guidance to the Select Committee of the House of Assembly is acknowledged, but we feel that the proposals set out in paragraphs 61 and 62 need considerable further study and examination. In general we consider that:—
(a) The practical possibilities regarding the future of Papua and New Guinea are not adequately examined and defined in the submission.
(b) It is not possible at the present time to foresee the future sufficiently clearly to be able to make a final decision as to the ultimate status of the Territory. In particular, it is not possible to foresee what particular attitudes will exist among the people of the Territory in, say, ten years from now.
(c) Other factors which are important, for example the attitude likely to be taken by Indonesia, are not canvassed at all in the present submission; and the United Nations and other international aspects are not adequately presented.
(d) There is much to be said for continuing our present policies for a further period and avoiding any unnecessary limitation upon our ability to adjust these policies to evolving circumstances.
Comment on recommendations
3. In regard to the recommendations in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the present draft,5 we would make the following particular comments:
(a) ‘Close association’ is not adequately defined in paragraphs 61 and 62 (or indeed in the body of the submission). It is not clear whether it would take the form of independence with a treaty relationship, or continuing territorial dependence. This distinction is crucial in regard both to its international acceptance and its inherent durability.
(b) It would, in our view, be unwise to state publicly (it must be assumed that what is said to the Select Committee will receive publicity) that full and equal statehood must be ruled out. Such a public declaration might well:
i. give the people of the Territory, and especially its leaders both Australian and indigenous, a strong sense of rejection;
ii. focus domestic and international attention on this refusal and perhaps generate pressure for the very things we wish to avoid.
(c) If a declaration were to be made ruling out full and equal statehood it would need to be balanced with a firm promise of independence.
(d) It would be unwise to announce publicly as our objective a vague status of ‘close association’. This would be likely to arouse suspicion and expose us to persistent questioning as to what our real intentions were. It might well be alleged, for example, that we were engaged in an effort to trick the people of Papua and New Guinea into accepting a state of permanent inferiority.
(e) It would also be unwise to define our attitude to immigration on such lines as: ‘precise migration requirements as liberal as practicable (but short of completely free access) would be worked out .. .’6 This would provoke criticism in Australia, internationally, and in the Territory on the grounds that it indicates that we did not intend to grant full equality.
(f) We consider, for reasons set out in more detail in {Annex 8},7 that if Ministers decide to put the prospect of close association to the Select Committee it should be made clear that this would not exclude the possibility of the Territory subsequently proceeding to independence should it wish.
General comments
4. The submission is concerned to canvass what is described as the ‘ultimate status’ for the Territory, but the status which is favoured appears to be one that is essentially transitional. Any ‘close association’ short of either integration or independence seems likely to be transitional. We would need to avoid offering a relationship which could be interpreted as conferring neither independence nor equality. A ‘close association’ short of independence would only be acceptable in the United Nations (as precedents have shown) if the people of the Territory had the right at any stage and of their own motion to opt for independence.
5. In paragraph 21 the draft submission states that it ‘does not attempt to present a detailed analysis’ of the issues which affect ’the choice … between a policy attitude directed towards eventual disengagement and a policy attitude directed towards association in one form or another.’ Our view is that it is highly desirable that such an analysis should be made before basic decisions are taken. For example, the problems of internal government and social development in Papua and New Guinea may be very great, say, ten years from now. We cannot even be sure that there will be reasonable internal stability. We consider that the prospects should be studied more closely before committing ourselves to long-range policies. We need to have some measure of the nature of the responsibilities we may be called upon to discharge.
United Nations
6. Among the factors which must be considered is the attitude of the United Nations towards the Territory. The section entitled ‘United Nations’ in the submission (paragraphs 44–47) is, in our view, misleading in that it does not, for example, draw to Ministers’ attention that we have certain specific and enforceable obligations in respect of the Trust Territory which can only be legally varied with the approval of the General Assembly.8 The section also contains certain inaccuracies. Attached (Annex B) is a paper which sets out relevant United Nations considerations.
Other international aspects
7. The submission rests its case (i) on defence considerations, and (ii) on international pressures. The importance of the former seems to have been overstated. We have some doubt whether it is true to say that ‘Australia’s defence and security are the most powerful factors influencing a choice at this time between a policy attitude directed towards continuing involvement or association and a policy directed towards disengagement’ (paragraph 50). Defence considerations are important, but there are broad political considerations, including the obligations we have accepted to the people of TPNG, which must be taken into account. The careful wording of the Defence assessment attached at Annex A of the draft submission does not support such a categorical judgment about the ultimate status of TPNG as this paragraph of the submission suggests. International pressures have not been accurately or completely described, and would need fuller examination than they have so far been given. The attitude of Indonesia and our own relations {with} it have already been mentioned; other important factors would include the general political situation in the Pacific region and the development there of a degree of political coherence (or alternatively of instability). The attitude of our closest allies to any arrangement would also need to be considered.
Constitutional problems
8. The question of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth is left very much in the air. This question must, however, be examined fully before a decision as to ultimate status is made; if, for example, amendment of the Constitution were to be involved, as is foreshadowed in paragraph 13, then a close examination would need to be made of the likely state of domestic Australian opinion, and the effect internationally of the domestic discussion which would ensue. Could we be sure, for example, that the whole question of statehood would not be re-opened at such a referendum?
Conclusions
9. In view of the foregoing it is concluded that it would be undesirable at this stage for the decision sought in paragraph 62(a) of the draft submission to be adopted but that the matter should be referred to an inter-departmental committee to make an examination and report on the issues which Ministers need to take account of in making their decision. This committee might consist of Territories, External Affairs, Defence, Attorney-General’s, Treasury and Prime Minister’s.
10. Meanwhile, in the forthcoming talks with the Select Committee the Government’s position might be stated along the following lines which, in our view, would be sufficient to meet international opinion, would permit the Select Committee to continue its deliberations, and would not prejudice the further consideration which we consider necessary:
i. It is for the people of the Territory to decide eventually what they would like to see as the ultimate status of the Territory; it will be the views of the people at the relevant time that will be important in relation to specific arrangements and not the views of the people at this time. (As in paragraph 61 (a) of draft.)
ii. The attitude of the Australian Government is that it will continue its help and support of the people of the Territory during their evolution towards self-government as long as the people want help, but the co-operation of the people and of their representatives is a necessary part of that help; i.e. in matters like land tenure and the development of mineral or forestry resources co-operation is necessary, and in political affairs it is a prime responsibility of political representatives to co-operate in achieving a smooth transition from political dependence to efficient self-government in the Territory. (As in paragraph 6l(c); underlined words indicate amendments.)
iii. A smooth and orderly transition to self-government will require progress in certain essential areas, e.g. development of a local public service which can efficiently maintain the basic services of government; progress towards a viable economy; the development of an informed electorate; an education system which will provide people with the skills required in commerce, industry and the public service; and governmental arrangements which place due financial responsibility on the Territoiy executive government. (As in paragraph 61 (d).)
iv. If the Select Committee finds that the outlook of the people is in favour of ultimate independence this would be an acceptable situation to the Government; if, on the other hand, it is found that the people of the Territory are looking towards an association with Australia this also would be acceptable to Australia, subject to the details of this association being worked out in accordance with the circumstances of the time. (Redrafted from paragraph 61 (b) but deleting the reference to excluding the possibility of statehood.)
11. Recommended for consideration.
[NAA: A1838, 936/5]
1 Booker’s minute was addressed to Hasluck through Plimsoll. It was similar in substance to a minute of 10 March, in which Booker had given his preliminary views to Plimsoll on the Territories submission after consultation with Jockel, W.T. Doig (Acting Head, UN Branch, DEA), Richard Smith and M.R. Casson (America and South Pacific Section, DEA). Later on that day, Booker had written a marginal note to Doig in which he conveyed Plimsoll’s request ‘to proceed urgently with briefing notes for the Minister’. The note also commented that Plimsoll had discussed PNG’s ultimate status with Warwick Smith who ‘was apparently not very receptive’ (NAA: A1838, 936/5).
2 For draft of 8 March 1966, see NAA: A1838, 936/5. Final is Document 25.
3 Established in 1958, the economic union of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg provided for free movement of labour, capital, goods and services.
4 Not printed.
5 Dot points I and 3 of paragraph 61 were amended in the final submission. In the draft of 8 March, they read: [l] ‘It is for the people of the Territory to decide eventually what they would like to see as the ultimate political status of the Territory; it will be the views of the people at the relevant time that will be important in relation to specific arrangements and not the views of the people at this time … [3] The attitude of the Australian Government is that it will help in the Territory as long as the people want help, but the cooperation of the people and of their representatives is a necessary part of that help; ie in matters like land tenure and the development of mineral or forestry resources co-operation is necessary and in political affairs it is a prime responsibility of achieving a smooth transition from political dependence to efficient self-government in the Territory’. No changes were made to paragraph 62 of the submission (NAA: A 1838, 936/5).
6 Ellipsis in the original.
7 Not found.
8 The last sentence of paragraph 44 in the final submission is missing in the draft. The remainder of the section remained unchanged in the final document.