Port Moresby, 17 January 1966
Mr. Guise: Time has come for discussions with Australia. Need to know Government’s thinking.
1. Clarify the position of the status of Papua and New Guinea—they differ now. Minister and Cabinet should clear this up so that Committee can get in. Papuans are Australian citizens; New Guineans are Protected Persons.
2. Want Committee to sit down in Canberra with Ministers to find the way through this matter of status of Papua and New Guinea. (We have not only got one road—this is not a matter for the United Nations but for the people). Special relationship between Papua and New Guinea and Australia (or Papua and Australia or New Guinea and Australia).
3. Internal self-government to come first.
4. Australia’s role after self–government—what grant will be available, what economic aid?
5. Australia accepts unlimited laws. Can constitutional law bind the Territory?
6. What will be the migration laws into P.N.G. and Australia?
Want to find this way after discussion with Government.
The Minister: Self–government is our aim. Important factor is what the people want. The points made on self–government are—what funds would be available—we cannot commit a new Government too far ahead.
For the present we have accepted the guide lines of the World Bank Report2—5 years. Beyond this no Government can go without the agreement of Parliament.
1.3 Interim. Do people want change in set up of present House of Assembly before the next Election? We must have report if you want changes before the end of this year. Parliament may end in November. A report as soon as possible would help. We have to put through legislation if you want to amend the Papua and New Guinea Act.
You will need to amend your Ordinances. Change boundaries etc. Any interim changes and any information you may get is important from point of view of self-government.
[2] In relation to long term—we will {advance} this country economically and socially and this is our objective. Long term objectives are very difficult. Great majority of people have no education. I don’t know whether they would be able to make up their minds in a few years. In a few years time their children or their childrens’ children might be sorry these arrangements were made and might want something else. The first objective is self-government[,] is the advancement of the people socially and economically. Principles of government evolved gradually over {800} years. Minister then set out basic principles as set out in pages 5 and 6 of brief for official members.4
Mr. Guise: (a) Eventually Act will be passed by Australian Parliament; therefore have to find out what Australian wants. (b) Bill of Rights is on the agenda.
Mr. Downs:5 If you can find a way of helping the Territory to advance an association with Australia you will help the Committee a good deal. The great majority of people want to remain in association with Australia.
If we got self–government we could not go into association with Australia. Show us a way in which we can stay in close association with Australia. Westminster constitution is a good thing. We won’t throw away the freedoms of the Bill ofRights. Australia must get off the beam mindless of others. We haven’t got plenty of time. We are not yet ready. We have to educate. Everyone has to be brought in. This does not belong to U.N.0.6 (referring to recent resolution).7 P.N.G. is ready to make a choice to work towards association.
We haven’t got a choice; we have got to find a way to bring the Territory into close association with Australia.
The Minister: What Mr. Downs says makes sense. There8 are exploratory meetings, to see what can be done. We have the best interest of the Territory at heart but we have to arrive at a solution to which both countries will agree. To arrive at a programme years ahead is {no} easy matter.
For my personal thoughts the processes of self-government could bring this country very close to Australia. The Westminster system of Government indicates a philosophy which we have inherited. To follow this will get you close to us. You have a fragmented society; people hold different views. You might find it just as easy to adopt our way of thinking eventually. You will be in a position from the economic point of view close to Australia and will be a very large nation in years to come and9 a market for all your produce in the Territory. What is most important {is} the point of security. We need friends like the Americans. You will need our help just as we will be glad of yours in times of {trouble}.Therefore I believe we shall always be close to each other if it is the wish of (either) people.
Mr. Watkins: People of the Territory will choose their future with the assistance of Australia. It is essential that this Committee should be able to indicate to the people the issues and choices it might make. Some will clearly ally the Territory with Australia. In order that the Committee may put their needs to the people it is necessary to have the attitude of Australia towards one of those roads. It has been said on many occasions that choice must be left to people themselves but that cannot be made unless they know what to choose from.
An invidious situation would arise if the Committee were to indicate as one choice something unacceptable to Australian Government; and Committee does not wish to do this.
Involved in these choices are certain matters mentioned by the Chairman. Felt that very early exploratory talks should be held on particular points which have already arisen and are likely to arise in the future so that the Committee can be informed and advise the people on particular aspects. We do need this meeting early. This would at least forewarn the Government on matters which they will have to consider later on. Committee will be better able to deal with questions of people if it has had discussions.
The Minister: It would not be possible to give an answer to the long term arrangements at an early date. Our aim here to be short in term.
Mr. Watkins: Could this be made known?
Downs: The statement is always being made that the wishes of the people will be acceded to.
Minister: Certain statements have been made in relation to self-government or independence. We cannot commit the Australian people. This will be done at the time.
Downs: This means that Australia has always thought of self-government and independence.
Minister: Self-government does not preclude association.
Stuntz:10 What part of changes are going to be considered by Australian Government at Cabinet in April?
Minister: Interim changes.
Stuntz: I understood the Australian Government would have formulated some new policy before we have the meeting. It would seem better for discussions to be held before Cabinet members’ decision.
Minister: Has always been discussion with the representatives of the people before constitutional changes are made.
Stuntz: We feel we cannot get on with seeking the views of the people until we are told what the Government’s attitude will be. These major principles with regard to relationship between Aust. and P.N.G. are vital. Any changes made in the immediate future could compromise the long term arrangements. Many Papuans feel that changes can compromise their position as Australian citizens.
Immediate changes do accept the long term arrangements and the degree of Australian until subsequent to those changes.11
We feel that the time has come for firm policy for the future to be laid down and publicised.
Minister: From your remarks I judge you want to hear {our views and} convince the people of it. This is not what we want.
Stuntz: No[,] on[e] wants to know the range of questions.
Minister: The point of Guise’s committee is to take evidence to hear what the people want.
Stuntz: The only practicable method is to present the people with a range of alternatives with the result of presenting them with objectives which the Australian Government cannot accept.
Minister: Not convinced that short term changes will have the long term affect which you fear.
Brokam:12 You have heard what we have said. The Govt. of Aust. has got to think of where we are to go. We are not very happy to go to the people until we know what we can …13
Minister: We certainly will help in every way as we will have so many discussions. But we don’t want to tell the people how to think.
Guise: It is no good my going among the people unless I have what the Australian 14 thinks. Then it will be easy to go back to the people. Please may we sit down with you to get your thinking. Then we can get formation.15
Minister: This is the beginning of talks. We will have many more talks. I say again that it is the will of the people that will prevail.
McCarthy: On point of meeting Australian Government. We feel as though we are walking in the dark. We only need guide lines. Even the broadest advice will be of help to the committee. This is only a preliminary discussion.
Minister: I appreciate that, it is an idea which I will bear in mind.
Sinake Giregire:16 The people are the ones. We go out to the people and tell them what choices they have after we have been to Canberra. We don’t tell them to hurry up.
Simogen:17 What are relations to be with Australia—then we find out what the future is of P.N.G. We don’t want to hurry {the people or the Australian Government} but we must try to know the lines of opportunity.
Dirona Abe:18 How much we expect of advice from you.19 Your thinking will help us to plan {and give us confidence}.
Tei Abaf:20 This committee should go to Aust. to get their help. We have not got the capacity to make a constitution without Aust. help. There is plenty of time. We want to find ways of being very close to Aust. We want to bring P.N.G. together as P.N.G. with Aust. People in N.G. do not think about independence. My people are saying that we do not want independence for a very long time. We have yet to find out what the way to the future is. We want to find the people.
Guise: Thanks Minister. We want to come down for two weeks and talk to the Government.21
[NAA: A452, 1965/3353]
1 A Select Conimittee record by Watkins (undated, NAA: A452, 1965/3192) indicates that the Committee met in the morning to confirm matters to be raised with the Minister. Barnes met with the Committee at 4 p.m. and was accompanied by Cleland, Warwick Smith, Gunther and Ballard.
2 See introduction.
3 There are no other numbered sub–paragraphs in this section; indentation here is an editorial interpretation based on textual content.
4 Principles outlined in the draft brief for the official members (31 December 1965, NAA: A452, 1965/3 I 92), which apparently remained unaltered during re-drafting (see telex 263/48, Warwick Smith to Gunther, 12 January 1966, ibid.), included: ‘separation of the judiciary from the executive’; ‘freedom of speech and of the press’; ‘guarantee of essential liberties of the individual’; ‘social guarantees which, if written into the Constitution, would give guidance to the future governments of Papua and New Guinea’; ‘guarantees of private property rights (no acquisition without proper compensation)’; ‘essential provisions for controlling expenditure of the country’s revenues’; ‘control of the Public Service’; and ‘control of public prosecutions’.
5 I.F.G. Downs, MHA for Highlands special electorate; member, Administrator’s Council.
6 United Nations Organization.
7 Resolution 2112, adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 1965, noted inter alia that Australia had ‘not yet taken sufficient steps’ toward implementation of the Trusteeship Agreement and resolution 1514. (For discussion of the tenns of the Trusteeship Agreement and resolution 15 I 4 see, respectively, introduction and attachment ‘A’ to Document 14.) The resolution called upon Australia to implement resolution 1514—and ‘to this end, to fix an early date for independence in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people’—and to report back to the Trusteeship Council during 1966 ( Yearbook of the United Nations 1965, pp. 539—40).
8 This should perhaps read ‘These’.
9 The words ‘will have’ should perhaps have been inserted here.
10 J.R. Stuntz, MHA for East Papua special electorate; member, Administrator’s Council.
11 Meaning of sentence unclear.
12 Nicholas Brokam, MHA for New Ireland. open electorate; Under–Secretary for Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs).
13 Text missing in source document.
14 The word ‘Government’ appears to be missing.
15 Meaning of word unclear.
16 MHA, Goroka open electorate; Under-Secretary for Assistant Administrator (Services).
17 Simogen Pita, MHA for Wewak–Aitape open electorate; Under–Secretary for Police Department.
18 MHA for Rigo–Abau open electorate; Under–Secretary for Department of Public Health.
19 Sentence should perhaps have begun with ‘This is’ and ended with a colon.
20 MHA, Wabag open electorate.
21 The Select Committee met again on 18 and 20 January. Extracts of Watkins’ undated record read: ‘Many members of the Committee suggested that the present [open] electorates are too large to allow effective representation. Majority opinion was in favour of increasing the number of electorates [to] between 80 and 100 … Messrs. Guise and Downs argued the abolition of [special] electorates. A number of members … argued that the people would elect Europeans to Open Electorates … Discussion on official members revealed that no member of the Committee considered that official representation [in the House] should be terminated … Mr. Downs moved that the policy functions of the Central Policy and Planning Committee (see footnote I, Document 10] should be transferred to the Administrator’s Council … The Under–Secretaries on the Committee spoke about the present system of Under–Secretaries, and with the exception of Mr. Abe they expressed complete dissatisfaction. A dominant theme in the criticism was that the duties of an Under–Secretary caused him to neglect his electorate and render his political survival unlikely. The other criticisms may be summarized by saying that the position … gives a man a title and nothing more. The Committee resolved that the present system of Under–Secretaries is not workable and that if it was to be retained, some system which. brings members into departmental decision making processes should be instituted. The question of Under-Secretaries neglecting their electorates raised the question of a Non-Parliamentary Executive. Messrs. Guise, Stuntz and Downs argued that strong consideration should be given to a Non-Parliamentary Executive’. On 20 January, Scragg ‘suggested that the electoral difficulties inherent in the Under-Secretaries’ system would be overcome in a full ministerial system by the kudos which attaches to ministerial activities’(NAA: A452, 1965/3192).