Canberra, 29 July 1969
Constitutional development
• Further to your discussion with the Secretary on constitutional development.1
• I do not think we should look too closely at the experience of British or even other European decolonisation as a guide to our future relationship with Papua and New Guinea.
- Britain particularly and the other ex-colonial powers too have all withdrawn from their colonial territories at2 an era of contracting European influence.
• On the other hand apart from the Philippines the Americans have shown no inclination to withdraw from overseas territories. Even more surprising, the influence of probably the most unpopular country in the world—South Africa—is expanding so that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are little more than satellites and even Malawi has very good relations.
• Australia’s colour policies are such that we should be able to expect at least as close [a] relationship.
• As I see it the basic factors are proximity and economic dependence. Because of proximity to Australia expectations are engendered in the people in Papua and New Guinea for economic standards bearing some relation to those of Australia which were never the case in the relationship between Britain and any of its colonial territories.
- The arguments we heard in the local officers arbitration case and the differences of opinion about standards3 are largely sui generis to the relationship between Australia and Papua and New Guinea.
• As I see it the most telling single point on the economic side is currency.
- This came up in the Nauru talks4 and has still not been resolved (but in very different circumstances).
• For the Territory to establish its own currency would clearly confer a very doubtful benefit upon the people themselves.
- But equally if the Territory wishes to remain in the Australian exchange control area after independence this can only be done if it accepts some substantial limitations on its independence.
• Basically if all goes well Territory politicians are going to be faced with making a decision between—
- splendid independence and a reduction in economic expectations by virtue of severance from Australia
- limitations on independence, possibly in the nature of a formal constitutional association in the interests of linking the Territory’s economy closely to that of Australia and maintaining economic expectations.
• These choices could either follow the Cuban precedent of disassociation from the U.S. or the Malawi precedent of association with South Africa and it seems to be largely impossible for us to foretell which way the majority of the people will wish to go. But I do think there is a basic correctness in carrying on as we are now on the basis that Australia will react to choices made by the elected members.
[NAA: A452, 1969/3605]
1 Record of conversation not found.
2 Presumably this should read ‘in’.
3 See, for example, Documents 2 and 56.
4 That is, discussions on Nauru’s independence between Australian officials and Nauruan representatives.