Canberra, 4 August 1969
I refer to your letter of 26th June 1969 concerning the petition on the Act of Free Choice in West Irian which was presented to the Administrator of Papua and New Guinea by Mr. Leo Hannett on 24th May 1969.1
Whilst there are differences in the two situations, I wonder whether we should not deal with Mr. Hannett’s petition in the same way as we would with a resolution from the House of Assembly which asks the Government to pass its views to the United Nations. In that situation the Speaker of the House conveys the resolution to the Administrator who in turn submits it to the Minister for External Territories. I then pass it to you as Minister for External Affairs for onward transmission to the United Nations.
Although the petition conveyed by Mr. Hannett has quite clearly not the same stature as a House of Assembly resolution, it seems to me that there is something to be said for the Government’s passing this communication on to New York as requested. Although they may do so, I do not think we should encourage the people of the Territory to petition the United Nations direct; rather we should be encouraging them to address their problems to the Administering Authority. If in so doing they indicate that they wish their petition or communication to go on to the United Nations we should simply pass it on.
Where the communication concerns a matter directly relating to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, the Government would have the opportunity at that stage, if it wished, to make its own comments to the United Nations. Where, as in this case, it is not directly related to the Territory, the Government acts solely as a channel.
I should be grateful if you would reconsider this question. If you agree that the petition should be sent on, I suggest this be done at the same time as the recently passed House of Assembly resolution on West Irian is conveyed to the Secretary-General.2 This resolution has now been received from the Administrator and a copy is attached. I should be grateful if you would arrange to have it conveyed to the Secretary-General.
[NAA: A1838, 936/4/11 part 2]
1 Barnes had conveyed Hannett’s request (see editorial note ‘The border situation, May–June 1969: Government reaction and public opinion’) to Freeth in a letter of 11 June (NAA: A452, 1969/3367). In his letter of 26 June, Freeth had answered: ‘I note that it is not a petition under Article 87 of the United Nations Charter. It is not addressed to the United Nations but to the Australian Government, and it relates to West Irian and not to the Trust Territory of New Guinea. It would not therefore seem appropriate that our Mission to the United Nations should convey it formally to the Organization. It is of course open to the petitioners to send it direct to the Secretary-General of the United Nations’ (NAA: A452, 1969/2743). Meanwhile, the Act of Free Choice was completed on 2 August. A JIC Current Intelligence Report (CIR) noted that the ‘act … from the Indonesian point of view, was brought to a satisfactory conclusion … In all eight administrative areas the Consultative Councils set up by the Indonesians decided in favour of incorporation into the unitary State of Indonesia. Stringent security measures by the Indonesians ensured that the conduct of the act was orderly and produced results in their favour’ (extract from JIC CIR no. 33 of 1969, undated, NAA: A452, 1969/3856). Jockel opined that the Act had ‘impelled the Indonesians into great efforts of indoctrination and, with their traumatic fear of separatism, it has led them into repression which has in turn increased the spread of anti-Indonesian sentiment’ (cablegram 1953, Jockel to DEA, 21 July 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/3009).
2 See footnote 14, Document 300.