Canberra, 12 September 1969
Letter of 22 August from the Minister for External Affairs:1 some comments
[ matter omitted ]2
• It is clear that Papua and New Guinea may petition the General Assembly and New Guinea in addition may petition the Trusteeship Council. There is no restriction placed on the range of subjects on which the Trusteeship Council may be petitioned, and the General Assembly will consider matters ‘relating to the maintenance of international peace and security.’
• Mr. Freeth recognises this right. One of his primary concerns in the letter seems to be to avoid the ‘embarrassment’ of the Australian Government. If the House of Assembly were to communicate direct with the United Nations, it would seem that the potential for embarrassment of the Australian Government would be far greater than in a situation where that Government acted as a channel of communication. A communication relating to external affairs and expressing a view contrary to that of Australia could, for example, be sent without the prior knowledge of the Australian Government, and at a time when world attention was spotlighted on the issue involved. Under the procedure where the communication is passed on via the Australian Government, its transmission can, after all, be delayed until a suitable time: this, after all, was done with the resolution on West Irian. There is surely no loss of prestige in the Australian Government acting as a channel of communication: it seems rather to be its proper function when the Territory is expressing views to an international body.
• There is nothing set down in the Trusteeship Agreement, the Papua and New Guinea Act or the Commonwealth Constitution which specifies that Australia is solely responsible for the defence and external relations of the Territory. Technically it may be that the House of Assembly can legislate on these matters. Certainly, it is entitled to express views on them. Mr Freeth himself recognises this saying: ‘Since at some point of time an elected Government of Papua and New Guinea is likely to be fully responsible for its own foreign policy and defence, it is wise that the fullest encouragement should be offered to the House of Assembly to interest itself in these matters.’
• It seems contradictory then to suggest that restrictions are put on the extent of this interest by preventing expression of the House’s views. The Australian Government speaks of the political advancement necessary before the time of self-determination. Part of the growth of political awareness is surely an interest and concern in matters which are other than parochial—the development of a sense of national unity is something of great concern at the moment. It seems foolish to put curbs on the development of some political consciousness and awareness of being a country which as a unit has national concerns. There is no reason why interest in {and} discussion of external affairs should not include expression of views to the United Nations. Moreover it is hard to see how Members of the House would be informed that they were only to express their views on such matters to the Australian Government, and it is unlikely that they would accept such a restriction. The attempt to impose it could be regarded as an insult. Tacitly it is saying that the Australian Government does not wish the Territory publicly to have any views different from its own.
• Procedures were earlier set out for dealing with a resolution from the House of Assembly which asks the Government to pass its views to the United Nations. The line of transmission is Speaker–Administrator–Minister for External Territories–Minister for External Affairs. Two resolutions on external affairs have now been passed on, and a precedent firmly established.
Post script: West Irian, after all, impinges significantly on Papua and New Guinea’s domestic affairs.3
[NAA: A452, 1969/3367]
1 Document 308.
2 Matter omitted includes quotations from articles 11.2, 73, 76 and 87 of the United Nations Charter.
3 Galvin minuted Ballard on the same topic: ‘[i] Minister for EAs letter … causes me difficulty [ii] Whilst the main point—that we should try to stop the House passing resolutions asking the Govt. to pass resolutions on foreign affairs on to say UN—is the obvious best course, how we do it is another matter [iii] I wouldn’t think we would want to initiate a fight with the House on the matter. For the House would then be diverted to sending resolutions direct [iv] I think the best we can do is reply to Freeth [that on this occasion the resolution be passed on] and through quiet work by official members get the point across that such requests can be embarrassing and are best avoided [v] When the next time comes (if ever) we head it off then [vi] This would not apply of course to resolutions … re TPNG proper [vii] These must be sent on whether we like them or not’ (18 September, NAA: A452, 1969/3367). Kerr later commented to Ballard: ‘Mr Galvin is more concerned with our part in getting the House to accept a proposition that it shouldn’t ask that similar resolutions in future be conveyed to the U.N. I doubt that this is the right approach but I agree that it is an important and difficult problem. It still think however that too rigid a formula should not be adopted for these cases, and ask in particular whether we need to positively dissociate ourselves in the manner adopted for the West Irian resolution’ (minute, 10 November 1969, ibid.). In marginalia of 11 November, Ballard replied: ‘Have a go at another draft [to Freeth] on the lines you suggest’.