Canberra, 24 and 29 March 1966
Top Secret
Submission No.71—Papua and New Guinea—ultimate status1
The Cabinet discussed the Submission on 24th and 29th March.
2. It noted that the Submission was put forward with relation to exploratory discussion of the long term constitutional status of the Territory with the Papua and New Guinea Select Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Development in the course of the Committee’s forthcoming visit to Canberra. It noted also that the Submission invites the Cabinet, in anticipation of the discussion, to agree upon—
(a) a particular posture towards the long term political future of the Territory; and
(b) the lines along which Government views might be stated in the discussion.
3. The Cabinet decided against making, or so much as attempting to make, a decision in relation to the first of these matters. Concerning the lines along which Government views might be stated, the Cabinet recognized that some amount of response would be necessary, but took the view that the objective should be to shape what is said so as to keep maximum flexibility.
4. It thereupon sketched, for the guidance of the Minister for Territories and other Ministers who will attend the discussions, lines of guidance which are set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 below. To some extent, these lines comprehend those which the Submission itself put forward, but the formal position is that the Submission as a whole is unendorsed.
5. In sketching guidelines, the Cabinet indicated, in the first place, that the opening section of the lines which the Submission sets out in paragraph 61 might be adopted. This section refers to acceptance of the policy of self-determination for the Territory. It was added by the Cabinet, however, that it would need to remain clear that eventual arrangements about the political status of the Territory will depend not only on the views of the people of the Territory at the relevant time (as distinct from the views of the people at this time), but also, insofar as the arrangements may bear upon Australia’s area of decision, on the views of the Australian Government of the day.
6. The Cabinet then developed its guidelines as follows—
‘There is general agreement in the Cabinet on the desire to have and to keep as much flexibility for the Australian Government as possible. And since flexibility and precise response to the Select Committee would not run together, it will be necessary to avoid both formality and precision in what is said to the Committee. It might be said, as paragraph 61 proposes, that it is the Territory’s prerogative, on its own decision and its own timing, to terminate its present territory status and to take independent status. But that being said, it might be added, not by way of instruction or advice but in the process of give and take of counsel, that the Government would think that the Territory will not wish to make a decision for independence until it has, for instance, a good deal greater degree of economic and political viability than it now has, and that pending this achievement, Australia will be willing to see the Territory continue in its present political status, and further, will stand willing, and will desire, to help its development. It will assist towards financial independence by progressively giving the Territory more financial autonomy as its capacity to contribute to its own revenues increases. Further, it will wish to put more and more of the administration of the Territory in Territory hands, by the development of the Territory public service and to enlarge progressively the measure of self-government. Finally, still in terms of give and take of counsel, it might be said that Australia would think that whatever the political status of New Guinea may be at any time, there would be, as a matter of mutual self-interest, a defence relationship and also a trade relationship of mutual advantage. The defence relationship would derive from the Territory’s need of Australian aid in defence, and from Australia’s interest, from a defence point of view, in New Guinea.’
7. Paragraph 60 of the Submission proposes a general statement to the effect that, for its part, the Government does not see the difference in status of Papua and ofNew Guinea as leading to a preferred position for Papua as against New Guinea in respect of relationships with Australia. It was agreed that an indication of these lines would be in order.2
[NAA:A1946,1968/838]
1 Document 25.
2 On 31 March, Barnes made a statement to parliament in which he announced the forthcoming visit of the Select Committee. He traced the background to the visit and observed that possible changes to the composition of the House of Assembly would need to come before the Commonwealth Government in 1966 if they were to be implemented before PNG elections scheduled for March 1968. Likewise, sufficient time was necessary if the House of Assembly was to approve alterations to electoral boundaries. Barnes also noted that the Committee seemed ‘particularly interested in the range of special relationships in the future between Papua and New Guinea and Australia which might be considered by the Government of the day’. ‘The Government’, he explained, ‘has no desire to press constitutional changes upon the people of the Territory which they do not want or for which they think they are not ready nor will the Government refuse to make changes if there is strong and widespread support for change in the Territory. This is the Government’s attitude to the possibility of changes affecting the House of Assembly which the Select Committee referred to in its interim report, and it applies also to possible changes in the form of executive government i.e.in the arrangements for the Administration of the Territory to operate after the next elections for the House of Assembly. Subject to these considerations the Government would regard transitional steps towards eventual responsible ministerial government as appropriate at this stage. Without taking away from the Commonwealth Government’s final policy responsibility that is exercised through the Administrator and the Minister for Territories, arrangements could be made for certain responsibilities of a ministerial character to be passed to an initially limited number of elected members and for changes to be made in the arrangements for the Administrator’s Council directed to the same end’ (NAA: A452, 1966/4576).