Notes Of Discussions Between Ministers, Officials And Select Committee

Canberra, 18-20 April 1966

Monday 18/4/66

[ matter omitted ]1

10.55 a.m., Minister for Territories —Welcome by Minister for Territories. Arrangements with other Ministers given. Talks to go to Thursday2 or longer if required. These were informal talks concerning matters of interest to Select Committee and it was hoped to come to some useful decisions at end. No statements to press but it was hoped that [there would be] some broad agreed report at end of discussions. The Minister had to report on discussions to Parliament. Members may have seen reports of Government’s decisions and views which would be given at the meeting.3 Members should take {no} notice of those reports. Someone had used his imagination in writing the article.

Minister for Territories —Statement giving Government’s views as set out in attached notes4 was made. Interpreted into Pidgin as Minister went along. Additional points made to those set out in notes attached were—

Page 4.5

• Many years ago Australia consisted mainly of New South Wales. Who at that time could have predicted the Federation we would have to-day? There may be other changes in Australia in the future. The discovery of gold here brought many people to Australia and exerted considerable influence on changes in future years.

• Who would have thought 15 years ago that Indonesians would be in West New Guinea to-day? Will Indonesians be in West Irian in future years or will it be governed by people of your own race? Will people of West Irian wish to be joined with Papua and New Guinea in the future? These things we do not know.

Page 12.

• Whatever the final status of Papua and New Guinea the Australian Government would think that there would be a mutual defence and trade relationship between Australia and Papua and New Guinea.

Mr. Guise —Thank you for your trouble in setting out Government’s views. We would like to have copies of the statement just made and look at it.

Mr. Barnes —I would like to mention that I hope officials will in these discussions exercise their own views and not the views of the Government.

[ matter omitted ]

It was then agreed to adjourn to 4 p.m.

MONDAY 18/4/66—4.05 P.M.

Mr. Guise —We want you to clarify some statements. You said that this was an informal meeting—no records. We have to report to House of Assembly. How can we do this unless we have a report?

We would like to ask a number of questions on your statement. This is why we want a record. When a statement is made we want to see it before it is issued. A statement was made recently about political development which we did not know about.6

Mr. Barnes —Our final report which we hope we can agree on will contain all the points from the meeting.

Sinake Giregire —Third last line of page 4 of your statement (printed copy).7 We have come here to ask for a path for the future.

Mr. Barnes —We have had many changes in the Legislative Councils and now you have the House of Assembly. You will have other changes in the future.

Giregire —We have come to find the manner in which change will come about. We have come here to find a road.

Mr. Barnes —I would like to refer to my statement in which I said self-determination was the Government’s policy and full internal self-government should be the present aim. Changes should be made step by step as you are ready.

Mr. Downs —I refer to page 2, 4th para of your statement.8 Clarification of this is before you go step by step you must have an objective. The final form of the constitution could be different if the steps were different.

Mr. Barnes —I have pointed out the difficulties. To set a long term objective is to adopt a highly speculative approach. There will be many changes in the future and you cannot anticipate what will happen in the future.

Downs —It is reasonable that Parliament should achieve a bi-partisan approach to Papua and New Guinea. The United States have done this on foreign aid. Australia had had a long association with Papua and New Guinea and would hope that it would be possible for the Government to adopt a bi-partisan approach. This would reduce the danger of reaction by the people of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr. Barnes —Would assist as immediate objective to have a bi-partisan approach but this is not easy to achieve politically. What is the advantage of this over a step by step approach? What does it matter if two parties agree to an approach? It is [of] no advantage to have both sides of the House agree on an approach.

Mr. Stuntz —Statements made in the House of Assembly recognise that the formulation of a long term policy would be an important factor to encourage investors. Uncertainty of the future is the greatest factor deterring investors.

Mr. Barnes —It is a desirable objective to bring confidence to investors. If however you map out a constitutional plan this could be a straight-jacket which the people might have later to get out of. What can we do to give people greater understanding of the {issues} in constitutional changes? What will they be thinking in future years? Irresponsible expressions about the future of Papua and New Guinea do have a bad effect on investors.

Mr. McMahon —Draw attention to pages 5 and 7 of Minister’s statement9—one of the bases on which you can ensure stability is continued Australian assistance and you will be given further financial autonomy. These are the ingredients which lead to further substantial private investment.

Mr. Snedden —There is no magic in a draft constitution. Persons looking at a country to assess its stability can only look at what binds it, {not} what is likely, probable or possible in the future.

Mr. McMahon —We are trying here to get a{n accommodation} of minds. There are two compartments—

(a) the constitutional problem;

(b) economic and financial problem

With regard to (a), none of us can anticipate what will happen in the future. What will generations in the future think? We cannot mortgage a future Australian Government to particular or peculiar ties with some other country.

With regard to (b) there can be no denial that over the years we have attempted to give a high rate of economic development to Papua and New Guinea and provided the money to do this. We will provide aid each year. We cannot say how much. You cannot commit the future Government of Papua and New Guinea and we cannot do the same in Australia.

Mr. Stuntz —Agree that a draft constitution can be altered and does not give guarantees to future investors. If we can get the feelings of the people at this time we ally fears to investors.10 We feel if we are in a position to go to the people on the range of alternatives of close association and if these could be made public—and also made known that they were acceptable to the Australian Government—this would be11 a big effect on investors in the Territory.

Mr. Barnes —Support what Attorney said. Look at countries like Ghana, etc. with excellent Westminster constitutions but the people have not grasped essentials of the constitution. It is not in their hearts to give effect to the constitution.

Mr. Stuntz —The effect of any constitution must be linked with associations with Australia.

Mr. Barnes —How can we say what will be the views in the future? You can have excellent intentions. Self-determination is the Government’s policy. Any constitutional arrangements agreed to now could change.

Mr. Eric Eupu 12 —Refer to page 4 of Minister’s statement on different status of Papuans and New Guineans.13 Papuans do not know if New Guinea would be permitted to have a close association with Australia. If Papuans knew this it would help. The United Nations will force New Guinea to break with Australia.

Mr. Barnes —We treat the two Territories as a whole and will not favour one group against another. You need have no fears about the Government being forced into changes by the United Nations.

Dirona Abe —What does full internal self-government mean in page 2 of your statement (third line)?14

Mr. Barnes —It means that you will be pretty well independent economically and politically. You will raise the major part of your budget but you could still get assistance from outside. You will have full control over your own Government.

Mr. McMahon —Can add little to what Mr. Barnes has said. It is your right to determine when and where. The words mean exactly what they say and you cannot add to that During the whole of this period the Government will give all help it can to aid the Territory economy (refer to second last paragraph, page 7 of Minister’s statement).15

Words ‘full’ do not mean anything really. We just want to make it clear what we meant.

Mr. Barnes —I would like to add this. It could mean internal self-government as a Territory with Australia responsible for defence and external affairs.

Mr. Guise —Referred to page 4 of Minister’s statement on citizenship.16

True you look at Papua and New Guinea as you indicate but you must agree that in international law they are two entities. Papuans are Australian citizens and New Guineans are Australian protected persons.

There are two roads—Papua can join New Guinea as a Trust Territory or New Guinea can join Papua as an Australian Territory. What is to happen?

Mr. Snedden —Mr. Eupu said Papuans may find their interest different to New Guineans. This seems to point to clarity of Mr. Barnes’ statement because at this point of time the facts are not known. There is a big distinction between internal self-government and independence as a nation. These are two different concepts. While Papua and New Guinea is in the present situation, citizenship is not important. It might be important at some time in the future but it is not now. It is not desirable now to determine citizenship when ultimate self-determination has not been reached. One decision will determine the other. At time of self-government citizenship is of vital importance. If you can say with certainty that future of the two Territories is the same then citizenship is not important. Citizenship as a decision now could determine your ultimate position.

Mr. Guise —I am not talking about self-government but of the fact that there are two different status.

Mr. Snedden —We cannot change New Guinea citizenship until the trusteeship has been achieved and concluded.

Mr. Wegra Kenu17 —Many times we have discussed the separate entities of Papua and New Guinea and we want to finalise this question now. I support what Mr. Guise said. Why can’t we find a way to join the two peoples together? Essential that Australian Government says whether we are joined or if we are two separate Territories.

Mr. Barnes —What practical significance has it?

Mr. McCarthy —Only difference I know was after the war when treason applied to Papua but not New Guinea.

Dr. Scragg —The Highland’s reluctance to move to independence or self–government {is because} of the division into two countries. Papuans have permanent association with Australia unless Papuans renounce it. Will New Guinea be allowed to have this same type of association?

Mr. Barnes —This still does not answer my question.

Mr. Guise —Inside our country there are two people. A Papuan goes to New Guinea he is a Papuan. You have been to our country many times—why haven’t you seen it? Australia has the power to change this. Why doesn’t it?

Mr. Snedden —The Commonwealth does not possess this power legally. As a matter of power it is not in the Australian Government’s power to do what Mr. Guise asks.

Must also make it clear that while we haven’t the power now we can have it in the future when the people decide what they want. It is probably not in the Government’s hands but in the United Nations’ to make the sort of provision you are asking.

Mr. McMahon — I emphasise what the Attorney-General said—no legal power. Secondly on assumption that Papua could be in close association which Dr. Scragg referred to—we have not used the words ‘close association’.

Tuesday 19th April, 9.30. a.m.

Ministers Present—Minister For Territories, Attorney-General

Mr. Downs — Governments have in other cases committed future Governments—for example the North West Cape Project. People want to maintain close ties with Australia. Want something more created that18 we have now.

Disregard reports which you might see in the paper today19 —not true reports.

Committee has job to put Australia’s position to the people of the Territory. It might be important that Australian Government give assurance that a break in the constitutional relationship with Papua is not contemplated. Although this is not in your paper we received20 you made a strong reference to defence and trade. If the Australian Government is remaining inflexible on this position in the statement then can you give a different statement on defence and trade relationships and reconsider your fixed position on the constitutional side? Important that Territory people do not get a feeling of rejection.

If you are complaining about the standards in Papua and New Guinea you can not blame Papuans and New Guineans—these are standards the Australian Government has set.

I could ask more embarrassing questions but thought I should make a statement on this line. We should talk about immigration and the Minister for lmmigration21 should hear our views on this.

Mr. Barnes —We are deeply interested in the future. With regard to the feeling of rejection we have not rejected anything you have put up. Policies have been flexible. You will have all sorts of changes—tertiary education—and new attitudes to government are possible. Defence arrangements disintegrate with time. Changes should go step by step. The greatest step forward was the House of Assembly. We have accepted the World Bank Mission report and a five year programme of development.22 We can’t go further and commit the Government too far ahead.

The changes will come from the people of Papua and New Guinea. We will give assistance. After changes we may have to re–examine our position.

We have no intention of changing the present position of Papua and New Guinea.

Papua and New Guinea is an integral part of our defence plan. As the situation changes we have to look at this plan and if independence is the outcome in Papua and New Guinea the defence position will have to be looked at by the government of the day. Bases on independent countries from experience are not good.

To show our goodwill and interest in Papua and New Guinea I have some figures of aid to other countries (Minister then gave aid figures of Ghana, Kenya and Tanzania). On basis of world aid we stand second to none. Jordan gets 66% of its budget by foreign aid but this is given by the United States and the United Kingdom. We have no desires in Papua and New Guinea for our own material advantage. There are mutual benefits in defence and trade. The point is we do not want to push you away.

The Select Committee was appointed on your own initiative—it was not sponsored by us. It is a healthy indication of your interest in your future. You have right to make decisions—where they effect our policies we might have to review our position.

Mr. Simogen — We have come down to find exactly what the Government thinks so that we can reply23 it to the people of Papua and New Guinea. We wish to know exactly what is going to happen—Papua and New Guinea having a close association or at a distance from Australia. Yesterday I heard nothing concrete at all. When the U.N. visits New Guinea I have asked them who controls New Guinea. They say the trust has been given to Australia and Australia controls the Territory. It is true you have given much financial assistance. We want to know whether we are going to have a close association. We want to know what is going to happen. It is intended that the Select Committee relay the desires of the Australian Government to the people of the Territory. Many Australians are living in the Territory but how many Papuans and New Guineans are living in Australia? How many of these people have returned to Australia? If the Government does not give an assurance of close partnership many of the Australian people in the Territory will return to Australia.

I know a number of Europeans and they are afraid that self-government means expulsion for them. We want the Australian Government to tell the Select Committee what its attitudes are so that we can go back and tell the people of the Territory. We want to take back some good advice.

Mr. Barnes —Does Mr. Simogen think present relationships between Papua and New Guinea and Australia are good or does he want a change?

Mr. Simogen —It is a good relationship but insufficient. We want it even closer.

Mr. Snedden —What does he mean by closer?

Mr. Simogen —Closer ties and work more closely together and draw on your knowledge and resources.

Mr. Snedden —We find this interesting but you should realize that there are not two alternatives. What we have is two things that go together. You can have some contact (resources and financial) as you go along. As people determine the Territory’s status there is no reason why Australia could not continue to provide funds and people.

Mr. Barnes —What is Mr. Simogen’s view on independence?

Mr. Simogen —I can’t tell you much about this. The people are not knowledgeable on this. We want to find out how we find the road to self-government.

Mr. Snedden —You use the words ‘self–government’ and ‘independent’ as interchangeable but these are different things. Independence means that you are your own masters but you do not lose all relationships with Australia. You can work out these arrangements later.

Ministers left at 10.30 a.m.

Mr. Warwick Smith —Explained importance of timetable for any next changes. Paper on timetable for changes distributed.24

Administrator —Explained timetable for change.

Mr. Watkins — It might appear that time for Distribution Committee is short. It will have advantage of advice from time to time of the Select Committee on the number of seats. This will cut down the time.

Responsibility is now on the Select Committee to obtain the information required to furnish the report so decisions can be made on any recommendation.

Mr. Stuntz —Raised questions of interim report for next changes rather than final report.

Administrator —Interim report was possible.

Watkins —Following the discussions yesterday a certain atmosphere was created. The set up of the final constitutional aspects is important. We are getting on to interim changes. It is wise to keep in mind the ultimate aim. It is appreciated that people must take a bigger part in running their affairs.

Interim changes must retain the interest of the Australian Government—in formulating this we must have in mind the role the Australian Government is to play. We need to know the extent the executive side will be safeguarded. I feel that some discussion on future relationships—not decide these future relationships but some guide to the Committee. That is, not what the Government will do but what they will not do.

Dr. Scragg — Asked the Secretary if he could give a paper concerning the matter which Mr. Watkins had just discussed on ministerial government.

Secretar —It is better to start with Ministers on new matters. Will draw the Minister’s attention to what Mr. Watkins said and this could be covered.

The meeting was adjourned to 3.30 p.m. that day.

TUESDAY, 19TH APRIL, 3.45 P.M.

Present—Minister For Territories

Mr. Guise — Referred to report {in} paper that Mr. Guise says Australia must get out of Papua and New Guinea. This is a quite false report and has been manufactured. I am getting concerned that whatever is being said in here is getting to newspapers. I had a call from the ‘Australian’ reporter who told me what discussions had actually been held in this room. I have made no comment since the Committee arrived.

Referred to Minister’s statement in House of Representatives—

‘This is the Government’s attitude to possibility of changes affecting the House of Assembly etc.’25

I would like to ask the Minister on what conditions would the Government give self-

Mr. Barnes —When we met at Moresby26 I suggested you interest yourself firstly in the next changes and that the timetable was very important. This is what I meant by step by step development towards fully responsible House of Assembly. We have made changes after seeking views of people and assessment of things such as capacity of people, financial responsibility and responsibilities of Australian Government. I stated we will advance you to self-government if you wish it. You now have an elected House of Assembly and a group which plays a big part in Government is the executive of Parliament. The difference between the Commonwealth Parliament and the House of Assembly apart from financial aspects is responsible Ministers. We have instituted a system of under-secretaries as a step towards developing a Territory executive.

We want to advance this stage. We are up against a problem faced by financial dependence on Australia. Our grant last year was £31m of a £52m Budget. The loans guaranteed by Australia total £3m. This is a large sum when related to aid to other countries. We hold the view that we have the right to see that the money is spent to the best advantage—that is, in our view and not in the Territory’s views. Also expenditure on defence and civil aviation is £14m this year.

First and most important aim is to advance economy so local revenue will grow. A lot of wealth is not being used apart from agriculture—e.g., timber and minerals. You have not the money to develop these yourself and we have not the money here. So we must attract people from overseas to invest in the Territory. In future for some years you will have to rely on political integrity of Australian Government so that funds can be raised overseas for spending in Papua and New Guinea.

We have to show the world and Australia that you have a stable and efficient Government—a Government in which they have no fear that investments will be lost. To me you have not yet had experience to run a full ministerial government. 1 said before we started27 with under–secretaries to fill a situation which in some circumstances has an identity with Cabinet.

Next step is for two ministerial representatives who would also be in the Administrator’s Council. The portfolios are a matter for discussion but perhaps health and education would be the most suitable. This is a beginning and I think I have indicated our position is not inflexible. We are going step by step as changes can be made. I have been fortified in these views by the local people of the Territory who see no virtue in hurrying. Look at other countries who have hurried. This is generally what I have in mind when I refer to ministerial representatives.

The important part of statement is that this does not take away the final responsibility of the Government exercised through the Minister for Territories while we supply the major part of your finances.

This is not a simple matter which I propose—financing them is one matter and the relationships of the Administrator’s Council is another. You could discuss these things with the Secretary tomorrow.

Mr. Stuntz —Political development to date has not gone hand in hand with increased economic level. Does this mean that rate of political development will be governed by the rate that the Territory can raise its own expenditure rather than be related to the capacity of the people to exercise responsibilities of government?

Mr. Barnes —My views are that economic development in the Territory has not only been under way in recent times. The first stage was development of education and health. Without these you do not make much development in other fields. My view when appointed Minister was that a greater effort in economic development was necessary. This is not easily started.

Financial responsibility is one of major factors in ministerial responsibility—other factor is, do people want it?

My personal view is that we have taken responsibility for development for next five years under the World Bank Report. This again I believe is the wish of the people. I believe it would be a pity to change this before five years were up. This will be a small start with two ministerial representatives—further changes can be considered when we have completed the World Bank Report.

Mr. Watkins —You mentioned two ministerial representatives— I take it you also envisage that they would have some limitations compared to Ministers of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Barnes —I suggest we discuss this tomorrow.

Mr. Stuntz —Have you considered desirability and practicability of giving some local representatives control over local revenue?

Mr. Barnes — You mean ‘split’ the Budget. This is difficult although it sounds simple. If local revenue is devoted to some local matters obviously there will be fluctuations in this revenue. Some years it may not be enough, other years may be surplus while other departments are short of funds. In other words if you use taxes to provide funds for certain departments this revenue will not be available to general revenue. In Australia some years back there was a separate tax for social services and also a petrol tax for roads. We found in both cases the financing of these objectives were unsatisfactory and changed. Therefore all revenue goes into one fund. It does not mean that you cannot finance departments represented by ministerial representatives from the ordinary Budget.

Mr. Guise —Referred to question 5 of the matters listed by the Committee for discussion—the Parliamentary executive inside or outside the legislature.28

Mr. Downs —The concern here is that lack of capacity of people will favour executives outside the legislature. In one way, with official members in the House of Assembly, now we have a non-parliamentary executive.

Mr. Barnes —The outside executive is said to have worked well in the U.S. One of chief drawbacks of a separate executive is where you have the elected parliament hostile to the executive. You can have a deadlock for years until new elections are held. This does not occur here where the Government is out when it loses the confidence of the parliament. The outside executive is remote from the House. You cannot have questions answered in the House. Your analogy to official members has some degree of virtue but official members have a close association with the Administration and this after all is in transitional stage.

Mr. E. Smith —You must have people with good qualifications to fill both executive and parliament. If you use some available persons from outside you have fewer suitable persons inside.

Mr. Watkins —The background to this item is that some members felt if a form of non-parliamentary executive were introduced the ministerial system you mentioned would go on but we could also have some outside executive to bring in local administration. It is not necessary that members of the parliamentary executive be native persons, they could be Europeans.

Mr. Barnes —This does not get over the question of responsibility when we provide funds. It also puts tremendous burden on the Administrator.

Mr. Downs —We are not advocating it, we just want to get your views.

Mr. Warwick Smith —Even present members of the House would find it less satisfactory if those responsible for executive action were not inside the House to answer questions on Administration.

Mr. Watkins — Referred to question No.7 of Select Committee’s questionnaire.29 As this concerns the Government we thought we should get your views.

Mr. Barnes —Essential to have official members—we will not say what number, but enough to represent efficiently departments of Administration in the House.

Mr. Guise —I wish to ask the Minister if it is all right to ask the people this question.

Mr. Barnes —We can state no limit to the questions you can ask.

Mr. Stuntz —Are there any questions the Government would like us to put to the people to get their views?

Mr. Barnes —l have not given this thought. I look at this as an independent committee going on its way. I can see a lot of difficulty in getting understanding of questions you propose to ask.

The Committee adjourned until 8.00 p.m. when the Minister for Immigration would be available to meet the Committee.

Tuesday 19/4/66, 8.20 P.M.

Present—Minister For Territories And Minister For Immigration

Mr. Stuntz —Migration has come up a lot mainly in newspapers. It is not in our mind or minds of Papuans and New Guineans to press for mass arrival down here, therefore social services and accommodation problems are not likely to arise.

If migration is to be a problem it could be taken separately from any other association which might occur. There could be limits on numbers who would come here and a limit on number of people going to Papua and New Guinea on [an] equity arrangement.

Would like to hear from Government generally and tell how new scheme of immigration would work for Papua and New Guinea. Has the Minister considered the situation of Papuans in regard to their present status as subjects of the Crown?

Mr. Opperman —The first question can be answered more readily than the second. The alteration of immigration laws covers the idea of bringing into Australia for permanent residence people who would integrate in the community. Feel that we do better if we speak frankly and cordially without embarrassment.

Racial differences are sensitive area and overcome realities of [the] matter. People must be compatible. Policy of Government is to bring in new regulations covering Asians and other races who fit into categories for work which cannot be carried out by Australians—i.e. high technical skills, ability to merge readily into the Australian community. This briefly outline of new policy.

We believe greatest necessity for new developing nations is to have people with skills and abilities, so we make provision for students to come here and be taught things of advantage to their own country.

Must not be overlooked [that] with {our} educational requirements to-day and with technical schools etc. over-crowded, if people from overseas come here they deprive an Australian of the opportunity and so the basis of the arrangement is that they should go home at the end of their training. More than 400 students from Papua and New Guinea now in Australia.

Can understand why [there are] some cases where people who come here and like it desire to remain. But any one with the interest of their own country at heart and [who] can contribute something to their country, should submerge those ideas and go back and help their own country.

There is not much more I can add but if there are people in Papua and New Guinea who have fundamental ability to train that way, there is no resistance to them coming here. I have right as Minister in special cases (in conjunction with Minister for Territories) to look at and study them as special cases.

Mr. Stuntz —Other than students, would change in immigration policy apply equally to people of Papua and New Guinea (i.e. in same manner as people of other countries) before self–government?

Mr. Opperman —lf you had a person who had developed to the degree that Australia could utilise his services I feel frankly that the Australian policy should be that he would be of more use to his country. Each case would be considered on its merits but felt that it would [be an] exceptional one to allow something to the advantage of Australia which is not to the advantage of Papua and New Guinea.

Dirona Abe —Would like to know a bit further about Australian citizenship which I am very proud of. Talking as a Papuan there are some restrictions on Papuans coming here. As we have a close association now with Australia, are these restrictions to continue?

Mr. Opperman —This comes down to the legal side. Australia means the Australian mainland and Tasmania. The Immigration Act requires all immigrants to Australia to have an entry permit. Under that Act Papuans and New Guineans cannot enter Australia—there is no freedom of movement under the Act as you say—without entry permit. Those who require a permit to enter must have a travel document from the Administration. In reverse Australians must have a permit to enter Papua and New Guinea.

To go back to my answer to Mr. Downs, I repeat again, as people working for the best interest of Papua and New Guinea, do not let us have sensitive feelings. If you have free entry you have incompatibility and resistance we would not want to have. This would create disharmony here because of the entry of people who because of skills and capacity are not ready to enter Australia.

Mr. Barnes —I support the Minister in those comments. People of Papua and New Guinea need permits to come here and Australians need permits to go to Papua and New Guinea. The people of Hong Kong and Fiji are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies but they need permits to go into the United Kingdom and people from the United Kingdom need permits to go there.

Mr. Stuntz —What is the current situation of a Papuan in Australia who decides to stay? As an Australian citizen could he be deported?

Mr. Opperman —The action of deportation I face with reluctance. Any Papuan in Australia obviously would be here on the understanding and with a permit for a certain time. The expiration of this time would allow us to take deportation action.

You are talking of a theoretical case. If such a thing happened this would prejudice immediately the entry of other Papuans and mean that we would have to tighten up a weakness that existed. A Papuan would do dis-service to other Papuans in breaking his undertaking.

Sinake Giregire —I brought up this subject in Tasmania at a C.P.A.30 conference. You realise that people who come here do so to be taught and not to teach Australians. I have heard the Minister say that if people with skill come here there may not be work for him. But there are people coming here to get knowledge and skills to assist people of their country. That is a good thing.

Mr. Opperman —If people come into categories recommended for the good of Papua and New Guinea by the Administration then it is a matter of agreement to allow them to come. As necessity grows for Papuan and New Guineans to have it, and the Minister for Territories emphasises that need, we would grant the increases if it was for the good of Papua and New Guinea.

Does Mr. Giregire know of cases where people who would like to come here and have been qualified for training have been refused?

Mr. Giregire —I do not know of anyone being stopped yet but what I want to do is to find the basis of your immigration law.

Mr. Opperman —lt is elastic. It is a question of Papuans and New Guineans needing training for the benefit of their country.

Mr. Giregire —Thank you Mr. Minister. Would like to ask our own personal Minister a question. We know what you have discussed about Papuans as Australian citizens—is Australia going to help us to come together as one people?

Mr. Barnes —We discussed this yesterday. The Attorney–General said it was not legally possible. But the Australian Government can make no distinction between Papuans and New Guineans. Both travel overseas on Australian passports.

Mr. Giregire — I am just trying to reaffirm to the Minister our desire to have one citizenship and we would like to bring this to your notice again.

Mr. Barnes —The Australian Government has shown no distinction in this. Since we have set the example of no distinction the people of the Territory should held31 by looking on themselves as one people. This is the only solution to your problem.

Mr. McCarthy —If a Papuan and New Guinean woman marries an Australian does that automatically confer the right of the woman and children to live in Australia? Also is this the same for an Australian woman marrying a Papuan and New Guinean?

Mr. Opperman —Yes they {can} come if married out of Australia or can stay if married in Australia. This is entree as person fitting into the homogeneity of the Australian community.

Mr. Stuntz —In the event of a person eventually complying with Australian immigration policy and being surplus in the Territory (e.g. radio technicians) could Papua and New Guinea expect more favoured treatment than Asians under this policy?

Mr.Opperman —lf one person was a Papuan or New Guinean [and]32 one was an Asian or [from an]other country then the Papuan or New Guinean would get preference. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than {feeling} that position[,] where excess Papuan and New Guinean could fill positions needed in Australia[,] will arrive.

Mr. Guise —Thanks Ministers.

Mr. Opperman —I don’t want to appear to presume now that I am here to give you some experiences that I have had in immigration. I have however seen Australia go through a number of changes. There have been difficult times when it looked as if the future for Australia was not great. The people of Australia have stayed, have worked hard with no high standards of education but have had confidence in the country and gave no thought to leaving it. Great transformations went on here as you see but you do not know the effort which went into making Australia. There were people living in the back-blocks with no roads, no water, and with drought.

What I am trying to say is, that in all developing countries where people have opportunities to gain skills in other countries the idea should not to be out of their own country but to carry out sacrifices to assist their own country.

It is disturbing to me that the emphasis is on coming and staying here. When Papuan and New Guineans have things which we have in Australia and with the rapidity with which things can come these days then some reciprocity between Australia and Papua and New Guinea would not be surprising. The only way that can come about is to devote your efforts to your own country and not try and see the advantages in coming here. I say this to Malaysian and all other students coming here. You must be prepared to make sacrifices to make your own country develop.

Mr. Guise —We are very grateful to the Minister for his words and advice.

The meeting adjourned to 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday.

Wednesday 20th April, 1966

No Ministers Present

Mr. Warwick Smith —We agreed on Tuesday that to-day we would have an elaboration of the Minister’s references to transit steps towards ministerial government and the general considerations which underlie the Government’s thinking about the kind of changes that ought to be made if the people of the Territory wish to see changes.

Two general considerations:

1. The first: that the object of change would be to ensure that elected members of the House of Assembly did actually carry some of the responsibility of a Minister—not only in form and in appearance but by carrying some of the work done by a Minister.

2. The second: the idea is for these Ministerial Representatives—they would not be Ministers in the full sense—to operate within defined limits of authority. They would understand, and the House would understand, their limits of authority. They could not be blamed for matters outside their powers but could be criticised for matters within their powers. They would be associated, to begin with, on a limited basis with certain departments.

So far as changes in the near future are concerned, the Government’s view is that these changes would leave final responsibility in the hands of the Government—that is, the Minister through the Administrator in the Territory.

The major limit on the powers of the Ministerial Representatives is that, whereas Cabinet is fully responsible, this is a transitional step to getting to that stage, and final responsibility lies with the executive Government through the Minister for Territories.

In the Government’s view the relationship between members and ministerial duties would need to be accompanied by changes in the Administrator’s Council so that more and more discussion takes place and responsibility is exercised in the Territory and more and more policy is determined in the Territory. More and more the Administrator’s Council would consist of those members and officials concerned with the policy of the Administration.

After those general things I should say that for the rest of what we say, you should not think that is the only way. This is the Government’s attitude on a general matter and you can suggest ways how these problems can be worked out. The Government is not saying there is only one way of working out these details. Whatever is done will need to be a workable practicable arrangement.

The first point when it comes to working out is to consider what a Minister does in the working of a full Ministerial and Cabinet government. As Mr. Barnes said yesterday one of the major parts of a Minister’s work is to make day to day decisions about the work that is done in his department.

Cabinet lays down broad policies and Ministers have to see that departments carry out these policies in the various things that crop up every day in every week of every year. Normally a Department prepares proposals on policy, perhaps on the Ministers instructions or on Cabinet’s instructions but if he agrees with the proposals made in these papers, the Minister is responsible for the proposals.

Under this arrangement what could happen in the Territory is that the departmental head would prepare papers setting out some policy proposals. Then he would talk with the Ministerial Representative about them and if the Ministerial Representative agreed with them the proposals could go forward. If the Administrator agreed they could go to the Minister.

Sometimes the Ministerial Representative would want to initiate or start off some proposal. If he did, he would say to his departmental head ‘I want you to prepare some policy proposals about this matter.’ No matter whether starting with the Ministerial Representative, but if both agreed, the proposal would go to the Administrator.

If they do not agree—if the Ministerial Representative does not agree with the departmental head, or vice versa, then the proposal would go to the Administrator’s Council who would advise the Administrator what they thought was the right thing to do.

Apart from that the Ministerial Representative would represent his department in the House of Assembly, bring in bills, answer questions and speak for his department, and give his views on anything that came up in the House affecting his department.

This is not the full picture but some of the main points that would have to be settled about the function of the Ministerial Representative in his relationship with his department and his duties in the House of Assembly.

In regard to the Administrator’s Council, we have already said that this will be the main forum or body in the Administration for working out what the policies of the Government in the Territory will be. The Administration would talk about these policies with the Council and get their advice, except on certain subjects. The subjects he would not talk about in the Administrator’s Council are defence, external affairs, constitutional—that is basic constitutional matters and internal security. There is a difference here between the legal and formal position and what might happen in informal discussions.

Mr. Downs —Are you committed—is this an irrevocable view?

Mr. Warwick Smith — No.

Mr. Stuntz — I am not too clear on what is included in ‘constitutional matters’.

Mr. Warwick Smith —I am not too clear either yet but the arrangements would formally oblige the Administrator to discuss most matters with the Administrator’s Council. These reserved matters would be only for the Government.

Mr. Downs —There would need to be some flexibility as, if, say, the Administrator was newly appointed he may need to talk about these matters with the Administrator’s Council.

Mr. Warwick Smith —It is important to understand the difference between things the Administrator must under law talk to the Council about and under law, the things he does not have to talk about. It is not that the Administrator’s Council cannot talk about these things—the Administrator merely must talk about a wide range of things but on a few reserved matters he need not talk about these things. There would be nothing to stop him talking to the Council about these matters.

That is the difference between legal, formal requirements and informal discussions.

Mr. Watkins —There are certain matters to go before the Council and if the Administrator does not accept its advice certain things happen. What we mean is that he does not have to have advice from the Council on these reserved matters.

Mr. Warwick Smith —Yes. On those things where the Administrator is required to consult the Council, if he feels he cannot accept the advice of the Council we [ would]33 make a custom—convention—habit that he should inform the Minister that he cannot accept the Council’s advice. If the Ministerial Representative on the Administrator’s Council does not agree with what the Administrator is going to do he could ask that his view be sent on to the Minister.

The purpose of this kind of arrangement is to make sure that the views of the Ministerial Representative get a lot of consideration. We would expect that on most things there would be talk-out on the Administrator’s Council—to try to get agreement.

What I have been saying about Ministerial Representatives’ views going to the Minister only34 if agreement could not be reached: in the Administrator’s Council there always should or nearly always should be agreement on what should be done.

Because of this we would expect that Ministerial Representatives on the Administrator’s Council would nearly always be able to support outside the House and publicly the Administration’s views—they would be able say they agree with what is done.

Even if one Ministerial Representative is not able to agree we hope arrangements would enable him not to go out and say ‘I oppose this’. This is a difficult idea but [it is] necessary to have some understanding on this.

As to who the Ministerial Representatives will be and how they will be appointed this will need to be worked out. We think: appointment by the Administrator from the House of Assembly; they would need to have support, trust and confidence of the House. There would be problems for Ministerial Representatives as they would need to spend a long time in Port Moresby.

That is all I want to say now on this. If you like we could talk about changes in the House of Assembly but it might be better to talk more about Ministerial Representatives.

Mr. Guise —Thank you Mr. Secretary. I think the Agenda might be—

(i) General discussions on this matter

(ii) A general statement we will release after the meeting

(iii) Questions

Sir Donald Cleland —It would be only reasonable at this stage—now is the time for members to put their questions.

Nicholas Brokam —Yesterday I heard the Minister say that only two people should act as Ministerial Representatives. Now you say these people should join the Administrator’s Council—will all be members?

Mr. Warwick Smith — Yes.

This is an important question. I have spoken about Ministerial Representatives and will want to talk about the Administrator’s Council. What you call these men is something to be worked out but we do not think they should be called ‘Minister’.

This is a first step towards the full Ministerial system government. Later on you get to the stage where you have a Cabinet and all Ministers.

At this stage we would think there should be the Assistant Administrators or Departmental Heads on the Administrator’s Council and the Ministerial Representatives would be the only members of the House of Assembly. No one outside the House or outside the Administration on the Administrator’s Council.

Firstly, we have to make the system work. When you see and we see that it can work there could be some more Ministerial Representatives and fewer officials. When you get to the stage where there are all Ministerial Representatives you will have a practically full internal self-government but at first there would only be a few Ministerial Representatives on the Administrator’s Council and Assistant Administrators and some officials—directors and departmental heads.

Mr. Stuntz — Am I correct in interpreting that the intention is that your proposal coupled with what the Minister said[,] that only two Ministerial Representatives would be on the Council[,means] that elected members of the Administrator’s Council will be reduced from seven to two?

Mr. Warwick Smith —It would not be the intention to limit this to two nor have a definite idea. When the Minister said two, he was saying for example two—he would not be inflexible about two. We have not reached a decision about this—until we know what the Committee thinks. Perhaps two Ministerial Representatives would not be enough but perhaps we could include some under–secretaries or members. We have not put forward a cut and dry proposal; until we know what you think, what the Administrator thinks could work. You can take it that what I have said means that we would like to see a stage reached where the Council consists of officials and Ministerial Representatives to make the Council work.

Mr. Stuntz — Now you have said two things—that Ministerial Representatives and elected members or under–secretaries should be on the Administrator’s Council.

Mr. Warwick Smith — There would need to be enough Ministerial Representatives to represent the House. In the very first stage if there were only two I would agree personally that there would need to be more elected members.

Mr. Downs — Arising from the same matter there is nothing to prevent the Administrator’s Council becoming more effective. There would need to be a limitation placed on the existing parallel committees within the Administration e.g. the Central Policy Planning Committee. The Administration would need to limit these committees but with people in the House of Assembly coming over only for meetings and not giving full time to executive government[;] you could not have the Administrator’s Council buying into the Administration’s daily workings[—]so limit the Administration’s committees so that the Administrator’s Council is the only one in that area but keep continuity of the Administration in its work. There is a reason for this. The Administration must be able to work.

Mr. Warwick Smith — This is a very important question.

A Minister here has a full time job. He comes to Canberra for Parliament which meets three days to 11.00 p.m.[,] he has Cabinet meetings, Party meetings and other meetings. He has to go himself all around Australia and do his departmental work. He has a lot of papers and people to see every day. He cannot do another job if he is to do his Ministerial job. Parliament meets here four days a week four months a year.

I think the way we see it is that the Administrator’s Council becomes prominent and all others fade out.

Morning Tea Break

Mr. McCarthy —Mr. Secretary. I have two positions—Director of District Administration and member of this Committee and today I speak as a Member. I have heard what you said about appointments as Ministerial Representatives. Previously we had under-secretaries.

I know there are two or three under-secretaries working well and that some others are capable people but departments do not give them work—they give them an office and leave them alone. I want to tell you there are two things for an under-secretary to do—there is no party system as in Australia:

(i) Their work as under-secretaries

(ii) They represent the people.

People say ‘What do you do in Port Moresby?’ People do not understand the work of the under-secretaries. They say ‘He does not work here with us, he sits in Port Moresby’.

I want to know how are we going to implement the Ministerial Representative system—explain to people, educate them as to why he remains so long in Port Moresby.

You have spoken about the work of Ministerial Representatives and the Administrator’s Council—we understand that. What is the work of the Central Policy and Planning Committee—to make policy? I would like to ask Mr. Secretary to explain how it is possible to have the Administrator’s Council and the Central Policy and Planning Committee.

I as an individual—and as a member of this Committee—want people to have responsibility. Mr. Secretary said that Ministerial Representatives would be capable of communicating directly with the Minister. I know within the framework of the Departments, especially your Department, we have to wait up to six months for a reply. This is inefficient and we will have to speed this up.

I agree with what you say but I wish to point out our difficulties.

Mr. Warwick Smith —I wish to comment on what Mr. McCarthy said and also on what Mr. Downs previously said.

To begin with we do not know how the system will work—there are problems for Ministerial Representatives, the House of Assembly, the Administrator’s Council, and the Government. We have to remember that the Ministerial Representatives will have their problems as this will be a full time job. The Administrator is still responsible for administration and getting everything done.

No–one thinks it will be easy to make this arrangement work. As I said to Mr. Downs, as we see it, as the Administrator’s Council grows and does more work the other committees e.g. Central Policy and Planning Committee will fade out. There will be no cut-out suddenly.

In working out particular proposals your Committee will have to remember the Administrator and his problems and understand he must get the work done. Mr. McCarthy said that it would be no good if the Ministerial Representative wishes to send a message to the Minister if it takes a long time for a reply. I register this point—it is a sound point and we will have to ensure that it is dealt with quickly. As I said, we believe it would not happen often but when it does it must be dealt with quickly.

Dirona Abe —Yesterday the Minister in his statement said there would be two Ministerial Representatives. I would like to know which two Departments they would be representing. I understand they would represent the Departments of Education and Public Health.

I personally think that if only two Ministerial Representatives are appointed it will not be enough and people in electorates will be dissatisfied with the situation.

I understand your intention is to appoint only two Ministerial Representatives so that they may be trained in their work. I do not think this is the correct approach as the situation in the Territory is different from that in Australia and it will be necessary to appoint more than two. You have said that it would be necessary for Ministerial Representatives to spend most of their time working in Port Moresby. If so how can they visit their electorates? This could only work with the party system—send someone from the party on their behalf.

Mr. Warwick Smith — On the question of Ministerial Representatives. The idea would be to start with a small number but that does not mean that for four years that number remains. Start off and after twelve months, say, the House of Assembly might like to see more and the number could be increased; after a look[,] as the system works[,] more could be added. We would not want to be inflexible on the point.

The Minister was not saying definitely and finally there would have to be only two.

I think Mr. Stuntz yesterday said how fast would the system develop, and the Minister said there were three things:

(i) the question of major financial responsibility;

(ii) availability of people in the House of Assembly able and willing to do this sort of work;

(iii) the views and the wishes of the people.

The numbers of Ministerial Representatives would increase according to those three things.

So far as the position in the electorates is concerned we and you know about this problem but it cannot be dodged if we are going to have self-government. The Ministerial Representatives would have to spend a lot of time in Port Moresby but not as much as a Minister spends here in Canberra. The House of Assembly would not meet for as long sittings as Parliament does here but the Ministerial Representative would have to do his departmental work. Most Ministers here go back to their electorates on each weekend—Ministers from W.A., a long way away, do not usually do this.

We do understand that the electorates do not know the kind of work that has to be done. They have to be told what is done by Ministerial Representatives so they understand why he cannot go around the electorate all the time.

Ministerial Representatives would have to go to other parts of the Territory as well as to his own electorate. I think Mr. McCarthy would have to get his Department of District Administration people throughout the Territory and explain that the Ministerial Representatives have to do office work in Port Moresby and so would not be able to go around electorates as well. This committee would ask the Administrator if the Department of Information and Extension Services could say this over the radio. This is a problem which only members of the House of Assembly could solve—no–one outside the House could solve it.

Mr. Tei Abal —I wish to say a few words about training Ministers in the Territory.

Should we start parties first or have ministers first?

There are in the Administrator’s Council and in the House of Assembly European and illiterates and educated Papuans and New Guineans—will Europeans and illiterates be able to participate in ministerial government or not?

What if we cannot find a person suitable for the job of Ministerial Representative—is this confined to members or can we get someone from outside?

Mr. Warwick Smith —You used the phrase ‘training Ministers’ and Mr. Abe did so too. These Ministerial Representatives would be learning their job—but they would be making decisions also: it is not only a training job.

Under-secretaries are the ones in the learning situations, where they learn from the Administration’s work. We think—but you have to think about this too, that under-secretaries should be kept on—perhaps not with the same departments as have Ministerial Representatives but they should continue—the under-secretaries would be the ones learning the work.

Mr. McCarthy said the situation has not worked well—but this is on both sides, as some under-secretaries do not, I understand, like to spend long in Port Moresby. The Committee should consider this and talk especially to official members.

On the question of parties, this is something to develop in the Territory and come up from the people. I personally don’t think it is necessary to have parties in order to have Ministerial Representatives.

Members of the House of Assembly know after the first few months who are the men they can have confidence in and can trust. They might criticise him as a Ministerial Representative and say he is not looking after their electorates enough but they have to recognise that he has to look after in his job the Territory as a whole.

On the third point about who would be able to be Ministerial Representatives—anyone in the House who has the confidence of the House. We have not ourselves worked out the best way of appointing members—a list from which the Administrator may choose, or whether the Administrator should talk to members and choose. As a Committee you should think about this and talk to the Administrator.

As for people outside the House this was discussed yesterday but in for example Health and Education departments, we do not think the House of Assembly would like it if the Ministerial Representatives were not in the House and they could35 criticise him or ask him questions.

An elected member knows what the people think as he has to go around and he knows them, by election as their representative.

Mr. Guise — Are you thinking about this system of Ministerial Representatives at the moment or in 1968?

Mr. Warwick Smith —This Committee would talk about this in 1967 and this would be brought in after the 1968 elections. Yesterday we talked about electoral machinery and the Committee could think about this or it could leave it to be discussed over the next twelve months, and you could include this in your report.

The Minister did say in his statement in the House ofRepresentatives that he was thinking of after the 1968 elections.

Mr. Guise —When we were discussing two Ministerial Representatives earlier you said there were four matters on which Ministerial Representatives would not have power.

It is essential in 1968 that the two Ministerial Representatives must have power to decide on matters of constitutional affairs as that includes political affairs, and on internal security, as that includes home affairs.

[ matter missing ]36

Mr. Warwick Smith —I did answer the first point— I answered Tei by saying that anybody in the House—excluding official members but including elected members, could become Ministerial Representatives.

If there are illiterate members this would be hard for them but if the House thinks them suitable it would not be a barrier. The same goes for European members—they would not be barred. The House would choose those who have their trust.

On the question of under-secretaries I really think it needs to be examined by the House of Assembly, and the Australian Government would do what it could to help the system work better.

It is a matter for the House and the Administration to work out and it is important to make the system work because they are the people involved in the matter.

If action is required by the Minister I am sure he would do all he can to make the system more efficient.

Mr. Stuntz —The Secretary in setting out the proposal regarding the line the thing might take said that the Ministerial Representatives would be selected by the Administrator. He later said that it is desirable that they have the support of the House. l quite agree with this and it is the situation in Australia.

As we haven’t a party system in the Territory the way in which we could ensure their best support in the House would be for the House to appoint the Ministerial Representatives.

Mr. McCarthy —As I heard it the Secretary was merely suggesting that the Administrator might appoint the Ministerial Representatives.

Mr. Guise —Mr. Stuntz has made a good point. As far as I’m concerned the House must appoint the Ministerial Representatives.

Mr. Warwick Smith —There are two sides to this:

1. The Administrator could merely appoint them, or

2. The House nominates members without consulting the Administrator.

We don’t think either would work but we, and I hope you, would look for arrangements for the Administrator and the House to have some say.

One way to put out a list—if four required put out a list of six or eight. This gives the Administrator room to work in and gives you some say.

In a transitional stage the Administrator should not appoint without consultation and you should not say ‘These are the ones’. There should be give and take in the arrangements at this stage of development.

Mr. Watkins —This is quite a point that Mr. Stuntz has raised and the Committee should examine it in detail.

One aspect is that while the Administrator is responsible for running the Territory he should have some say in appointing the persons who are to be Ministerial Representatives in the Territory.

Mr. Warwick Smith —I think the important thing is to get an arrangement which meets the substance of what Mr. Stuntz and Mr. Guise have said and yet enables the Administrator to run the Territory and make the system work.

Mr. Tei Abal —The committee with whom the Administrator will be consulting to appoint Ministers—will they appoint Ministers or will we be able to go to the people and bring their opinion?

Mr. Warwick Smith — I don’t want to come into this but I don’t think it is practicable for the House to choose their nominees and then go back to the people.

l said ‘appointed by the Administrator’. It may be legally that this is done, by law, with the Administrator recommending to the Minister who in turn recommends to the Governor-General in Australia, who would sign the papers. I don’t want to talk about legal things, only the way in which it might work.

Yesterday we talked with Mr. Snedden about status and today Mr. Booker is here from External Affairs and could explain the U.N. trusteeship system.

Mr. Paul Lapun —This question is for Mr. Booker and was one of the items in the brief of the Committee—the point of status of Papuans and New Guineans.

Papua is an Australian Territory and its people are Australian citizens and British subjects. New Guinea is a Trust Territory and its people are Australian protected persons.

Yesterday we found out that Australia did not quite explain to us fully on this point and we would like an answer on this question.

It is a question of unity. Before, the people were one people and were not divided. If they are working to one objective in future they would need to have one citizenship. This is one of the matters that the Committee has to consider and we would like your help.

Either New Guinea becomes Australian Territory and its people Australians or Papua becomes Trusteeship Territory under United Nations and New Guineans37 become Australian Protected Persons. Could you give us your views?

Mr. Booker —It might help if I describe the legal differences between the two Territories and why this is not of great practical importance.

The Territory of Papua is a colonial territory of the old-fashioned kind i.e. Australian sovereignty is complete. Australia’s right to govern the Territory has no limitation.

The government of the Trust Territory is placed in Australia’s hands by the U.N. but the agreement with the U.N. gives Australia complete authority over the Trust Territory.

You will remember that the Territory of New Guinea was formerly a mandated Territory under the League of Nations. Control over the Territory was given to Australia under the Peace Treaty after World War I.

At that Peace Treaty the Australian Government insisted that our control over the Territory should be complete. The then Prime Minister fought very hard at the Peace Treaty to make sure that there would be no limitation on our right to rule over New Guinea and when the mandate was given to Australia it was in such a way that there was no limitation on the way Australia could govern New Guinea. This right, this arrangement, was carried on under the Trust Agreement with the U.N. when the Agreement was signed.

You will know that Article IV of the Trust Agreement with the U.N. says that Australia can govern it as an integral part of Australia. What this means in practice is [that] as far as government of Papua and New Guinea is concerned the Australian Government has exactly the same powers. The only difference is that we have control over Papua as our own right and we have control over New Guinea because that has been given to us by the U.N.

Therefore inside the Territory it makes no difference but outside the Territory there is a difference. Outside the Territory we have to remember that we cannot change the status of a Trust Territory without getting the consent of the U.N.

I come now to something that is difficult to describe and that we ourselves found difficult to understand. This is the question of sovereignty not power—we have power in Papua and power in New Guinea but sovereignty in Papua but not sovereignty in New Guinea. I wanted to describe this as it is the reason for the difference between the Papuan as an Australian citizen and a New Guinean as an Australian protected person.

We cannot call an Australian protected person in New Guinea an Australian citizen because we have not yet been given sovereignty over New Guinea. In Papua you have an inherent right to be an Australian citizen, in New Guinea you don’t have that inherent right.

Having explained that difference I would like to say that it doesn’t matter. The Australian Government can give the same privileges to a Papuan as to a New Guinean or Australian protected person and can give the same penalties. When one of them goes out of the Territory into another country his status is practically the same. I heard Mr. McCarthy say the other day that you can try a Papuan for treason but not a New Guinean. I think he was wrong.

This is now true because we have the right to apply all our law to New Guinea as we do to Papua. This means that Mr. Snedden was right when the problem of difference in name can be settled only when the Trust is settled. Another reason was the two Territories are the same as38 that in the Agreement with the U.N. we were given the power to combine the Trust Territory of New Guinea with Papua so there is in government, in law, in any kind of relationship of the Territory with Australia, the same basis but Mr. Lapun asked how could we change this.

Again the answer is that we could change it only with the permission of the U.N. lf we try to put the Trust Territory into Papua this would be trying to make a Trust Territory into an old kind of colonial territory. The people who now run the U.N. would not now agree to this.

The other way to do it would be to put Papua into the Trust Territory. If you asked the U.N. to let us put Papua into the Trust Territory they might agree, but you would have to have a new Trusteeship Agreement and in trying to get the new Agreement you would have a lot of interference in the affairs of the Territory—France, Asia, Russia, Communists would all want to interfere in the affairs of the Territory when we wanted a new Trusteeship Agreement.

As you know the U.N. is already demanding we set up target dates for independence and do this and do that and if we ask for a new Trusteeship Agreement this would give a new opportunity for interference. So we would have a lot of trouble getting a new Agreement and a lot of interference and you would get nothing better than the present. All you would have would be that all would be Australian protected persons. I think this is all I could say. Perhaps Mr. Watkins could do better.

Mr. Stuntz —I would like to ask Mr. Booker a question in a certain extent related to Mr. Lapun’s question. Is there any way in which the U.N. legally—in the Trusteeship Agreement could prohibit the Territory of New Guinea from entering into a close, permanent association with Australia forthwith?

Mr. Booker —They have a legal right to prevent at any time, they have a right to judge whether the provisions of the Trusteeship Agreement are fully met.

The essential requirement for meeting the provisions is the freely expressed will of the people. Until satisfied on this they could prevent a unit or association.

Mr. Stuntz —ls that the only or sole way?

Mr. Booker —Not the sole one but the only practicable one. The U.N. cannot impose on the people of the Territory something they do not want. They may withhold agreement but cannot impose something the people of New Guinea don’t want.

Mr. Stuntz —But the U.N. can prohibit the people from doing something they do want.

Mr. Warwick Smith —The U.N. has the power to prevent the termination of the Agreement and so prevent something the people want.

Mr. Booker —This does not mean that the U.N. won’t try. They talk all the time in the U.N. about what we should do or should be doing. This is why if you asked for a new Agreement you would give them an opportunity for them to interfere. While we keep to this Agreement they cannot interfere. If they do try to interfere you don’t have to worry much about them.

Meeting adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 3.30 p.m.

Wednesday 20/4/66: 3.30 P.M.

Present—Minister For Territories

Mr. Barnes —Refer to your questionnaire. Since these questions were drawn up before discussions with Government you might like to look at them again; your question 11 on citizenship39—you have had a talk with Mr. Booker. Do you want to go on with that question?

Mr. Downs —I think (Mr. Guise) feels that there has not been enough time to digest what was said. Obviously we would like to look at them again in the light of what has been said.

Mr. McCarthy —If this question were put and the overwhelming opinion was that the people of New Guinea should have the same status as the people of Papua, would that influence the U.N.?

Sir Donald Cleland —Mr. Booker told you that this might mean a new Agreement.

Minister —[I] Make this comment on question 8. If you have two Houses this will be more expensive. Money would be spent on the legislature which otherwise would be available for other purposes.

Mr. Watkins —Idea of a Federal system was to bind together the two territories.

Mr. Barnes —On question 340 —the Government has said that it would consider a period of internal self-government as necessary.

Mr. Downs —We take your statement as answering this question.

Mr. McCarthy —Does the Australian Government have suggestions for additional questions?

Mr. Barnes —No. We appear to have reached the stage where we could consider a report.

Mr. Downs and Mr. Simogen brought up yesterday that they would like a close association with Australia.

Mr. Downs —We were asking you for your views.

Mr. Barnes —I thought we might bring up the consideration of development in this direction in the statement.

Mr. Downs —My personal feeling about what has been said is that a statement could be prepared where both sides would be happy. We could have a group to crystallize this. A lot has come out of the discussions—the report could be satisfactory to all of us.

Mr. Barnes —1 agree that a report is important. I hope we can have one which satisfies both parties. Suggest a small group to draft the report.

Would like the statement in House to-morrow night. Suggest following headings—

• long term possibilities separate status

•movement to self-government

• Ministerial Representatives

• Administrator’s Council

• under-secretaries

•pace of change—relation to economic progress

• availability of people to serve

• views of people

•timetable for next changes

•need for confidence—the rule of law

• migration

The meeting then agreed to following sub-committee drafting a report of the discussions:

Messrs. Guise, Watkins, Stuntz, Lapun, Swift and Ballard.41

[NLA: MS 8254, box 8, folder 1]42

1 Matter omitted indicates that talks of 18 April were attended by Barnes, Snedden and William McMahon (Treasurer). The Ministers were accompanied by officials from their respective departments and by a representative of the Department of Immigration.

2 21 April.

3 In a headline story of 16 April, the Australian had maintained that Cabinet would tell the Select Committee there was ‘no chance of Papua–New Guinea becoming a state of Australia’. It was also to be told that there was ‘little or no chance of future close association’ and that ‘New Guineans cannot look forward to large-scale immigration into Australia’ (NLA: mfm NX 48).

4 Document 39.

5 Page numbers four and 12 (below) do not correspond with page numbers of the printed document from which Document 39 is taken (Barnes was apparently reading from a version that was typeset in a different manner). It is therefore unclear what portion of the text is denoted by these page numbers.

6 Apparently a reference to Barnes’ statement to parliament of 31 March (see footnote 2, Document 34). In The Australian Trusteeship, published in 1980, Downs recalled that some members of the Select Committee ‘were distressed that Barnes had pre-empted the forthcoming discussions in Canberra by indicating the Government’s cautious constitutional intentions two weeks before the Territory delegation was to be received. Guise thought that the committee was being subjected to pressure and elected expatriate members of the committee were disturbed that the reference to future “special relationships” might lead to confusion if nothing positive came out of the Canberra meeting’ (p. 372).

7 Document 39, line beginning ‘Everywhere I have been in Papua’.

8 Paragraph beginning ‘You said that you needed to know’.

9 Page five begins ‘There is plainly’ and ends ‘to the time table’. Page seven begins ‘There is need for your co-operation’ and ends approximately at ‘the Australian taxpayer’.

10 This should perhaps read ‘allay fears of investors’.

11Presumably, this should read ‘have’.

12 MHA, Popondetta open electorate; Under–Secretary, Lands, Surveys and Mines.

13 Document 39, paragraph beginning ‘There is another matter’.

14 That is, in the sentence beginning ‘I suggested in those talks’.

15 Paragraph starting ‘lftheTerritory people wish it’.

16 See footnote 8.

17 MHA, Upper Sepik open electorate.

18 This should probably read ‘than’.

19 In the Australian. Guise was reported to have left the meeting of the 18th in an ‘agitated’ state and to have said that the ‘sooner Australia got out of Papua–New Guinea the better’. It was also claimed that the PNG delegates ‘are known to have been seriously dismayed by some Commonwealth proposals’; the Government had ‘made it plain that there was no chance of Papua–New Guinea being declared an additional State’ and this ‘aroused severe criticism by Territory delegates, especially colored members’ (NLA: mfm NX 48). Meanwhile, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Downs as saying he ‘find[s]life in the Territory boring these days … Things are just drifting along’. The writer added that Downs was ‘believed to have modified his past advocacy of Seventh Statehood’ and now belonged to a group that thought PNG should have internal self–government with ‘strong legal links’ with Australia, including exchange of migration rights. Guise was also reported as favouring self–government, but as a precursor to complete independence. He was thought to have some support from Abe and Brokam, although Simogen, Kenu, Abal and Giregire were described as fearing that independence would result in the diminution of Australian aid (NLA: mfm NX 15).

20 That is, Document 39.

21 H.F. Opperman.

22 Sec introduction.

23 This should perhaps read ‘relay’—or possibly the word ‘it’ should have been omitte.

24 Not printed. For comment on time constraints impinging on the Committee, see editorial note ‘PNG’s constitution and ultimate status: debate in Port Moresby and Canberra’; also, Document 5 and footnote 2, Document 34.

25 See footnote 2, Document 34.

26 See Document 3.

27 Words appear to be missing here.

28 See Document 22.

29 See Document 21.

30 Commonwealth Parlimentary Association.

31 Presumably, this should be rendered ‘help’.

32 Editorial interpretation of corrupt text.

33 Editorial interpretation of a textual corruption.

34 Presumably, the words ‘applies’ or similar should have been inserted here.

35 It appears the word ‘not’ is missing here.

36 A page from the original is missing.

37 Presumably, this should read ‘Papuans’.

38 Perhaps this should be read ‘in’.

39 See Document 21.

40 That is, question three of Document 22.

41 According to Downs, the report or “joint statement” was included and lost amongst Barnes’ personal additions in his statement to the House of Representatives on 21 April’ (for Barnes’ speech, see Commonwealth parliamentwy debates (Reps), vol. 51, 1966, pp. 1087–9). Downs seems to suggest that Barnes’ changes—made ‘Without further consultation with the committee’—outlined the privately expressed views of the Government in such detail that members of the Committee became convinced that the Government might not baulk at actively resisting their findings: 𔃵the non–official members of the committee studied Barnes’ speech in total disbelief. They realised that the Select Committee might now have difficulty having their final report adopted by the House of Assembly if official members were instructed to oppose sections of their report’ ( The Australian Trusteeship, pp. 376–7). Downs also asserts that the discussions in Canberra represented a watershed for indigenous members of the Committee: ‘After McMahon’s explanation, almost everything seemed changed. In less than two hours, the racial division had become an unbridgeable gap and prospects for a federal partnership were dead … When the delegates returned home, they would privately spread the message that they had been “rejected” by Australia’ (ibid., p. 375).

42 A handwritten annotation on file indicates that this material was taken from NAA: A452, 1966/2760. However, the original papers are missing from the NAA file.