Canberra, 25 January 1966
Confidential
Immigration policy—Papua and New Guinea
The Minister has accepted the principle that the immigration policy of Papua and New Guinea could be modified to permit the entry of a limited number of non-European technicians, educationalists and other professional persons for limited periods for essential purposes. In order that full consideration may be given to this matter to enable a submission to Cabinet to be drafted, the Minister has instructed that the advice of the Administrator’s Council should be sought on the modification proposed.
2. Under present policy the underlying principle governing entry for both permanent and temporary residence is that, until the Territory people are in a position to decide their own policy, the racial position of the population should not be made more complicated than it already is.
3. No cases have arisen which it is considered have indicated any need for relaxation of present policy for permanent residence, which prevents the entry for such purposes of non–Europeans other than wives and children under the age of 21 of residents of the Territory of permanent status.
4. However, such cases as recent representations for entry for extended periods by Japanese technicians, and by the Vicariate Apostolic of Mount Hagen that twelve Filipino teachers be granted entry for two years, as well as the possibility that the University of Papua and New Guinea may want to appoint non–European academic staff, raise the question as to whether, under present circumstances and with increasing participation by indigenes in government, there might properly be some relaxation of policy in relation to temporary entry.
5. The principles governing present policy for temporary entry into Papua and New Guinea for non-Europeans are:—
(a) persons would not be admitted to the Territory where they would not under similar circumstances be admitted to Australia for like purposes and periods;
(b) permits are issued by the Department and by the Administration for periods of up to three months to tourists and businessmen, it being possible to extend such period up to a maximum of twelve months by Ministerial decision;
(c) teachers and missionaries may be admitted for temporary purposes from South Pacific sources as replacement for numbers at present in the Territory;
(d) special consideration is given to entry of persons from the B.S.I.P.1 and New Hebrides since they are of the same race as the people of the Territory;
(e) people from the South Pacific area may be admitted for a period of training in Territory institutions; and
(f) Asian technicians and businessmen may be admitted in limited numbers for limited periods for essential purposes and in connection with an approved project for Asian investment.
Australian immigration policy permits the entry into Australia of non-European technicians and other professional experts for temporary residence; it is considered that policy should not permit the admission of persons into Papua and New Guinea who would not under similar circumstances be admitted to Australia but that it should permit the temporary entry of technicians of all categories and educationalists and other professional workers, subject to their being admitted in limited numbers, for limited periods, and for essential purposes.
7. It is suggested further, that the three criteria stated in paragraph 6 might be more precisely interpreted as follows:—
(a) ‘Essential purposes’ might be taken to mean engagement in an undertaking which is important to the progress of the Territory and where substitutes are not readily available from indigenous or European–race sources.
(b) ‘Limited numbers’ would mean admitting only those persons required to meet the essential needs of the concern seeking the temporary entry of non-European persons and that the numbers should not be such as to cause either difficulties in control or political and social difficulties. While it is not thought that an absolute number could be laid down at this stage it might be useful in practice to establish a limit. Where there was an application for the temporary entry of a non-European which would exceed this limit, it would be granted only in an exceptional case, and a review would be made of all aspects of temporary entry in addition to the normal consideration of the merits of the individual case.
(c) ‘Limited period’ would need to be considered in relation to the basic principle of the immigration policy, that nothing should be done to complicate further the existing racial composition of the Territory. In general it is felt that the length of stay for a non–European should not be of such duration that he might cultivate permanent attachments in the Territory but at the same time it should not be so short as to prevent the person concerned from fulfilling with reasonable adequacy and without unreasonable cost the purpose for which he was granted temporary entry. Two years might be the limit but in any case the time should not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of the visit, taking into account the practicability of training indigenes for replacement.
8. If approval is given to a non-European to remain in the Territory for such a length of time it may not be unreasonable to follow the Australian custom and permit the wife (and family) of the person concerned temporary entry for a period not longer than the husband’s stay.
[ matter omitted ]2
10. I shall be glad if the proposed change in immigration policy could be placed before the Administrator’s Council as soon as possible so that the Council’s views may be made known to the Minister at an early date. The attached draft statement3 may possibly be of use to you in preparing the documents for the Council.
[NAA: A452, 1965/5939]
Administration reaction to changes in immigration policy for PNG
In an interim reply of 16 February to Warwick Smiths memorandum on immigration policy (Document 4), Cleland noted his intention to table the matter in a meeting of the Council scheduled for 3 March.1 He also enclosed minutes from Assistant Administrators Gunther and Henderson in which various ‘possible difficulties’ had been raised with him regarding education and school teachers. Gunther wrote that he had ‘no objection whatsoever to teachers coming from the Pacific Islands’ but that he had ‘a real objection to teachers coming from Asia’. ‘The demand for teachers is great’, he continued, ‘and if you allow 12 Filipino teachers for one mission, it will be extremely difficult to prevent many other missions asking for a similar or greater number of Asians … teachers from India or from the Philippines could become a flood’. Gunther intimated that teachers should be excluded from any new immigration regime or, alternatively, that the Administration should come to an informal agreement with missions that would ensure the exclusion of Asians. Henderson similarly raised the possibility of a large influx of Asians for mission schools, believing that this ‘may result in a drive [by missions] to assume greater responsibilities in the educational fields ’—a problem that might be overcome by ‘clearly spell[ing] out long term mission responsibilities in education before announcing any change in the current Migration Policy’.
Barnes responded to these concerns by approving amendment of the terms in which policy on entry was to be expressed, substituting the words ‘limited number of non-European technicians and educationalists and other professional people’ with ‘limited number of non-European key professional workers and technicians’.2 According to the related ministerial submission, this was intended to avoid highlighting the ‘educationalists’ category and would ‘point up the criteria that the [educationalists] admitted should be highly trained and specially scarce’.
In August, further fine-tuning of the new scheme occurred when the Administrations Central Policy and Planning Committee decided that it ‘would be necessary in certain cases … that, to facilitate administrative consistency, general rules varying aspects of the basic policy should be laid down for the guidance of those officers who would consider applications’.3 These general guidelines were, inter alia, that non-European academic staff for tertiary institutions would be limited to contract terms of two years, though longer terms could be negotiated prior to engagement; that non-European staff of UN agencies would be admitted where alternative staff had not been nominated; that non-European Australian citizens would be allowed entry under the same terms as Europeans; and that non-European dependents of European aliens resident in the Territory would be admitted under conditions approved for their European spouse or parent.
Barnes approved the resultant recommendations on the detailed application of policy.4
1 British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
2 Matter omitted concerns discussion of the possible status of children born to non-Europeans during temporary residency and concludes that ‘On balance it is considered that the numbers of non-Europeans who might successfully claim re–entry because they were born in the Territory would be very small, if indeed any, and that this danger is not sufficient to warrant excluding wives and children in circumstances where it would be otherwise appropriate that they be admitted’.
3 The draft statement set forth the substance of Document 4.
1 Memorandum, Administration (Cleland) to DOT, 16 February 1966, NAA: A452, 1965/5939.
2 See submission, Warwick Smith to Barnes, 24 February 1966, ibid.
3 Notes of meeting of the Central Policy and Planning Committee, 8 August 1966, NAA: A452, 1965/3597.
4 See submission, Reseigh to Barnes, 16 November 1966, NAA: A452, 1965/5939. Policy was further amended in 1968 with approval for limited numbers of South Pacific missionaries to be granted residency for up to four years (see submission, Reseigh to Barnes, 30 January 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/40 17). However, the Government was not prepared to change regulations to favour Indonesian Chinese with a wish to reside in PNG (see memorandum, DOET (F. D. Gillies, position unidentified) to DEA, 20 March 1968, NAA: A452, 1966/6909).