Canberra, 23 December 1966
Development programme—Papua New Guinea
The following is a summary of the main conclusions reached on the nature of the proposed document to be issued in February, 1967—
• Basic purpose
- foster understanding and provide basis for discussion of what Government trying to do;
- genuine effort to take account feelings of people and appreciation of need for acceptance of programme. Avoid{ance} of resentment, hostility and suspicion of critical importance in total Government strategy.
• Show as dramatically as possible tangible blessings of programme for people of Territory e.g. production, exports, etc. (commodity table(s)).
- list of projects (public and private);
- miles of road to be built;
- jobs likely to be available;
- how taxes to be spent;
- benefits for children, e.g. schools, hospitals;
- penetration of subsistence economy.
- etc.
•Indicate why programme needed
- in Territory circumstances imperative that resources not be wasted;
- put people in position to pay for things they want;
- further steps on road to self-dependence (political argument).
• Cover major strategies and policies involved
- if policies not settled put in proposition form.
• Put down elementary facts of major importance, e.g. only X% people in cash economy, X% children at school etc.
• Need to say something acceptable to people in the various districts; should appeal to as many tribal, ethnic and other sections of population as possible.
• Indicate how the people can help. What part can they play in the programme?
- self-help;
- sell land; conversion of titles;
- allow acquisition of timber rights;
- participate. in co–operatives;
- pay for hospital services etc.;
- educate themselves and children; learn new skills, methods etc.;
- contribute more to local revenue;
- work harder and save more out of increased income.2
[NAA: A452, 1966/6372]
The United Nations resolution on PNG, 1966
On 20 December, a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on PNG reading:1
The General Assembly …
1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Papua and New Guinea to self determination and independence in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV); 2
2. Deplores the failure of the administering Power to implement General Assembly Resolution 2ll2 (XX) ;3
3. Calls upon the administering power to implement fully Resolution 1514 (XV) and to inform the Trusteeship Council at its thirty-fourth session and the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of the action taken in this regard,
4. Calls upon the administering Power to implement the following measures:
(a) Removal of all discriminatory electoral qualifications;
(b) Abolition of all discriminatory practices in the economic, social, health and educational fields;
(c) Holding of elections on the basis of universal adult suffrage with a view to transferring power to the peoples of the Territories;
(d) Fixing of an early date for independence,
5. Further calls upon the administering Power to refrain from utilizing the Territories for military activities incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations …
Barnes reacted quickly to the resolution. In a statement of 21 December, he said that ‘In determining its policy for Papua and New Guinea the Government will be influenced primarily by the wishes of the people of Papua and New Guinea’.4 Australia, he argued, had ‘no obligation to pay regard to resolutions passed by the United Nations in disregard of the situation in the Territory and everything that is known about the wishes of the vast majority of its inhabitants’. He also commented on each point of operative paragraph four:
(a) … There are no discriminatory electoral rolls. All of the elected members of the House of Assembly are elected by the electors on the one common roll. (b) … Abolition of all discriminatory practices in the economic, social, health and educational fields has been the policy for many years. Discrimination has been removed from all laws and discriminatory practices in business have been made illegal. The Administration discourages discrimination by all means open to it—although every action of every individual cannot be controlled by a government. (c) … Elections for the House of Assembly on the basis of universal adult suffrage were held in 1964. The House of Assembly which was then elected is the legislative body for the Territory. (d) In his statement to the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14th December Mr Lepani Watson, M.H.A., Under-Secretary for Trade and industry, said ‘Sir, we do believe that at the moment it is impossible to choose independence without manpower and cash economy from our own people, because at the moment the biggest item, capital, comes from the Commonwealth Government of Australia in grants, aid and other income resources5 largely from expatriate private enterprises and very little comes from local people. I say this, Sir; because we do not want to see our country as beggars of the streets after independence.’
On 21st April last in the House of Representatives I reaffirmed that the Government’s basic policy for Papua and New Guinea is self-determination. It is the prerogative of the Territory people to terminate the present Territory status and take independent status if they wish to do so.
With regard to paragraph five of the resolution, Barnes said that Australia was not in violation of the Charter, and in his concluding remarks he placed this claim alongside an attempt to underline Australia’s bona fides as a generous benefactor:
In June 1966, the House of Assembly passed the following motion:
‘We, the members of the House of Assembly of Papua and New Guinea, express to the Government and the people of Australia our firm belief that the people of this country are deeply grateful to Australia for the vast expenditure being made in this country to ensure that the peoples of Papua and New Guinea will be able to move peacefully towards their destiny without let or hindrance from outside sources. We are aware, and believe that the people of this country are aware, of the security6 We realise that the geographical locality of this country on the fringe of the Pacific, yet also on the fringe of South-East Asia, demands an expenditure on security forces and installations which this country could not face alone. We welcome, as do our Malaysian friends, the presence of Australian defence installations and forces as a guarantee that the country would come to our aid in time of need in the future, even as it has done in the past.’
I would point out that Australia is providing increasing amounts of money to assist the people of Papua and New Guinea to advance to the stage when they are ready to choose their own future. This year the Australian grant is $70m out of a Territory budget of $120m and in addition about $27m are spent directly in the Territory by Commonwealth departments. The countries whose representatives were vocal in over-riding in the United Nations the known wishes of the people of the Territory are not providing the people of Papua and New Guinea with any assistance.7
1 G.L. Mansfield, OIC, Economic Research and Programming Section, DOT.
2 On 9 June 1967, Henderson tabled a paper in the House of Assembly entitled ‘Economic Development of Papua and New Guinea’. In his accompanying statement, he said the paper ‘represents a further step towards the preparation of an integrated programme for the development of the Territory’; its purpose was to ‘present a provisional statement indicating the progress with planning that has been made and the broad pattern of future development as it appears at present’. He continued: ‘The document brings up to date the 1964 Report by the Mission of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the light of subsequent development. The possible course of future development described … is therefore based largely on an examination of recent trends taking into account present needs and policies. The key point made in the paper is that rapid development of the economy will depend essentially on the nature and extent of indigenous participation, aided by a continuing flow of expatriate capital and skilled manpower. It thus looks to a working partnership in which all sections of the community will pull their full weight. Many aspects of this theme are developed, of which the most important is the need for the indigenous people to orientate their minds and energies to productive development and to be patient in their demands for increased incomes and services before the economy has become, in any sense, self-supporting. The proposed programme is specially concerned with the advancement of the indigenous people which is, itself, the major purpose of economic development. The Administration is vigorously pursuing many means to this end … [The paper] begins by setting out the objectives of economic development and the necessity of paying for it. The paper reviews progress to date and this progress is most encouraging and sets down the broad features of a possible development programme largely in the form of production and other targets. It concludes by examining the implications of the suggested programmes for the different sectors of the economy and … the economy as a whole … The paper stresses the continuing reliance on Australian aid without which any significant programme of development would be impossible. Indeed the Territory could not even stand still at its existent level without large and increasing amounts of this aid. However, the ultimate object must be to advance to the point where the Territory can gradually become more and more self-supporting and until eventually it can stand economically on its own feet … A great deal clearly remains to be done before a final plan can be settled. One of the objects of further review will indeed be to explore the possibility of increasing production still further and to find ways and means of reducing costs. This review will take fully into account the discussions in this House and elsewhere which it is hoped will follow from the issue of the present paper’ ( House of Assembly debates , NLA: Nq. 328.952 PAP, p. 2443).
1 The resolution (2227) was adopted by 81 votes to 8, with 24 abstentions. It is cited in Yearbook of the United Nations 1966 , New York, 1968, pp. 547–8.
2 See footnote 7, Document 14.
3 Resolution 2112, adopted by the Assembly on 21 December 1965, included a call to ‘implement fully resolution 1514 … and, to this end, to fix an early date for independence in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people’ ( Yearbook of the United Nations 1965 , p. 540).
4 Press statement by Barnes, 21 December 1969, NAA: A1838, 936/3/7/1 part 3.
5 The word ‘come’ or ‘similar’ appears to be missing here.
6 Presumably, the word ‘problem’ or similar should have been inserted here.
7 Press reaction to the controversy was mixed. An editorial in the Age of 23 December wrote of the ‘ignorant approach’ of the UN, but opined that ‘it must be assumed that outside influence will have some influence on [the] decision [of the people of PNG as to the date of independence] … We do not have to like the UN’s rudeness, but we must lump it’ (NLA: mfm NX 41 ). Similarly, an editorial of the same date in the Australian spoke of the ‘wild charges and fierce abuse’ that had been thrown at Australia in the UN, but said Australia could hardly ignore the criticism of leaders to its north—nor could it expect understanding or support on Territorial issues from the US if it continued to use the same arguments in the UN. The editorial concluded that it might be best if PNG could have another 10, 20 or even 50 years to mature, ‘but an impatient world will not give us scope for this kind of time schedule’ (NLA: mfm NX 48). The South Pacific Post claimed that Territory leaders were ‘puzzled at the meaning of the resolution’ and it quoted them as saying that PNG already had free elections (23 December, NLA: NX 342).