| Sports |
On the road to
Independence
The year 1966 is probably as
important as 1975 when Papua New Guinea gained political
independence from Australia.
It was a year when political awareness took root among a growing
group of Papua New Guinea leaders, most of them illiterate, and
the question of the future political status of "The Territory of
Papua and New Guinea" was seriously studied in Canberra.
1966 was a year when newly independence African and Asian
nations dominated the UN Committee of 21 and, supported by the
Communist bloc, pushed for decolonisation and independence for
nations until under the rule of metropolitan powers, including
PNG.
Canberra's thinking and the attitude of the Australian
Government on PNG's future status is summed up in a 1,030-page
historical documents book, "Australia and Papua New Guinea
1966-1969, released early this year.
The book is part of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade's Document's on Australian Foreign Policy series, and
offers some fascinating insights into the relationship between
Australia and PNG in the lead up to Independence in 1975.
Leigh Arnold, Public Diplomacy Manager at the Australian High
Commission in Port Moresby, said the series demonstrates the
Australian Government's commitment to publish an accurate,
comprehensive and impartial record of Australia's foreign and
trade policy by releasing previously classified material to the
public.
Said Arnold: "The newly released volume covers the mid- to late
1960s. It the product of more than three years' work and
contains documents from over 700 government files. Many of the
more than 300 documents have never been published before."
In Canberra, on March 10, 1966, a top secret Submission No.71 on
the ultimate status of "Papua and New Guinea" was being prepared
for C.E. Barnes, Minister for External Territories, to take to
Cabinet on what attitude might be adopted by the Commonwealth
Government towards short-term or interim constitutional
development in PNG.
Submission No.71 also laid out what lines should be followed on
certain matters likely to arise in exploratory discussions in
April when Canberra would host the Papua and New Guinea Select
Committee on Constitutional Development chaired by J.D. Guise
(Sir John Guise).
One of the Guise Committee's purpose was to "draft for the
consideration of the House of Assembly a set of constitutional
proposals to serve as a guide for future constitutional
development in the Territory".
Barnes noted in the Cabubet submission that at an informal
meeting with the committee in Port Moresby in January 1966 the
committee was pre-occupied with seeking some guidance from
Australia on which alternatives for the future political status
of the Territory they might put to the people for an expression
of the people's views.
"They indicated clearly in these informal talks that from their
point of view an important question for the exploratory
discussions in Canberra would be the range of special relations
(i.e. relationships in the long term) between Australia and the
Territory that would be acceptable to Australia."
In addition to this question, Barnes said the committee
indicated it wanted to canvass such points as the difference
between Papua and New Guinea and the implications of this
difference; the conditions on which Australia might grant
internal self-government; and migration between Papua and New
Guinea and Australia.
Barnes informed Cabinet that he had discourage the committee
from expecting that the Australian Government would want to or
would be in a position to be specific about the ultimate status
of the Territory.
"I put it to the committee that the advancement of the Territory
to self-government was the first objective which should be
looked to at this stage and for this reason the committee should
concentrate its enquiries on the steps that it should be taking
to reach that objective.
"The committee however, appeared to have got itself into a
position, both from its interim report in November to the House
of Assembly and in its own thinking, where it considered it
necessary to test opinion on the long-term future of the
Territory.
"At the conclusion of our talk, the committee did seem to have
moved away from thinking about testing specific possible future
constitutional arrangements towards towards thinking about what
broad political paths were open for the Territory to follow in
terms of possible future relationships with Australia."
However, Submission No.71 discussed at length various possible
broad policy objectives under three principal headings:
*Unqualified independence;
*Association with Australia which might take the form of (a)
independence for Papua and New Guinea with special status or
agreements with Australia; (b) self-government for Papua and New
Guinea with certain powers (e.g. defence, external affairs)
reserved to Australia; or (c) close association; and
. Integration with Australia.
According to Barnes, unqualified independence meant eventual
disengagement and withdrawal by Australia from PNG - "would
imply that Australia would in the future be following its own
path with little regard to events in Papua and New Guinea, i.e.
there would be no serious implications for Australia if the
government of the Territory crumbled away into instability or
even chaos, or if a hostile power were to gain influence in
Papua and New Guinea or even to take the country over."
But the question of Papua as an Australian territory and New
Guinea as a UN Trust Territory was also put to Cabinet with the
conclusion that "the case of Papua raises a substantial
constitutional question to which a good deal of consideration
would have to be given before a confident answer could be
given."
On Association with Australia, Cabinet was asked to look at
association - independence with treaties, and close association.
In the case of the latter, it goes beyond self-government with
defence and external affairs powers reserved to Australia.
"If at the appropriate time in the future the policy attitude
were in favour of some constitutional arrangements to strengthen
the close association particular devices could be worked out
adapted to the circumstances of Australia and Papua and New
Guinea falling short of "Statehood".
On integration with Australia, Submission No.71 said that apart
from association, "a possible approach would be to seek to
secure Australian interests by integration with Australia.
"The view that the Territory could become a 'state' of Australia
seems to be widely held amongst sections of the Territory
population. It is probable that many of those who hold it do not
have a clear idea of what they mean.
"Insofar as the Territory becoming a State of Australia means
admission of the Territory on equal terms similar with the
existing states the proposal seems impracticable, at least for
many years to come.
"To extend to (2.25 million) people of different race, with
different standards of living, customs, etc, the option of free
movement to nay part of Australia seems out of the question in
the light of the policy aim of a generally integrated and
predominantly homogeneous population.
"The addition of (2.25 million) people to the Commonwealth
electorate to be represented in the Commonwealth Parliament on
the same terms as the present Australian population of 11.25
million similarly seems out of the question. Neither does it
seem practicable to include the Territory within the Australian
tax and social services system at any rate at present".
As an aside, Barnes informed Cabinet that the Attorney-General
Department took the view that as a matter of constitutional law
a Territory can probably become a State of the Commonwealth of
Australia under the Commonwealth Constitution as it stood, "but
opinions on the matter have not been unanimous and the matter
cannot therefore be regarded as being completely free from
doubt".
NEXT WEEK: What the Australian Cabinet decided with
Submission No.71.
 
|
