| Sports |
The road to
Independence
Australian Cabinet considers
options on the political status of its Territory of Papua and
New Guinea in 1966. SINCLAIRE SOLOMON reports.
THE top secret Submission No.71 mapping out the ultimate
political status of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea was
discussed by the Australian Cabinet on March 24 and March 29,
1966.
It was important that Cabinet made a decision on the Australian
Government stand on the Territory's future before the arrival of
the Select Committee on Constitutional Development of the House
of Assembly for exploratory talks in the coming weeks.
The Australian stand would be put to the committee led by John
Guise and included Sir Donald Cleland, Pita Simogun, Lepani
Watson, Dirona Abe, Sinake Giregire, Nicholas Brokam, Tei Abal,
Paul Lapun, Eric Eupu, Wegia Kena, J.R Stuntz, and I.F. G Downs,
J.K McCarthy and Dr R.F.R Scragg.
The main points which Cabinet considered with a view to briefing
those who will discuss the issues with the PNG Select Committee
were:
*The Australian view of the desirability of continued
association with the Territory;
*Whether Australia favours virtual unity with Papua and New
Guinea;
*How far the Government was willing to commit itself to
continued aid, and to close trade ties; and
*Whether a warning should be sounded about the prospects for
easier migration from the Territory to Australia. Whether the
points it makes in discussions with the committee, if reported,
will cause it embarrassment with the United Nations (its
attitude to the nature of the future association may be
particularly affected by this consideration).
However, the Secretary to the Prime Minister's Department Sir
John Bunting noted a week before the Cabinet meeting that
Submission No.71 was only circulated among Cabinet Ministers "in
the last few days".
"There may well become murmurings about a subject of this
importance and difficulty coming on the list in a hurry," he
said in a submission to Prime Minister Harold Holt on March 15,
1966.
"The answer to give to that is the Minister for External
Territories (Paul Hasluck) has to leave for India at the end of
this week, that progress has to be made on the Submission before
he returns, and that it is desirable to have a discussion with
Mr Hasluck present.
"... I now suggest to you that this really is too large a
subject to be taken by Cabinet more or less on the run. I think
that the Minister for Territories has put forward a very
sensible proposal and that very likely it will turn out that it
will be adopted.
"But this is not a matter for the Department of Territories on
its own. In our departmental note to you there is a suggestion
for an Interdepartmental Committee which I believe is a good
suggestion. But inmy view, it would be even better to have a
Committee of the Cabinet specially appointed, in which you draw
on names rathaer than on portfolios so that a representative and
thinking group of Minister apply their minds. A few very senior
Ministers would be needed but then Ministers like Senator (John)
Gordon, Mr (L.H.E) Bury, Mr (J.D ) Anthony, Mr (F.C) Chaney, Mr
(Peter) Howson and Mr (I.M ) Sinclair could be drawn up.
"... I would suggest that you allow the discussion to run a
certain distance in Cabinet this morning and then refer it to a
Cabinet Committee with membership to be arranged by you."
But, this did not happen because the Holt Cabinet took a
completely different approach to Submission No.71 as the Top
Secret Cabinet Decision No.138 showed.
Cabinet noted that Submission No.71 was put forward in relation
to the upcoming talks on the long term constitutional status of
the Territory with the Guise Committee.
Cabinet also noted that the Submission invited it to 1) agree on
a particular posture towards the long term political future of
the Territory; and b) the lines along which Government views
might be stated in the discussion which Guise and company.
The Cabinet decided against making a decision in relation to the
first of these matters. Concerning the lines along which
Government views might be stated, the Cabinet recognised that
while some response would be necessary "the objective should be
to shape what is said so as to keep maximum flexibility".
It in turn "sketched lines of guidance" for the Minister for
Territories and other Ministers who will attend the upcoming
talks to follow. In other words, the Australian Government's
formal position "is that the Submission (No.71) as a whole is
unendorsed".
However, in its sketching guidelines Cabinet indicated that the
opening section of the lines which the Submission sets out in
Paragraph 61might be adopted. This section refers to acceptance
of the policy of self-determination for the Territory.
It was added by the Cabinet however, that it would need to
remain that eventual arrangements about the political status of
the Territory will depend not only on the view of the people of
the Territory but also on the Australian Government.
Decision No.138 said: "There is general agreement in the Cabinet
on the desire to have and to keep as much flexibility for the
Australian Government as possible. And since flexibility and
precise response to the Select Committee would not run together,
it will be necessary to avoid both formality and precision in
what is said to the Committee. It might be said, as paragraph 61
proposes, that it is the Territory's prerogative, on its own
decision and its own timing, to terminate its present territory
status and to take independent status. But that being said, it
might be added, not by way of instruction or advice but in the
process of give and take of counsel, that the Government would
think that the Territory will not wish to make a decision for
independence until it has, for instance, a good deal greater
degree of economic and political viability than it now has, and
that pending this achievement, Australia will be willing to see
the Territory continue in its present political status, and
further, will stand willing, and will desire, to help its
development. It will assist towards financial independence by
progressively giving the Territory more financial autonomy as
its capacity to contribute to its own revenues increases.
Further, it will wish to put more and more of the administration
of the Territory in Territory hands, by the development of the
Territory public service and to enlarge progressively the
measure of self-government.
Finally, still in terms of give and take of counsel, it might be
said that Australia would think that whatever the political
status of New Guinea may be at any time, there would be, as a
matter of mutual self-interest, a defence relationships and also
a trade relationship of mutual advantage.
The defence relationship would derive from the Territory's need
of Australian aid in defence, and from Australia's interest,
from the defence point of view, in New Guinea".
The Holt Cabinet also took special note of paragraph 60 of
Submission No. 17 - proposing a general statement to the effect
that, for its part, the Government does not see the difference
in status of Papua and of New Guinea as leading to a preferred
position for Papua as against New Guinea in respect of
relationships with Australia.
It said: "It was agreed that an indication of these lines would
be in order".
So armed with these Cabinet directives the relevant Australian
Ministers and officials led by the Minister for Territories, met
with PNG leaders in Canberra on April 18-20, 1966.
But Sir John Bunting made an interesting observation of the
Cabinet’s “unendorsed” decision on Submission No.71. In a secret
note to Secretary of Deparatment of Territories, Warwick Smith,
on April 15, 1966, Sir John the decision raised “the possibility
of eventual integration of the Territory with Australia as a
State on equal terms with the present States.”
“It may well be that the decision is not sufficiently specific
on this point,” he said, pointing out that the Minister for
Territories had recommended that such an association be excluded
from draft Submission (paragraph 62(a)) before it went to
Cabinet.
But the Cabinet decision indicates that the Submission is
“unendorsed” and Sir John noted that “this could give rise to a
belief that the question of integration as a State remains
open”.
“… As I saw it, the line of the Cabinet discussion would require
that the New Guinea delegation receives no encouragement, and in
fact receives discouragement, about integration as a
possibility.
“Even though, as the decision records, the Cabinet has said that
the ultimate arrangements will be for the people of the
Territory and, if necessary, the people of Australia, at the
time of independence, it also had in mind that it could be
disastrous to allow the delegation to go back home with false
hopes.”
(Next Week: The Select Committee meets with Australian
Government Ministers and officials in Canberra)
(Excerpts from “Australia and Papua New Guinea 1966-1969”
Documents on Australian Foreign Policy)
 
|
