Canberra, 18 April 1966

Confidential

Exploratory talks–constitutional development in Papua and New Guinea

[matter omitted]

I am very glad to welcome you to this parliamentary building and to Canberra for our talks on constitutional development.

The talks we both understand are quite informal and purely exploratory. This means that there will not be any record kept of the talks. They will be in private so that we can all talk quite frankly and freely. The purpose of the talks is that we should each try to understand what the other is thinking. We want to know what you as elected representatives of the Territory people are thinking and you want to know what we as the Australian Government think.

The Government welcomes these talks because constitutional changes are important and serious matters. Constitutional development of the Territory can only go ahead on a sound footing if the people have an understanding and changes are to be made only if there is the clear support of the people. I think we all agree on this because constitutional changes can affect not only the future lives of the present people of the Territory but also the lives of their sons and grandsons and affect them in very important ways.

Where constitutional development of the Territory affects Australia directly or indirectly the Government here will also have to take full account of the views of the Australian people. So the most careful enquiry and thought is necessary before constitutional changes can be made. You will recollect that when I met you in Port Moresby in Januarywe discussed matters concerning the future possible relationship of the Territory with Australia and you as a committee suggested to me that you wanted to know the Australian Government's thinking before you went out to have discussions with the people².

I suggested in those talks that the important thing in constitutional development at this stage was to aim at full internal self-government. You emphasised, however, that as a committee you wanted to know which roads were open to the Territory to travel so far as the long-term political future was concerned.

Following our talk in Port Moresby I have had discussions with my Cabinet colleagues³ and in the course of our talks this week I will be explaining to you how the Government sees the position so far as it is concerned. My Ministerial colleagues will be glad to discuss particular aspects with you as opportunity offers.

You have been thinking about what the long-term constitutional future of Papua and New Guinea will be so that you can know now what path or what direction should be followed in the meantime. You made it clear to me in our talks in Port Moresby that in talking about what the future position might be you were not suggesting that the rate of development should be hastened or accelerated. You said that a long time would be needed to get to the stage of internal self-government.

You said that you needed to know what the long-term possibilities were in order to be able to talk to the people about what their wishes might be.

This is one way of approaching the matter–i.e., to try to decide now what the ultimate goal is and shape the developments in the meantime towards that goal.

Another way is to go step by step. To decide each step, i.e., to decide what you will do next, when you know what the actual circumstances are at that stage.

There may seem to be advantages in having a long-term goal to work towards. There are also disadvantages in this approach. It is impossible to say today when the Territory will actually decide what its final political status will be. We don't know when this will happen. It is impossible to say today what the situation will be at that time–the situation inside the Territory, the situation in Australia or the international situation.

Examples–

• Vast constitutional changes have taken place particularly in African countries in the past 15 years. Even in the last 12 months in Ghana and Nigeria we have seen still further sudden changes.

• No one would have predicted even a few years beforehand that by 1964 the Territory would have a House of Assembly elected on a Territory wide basis.

• Who can say how fast the Territory will develop economically? Who can say how fast education will be spread? But these are basic to political development.

If we adopt a long-term constitutional goal based on what we think at this time will be suitable at some unknown time ahead we may find we have followed the wrong road–that we have followed a different road from the one we think best when that time in the future actually arrives. We are not so likely to make a mistake if each step is decided on at the actual time it is taken when you know the conditions that actually exist at that time.

These are the kinds of things which the Government has had in mind and which have guided it in thinking about the political future of the Territory.

I think it will help if I say now certain definite things about the Government's views:–

(a) The Government's broad policy towards the Territory is self‐determination.

(b) It is the Territory's prerogative on its own decision and at its own time to regulate its constitutional progress.

(c) Accordingly it is the Territory's prerogative if it wishes to do so to terminate its present Territory status and take independent status.

(d) If in due time it is decided that what is wanted is a continued form of association with Australia this will of course require the agreement of the Australian Government of the day.

(e) The eventual arrangements about the political status of the Territory will depend on the views of the Territory people at the relevant time (as distinct from whatever views may be held at the present time) and also to the extent that Australia is affected, on the views of the Australian Government of the day. That future time however seems likely to be at some stage following after the achievement of full internal self-government.

(f) There are a number of steps to be taken before full internal self-government is arrived at. These steps and the timing of them also will depend upon the views of the people of the Territory.

(g) The Government stands ready to discuss what the next step might be or what interim changes might be made if the Territory people desire change.

(h) As far as the long-term goal is concerned however and to the extent that decisions by Australia will be required, the Government has concluded that the step by step approach should be followed. It has concluded that any decisions about what long-term future forms of association would be acceptable to Australia should not be made now. They should be made at the appropriate time in the future by the Government of the day in the light of the circumstances actually existing at that future time.

There is another matter which you raised with me in our talks in January. This is the question of the different status of the two Territories. 1t may be helpful if I say now that the Government does not see the difference in status of Papua and of New Guinea as leading to a preferred position for Papuans as against New Guineans in respect of relationships with Australia. In terms of treatment by Australia after self-determination, as the Government sees it New Guineans would be treated no less favourably than Papuans. In the Government's view the present difference in status should not be regarded as a factor having practical significance for the purpose of the enquiries by the Select Committee.

These are the Government's views in relation to the general question of constitutional development in the Territory. I am setting them out frankly and clearly so that our talks can go forward with an understanding of the Government's basic position.

Australia has not changed her attitude towards the Territory. Everywhere I have been in Papua and New Guinea people have told me that they are not ready for self-government and that they want partnership with Australia for many years.

There is plainly a lot of good sense in the view that there should be no rush towards independence or deciding the political future until the Territory has got a lot further forward economically and until the people are able, through the spread of education, to understand better the issues that are involved.

Until these things are achieved, Australia will be willing to see the Territory continue in its present relationship with Australia as a Territory and this would not shut out progressive steps towards full internal self–government in the Territory {if the people want it that way}.

It can be taken that Australia will assist towards financial independence by progressively giving the Territory more financial autonomy as its capacity to contribute to its own revenues increases; and that Australia will wish to put more and more of the Administration of the Territory in Territory hands by developing the Territory Public Service {and} to enlarge progressively the degree of self-government.

These are general considerations affecting the future. The Government, however, has concluded that as regards the long-term political future of the Territory insofar as Australia is concerned the decisions will need to be made in the future at the relevant time by the Australian Government of the day in the light of circumstances as they actually exist at that time.

In the statement I made in the House of Representatives recently⁴ I said that the Government did not want to press constitutional changes on the people of the Territory which they did not want or for which they thought they were not ready. I also said that the Government would not refuse to make changes if there was strong and widespread support for change in the Territory. I made it clear that this is the Government's attitude to the possibility of changes in the House of Assembly as well as the possibility of changes in the executive.

I particularly want to draw your attention to the time table if it is desired to make any changes in the composition of the House of Assembly. I think you have already recognised that the steps that will need to be taken if changes are to be made in time for the 1968 elections will require very close attention to the time table.

All these questions including for example the possibility of setting–up a system of Ministerial representatives and changing the functions of the Administrator's Council can be discussed in detail later on.

I think we would all recognise that in these interim stages of political development there needs to be give and take as between the elected representatives of the Territory people and the Government. The Government takes full account of the views expressed by the Territory's elected representatives and would do so in relation to Ministerial representatives. In reverse it needs to be accepted that on some matters which are important to the Government, the Government's views in these interim stages must prevail.

We want to keep as fully aware as we can of the thinking of the people of the Territory and of the elected members. We think that effective constitutional development is bound up with economic and administrative capacity. To get to the stage of {full internal} self government, which we look upon as the first target, is in itself a very big job having regard to the situation in the Territory.

We have seen the results from other countries where there was rapid political development before people were educated and the resources of those countries were adequately developed. Development needs to be for the benefit of all the people and not mean only better incomes for a few.

Higher incomes will not come until we are able to sell timber, grow tea, palm nut oil, produce minerals as well as more cocoa, coffee and copra. To do this we must attract private investment to Papua and New Guinea just as we have done in Australia.

Many overseas investors have come to Australia and have helped us develop our country. They say they come to Australia because unlike many other countries in the world, we have a stable government in which they have confidence that their investments will not be taken from them.

This is why we must have your co–operation to encourage people to bring their money to Papua and New Guinea. Otherwise we will be wasting our efforts trying to help you.

There is need for your co-operation in matters like land tenure and the development of mineral and forestry resources. Government policy looks to private investment in agriculture, timber, minerals and local manufacture to help raise the living standards of the people of Papua and New Guinea.

Government expenditure in the main provides a climate of opportunity for this investment by such means as–

(a) Communications: roads, wharves, posts and telegraphs, airstrips and control.

(b) Administration: health, policy, labour relations.

(c) Research: experimental stations for the purpose of species of higher production or disease resistance. Methods of pest control. Marketing methods.

(d) Education: extension services, ·general, technical, apprentice training, tertiary education.

Economic progress through private investment will rely on the mutual confidence of both expatriate and local people that each is sharing fairly in prosperity which arises from the development of the country's latent and unused natural resources.

Through this economic progress the country will gradually move towards financial self-dependence. These are the lines of development recommended in the World Bank Mission Report.

I know you will understand that nothing in what I am saying now takes away from what I said a few minutes ago–that it is the Territory's prerogative on its own decision and at its own time to regulate its constitutional progress.

If the Territory people wish it, Australia desires, as I have said, to help the Territory's development. In giving this help it must have co-operation from the Territory's representatives in helping to build up confidence and in measures to strengthen economic development of the whole Territory.

I think from what the people of the Territory have said to me that they are anxious to continue to have Australia's help. Most of the money spent by the Government in Papua and New Guinea comes from Australia and is provided by the Australian taxpayer. The Australian Government must maintain certain authority in the Territory if it is to carry out its responsibilities. I think this is recognised. However, as progress is made towards economic self–dependence and towards full internal self-government, then, on the lines I have sketched out, more and more of responsibility for administration of the Territory will pass to elected representatives and to the Territory people.

I have taken some time to show you the Government's thinking in a broad way so that when we get on to more particular questions you will be able to understand more fully the Government's view. In the same way if you as Committee Members would care to say anything on general lines that would indicate your thinking about these matters that would help us to understand your thoughts.

[NAA: A1838, 936/5 part 4]

1 For context, see second paragraph, Document 38.

2 See Document 3.

3 See Document 34.

4 See footnote 2, Document 34.