Thought At

Two Lines Of

Sydney Talks

By Angus Smales

With a barrage of well eveloped oratory in Sydney in a group of thinkers from

Australia and Papua-New

juinea discussed the constitu onal future facing the territory.

PWO main lines of thought emerged from the talks, which were jonsored by the Council on New fuinea affairs. They were: 1. Politically, economically, socially id for foreign policy reasons Papua few Guinea could not become a :venth State of Australia. 2. Australia should clearly tell the f ew Guineans immediately that le Statehood idea would not be assible, and should set out al rnative constitutional proposals.

These two points were by no means lanimous expressions from the :minar, but they summarise the meral climate of opinion.

One significant departure from ie general trend of thinking was ie fact that not one New Guinean trliamentarian attending the seminar [pressed an opinion on the pos bilty of Australian Statehood for s country.

This would appear to indicate an )en mind on the situation among e native political leaders—although young Tolai university graduate iposed Australian Statehood for NG.

What Value Was It?

In assessing the worth of the )inions which the seminar expres d, it is important to consider the ickground of the Council on New uinea Affairs and the type of eakers who addressed the seminar.

The council was formed 18 months ;o to study the problems and needs P-NG and to promote enlightened ought and advice in these problems id needs. The council has shown irticular interest in creating thought ithin the Australian community— community which too often has :en poorly informed and little terested in P-NG affairs.

The council has achieved success developing specialised interest, id this is to the good of Australia’s ork in the territory.

Many observers feel however that

the approach developed by the council has been of an over-academic nature, and an academic approach was certainly evident at the April seminar.

Four members of the P-NG House of Assembly spoke and none of these men is what could be called an “academic” type.

Their main point—and it was a very fair one—was that Australia should quickly set out a selection of possible constitutional paths for the New Guineans.

Cards On The Table

This meant that if the Australian Government considered a certain type of constitutional future impos sible, then it should not hesitate to so tell the Guineans.

The germ of the problem facing the territory’s constitutional future lies in the opening remarks to the seminar, given by the Vice-Chancellor of the Territory’s university, Dr. J.

Gunther, who in March resigned from his post of assistant admini strator of the territory.

Said Dr. Gunther: “The most likely conclusion at the present time is that the majority of New Guineans don’t know what they want.”

If this conclusion is accepted, then the real job today is to give the New Guineans a full understanding of the situation, and then wait for their opinion to emerge.

Their Main Points

Mr. J. R. Kerr, president of the Australian Law Council, advocated the start of a “generous disengage ment policy” by Australia towards P-NG, and was one of the strongest supporters of a non-attachment con stitutional policy.

After a series of strongly-reasoned arguments on the subject, Mr. Kerr said: “However one looks at the problem, whether from a political, economic, defence or foreign policy point of view, it seems preferable that New Guinea should be fully independent, and not tied to Aus tralia through any constitutional ap paratus.”

The chairman of the Council on New Guinea Affairs, Mr. Norman Cowper, said that Australian State hood for Papua New Guinea would be a fatal move. It would be unwise to adopt a pattern immediately for the territory’s future constitution, but he favored a modified form of the Westminster system.

One of the most outspoken of the other speakers was Mr. John Guise, chairman of the P-NG House of Assembly select committee on con

stitutional development and leader of the elected members in the House.

He appealed for an increase in Australian aid, for a greater shift of administrative employment to New Guineans, and for the use of UN educational scholarships.

Other native parliamentarians who spoke were Sinake Giregire, Simogun Peta and, Dirona Abe. All of them asked in general for continued Aus tralian aid, but they did not discuss the issue of possible Statehood.