What Whitlam said

This was Mr. Whitlam’s final summing up following his P-NG tour; In the past year the political climate of Papua-New Guinea has been transformed. A year ago, [Labour Party] proposals for self government were met with official hostility and public dismay.

Some elementary truths about the early and inevitable end of colonialism in Papua-New Guinea held the terror of the novel and unknown. Now, the most signi ficant leaders of Papua-New Guinea and a significant section of the population accept that they must shortly come to terms with their own future as a self-gov erning nation. It has been remark able proof of the power of an idea. There can be no turning back now.

For the past fortnight my col leagues and I have met and talked with some hundreds of the present and future leaders of Papua-New Guinea. Despite the vast improve ment in the level of political debate in every part of the ter ritory, it is clear that political education has been deficient.

Again and again we asked the people if they had ever heard the Administration explain the advan tages of self-government. In variably, the answer was “no”.

With the shining exception of the new Administrator himself [Mr. L. W. Johnson] it would seem practically nothing has been done to dispel confusion and fear about the meaning and con sequences of self-government.

On the contrary, needless anxiety and false fears have been planted and nourished. Con sequently, my colleagues and I found that in many parts of the territory our visits became a mis sion of reassurance that Austra lia’s contribution to the welfare of Papua-New Guinea would be enhanced and expanded after self government and later, after independence.

There can be no qualification about the depth of the commit ment of the Australian Labour Party in this matter. The representative nature of the col leagues who have been with me in the territory, would allow and ensure that. Beyond the personal commitment, the Labour Party as a whole finds its most deeply

held conscientious convictions affronted in Papua-New Guinea.

It would be impossible for a party like ours to condone or connive a vast inequality, en trenched privilege, blatant ex ploitation, and racial discrimina tion. These inescapable attributes of colonialism disfigure life in this colony, as in all other colonies. They debase the dedica tion, energy and enterprise devoted over the years by the many thousands of fine Australians who have worked in the territory.

Australia’s role as a colonial power is a wrong thing in itself.

It would be bad for us as a nation even if we were able to isolate ourselves from the pressures and opinions of all other countries.

But we enjoy no such luxury of isolation. In particular, we live in a region in which every one of our neighbours for thousands of miles around were former colonies. Each detests colonialism.

To all these neighbours and all our fellow members of the Com monwealth of Nations, every justification the government of Australia makes for dragging its feet in Papua-New Guinea, every argument about the inability of native people to govern them selves, smacks of racial super iority. Australia’s major diplomatic efforts, notably at the U.N., but in most world capitals, are devoted to justifying the official position on Papua-New Guinea.

This is a sterile exercise. It cripples our power for any con structive diplomatic initiative. We are needlessly placed on the defensive. It needlessly com plicates our relations with our neighbours and with our friends, including our chief ally the United States, which possesses the world’s most powerful black community.

All Australians must now realise how damaging and dangerous a reputation Australia’s present policies produce. We are a Euro pean nation on the fringe of the most populous and deprived coloured nation in the world.

What the world sees about Aus tralia is that we have an aboriginal population with the highest infant mortality rate on earth; that we have eagerly supported the most unpopular war in modern times on the ground that Asia should be

(Continued next page)

our battleground for freedom; that we failed to oppose the sale of arms to South Africa; that the whole world believes that our im migration policy is based on colour; and that we run one of the world’s last colonies.

We may rightly profess our good intentions and feel that we are merely the victims of special circumstances, but the combina tions of such policies leans heavily indeed on the world’s goodwill and on Australia’s credibility.

The true patriot will therefore not seek to justify and prolong these policies, but will seek to change them.

In Papua-New Guinea, it will be found increasingly that the questions of the timing of self government involves a quibble about the matter of two or three years. Even if the Gorton govern ment were to survive, self-govern ment will come in the life-time of the next House of Represen tatives. • The Australian Government has a clear duty to speed up pre parations for the inevitable day.

Target dates for self-government and independence should be set now, as we are obliged to do by the unopposed [1970] decision of the UN General Assembly. • The official [Australian] members of the House of Representatives should be re moved now. • Elected [native] ministers should be made responsible to the House of Assembly in fact. • Political education should receive top priority. • The Australian Parliament should immediately ratify the International Labour Organisation conventions on plantation workers and on race relations for the ter ritory. • A new set of labour laws and ordinances should be drafted and approved to make labour laws and conditions conform with these conventions. • Employment preferences should be given to unionists. • The Australian Government should spell out clearly the en titlements of Australian public servants [7,000], and should make it plain that it accepts responsibi lity for their future welfare, both in the territory and in Australia.

Only if this is done, can local isation of the Public Service pro ceed speedily and smoothly.

There is no need to wait until 1972 for these things to be done. They constitute in them selves the essence of self-govern ment. • Australian businessmen and Australian companies have a parti cular interest in the establishment of a self-governing New Guinea.

By its very nature, an Australian Administration committed to its own abdication eventually, cannot guarantee the validity and perm anency of business and invest ment arrangements it may make.

The best safeguard against ex propriation is that an indigenous independent government should ac cept responsibility for the laws and arrangements under which property is held and capital is invested.

There are clear risks in the present situation in which all employers and businessmen are expatriates, while New Guineans are employees and customers.

In the final analysis, the at titudes of the Australian Labour Party to New Guinea involve a convinced judgment about the very nature of man.

We cannot accept that nations should be ruled by other nations.

We cannot accept that men do not wish to be free. We cannot accept that the people in Papua- New Guinea are some special ex ception in a world where millions have died for independence.

It may be true that men can not be forced to be free.

It is certainly true that men cannot be forced to rule others.

An Australian Labour Govern ment will not be black-mailed into accepting an unnatural role as rulers over those who have had no say, and can have no say in electing us.

Australia’s obligation in the United Nations is to hand over Papua-New Guinea as a single entity as soon as possible.

Papua-New Guinea has a chance of remaining united only if self-government comes quickly.

Self-government in itself will be the real unifying force in this country. To delay self-government is to promote separatism. Self government must be given quickly to the people as a whole. Other wise section after section will seize with anger and bitterness towards us, what we should grant wholly and whole heartedly.