I PNG Independence Bill
legislation; therefore it should have a speedy
passage. Honourable members might be interested to
know that Australia's sister Commonwealth
country, Canada, sent people to Australia a few
years ago to look at the working of our legislation.
Canada embodied some of our administrative
arrangements, as it saw or interpreted
them, to form part of the law that it has passed in
this area. I suppose both sides of the House can
take credit for what has happened, flimsy though
the arrangements may have been and even
though they were criticised by us when they were
introduced and have since been criticised by
honourable members opposite for not being
further extended by us. Neverteless the legislation
has worked fairly effectively and I think to
the advantage of industry that very vague area
we call the national interest. I commend the Bill
to the House and hope that, as the shadow
Treasurer indicated, there will be no opposition
to it here and therefore presumably no opposition
to it elsewhere.
Debate ( on motion by Mr Elicott) adjourned.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA INDEPENDENCE
BILL 1975
Bill presented by Mr Whitlain and read a first
time. Second Reading
Mr WHITLAM ( Werriwa-Prime Minister)
( 3.2 1)-1 move:
That the BUi be now read a second time.
The legislation which I now introduce-this
Bill and the next 4 Bills which I shall move be
read a second time-is historic for Papua New
Guinea, for Australia, and for the European civilisation
from which we Australians spring, for
this is almost the last episode in the great postwar,
post-imperial exercise of European
decolonisation. By an extraordinar twist of history,
Australia-herself once a colony-became
one of the world's last colonial powers. By this
legislation, we not only divest ourselves of the
last significant colony in the world, but we divest
ourselves of our own colonial heritage. It should
never be forgotten that in making our own
former colony independent, we as Australians
enhance our own independence. Australia was
never truly free until Papua New Guinea became
truly free.
Ile purpose of this legislation is to enable
Papua New Guinea to become independent on
16 September 1975, the date nominated by the
Papua New Guinea House of Assembly. The 20 August 1975 REPRESENTATIVES 293
legislation includes 4 Bills which are associated
in various ways with Papua New Guinea's move
to independence. I shalif Ii may, deal with each
of the Bills in turn in this speech.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA INDEPENDENCE
BILL
The proposed Papua New Guinea Constitution
does not depend for its validity on enabling
Australian legislation. The Constitution of
an independent Papua New Guinea is not to be
dependent on an Act by another Parliament in
the way that the Australian Constitution depends
on an Act of the Imperial Parliament-the Parliament
of Wesminster. Consequently the Papua
New Guinea Independence Bill is a short one.
Clause 4 provides that at the expiration of
September Australia will cease to have any sovereignty,
soverign rights or rights of administration
in Papua New Guinea. This will enable the
Papua New Guinea Constitution to come into
effect the next day as the supreme law of Papua
New Guinea.
Clause 5 of the Bill repeals the Papua New
Guinea Act 1949-75 under which Papua and the
Trust Territory of New Guinea have been jointly
administered for the past 26 years. It als ceases
the extension to Papua New Guinea of every Act
and imperial Act which hitherto extended. The
Papua New Guinea Constitution will adopt
those Acts and imperial Acts which Papua New
Guinea wishes to continue as laws of Papua New
Guinea. The Bill represents the culmination of threequarters
of a century of association of the Australian
Parliament with the development of
Papua New Guinea. It is the end of a long
chapter. We believe it is also the beginning of a
new, a better chapter in the continuing story of
the association between our 2 neighbour nations.
That association, as far as this Parliament is concerned,
began on 12 November 1901 with a
resolution that Australia should assume responsibility
for the administration of what was
then British New Guinea. Subsequently, of
course, Australia assumed responsibility for the
administration of what had been German New
Guinea, first, under a League of Nations mandate
and, since 1946, under the present United
Nations Trusteeship Agreement, which Australia
will discharge in full when Papua New Guinea
becomes an independent nation on 16
September. Successive Australian Governments have
given an undertaking to the Trusteeship Council
and to the United Nations General Assembly to
bring a united Papua New Guinea-the whole
294 REPRESENTATIVES 20 August 1975
territory over which we assumed or were given
control-not just to independence but to united
independence. We must all be worried at this
moment that it is possible that we have failed to
fulfil completely the mandate to carry out in full
the trust we were given. Should that prove to be
the case, it will be because, perhaps with the best
will in the world, we delayed somewhat too long.
At Goroka in April 1965 I had advocated
independence by 1970.
What is certain, however, is that Australia's
major efforts to carry out the mandate and to
fulfil her trusteeship were well and highl
motivated. It would be impossible in this speech
to pay tribute to all those Australians who have
tried to serve Papua New Guinea well, and in so
doing have tried to serve Australia well. It is best
therefore that I confine myself exclusively to
members of this present Parliament The role of
the honourable member for Kooyong ( Mr
Peacock) when he was Minister for External
Territories was crucial. I frequently-here in
Canberra and in Port Moresby-paid tribute to
it. I do so again. I particularly wish to mention
those who are now Ministers who accompanied
me in my tours of Papua New Guinea in January
1970 and January 1971. They are the present
Treasurer ( Mr Hayden) and the Minister for
Education ( Mr Beazley), who were with me in
1970 and the present Minister for Defence ( Mr
Morrison) and Minister for Science and Consumer
Affairs ( Mr Clyde Cameron), who were
with me in 1971. The Minister for Defence subsequently
fulfilled the ultimate part of us all in
this great work.
It is hard, in retrospect, to understand the obloquy,
the hatred, the contempt, and even worse,
the ridicule, which we brought upon ourselves in
those far off days-a whole 5 years ago-when we
first stated that the independence of Papua New
Guinea was imminent and inevitable. It was not
easy in those days to live with the accusation-as
in particular, the Minister for Education, the
Treasurer and I had to live with it in the early
months of 1970-that we had stirred up and
should be blamed for possible bloodshed. It was
said of me-in the newspapers and in this
Parliament-that by my efforts to point out the
inescapable fact that Papua New Guinea was
already providing more leaders than Australia
could ever impose or be willing to provide, I
would have ' blood on my hands'. The words are
those of the then Prime Minister, the right
honourable member for Higgins ( Mr Gorton). It
was charged then against the present Minister
for Education and myself that, by speaking to the
people of Rabaul about how to achieve the ends they then sought by peaceful means, we were in
fact provoking violence. Those were the charges
made, in the Australian newspapers, in the Australian
Parliament.
Our point then was this, as I said in Port
Moresby in January 1970:
Papua New Guinea is already rich in leadership. The time
when that leadership will assume its full and proper responsibilities
cannot be long delayed.
To put these matters in their full historical
perspective I ask leave to have incorporated in
Hansard 2 documents-the joint statement by
the honourable members for Werriwa, Fremantie
and Oxley at Port Moresby on 12 January
1970 and the joint statement by the honourable
members for Werriwa, Hindmarsh and St
George on 17 January 1971.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Jenkins)-Is
leave granted? There being no objection, leave is
granted. ( The documents read as follows)-
LABOR'S PLAN FOR NEW GUINEA
STATEMENT BY THE LEADER OF THE
OPPOSITION, MR E. G. WHITLAM, PORT
MORESBY, 12 JANUARY 1970
In the past fortnight Mr Beazley, Mr Hayden and I have
talked to some thousands of New Guineans and talked with
hundreds of elected persons, administrators, teachers and
students who will soon be assuming even more responsibility
for their country's affairs. New Guinea is already rich in
leadership. The time when that leadership will assume its full
and proper responsibilities cannot and must not be long
delayed. 1. We quickly found that our most urgent and difficult task
was to reassure the people and their leaders, and even expatriates,
about Australia's relationship with New Guinea
after self-government and after independence. We have
been appalled to discover how widespread and deeply
rooted is the impression that either independence or even
self-government means the end of Australian concern and
Australian help for this country. I make no comment about
the origins of this falsehood. Any Australian who propagates
it does a grave disservice to the people of Australia and the
people of New Guinea.
The plain fact is that for the rest of this century Australian
governments will be formed by either the Labor Par or the
Lberal Party. All members of the Australian Parliament
have supported the quadrupling of Australian aid in the past
decade. While the consensus which existed on New Guinea
during Sir Paul Hasluck's administration has broken down
under Mr Barnes, there is no diverence between the parties
on this crucial point. It is Labor policy and it is Liberal policy
that aid in finance and advice will continue. It is our firm belief
that it will increase. It is certain that for the rest of this
century at least Australia will be a donor nation to developing
nations. New Guinea will long be a principal recipient.
To emphasise the solemnity and sincerity of this undertaking,
we have suggested that Australian assistance should be
made pan of treaty arrangements between the constitutional
government of an independent New Guinea and the
Government of Australia. PNG Independence Bill
PNG Independence Bill
2. Our second task has been to dear away fundamental
misunderstanding about the reality of Australia's present
relationship to New Guinea. Australia would not have been
permitted to remain in New Guinea as trustee had she not
promised to prepare New Guinea for independence. The
governments of 112 nations have just called on Australia to
transfer full executive and legislative powers to elected New
Guineans. The fact of independence is just not negotiable.
There is not nearly as much negotiability about the postponement
of independence as some New Guineans and
many Australians seem to assume. Australians who think
that the United Nations need not be taken seriously may be
more respectful of the United States. Anybody who doubts
the seriousness of America's purposes on this matter is fooling
himself.
The Australian Parliament has responsibilities beyond
New Guinea. Its primary responsibility is to the people of
Australia. It has the responsibility of protecting the reputation
and the relations of the nation with all countries. These
are the responsibilities of the elected persons of the Australian
Parliament and the elected government, and of no
others, elected or non-elected. The Australian Parliament
cannot escape or share this responsibility.
Therefore it is either misleading or meaningless to assert
that the decision for independence is one for the people of
New Guinea alone. The form of independence is certainly
for them to decide for themselves. The fact of independence
has already been decided.
STEPS AFTER THE NEXT ELECTIONS
3. These two tasks of reassurance and clarification were
responsibilities we accepted for the Australian people as a
whole. We accepted a third task on behalf of our own party,
the Australian Labor Party.
An Australian election must be held by the end of 1972 at
the latest It may be earlier. It is our belief that a Labor
Government will emerge from those elections. We therefore
felt it obligatory to indicate how a Labor Government would
discharge its responsibilities to the people of Australia and its
obligations to the people of New Guinea, including those
Australians whose families and fortunes are at stake m New
Guinea. New Guineans will have home rule as soon as a Labor
Government can make the necessary arrangements with the
House of Assembly which will also be elected in 1972.
This means that laws made by the Assembly will no longer
be subject to veto by the Australian Government; that all
matters affecting the welfare of New Guincan people except
defence and foreign affairs will be subject to laws made by
the Assembly alone; and that those laws will be administered
by a public service responsible only to the House of
Assembly. Australians who remain in the service of the New Guinea
Government will equally be responsible to the House of
Assembly, but the Australian Government will accept responsibility
for their salaries and the welfare of their
families. The House of Assembly will decide the form of the constitution
New Guinea is to have after independence.
It is certain that the assumption of an increasing measure
of responsibility will accelerate the desire and ability to
accept total responsibility. In this sense it is true that the
people of New Guinea will decide their own time-table for
independence. Elements in the Administration, and in the expatriate
community, are anxious to postpone every delegation of
power to the Papua-New Guinea people into an indefinite
future. Most disturbing is the open hostility in the Administration
to those who have, if perhaps in gravely mistaken 20 August 1975 REPRESENTATIVES 295
ways, attempted to assert their rights. The manner in which
the Department of External Tertories endeavoured to enforce
the sale of Bougainville land disqualifies those responsible
for the policy from any clair" o have the well-being of
the people at heart Batons and tear Oas have no place in
land sales. This incredible exercise in the techniques of
violent expropriation has shaken confidence. It threatens to
create deep and enduring hatred against Australia and Australians.
It is a factor underlying the Mataungan
misunderstandings. IMMEDIATE STEPS
4. Fourthly, we have seen there is a need for a far more
systematic preparation of the country for self-government.
Urgent needs in the Territory which should be the subject of
immediate attention are:
A reasonable minimum wage;
An arbitration system for plantation workers and all
labourers; An end to the shame whereby Australia's name is
associated with plantation wages of $ 5 a month or
less-the worst wages in the Pacific and probably the
worst in the world.
In New Guinea every industrial dispute is automatically a
dispute between an Australian or an Australian company on
one hand and New Guineans on the other. The Territory has
moved to the position where the Workers' Associations
should be treated seriously. We heard from workers'leaders,
engaged in struggles to lift wages as low as $ 6 a week, that
claims to private employers for wage increases simply went
unacknowledged. Even worse, the Administration itself for
months on end ignored wage claims from officially recognised
workers' associations. It needs to be quite clear that
salary and wage discrimination is the basis of every other
form of discrimination.
There has been a dear deterioration in race relations,
reflected in the movement of battalions of police to Bougainville
and Rabaul. There are more police in Rabaul than in
any Australian city except Sydney and Melbourne. Australians
in Papua-New Guinea are not in their own country.
The whole direction of administration needs re-orientation.
The basis of Australian policy should be discrimination in
favour of the people whose country this is. Only discrimination
in favour of the underprivileged can reduce
inequality. The Department of External Territories, which rules,
should become a Department of Pacific Relations, which
advises. Australian officers should not be masters but envoys,
not rulers but helpers. The best of them are. There is cause
for pride in much done in health, education, communications,
agriculture, and public works, and in the defence
services. There is no cause whatever for pride in labour relations.
This is the Achilles heel of the whole Australian position
in New Guinea. It is full of danger for the near and distant
future.
Nor can we have any pride in the fact that in the five
largest towns there is no local government, and no
businesses, factories or even taxis owned by locals. In New
Guinea commercial enterprise has become synonymous with
expatriate enterprise.
We have tried to impart a feeling not only of urgency but
of self-confidence in the ability of New Guineans to make
their own decisions. There are New Guineans who are well
equipped to fill the highest political and administrative positions
n their country. Indeed, no Australian could claim the
contrary without reflecting on Australia's record of administration
at its crucial point
The House of Assembly and its members should now be
taken seriously as the representatives of their people and
296 REPRESENTATIVES 20 August 1975
treated by all Australians with proper respect and seriousness.
The only thing in which New Guinea is really unique
among the countries of the world is that alone among significant
populations its people make no final decisions on
any matter affecting their welfare.
It is not unique in its economy, in the difference of economic
standards between sections of the country, its educational
or social standards, its need for economic aid from
abroad, its need for advisers, the diversity of its local customs,
or even the multiplicity of its languages.
All these matters present complex and difficult problems
for any future government of New Guinea.
None of these problems require colonial rule for their solution
or easing. In fact, many of them will worsen if foreign
techniques, methods, laws and customs continue to exclude
local custom, knowledge and experience.
An outside administration cannot teach or impose unity. It
can by errors unite a people against it. This is the very situation
which Australians at home will not permit, and Australians
in New Guinea must most avoid.
STATEMENT BY THE LEADER OF THE
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY, MR E. G.
WHITLAM, PORT MORESBY: 17.1.1971
In the past year the political climate of Papua-New
Guinea has been transformed. A year ago proposals for early
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 the unknown. Now the most significant
leaders of Papua-New Guinea and significant sections of the
population accept that they must shortly come to terms with
their own future as a self-governing nation. It has been a
remarkable proof of the power of an idea. There can be no
turning back now.
For the past fortnight my colleagues and I have met and
talked with some hundreds of the present and future leaders
of Papua-New Guinea. Despite the vast improvement in the
level of political debate in every part of the Territory, it is
clear that political education has been woefully deficient.
Again and again we asked the people if they had ever heard
the Administration explain the advantages of self-government.
Invariably, the answer was With the shining
exception of the new Administrator himself, it would seem
that practically nothing has been done to dispel confusion
and fear about the meaning and consequences of selfgovernment.
On the contrary, needless anxiety and false
ears have been planted and nourished. Consequently my
colleagues and I found that in many pans of the Territory
our visit became a mission of reassurance that Australia 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 commitment
of the Australian Labor Party in this matter. The
representative nature of the colleagues who have been with
me in the Territory would alone ensure that. Beyond personal
commitment, the Labor 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 at vast inequalities, entrenched privilege,
blatant exploitation and racial discrimination. These
inescapable attributes of colonialism disfigure life in this colony,
as in all other colonies. They debase the dedication,
enterprise and energy devoted over the years by the many
thousands of fine Australians who have worked in this 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 PNG Independence Bill
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 Commonwealth of Nations
every justification the Australian Government makes for
dragging its feet in Papua-New Guinea, every argument
about the inability of native peoples to govern themselves
smacks of racial superiority.
Australia's major diplomatic effort, not only at the United
Nations but in most world capitals, is devoted to justifying
the official position on Papua-New Guinea. This is a sterile
exercise. It cripples our power for any constructive diplomatic
initiatives. We are needlessly placed on the defensive;
it needlessly complicates our relations with our neighbours
and 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 European nation on the fringe of the most populous
and deprived coloured nations in the world. What the world
sees about Australia 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 modem
times on the ground that Asia should be a battle-ground of
our freedom; that we fail to oppose the sale of arms to South
Africa; that the whole world believes that our immigration
policy is based on colour and that we run one of the world's
ast colonies. We may rightly profess our good intentions and
feel that we are merely the victims of special circumstances;
but the combination of such policies leans heavily indeed on
the world's goodwill and on Australia's credibility. The true
patriot therefore will 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 question for the timing of self-government involves a
quibble about the matter of 2 or 3 years. Even if the Gonon
Government were to survive, self-government will come in
the lifetime of the next House of Representatives. The Australian
Government has a clear duty to speed up preparations
for the inevitable day. Target dates for selfgovernment
and independence should be set now, as we are
obliged to do by the unopposed decision of the United
Nations General Assembly. The official members of the
House of Assembly should be removed now. Elected 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; a new set of labour laws and
ordinances should be drafted and approved to make labour
laws and conditions conform with these conventions. Employment
preference should be given to unionists. The Australian
Government should spell out clearly the entitlements
of Australian public servants and should make it plain that it
accepts responsibility for their future welfare, both in the
Territory and in Australia; . only if this is done can localisation
of the public service proceed speedily and smoothly.
There is no need to wait until 1972 for these things to be
done; they constitute in themselves the essence of selfgovernment.
Australian and Australian companies have a particular
interest in the establishment of a self-governing New
Guinea. By its very nature, an Australian Administration committed
to its own eventual abdication cannot guarantee the validity
or permanency of business and investment arrangements
it may make.
PNG Independence Bill
The best safeguard against expropriation is that an
indigenous independent government should accept responsibiliy
for the laws and arrangements under which property is
held and capital invested.
There are dear risks in the present situation in which all
employers and businessmen are expatriates while New
G uineans are only employees and customers.
In the final analysis the attitudes of the Australian Labor
Party to Papua-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 of
Papua-New Guinea are some special exception in a world
where millions have died for national independence. It may
he true that men cannot be forced to be free; it is certainly
true that men cannot be forced to rule others. An Australian
Labor Government will not be blackmailed into accepting
an unnatural role as rulers over those who have had no say
and can have no say in electing us. Australia's obli$ ation 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
frei. this country. To delay self-government is to promote
separatism. Self-government must be given quickly to the
people as a whole; otherws secio ar section will seize
with anger and bitterness towards us what we should grant
wholly and wholeheartedly.
Mr WH1ITLAM-I thank honourable members.
In these 2 statements the joint and continuing
theme is that Papua New Guinea was
already providing leadership at all levels greater
than that which Australia was able or willing any
longer to provide in Papua New Guinea.
I now come to the other Bills. The Papua New
Guinea Bill 1975 gives effect to an announcement
the then Minister assisting the Minister for
Foreign Affairs in matters relating to Papua New
Guinea made on 16 September 1974 that
Australia would hand over to Papua New
Guinea the administration of the Pocklington
Reef Islands. These islands are a small uninhabited
group 130 kilometres east of the southeastern
tip of Papua New Guinea. The Bill provides
for the islands to be brought within the territorial
scope of Papua New Guinea, so that at
independence that country will exercise full sovereignty
over the islands. The Bill also gives
Papua New Guinea authority to enact off-shore
legislation in the area around the islands. Papua
New Guinea already has authority to enact legislation
dealing with its off-shore adjacent areas as
defined in the Australian Petroleum ( Submerged
Lands) Act, but these adjacent areas do not
include Pocklington Reef Islands. Clause 4 of the
Bill amends the present authorisation and enables
Papua New Guinea to enact legislation
dealing with off-shore areas other than those to
which the Australian Petroleum ( Submerged
Lands) Act applies.
The Papua New Guinea Loans Guarantee Bill
1975 seeks the approval of Parliament to the 20 August 1975 REPRESENTATIVE 297
continuation of the Australian Government
guarantee, provided for in section 75A of the
Papua New Guinea Act 1949-1975, in respect of
loans raised by the Papua New Guinea Government
from Australian and PNG sources prior to
independence until such time as the loans in
question have matured and been repaid. I would
mention that loans Papuia New Guinea has
raised from overseas sources are guaranteed
until final maturity under separate legislation.
The guarantees to be continued by this legislation
and those provided in respect of overseas
borrowings have assisted Papua New Guinea in
undertaking its borrowing programs.
The purpose of Papua New Guinea ( Staffing
Assistance) Bill 1975 is to amend the Papua New
Guinea ( Staffing Assistance) Act 1973 to
introduce the new staffing aid arrangements
which have recently been agreed between the
Australian Government and the Papua New
Guinea Government.
The Papua New Guinea ( Staffing Assistance)
Act 1973 established the Australian staffing assistance
group as the framework under which
former permanent overseas officers and contract
officers from Australia could continue to serve in
Papua New Guinea after self-government. Following
a recent review of the future of these arrangements,
it has been agreed with the Papua
New Guinea Government that the direct employment
by the Australian Government of the
2700 members of the group-some of whom
occupy senior and influential positions in the
Papua New Guinea Public Service-is not in the
immediate or Ion g-term interests of either
Government, and should be discontinued. Accordingly,
the 2 Governments have agreed that
the group be wound up on 30 June next year and
that new arrangements be introduced as from
June this year to encourage those officers in the
group whose services are still required to transfer
over to direct contract employment with the
Papua New Guinea Government as soon as
practicable. The Papua New Guinea ( Staffing Assistance)
Bill 1975 seeks to modify the present employment
security scheme arrangements for those
members of the group who agree to transfer over
to direct contract employment with the Papua
New Guinea Government. Most of the necessary
changes required can and will be made by
amendment of the existing regulations made
under the Act. These will be explained in detail
in due course.
I turn finally to the Social Security Bill ( No. 2)
1975. The object of this Bill is to amend the
298 REPRESENTATIVES 20 August 1975
Social Security Act to enable former residents of
external territories, including Papua New
Guinea, to qualify for social services pensions if
they come to Australia to live. It is proposed that
residence in an external territory other than Norfolk
Island will count as residence in Australia
for the purpose of satisfying the residence
qualifications for Australian social service pensions.
Residence in Norfolk Island is excluded
from the ambit of the Bill in view of the recent
appointment of a royal commission into matters,
including social security, relating to Norfolk
Island. Most Australian expatriates living in the Territories
will have already satisfied Australian pensions
residence requirements. There are, however,
many people who have lived in external
territories for many years, sometimes for most of
their lives, and who, if they were to come to live
in Australia, would not be residentially qualified
for Australian pensions under existing legislation.
I am sure honourable members will agree
it is appropriate that the valuable contribution
made by these people to Territory development
should be recognised. The estimated cost of the
proposals in this Bill is $ 750,000 for the balance
of the fiscal year 1975-76 and 1 m in a full year.
These Bills together constitute the final legislative
act-the last legislative instrument-in the
relations between the Australian Parliament and
Papua New Guinea. They constitute a new beginning
in the relations between 2 free and
independent nations. Previously, I had incorporated
in Hansard statements of intent from the
Australian Labor Party, now the Australian
Government, towards a free united independent
Papua New Guinea. Those pledges have been
reinforced by statement after statement since we
became the Government of Australia. They were
pledges made not just for an Australian party,
but for the Australian nation. They hold and
hold firm-for the Australian Labor Party, for
the Australian Government, for the Australian
people. The people of Papua New Guinea know from
their long experience-and let me re-state it-that
Australia keeps her promises. But let this also be
pointed out: A free Papua New Guinea is not a
seventh State of Australia. It is a free and
independent nation. The Chief Minister of
Papua New Guinea is not a premier of a dependent,
a claimant, State. Nationhood is real.
Independence is real. Freedom is real. The
Parliament-the House of Assembly-of Papua
New Guinea is representative of a truly
sovereign nation with true, valid, genuine international
independent standing in the world. The PNG Independence Bill
House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea is the
Parliament of a sovereign nation. Papua New
Guinea must aspire to that true sovereignty
which no State under the Australian Constitution
could ever have, or has ever had. Internationally,
the Australian States do not exist. Papua New
Guinea as a nation does exist. It will be recognised
throughout the world as a new nation on
16 September. All other nations will have to sit
up and take notice of Papua New Guinea from
now on. On 16 September, Papua New Guinea
achieves true and genuine sovereignty which no
Australian State-the 6 former colonies-ever
had, or can ever have.
By these Bills, we give Papua New Guinea its
true international standing. Papua New Guinea
from now on is going to need international aid.
The absolute guarantee we give in this Australian
Parliament is that aid will continue to
come from Australia. But if free Papua New
Guinea chooses in its own wisdom to augment
that international aid from any other source,
there can be, there should be, no complaint from
Australia. Australia's responsibilities towards
Papua New Guinea are inescapable, but Papua
New Guinea has no special responsibilities
towards Australia. Papua New Guinea has no
more responsibilities towards Australia than any
other independent nation has towards Australia.
We have not divested ourselves of political authority
over Papua New Guinea just in order to
keep it in financial bondage. Papua New Guinea
will always have the first call on Australian aid.
For the rest of this century it will be given in the
terms in letter and in spirit which I outlined
years ago and 4 years ago in the statements
which I have incorporated and in my frequent
statements since made.
But Australian aid is given to a free and
independent nation-not to a claimant State of
Australia. It is given to a nation which by its
present leadership and all that we know of its
proud, diverse people, is well able to work out its
own destiny-in its own way. When that nation
seeks assistance from abroad, Australia will
surely be the first to answer that call-as we are
pledged to do. But to confine the limits of assistance
to that which Australia alone shall give
would be to confine the limits of independence of
Papua New Guinea itself.
By these Bills we intend to give Papua New
Guinea genuine independence-not a phoney
independence. These Bills, I know, will pass
unanimously in both our Houses. Let us be sure,
however, exactly what we are trying to achievethe
creation of a truly independent nation. Few
a J
Loan Bill
legislatures in the history of mankind have been
given a more honourable duty.
Debate ( on motion by Mr Peacock)
adjourned. PAPUA NEW GUINEA DILL 1975
Bill presented by Mr Whitlana, and read a first
time. Second Reading
Mr WHITLAM ( Werriwa-Prime Minister)
( 3.4 1)-I move:
That the Bill be now* mad a second time.
Debate ( on motion by Mr Peacock)
adjourned. PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOANS
GUARANTEE BILL 1975
Bill presented by Mr Whitm, and read a first
time. Second Reading
Mr WHITLAM ( Werriwa-Prime Minister)
( 3.42)-I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Debate ( on motion by Mr Peacock)
adjourned. PAPUA NEW GUINEA ( STAFFING
ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975
Bill presented by Mr WIIITLAKt and read a
first time. Second Reading
Mr WHITLAM ( Werriwa-Prime Minister)
( 3.43)-I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Debate ( on motion by Mr Peacock)
adjourned. SOCIAL SERVICES BILL ( No. 2) 1975
Bill presented by Mr Whitlani, and read a first
time. Second Reading
Mr WHITLAM ( Werriwa-Prime Minister)
( 3.44)-l move:
That the Bil be now r.-ad a second time.
Debate ( on motion by Mr Peacock)
adjourned. LOAN BILL 1975
Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first
time. 20 August 1975 REPRESENTATIVES 299
Second Reading
Mr HAYDEN ( Oxley-Treasurer) ( 3.45)-l
move: That the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a machinery measure which is
required to secure authority to borrow amounts
for the financing of defence expenditure which
will need to be charged to the Loan Fund during
the financial year 1975.76. The Australian
Government's financial transactions are
recorded in 3 separate funds-the Consolidated
Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust
Fund. Honourable members will, however, be
aware from the summaries presented in Budget
Paper No. 4-Estimates of Receipts and Summary
ofEstimated Expenditure-that estimated
expenditures for 1975-76 normally charged to
the Consolidated Revenue Fund substantially
exceed the estimated receipts of that Fund.
The prospectve deficit in the Consolidated
Revenue Fund, which is only part of the
estimated overall deficit which I announced in
my Budget speech, must be met in one way or
another within the total of the financing arrangements
for funding the overall deficit. In this kind
of situation, successive governments have
obtained authority to charge to the Loan Fund
some expenditures which would normally be met
from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is
the purpose of this Bill which will authorise borrowings
for defence purposes so that defence
expenditures from appropriations approved by
the Parliament can be charged to the Loan Fund
rather than to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The Bill does not authorise additional defence
expenditures. It will simply allow us to reallocate
from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to
the Loan Fund part of the expenditures of the
Department of Defence already authorised in
the Supply Act ( No. 1) 1975-76 and which are
subsequently authorised in the 1975-76 Appropriation
Acts. When this Bill is enacted I shall
move an amendment to Appropriation Bill ( No.
1) 1975-76, to permit defence expenditure
specified in that Bill to be charged to the Loan
Fund. It is not possible at this stage of the financial
year to be at all precise as to the amount of defence
expenditure which will have to be charged
to the Loan Fund. That amount, which can be
expected to be sizable, will be a residual affected
by all other transactions of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund: t is for this reason that the Bill
does not specify a fixed amount of borrowing.
Instead, like similar Bills introduced in recent
years both by this Government and by previous
S