History of Oceania, South-East Asia and Pacific: Could PNG have become a state of Australia

Print Page | Close Window

Could PNG have become a state of Australia

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of Oceania, South-East Asia and Pacific
Forum Discription: Discuss the history of SE Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24871
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 04:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Could PNG have become a state of Australia

Posted By: Guests
Subject: Could PNG have become a state of Australia
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 17:23

In the years leading up to 1975, the natives of PNG were rather fed up of having a non-citizen status. Could the have been offered that, or could PNG have become part of the Australian Federation?

Its just a thought, the main problem being that millions of Papua New Gunieans would be much more difficult nay impossible to integrate, as opposed to say if the population had been 500,000

Replies:

Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 01:28

The difference in the approach by the Australian government to the aboriginal Australians and the natives of Papua New Guinea. On the Australian continent the Australian government followed an approach of invasive welfare to drastically alter and (according to their view) improve the lifestyle of people. In the 1950s and 1960s the government even took the children away from aboriginal families who were still living in primitive conditions in the bush, or in otherwise impoverished conditions. What many people forget is that Australian welfare agencies and officials did the same thing to unwed, poor white Australians too numbering in 10s of thousands of children. A documentary on the station SBS aired recently here exploring this.

By contrast, the Australian attitude to Papua New Guinea was very much laissez faire. The people there continued their stone age culture largely undisturbed. Australia never had serious plans to colonise and settle the area, while the rugged mountains and thick jungle made enforcing culture change on the inhabitants a much more difficult process than on the Australian continent.

Australia was interested in keeping the area outside the influence of neighbouring nations and also ensuring Australian companies had opportunities for mineral extraction. These aims could be achieved at much less cost by granting independence to a friendly PNG government rather than trying to integrate the area into the Australian state. Doing so would also have given Australia its first land border (which raises all sorts of other difficulties - being on an island is a very good deal). Plus, the Versailles Treaty of 1919 had outlined that the area would be a protectorate of Australia rather than a new state to be incorporated into the Federation. Also, 1975 and the final loss of the Vietnam conflict had left many in Australia sceptical about getting entangled about any more conflicts in Asia or any other moves to extend the nation's power projection (not to mention the government at home was a total mess that year).

-------------

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 03:22

Everything CXI says is true, but I think you skirted around the point without actually saying it.

Public opinion would never have allowed citizenship given to so many non-white, non-British people

It was official public policy until 1968 - only 7 years before. Even today it wouldn't happen, there is too much cultural difference for it to be accepted. Labor unions would scream at millions or poor willing to "take aussie jobs", creating a "black underclass", PNG people don't speak English. Living conditions, history and values are all completely different.

Aborigines are in a different situation.
1) They were far fewer in population
2) They could no-longer threaten the white population in any way
3) They speak English
4) Everybody had grown up living with Aborigines, (they aren't "foreigners")

While the 1970s saw the breaking down of official internal discrimination, that still doesn't extend to people that Australians aren't used to. Hence why every new migrant group into Australia cops racism.

-------------

Posted By: Aussiedude
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 09:26

No. Because that would have meant that, legally, Papau New Guineans could emigrate to Australia on a whim. Need I elaborate on why Aussies would never accept that?

Posted By: Mercury_Dawn
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 13:12

Why would it be a issue in the long term.... other than having a unsustainable food supply? They would be like Mexicans in the US, eventually, they do learn English.... usually via dying and their children knowing it natively.

As a Anglo-Saxon people, I would think the Australians would understand how a island could cope and adapt, and even grow greater, with new nationalities and cultures arriving unto it's shores. It's them, or Indonesians.

Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 13:28

New Guinea claimed and obtained independence. With the benefit of hindsight, it may well have been better off becoming a semi-autonomous region of Australia. Whether or not the Australian Electorate would have supported that is a different question. Australia agreed with Indonesias claim against West Papua, and that was a mistake. Papuans and New Guineans are essentially the same people.