Independence: the other side of the coin
Australian Territory of Papua New Guinea Independence
A Historical and Constitutional Challenge
by Martin Korokan Lomeyari
INTRODUCTION
The independence of Papua New Guinea (PNG) on 16 September
1975 is often hailed as a successful example of decolonisation in the South
Pacific. Yet, beneath the surface of celebratory narratives lies a troubling
legal and historical question: was PNG's separation from Australia executed
lawfully, and in accordance with the Australian Constitution? Recent cultural
and legal arguments indicate otherwise.
Papua New Guineans, many argue, are ancestrally Aboriginal Australians, sharing over 75,000 years of cultural continuity with the peoples of northern Australia. From the perspective of the Australian Constitution, specifically Section 128, the granting of independence to a territory of the Commonwealth without a referendum calls into question the very legality of PNG's independence. This article critically examines the process leading to PNG's independence and argues that it was unconstitutional and illegitimate in both legal and moral terms.
1. ANCESTRAL UNITY: PAPUA NEW GUINEANS AND AUSTRALIAN
ABORIGINALS
Papua New Guinea and the northern regions of Australia were
once connected by a land bridge as part of the ancient supercontinent Sahul.
Long before colonisation, the ancestors of present-day Papua New Guineans and
Aboriginal Australians moved freely across what is now the Torres Strait.
Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests these populations have been
continuously present for over 75,000 years, making them among the oldest living
cultures on Earth.
For the Enga people, particularly the Malipin Angalean and
Yanarin tribes of the Highlands, ancestral stories of origin and land
stewardship resonate with Aboriginal Dreamtime narratives. These stories are
not folklore - they are law, cosmology, and identity. They encode relationships
with land, sea, and spirit that transcend modern borders.
In Torres Strait communities, strong cultural and familial
ties to southern PNG tribes persist to this day. Languages, initiation rituals,
body markings, musical traditions, and spiritual beliefs share undeniable
similarities. The assertion that Papua New Guineans are part of the Aboriginal
family is not a mere cultural sentiment - it is an anthropological and
ethnolinguistic fact.
Therefore, Papua New Guinea was not just a colony but a repository of Aboriginal cultural identity under foreign administration. Its removal from the Commonwealth of Australia without consultation or consent thus amounts to a forced erasure of Aboriginal sovereignty.
2. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: FROM THE PAPUA ACT 1905 TO THE PNG
INDEPENDENCE ACT 1975
The Papua Act 1905
In 1905, the British government passed the Papua Act,
formally transferring British New Guinea to the control of the Commonwealth of
Australia. Under this act, Papua was declared an "external territory of
the Commonwealth," bringing it under Australian administrative and legal
control.
Section 122 of the Australian Constitution empowered
Parliament to "make laws for the government of any territory".
However, this did not give Parliament unilateral power to extinguish a
territory's legal and political relationship with the Commonwealth without
following the rules for altering the Constitution - namely, a national referendum
under Section 128.
The New Guinea Act 1920
Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the League of
Nations mandated Australia to administer German New Guinea. This was an
international trusteeship, not full sovereignty. Australia administered New
Guinea on behalf of the League and, later, the United Nations under the
principle of advancing the welfare and development of Indigenous peoples.
At no point were Indigenous landowners consulted about these
arrangements, despite being the primary stakeholders.
The Papua and New Guinea Act 1949
In 1949, Australia passed the Papua and New Guinea Act,
which unified the territories of Papua and New Guinea under one administrative
system. This act reaffirmed Australia’s control over the region but created a
single legal identity - Papua New Guinea. It further blurred the distinction
between an internal territory (Papua) and an international mandate (New
Guinea).
This consolidation of administrative power did not include
any pathway for consent or a plebiscite on future independence. Australia
governed PNG’s foreign affairs, defence, and major economic decisions.
The Papua New Guinea Act 1973
A series of acts passed by the Australian Parliament in 1973 were crucial in establishing the internal
self-government of Papua New Guinea and transitioning it towards
independence. These acts, including the Papua New Guinea Act 1973, aimed
to provide for the internal self-government of Papua New Guinea, leading to its
eventual independence.
This act amended the Papua New Guinea Act 1949, which
established the administration of the territory of Papua and New
Guinea. The 1973 Act included provisions for internal self-government,
paving the way for a shift in power from Australia to Papua New Guinea.
If anything, Papua New Guinea should be celebrating its territorial identity in 1973, as this is when it came into being. The Independence Act of 1975 was merely to cut the shackles that tied it to Australia - a divorce, which may not be cause for celebration at all.
The Papua New Guinea Independence Act 1975
The final legal act, passed in 1975, declared PNG an
independent nation. However, this act was passed solely by the Australian
Parliament. Neither the citizens of Australia nor the Indigenous populations of
PNG were asked to vote on this critical alteration of national territory.
The act circumvented Section 128 of the Australian Constitution. If Papua was indeed an external territory of Australia, as per earlier acts, then its detachment from the Commonwealth required more than parliamentary consent. It required a constitutional amendment, validated by referendum. This was never done.
3. SECTION 128 AND THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT
Section 128 of the Australian Constitution provides the
mechanism for altering the Constitution. It states:
"This Constitution shall not be altered except in the
following manner: the proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by
an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and submitted to the
electors..."
In practical terms, this means that if a territory is to be
removed from the Commonwealth, the change must be approved by the people in a
national referendum. This ensures that constitutional alterations are
democratic and transparent.
The removal of Papua from the Commonwealth’s legal structure constituted such an alteration. It affected the composition of the Commonwealth and the geographic integrity of Australia. It impacted the rights and identities of its Indigenous people.
Yet, no referendum was held. Australia’s High Court has
never ruled on the matter. However, legal scholars have increasingly raised
concerns that PNG’s independence violated constitutional due process.
While Section 122 allows Parliament to manage territories, it does not override Section 128’s requirement for constitutional changes. The independence of PNG was not merely an administrative adjustment - it was a constitutional transformation.
4. INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
The international legal framework also underscores the
illegitimacy of PNG’s independence process. As a signatory to the United
Nations Charter, Australia is bound to uphold the principles of
self-determination for all peoples.
However, PNG’s independence did not follow the processes
outlined in the UN General Assembly’s Resolution 1541, which lays out the
conditions for self-determination. There was no direct vote or referendum of
PNG’s Indigenous populations. Instead, independence was conferred through elite
negotiation, with limited grassroots consultation.
Furthermore, under customary international law, Indigenous
peoples have the right to free, prior, and informed consent regarding decisions
that affect their lands and political status. These rights were ignored in the
1975 transition.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP), though adopted later in 2007, reinforces these principles. It
calls on states to rectify historical injustices and recognise the sovereignty
of Indigenous peoples.
Australia’s unilateral decision to declare PNG independent not only violated its own Constitution but also breached emerging norms of international law and Indigenous rights.
5. POST-INDEPENDENCE CONSEQUENCES: LOST ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The consequences of this illegal and rushed independence
were profound. Papua New Guineans lost their legal pathway to recognition as
Aboriginal Australians. Despite their shared ancestry, they were politically
and culturally cut off.
They were denied access to:
- Australian citizenship and legal protections;
- Aboriginal land rights frameworks;
- Constitutional inclusion in Australia’s Indigenous policies; and
- Shared benefits in education, healthcare, and social systems
Culturally, the ancient Sahul connection was severed.
Aboriginal communities in Cape York and Torres Strait still maintain ties to
PNG clans, but these are informal and lack legal protection. Meanwhile, young
Papua New Guineans are growing up unaware of their connection to Aboriginal
Australia.
The political separation also meant that Aboriginal identity was redefined in narrow national terms, excluding those with shared heritage across colonial borders. This fragmentation continues to undermine regional Indigenous solidarity.
6. THE 1972 ELECTION - A "SOFT COUP”?
Political Context and the Marginalisation of the United
Party
As Papua New Guinea reflects on over 50 years of
independence, certain truths about the lead-up to nationhood remain clouded in
political maneuvering and quiet controversy. One such moment is the 1972
general election, which, while lauded for ushering in "home-grown
leadership," also marked what many call the beginning of systematic
corruption and elite manipulation in PNG politics.
The Election Outcome: United Party Won More Seats
In the 1972 House of Assembly election, held while Papua New
Guinea was still under the administration of the Australian Government, two
main political groups emerged:
United Party (UP), led by Sir Tei Abal, a conservative
Highlands-based coalition with strong rural and regional support.
Pangu Pati, led by Michael Somare, a younger, more radical party advocating for early independence with support and backing from Canberra.
Despite perceptions that Pangu swept the election,
historical records show:
- The United Party won more seats than Pangu Pati.
- Pangu Pati did not win a majority — they performed poorly in the Highlands, where the United Party had significant influence.
In raw terms:
- The United Party won around 37–38 seats.
- Pangu Pati secured about 18–22 seats.
The rest were held by independents and minor parties.
Formation of Government: Political Alliance Over Will of the
People?
Despite this result, Michael Somare was appointed as Chief
Minister - equivalent to the Prime Minister - in a move that shocked many.
How?
Pangu Pati formed a coalition with smaller parties, some
independents, and seven “official members” (Canberra-appointed bureaucrats).
Sir Tei Abal and the United Party, though winning more
seats, were sidelined.
Critics argue this amounted to a "soft coup" by
the bureaucracy, backed by Canberra, who viewed Somare as the more
“progressive” and palatable partner for “decolonisation”.
This political maneuver has since been seen by many as the
beginning of systematic corruption and the weakening of democratic legitimacy:
- It set a precedent that political coalitions could override popular electoral mandates.
- It entrenched party-hopping and loyalty-for-benefits politics, which still plague PNG today.
The will of the Highlands majority, whose votes placed the United Party ahead, was essentially nullified through elite bargaining.
The Role of Canberra
Many point to Canberra’s hidden hand in this transition:
- The Australian Government, under Gough Whitlam, was keen to fast-track independence, which Pangu supported.
- United Party leaders like Sir Tei Abal advocated for delayed independence, believing PNG was not ready.
Thus, Somare was seen as the “right man” for Canberra’s
timetable, and efforts were subtly made to empower his side.
This has led to ongoing accusations that PNG’s independence was externally engineered, not democratically earned, and that the real political voice of the people, especially in the Highlands, was suppressed.
7. CALL FOR RECOGNITION AND RECONCILIATION
Rectifying this historical and legal injustice requires
several steps:
- Truth-telling and public inquiry: Australia must formally investigate the legality of PNG’s independence, including whether it breached Section 128.
- Recognition of shared Indigenous ancestry: Acknowledgment that Papua New Guineans are part of the greater Aboriginal family is critical.
- Cultural reintegration: Support should be provided for educational, linguistic, and ceremonial exchange between Aboriginal and PNG communities.
The time has come for Australia to face its constitutional
and colonial past with honesty and humility. Reconciliation is not only
possible - it is necessary for justice.
The 1975 independence of Papua New Guinea may have appeared
peaceful, but it concealed a deep constitutional and moral wound. Passed
without referendums, in PNG and Australia, and against the spirit of Aboriginal
unity, the act may have constituted a breach of the Australian Constitution’s Section
128 and international law principles of Indigenous self-determination.
Papua New Guineans, as ancestral Aboriginals, were denied
their rightful say in the political fate of their land. Instead of empowerment,
independence came as a rupture - breaking ties, cultures, and legal recognition.
This article calls for a national and international
reckoning. PNG’s case should not be buried under diplomatic protocol or
political convenience. It should be brought into the light, studied, debated,
and ultimately, addressed with the justice and dignity it deserves. A
constitutional violation cannot be legitimised by the passage of time. It can
only be healed by truth and redress.
ENDS//
About the author
Martin Korokan Lomeyari was a senior civil servant with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in Papua New Guinea.
He graduated from Sopas, now Innovative University of Enga in Papua New Guinea, and is currently completing a PhD at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Martin is also a founding member of the Bishop Hermann Raich Papua New Guinea Movement of Catholic Students and Intellectuals.
Further reading
PNG: from independence to reunion, Charlie Lynn, The Spectator Australia, 27 May 2025
https://blog.kokodatreks.com/2025/02/02/png-from-independence-to-reunion/https://www.pngattitude.com/2014/11/how-gough-whitlams-self-interest-sank-papua-new-guinea.html
The Seventh State and the Barnes Dance: Deciding the Future for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, Brad Underhill & Helen Gardner, Australian Historical Studies, 24 May 2024
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1031461X.2024.2316096
For an understanding of the States and internal/external territories of Australia, visit Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_and_territories_of_Australia
Comments
Post a Comment