EasyTimes,

You open a can of worms with your quote from Ron Crocombe's article and subsequent questions.

An extended quote is"And all this time Papuans were Australian citizens and had been since 1906, since Britain required that. Australia had made them citizens without consultation, but would not allow them to enter the country of which they had been made citizens, nor any of the rights of citizens, nor any citizenship of their own."

The whole issue of so-called Australian citizenship is fraught with misunderstanding, and, I suspect, some misrepresentation. Without claiming the status of an expert, I would point out that the history of Australian citizenship only commenced with the Citizenship Act in 1948. (Even that legislation may be of questionable constitutional validity so far as it applies to Australians by birth and British subjects who have migrated, subject to Australian law, right up to the present.) In 1906, the inhabitants of Papua would have been British subjects. That status alone, however, would not have entitled such to automatically claim right of entry to, and residence within, Australia. The only consultation even necessary was that between the Imperial government and the Commonwealth as to the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction transfered by that government to the Commonwealth and accepted thereby, and it made no difference to the citizenship status of Papuans. Papuans remained British subjects until at least 1975.

You have been too long unfamiliar with the map of empire, upon which the sun never set! Imagine the island of New Guinea divided N-S in half. The western half, in those days, was Dutch New Guinea. Imagine the eastern half further divided E-W; the northern, up until 1914, was German New Guinea; the southern, British to 1906, then subsequently, (to 1975) Australian, Papua. German New Guinea was transferred under Mandate after WWI to Australia: neither President Woodrow Wilson nor the Son of Heaven liked that (Japan wanted New Guinea, and Wilson wanted them to have it). Where it counted,although deaf himself, Billy Hughes was heard. Australia kept New Guinea in peace, and later in war.

Very interesting article...

Easy Times, New Guinea was a German protectorate until after the First World War. However, Papua was annexed by Qld parliament in 1884, much to the consternation of the British government. Basically, imagine lines drawn on maps by imperial powers.

Holy Bebop; this is politicised. I suppose blaming "incompetent natives" is easier then critical introspection of the effects of our past government attitudes to Papua New Guineans, who as the article points out, were technically Australian citizens for a long time.

Papua New Guineans I have spoken to have generally admitted that PNG was not 'ready' for independence, but I suppose it was easier to leave them to it under the veil of ending colonialism, rather than redress nearly a hundred years of exploitation and try to bring their living standards and political rights on par to that of Australia and Australians.

Thank you for this excellent piece. How many Australian's know even a fraction of this history?

Steve Madden Forrest Gumpp Cocaine-Kola-Nut thanks for the history lesson. I know I had heard something about the Germans in PNG and I know Australia sent troops there in 1914 but I did not think it was official under Australian control until 1914. Point conceded.

Yet another jaundiced opinion piece posted in the backdrop of the current bitter spat between SI/PNG and Australia, which does nothing to assist the achievement of outcomes that might actually benefit the people of these Pacific nations. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing and allows the redefinition of history to prosecute the case that everything that is wrong with Melanesian governments today is entirely attributable to Australian (mis)management prior to 1975.

I can never understand why eminent academics, retired or otherwise, resort to flogging Australian governments past and present, when they could gain far more respect by offering positive support through applying the wisdom of their experience to providing solutions to these very serious and difficult issues.

Both Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea face chronic problems that can only be solved through a combination of strong leadership and sensitive management by all the parties, including Australia. Good governance that is corruption free is a fundamental pre-requisite and unless all sides recognise this and make this their common objective there is little prospect of a change for the better.

NG was split in three, the western half was dutch, the north east german and the south east british. At the end of WWI the two eastern parts were joined into an australian protectorate. NG highlands were also very remote and isolated. Many highland tribes were only "discovered" until someone flew a plane over it in the 1930's.

Apartheid was a standard feature of colonialism, no different from the dutch east indies and many other colonies. Only the Portuguese encouraged miscegenation in their colonies.

Unlike the Europeans the Americans did not intend to keep their colony, the Philipines, and on acquiesence in 1898 set out on a 50 year program to prepare it for independence.

Bad governance is not limited to the south pacific. Several Caribian islands have refused independence as they know the first president will steal all the money and leave them in poverty.

Newly sovereign nations tend to be highly sensitive about their sovereignty and so issues like the PNG's PM's shoe affair and the demands for Motti's extradition could be handled more diplomatically and out of the public eye. Specially the raid on the Solomon's PM's office was bound to be senstitive even if fully justified. Imagine if Asio with CIA advisors raided an australian MP's office.

By accepting large amounts of foreign aid with strings attached the south pacific nations are trading in part of their sovereignty. Everyone knows that but there is no need to rub it in publicly. The whole Motti affair could have been handled outside the media.

What chance does he have of a fair trial? How would the government look if he were acquitted?