3 Commissioner; that is, a representative of one of the colonial powers.

In addition, the Commission was to 'adopt rules of procedure for the 4 Conference and approve the agenda for each session of the Conference'. And finally, important functions such as determining, or even discuss­ ing, the Commission's proposed work programme or budget allocations were not granted to the Conference. They were to be performed by the Commission.

Agreement Establishing the South Pacific Commission, Article IX.

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

Thus all the effective decision-making and control was given to the twelve Commissioners representing the six colonial governments. The role intended for the Conference, and its Islander delegates, was relatively insignificant. Despite T.R. Smith's contention that

the Conference had more influence on Commission policy in its early years than is often thought,1 it is the Islanders' perception of a powerless and subordinate Conference which is of significance in

terms of subsequent developments. Reflecting on the Commission's first decade (the 1950s), Ratu Mara, the Fijian Prime Minister,

observes that it 'went on benignly and benevolently but unimaginatively treating the South Pacific people as though they were children who were

2

not capable of handling their own affairs'. Such a view was not con­ fined to Islanders. W.D. Forsyth, the SPC'c first Secretary-General, describes the early Conferences as being 'little more than discussion

, 3 groups .

Although a reflection of prevailing thought in 1947, the pro­ visions which ensured colonial power dominance were anachronistic in the 1960s when Islanders had begun to feel the impact of political change within their countries. They objected to these structural guarantees of colonial power supremacy and in their reaction to them the Island leaders found a rallying point. Their attack on metropolitan

1 T.R. Smith, South Pacific Commission: An Anlysis After Twenty- five Years (Wellington: Price Milburn, 1972), pp.69-70. A similar view is put in H.E. Maude, 'The South Pacific Commission', Australia's Neighbours, 4th Series, No.5, (June 1963), p.3.

2 Ratu Sir K.K.T. Mara, Regional Co-operation in the South Pacific, Address delivered at the University of Papua New Guinea, May 1974, p.2. W.D. Forsyth, 'South Pacific: Regional Organisation', New Guinea, V o l . 6 (September/October 1971), p.15.

power dominance took the form of a series of demands for a more prominent role for the South Pacific Conference, the body within the SPC organisation on which Islanders were represented. Indigenous interests became identified with the Conference whilst the interests of the colonial powers became identified with the Commission.

Dramatic changes occurred within the organisation between 1965 and 1978, culminating in indigenous control of the organisation by the end of the period.

There were two essential ingredients causing these changes to occur: the pressure from the Islanders for such change, and the willingness of the metropolitan powers to accede to the Islanders' demands. In his history of the SPC, T.R. Smith attributes the willing­ ness of the colonial powers to make concessions to a 'growing

recognition' of the Islanders' wish to 'state their own needs and decide their own d e s t i n y ' H e points to the flexibility of the Commission in adjusting to a changing climate. But it could also be argued that, rather than recognising the Islanders' views, the

Commissioners were pragmatists who came to the realisation that if they did not concede certain powers to the Conference at a time when Islanders were assuming important roles in territorial administrations, the Commission could become unworkable and perhaps collapse altogether. If it had been only a desire to help the Islanders to gain more

responsibility for SPC activities which motivated the Commissioners, then they would have instituted change without waiting for Islander demands. But, as it was, for the most part they only acted when the Islanders exerted pressure or in the knowledge that the Islanders

1

would have made further demands if they did not act. Thus it is the Islander demands, rather than colonial power willingness, which must be seen as the important catalyst responsible for the changes that occurred in the relationship between the Commission and the Conference during this period.'*'

Although there had been earlier isolated instances of Islander dissatisfaction with their role within the SPC it was not until the 1962 Conference, held at Pago Pago, that such feelings were widely

2

shared and articulated. The criticisms of SPC structure and pro­ cedure that were voiced did not, however, find their way into the formal resolutions of the Conference. Nevertheless, the general mood of the meeting influenced the representatives of the colonial powers meeting in the 1964 session of the Commission. They decided that the Conference would henceforth be able to make recommendations concerning the work programme. This was to be achieved through the participation of Conference representatives in a 'Committee on the Work Programme'

3