Port Moresby, 1 April 1967
Select Committee on Constitutional Development
The Select Committee on Constitutional Development has finished taking evidence and will meet on 12th April to begin consideration of a report to present to the House of Assembly in June. This report will contain the final recommendations of the Committee for constitutional advance for the 1968 House of Assembly.
I attach some observations and prognostications made by the Assistant Administrator (Services )1 for your information.
Attachment
I previously summarised expressions of opinion made to a portion of the Committee in a number of districts.2 My impression of evidence given elsewhere is that attitudes in general throughout the country are rather similar to those previously outlined except that, as might be expected, Port Moresby evidence tended to suggest greater constitutional change than elsewhere.
It is difficult to forecast the trend of discussion in the Select Committee when evidence is considered and the views expressed below are purely personal ones and may well be incorrect.
The general impression I have is that feeling is conservative and that there will be no strongly supported suggestion for a large movement towards self-government. The only member of the Select Committee who would favour a rapid advance is Mr. Guise, the Chairman, who may feel that the Port Moresby evidence and the publicity attached to it is a mandate to members for significant change.
Even the most conservative opinion expressed the view that there should be some constitutional advance. In most parts of the Territory the present powers and functions of the Administrator’s Council and of Under-Secretaries were not well known. There was a feeling that if we were able to go so far in 1964 then by 1968 we should be able to take another step or two.
The most likely practicable recommendations to emerge from discussions of the Committee appear to be as follows:—
Under-Secretaries
These should be selected by the House. We may be able to get agreement to a scheme whereby the Administrator selects from a panel nominated by the House or else the Administrator selects in consultation with a House Committee.
Secretaries
There will need to be some appointments of men with quasi-ministerial powers. I should think that four or five might be expected. These will have to have well defined powers and functions. I think we could get agreement to some sharing of policy initiative and decision making between the Director and the parliamentary Secretary. The term ‘secretary’ will not be favoured and, indeed, three of the present Permanent Departmental Heads are called Secretaries. The term ‘minister’ will be strongly favoured and I believe should be conceded even though it may convey incorrect impressions to the outside world. There will be support for the resolution of deadlocks between Director and Minister by the Administrator’s Council. I do not know what will emerge as a proposal for the selection of Secretary/Ministers. I hope that we might get a House panel from which the Administrator can select both Secretaries and Under-Secretaries.
Administrators Council
There will be pressure for obligatory consultation with the Council on matters of policy and some decision making in the Council. I cannot guess how selection for the Council will be modified, if at all. If we are to develop a Cabinet system it seems logical for Secretaries and Under-Secretaries to form the membership of the Council. The Committee may propose this but the House may not be entirely pleased about confining power and influence to such a small group of members. There may be a proposal to enlarge the Council. I think a maximum of 14 members can be expected and on the evidence this could lead to an additional Official member.
I cannot guess as to whether any new ideas will come from the Committee itself. It may be that Mr. Guise will have some original proposals or that Messrs. Downs or Stuntz might advocate a parliamentary committee system to supplement Secretaries and Under-Secretaries.3
[NAA: A452, 1966/2960]
1 L. W. Johnson.
2 See Document 96.
3 Johnson’s paper was summarised in a submission from Ballard to Barnes, 6 April 1967, NAA: A452, 1966/2960. Discussions were held on 11 April between Barnes, Hay and Warwick Smith: ‘The Administrator forecast that the Select Committee report may not be too difficult for the Government. [The] Only difficulty that may emerge would be that the House elect the parliamentary secretaries. He felt that this may be better than an appointment system despite the risks. The Minister said he had some doubts about the elective system under the circumstances. It might be best to have a panel of candidates from which to choose. The Administrator saw as one of the advantages of the elective system that the House would be responsible for those elected. [The] Secretary said there would be problems if expatriates were elected, particularly if an expatriate was the best material politically and actively. Ways should be sought of keeping them out. The Secretary suggested that the matter be left on the basis that [the] Administraton would submit a formal proposal. The Administrator agreed but he said he would like to leave behind him the thought that there should be flexibility for whatever system was adopted’ (note of discussions, NAA: A452, 1967/2526).