Canberra, 31 May 1967
288/1351. Confidential Personal
I discussed with the Minister the report of the Select Committee on the constitution1 and in particular the attitude that should be taken in the House of Assembly when the report is presented.2 The Minister is concerned that no indication should be given that the government will necessarily accept the usage of the term ‘Minister’ in relation to people who are not exercising ministerial responsibility in the accepted constitutional sense. He is also concerned at the implications of paragraph 20 that the powers and duties of ministers should be reviewed by the House of Assembly after a minimum period of two years.3 The reference in the paragraph to assuming ‘sole ministerial responsibility’ appears to mean a development to constitutional arrangements in which ministers would be responsible to the legislature for administration of departments of the Territory’s government in a way which would amount to full self government. Nor does the Minister consider that the paragraph accords with the principle that the pace of constitutional development would be regulated by the wishes of the people of the Territory.
The Minister is concerned that the implications of the term ‘Minister’ read together with paragraph 20 should be fully appreciated by all indigenous members of the House of Assembly. His impression is that these are not in accordance with the views of the bulk of the members of the House (including specifically the six members at present attending the English language course)4 and he wants you to explore whether a member such as Tei Abal would propose in the House of Assembly the substitution of the term ‘Ministerial Member’ for the term ‘Minister’ and possibly some amendment to paragraph 20. He recognises that this would be useless unless steps were taken to see that other elected members who are unlikely to support early self-government are made aware of the implications namely that what is proposed is likely to mean the Territory backing into self-government within next few years.
The Minister would be glad to have your reactions. Will then advise further.
[NAA: A452, 1967/5895]
1 Final is Document 118.
2 Earlier in the month, Barnes had given his opinion on a draft of the Select Committee report (for draft, see memorandum, Administration (Hay) to DOT, 22 April 1967, NAA: A452, 1970/4519). On the possibility of the Committee suggesting that official members not have a right to participate in votes of the new House of Assembly, Warwick Smith wrote that the ‘Minister can see advantage in elimination of Official Members’ voting rights in that some Members may be encouraged to vote against Administration proposals by feeling that this shows they have greater authority than the Administration senior officials. On the other hand, while 10 votes are not of great significance out of 94, nevertheless in [the] absence of parties or consistent groupings in the House voting patterns tend to be uncertain and there could be occasions when official votes would be determining in favour of Administration proposals. [The] Minister therefore considers on balance that [the] proposal to eliminate Official Members’ voting rights should be discouraged’. In addition—and after discussion with Barnes—Warwick Smith had suggested the deletion of reference in the report to Territory departments pursuing policies (‘execution of approved policies’ was more suitable) and of the idea that a ministerial representative would work ‘under the direction of the departmental head’. The last was seen as an ‘inappropriate’ description of the ‘relationship between [an] official and elected representative’. Beyond this, Barnes was anxious to provide a veto power for the Administrator over nominations for ministerial office, and he asked for an attempt to eliminate a recommendation that a further constitutional committee be formed in 1968. Warwick Smith wrote that Barnes ‘would like to see say two years elapse after [the] constitution of the new House before constitutional discussion is resumed. If [the] suggestion for [the] appointment of [a] new committee [is] unavoidable, [the] Minister attaches importance to omission of reference to men outside the House [participating in the Committee], which he sees as possibly having the effect in practice of giving strong influence to unofficial advisers such as, for example, academics who are often very convincing in theory but lacking in practical experience of working of arrangements of government’ (telex 1071, Warwick Smith to Hay, 9 May 1967, ibid.). A week later Barnes was informed that the Select Committee had decided that official members should retain their voting rights, but that it remained ‘firm’ on the use of the terms ‘Minister’ and ‘Assistant Minister’. It had accepted that ministerial nominees would be agreed between a committee and the Administrator. On the question of constitutional change, the Select Committee stood by the proposal for a further committee, but now with the proviso ‘that there should be no change in the recommended situation for two years’ and with exclusion of reference to men from outside the House (submission, Ballard to Barnes, 15 May 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/5895).
3 See paragraph 22, Document 118.
4 Seven Members were attending the language course—Momei Pangial (Mendi open electorate), Koitaga Mano (lalibu open), Tambu Melo (Kutubu open), Siwi Kurondo (Kerowagi open), Poio Juri (Lagaip open), Stoi Umut (Rai Coast open) and Yauwe Wauwe (Chauve open)—see NAA: A452, 1966/2211.