Port Moresby, 20 June 1967
Confidential
Final report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development1
You have been advised of the lack of a strong reaction here to the final report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development. The Speaker offered ample opportunity to Members to speak on the report but the Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs) was the only one to take advantage of this. Mr. Henderson addressed himself to the use of the term Minister and Assistant Minister but aroused no comment either then or since. Some Members later expressed regret that there had been no debate but no strong opinions for or against the report have been expressed. I note also that to date the Australian press has also reacted mildly.
As pointed out in previous correspondence the recommendations are conservative and can operate satisfactorily within the present constitutional framework without extensive amendment to existing legislation. Some changes will be required in Territory Ordinances. The Ordinances Interpretation Ordinance will require amendment and the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries Ordinance will need to be repealed. I am in some doubt as to the desirability of a Territory Ordinance embodying provisions for appointment of Ministers and Assistant Ministers and setting out their duties. The presence of such an Ordinance would mean that it would be vulnerable to capricious amendment by radical groups within the House of Assembly and though such amendment could be disallowed it would provide unfavourable publicity for the Australian Government. As the quality and capability of proposed Ministers and Assistant Ministers will be unknown for some little time, it would not be advisable to insert into the legislation any provisions which would be unnecessarily rigid but rather provision should be made for administrative action to be taken in order to define the authority of the appointees and their relationship in regard to the functioning of the Administration. As far as possible I would prefer such definition as is considered necessary to be made within the Papua and New Guinea Act. The Papua and New Guinea Act would require amendment to Section 4 and to Part IV, Division 2.2 It may be possible in this Division to include any of the necessary provisions discussed above or it may be necessary to add a completely new Division.
The role of Official Members in the House will be reduced in that a large proportion of legislation introduced will be carried by Ministers or Assistant Ministers. However, legislation will need the support of Official Members while rejoinder during debate and activity during the Committee stages of a Bill will be important duties. For at least some time Ministers and Assistant Ministers will need extensive support and advice from Official Members. Official Members would also have a significant role in the debates on Private Members’ Bills. The block voting strength of Official Members would also be significant. However, it is clear that if the system develops satisfactorily there will be reduced need for official representation in future. I believe that the Administration’s view point and efficient operation of the House could be adequately catered for by the two Assistant Administrators, the Treasurer, the Secretary for Law and perhaps the Director of the Department of District Administration.
The question of which men to appoint as Official Members now needs re-examining. Superficially the Departments which have Ministers should not need House representation by the permanent Head but I believe that our official representation should be made up of our most effective men and not related to the Departments they represent. The core representation of the Assistant Administrators, the Treasurer and Secretary for Law provides a fairly effective coverage and these men could provide assistance to Ministers or Assistant Ministers whose Departments were not otherwise represented. Without prejudicing the issue I should think that sought after Departments for ministerial appointments would be Health, Education, Agriculture, Labour, Housing, District Administration or Local Government and possibly Trade.
It would be invidious to exclude the Heads of all of these Departments from consideration as official representatives, but on the other hand it may be appropriate to look beyond the permanent Heads and appoint possibly two men at District Commissioner level who could be seconded for full time political duties. In between House meetings these two would maintain contact with Members, follow up complaints and so on and in general keep the Administration in close touch with the overall political activities.3
[NAA: A452, 1967/5895]
1 Document 118.
2 Section 4 was the Act’s table of contents and part IV, division 2 dealt with the form and function of the Administrator’s Council.
3 Commenting on Hay’s views, Payne wrote on 30 June (apparently as part of a brief for Barnes) that the ‘Administrator appears to favour amendments to the Act to provide for the offices proposed but that duties and functions of the offices should be left to administrative direction so that flexibility can be maintained … Our firm view is that it should not be left to Ordinance to establish and define duties or these offices. Question of how far provision should be made in the Act to define functions of these officers is still being examined’. On the problem of official members, and particularly with regard to Hay’s suggestion in the final paragraph, Payne judged that the ‘Scheme sounds attractive—you may want to discuss further with Administrator’ (NAA: A452, 1967/4292).