Port Moresby, 23 June 1967
The completion of the final report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development1 and its passage by the House of Assembly make it necessary for the Administration to give early thought to any reorganisation that will be needed by 1968 in order to serve the new constitutional arrangements. You will recall that I had previously felt it necessary to withhold comment until this stage was reached. Assuming that the Government accepts the greater part of the Select Committee’s report, the following would seem to me to be the main implications from an organisational point of view:—
(a) Administrator’s Council
It is likely that more work will come to the Council. We should, perhaps, anticipate weekly meetings. There is nothing in the Committee’s report which would necessarily extend the area in which the Council would be obliged or would wish to give formal advice to the Administrator. Nevertheless, the number and the scope of the topics for discussion would be greater than it is in 1967. I would see advantage in a greater formalisation of the existing procedure for consultation. For the most part, consultation at present is done either on the basis of oral presentations or on the basis of informal papers. From 1968, it would be desirable to present formal papers for discussion to the Council, though not in all cases. They should gradually take on more the form of a Cabinet submission. The papers would not seek ‘advice’ in the formal sense. The records would show only a consensus of opinion rather than a decision. Matters would come up for consideration by the Administrator’s Council both from the Administrator himself (the paper being prepared by Secretariat Services), from the I.D.C.C. (see below) and, in some cases, from the Ministers themselves. The latter case would only arise after discussion between a Minister and the Administrator. It would not bring in question the procedure envisaged in Section 20(a) of the Papua and New Guinea Act.2 This refers only to matters on which formal ‘advice’ is required. So far as membership of the Administrator’s Council is concerned, I would propose, as from the retirement of Mr. J.K. McCarthy, to nominate the Treasurer as the third official member. I would also propose to invite Assistant Ministers to be present at the Council when matters affecting their Departments are under consideration. There might also be occasions, as with the consideration of the Budget, when it would be desirable to invite all Assistant Ministers to be present.
(b) Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Committee3
In the long term, this Committee will increasingly have to work to the Administrator’s Council. For the immediate future, the Committee should continue to work on present lines but with its recommendations increasingly taken to the Administrator’s Council before final consideration by the Administrator. The question will no doubt arise as to the attendance of Assistant Ministers and Ministers at the Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Committee meetings. I think this should be discouraged but that Departmental Heads should make a practice of consulting their Minister or Assistant Minister on matters which are to be considered at the Committee so that they will not find themselves having expressed views which are later found to be unacceptable to the Minister or Assistant Minister. Otherwise, the Administrator’s Council will become a place in which Ministers tend to override their Departmental Heads rather than consider matters of policy from an objective point of view.
What applies to the Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Committee will also apply, in the main, to the Land Development Board. It at present makes recommendations to the Administrator, but it is a Board in which Members of the House of Assembly have often shown interest, and I consider that it would be good politically, as well as sound practice, to have the Board’s recommendations presented to the Council for consideration (though not for decision).
(c) Position of Departmental Heads
Even without any constitutional reorganisation, the need is evident for Departmental Heads to have increased authority. This applies particularly at present in administrative matters. As members of the House of Assembly come increasingly to take an interest in policy matters, this need is bound to become evident in the policy field also. I foresee a situation within the Territory in which Departmental Heads do not have to refer up to the Administrator or Assistant Administrators as frequently as they do now. They will, of course, have to refer for policy direction. They will also need to refer up in order to have the assurance of the availability of funds. While this would involve less supervision of their day to day activities by the Administrator and Assistant Administrators, it could, in fact, involve greater direct contact with the Department in Canberra on policy matters (at a stage before policy decisions are made). I foresee this greater consultation tending, in the long term, to take place more and more in the framework of seeking advice rather than direction. This is the implication of a gradual increase in the responsibility to be borne by the Territory. Consultation would, to a considerable degree, be conducted in conjunction with the Assistant Minister or Minister concerned. But there is also a pressing administrative reason for it. The present degree of centralisation of authority, both in practice and by Ordinance, does not make for good administration.
I am aware, too, that there are classification implications in this recommendation.
An important consideration affecting the role of Departmental Heads is their use as official members of the House of Assembly. There are good administrative reasons for reducing the burden of House of Assembly duties on Departmental Heads. This matter is being raised in a separate memorandum to the Department.
An area of possible conflict was seen by the Constitutional Committee between Departmental Heads and Ministers in paragraph 20, Chapter III, of the Report, which provides for disagreements to be referred to the Administrator. It is correct that differences should be ‘kept within the family’. However, in policy matters, particularly where Ministers take the initiative, it may be difficult to do so, especially where differences may arise between the Administration and the Government and on which the Minister for Territories rules against the Administration. Constitutionally, there is no problem in this, but Heads of Departments will inevitably be embroiled. They, of course, owe their first loyalty to the Government, but care will be necessary in handling such eventualities if they are to retain the confidence of their Ministers (who will not necessarily have the same sense of loyalty). A further issue may soon arise with Ministers on which I believe we should develop a viewpoint. That is, the question of financial delegations, normally exercised by Departmental Heads. Should the Ministers have any financial authority? If they are to do so, then the Treasury Ordinance and probably other Ordinances will have to be amended.
(d) Position of Administrator and Assistant Administrators
There is no constitutional change in immediate prospect affecting the role of the Administrator. The Assistant Administrators at present carry too heavy a burden. In part this should be relieved, as suggested above, by a greater delegation of authority to Departmental Heads. But the role of Assistant Administrators needs to be seen against a background of a gradual evolution of the Administrator and his office and the Administrator’s Department towards, in the long term, a Prime Minister’s office or Department.4 The functions of the Administrator’s Department will probably remain constitutionally what they are now, namely to assist the Administrator in his duty of administering the Government of the Territory on behalf of the Commonwealth. But its organisation should be such as to enable it gradually to cope with such normal functions of a Prime Minister’s Department as:—
Policy formulation
Policy advice
Co-ordination
Legislation and liaison with the House
Cabinet and I.D.C.C. Secretariat
Other Secretariat Services
External Affairs
Defence and Security.
I will outline my ideas on the organisation of this Department more fully in a separate memorandum.
The other new elements in the situation in 1968 will be the presence of Ministers and Assistant Ministers with the former having equal status to Departmental Heads. This will inevitably affect the supervisory and authorizing role of the Assistant Administrators. Thus, we should perhaps now aim at using them in the role of senior advisers to the Administrator who could, in addition, while still being called Assistant Administrators, chair important interdepartmental Committees, be Members of the House, and responsible for the presentation of major Administration policy in it, and also be members of other important Committees and, in addition, have delegations from the Administrator to take certain executive actions required by Territory Ordinances, such as approval of mining leases, etc. Applying this in the form of duty statements, one might envisage the Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs) being:—;
Chairman
Land Development Board
Departmental Resettlement Committee
Tariff Board
Ad hoc Development Committees (such as that dealing with Bougainville).
Member
Administrator’s Council
Economic Development Advisory Committee
Business Advisory Committee
Legislation Committee
I.D.C.C.
GOVERNMENT| LEADER IN THE HOUSE
ADMINISTRATOR’s DEPUTY for the purpose of approvals required in land, mining, forestetc. Ordinances.
The duty statement of the Assistant Administrator (Services) might include:—;
CHAIRMAN
Works Consultative Committee
Public Relations Committee
Broadcasting Committee
Legislation Committee
MEMBER
Administrator’s Council
Economic Development Advisory Committee
I.D.C.C.
Land Development Board
Tariff Board
‘Campbell’ Committee5
Housing Policy Committee
University, High Tech. and Admin. Staff College Councils
Member of the House of Assembly
ADMINISTRATOR’s DEPUTY for the purpose of various Ordinances dealing with Education, Health etc.
The abovementioned suggestions are put forward at this stage as a basis for further discussion with the Department. They would have the advantage of freeing the Administrator from a lot of the time consuming administrative detail at present involved in his office. They would seem to be consistent with the changing pattern of Government in the Territory with increasing emphasis on local responsibility. They are also flexible enough to fit into likely constitutional development over the next few years. There may have to be consequential amendments to the Administrative Arrangements Ordinance, and probably others, and these will have to receive early attention when the Government’s decisions are known.
[NAA: A452, I 970/45 I 9]
1 Document 118.
2 This reads: ‘The functions of the Administrator’s Council are to advise the Administrator … on any matter referred to the Council by the Administrator’.
3 The IDCC had replaced the CPPC in March (see submission, Ballard to Barnes, 21 June 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/2316). The new body was instituted by Hay, who has described it as ‘a flexible body which would meet at least once a month with all departmental heads present, but more frequently with only a small number present—who could be simply myself and the two Assistant Administrators and the departmental head or heads most concerned. It had a proper agenda, papers were prepared for it … so its business was formally conducted. But it struck me as being a flexible and formal means of co-ordinating departmental activity and I kept this system going for as long as I was Administrator’ (Hay interview, 1973-4, NLA: TRC 121165, 3: 1/37).
4 In the mid–1970s, Hay recollected that as Administrator he ‘paid a good deal of attention to the system of decision–making within the Administration. Hasluck had, I think in order to take the burden off the Administrator, created a kind of triarchy, in which the Administrator and two Assistant Administrators each had a group of six departments reporting up to them. This struck me as an entirely wrong method. How can you have an Administrator who isn’t at the apex of the triangle? I suspect that Hasluck had always regarded himself as the apex and so the Administrator and the two Assistants could all report up to him. But this always struck me as being quite a wrong concept and I worked very hard to get this changed’ (Hay interview, 1973-4, NLA: TRC 121/65, 3:1/37-8).
5 That is, the Social Change Advisory Committee run by consultant psychologist Brigadier E.F. Campbell. The role of the Committee was ‘to advise the Minister and the Department of External Territories on the social implications for Territory people of Government policy and other relevant decisions’ (circular by Besley, 22 May I 969, NAA: A452, I 969/3848).