Canberra, undated
Papua and New Guinea-Administrator’s letter of 23rd June, 19672
You asked for brief notes on the points made in the letter.
Administrator’s Council
2. In general no reason is seen to disagree with the outline of the Administrator’s regarding the future operations of the Council.
Some need is seen however for better definition of the classes of matters which should be referred for consultation. In general it is thought that these should be described as matters which would be referred to a Papua and New Guinea Cabinet if there were such a body.
3. Some comments are made later on papers coming from the I.D.C.C. to the Council. Wherever the papers originate however they will have to go in under the Administrator’s name (Papua New Guinea Act).
4. The Select Committee referred to a review of the procedures of the Council (para 13 of report).3 Any change in procedures would have to be examined against those already adopted to see if amendment is necessary.
Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Committee
6. The Administrator sees this Committee as ‘working to’ the Administrator’s Council in the long term. Under his proposals there would be consultation with the Ministers or Assistant Ministers concerned following which (it is presumed) the Administrator’s Council is consulted on the recommendations of the Committee.
7. I disagree with this on two points—
(a) it makes no provision for Ministers or Assistant Ministers to express a firm attitude on policy issues in the light of considerations which come out of the Committee’s discussions;
(b) it omits the Minister for Territories from any part in policy decisions (where appropriate) before decisions are taken in the Territory.
8. It would be difficult to work this Committee under the new set up. The Committee is at present one which assists the Administrator; where necessary the Administrator seeks the Minister’s approval to action proposed.
9. Our idea of how policy would be formulated was:
(a) if Administration proposed, it would be cleared with Administrator and then the Minister (if appropriate) before going to Territory ‘Minister’;
(b) if a proposal from a ‘Minister’, the departmental head would clear with the Administrator and Minister for Territories (if necessary) before Administration attitude is determined.
10. If the Committee continued it could give the impression that it acted as a second Cabinet. I think the Committee should go altogether: the Administrator would arrange ad hoc meetings where necessary to take its place.
Position of departmental heads
11. The Administrator appears to have overstressed the changes in the role of departmental heads, particularly as regards policy. In areas of special concern to the Commonwealth, the Minister for Territories would still exercise final responsibility but policy would be shaped to take into account the views of elected members.
12. The shaping of official views would be done behind the scenes by consultation between the Administrator and the Department of Territories. We should not allow a situation to develop in which Administration officers can use the ‘Ministers’ as a means for getting official acceptance of their own views.
13. There is a ‘safety valve’ where the Departmental Head must take an official stand on a matter which differs from a ‘Minister’, i.e. the Administrator acts as referee (possibly after consulting the Administrator’s Council). In any event any major policy change should find its way to the Administrator’s Council in due course.
Position of Assistant Administrators
14. In discussion we have seen the Assistant Administrators’ role developing as special advisers to the Administrator and not as links in the chain of command. (This accords with the Administrator’s view.) The title of Assistant Administrator might be incompatible with the change in the nature of the offices. Perhaps the offices could be styled ‘Senior Adviser (Economics)’ etc.
15. It seems that the role of the Administrator’s Department will grow although I express some doubts about the function of ‘policy formulation’. As I see it the main function of that Department will be policy advising and this is more in keeping with what the P.M.’s Department does do.
16. These are my views given quickly.
[NAA: A452, 1970/4519]
1 The minute was created over Ballard’s signature block, but it is not clear whether it is a draft or carbon copy. The intended recipient is presumed to be Warwick Smith.
2 Document 124.
3 See Document 118.