Canberra, 21 August 1967
Confidential
Papua and New Guinea: constitutional development
This submission discusses the recommendations of the final report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development appointed by the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea. This report was adopted unanimously by the House of Assembly on 8th June, 1967. A copy of the report is Attachment ‘A’.1
2. The recommendations of the final report do not conflict with the principles decided by Cabinet to be applicable if there was strong and widespread popular support towards increased participation in the executive government by elected members. (Cabinet Decision No. 23 of 1966.)2 These requirements are listed at Attachment ‘B’. Several points in the report, however, require consideration.
Ministers
3. The Committee’s recommendation is that seven elected members be appointed as ‘Ministers’ to share responsibilities with the Departmental Heads concerned for departmental policy and for the overall activities of those departments. Disagreements between a Minister and the Departmental Head would be decided by the Administrator. In the House of Assembly a Minister would represent his department, introduce legislation, answer questions, etc., on matters concerning his department. The report does not state which departments should be represented by Ministers and proposes that this be decided at the time of their appointment. I would propose that the Act specify that this, and the allocation of portfolios, should be in the hands of the Administrator.
4. The report states (paragraph 7) ‘The Committee appreciates that until the people of the Territory determine their own political and constitutional future, the duty and responsibility of administering the Territory rests with the Administrator acting on behalf of the Australian Government’. The Committee also makes clear (paragraph 25) that the failure by the House to pass legislation sponsored by a Minister should not be regarded as a vote of no confidence in the Minister or as a cause for his resignation. This, together with the provision that disagreements between a Minister and the Departmental Head would be decided by the Administrator, make it clear that it is not the intention that the authority at present exercisable by the Australian Government should at this stage be transferred to Ministers responsible to the House of Assembly.
5. There are objections to using the title of ‘Minister’ for members who do not exercise ministerial responsibilities in the accepted sense. It could lead to everyone concerned—including the public, officials, and the ‘Ministers’ themselves—looking to the holders of these offices to act as Ministers in the true sense and expecting them to exercise all of the authority that this involves.
6. I attach considerable importance to avoiding the use of the terms ‘Minister’ and ‘Assistant Minister’ at a stage of political development where a full ministerial system is not being introduced and has not been sought by the people. It would be undesirable to use terms which misrepresent the real position and produce a real prospect of evolution towards self-government through the back door without further decision by the Australian Government and without further consultation with the people of the Territory and possibly contrary to the wishes of the majority of them.
7. The majority of the Select Committee rejected the alternatives of ‘Ministerial Member’ and ‘Parliamentary Secretary’ which were suggested during the Committee’s discussions. They believed that the offices should be given the additional status implied by the title ‘Minister’, and this was in accordance with the views of the majority of the people when the Committee sought public views.
8. Some reaction in the Territory could be expected if the titles ‘Minister’ and ‘Assistant Minister’ were not accepted. There is a feeling among some members of the House of Assembly that reports of committees of the House should be accepted even when those members do not agree with the action recommended.
9. Nevertheless, I consider that in this respect the Committee’s report should not be accepted and the expression ‘Ministerial Member’ should be adopted instead of ‘Minister’.3
Other recommendations
10. Other recommendations which I consider could be accepted (with one exception which is consequential on the views stated above) are—
(i) Re–name the Administrator’s Council as the ‘Administrator’s Executive Council’ and recognise that ‘subject to the Administrator’s responsibility to administer the government of the Territory, the Administrator’s Executive Council be the principal instrument of policy of the Executive Government of the Territory’.
(ii) The Administrator’s Executive Council to consist of the Administrator, three official members of the House of Assembly, seven ‘Ministers’ (or ‘Ministerial Members’) and one additional member of the House of Assembly appointed at the discretion of the Administrator. This would be an increase of one elected member over the membership of the present Administrator’s Council.
(iii) That the powers and duties of ‘Ministers’ (or ‘Ministerial Members’) be reviewed by the House after a minimum period of two years.
(iv) For departments not represented by ‘Ministers’ (or ‘Ministerial Members’), Assistant Ministers be appointed from the elected members of the House to work with the Departmental Head and to undertake specified work of a ministerial nature within the Department. In essence these appointments would replace the present Parliamentary Under Secretaries. Consistent with the views expressed above, I propose that the term ‘Member’ be adopted instead of ‘Assistant Minister’ (e.g., Member for Lands, Member for Forestry, etc.).
(v) ‘Ministers’ (or ‘Ministerial Members’) and ‘Assistant Ministers’ (or ‘Members’) be appointed by the Minister for Territories on the recommendation made through the Administrator by the House of Assembly after nominations had been made to the House by agreement between a committee of five elected members and the Administrator. Appointments would be terminated in the same way.
(vi) The Territory to continue with a single budget covering all aspects of government spending, both Australian grant and Territory revenue, the final responsibility within the Territory for advising the Administrator on budget policy and planning to lie with the Administrator’s Executive Council, with an additional link between the House and the Government in budgetary matters being formed by the appointment of a Budget Standing Committee of the House comprising five elected members not being ‘Ministers’ (‘Ministerial Members’) or ‘Assistant Ministers’ (‘Members’).
Recommendation
11. I recommend—
(a) acceptance of the recommendations of the Select Committee, with the exception that the terms ‘Ministerial Member’ and ‘Member’ be used instead of ‘Minister’ and ‘Assistant Minister’;
(b) that I be authorised to announce the Government’s decisions on the Select Committee’s report by a statement in the House of Representatives at a convenient time;
(c) that approval be given for amendments of the Papua and New Guinea Act to give effect to the decision in (a) above, including provision in the Act for the appointment, duties and authority of ‘Ministerial Members’ and ‘Members’.4
[NAA: A5842, 440]
1 See Document 118.
2 Document 13.
3 During a visit to Port Moresby in July, Warwick Smith was informed by Hay that the term ‘Ministerial Member’ would not ‘raise insuperable problems’ (note, Warwick Smith to Swift and Ballard, 10 July 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/4292). In Canberra, Deane and Pearson of PMD commented that ‘We would not take great issue [with the term ‘Ministerial Member’] but consider that the disadvantages might be outweighed by the virtues of accepting in toto the Committee’s recommendations. Further, the Territory is building up its own administrative system. Does it matter if its nomenclature differs from ours?’ (note on Cabinet submission no. 440, 28 August 1967, NAA: A5842, 440).
4 Cabinet endorsed Barnes’ recommendations on 7 September 1967 (decision no. 558, NAA: A1838, 936/5 part 6)–though a minor adjustment was made in mid-October. Hay reported to Warwick Smith that the Administrator’s Council had ‘expressed) concern about [the] term “Member” on grounds that it would be confusing in view of existing usage in [the] House (eg. Member for Milne Bay, etc)’. Hay commented: ‘I myself have reservation about “Member” and prefer [the) Council alternative. I also see advantage in it because it is a Council suggestion’ (unnumbered telex, 13 October 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/5895). Thus, on 17 October Barnes ‘informed the Cabinet that the Administrator’s Council had accepted the term “Ministerial Member” but wished the term “Assistant Ministerial Member” to be adopted instead of the term “Member” … Cabinet indicated that it had no objection’ (Cabinet decision no. 648, 17 October 1967, NAA: Al838, 936/5 part 6). The Minister’s statement on constitutional development, as approved in paragraph 11(b), was made on 26 October (see Current Notes, vol. 38, 1967, pp. 518–20). With· regard to paragraph II (a) and its approval, Barnes remained vigilant in his opposition to any use of the term ‘Minister’—as demonstrated by his vetoing in 1968 of an Administration proposal to address Ministerial Members (MMs) verbally as ‘Mr. Minister’; they were to be called ‘Mr. Ministerial Member’ or ‘Sir’ (submission, Ballard to Barnes, 16 October 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/3921 ).