Port Moresby, 23 November 1967
I wrote to you on 23rd June about some constitutional and administrative implications of the Report of the Select Committee.1 There has not yet been an opportunity to discuss this letter with you. I hope that discussion can be arranged soon and suggest a time be set aside during your visit at the end of this month.
In the meantime, I have some further observations. My letter of 23rd June referred to the future of the Official Members. I have given further thought to this and now propose that the number of Official Members should be reduced. We do not need more than five Official Members with quasi-ministerial duties. They are the Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs), as Government leader, the Assistant Administrator (Services) who would be the Government spokesman on important general policy issues, the Treasurer and Secretary for Law, representing their own Departments and the Director, D.D.A. as both a representative of his Department and a general government spokesman and liaison officer. In addition, there is a need for, say, three other Official Members for liaison and general debating assistance. It is for consideration whether they should be District Commissioners or special headquarters officers who could devote their full time to House of Assembly and liaison duties.
The elimination of the other Official Members would have the effect of freeing Departmental Heads for their own important administrative duties and also of requiring ministerial members and assistant ministerial members to take responsibility for defending departmental policies in the House. Both these seem to me to be powerful arguments and the latter follows paras 19 and 30(b) of Select Committee Report.2
An amendment to the Papua and New Guinea Act would be required to reduce the number of Official Members. It may be argued that this involves a departure from the Report of the Select Committee at a time when the Government has just expressed its agreement to it. I doubt whether this would cause any criticism. Indeed, it would be possible to discuss the proposal in advance with leading members of the Committee and, in December, with the Administrator’s Council.
It may also be argued that the presence of less than ten Official Members is inadequate to ensure understanding by individual members of the Government’s point of view on legislation and major policy. This is an important issue, but in my opinion it is best met by strengthening the organisation within the Administration for liaison with Members of the House. This organisation would be required, not only to maintain personal contact but to ensure that adequate explanations of legislation are available to members. This is an Administration interest. It is also, of course, an interest and responsibility of the House itself. No doubt, on the latter aspect, the Minister could, in due course, have discussions with the Speaker in order to encourage him to set up a small body of experts in such things as, for example, the law, within the House of Assembly staff.
In this letter, I am also raising with you (for the first time) the question of which portfolios should go to ministerial members and how departmental duties should be allocated to assistant ministerial members.
In my opinion, the following portfolios would be suitable for ministerial members:—
Health
Education
Lands
Agriculture
Trade & Industry
Labour
Works
All these portfolios are the subject of extensive questioning in the House and they require spokesmen who are competent and prepared to stand up for the policies which are being followed.
So far as assistant ministerial members are concerned, I believe that they might be allocated the following departmental duties. The duties do not necessarily cover all the activities of a given Department and some of them cover some activities of more than one Department. However, I do not believe this is a crucial disadvantage.
Information and Extension Services
Law (but with responsibilities covering only Corrective Institutions and Land Titles)
Forests
Posts & Telegraphs
Administrator’s Department (covering transport, elections etc)
District Administration (covering Local Government and Welfare)
Police
Treasury (covering particularly housing).
These suggestions are put forward for discussion only at this stage. A good deal would depend on the actual persons nominated as ministerial members and it would be desirable for the Administration to retain a free hand in order to make adjustments at the time of making nominations to the Minister.
[NAA: A452, 1970/4519]
1 Document 124.
2 See Document 118.