Port Moresby, 2 February 1968
I mentioned to you during my recent visit to Canberra that I had received a letter from Sir Donald Cleland in which he suggests the establishment of a Commission, under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, to study the future constitution of the Territory. The case for such a Commission is set out in Sir Donald’s letter of which I attach a copy.1 He also elaborates on its proposed functions and how it would fit in with further work by a House of Assembly select committee on the one hand and a constitutional convention on the other.
My first reaction is that the less said about formal constitutions for the present, the better. Time is needed for the economic development of the Territory, essentially a long term process. If we encourage study of constitutions the likelihood is that this will stir tip interest in rapid political advancement.
Of more weight perhaps is the consideration that the constitution should be a matter which the Territory itself initiates and draws up.
On the other hand the report of the Select Committee2 envisages that a further stage in the consideration of constitutional matters will take place early in the life of the new House of Assembly.
The concluding paragraphs suggest ‘the appointment of a further constitutional committee, which would continue the study of the constitutional advancement of Papua and New Guinea, including the question of a constitution and system of government best suited to the Territory’. We must expect the House to address itself to this matter before the end of 1968.
We need to consider whether there would be advantage in the Administration taking the initiative, on the lines suggested by Sir Donald or in some other way, in order to provide the future Committee with basic advice and the general public with information about the issues in simple terms.
On balance I incline to the view that the Administration should take the initiative at an appropriate time, and that the initiative should take the form of an offer to pay for a constitutional consultant, the person to be agreed on between the Administration and the Speaker, to be at the service of both the House and the Administration for a given period of time.
I should be glad of your views before making a formal submission.
In the meantime I have advised Sir Donald that his proposal is under consideration and will in due course be brought to the Minister’s attention.3
[NAA: A452, 19681932]
1 8 January. Cleland suggested that an independent full-time committee or commission should study and evaluate possibilities for a constitution. He believed that the various select committees on the constitution had done ‘a good job’, but that ‘their activities were governed by the fact that it was a part time job for the members, both official and elected’. Cleland further proposed that such a commission could publish papers during its investigation and interact with any select committee the House might establish. Finally, a constitutional convention, elected on a broader basis than the House, could evaluate the commission’s findings. Cleland submitted that the government might announce the plan at the beginning of the new House of Assembly and he offered himself as chairman of the commission because this ‘would make for a more general acceptance of the Government’s proposed move’ (NAA: A452, 1968/932).
2 Document 118.
3 In a minute to Swift of 9 February, Ballard wrote that Hay had commented to him that ‘he certainly did not support Sir Donald’s proposal but wanted to discuss whether we should not put in first with a proposal of our own to forestall such ideas’. Ballard added: ‘I do not think that we should set up a body to concentrate on a step after the one we are now considering; but we should do all we can to concentrate attention on making the ministerial member system work and taking the stand that what comes after must depend on this’ (NAA: A452, 1968/932). Swift recommended to Warwick Smith that ‘action should not be taken now but that the possibility of applying the principle suggested by Sir Donald in some form or other should be kept in mind after the House has met and some indication is available of the approach of the new members’ (minute, 12 March 1968, ibid.).