Canberra, undated
Points on Select Committee report2
1. Administrator felt that membership of the Nomination Committee should not preclude being Ministerial Member, e.g., can be member of Nominations Committee and Ministerial Member at the same time. Department does not feel that a Committee can nominate own members.
2. House should accept or reject whole list—cannot amend.
3. Nominations Committee should make decisions by a majority of those present and voting; no quorum.
4. One list of nominations for Ministerial Office—not split into categories.
5. There is scope for up to 10 Assistant Ministerial Representatives, as may be agreed by Administration and Nominations Committee; Ministerial Representatives should be fixed at 7.
6. Accept draftsman’s proposed formula for appointment and allocation of functions to be by Minister after receiving recommendation by Administrator.
7. A legislative provision for consultation should not be in Act; but cannot be safely put in standing orders; appropriate course seems to be Governor-General’s regulations.
8. Removal, best procedure seems to be to follow reverse procedure in toto; but that if this fails there should be a reserve power in the Governor-General to remove. (This should be drafted to make possible removal of ‘any’ or ‘all’.) If consultation with Administrator’s Executive Council takes place would make it more likely that concurrence to removal by House would be given.
9. House (or the Nominations Committee) should not be involved in a re-shuffle of functions.
10. Agree with draftsman’s formula on instructions (Minister to {act} after receiving a recommendation of the {Administrator} )—it is felt that the difference between a Ministerial Member and an Assistant Ministerial Member is so great that it would be better for them to be set out entirely separately.
11. There should be express prohibition in an Ordinance conferring powers on a Ministerial Member; but that there should be no restriction on delegation.
II. Additional points which have come up
1. Dissolution—Administrator would like to consider points further.3
2. Number of Official Members to be ‘up to 10’.
3. Insert a power to assent to a part.
4. Insert a provision for message on priority of Government business.4
[NAA: A452, 1970/4520]
1 That is, the Department of External Territories. The paper was neither signed nor dated.
2 Following the exchange of memoranda with the Attorney-General’s Department (see Document 159), Ballard and Keith Curry (position unidentified, DOET) met with Comans on 18 March. Ballard expressed agreement and gave his opinion on various points including, inter alia, that there would be no appointments to ministerial office if agreement was not reached with the nominations committee; that a quorum of the committee would consist of three members; that removal from office could be done through the Governor-General without first using other procedures; that the House could be dissolved under the Act with MMs continuing in their positions until the first meeting of the new House; and that AMMs would not make recommendations to the Administrator’s Executive Council (AEC) and would ‘represent the Administration in the House only in a limited and secondary way—the prime representation, where there is an assistant ministerial member, will be by an official member’. Ballard also implied that it was unlikely the bill to amend the Act would make a provision on instructions to the Administrator. Beyond this, Ballard alluded to the ‘question of control of the order of business in the House of Assembly’. He said that ‘Elected Members are in a position to control the order of business and the Department feels it necessary that there should be some means whereby the Administration can get priority for its business where it thinks this necessary’. Ballard commented that DOET envisaged the Administrator securing priority through a message to the Speaker. Comans thought this legally possible but requiring Cabinet consent (notes of conversation by Comans, 18 March 1968, NAA: A452, 1970/4520). Following this discussion—and indicating that Ballard’s position had not been the Department’s final one—a number of telexes requesting views on the drafting of the Act were sent to the Administrator (see telexes B270/962, B270/963 and B270/964, Warwick Smith to Hay, 21 March 1968, ibid.). For Hay’s reply, see telex 4008, Hay to Warwick Smith, 22 March 1968, ibid.
3 The idea of providing for the dissolution of the House was not pursued due to ‘difficulties raised by the Administration and the excessively long period it takes to hold a general election in Papua New Guinea’ (memorandum, DOET (Ballard) to AG’s, 23 April 1968, ibid.).
4 A further exchange between Ballard and Comans took place in late Mayearly April. Among the instructions given to Comans were that ‘the Ministerial Member will be able to refer matters to the Administrator’s Executive Council with the approval of the Administrator but that the Administrator should control the agenda and determine when the submission comes forward’. On the means of determining advice from the AEC, Ballard wrote that it was satisfactory to have provision for a quorum of the Council but not for a system of voting, provided the Administrator was a member and therefore constituted one of the quorum. Moreover, he did not want differences between the AEC and the Administrator to have to be explained in the House—this had ‘never been done and we hope to avoid [it]’. Ballard accepted Comans’ suggestion that the appointment of ministerial officers be denoted in the Act by simple reference to Ministerial right of decision on the basis of selection by the House. The reverse would apply for removal. Detailed description of the manner of appointment and removal would be provided in the regulations as follows: the nominations committee would make decisions via a majority vote without a quorum (the ‘intention is to have the whole Committee at a meeting’); members of the committee could not be nominated for ministerial office; the House could accept or reject the entire list but could not amend it; the list would not define MMs or AMMs; removal would follow the reverse procedure with the Minister’s power being discretionary; all ministerial office holders could be removed at once by reverse procedure or through the Governor-General; and the Minister, after receiving a recommendation from the Administrator, could change the functions of ministerial office holders. Other points made by Ballard included stipulation of seven MMs and up to ten AMMs, the need for government to control proceedings in the House, and a request for ‘an express provision in the Act preventing an Ordinance conferring powers on Ministerial Members but making it clear that this does not prohibit the delegation to them of powers vested in the Administrator’. (memorandum, DOET (Ballard) to AG’s, 1 April 1968, ibid.; see also AG’s (Comans) to DOET, 27 March 1968, ibid.).