Port Moresby, 18 February 1966
I refer to your letter of 11 th February, 1966, in reference to the position of Under-Secretaries.1 1 now enclose herewith an up-to-date report which has been completed by Dr. Gunther and which sets out in detail the present situation, the difficulties inherent therein, both from the point of view of the Under-Secretaries and the Departmental Heads2 concerned. I think the report sets out the difficulties which have been experienced in such a way that the Minister should be fully informed.
2. I agree with you entirely that it is for us to make certain that the system works to the best advantage between now and any future change. Quite frankly taking into account the limitations within the Under-Secretaries themselves it is very difficult to find means and methods whereby the system can be improved, because so much depends upon the men themselves.
3. I have already arranged with the two Assistant Administrators, that as a step forward, they be given in the next sitting of the House the opportunity of preparing answers to questions and answering them in the House. Apart from any additional English courses which may be held, 1 propose to meet with the Departmental Heads concerned and their Under-Secretaries as soon as possible after the House of Assembly Meeting is concluded and endeavour to work out together with them more effective means of improving what we want them to do, and what we initially intended them to do, as far as their own limitations will allow.
[matter omitted]
Attachment
MINUTE, GUNTHER TO CLELAND
Port Moresby,15 February 1966
APPOINTMENT OF UNDER–SECRETARIES
1.
There have been difficulties in the establishment of an Under-Secretary system. The Select Committee on Political Development, at paragraph 24 of the first Interim Report, recommended:
‘that Under-Secretaries to the major departments be appointed in the belief that the training and understanding of administration received by such appointees would be of great assistance in the achieving of responsible political development.’
2.
In Hansard, House of Representatives, 23rd October, 1962, the Minister for Territories3 is quoted:—
‘While these changes will substantially increase the share of the Territory in the legislative processes, the Government believes it is equally important in the progress towards responsible government that the people should also advance in an understanding of and a share in the executive functions. We want to make the Legislative Council, not only a gathering of representatives, but an effective part of the structure of government. Therefore, in the new Legislative Council, some of the elected members will be asked to accept office as Under-Secretaries to be attached to each of the main departments and to understudy the Official Members. The Government will also consider strengthening the Administrator’s Council, in which some of the Elected Members are already associated with the Executive.’
3.
During the Second Reading speech on the Papua New Guinea Bill 1963, the Minister stated:—
‘Parliamentary Secretaries will be appointed from among the Elected Members to understudy those Official Members who act in the legislature in a role resembling that of Ministers. By these and other means we will try to ensure that at the time of self-government, there will be members of parliament who will have learnt a good deal more than the arts of debate, and who will have gained some executive experience.’
Hansard, House of Representatives, 7th May, 1963.
4. Apart from this, the principle was really a nebulous one. The Select Committee on Political Development had not considered the matter greatly. It was left to the Administration to work out what should be done, and how it should be done. The positions into which the Under-Secretaries were appointed were learning positions. Their appointment had a multiple purpose:—
(1) to teach a limited number of people in the House of Assembly the machinery of administration;
(2) to have specially selected persons who could portray the Administration’s actions and thinking to the people;
(3) to bring together a small group of people with the capacity to solve problems, and who could advise the Administration on the will and temper of the people;
(4) to have at hand persons who could assume the office of Ministers if, and when, the demand for ministerial government was allowed;
(5) in actual fact, to slow down the demand for ministerial government by pushing the Under-Secretaries more and more into ministerial-like positions.
5. The success of these intentions depended on a number of factors, the foremost of which were:
(1) what was the Under-Secretary’s desire to learn and his capacity to absorb instruction;
(2) his instructor’s ability to teach and, indeed, his instructor’s desire to teach.
6. Then there were obvious political considerations. It was said that Under-Secretaries would become ‘stooges’ of the Administration. A number of members of the House of Assembly thought that the appointment of Under-Secretaries was a tactic used by the Administration to increase its voting power. Some of the Australian members of the House of Assembly strongly recommended to some of the people chosen against accepting appointment, telling them that if they did accept such an appointment they had no hope of re-election.
7. You chose the Under-Secretaries after careful consideration of the merits of the individual, his status in the community, his educational level, and you took into consideration geographic distribution. Five of the original Under-Secretaries chosen were also members of the Administrator’s Council.
8. You accepted the advice that Under-Secretaries should represent those departments who did not have a Official Member in the House of Assembly. This naturally meant that you did not choose departments whose departmental head was particularly disposed to foster the education of the Under-Secretaries. However, this has not caused any difficulties, although it is fair to say that, in general, departmental heads have found the task of educating Under-Secretaries a hard one.
9. In the beginning the Under-Secretaries were told that they were in learning positions. They were told that the Administration expected them to listen to its proposals and, if they did not agree, that they should say so. If they said they agreed, then they would be expected to vote for the Administration’s cause, but they did not have to vote for the Administration if they had disagreed. They were asked if they changed their mind, as a result of listening to a debate, that they should inform the Administration of their intention to vote. They were asked to tell as many people as possible what the Administration was doing, and were asked to tell the Administration what the people were thinking. Finally, they were clearly told they could not neglect their electorate. They would have to visit it regularly and spend some time there. They were told they should probably go to their electorate each month for at least two days. The period would be longer in the larger electorates. They were told they should spend at least a week after each House of Assembly meeting telling the people what had happened.
10. They had a number of meetings with Mr. Reeve4 and myself early in the piece, and I held discussions with each departmental head to whom the Under-Secretaries was assigned.
11. In the beginning, in the first flush of enthusiasm on the part of everybody, it looked as if the establishment of this system would be a marked success. However, as time went on it became apparent that it was not working out as was anticipated. A number of meetings with the Under-Secretaries, which I held, brought up a number of reasons for this. Without any doubt the first was a lack of English comprehension. (By this time Mr. Guise had resigned to become the Leader of the Elected Members.) A casual examination showed that none had a reading rate over 120 words a minute and, in most cases, it was probably lower. Other experience shows it was probably closer to 70–80 words a minute. This made an examination of policy files a virtually impossible task. Some departmental heads felt they were not able to bring the Under-Secretary into a full understudy position until he had a broad knowledge of departmental policy and the factors that brought this policy about.
12. All Under-Secretaries, in the beginning, were brought into close consultation with the departmental head and attended any staff conferences that occurred. Because of a lack of understanding of English, and because staff conference discussions were often beyond their comprehension, some Under-Secretaries started to stay away from them. Others believed that there could only be a successful solution to their training if an officer was to be beside them full time to talk to them. This, of course, was generally an impossibility and, in any case, if they were ever to assume a minister-like role, they would have to be able to reach decisions, not on the advice of one man, but on the advice of a reasoned argument on paper.
13. Some Under-Secretaries believed that we could only achieve the Administration’s aims if they were given a course to improve their English. This is now being done. However, it was deemed, for political reasons, to be unwise to establish a course for Under-Secretaries only. Even now there are a few members who think the course is being used by the Administration to persuade people to follow the Administration’s policies. However, it is anticipated that this thinking will disappear, and that a second course in English for the remainder of the Under-Secretaries and others will be readily accepted.
14. As time has gone by, all members of the House of Assembly, not just Under-Secretaries, have strongly felt the demands of their electorate. You have been previously advised that most of the members are essentially parochial in their requests. Unless the electorate gets what the member asks for, he is likely to be replaced at the next election. Members have actually been told this. On a recent tour I made, where I attended meetings with local members and their constituents, in two out of three electorates, the constituents clearly stated that they had not got what they asked for, therefore, they told their member they thought he was not doing his best. In one case I was asked did their member ‘sit in the top hotel like others and just drink beer?’ In one case one Under-Secretary, who spent a great deal of time in Port Moresby, had to be told by me, after I visited his electorate, that one of his opponents in the 1964 election was making a great deal of capital out of his absence from the electorate and his failure to have achieved anything for the electorate.
15. Thus, even those Under–Secretaries who were sincere in their desire to become understudies, have decided to spend more and more time in their electorate, to the detriment of their training.
[matter omitted]
18. On the 16th September, 1965, I met with six of the Under-Secretaries … All were asked in turn to comment on their current activities, particularly as to whether their advice was being sought and whether policy was sufficiently discussed with them, also whether they thought they could be better employed. Unanimously they stated that they were satisfied. They stated that their advice was listened to and they had ready access to the departmental head. They varied in their view as to whether they could get quicker action by a direct approach or by asking questions in the House of Assembly.
19. They strongly expressed the opinion they found it difficult to trace policy decisions through a file. All of them wanted to stay in the departments in which they were then working. It was suggested to them by me that to improve their experience, maybe they should change, but they were quite definite—they did not want to change.
[matter omitted]
25. All of the Under-Secretaries present expressed their disgust at Mr. Neville’s5 statement about the lack of understanding of members.6 They said one of a member’s biggest problems was the efforts of elected Europeans in trying to persuade them to vote one way or another. They said the Europeans were divided amongst themselves and they confused a lot of the members by vehemently stressing points of view, and actually abusing the Papuan and New Guinean members for not doing what the Europeans thought they should have done in a particular issue.
26. All six stated they had ready access to departmental heads and others, and all members of the House of Assembly were aware of this and many took an opportunity to make their demands directly, but as far as they, the Under-Secretaries, were concerned, all the demands received attention and often received a reply in writing.
[matter omitted]
31. The members, as a whole, rejected Mr. Neville’s statement that they did not understand what was going on, indeed, Mr. Guise spoke against Mr. Neville.
32. There are a number of people who want the system to fail. There are still those who are suspicious of the Under-Secretaries and the motives of the Administration in appointing Under-Secretaries; and there are times when the Under-Secretaries themselves are actually frustrated and feel they are not being taken into the confidence of the departmental head enough and are not being asked to take greater responsibility. When it is pointed out to them that they were asked to read the Bank Report and did not do so, they have stated that to try to do so ‘hurt’ them.
33. The system should be allowed to continue, though some Under-Secretaries will have to be told that they must spend less time in their electorates and more time in Port Moresby or they will have to be replaced.
[matter omitted]
35. I advise against making any dramatic change in the status of these people, but their future has to be discussed, and probably should be discussed, at the meeting that takes place on the 1st March.
36. Another course in English should be commenced as soon after the March meeting as possible. It is frankly felt that these courses will do very much to rejuvenate the present situation, although it will not reduce the worries of the member about re-election..7
[NAA: A452, 1964/3516]
1 Warwick Smith had referred to undertakings by Cleland to provide an assessment of the Under-Secretary system and suggestions for improvement. The Secretary conceded that there had been discussion of changes to the system before the next election—but added that every effort should be made in the interim and that Under-Secretaries would probably be retained for some departments after the changes. He asked Cleland to give a review to Barnes as soon as possible (NAA: A452, 1964/3516).
2 That is, departmental heads of the PNG Administration.
3 Paul Hasluck was Minister of Territories from II May 1951 to 18 December 1963.
4 H.H. Reeve, Assistant Administrator (Finance), 1961–1966.
5 R.T.D. Neville, MHA, West Papua special electorate.
6 Details not found.
7 In a submission of 5 July to Barnes, Ballard suggested that official members of the Select Committee draw to the attention of the Committee the problems associated with the Under-Secretary system. He also proposed that Under-Secretaries become more involved in official business in the House in the hope that this would in tum increase the participation of Under-Secretaries in Departmental matters. Barnes agreed to the dispatch of a reply to the Administrator in these terms (NAA: A452, 1964/3516).