Canberra, 3 May 1968
Ministerial Members
At our discussion yesterday concerning Hay’s visit1 we took the view that time would be limited to such an extent that it would be impossible for you to discuss anything apart from the item relating to the role of Assistant Administrators and our differences concerning whether members of the Nominations Committee could also be nominated for Ministerial office.
[ matter omitted ]
3. I am … concerned at a difference in emphasis which comes through the Administrator’s letter presenting a redraft of our proposals2 and it seems to me that it is necessary for you and the Administrator to reach some agreement on the broad approach if we are going to be able to progress in working out the details. The Administrator has in fact a much more restricted view of the functions that Ministerial Members should perform than at least I have.
4. As I understand it he tells us that our papers were discussed in the I.D.C.C. and the revised version that has been sent down implies a substantial clipping of the powers of Ministerial Members and to a lesser extent to the Administrator’s Executive Council itself.
5. To quote a few examples—
In our paper it was proposed that he would assume certain functions that now devolve on a departmental head and be responsible for the Department’s operational activities and make decisions appropriate to these activities.
In the Administrator’s redraft this becomes to assist his departmental head on the basis of mutual cooperation.
Our proposal that the decisions of a Ministerial Member would follow consideration by him of papers and recommendations submitted by the Department is altogether omitted from the Administrator’s redraft.
In his covering letter the Administrator stressed the role of the I.D.C.C. as a body which will examine proposals before they go to the Administrator’s Executive Council. This is a complete change from his previous thinking which was that the I.D.C.C should gradually be phased out.
In the covering paper it is stated ‘that the appropriate way to regulate the movement towards self-government is by giving Ministerial Members and Assistant Ministerial Members communal rather than individual authority.’ This does not in my view accord with the recommendations of the Select Committee which had been approved by Cabinet. The only way this could be achieved would be by instructions being given under Section 25 of the Act3 which had the substantial effect of nullifying the section which is drafted to ensure that specific functions are given to Ministerial Members.
6. It is our view that the Administration approach is likely to result in the same sort of farce as the Under-Secretary system. Broadly I feel that we will only hold the Ministerial Member system for any length of time if the Ministerial Members are given individual as well as communal authority. If when the authority is given to them they did not exercise it we lose nothing. If the expectations which these changes have engendered in peoples minds are frustrated by the Administration we can confidently expect that political forces which could be harnessed to the Ministerial Member system will go into opposition.
7. Certainly there will be dislocations in the existing arrangements if the Ministerial Member system is operated as we envisage it. Certainly departmental heads who have Ministerial Members will lose in status. Quite apart from our obligations to implement the policies that have been approved if we permit the Administration to frustrate Ministerial Members the inevitable result will be that the members themselves will press for greater changes amounting to full self-government.
8. The Bill has been drafted to leave the Minister with the final decision on the functions of Ministerial Members and the wisdom of this drafting is becoming apparent.
9. I hope you can take the opportunity of having a discussion with the Administrator on the broad principles. I have been wondering whether the Administrator did himself redraft these papers. If he did he has changed his position.
[NAA: A452, 1970/4521]
1 Hay was shortly due to visit Canberra.
2 Document 171—a response to Document 168.
3 See editorial note ‘Changes to the Papua and New Guinea Act’.