Letter, Hay To Warwick Smith

Canberra, 11 May 1968

Further to my letter LH.l010 of 16th April1 and following discussions in Canberra earlier this week,2 I wish to make the following recommendations in respect to outstanding constitutional matters.

Organisation of departmental responsibility in the House of Assembly

On consideration I recommend that the following Departments be represented by Official Members:

Treasury

Law

Department of District Administration

Lands

I have given serious consideration to the inclusion of Agriculture in the departments to be represented by Official Members. But the balance of opinion amongst myself and the Assistant {Administrators} is definitely in favour of allocating it to a Ministerial Member.

I recommend that the following Departments be the responsibility of Ministerial Members:

Agriculture

Education

Health

Labour

Posts and Telegraphs

Trade and Industry

Public Works

Responsibility for legislation and policy statements in relation to the Departments of the Administrator, Information and Extension Services, Forests, the Police and the Public Service Commission would be taken by the Assistant Administrators or one of the Senior Official Members.

I recommend that the following functions be allocated to Assistant Ministerial Members. After each function I add in brackets the Official or Ministerial Member who would accept major policy responsibility in the House of Assembly.

Forests (Assistant Administrator or Official Member)

Lands (Director, Lands-Official Member)

Local Government (Director, District Administration-Official Member)

Information & Extension Services (Assistant Administrator or Official Member)

Police and Armed Services (Assistant Administrator or Official Member)

Rural Development (Ministerial Member for Agriculture)

Technical Education and Training (Ministerial Member for Education)

Treasury (Treasurer-Official Member)

Provision has been made for functions of only eight Assistant Ministerial Members. Two vacancies are left for Assistant Ministerial Members who might later be appointed. It will also be observed that some responsibilities of Assistant Ministerial Members cover only part of the responsibilities of a Department. This agrees with earlier discussions and with the amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act.

There are three suggestions which need further comment:

Police and Armed Services. I have previously mentioned the possibility that in some informal way there should be representation of the Armed Services in the House of Assembly. This has considerable symbolic advantages in demonstrating the answerability of the Armed Services to a civilian authority. To avoid any possibility of constitutional difficulty it may be preferable to phrase the title of the Assistant Ministerial Member as ‘Assistant Ministerial Member for Police, who will also answer questions in the House on matters relating to Armed Services.’

Rural Development. This responsibility would cover a number of matters dealt with predominantly by the Agricultural Department. It would not be related solely to land settlement but would include generally the development of agriculture at village level, including nucleus estates, resettlement and village concentrations.

Technical Education and Training. It is felt that the allocation of this aspect of the Department’s functions to a separate Assistant Ministerial Member will point up its importance in the community.

Nomination of Official Members

As you know, my approach has been that Ministerial Members should take as much responsibility as possible for major Departments, and also that Departmental Heads should as far as possible concentrate on the running of their Departments. I also believe that no Ministerial Member should have his Departmental Head in the House also unless it is quite unavoidable. Given the need to have Treasury, Law, D.D.A. and Lands directly represented, I have sought four other Official Members who would be used for the most part for liaison duties with Members of the House. But I have also looked for a capacity to support the government in debate and in the general conduct of government business.3

On the basis of these considerations I now nominate the following to be Official Members of the House of Assembly:

The three District Commissioners in the above list are well qualified and have experience and contacts which will enable them to be used as effective liaison officers.

The choice of Mr. Littler, an Inspector at Head Office of D.D.A., as the fourth Official Member, arises from the need to have a more effective liaison with Members of the House in between meetings. Mr. Littler’s duties will require him to travel frequently and he will therefore be able to contact Members in remote areas such as the Sepik and the Islands, which it is now difficult to do. Mr. Littler is or Deputy District Commissioner rank and has had service in the Highlands and Sepik Districts and in Papua. It is considered that changes in the four ‘non-departmental’ Official Members may be necessary from time to time and I would make this clear publicly in due course.

Administrator’s Executive Council

I nominate as Official Members:

As you know, I have previously pointed to the need for the Treasurer to be included as a normal matter in the Administrator’s Council. However, the services of the Treasurer are available to the Council at any time.

I see advantage in announcing the Minister’s decisions on all these matters, except the allocation of responsibilities to Assistant Ministerial Members, as soon as possible, and certainly before the House sits. I make the exception in the case of Assistant Ministerial Members because there may be some need to make adjustments for the personalities eventually chosen. But I ask for advance notice of any announcement.4

[NAA: A452, 1970/4521]

1 Document 171.

2 See Document 179.

3 During consideration of the role of official members, Hay was approached by Scragg, who said that while he did ‘not contest the general approach that Departmental Heads should not be Official Members where Ministerial Members are appointed to their Departments’, he felt that ‘certain of the existing Official Members have, in their personal capacities, an essential contribution to make’. Hay wrote that ‘In my opinion the disadvantages of retaining Departmental Heads as Official Members in cases where the Ministerial Members are appointed to their Departments outweigh the advantage of having them continue in the House in their personal capacities’ (letter, Hay to Warwick Smith, 11 May 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/3174). Territories and Barnes supported this position (submission, Ballard to Barnes, 21 May 1968, ibid.).

4 On 15 May, Warwick Smith asked Hay for information on how the 10 official members would share representation of departments not covered by Ministerial Members. This was necessary for Barnes to make a decision on ‘whether there is scope for 4 D.D.A. representatives’. Warwick Smith also questioned the wisdom of giving an AMM partial responsibility for the police and armed services, asserting that ‘there seems to be a substantial distinction between discussing defence matters in the Administrator’s Executive Council and involving an Assistant Ministerial Member in matters in the House’ (telex 8270/4293, Warwick Smith to Hay, 15 May 1968, NAA: A452, 1970/4521). In his reply, Hay specified the representational responsibilities of official members in non-ministerial areas as follows: the Assistant Administrator (Services) to have the departments of Information and Extension Services and the Public Service Commission; the Assistant Administrator (Economic Affairs) to have the Administrator’s Department and Forests; and the Secretary for Law to have Police. Hay also wrote that the DDA official members ‘should not … be regarded as DDA representatives … they are additions to the Administration team who will have the specific duties stated in my letter’. Hay remarked that he had discussed the matter with Barnes and would request further talks with him if he objected. As to giving an AMM a degree of responsibility on police and armed forces issues, Hay ‘remain[ed] of the opinion that it would be appropriate and desirable’, but indicated that he could accept Warwick Smith’s alternative of corrective institutions—‘although there would be much less for the Assistant Ministerial Member to do’ (telex 4949, Hay to Warwick Smith, 16 May 1968, ibid.).