Port Moresby, 31 May 1968
284/4600. Unclassified Priority Personal
Your 5313.1
1. Have again gone through the document with the Minister who has reviewed it from the point of view of flexibility. He is satisfied it is adequately flexible.
2. My own references to flexibility in our earlier discussions were directed to ideas like the use of regulations and determinations as compared with this approval of arrangements under section 25 which gives utmost flexibility and facility for change.2
3. Attorney-General’s Department consider a document of this kind is suitable under section 25.
4. Following discussions with the Minister of the whole situation I am to say that on the question of timing of circulation or publication of the document expressing arrangements under section 25 the Minister reaffirms his earlier oral advice to you that you need not at this stage circulate the full document unless pressed to do so. At the same time the Minister still regards it as essential that the arrangements approved under section 25 be advised in full to Ministerial Members and Assistant Ministerial Members. The legal deadline would be no later than when the appointments to ministerial office are made and there may be a political deadline at the time the Nominations Committee meets.
5. On substance the Minister requests that you advise urgently any particular points of difficulty so that these may be considered by those concerned here in advance of any discussion in Port Moresby. Otherwise reference may then be necessary to Canberra and this could result in the formal statement of the arrangements under section 25 not being available when needed.
6. Immediately following message translates previous text of arrangements as approved by Minister into form which we here regard as appropriate for publication. There is not intended to be any difference at all of substance and preceding paragraph refers only to matters of substance on which glad your urgent advice.
[NAA: A452, 1970/4521]
1 Document 191.
2 In an unaddressed note of 31 May, Kirkpatrick wrote: [a] Administration re-draft of CWP/2 [see Document 171] showed change in emphasis regarding role of Ministerial Members:— [i] showing them as assisting Departmental Head [ii] stresses the role of the I.D.C.C. in examining proposals before they go to Administrator’s Executive Council. [iii] sees them as exercising communal responsibility rather than individual authority [iv] subsequent letter from Administrator (24th April) [Document 176] suggested caution on financial delegations to Ministerial Members. [b] Exchanges with Administration over last two weeks show that Administration has not budged from its approach as indicated in previous point and is using argument of “flexibility” in attempt to justify its stand. [c] Draft arrangements as approved by Minister and sent to Administration on 31st May [see below, paragraph 6] accord with Select Committee’s Report, second reading speech of Minister and section 25 of Act’ (NAA: A452, 1970/4521).