Port Moresby, 31 May 1968
5344. Urgent Personal
In general my view is that we have to steer a course between on the one hand creating a ‘stooge’ image and associated frustrations, and on the other hand opening up the way for a much more rapid advance towards self-government than is {wanted by the majority of people. In respect} of the latter, the more you define what Ministerial Members can do, the more you define what they cannot do. This opens the way to pressures. The Select Committee2 provides the agreed basis for the kind of course I refer to.
2. To avoid the stooge image, I recommend we should not use the kind of wording in Al(c)3 (which is not repeat not in accord with paragraph 19 of report) unless qualified as in my statement of 28.5.684 by adding the phrase ‘which they would have helped to formulate’, and that we should omit A1(d)5 altogether, and rest on 4.6
3. Critical areas of policy, for example land legislation and the budget, are going to be difficult obviously. We will not be assisted in getting them through the House by attempting to bind Ministerial Members in advance to the ‘Administration’ as such. The obligation which Ministerial Members expect is the one in the Select Committee’s report. This is an obligation to a Council of which they are members. The only way to get through difficult and unpopular policies will be through protracted discussion {in the Council and very full preparation with members of} the House generally, resting on the accepted ultimate authority of the Government as in paragraph 7 of the Select Committee report. The situation is one requiring subtle and delicate handling.
4. Turning to the other area of difficulty. It is an essential element in the report that some movement should take place within the four year period. (See paragraph 22.) It would therefore be ill-advised for the Minister to agree now in writing that Ministerial Members should have delegated authority from the Administrator. They may have it, but no-one has yet asked for it and in my view it would be prudent to hold this back for two years or so.
5. It is similarly imprudent in my view to specify the decision-making authority of Ministerial Members at this stage. The concept in the Select Committee report is one of shared and not divided responsibility. In practice this amounts to Ministerial Members sharing in virtually every decision other than purely management decisions (under the ordinance) and those which are delegated to, for instance, area officers (e.g. location of primary schools). The basis for this sharing is the need for the Ministerial Members to be able to defend the actions of his department in the House. The specifying and defining of areas of responsibility for the Ministerial Members is something which could follow in two years’ time. The procedures we discussed whereby the submission of matters for ministerial views is formalised is of course acceptable, but they need to be phrased carefully and not for instance assume that Ministerial Members must be literate.
6. The genuine partnership concept, subject to the overriding responsibility of the Government, as expressed in my statement of 21st May7 has not brought up any questions which indicate that it is not a sufficient basis to enable members to decide whether or not to nominate.
7. Your 46008 and 46059 since received. Text will in my view need amendment but provides good basis for further exchange.
[NAA: A452, 1970/4521]
1 As noted in paragraph 7, Hay had not yet received Documents 192 and 193; the current document was apparently sent as a sequel to Document 191.
2 Presumably, a reference to the Select Committee report (Document 118).
3 That is: ‘In the House … a Ministerial Member will … give the Administration view on resolutions and motions affecting his department’ (attachment to Document 185; see footnote l of that document).
4 See footnote 3, Document 188.
5 This stated that in the House Ministerial Members would ‘support (or at least not publicly criticise) policies and actions of the Administration generally’ (unpublisbed attachment to Document 185).
6 This reads: ‘Ministerial Members should conform to the accepted code of conduct normally applicable to Ministers. They should also respect the conventions that —[i] they should not publicly oppose the advice of the Administrator’s Executive Council and policies approved by it; [ii] they would only introduce into the House of Assembly Bills which accord with Administration policy’ (loc. cit.).
7 This should probably read ‘28th May’.
8 Document 192.
9 Document 193.