Canberra, 5 August 1968
Top Secret
Future size and role of the Pacific Islands Regiment1
I think this is a matter more appropriate for discussion but, in view of the timetable and other commitments, I thought I should commit to paper a few thoughts arising from your Minute of 19 July2 and advice from the Minister for External Territories.3
I know the Minister has been concerned, for some time, about the indications of instability in the mental attitudes of the P.I.R. and the Native Constabulary, and of some rivalry between these two Services at least in regard to pay, conditions and status. It has raised in his mind, quite justifiably I think, the question of whether either of these Services could be trusted to function satisfactorily if they fancied their own interests were involved and this, it seems to me, is a situation which has all to do with the development of the Territories towards independence.
You will recall we had some inter-Departmental discussions about it at official and ministerial level because the conditions of P.I.R. were deeply involved. At that time the Minister proposed to refer the matter to Cabinet, but was ultimately persuaded to refer it to the Defence Committee although having some reservations about that being an appropriate body to deal with it.4 I see the entire matter as one in which Defence has a major interest, but in which {both} Departments have a joint responsibility to do what is best within their respective spheres of interest, to promote the welfare and development of the Territory. Now with respect, and despite the presence of a member of External Territories, I think the Defence Committee tends to over-emphasise purely Defence considerations.
For instance, the paper5 accepts that the P.I.R. should become an efficient, well-disciplined, stable and reliable Army, completely loyal to the administration or established government of the country. The report generally goes on to assume that, in the event of civil disturbance, the police would be able to deal with the matter and could depend on being backed up by the P.I.R. In the contention of paragraph 35 ‘it would be more appropriate to protect the Government and the community by strengthening the police in order to meet possible future threats to internal security’.
But there is doubt about the loyalty of the police and, in the broad, it is precisely because the Department is unable to depend, completely, on either police or P.I.R. that the present situation has arisen.
I am sure External Territories would not have put forward the suggestion in paragraph 64 that the strength of the P.I.R. in the Port Moresby area should be kept at a minimum if they had enjoyed the confidence that the P.I.R. would ‘stand fast’ in this area, which is a focus of potential political and racial unrest. Nevertheless, the Defence Committee feels ‘it is normal’ for major units to be located in or near capital cities.
I observe only that we do not have a normal situation in Papua/New Guinea and I do think the Department of External Territories faces a tremendously difficult problem in developing a responsible constabulary side by side with equal difficulties in training a loyal P.I.R.
We are, of course, inhibited a little by the 1964 Cabinet Decision and Prime Ministerial Statement of our intentions in regard to the P.I.R.6 but if, in the Minister’s view, developments since that date call for a review, this ought not to be resisted.
I doubt if there is much point in having further inter-Departmental discussions at any level and I know the Minister for External Territories has in preparation a Submission to Cabinet. For these reasons, the draft letter you have been good enough to prepare seems hardly appropriate and perhaps we could indicate to the Minister for External Territories our willingness to co-operate in having the matter dealt with by Cabinet.
[NAA: A452, 1968/2441 part 2]
1 For context, see Document 209.
2 Not found.
3 On 25 July, Barnes noted that he had talked to Fairhall (see marginal note on submission, Besley to Barnes, 18 July 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/2441 part 2), but no record of the conversation has been found.
4 See Document 145 and editorial note ‘Pacific Islands Regiment: ongoing debate over its size and role’.
5 That is, Joint Planning Committee Report No. 32/1968 (not printed), which was discussed by the Defence Committee on 30 May (see Document 190).
6 See Document 190.