Canberra, 10 September 1968
Top Secret
Papua and New Guinea—strength of the Pacific Islands Regiment
[ matter omitted ] 2
4. It is fundamental to all plans for Papua/New Guinea defence that the indigenous force should be both stable and reliable and capable of carrying out the role assigned to it. Instability in the force is likely to be the result of many factors and will not simply be cured by stopping or reducing recruitment. If the matter is as serious as the Submission suggests it will be very necessary for the review to cover the various social and economic problems which will affect the efficiency of the force. The review, in any case, needs to cover defence in the widest sense and to take into account the possibility of the use of forces in civil disturbances and the strengths of other forces such as the police.
5. Over the last three years the average rate of expansion of the indigenous force has been 327 per annum. The Defence Committee proposes that it go up by a further 389 by June 1969.
6. Our view is that expansion of the force should not completely stop, possibly losing all recruiting momentum; nor should there be any furious recruiting activity to achieve a figure based on a battalion structure which may not be all that relevant and involving, as it would, a higher rate of recruiting to June 1969 than has applied in the past. External Territories and Army should look to see what is a reasonable compromise, taking recruits as they come and certainly keeping recruitment at a higher level than wastage from the force. Recruitment could be kept at a reduced level such as this until it is clear in what direction future recruitment is to go.3
[NAA: A5619, Cl74]
1 Document 216. After distribution of the submission, Gorton had intimated that the matter should be dealt with by the General Administrative Committee of Cabinet. Bunting, in his capacity as Secretary of the Cabinet Office, noted that Barnes was concerned the PIR might become ‘a centre for disaffection’ and that he wanted a review of the previous Cabinet decision on the size of the PIR. Bunting argued that the ‘issue [was] central to the defence of New Guinea and that the (full) Cabinet ought to be in touch with it’. The Prime Minister responded: ‘Very well. But it is such a minor matter that it cannot take a high priority’ (submission, Bunting to Gorton, 9 September 1968, NAA: A5882, C0320).
2 Matter omitted contains a description of the background to the submission, including the disagreement between Territories and the Defence Committee over halting further expansion of the PIR (the Department of the Army’s opposition was not mentioned).
3 In a marginal note of 12 September, C.L. Hewitt (Secretary, PMD) wrote to Gorton: ‘I think that the best course on all counts is to require a review NOW not next year or the year after that’. Meanwhile, Treasury advised McMahon: ‘the pace of developments [in PNG] should be matched with the ability to sustain them in the future and to developments in the conditions of other groups, e.g. police and public servants. The latter, otherwise, could lead to disaffection between groups. Moreover, the current threat assessment, both external and internal, is placed at a low level and a pause in defence expansion appears to involve little or no risk … Since a force of indigenes should be cheaper to maintain than a composite Pacific lslander/A.R.A. force, progress should be primarily directed towards improving the P.I./A.R.A. ration, rather than towards expansion, and thus help to avoid the instability the Minister fears … Whilst this is not the occasion to prejudge the forthcoming review, it is considered that the Defence line of continued expansion without a pause should be opposed and the Minister’s recommendation supported’ (submission, G.J. Tredinnick (Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Division, Department of the Treasury) to McMahon, 13 August 1968, ibid.).