Port Moresby, 6 October 1968
Personal
There are several aspects of the relations between the Department and the Administration which I would like to discuss with you when I am in Canberra. Indeed I suggest we start in on these when I see you on Friday afternoon. 1
The first aspect is what seems to me to be an absence of a consistent frame of reference for many of the instructions and suggestions from the Department which come our way. 2 These instructions seem to me like reactions to individual situations of stress rather than to conclusions reached after weighing the whole situation including the overall priorities implicit in the government’s approval of the World Bank report … By definition consultation is a process which takes place before a decision is made. The budget process conforms to this definition. But I am not sure that this process is to be3 followed in respect of other major policy matters.
Another aspect of our relations that concerns me is the Department’s practice of giving advice to the Minister which not only differs from recommendations of the Administration but also introduces new elements which have not even been discussed with the Administration during earlier exchanges. I have no objection, naturally, to the Department giving the Minister advice which differs from or disagrees with the Administration’s recommendations. That possibility is inherent in the constitutional situation. But the introduction of new elements without any discussion at a stage when it is too late for the Administration to comment seems wrong to me …
A third area of concern is what appears to me to be a disposition on the part of the Department to intervene in matters which by law are, or which by commonsense and sound practice should be, within the authority of the Administrator or the P.S.C.4 … Where a matter is an administrative one, or where it falls by ordinance within the authority of a person holding an appointment in the Territory, then the decision should, with due regard to existing policy, be taken by that person …
The fourth aspect of concern is a familiar one—delays in getting decisions. The basic remedy for this is greater delegation—not just in financial matters but in administration.5 We have discussed this before but I’m afraid the position has not much improved.
All this adds up to a situation of competition rather than co-operation. Inevitably in such a situation tempers get short and people spend time scoring points at the expense of getting on with the job.
I hope a frank discussion of these things will get the two outfits working together as they must in order to get things done here with the urgency needed. 6
[NAA: NA 1983/239, 48/2]
1 For context, see editorial note ‘The Minister and the Administrator: the problem of the constitutional relationship’.
2 Matter omitted includes examples.
3 The words ‘to be’ seem to be superfluous.
4 Public Service Commissioner, PNG.
5 See, for example, Document 205 and editorial note ‘Administrative delegations and the role of Assistant Administrators’.
6 A draft record by Hay of the subsequent discussion with Warwick Smith reads: ‘Mr. Warwick Smith said that he realised the problem for the Administration when advice was given to the Minister which deferred [word should probably read ‘differed’] from Administration recommendations and when the Administration did not know what the advice was. He realised that this would inhibit me from exercising my right, which he accepted, of a direct approach to the Minister. He said that, as Departmental Head, he could not in principle give advice to the Minister without informing me. However, he felt that the likelihood of this happening was extremely remote and in any event, the possibility would be signalled by means of the kinds of questions that were asked. He accepted that there would be occasions on which I felt it would be necessary to go to the Minister … I said that it appeared to me that there was an increasing squeeze on the Administration and on myself personally. Mr. Warwick Smith disagreed with this. He thought that the broad process was working in the opposite direction … Mr. Warwick Smith then proceeded to speak at some length on the broad constitutional position of the Administrator. He said he was getting some research done into the wording of the Papua–New Guinea Act and its origins in the original Papua Act. He had found a submission, for instance, from Hasluck of 1953 in which it was suggested that the words “the Governor General” in that part of the Act dealing with instructions to the Administrator should be replaced by the word “Minister”. Evidently this submission had not received Cabinet support. His broad concept was that the letter of the law had to be interpreted in the light of the constitutional situation in which the Minister had to answer in the House of Representatives for a very wide range of matters affecting the internal administration of the Territory. He realised that the situation was one in which friction between the Department and the Administration was difficult to avoid, and one in which there was a demand for frankness and goodwill on the part of the Administrator and the Secretary of the Department. He concluded by saying that notwithstanding these frictions, he felt that the situation in the Territory was a very favourable one, with which the Government had every reason to be pleased’ (12 October 1968, NAA: M1865, box 1, item 1). An undated paper on Warwick Smith’s files entitled ‘Basic role of[the] Administration’ (and apparently written after reception of Hay’s letter) commented: ‘NOT an Embassy[;] NOT a Department[.] An Administrator subject to direction, not responsible for Public Service, etc. Even individual officers of the Administration are subject to direction by the Minister. The Department’s advice to the Minister may be confidential—this is a traditional position that on occasions has to be preserved’ (NAA: NA 1983/239, 48/2). The last sentence suggests the words ‘could not’ in Hay’s draft record above should perhaps read ‘could’.