Canberra, 28 January 1969
I refer to your message 9492 of 29th November in which you reply to my message of 26th November suggesting that Official Members might visit Canberra during February for discussions with the Minister and Commonwealth Departments.1 I regret that I sent such a brief message about the proposal for a Seminar but I was concerned to ensure that my message arrived before the House of Assembly rose so that the date of the next meeting could be set, taking into account the possibility of visits of Official Members to Canberra during February. I now know that the next meeting of the House of Assembly will be on 3rd March.
I attach a tentative draft of the kind of programme that was in mind.2 The purpose of the suggested Seminar is to provide material for Official Members to think about and to enlarge their knowledge of procedure and practices in both Houses of Parliament which may be applicable in Papua and New Guinea. It is also felt that Official Members as an arm of the Commonwealth Government should be fully briefed on the thinking in the Commonwealth Government and at the same time should have the opportunity of explaining to those responsible for policy in Canberra the difficulties that they face in the House of Assembly.
The Minister has seen your message of 29th November. He takes the view that there is little point in arranging a Seminar with this sort of purpose if the people concerned were to take part in it in a resentful or unwilling frame of mind. He therefore will leave it to you whether all or any of the Official Members should come to Canberra during February for this purpose or whether other arrangements ought to be considered.
The particular points of concern which the Minister has relate not so much to the exposition by Official Members of Government policy as to procedures in the House of Assembly.
Firstly, he is concerned that legislation or amendments should not pass the House of Assembly without following normal Parliamentary procedures designed to ensure that Members understand the legislation and give it deliberate consideration. These procedures were not, of course, followed when the amendments were moved to the Lussick Bill. The Minister appreciates that this might not have been an appropriate occasion for Official Members to have taken this point up but he wishes Official Members to follow the full procedures in non contentious matters so that they can also be insisted upon on contentious matters. He feels that if this practice is adopted with Administration business it should be practicable to ensure that the House follows these procedures with Private Members’ Bills and Motions.
Secondly, the Minister is concerned at the frequent suspension of Standing Orders in circumstances in which he believes this would not be sought or given in Parliament. In a unicameral legislature he regards it as particularly important that Standing Orders should not be suspended to ensure a speedier passage of legislation or motions.
In your message you mention the danger of an atmosphere of confrontation growing up between the Elected and Official Members. The Minister feels that this turns to some extent upon the attitudes Official Members take themselves. He considers that they should take a dispassionate view of the Government policy they are asked to present and refuse to participate in an emotional climate. He would want them to put a case as effectively and objectively as possible and to handle tactical situations as well as practicable on this basis.
The Minister does not, however, regard it as any reflection on the Official Members if they are outvoted. This is bound to happen in a legislature with the composition of the House of Assembly and the check of reservation is provided so that the Government may make its own decision on a Bill that has been passed against the Government policy explained in the House of Assembly by Official Members.
The explanation by Official Members should in the Minister’s opinion include the arguments which in the event of subsequent disallowance would be stated in the Australian Parliament and elsewhere as the reasons for disallowance. The constitutional check of disallowance or withholding of assent and the various alternative courses open to the Commonwealth after reservation should reduce to very rare occasions the necessity for Official Members to attempt to negotiate with Elected Members in the House of Assembly on important matters of policy.
[NAA:A452, 1968/5901]
1 See editorial note ‘Tensions in the House: the Chatterton and Lussick bills’.
2 Not printed.