Canberra, 28 January 1969
1. The Administrator said that the general political situation was satisfactory. He thought the secession movement in New Britain was not at this stage at any rate to be taken too seriously but in Bougainville was a real matter for concern. He was very impressed with the economic importance of the C.R.A. Bougainville Copper project to the Territory economy as a whole and its relationship to the question of future Australian aid to the Territory. He did not know what to suggest at the present time but he regarded the retention of Bougainville as part of the Territory as a major objective from Australia’s point of view.
[ matter omitted ]
4. In relation to the working of the Ministerial Member system the Administrator in reply to the Minister said that the system was working as a whole perhaps better than might have been expected. However Ministerial Members showed some tendency to resile publicly from positions they adopted in the Council. He was looking for means of ensuring that they assumed public responsibility for decisions taken. One step he said that he might take was to get formal advice from the Council in relation to this year’s draft Budget. (It is clear from the way the Administrator talks that in his view ‘internal self-Government’ is a state of affairs where Ministerial Members or Ministers are responsible for policy without the control or surveillance of the Administrator or the Minister. He was unable in a short discussion to see my point that you can’t be responsible for policy unless you are also responsible for raising and spending the money concerned. Moreover in this connection he spoke about enlarging the responsibilities of Ministerial Members in such away that l have serious doubts whether he understands the degree of responsibility that was intended to be discharged by Ministerial Members under the existing arrangements. In fact when he talks about ‘internal self-Government’ he seems to me almost to be describing the situation which we had envisaged applying under the present constitutional arrangements. He agrees for example that Ministerial Members have so far not initiated any policy and he seemed to think—until I pointed the contrary out to him—that it was not part of the present arrangements for them to do so. We will need to send a short paper to Port Moresby on the role and function of Ministerial Members from this point ofview.)2
5. In relation to the role of Official Members the Minister handed Mr. Hay a letter in reply to Mr. Hay’s earlier letter to the Minister.3 The Minister also mentioned that he thought there might be advantages in a situation in which the Official Members had no vote. I said that I supported this idea though it was necessary to remember that from the outside point of view the Administration still controlled the votes of Ministerial Members and Assistant Ministerial Members. Mr. Hay said he would look at the question.
6. We had a brief discussion on the virtues of a second Chamber. The Minister said a House of Review should not contain Ministers or people responsible for executive action. He saw some merit in a second Chamber because of the volatile character of the House of Assembly and the importance of due accord and deliberation in legislation. The Minister thought that the regional electorates provided a ready made basis for a second Chamber. I suggested that such a Chamber would be best constituted by indirect election. The Administrator did not express any opposition to the idea of a second Chamber but said that he would want to be sure that the institution of such a Chamber would not weaken or detract from the effectiveness of the strong central authority which the present Administration provided and which the Territory would need in the future.
7. The Administrator raised the question of social development. He said the Department had been raising this and he was in favour of it to the extent and within the limitation that it did not detract from the resources available for economic development. He said there was for example a place for museums. Australia should leave behind some memorials to its presence in the Territory. In relation to museums the Minister said we could not find the money at the present time for the sort of building that would stand as a memorial and he suggested the Administration look into the possibility of cheap, local-effort local museums.
[ matter omitted ]
9. Mr. Hay said that he had a discussion with Spry in Melbourne and from what Spry had told him about the student position in Australia it appeared that there was a world-wide revolutionary movement and that it had to be expected that this would infiltrate the Territory educational institutions. He was keen to see that there were no imported problems of this kind. He thought that teacher trainees should be psychologically tested from this point of view and I said that we would check the security screening of seconded teachers. Hay said that one nomination from the A.B.C. to the Territory might require permit action. I said that we should overhaul the legislation on permits so that it would be practicable if it became necessary to deport troublesome people.
10. The Minister raised the question of action to develop responsible unions. He said Besley was to talk to Santamaria4 on this. He wondered whether M.R.A.5 might be usefully involved on it and the Administrator suggested perhaps that Arek would be of some help. The Minister did not think Arek entirely trustworthy.
[ matter omitted ]
15 Lussick Bill:6 The Administrator expressed concern that unless relationships with the House were kept in a state of harmony a lot of things would be upset. It appeared to Members that the Government did not adequately take account of their point of view. The Minister said that it was necessary to get the House to appreciate the need for deliberation in considering legislation. The Minister considered that the Chambers/Turner Report recommendations would be readily acceptable to the House of Assembly. There was a brief discussion about how these recommendations should be given effect to and it was left to the Administrator to make a recommendation whether they should be introduced by Lussick or by Toa Kapena or by some other means. With regard to the relationships with the House of Assembly I asked the Administrator whether he had any instances apart from the Lussick Bill where it could have been suggested that the Government in Canberra had disregarded the views of the House of Assembly. He said he could not quote other instances.
[ matter omitted ]
[NAA: A452, 1969/222]
1 The notes were written by Warwick Smith.
2 In April, Barnes caused a storm in the press after expressing views on the Ministerial Member system. Asked by a journalist for his opinion on the success of the 1968 constitutional change, Barnes responded: ‘I think it is working splendidly … I am particularly pleased by the progress made by the ministerial members and assistant ministerial members in learning their responsibilities of their various departments. This is no easy task to suddenly come in with little political or administrative experience … I am fully confident that [the AEC] will function as a very responsible body. I think we have got to have patience in some of these things and not hurry them into a situation of rapid political advanced responsibility before they are ready for it. [Journalist:] That suggests, Sir, that you don’t anticipate the need for constitutional changes during the present life of the House? [Barnes:] Well, in major regard[,] I am expressing a personal view, I don’t, but feel the House of Assembly may have other views, but I think I have always opposed too rapid progress in these things. I believe we have made a tremendous step forward in the last constitutional changes–why not let it settle down for a term or two until they really know where they are heading, really know that they want. I think every advantage is patience in this regard. This is contrary of course to outside opinion … pressure has been put on them for more rapid political advancement. Have a look at what’s happened in other parts of the world where this has happened. These people are doing very well indeed and they have problems. I think the greatest problem is not political development so far, but maintaining the unity in the Territory … the whole future of the Territory depends on being able to maintain unity in the Territory. [Journalist:] But when you refer to a term or two you mean terms as life of the House? [Barnes:] For the life of the House, for the life of two Houses … I admit I haven’t heard a good argument why this should be changed’ (transcript of press conference, 10 April 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/2142). Typical headlines in consequent press articles were ‘Barnes calls for reform delay’ ( Canberra Times , 11 April 1969, in ibid.), ‘Barnes: “No New Guinea move for 7 years”’ ( Age , 11 April 1969, in ibid.) and ‘Barnes must go’ ( Sydney Morning Herald , quoted by R. Waddell, ‘January–April 1969’, in Moore with Kooyman, A Papua New Guinea political chronicle , p. 80).
3 Perhaps a reply to Hay’s letter of2 December 1968 (see footnote 21, Document 259).
4 B.A. Santamaria, President, National Civic Council.
5 Moral Re–Armament.
6 See editorial notes ‘Tensions in the House: the Chatterton and Lussick bills’ and ‘Conclusion of the Lussick episode’.