Port Moresby, 23 May 1969
Mr. Paulus Arek called to see me yesterday about his motion for a Constitutional Committee.1 He said that he had been giving a good deal of thought to the matters which should be considered and also to the way in which the Committee should be organised. He had been doing some reading and also had had discussions with interested persons, including Mr. John Guise as Chairman of the previous Constitutional Committee.
I asked Mr. Arek whether he expected to have sufficient support in the House for his motion. He said that he saw no problem in this but intended to discuss his motion further with the independent group and with others. He emphasized that he did not intend to encourage or foster radical suggestions. Indeed, he felt that the way his motion had been worded should be sufficient evidence that his aim was to forestall radical suggestions, which he felt were inevitable unless there was some formal method by which interested people could address themselves to constitutional questions.
I then raised with Mr. Arek the kinds of problems which I felt a Committee could discuss, including whether there might be a second House, the relationship of Ministers to the House, the question of federal versus a unitary system and similar, purely constitutional questions. I tried to draw the distinction between this type of question and the question of evolution of authority from the Australian Government to the Territory. I said that the existing Papua and New Guinea Act provided ample room for movement in the latter respect for the foreseeable future. I am not sure whether Mr. Arek understood and accepted the distinction between the two kinds of matters for enquiry.
Mr. Arek then mentioned that he hoped the Administration would help the Commission2 with secretarial staff and also with a Constitutional Adviser. He thought it might be possible to draw an Adviser from either Australia (which seemed to be his preference) or elsewhere such as Britain, who would have knowledge of constitutional matters and would be able to guide the Commission. I said that consideration could be given to a proposal of this nature but the important thing was to ensure that any Adviser was the servant and not the master of the Committee. I said there was a tendency on the part of constitutional theorists to pay more attention to putting their name on a new constitution than advising persons who had to live with such a constitution. Mr. Arek appeared to take this point and said he would naturally want to discuss the person to be chosen with the Administration beforehand.
Summing up, Mr. Arek said that his intentions at the moment were (a) to get his motion through the House; (b) to talk to the Administration in relation to membership of the Commission, organisation, staff, etc.; and (c) to get the membership and administrative arrangements agreed upon by the House of Assembly.
I said I would be glad to discuss these matters with him again before the House sits.
You may also wish to know that Mr. Watts, the Regional Member for the Western Highlands, discussed the Constitutional Committee with me earlier in the month. It was his view that the House would in all probability pass Mr. Arek’s motion and that it would be impolitic for European Members to resist. He said that his own approach was a good deal different from that of Mr. Arek. He envisaged a Committee of experts rather than a Parliamentary Committee. He felt that the trouble with House of Assembly committees was that they did not know sufficient about the subject matter to make appropriate recommendations and that they tended to be diverted on to matters such as rate of movement towards self-government when they should be thinking of purer constitutional issues. He said that he thought that a committee of real constitutional experts would lift the level of discussion very much higher and would incidentally take a good long time to complete their work. I said that I would give consideration to his views. I pointed out that often constitutional experts were more interested in the theory than in the practice and that this was occasionally a disadvantage. There was some merit in having a constitution actually drawn up by persons who were going to have to live under it and by persons who were subject to the influence of electors.
It is early yet to assess the fate of Mr. Arek’s motion. A good deal will depend on what happens when the Members get together before the next House of Assembly. It is clear, however, that there will be a good deal of difference of opinion about the terms of reference for any Commission that may be set up.
I should be glad if you would show this letter to the Minister.
[NAA: A452, 1969/1135]
1 See Documents 261, 263, 269 and 270.
2 This and following references to ‘commission’ should probably read ‘Committee’.