Canberra, 5 June 1969
Confidential
Thank you for the copy of your paper giving your impressions of your recent visit to the Territory. 1
We have all along thought it was necessary to develop a military establishment appropriate to the future needs and circumstances of the Territory rather than simply to follow the Australian pattern. I hope this is accepted as the basis of the present review of the P.I.R.
You suggest, and I fully agree, that the Administration ought to become more directly associated with the Defence Force. In this connection I am glad to see what you say on the need for consultations with the Administrator’s Executive Council. We think the Council ought to be told about plans and proposals, e.g., on the size or role of the P.I.R., before they are finally adopted so that members may be given a genuine opportunity to express any views they have. David Hay mentioned this point to you, I understand, and, of course, you and I have exchanged letters on it.2
I am glad to see your mention in paragraph 23 of the need for planning on a joint basis. I think this will do a lot of good but I throw out the cautionary thought that we ought to keep the machinery as simple as possible.
We have wondered whether, as you mention, the Papua and New Guinea Defence Force might have characteristics similar to the Malaysian Police Field Force. We are giving more thought to this in relation both to the present study on the P.I.R.3 and the review we are now undertaking of the strength of the Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary, but a preliminary view is that the type of discipline in a military formation such as the P.I.R. would not be wholly appropriate for a Constabulary.
As far as the review of the Constabulary is concerned it is clear that we will need to strengthen somewhat those units which deal with public order. This is irrespective of the outcome of the present considerations on the size and role of the P.I.R.
I am a bit puzzled by your reference in paragraph 13 that the P.I.R. appears to be discharging functions outside the urban areas which might normally be expected of a police force. Perhaps you could let me know the particular functions you have in mind.
Under the present constitutional arrangements discussions in the Administrator’s Executive Council can take place only among the members themselves. The normal procedure is that the Administrator puts to the Council proposals approved by the Minister which have been taken to conclusion but on which a decision has yet to be made to put them into effect. Sometimes the Government decision is made before consultation with the Council but is expressed to be subject to the views of the A. E. C. At Council discussions departmental heads of Administration departments attend, as required, to give information. The Administrator is the chairman of the A.E.C. and presides over all its meetings. Our minister has recently met the A.E.C. informally in company with officers of this Department. When defence matters are discussed I would envisage the local commander attending in much the same way as a departmental head; with the Administrator, as the Territory representative of the Government, introducing the discussion.
In your paragraph 17 you suggest that the sensible thing to do, as soon as practicable, is to make available to the Territory Administration by way of a lump sum the annual funds required for the local defence forces (including captial current, etc.).
As I see it this is eminently reasonable as a matter of general principle and it is what will have to happen, I am certain, with other Commonwealth departments operating directly in the Territory.
There is, however, one difficulty relating to defence expenditure, and that is the constitutional aspect. We wish to preserve the distinction between the constitutional responsibility for defence (which is now and could conceivably continue to be Australian) and the governmental control of local armed forces which could go to the Territory Government (see the point made in the penultimate paragraph of this letter).
Whilst sharing your views on the extravagant standards of the drill halls at Mt. Hagen and Wewak I have to say that the accommodation standards at Goldie River, Taurama and elsewhere do not accord with our view, or with the Government’s official policy, on standards appropriate to the Territory’s needs. As I recall it, however, the plans were approved by the Administration when consulted about them, and I am not trying now to bring back water that has gone under the bridge. Further discussions on building standards (Departments, Services and Treasury) are proposed shortly and I would hope that some agreed position can be reached. You should not, however, underestimate or brush-off too easily the resentment caused among the local people by these excessive standards.
The question of a pensions scheme for the Army is somewhat allied to proposals for a scheme for local officers of the Public Service. As I understand it the Army had originally proposed an interim scheme based on the existing local officer provident fund but decided not to proceed with this and to await the introduction of the pensions scheme for local officers. The actuary’s report on the local officers’ scheme is now being looked at and I expect firm proposals to be put forward soon. We need to follow it along from the Public Service point of view—apart from your concern in connection with the P.I.R.
On the question of pay scales, the concept of alignment between the Police Force and the P.I.R. goes back to a Cabinet Decision in 1951 and I would think the arguments would need to be both new and compelling for this basic decision to be modified. However, I understand that the problem relates mainly to the pattern of salary scales and that new proposals are being developed for the Army which are modelled more on the Public Service pay scales, in which there are technical grades, rather than the Constabulary in which there are not. I can only say that after all our past difficulties about the P.I.R. having it too good in terms of buildings, rations, pay, and other things, in comparison with the Constabulary, I would want to be very careful indeed on this one.
I have written quite frankly about various points in your paper, but not much about the defence aspects. Let me say on this I wholeheartedly support:
(a) a clear definition of the purpose for which the defence force is maintained; and of the kind of work it ought to do (including the question of civil works);
(b) the closest relationship between the defence force and the police;
(c) the need to develop a unified defence force; to prune overheads; simplify administrative procedures; and integrate, as far as possible, the servicing of the defence force, the police force and other elements of the Administration;
(d) the training of indigenes for an air support element and in the aircraft trades and specialities;
(e) the use of the Territory’s industries, wherever possible, to support the defence force.
I also want to see a defined relationship between the Government of the Territory (Minister for External Territories plus Administrator plus Administrator’s Executive Council) and the Territory Defence Force, moving towards a position in which the local armed forces (but not the constitutional responsibility for defence) come under the same umbrella as the other branches of government in the Territory.
I share your doubts about the appropriateness of the battalion concept in the Territory situation. Apropos of this I think the possibility of developing economic peace-time roles consistent with military training needs for the various elements of a unified force should be thoroughly examined. I am not thinking here of the present civic action patrols but of something more definite and substantial. Given that as far as we can see ahead the Territory will be able to make little more than a token contribution from its own resources to defending itself against a determined attack, it seems to me that a force which can carry out appropriate economic roles in peace-time will in the overall analysis be making a far greater contribution to the country’s defence capability than a force whose training and activities are of purely military nature. Such a force would, moreover, have a greater degree of identification with the Territory itself than one which might be regarded merely as an extension of the Australian defence forces.4
[NAA: A452,1970/1690]
1 Document 262.
2 See Documents 183 and 212.
3 See footnote I, Document 262.
4 Bland. replied on 10 July: ‘[Regarding paragraph 5] The further I thought about the matter the more I was forced to conclude that the Police Force, whether normal or of the Field Force Malaysian variety, presented characteristics of a type that required that it should be kept separate from a military force. Your reference to my paragraph 13: The very fact that the P.I.R. is going into areas which rarely, if ever, see a policeman means I think that some natives tend to look on the P.I.R. as “protectors”—a very important role of the police which tends to be overlooked in our sort of society. [On paragraph 11] and penultimate paragraph: There is a problem here. It is one which could take on different aspects as time goes on, depending largely on the course of constitutional development in the political science sense. I don’t think that my proposal, with which you agree, that we make available to the Territory Administration a lump sum annually to sustain the defence forces is in any way tied to the constitutional problem. Nor do I think that so long as Australia is responsible for the defence of P.N.G., that responsibility can be abrogated. In other words we could hardly have a situation where the Territory Government could say that the P.I.R. (especially while it contained an Australian element) should be used in a particular formation in a particular location to deal with a particular situation against the decisions of Australia’s professional military advisers. However, I see very clearly that in some situations it would be folly of the worst kind if the P.I.R. were to be committed without the concurrence and sometimes the request of the Territory Government. None of the foregoing is to say that the Territory Government should not be brought into general thinking and planning about the P.I.R. and the shape of the total defence forces, or that its views should not be taken into account when there are alternative solutions to a problem which are equally satisfactory from our point of view … I’m glad to note that progress is now being made with the pension problem. We must press on with this. I believe it nothing short of a scandal that the pay of the P.I.R. is being docked without there being in existence a pension scheme’ (NAA: A452, 1969/2850).