Canberra, 18 June 1969
Secret
I refer to your letter of 29th May seeking my agreement to a proposal to increase the present strength of the P.I.R. to 2,700 by mid-1970.2
[ matter omitted ]
The recommendation of the Defence Committee which was considered by Cabinet was for an increase of about 15 per cent over the existing level.3 This would have brought P.I.R. strength to 2,850 by June, 1969.
Cabinet, however, took the view that it would be a reasonable course to hold the strength at the existing level until the review of the overall defence forces of Papua and New Guinea could be carried out, although, as you mention, it did not rule out such marginal increases as would serve operational efficiency as might be agreed between us.
The increase you are now proposing represents an increase of about 10 per cent over the present figure. To my mind this could hardly be regarded as marginal and indeed it would bring the indigenous level of the Force very close to the figure of 2,850 which Cabinet decided not to approve.
As far as organisational aspects are concerned, the present review, in accordance with Cabinet’s direction, will be canvassing not only such questions as the size and roles of the Force but also the type of Force demanded by the circumstances of Papua and New Guinea. As the Defence Committee pointed out, this might not necessarily conform to the Australian pattern and might point to the desirability of a unified defence force.
Without wishing to pre-judge the outcome of this review and having regard also to current assessments of the external threat to the Territory, I consider that the appropriate course would be to await the outcome of the review before embarking on any further recruitment and the expenditure that it would entail.
I have sent a copy of this letter to our colleague the Minister for Defence.
[NAA: A452, 1968/4163]
1 P.R. Lynch.
2 Lynch had noted that Cabinet’s decision of September 1968 (see Document 222) did not preclude ‘marginal increases in strength as would serve operational efficiency’. His department had therefore ‘examined the situation, and finds some small increases are necessary for the effective working of the current P.I.R. organization … This will provide a modest, but immediately necessary, increase of 240 over the next year and while not involving the raising of the third battalion, or any other unit, will allow the existing infantry battalions to be brought to full strength, release essential manpower for some other existing units, and meet the requirements to train, without serious repercussion on unit efficiency, potential officers and skilled tradesman to hasten the indigenization of the forces’ (NAA: A452, 1968/4163). (For discussions in early 1969 between Defence and DOET on the long-term size of the PIR, see footnotes 1 and 2, Document 262.) After Lynch sent his letter, Bland had requested White to furnish the Department of Defence with a ‘detailed statement for the requirement for the additional 240 personnel’ (letter, Bland to White, ibid.). In providing this statement, White added that ‘I wish to emphasise that I regard these proposals to be “marginal increases as would serve operational efficiency” and in no way do I believe that they anticipate decisions which rightly should await the outcome of the current Defence Review’ (memorandum, Army (White) to Defence, 14 July 1969, ibid.).
3 See Document 190.