Canberra, 27 June 1969
I spoke to the Administrator by telephone this morning about the Constitutional Committee. 1
I asked him the position regarding Chairmanship. He said it was generally accepted that Arek having moved the motion and who was anyway in a strong position in this matter would be Chairman. I said I was surprised that they should take a Papuan Chairman again for the second time and also that Arek was a junior member of the House. Hay said his position however was unassailable in this respect.
Hay went on to say that Arek’s statement had been extremely careful.2 I said that it was my impression that Arek was working to a timetable (even though a conservative one). Hay said this was not obvious but the possibility existed.3
Hay asked about meetings with the Minister which I explained in terms of the attached message4 which I subsequently sent to him.
We also discussed the question of an unofficial adviser and I spoke in terms of the attached message. Hay expressed the view that the Committee would be pretty cautious in its approach and that there need be no worries about any tendency to move rapidly along the path of a greater degree of self government.5
[NAA: A452, 1969/1135]
1 On 26 June, Hay reported a conversation in which he had discussed with Arek the committee’s ‘geographic distribution and membership’. Suggestions—which ‘in the main’ were Arek’s—included four highlanders, three from the New Guinea coast, two Papuan coastal members and two islanders. The committee would have at least two, and perhaps three, elected expatriate members. Arek also asked for an expert constitutional adviser—having Davidson in mind—and two administrative assistants. Hay replied that a ‘representative group’ along lines suggested was in accord with Administration thinking. He commented to Canberra that Arek had ‘gone away to consult with others. He is under a good deal of pressure from many quarters and may want to make some changes before reaching finality’. As to a constitutional adviser, Hay ‘discouraged the name but not the idea’ (telex 4879 to Warwick Smith, NAA: A452, 1969/1135). Warwick Smith replied: ‘There seem to be too many Australian members. Apart from Tom Leahy I doubt if others would add much to the committee … [I] do … not consider that an expert constitutional adviser should be retained as he would be likely to have far too much influence on the course of events. This applies particularly to Davidson of whom we have had a good deal of experience. Any expatriate adviser [is] likely to cause no end of trouble and [I] doubt if in the last resort [the idea would be] acceptable. [We] May have to insist any staff be public servants. [The] Committee [will be] able to call evidence and obtain views on widest basis… We will provide an expatriate secretary who we would hope would be from Attorney-General’s Department to provide constitutional and legal assistance to the committee… While Arek moved the resolution [I] do not… consider that he should determine the composition or chair the committee. After all he has been there only 12 months’ (telex 6317 to Hay, 27 June 1969, ibid.). Besley spoke about the telex to Johnson, who said that two places had been reserved for official members and that only Arek could be chairman as ‘this is the “normal” practice and in any case [the Administration] would be defeated if [it] proposed any other course’. Besley objected to this practice, saying he ‘doubted if this ought always be accepted as a matter of course’, to which Johnson ‘repeated that it would be “impossible” to do anything about it’ (minute, Besley to Ballard, 27 June 1969, ibid.).
2 According to a summary in This week in the House , Arek had said that ‘constitutional development was something that happened all the time in democratic countries. He said things were changing quickly in Papua and New Guinea and it was very important that, as a democratic Government, the House of Assembly should continually ask the people to help determine not only what was good, but what would work best. He hoped the committee would help to unify the people of the Territory, because without true unity “we will end up as a lot of fragmented, warring, bankrupt and corrupt states” like some of the parts of Africa which he recently visited’(no. 11, 27 June 1969, NAA: Al838, 936/4/11/1).
3 See footnote 2, Document 261.
4 Document 290.
5 On 27 June, the House elected the following members to the committee in addition to Arek: L.W. Johnson, Littler, Mola, Olewale, Leahy, Lussick, Toliman, Somare, Middleton, Oala-Rarua, Giregire, Abal and Matiabe Yuwi (MHA, Tari open electorate) (attachment to memorandum, DOET (Ballard) to AG’s, 14 August 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/4055).