Canberra, 27 June 1969
6315. Unclassifed Immediate Personal
I think a real argument against a non-official constitutional adviser is that unless experienced in the responsibility of government such people almost inevitably tend to seek to force acceptance of their own ideas and that what happens is that a debate develops between the governing authorities and the non official adviser instead of between the governing authorities and the representatives of the people concerned. It appears from experience in Samoa and Nauru that this is almost inevitable. As mentioned there would be no inhibitions on the committee obtaining views advice etc. from any non-official sources. If anything the committee will be swamped with draft constitutions and all sorts of ideas about constitutional questions. You could take a firm commitment that the Commonwealth will provide a suitably qualified legal person who will give objective and authentic advice. On your point about the Minister. If they wished to vary or discuss possible changes under the arrangements prescribed under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act2 (as distinct from discussing or changing the way in which the arrangements presently prescribed are operated) we have suggested to the Administration that the committee ought to have a talk with the Minister. If they wish to secure changes in the Act itself directed to further steps in the executive government and going beyond the scope of sections 24 and 25 then we have suggested they should seek a conference with the Government (presumably, as before, with 3 or 4 ministers).
[NAA: A452, 1969/1135]
1 For context, see Document 289.
2 See Document 197.