Canberra, 14 July 1969
I refer to your letter of 18 June regarding my proposal to increase the strength of the PIR.2
I must confess to some surprise at the views expressed therein, as they are at variance with my understanding of the background to this matter.
The gradual increase from 2,000 odd in early 1967 to 2,460 by September 1968 was in conformity with the announcement by the Prime Minister in November 1964 that the PIR would be increased to three battalions and supporting units with a total strength approaching 3,500 by June 1968. 1 might add that this progress towards meeting the Government’s requirements, slow and limited though it was, nevertheless represented considerable effort at a time when National Service and Vietnam commitments were putting heavy strains on the Army.
It should also be noted that the discussions which preceded the Prime Minister’s announcement envisaged the 3,500 being ultimately Pls,3 although the Prime Minister himself did not specify that. The 1966 Defence Review presented to Parliament by the Minister for Defence stated:
‘Present planning is for the build-up in Papua and New Guinea of the Pacific Islands Regiment to three battalions, with supporting units. This would give a total Pacific Islander strength of approximately 3,600 by the end of 1968.’
I am not aware of any recommendation by the Defence Committee ‘for an increase of about 15 percent’ (ie to 2,850 by June 1969). The whole tenor of that part of the Defence Committee’s minute4 was that:
a. It recognised that, whereas the Prime Minister’s announcement required 3,500 by June 1968, the Army had only been able to raise 2,500 PIs;
b. Nevertheless, the Army should try to reach a strength of 2,850 PIs by June 1969 and be prepared for rapid expansion if the review or other circumstances required it;
c. Because of the difficulties in raising a third battalion and the desirability of a review of ‘the defence forces’ generally, ‘no final decision should be taken at this stage on the three battalion concept’.
The Committee concluded its Minute No 42/19685 by saying:
‘b. While the strength proposed fails to satisfy the Prime Minister’s announcement of November 1964 as to number of battalions and target date, a force of the strength mentioned is about the minimum that would present any sort of credible appearance in relation to the tasks facing the PIR.
c. Having regard to plans already announced for the PlR and other considerations, any decision not to proceed in accordance with our stated policy would not be in the best interests of Australia in its relations with the U.S.A. and countries in South East Asia.’
In any case, I am not aware that the Defence Committee’s minute was considered by Cabinet at all. Indeed, my impression is that the Department of Defence did not deem it necessary to submit the paper to Cabinet as the changes from previous decisions were relatively minor.
Cabinet did consider on 18 September 1968 Submission No 274 from the Department of External Territories.6 Unfortunately, that Submission was not only based mainly on alleged disaffection and consequent doubts about the future stability of the Force but it also quoted out of context one small section only of the Defence Committee minute. Based on that Submission No 274, it is true that Cabinet in Decision 541 inter alia ‘agreed that it would be a reasonable course to hold the strength of the PIR at approximately the present level … ’.7 I believe, however, that Cabinet was mainly concerned with the major point in the previous announcement by the Prime Minister, namely the raising of the third battalion and supporting units. Indeed the Cabinet Decision is prefaced by the statement that ‘Cabinet agreed to the need for revision of the 1963 programme for expansion of the PIR to three battalions plus supporting units’; presumably to emphasise this point, the Decision ‘specially noted that it was not ruling out such marginal increases in numbers in the meantime as would serve operational efficiency …’.
From the foregoing, it seems to me that two pertinent points emerge. Firstly, Cabinet dealt only with the PIR, whereas 121 of the 240 increase I have proposed are for the Army generally in TPNG and not for the PIR. Secondly, until receipt of your letter, I was unaware of any objections to completing the organisation of the second battalion of the PIR (the remaining 119 of my proposed increase).
I strongly support the view that the type of Force required in TPNG might well be a unified one and need not necessarily conform to the Australian pattern. The Army is planning on that basis. However, I am sure that the proposals I made in my letter of 29 May8 would not be affected by any overall review of the Force, which the Defence Committee minute and the Cabinet Decision make clear would be mainly concerned with the Defence Forces generally.
It would be a pity, therefore, if the implementation of my proposals had to await the conclusion of such a review, which is bound to be lengthy. The effect would be to slow down the indigenisation of the Force, continue with limitations to our patrol programme and prevent remedial action in other areas where deficiencies have become apparent. I trust that the foregoing satisfactorily answers the points you have raised in your letter and would appreciate your earliest concurrence to our proposals.
I have sent a copy of this letter is our colleague, the Minister for Defence.9 I also enclose a copy of my Department’s reply to a related query from the Department of Defence. 10
[NAA: A452, 1968/4163]
1 P.R. Lynch.
2 Document 287.
3 That is, Pacific Islanders.
4 See Document 190.
5 Document 190.
6 The submission is Document 216; the decision, Document 222.
7 Ellipses in this document are in the original.
8 See footnote 2, Document 287.
9 Allen Fairhall.
10 See footnote 4, Document 287.