325

Letter, Hay To Barnes

Port Moresby, 20 October 1969

Confidential

I mentioned to you when I was in Canberra early in September my belief that in order to involve Papuans and New Guineans more in the difficult decisions which need to be taken to develop this country, it is necessary to ensure that they have and are seen to have, through the elected Members of the House of Assembly in the Administrator’s Executive Council, a greater share in the responsibility for those decisions.1 I said that I thought this could be done within the limits of the presently amended Papua and New Guinea Act, in particular Section 252 of it. You observed that you would not favour any early moves which involved amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act.

Early steps which could be taken include giving of greater authority to Ministerial Members vis a vis the Departmental Heads than they now have. Ministerial Members could be made responsible to the Administrator for such policy aspects as fall to the Administration in relation to their departments. These would in the main consist of recommendations or comments on policy and not in present circumstances, decisions.

I also said that the formal advice of the Administrator’s Executive Council could be sought much more widely than it is now on matters which are not required by legislation to go before it. These included both policy and administrative matters. The most important of the former would be the budget. Included in the latter would be administrative decisions on law and order.

On further reflection, I believe that consideration should also now be given to a delegation of authority by the Australian Government to the Administrator’s Executive Council collectively in defined fields of policy. Procedurally, such authority would be delegated to the Administrator, acting on the advice of the A.E.C. This would involve the Ministerial Members collectively assuming the responsibility for policy decisions in defined fields. It would, l believe, not involve a change of substance in government policy. It would involve a change of pace (and this is, of course, in itself a matter of policy), because to date there has been no delegation of authority to make decisions on policy. The present position is one in which there is some sharing by the Commonwealth of its decision making responsibility, but virtually no delegation.

It may be thought that delegation of this nature is equivalent to the granting of self-government, which is widely held to be premature and which would arouse a good deal of apprehension in rural areas, particularly the Highlands. However, this is not intended, and is not, I believe, the case. I do not, for instance, have in mind any formal change in the Papua New Guinea Act, and I am not recommending an immediate devolution (or handing over) of constitutional authority. I have in mind that the Minister might state publicly that from a certain date the Minister would adopt the practice, provided for in Section 19 of the Act,3 of referring all policy issues relating to the defined fields, whether emanating from the Ministerial Member concerned or not, to the Administrator’s Executive Council for formal advice, that the Administrator would accept that advice (subject only to its not impinging on fields where authority has not been devolved, subject to its not involving a breach of any agreement with the Commonwealth previously entered into—e.g. the mutual undertakings by the Commonwealth and the Territory House of Assembly in the development programme—or of policy mutually agreed upon, and subject to there having been prior consultation with the Commonwealth through the Administrator), and that the Commonwealth would accept policy decisions made in this way.

These proposals would be additional to the financial delegations which you have already agreed in principle should go to the A.E.C.4

It is for consideration whether a delegation of authority to make policy decisions is meaningful without further delegation to determine the financial implications, including amendments to the budget. My preliminary view is that the further delegation in respect of budgetary implications is in fact required. The limitation here could be that no change in the budget strategy approved by the Commonwealth could be made by the A.E.C. without prior consultation and agreement.

As I have said, these changes would not involve amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act. The wording, for instance, in Section 25(1)(a) would remain appropriate because the Administrator, on behalf of the Commonwealth government, would have the right to formulate policies and plans for all departments and place them before the A.E.C. for advice. The Commonwealth would be voluntarily refraining from the actual exercise of its constitutional responsibility in the defined fields. It would not abrogate its right.

I do not yet have firm views on what the ‘defined fields’ mentioned earlier should be. But my first reaction is that they should embrace the activities of all departments which now have Ministerial Members, together with Transport, Social Development and Local Government.

The result of these changes will be to place the Departmental Heads of the Departments concerned firmly under the direction of Ministerial Members on other than management matters.

It is also for consideration whether Assistant Ministerial Members should not also have an increase in responsibility—to that enjoyed now by Ministerial Members. My preliminary views are that they should, but I have not studied this aspect fully and make no formal submission in this letter. Again, no amendment to the Act would be involved, but the Arrangements5 would need to be changed.

I should emphasize that in discussions with Ministerial and Assistant Ministerial Members resulting from Mr Langro’s resignation,6 no representations have been made to me for changes on the above mentioned lines. But I have the impression that some Assistant Ministerial Members other than Langro are not happy with the system. While not wishing to resign, they would not favour the continuance of the system beyond 1972. I also have the impression that the extra responsibility proposed for Ministerial Members would not be unwelcome.

I emphasize that I have been led to make the proposals in this letter by my concern at the lack of involvement of Papuans and New Guineans, under the present arrangements, in the main policy decisions affecting their future. There has been considerable, and useful, consultation with elected members through the A.E.C. and the House, and the main policies have been endorsed by both. But these procedures have not secured involvement. As I wrote to you in my letter of February, 1969,7 the government is still ‘they’ and not ‘we’. This consideration, rather than any academic attachment to a particular timing for self-government, has been the dominant one leading these suggestions.8

We need also to consider the possibility that in the 1972 elections a Territory party may gain a majority in the House and thus a majority in the A.E.C. The consequence of this would be that in respect of the defined fields of policy the views of the majority party would, subject to the conditions set out in this letter, prevail. This possibility suggests a very careful scrutiny of the ‘defined fields of policy’ but not, to my mind, the abandonment of the proposal in this letter.

The question arises as to whether, if you agree to the suggestions in this letter, they should be announced by yourself at an early date or whether they should be fed into the Select Committee on constitutional matters, with the latter being encouraged to embody them in an interim report, and thus take credit for them. I favour the first alternative because I think a direct Commonwealth initiative is necessary in order to give quite clearly the impression of Commonwealth willingness to encourage movement towards self-government where that proves desirable, without being forced into it.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary.9

[NAA: M3787, 14]

1 See Document 316.

2 See editorial note ‘Changes to the Papua and New Guinea Act’.

3 See loc. cit.

4 See editorial note ‘Administrative delegations and the role of Assistant Administrators: continued debate’.

5 See Document 197.

6 In late September, it had become widely known that Langro was dissatisfied with the ministerial system and that his resignation was imminent (Waddell, ‘September–December 1969’ in Moore with Kooyman, A Papua New Guinea political chronicle , p. 97).

7 Document 259.

8 Hay has since given further explanation of his thinking at the time: ‘to an overriding extent I was influenced by the fact that here were we making decisions about police movements in Rabaul and Bougainville, which had the formal approval of the AEC, because I had asked for their formal advice … but they could still go around saying that it wasn’t their responsibility. Certainly the impression that one had, from the public reaction to these events … was that they were Australian decisions … in formal terms, they were Australian decisions. I felt that the only way we could escape from this comer would be by some formal arrangement actually fastening on the elected members the responsibility for this kind of decision … I think another factor influencing me at the time … was the feeling amongst members of the House that there was too much decision-making in Canberra hands and it was about time it came over’ (Hay interview, 1973–4, NLA: TRC 121/65, 7: 1/3–4).

9 Hay discussed the matter with Barnes in November but ‘didn’t get much change from him’. On 24 November, the Minister sent a formal reply. This reply has not been found but was quoted in part by Hay during a later interview: ‘I do not accept that present possibilities have yet been developed to the point where further devolution of policy responsibility from the Government to the Administrator’s Executive Council would be useful. Ministerial members must have a good deal more experience in exercising responsibility in matters on which decisions are taken by the [Australian] Minister or Cabinet … A good deal can be done within existing approved arrangements towards increased responsibility within their department and within the Council … I agree with your view that early steps should be taken to give greater authority to ministerial members vis-a-vis the departmental heads than they may now have. More matters should be referred to the Ministers; more decisions taken now by officials should be taken by ministerial members or by the AEC’. Barnes also wrote that too many public statements were being made by officials instead of MMs (ibid., 7:1/4–5).