Port Moresby, 10 November 1969
9992.
Your 10522—Select Committee on Constitution.1 Have received papers on name, anthem, etc. Impression of Assistant Administrator (Services) after discussions Canberra2 was that Government position was a little more positive than indicated in the papers. I think there is considerable advantage in Government being forthcoming on these matters which after all are not going to materially affect other constitutional developments. Concerning Cabinet submission consider it desirable for Administration participation so that currents of thought in Papua New Guinea can be appropriately taken note of. I think too that there is advantage in encouraging some early recommendations from the Committee, particularly as regards increased responsibility of Ministerial Members. I do believe that we may be under strong pressure and subject to severe criticism if there is not some movement in this area before too long. It would be better to be seen to have the initiative rather than be obliged to move.3
[NAA: A452, 1969/3605]
1 5 November. It mentioned papers previously sent to the Administration on the subject of a name, anthem and flag for the Territory, commending them as ‘remain[ing] generally valid’ and ‘relevant’. (The papers have not been found.) The telex also asked for copies of papers being prepared by Morrison so that the Department could advise official members, and it communicated plans to prepare a Cabinet submission as a preliminary to the Committee’s proposed meetings with Ministers in 1970. Territories promised a ‘full brief’ for official members after the submission had been considered (telex 10522, DOET to Port Moresby, 5 November 1969, NAA: A452, 1969/3605).
2 See Document 304.
3 On 13 November, the Department replied: ‘Papers sent on flag, name and anthem were intended as general background papers only. Position on name is that if a new name is recommended by the Committee and endorsed by the House of Assembly then, as long as the implications of a common name are made clear and it is clear that the proposed new name had the support of the majority of the people the Government would agree to a change of name for purposes of the Act, i.e. without changing the status of the two existing territories … As far as flag is concerned … an amendment to the Flags Act would be necessary … but this could probably be obtained … As far as the anthem is concerned there are no constitutional reasons precluding the adoption of a national anthem … Regarding Cabinet submission … As always your views will be fully taken into account … but early submission is unlikely … Concerning increased responsibility for Ministerial Members, following discussions with Administrator it is proposed that a statement be made in the House of Assembly on increased delegations for Ministerial Members’ (telex 10741, NAA: A452, 1969/3605). For the latter, see editorial note ‘Administrative delegations and the role of Assistant Administrators: continued debate’.