Canberra, 5 December 1969
Confidential
Pay and conditions of service of Pacific Islanders and members of the PNG division of the RAN
1. For some time, there has been growing unrest amongst members of the PIR and the PNG Division of the RAN over their terms and conditions. This has been especially evident within the PIR.
2. Not since 1964/65 has there been a general review of conditions of service although there have been movements in basic pay in 1966 and 1967 as a consequence of variations of the pay of the Territory Public Service and the Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary. A relationship has existed between the basic rates of pay of Service personnel and those applying to the Public Service and the Constabulary and nothing that is now proposed for the PNG personnel will alter this.
3. For quite some time, deficiencies in terms and conditions of Service personnel have been under examination. The dissatisfaction which had been developing in the PIR over the absence of any decision about conditions culminated in the failure of some 260 indigenes to report for duty at Murray Barracks in September last. As a result, 61 soldiers, including a considerable number of skilled tradesmen, were discharged. By then, my Department had joined in the Inter-Departmental discussions.
4. At my Department’s instigation, soon after the September disturbance, an Inter-Departmental Committee went to the Territory to investigate on the spot those items which could be brought quickly to finality. Represented on the Committee were the Departments of Defence, Treasury, Navy, Army and External Territories. A senior officer of the Territory Public Service Board joined the Committee in Port Moresby and took part in all of its deliberations.
5. An intensive examination was made by the Committee of the whole range of Service pay and conditions against the background of local circumstances and conditions. As well, the Committee had the benefit of first-hand information from a wide range of Territory officials from the Constabulary, the Administration and education authorities. The Committee also talked with the Chairman of the Territory Public Service Board2 and the Secretary of the Territory Labour Department,3 both of whom, I am advised, raised no objections to the substance of the Committee’s ultimate recommendations. In the absence of the Commissioner of Police,4 the Committee had discussions with the Chief Superintendent.
6. The Committee has reported on the results of its examination and has made a number of recommendations for immediate implementation and other recommendations calling for further investigation. A copy of the report is available. A summary of recommendations appears at Appendix ‘A’.6 Appendix ‘B’7 to this submission shows the provisions applying to the Constabulary in relation to each recommendation.
7. The report was circulated for consideration by the Departments represented on the Committee. This was followed by discussions earlier this week involving the Permanent Heads of the Departments of Army and External Territories and my Department, the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury and the Adjutant-General.8 In summary the Permanent Heads of my Department and of the Departments of Navy and Army and the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury support the recommendations except that the 25c per day proposed to meet service disabilities should be by way of a special allowance and not by way of addition to the basic rate of pay. The Permanent Head of the Department of External Territories agrees to all recommendations of the Committee with the exception of that dealing with the payment of 25c per day in recognition of disabilities of Service employment.
8. In a nutshell, the Permanent Head of External Territories fears that the payment of the 25c per day would lead to discontent amongst the Constabulary. He did not deny that some payment is justified but could give no indication of an appropriate amount. At the request of the Permanent Head of my Department, he spoke to the Commissioner of Police in the Territory as to what might be an amount which would not give rise to discontent in the Constabulary. The Commissioner’s response was, I am advised, that any amount would produce discontent.
9. The Permanent Head of External Territories urged that an announcement be made that all the other recommendations are to be implemented but that nothing be said about payment for Service disabilities until his Department had developed a scheme which would lead to some commensurate benefit for the Constabulary. He thought that this might take at least three months.
10. The remainder of those involved in the discussions mentioned above, while acknowledging the importance of avoiding disaffection in the Constabulary, were not impressed by these proposals. In the first place, there would be no solution to the maintenance of law and order in the Territory if the avoidance of disaffection in the Constabulary led to disaffection in the PIR. Second, if it was apprehended that disaffection in the Constabulary would follow the grant of the 25c per day, why would there not be disaffection as a consequence of implementing the other recommendations which clearly disturbed existing total relationships between pay and condition of the PIR and the Constabulary? Third, it was thoroughly wrong in principle to adopt a rule that simply because the conditions of the PIR were changed to correct patent deficiencies related to their circumstances, there had to be some compensating adjustment in the conditions of the Constabulary whether or not there was justification for them. If there were justification, then External Territories should make adjustments to Constabulary conditions that were justified in its case.
11. Really at stake here is whether the total terms and conditions of the PIR and Constabulary should always be equated, irrespective of the differences in the circumstances of employment of each. To accept this is to fly in the face of all industrial and wage fixing practice. For example, we do not argue that overtime rates and shift work premiums which are appropriate in the case of the Constabulary should be applied to the Services. On the other hand, it makes no sense for External Territories to argue that a service disability allowance, appropriate to the PIR, should be applied to the Constabulary.
12. So far as the PIR and their naval colleagues are concerned, the absence of any recompense for service disabilities constitutes a grave deficiency in their total conditions of service. We have such an element in the total pay of Australian servicemen including those serving in PNG—the so called service loading of 50c per day. The UK Prices and Incomes Board recognised the need to compensate for what it called the ‘x’ factor in a recent report on pay etc. in the UK Armed Forces.
13. The justification for the proposed 25c per day is that it provides some recompense by way of a special allowance for the special circumstances applicable to indigene members of the Armed Forces in the Territory which are unique among all others employed in the Territory. The factors taken into account are:—
i. their liability to call out at any time;
ii. the absence of any recompense for duty outside the span of hours normal in other employment;
iii. the character of the disciplinary arrangements under which they work; and
iv. the particular conditions that apply to careers in the Territory’s Armed Forces.
(Here I am thinking principally of the shorter period PIR soldiers will be serving.)
14. I repeat that the Secretary, External Territories, does not dispute that some allowance should be made on this account (see para. 8).
15. No one suggests that the measure of compensation is capable of precise assessment. But no one, with the exception of the Permanent Head of External Territories, is prepared to argue that the 25c proposed is too generous or inadequate.
16. There is one point of reference. The Committee found that in 1968/69 the average amounts paid to other ranks in the Constabulary for overtime and shift work premiums was $131.76 p.a. and to officers $558.54 p.a. Converted into an annual sum, the 25c per day would be $91. It is emphasised that the foregoing figures are averages. It is not disputed that some of the Constabulary may get less than the average but it is not suggested by External Territories that in the main centres where the PIR is, the average for the Constabulary is too high. From the nature of things it could not be.
17. In all the circumstances, I strongly support not merely the Committee’s recommendations which are not in dispute but the proposed special allowance of 25c per day. I suggest that if there is a case for making some adjustment to the conditions of the Constabulary, it should be dealt with on its merits and most definitely should not be seen to follow as a response to changes made to Service terms of employment because of circumstances peculiar to that employment.
18. Finally, I come back to my earlier point—are we to pursue a course which will lead to disaffection in the PIR, who have a just claim, to avoid the possibility of disaffection in the Constabulary; the more so when no alternative has been proposed by External Territories throughout the long period of inter-departmental discussions. Territories does not, for example, suggest that we should apply Constabulary overtime and shift work rates to the PIR and if it did, we obviously could not agree.
19. I recommend approval of the special allowance of 25c per day and that implementation of this and all the other recommendations of the Committee have effect from 5th December, 1969.
[NAA: A5869, 41]
1 On 12 November, Fraser had replaced Fairhall as Minister for Defence.
2 G. Unkles.
3 D.J. Parrish.
4 R.W. Whitrod.
5 Unidentified.
6 Not printed.
7 Not printed.
8 Respectively, B. White, Warwick Smith, Sir Henry Bland, J.H. Garrett and Major-General D. Vincent.