Canberra, 9 December 1969
Confidential
Territory of Papua and New Guinea Pay and conditions of servicemen
I attach a note on Submission No. 41 circulated by the Minister for Defence on 5th December, 1969.1
Attachment
NOTE ON PROPOSED SERVICE LOADING FOR INDIGENOUS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
In 1951 when the Pacific Islands Regiment was established, it was laid down that pay and conditions for the P.I.R. should generally be equated with those of the local Constabulary and local Administration employees.
2. In 1966 Cabinet Decision No. 501 re-affirmed the principle of general alignment, and said that different principles for local Services personnel ‘could undermine the position which was being held for the more numerous body of local public servants and police.’2
3. Following a P.I.R. demonstration at Murray Barracks on 25th September, a Working Party went to Port Moresby on 5th October to make an on-the-spot investigation of aspects of P.I.R. pay and conditions, and reported on 25th November.
4. Departments have subsequently agreed on higher skill pay for Services tradesmen aligning them with local Public Service rates. There has been no objection by Territories to this change, or to the substantial sea-going and patrol allowances, and to improved allowances for Servicemen training in Australia.
5. Defence also propose a loading of 25c per day ($91 p.a.) for Servicemen mainly to remove a claimed ‘wide disparity in take home pay’, in that police earn overtime while Servicemen, although working frequent overtime, receive nothing—but also apparently in part to compensate for disabilities claimed to mark service in the forces.
6. Army argue that the Police are catching up the disabilities in accommodation previously suffered against the Army and that the other major items (rations, furniture and issues) being under separate review can be disregarded for present purposes.
7. A balanced assessment of comparative conditions is complicated by differences in the nature of the duties and responsibilities of police and soldiery. More than half the police live and serve in rural areas throughout the Territory, under varying conditions, whereas the Army are concentrated in Port Moresby, Wewak and Lae with a smaller centre at Yanimo. Territories considers the accommodation gap has been only partially closed. On the planned standards of new Police housing even when sub-standard accommodation has been replaced there will remain for the rank and file a significant gap compared with the standards of existing Army housing. In the Territories’ view a substantial overall disparity continues to exist in favour of the Army, particularly in rations[,] issues of furniture and household equipment which cannot be ignored. Moreover, there appears to have been no consideration of the ‘disabilities’ that mark Police service. Police are normally on operational duties, and in disturbed areas—the Border, Bougainville, the Gazelle Peninsula—operate under real strain.
8. Whether the proposed Services Allowance is claimed on the ground that the Army are behind the police in pay and conditions generally, or whether it is related to claimed special disabilities of life in the Services—or both—the view of the police themselves is that the Army is still well ahead and that the proposed allowance would place them at a further disadvantage. There is a wide gap in mutual understanding on this issue between the armed services and the police which is shared by their senior officers. There has so far been no attempt to have the facts considered in a Committee which will enable representatives of both groups either to agree on the facts and establish the relative positions or to strike a balance on differences which might be acceptable.
9. The proposed Service Allowance amounts to 22% of the minimum pay of a single soldier. As an increase payable to the Services only, it would create resentment among the police and have a serious effect on police morale. There are approximately 2,600 native servicemen as against 3,300 native police, 900 warders and 19,000 civil employees (Administration and Commonwealth Departments) who would be subject to any general pay increase. (There are also 15,000 ‘industrial’ employees who would not be directly affected.)
10. An isolated increase for the Services now would encourage Army, police and public service to believe that demonstrations or strikes—or threat of them—will produce pay benefits.
11. The possibility of serious police unrest must therefore be taken into account. When threats to law and order arise it is the Police and not the Army on whom the Administration (and the Government) depend. Such a threat now exists in the Gazelle Peninsula. We cannot afford trouble with the Police.
12. Salary rates for the 19,000 Administration and Commonwealth local public servants are now the subject of claims for substantial increases. They may go to Arbitration in February 1970. Pay increases are expected, perhaps 10 to 15%, perhaps more. There would be consequential adjustments in Police and Army rates of pay. If any Services Allowance is to be introduced it could be done with least disturbing effect in conjunction with these expected widespread pay adjustments when measures to adjust police conditions could also be taken which might mitigate any adverse effects on police morale.
13. An immediate enquiry at senior level could assess the total relative position of the soldier and the policeman to provide a basis for considered and equitable action. In harmony with the long-standing object of policy, such action should leave the Police in at least a not inferior position to the Army.
[NAA: A452, 1969/5529]
1 Document 338.
2 See footnote 2, Document 65.