Canberra, 10 August 1966
Papua and New Guinea: Select Committee on Constitutional Development
The Administrator has forwarded the attached report submitted to him by the Secretary for Law,1 giving some details of the Select Committee’s recent activities.2
2. The Select Committee at this stage is moving through the various Districts of the Territory seeking the views {of the people} on the following matters:
Open and Special Electorates;
Official members;
Control of internal revenue;
Voting age;
Life of a House; and
Need for candidates to possess certain qualifications.
3. Meetings held by the Committee have been well attended and much thought had been given to these matters, both in discussions and in written submissions. Almost every area supported a greater number of open electorates, especially in electorates with different linguistic groups. The Secretary for Law felt this was partly because elected members had not been visiting their constituents outside main centres.
4. In regard to special electorates, the majority view so far is for their retention in their present form; in the coastal areas it was suggested that they should be open to all races, until the purpose of these electorates was explained; the Highlands areas were overwhelmingly in support of their continuation. The retention of official members in the House has so far received almost unanimous support.
5. In discussing control of internal revenue, general opinion after the preparation of a budget was explained, was that the Government should continue to control the budget, perhaps with House participating through a budget sub-committee.
6. With only few exceptions most areas felt that the minimum age for enrolment should continue to be twenty one. Retention of the present term of the House, four years, was requested in nearly all areas. In regard to qualifications of candidates, the general view was that the people should choose their representative and no qualification should be prescribed.
7. The report concludes with the view that the Highlands people strongly support Australia remaining in control for many years, and that they fear that the Territory might be precipitated into self-government at an early date by the people in coastal areas.
8. The Select Committee is due to complete its round of visits to parts of the Territory by 4th August, and to meet to prepare its report on the matters discussed on 8th and 9th August. A further report is to be submitted at that stage by the Secretary for Law.3
9. In regard to the time-table adopted for the report of the Select Committee, the Administrator has advised that he would seek to arrange with the Committee and the Speaker for the report to be tabled on the opening day of the next session of the House of Assembly, 30th August 1966. Consideration of the report should be completed by the House in that week. This time-table should allow sufficient time for the Government to consider any proposals for amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act related to the questions considered by the Committee, and for necessary legislation to be introduced during the next Parliamentary session.
10. Submitted for information.
P.S. Another report has just been received from the Administrator and is also attached.4 This report covers meetings in New Ireland, Hanover, Rabaul and part of Bougainville. Except at Rabaul the views expressed were generally in accord with those summarised in the body of this submission. At Rabaul, it was requested that the number of elected members be increased to 100; that there be no qualifications for candidates but they should understand English, Motu or Pidgin; that official members should be replaced by Ministers appointed from the indigenous and European elected Members. It was suggested at Rabaul that the House should control internal revenue and local officers of the Public Service, while the Government should be responsible for overseas officers.
[NAA: A452, 1966/2960]
1 W.W. Watkin’s.
2 Not printed.
3 Watkins reported that at hearings in Port Moresby a group calling itself the ‘Committee of Ten’ had made a submission to the Select Committee. The group—which consisted of ‘people from different places of the Territory who were either attending the Administrative College or working in the Port Moresby area’—called, inter alia, for the establishment of a ‘true cabinet’ incorporating elected members who would run departments with Australian heads as ‘assistants’; for indigenous public servants to be promoted to top positions; for the replacement of the Administrator with a High Commissioner; and for the need for ‘much greater economic development’ Summing up, the group insisted that the Select Committee show Australia that the people of PNG were ‘ready to move forward … The only way to learn and be ready for self-government is by doing , by actual practice in the work of governing and by working harder for greater prosperity and a higher standard of living. If self-government is suddenly thrown on to us in the future, without any preparation for this responsibility, we will be unready, untried and untested’. Watkins also forwarded an elaborate submission in which Administrative College lecturer Cecil Abel focussed on changes to the PNG parliament. Among Abel’s suggestions was the appointment of a Chief Minister and cabinet which in time would be given full responsibility (attachments to letter, Watkins to Cleland, 10 August 1966, NAA: A452, 1966/2960).
4 Not printed.