Canberra, 25 August 1966
Confidential
Rates of pay and conditions of service—Pacific Island Members of the A.R.A.
1. In this submission I deal in broad terms with general issues involved. A more detailed paper expanding the actual submission is attached.1
Background
2. In recent years there have been delays and difficulties associated with the application of pay changes in the Territory to the P.I.R. Unfortunately, on several occasions grievances over pay and conditions led to disturbances which were followed by early settlement of the issues causing concern. This undoubtedly is creating a feeling amongst the Pacific Island members of the Army that direct action is probably the only way to obtain satisfaction.
3. Pay rises and a complete change in the basis of pay scales in the Territory were implemented for the local members of the Public Service as far back as 1964. The application of the new pay code to the New Guinea Constabulary has been announced2 and, in addition, negotiations have been conducted with the Police association for a further special review of the pay and conditions of the Constabulary. Apart, however, from an indication that the principles of the new Territory pay code3 would be applied to the Pacific Island soldiers, it has not been possible to give them any detailed information. Advice from our Commander in the Territory is that dissatisfaction has been steadily growing at the lack of any concrete information and that a danger-point has been reached where he expects serious trouble unless some announcement is made within a matter of days.
The problem
4. There are two elements which are delaying the announcement of firm proposals for the P.I.R.:
a. The operation of Non Reduction Allowances.
b. The handling of the current differential in conditions between the P.l.R. and the Constabulary.
5. The need for Non Reduction Allowances arose from the introduction in 1964 of a pay code in the Territory based on a total cash wage in lieu of the previous system of substantial issues in kind supplemented by a small cash payment. Because, in particular, the cash wage related to an average family, individuals with large families who had previously been receiving substantial issues in kind required a Non Reduction Allowance if their previous total emoluments were not to be reduced. The practice in the Administration Service generally is for such Non Reduction Allowances to be reduced by any subsequent pay increase applicable by way of increment, promotion, or general review of pay. The native in particular has difficulty in understanding this and this has caused some unrest. I am anxious to avoid this situation in the P.I.R., as I believe the problem is more acute in a disciplined force necessarily living and working in a close community and depending upon a strict respect for rank and status for the maintenance of essential discipline. In this context I feel that any change in seniority or rank should be reflected in some tangible way and, therefore, propose that a token proportion of any increase granted should actually be paid in cash to members in receipt of Non Reduction Allowance. To avoid creating further anomalies, my proposition is that 50 percent of any increase or 5 cents per day, whichever is the lesser, should be paid to any member on Non Reduction Allowance in relation to any increase in pay to which he normally becomes entitled. The remainder of such increase would be devoted towards reducing his Non Reduction Allowance.
6. The second problem again can be considered in broad principle and relates to the present difference in conditions between the P.I.R. and the Constabulary. This arises, in the main, from the superior ration received by the P.I.R., whether rationed in barracks or as in the past living in married quarters and issued with rations for themselves and their families. The ration has been designed to fit the soldier physically for his specific task and has been introduced progressively over the years with the concurrence of the Departments of Territories and Treasury. It is known that the higher standard enjoyed by the P.I.R. has led to representations by the Constabulary for similar benefits.
7. Territories have proposed that advantage be taken of the current review of pay codes to eliminate, as far as possible, the difference in ration standards between the two forces. Their proposals are that existing families in married quarters should receive a supplementary ration issue to be treated in the same way as the Non Reduction Allowance and offset by any future increases in pay, and that married members occupying quarters in the future should receive such a supplementary issue for themselves alone and not for their families. For single men in barracks, Territories would propose that the current deduction for rations should be increased by $21.90 per annum or 6 cents per day.
8. Army agrees with Territories’ objective of reasonable equality in conditions as between the two forces, but feels very strongly that this should be announced as an objective and we should work gradually towards it by taking advantage of any future opportunity. To attempt to solve it by what appears to the soldier to be an immediate reduction of P.I.R. standards is, in my view, bound to create dissatisfaction in the mind of the soldier and lead to the prospect of serious trouble.
9. My proposition, therefore, is that Cabinet should agree that the existing ration standards of P.I.R. should be retained for the present, and that it should be accepted that this involves continuation of supplementary ration issues to present and future families occupying married quarters, as well as continuation of the deduction for rations from the single soldier living in barracks at the current level until there is some change in the circumstances of his rationing, which could logically be used as a reason for varying his deduction for the ration supplied. In the long term, I would propose that immediate steps be taken to conduct an expert review of the P.I.R. ration to see what changes can be made in it to minimise its cost while maintaining its adequacy in relation to the physical standards expected of the soldier. In addition, it should be the policy to consider all future wage movements in the light of the ration elements applicable to the various sectors of native employment and to negotiate and announce these in such a way that certain cash changes can be related to the ration component and, therefore, need not automatically be applied to the P.I.R. In these ways I believe the differential can gradually be worked out and that the early public acknowledgment of this policy would remove the bone of contention between the Police and the P.I.R.
Conclusion
10. The Cabinet may well feel that it is faced with the prospect of potential trouble in the Army if matters are not resolved along the lines which I have suggested or, alternatively, potential trouble in the Police if a disparity between their conditions and those of the Pacific Island soldier is continued. I believe that the problem in the Army is one of whether or not we appear to reduce existing standards, and that to do anything which creates the impression in the soldier’s mind that there is an attack on his standards must lead to a potentially explosive situation. The continuation of an existing difference between the two forces (with which the Police, I agree, are unhappy), may not be so explosive but rather a nagging grievance which would lead to continued negotiations before the situation deteriorated to any point of danger and may well be held safely by the assurance that this problem will be investigated and corrected in the future as opportunity permits.
11. No great cost is involved in the proposals as far as Army is concerned, it being estimated that the supplementary ration for the married member and his family in quarters would cost an additional $100,000 per year, and the Non Reduction Allowance proposal would cost approximately $30,000 per year.
Recommendation
12. To avoid appearing to leave P.l.R. soldiers worse off in the conversion to a cash wage basis, and to provide some recognition of advancement in rank and seniority, I recommend that Cabinet approve in principle that:
a. Supplementary rations should continue to be issued to married men and their families living in married quarters, until such time as they can be eliminated by future adjustments affecting pay or rations of the Constabulary and the P.I.R.
b. Deductions at source for rations for men living in barracks should not at present be varied, but should be adjusted in future in relation to changes affecting the basis of issue of rations to the soldier; and,
c. That some cash incentive be given along the lines proposed by the Army by, i.e., 50 percent of any increase or 5 cents per day, whichever is the lesser, in respect of any nominal pay increase to which a soldier becomes entitled.
[NAA: A5841, 419]
1 Not printed.
2 See editorial note ‘Industrial unrest: announcements on police and PIR conditions of service’.
3 See footnote 1, Document 56.