Canberra, 5 September 1966
Confidential
Papua and New Guinea Constitutional development
In the Submission No. 1 of 19661 Cabinet was informed that the Select Committee on Constitutional Development of the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea was considering possible changes in the Territory constitutional arrangements (including the composition of the House of Assembly) which might be made for the next elections in 1968. Cabinet approved the recommendations of that Submission regarding the attitude to be taken by official members. (Decision No. 23 of 15th February, 1966)2
2. The Committee has submitted its second interim report (copy attached)3 to the House of Assembly. The report was adopted by resolution of the House on 31st August. At this stage recommendations are limited to those concerning the composition of the House of Assembly and electoral matters. Later reports will include the question of changes in the executive government of the Territory.
3. The report recommends that the composition of the House of Assembly he altered as follows:
| PRESENT MEMBERSHIP | COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION |
|---|---|
| 10 official members | 10 official members |
| 44 members for open electorates | 69 members for open electorates |
| 10 members of special electorates reserved for non-indigenous candidates | 15 members for regional electorates with candidates required to have the Territory Intermediate certificate or an equivalent educational qualification |
| 64 Total | 94 Total |
Open electorates
4. In accordance with the previous decision of Cabinet official members on the Select Committee did not oppose proposals for an overall increase in the size of the House but proposed that these should be considered on rational principles designed to secure a balanced and effective distribution and not on any preconceived figure. The Select Committee has adopted this course and its recommendations represent the views of a large number of people that, in the circumstances of the Territory, the present electorates are too large and that elected members have not been able to visit all parts of their electorates adequately. It is considered that the recommendation for an increase in the number of open electorates should be accepted.
Regional electorates
5. The official attitude, which Cabinet approved, on changes in the seats reserved for non-indigenous candidates was that the Government would not see difficulty in a recommendation that these seats be abolished or reduced in number, or some other qualification, e.g., minimum education or prior experience as a member of local or central government, be substituted for the racial one.
6. The possibility that there would be a recommendation for an increase in the number of special seats was not envisaged when Cabinet considered this matter. The Select Committee has recommended the increase to relate the electorates to current district boundaries, which are well understood, and because the present special electorates are too large. While there is substance in these arguments the result in practice will be to increase the number of members likely to oppose government policy. Experience has shown that among the most vocal critics of the Government are some European members of the House and indigenous students. It is not considered, however, that this recommendation of the Select Committee should be rejected.
Residential qualification for candidate
7. The report also recommends that candidates for election (other than those born in the Territory) must have five years’ residence in the Territory. At present the Electoral Ordinance provides that any elector may stand as a candidate (subject to the usual disqualifications such as bankruptcy etc.); but there is a qualification of 12 months’ residence in the Territory or that a person has a home in the Territory for enrolment as an elector.
8. The residential qualification fixed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act for a candidate in a Federal election is three years. There appears, however, to be no reason why Australian electoral practice should be followed in every respect in the Territory.
RECOMMENDATION
9. It is recommended that Cabinet accept the recommendations of the interim report, and approve amendment of the Papua and New Guinea Act accordingly.4
[NAA: A5841, 432]
1 Document 5
2 Document 13.
3 Not printed.
4 A Prime Minister’s Department note on the submission recommended Cabinet approval (note for Holt by Deane and K. W. Pearson (position unidentified, PMD), 19 September 1966, NAA: A5841, 432). Cabinet gave its assent on 21 September (ibid.). The Papua New Guinea Act was amended by the Australian parliament in October (see Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates , vol. 53, 1966, p. 2315). In October, DOT forwarded to Barnes views on increased participation by the House in the Territory’s executive government. It was suggested that greater authority for the Administrator’s Council should be accompanied by ‘some concurrent move towards responsibility under the Ministerial Representative system’. It was thought that a consequence of this should be that elected members of the Administrator’s Council would not be allowed to attack ‘basic policies’ in the House, while the Administrator should no longer be required to table reasons in the House for rejecting his Council’s advice. Regarding control of internal revenue, the Department proposed a standing budgetary committee of the House with a majority of official members (brief by unidentified DOT officer for discussions between Barnes and Cleland, 18 October 1966, NAA: A452, 1966/4992).