Canberra, 20 September 1966
Confidential
Papua and New Guinea: political relations with House of Assembly
The Minister asks Cabinet to identify its attitude to recent moves in the Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly towards giving elected Members of the Assembly an increased say in the Territory Budget.
The Minister appears a little aggrieved that developments in the House of Assembly are not proceeding in line with pre-conceived ideas of orderly progression towards complete financial responsibility; and Cabinet is asked to wave the big stick of withdrawing financial support if the Assembly does not toe the line. The Minister indicates that he is ready to improve arrangements by which elected Members can participate more effectively in the framing of the Budget; but there is no indication in what way the Minister is prepared to move on this in response to the latest developments in the Assembly.
Before Cabinet endorses any attitude, we think the Minister should be asked specifically to set out the steps he proposes to take towards increasing local participation in the framing of the Territory Budget; and he should be asked to set out as well steps for increasing local responsibility for raising revenue. In earlier Submissions the Minister has indicated that he is against a ‘split Budget’, i.e., with the Assembly being responsible for the control over locally raised revenues. Cabinet has reserved its position on the issues. It seems to be an essential part of the Select Committee’s proposals and an important issue for the Assembly, and the Minister could be asked to specify how far towards a ‘split Budget’ he contemplates going.2
[NAA: A5841, 453]
1 Document 69.
2 On 21 September, Cabinet endorsed the recommendations contained in paragraph 11 of Document 69, although it omitted the final sentence of sub-paragraph 3. Cabinet also recorded that in giving such approval, it ‘directed attention to the importance of handling these matters with any eye to possible international reaction’ (NAA: A5841, 453). Prior to the tabling of the submission, Warwick Smith had written to Lawler on 19 September (NAA: A4940, C 1724 part 2), asking that the issue of relations with the House of Assembly be mentioned in the context of discussion of the submission on constitutional development (Document 67). Warwick Smith apparently believed that Cabinet would first consider Document 67, explaining that ‘Some urgency attaches to this matter [of relations with the House) because pending such a reaction from Cabinet the Administrator of the Territory is under instruction to withhold assent to the Appropriation of the Ordinance’. In the event, both submissions were tabled in Cabinet on 21 September (see footnote 4, Document 67).