Canberra, undated
Papua New Guinea Administration—departmental reports on the Under-Secretary system
2. The Papua New Guinea departments reported to the Administrator, at his request, on the performance of their Under-Secretaries during 1966, and these reports have been forwarded to the Department.1
In October, 1966 the Administrator indicated the following minimum areas of participation for the Under-Secretaries:
2.1 Advice to their Department on Bills.
2.2 Represent their Department’s views in House.
2.3 Answering of questions in the House.
2.4 Represent Department at official functions.
2.5 Visits to Districts on Departmental problems.
2.6 Special advice to their Department from their local knowledge and experience of particular areas.
2.7 Meeting official visitors.
2.8 Participation in Departmental conferences.
2.9 Participation in Departmental policy formation.
2.10 Assist with Departmental estimates, recruiting.
3. The Departmental reports, either specifically or by implication, addressed themselves to these basic duties. In so evaluating their performances five Under-Secretaries were shown to be doing half or more of these tasks, three Under-Secretaries a third of their basic duties, and two Under-Secretaries none. Mr. Paul Lapun was shown to be preoccupied with the Bougainville problem and his Mining Bill, and Mr. Nicholas Brokam with his responsibilities to the Administrator’s Council and the Trusteeship Council to the exclusion of their Under-Secretary duties.
4. At this stage of their development the efforts of the following five Under-Secretaries show some promise—
4.1 Mr. Zurecnuoc2— Treasury
4.2 Mr. Watson—Trade and Industry
4.3 Mr. Eupu—Lands, Surveys and Mines
4.4 Mr. Tabua—Public Works
4.5 Mr. Abe—Health.
5. In nearly every case, however, the effectiveness of the Under-Secretary system appears to have been limited by the time which the members are prepared to spend in Port Moresby. In part the reluctance to spend time in the offices stems from desire to keep in touch with their electorates. There are probably other factors—limited understanding of papers or matters before them; inability to see the importance of their contribution to issues; preference for life at home.
6. If the Parliamentary Secretary system is implemented in 1968 it will be most important that members holding that office be prepared to spend a large proportion of their time on official duties. The selection of appropriate members will, it seems, be a large element in the success or otherwise of the Parliamentary Secretary system. While the Under-Secretary system has not been an unqualified success to date, it must be examined against the background of the level of sophistication of the members themselves and of their electorates. Seen in this light, it seems only reasonable to expect some difficulties in the first move towards responsible ministerial government; it might be expected however that the failures in the system will be used by some to argue for the development of an Executive which is not made up of members of the House of Assembly.3
Submitted for information.4
[NAA: A452, 1964/3516]
1 See Document 89.
2 Z.M. Zurecnuoc, MHA, Finschhafen open electorate.
3 In a draft of the submission, the final paragraph read: ‘The overall performance … does not augur too well for the future with the approach of a limited executive. If and when Parliamentary Secretaries eventuate the incumbents are going to have to devote a good deal more time to their duties than do any of the present Under-Secretaries. In fact a realistic re-assessment of their unpreparedness to devote up to forty weeks per annum to the Executive may necessitate your considering an Executive from outside the House of Assembly’ (NAA: A452, 1964/3516).
4 Barnes initialled the submission on 2 March.