Interesting, But

It's All Very

Where's The Cash?

Prom a Port Moresby correspondent The report of a two-man com mittee appointed by the Minister for External Territories to inquire into the efficacy of the operation of Papua-New Guinea's Public Service arbitration system was recently released in Port Moresby, The com position of the committee—Professor H. A. Turner, Professor of Industrial Relations at Cambridge University, and Mr. E. A. C. Chambers, Com monwealth Public Service Arbitrator —commands respect; and the report itself is a concise, workmanlike and enlightened document.

No one is likely to quarrel with the statement that “it would be a serious impediment to development to attempt to transplant Australian arbitration legislation and practices in the territory simply because they had operated more or less success fully in Australia’’. On the contrary, many people in the territory would urge that this approach might be profitably employed over a far wider field than that of arbitration pro cedures.

Nor is anyone likely to quarrel with the committee’s recommendation that the procedures of negotiation and conciliation which have worked so well in the private sector through the machinery set up under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, should be introduced into the public sector also.

The committee comes out strongly in favour of a three-man tribunal in place of a single arbitrator. It suggests that the tribunal should consist of the arbitrator as chair man, and two nominated members for each case, one each from two panels of three persons, nominated by the Public Service organisations and the Public Service Board res pectively. Each panel would be re quired to include at least one Papuan or New Guinean, and the members of the panels would sit on the tribunal in rotation, case by case, unless special circumstances made a departure from this rule desirable.

This seems a fair and workable proposal which may well commend itself to the House of Assembly when the Administration introduces its promised bill to implement the re commendations of the committee.

However, the committee disagrees

(Continued on p. 131)

n two important particulars with he thinking of the House of \ssembly as exemplified in Mr.

Wally Lussick’s private member’s bill, vhich it passed in November 1968 >ut which is still awaiting assent or lisallowance by the Governor jeneral.

In the first place, it recommends igainst the establishment of an appeal ystem, as provided for by Mr. bill, on the grounds that uch a system would be complicated, xpensive and time consuming, and hat resort to an arbitrator is in tself in the nature of an appeal.

Secondly, it opposes the strongly icld view of many members of the louse that the panels nominated by he Public Service organisations and he Public Service Board should be ransmitted to the Governor-General hrough the Chief Justice rather than hrough the Administrator or the Minister.

Its recommendation is that they hould be transmitted through the administrator. Its arguments on this oint seem rather unconvincing. In articular, the objection is not really

answered that cases taken to arbitration are not merely appeals (as the committee itself says) but are appeals against determinations of the Minister, whose representative in the territory the Administrator is, or is commonly regarded as being. The committee’s argument that the Public Service Board rather than the Administrator might in future be cited as respondent savours of the sort of legalistic technicality which in other parts of the report we are warned must be avoided.

Moreover, the committee’s think ing on this issue appears to be self contradictory. After setting out arguments in favour of the Admin istrator, rather than the Chief Justice, being responsible for re commending panels to the Governor- General for appointment, the report continues, “At the same time, at a point in the future, the Government of Papua and New Guinea will have to assume responsibility for such ap pointments itself, and it seems desir able that whatever procedure is now used should facilitate this future transfer of responsibility”.

This argument surely points in the direction of the Chief Justice rather than in that of the Administrator.

We shall, one hopes, always have a Chief Justice, but at some point in

time the office of Administrator will presumably be abolished.

The president of the Public Service Association has already indicated that his council will almost certainly op pose the committee’s recommenda tions. The attitude of the House of Assembly will become evident if and when the new legislation is brought down.

One point is easily overlooked.

While the affluent argue inteminably as to whether this, that or the other procedure is to be preferred, the non affluent, that is to say, the local officers, continue to wait in ever increasing frustration.

It is now over four years since the Minister’s 1964 salary determination touched off a wave of dissatisfaction.

It is nearly three years since the Administration introduced “family needs allowances”, which were of dubious adequacy when granted and which have not been incremented since to keep pace with the rising cost of living.

It is nearly two years since the Matthews’ judgment failed to relieve the prevailing dissatisfaction. And they are still waitings; not, mark you, for a decision (that, like the Sunday School children’s happy land, is still far, far away), but for a modus operandi by which they can begin to seek a decision.