Canberra, 15 January 1962
Personal For Himself
I was very disturbed to learn that Grantley Adams is proposing that the next Prime Minister’s Conference, whenever it occurs, should discuss the movement of population between Commonwealth countries. Such a discussion would inevitably involve a consideration of Australia’s immigration policy just as much as it would your proposed immigration laws and no doubt those of other Commonwealth countries.
As you know, I think that the action in relation to South Africa was disastrous since it broke down the vital principle that in Commonwealth meetings we do not discuss the internal policies of individual members.1 I pointed out at the time that ifwe were at liberty to discuss internal racial policies of one member, it would be quite legitimate at some subsequent meeting to discuss, for example, the Australian immigration policy which is aimed at avoiding internal racial problems by the expedient of keeping coloured immigrants out. I hope my fears are not justified. So far as I am concerned I will refuse, if I am present, to discuss these problems in a Prime Ministers’ meeting. We already have a mass of new members of the Commonwealth, some of whom have no real independence except political, and quite a few of whom are strangers to our notions of self-government and civilised administration. Many of us have great anxiety about the Commonwealth and the disappearance of so many of its old characteristics. Our anxieties are not diminished by the growing majority which confronts us when we meet in London. They will be acutely increased if it turns out that we in Australia are to be told how we are to manage our own affairs. The plain English of it is that the new Commonwealth has nothing like the appeal for us that the old one had. It appears to have no instinct for either seeking or obtaining unity. The votes in the United Nations indicate that there are completely different approaches to world problems. The divisions have only to be carried to the Prime Ministers’ conference room in London, with the new lining up against the old, to bring the whole structure down. I know that we have prided ourselves on having a genius for compromise and on pursuing pragmatic policies. But we can of course follow these lines too far, and by extending the form of the Commonwealth ultimately deprive it of substance. When I ask myself what benefit we of the Crown Commonwealth derive from having a somewhat tenuous association with a cluster of Republics some of which like Ghana are more spiritually akin to Moscow than to London, I begin to despair.
No doubt you can retort that the clock cannot be put back and that I am suffering from a retrospective mind. I hope that you are right. But I am sure that if Grantley Adams has his way and the immigration business finds its way into the Conference room, the last blow will have been struck. Coming on top of the widely held belief in Australia, a belief which I share, that Great Britain’s entry into the European Community will bring about a drastic change in the Commonwealth relationship, I am sure that an immigration debate would produce deep and perhaps permanent changes in the Australian attitude.
Speaking of the Common Market, I have never denied the possibility of very great advantages, politically, in British membership. It could help to prevent the development of neutralism in Europe and serve to dispel the Communist idea that the issue is between the Soviet Union and the United States and that all the rest of us should be passive onlookers. But however great the weight of these considerations may be, I beg of you to realise that there is great uneasiness in my own country, which may lead to some weakening of our historic and invaluable ties. If I may suggest it to you as an old friend, it would be valuable for you to take an opportunity of making a considered speech on what I will call the Commonwealth political aspects of the European Common Market. At present all the emphasis tends to be on the economic problems, which are of course great but on which I hope there will be ample room for effective co-operation. But there is a very great interest in the political aspects, an interest which is not yet completely vocal but which is tending to grow. I do not profess to know the answer, but I would think that the next Prime Ministers’ Conference might well direct a great deal of attention to this problem, seeking the greatest degree of unity, rather than discuss matters which can produce only disunity and possibly ill-will.
Having regard to the uncomfortably close result of my election, the Australian timetable appears to be this. We will meet Parliament on February 20. We will aim at concluding a short Autumn session by Easter time though there are certain technical reasons which may make this difficult. But if we do get up by the end of April, the House will be in recess during May and June and it would be possible for somebody to attend a meeting in London. I will, of course, go if possible. But it is not certain since my nominal majority includes one or two people who would be quite happy to make mischief in my absence. I had some bitter experience of this in 1941 and will not be in too much of a hurry to repeat it. However, I will live in hopes.
1 Menzies was referring to South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth at the March 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference.
[UKNA: PREM 11/3644]