London, 7 November 1962
Entry of Australian Citizens into Britain
Thank you for your letter of 19th October about the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in regard to Australians.1
The British Government made it clear, when the legislation was going through Parliament, that they were most reluctant to introduce a measure which restricted the traditional right of all Commonwealth citizens to come to this country. As the Minister now responsible for the administration of the Act, I can assure you that it is my intention to see that it is operated liberally and with proper discretion.
During the first three months of the control, over 22,000 Australian citizens came through the ports. Of these, only 9 were refused admission. I believe these figures are a sufficient indication that genuine visitors and students are experiencing no difficulty in securing admission, and that the special arrangements we have made for young people coming here for ‘working holidays’ are operating satisfactorily.
But the essence of the control we have felt bound to introduce is that Commonwealth citizens whose main purpose in coming here is to take or look for work must, before arrival, obtain the necessary employment voucher from the Ministry of Labour. It would be inconsistent with all the pledges we have given to Parliament about the operation of the control if that requirement were to be waived for citizens of any one country.
I have looked into the three individual cases which you mention. I do not think that there is any dispute that both Mr Swayn and Mr Malawkin were coming to this country in order to find employment; and, as they did not have vouchers, the immigration officers acted properly in refusing admission. I understand that, after Mr Malawkin had been put in touch with Australia House, an application was made to the Ministry of Labour for an employment voucher to be issued, and that the Ministry decided, after taking account of Mr Malawkin’s war service, that his application could properly be given priority. Once the voucher had been issued, he was of course allowed to land.
As regards the third case, that of Mr Jarvis, I understand that he arrived at Greenock and then came to London on shore leave: that whilst in London he found a berth with a ship due to leave some weeks later and that his passport was endorsed in such a way as to cover this period: and that in the end he left on yet a third ship about a month ago.
I am grateful to you for writing to me, and I hope you will not hesitate to let me know if further problems should be brought to your notice. I fully appreciate the possibility of difficulties arising, especially perhaps with persons who have become Australian citizens by naturalisation, then return for some reason or another to the Continent of Europe, and then come on here in the hope of finding work. In the first few weeks of the control, we readily accepted that some people would not have had an opportunity to learn of the new regulations; but it would not be right for the ports to go on admitting people without employment vouchers solely on the basis of a statement that they do not know of the existence of the controls.
When a difficult case arises, we shall do all we can to resolve the problem within the general framework of the Act and the voucher scheme; but I know you will appreciate that we must apply the Act fairly and impartially as between citizens of the various countries of the Commonwealth and be seen to be so applying it.
1 Document 307.
[NAA:A1838, 1531/171 PART 1]