Canberra, 21 February 1964
Your enquiry of 5th February1 as to whether Australia has been noticeably affected by the operation of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Immigrants Act can, I believe, be answered in the negative and, as far as I am aware, the same could be said of Canada and New Zealand. The provisions of. the Act do not apply to Irish citizens entering Britain from the Irish Republic.
It is, of course, only persons going to Britain for regular employment whom the Act requires to obtain employment vouchers; those going for working holidays, for whom employment is incidental to the main purpose of their visit and who intend returning to Australia are not required to obtain them.2
Statistics showing the results of the first year’s operation of the Act were published by the Home Office in October last (Cmnd 2151). These show that, during the period from 1st July, 1962, to 30th June, 1963, 63,839 holders of Australian passports were admitted to the United Kingdom, and 26 were refused entry. (In the same period, 20 holders of Canadian passports, and 3 holders of New Zealand passports, were also refused entry).
Details are also given of applications received and employment vouchers issued by the Ministry of Labour up to the end of June, 1963. The statistics for holders of Australian passports are:–
Category A (persons with a definite offer of employment)
| –applications received | –322 |
|---|---|
| –vouchers issued | –300 |
Category B (persons with certain special skills)
| –applications received | –846 |
|---|---|
| –vouchers issued | –846 |
Category C (others)
| –applications received | –547 |
|---|---|
| –vouchers issued | –387 |
Differences between the number of applications received and vouchers issued may be due to the time required to process applications, or because a voucher is not needed, as well as to rejections of applications. However, no figures are published on these.
From my Department’s point of view, I believe that the Act’s effects upon the movements of Australians have been negligible, and we certainly do not seem to have any cause for dissatisfaction.
1 Casey had been retired for several years, serving as a Life Peer in the House of Lords before taking up his appointment as Governor-General in 1965. His enquiry to Heydon (not on file) was therefore in his private capacity.
2 This was not strictly correct, as demonstrated by the case of V. Jarvis in Document 307. It is indeed the case that many Australians were able to take up work in the United Kingdom having entered as holiday-makers, as there were was no system for checking the bona fides of Commonwealth workers once they had gained entry. But Australians without entry vouchers who professed an intention at the entry gates to work in Britain were liable to deportation. That this was not entirely clear to the Secretary of the Australian Department of Immigration is indicative of the ambiguity surrounding the new rules.
[NAA: A446, 19.70/95741]