British High Commission, Canberra, 15 November 1966
Unclassified
Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra Times and Australian all carry leaders today on Immigration Restrictions.
2. ‘Herald’ leader writes that ‘to be treated like this in a country where we have so many historic cultural and personal roots is, we feel, almost beyond belief’. Article continues that it is not, of course, as simple as this. The bases of regulations requiring Commonwealth citizens to hold work vouchers and to renew them regularly, are political and economic—not emotional. Everybody knows the act was passed to dam the flow of migrants from the West Indies, India, Pakistan and Africa. ‘At first there seemed to be an understanding that Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, would be able to visit Britain, and stay there, much as they had always done—that, in fact, the act would be “ winked at” so far as they were concerned. But of course it was impossible the regulations had to be applied with equality before the law. [incomplete quotation marks in original] ’Australia needs people while Britain emphatically does not. Britain has 500,000 unemployed now, and might have one million by next February. It is not hard to imagine the outcry there would be against further immigration in Australia if she were in a similar situation. So the best that can be hoped for, it seems, is that the administration of these regulations should be made less “Ham-Fisted” (in Sir Alexander Downer’s phrase). Australians who wish to work in Britain are entitled, at least, to courtesy, understanding, consistency and intelligence from immigration officers, rather than the reverse. The number who intend to stay permanently is, after all, very small—it has been estimated at 2 per cent—and a little more sympathy would be appreciated both by them and by the Australians who intend to stay only a few months and then go home’.
3. The Canberra Times points out that every country has an absolute right to decide its own immigration policy and Australia should be the last to question that principle. ‘No doubt some of the present complaints coming from Australians entering Britain would be averted by a bit more tact and a bit less officiousness on the one side and a little more understanding on the other…. It may be that the controls will have to be screwed tight until Britain has been able to digest the mass of coloured migrants already inside the country. It may be that if she enters the Common Market, or if her economy once more booms for other reasons she will labour and seek to import it again. Or perhaps before then she will simply find it impossible or impolitic to cling to the ideal of equal treatment for Commonwealth Nations. It will be a pity if she does. In the meantime, Sir Alexander Downer may be able to remove some of the administrative prickles from the system. We can at least expect that close relatives should not be made to feel like aliens in what they used to think of not long ago as almost their own land’.
4. The ‘Australian’ says that the Australians who are in Britain who are getting deportation jitters should have taken the trouble to study British Immigration Laws more closely. ‘Perhaps they did, but they could be forgiven for misunderstanding them. The only white people who know exactly where they stand are the Irish, who can come and go as they please: which seems illogical and unfair if the Commonwealth means anything at all. The situation would be more amusing if its consequences were not so serious: turning out two or 2000 Australians will inflame anti-British feelings here and, ultimately, work against our efforts to attract British emigrants. That this should happen because of a bureaucratic muddle—so useful in disguising a colour bar—is ridiculous. Precise qualifications for entry as a visitor, working holidaymaker and permanent resident should be set out clearly and given the widest publicity before the present unnecessary antagonism is aggravated further and the go home Poms signs start appearing’.
[UKNA: DO 175/163]