Australian High Commission, London, 20 November 1972
18757. Unclassified
The ‘Daily Express’ has continued its campaign over the weekend.
2. On the 18th November it carried a report from Sydney (John Monks) that Sir Max Aitken and the Daily Express were front page news in Australia.
All newspapers were carrying Sir Max’s ‘Defence of the relationship between Britain and Australia, Canada and New Zealand’.
Australians have previously believed that no–one in Britain cared: ‘now Sir Max has changed all that’.
The report also refers to a Labour attack on the Prime Minister for failing to put Australia’s case more strongly in Britain, as well as the failure to appoint a new High Commissioner in London. 1
The report says that from next year it is planned to increase assisted passage fares for British immigrants from 10 PDS STG to 32 PDS STG, and that if Labour wins the elections, the assisted passage scheme will end and give way to a system of bringing in relatives of British migrants.
3. On the same day The Express has a further story about an Australian (Robert Burgess) who married a British woman ten weeks ago and has now been asked to leave Britain.
4. The case is said to involve considerable hardship for the British wife, and a Home Office spokesman is quoted as saying that a different decision could well be made if there were such hardship for the wife.
4. The Express also contains a selection of letters from readers supporting the Aitken article, as well as an editorial demanding that the Government should finally face up to the question of ‘British kinship’ and should realise that ‘the old Commonwealth is quite simply an extension of the British race overseas’.
It calls on Mr Heath to eliminate impediments to Australians entering the United Kingdom, and warns that otherwise he will face the consequences in two by-elections scheduled for the 7th December.
5. The ‘Sunday Express’ of the 19th November reported that the Labour Party, if it wins the election, would seriously consider imposing restrictions on United Kingdom citizens similar to those operating on Australians in Britain.
It quotes Senator Willesee2 as saying: ‘We have a situation where Australian entertainers cannot get work permits in Britain, but British entertainers can come here as they please. Australia has to think seriously of imposing similar restrictions to those of the British’.
6. The ‘Sunday Express’ […] again compares the position of ‘foreigners from Europe’ with that of ‘our kith and kin from the Commonwealth’, and insists that the doors should be kept open to people of the old Commonwealth.
7. On the 20th November, the ‘Daily Express’ claimed that ‘furious Tory backbenchers’, have warned the Party leadership to change the immigration rules giving Europeans priority over the old Commonwealth or face a major Party revolt.
Mr Heath and his Ministers are said to realise that there are real chances of defeat when the immigration rules are debated on the 22nd November, since the Labour leadership is already pledged to oppose the measures on the ground that they discriminate against the whole Commonwealth. A further editorial links the celebration of the Queen’s silver wedding today with ‘incredible’ marring of the happy occasion by ‘senseless decrees which discriminate against our kin overseas’.
Unimpeded entry to the Homeland should, it says, be the right of everyone of British stock, and it calls on the Commons to respond ‘to the will of the voters’ in this regard.
8. The Express also reports further cases of a New Zealander and a Canadian having been ‘barred’ from Britain, and there is a cartoon showing Australians arriving at London Airport and being confronted by an entirely coloured immigration staff.
9. The ‘Guardian’ of the 20th November also refers to a Backbench Tory revolt over the new immigration rules.
The rebels, including many anti-marketeers, are reported to be threatening to vote against the rules or to abstain, unless they receive undertakings about the status of British-descended Commonwealth citizens.
This would involve extending the concept of patriality to grandparents and ‘other forms of blood descent’.
The Guardian also refers to Labour opposition to the new rules, which are said to be divided between those who are anxious about ‘Commonwealth cousins’ and those who contest the rules solely on the grounds that they violate civil rights (in respect of deportation).
‘Passionate anti-racialist MP’s’ are said to be watching to ensure that Labour Backbenchers ‘do not stray into issues involving black versus white Commonwealth rights’.
10. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ of the 20th November also referred in somewhat similar terms to the possibility of Government defeat over the new immigration rules.
However; the Government is said to be confident of obtaining approval of the rules, perhaps with a reduced majority. […]
The Telegraph refers to the position of Mr Brian Harrison MP (Conservative),3 an Australian, who is said to feel strong distaste against an immigration policy which strictly regulates the entry of Australians and grants them less favourable treatment than EEC nationals.
The report concludes that ‘broadly Australians accept our reasons for entering Europe, but not our reasons for wanting to keep them out of Britain’.
11. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ also carries a letter from Mr Philip Goodhart MP (Conservative) which suggests that countries which accept Britons on a generous scale, such as New Zealand and Australia, surely deserve a quid pro quo (underline three).
He illustrates the difficulties of the position of Australians by reference to the case of constituents (Mr and Mrs Harding-Anders), who are obliged to leave Britain because he is an Australian, and attacks the rigidity with which their appeals to remain in Britain were dealt with by the Home Office.
He quotes a Home Office letter which states that it is a general principle of immigration control that a woman is normally expected to live with her husband in his country, and that the United Kingdom cannot allow a Commonwealth citizen to join his wife for settlement in the United Kingdom, save in exceptional circumstances.
Goodhart challenges this approach as reflecting not only an outmoded doctrine of female inferiority, but also as resulting in an English girl married to an Australian being ‘thrown out of the country’.
1 Downer had retired as High Commissioner in October 1972. The appointment of his successor was delayed by the Australian federal election in December 1972.
2 Donald Robert ’Don’ Willesee, Senator for Western Australia, Special Minister of State, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, second Whitlam Ministry, 1972–73.
3 Brian Clark Harrison, farmer and estate manager, who migrated to Britain 1951; Conservative Member for Maldon, 1955–74.
[NAA: A1838, 67/1/3 PART 6]