London, 21 November 1972
18843. Confidential
Immigration to Britain
We have been receiving numerous approaches from the Press, public men and the general public seeking comment or briefing on the new British immigration rules and the Australian attitude towards them in the light of the London Press campaign (still principally the Daily Express) and the Commons debate to-morrow, when the Government appears likely to face considerable criticism for alleged neglect and maltreatment of the old Commonwealth.
2. In the absence of any ministerial comment from Australia, and feeling that it is primarily a matter for the British Government to defend and win support for its own policies, I have sought to avoid comment other than in response to specific queries about an individual’s position under the rules.
(Even in this latter respect, while being as helpful and informative as we can, we are pointing out that the rules are British and that the British administration is the authoritative source for guidance.)
3. However, the situation has so developed that continued failure to comment could lead to serious misinterpretation of the Australian position, in particular that Australia welcomed and supported the campaign against the new rules.
Secondly, much of the campaign is ill-informed (e.g. Australians will be ‘aliens’) or misleading and is causing unnecessary uncertainty, alarm and hostility among Australians.
Thirdly, the campaign is placing Australia in a false position in certain respects, prejudicial to an informed perception of our national attitudes and policies (see below).
For these reasons I have found it desirable to indicate a position and offer some comment.
I have done this in a strictly informal, off-the-record way, as background only.
This comment has been principally concerned to explain the new rules, as we understand them, and to correct misunderstanding of them.
4. The campaign against the rules appear to have four main elements:
(A) A welling-up of genuine sentiment of kinship (‘blood and bone’) with the old (‘white’) Commonwealth, and of a shared heritage and way of life:
(B) A strong feeling of comradeship and alliance in war and recognition of war-time assistance from old Commonwealth countries (often contrasted with the ‘ex enemies’ in the EEC):
(C) A racial preference for the old Commonwealth over the new (and, sometimes, over European foreigners):
(D) Opposition to Britain’s entry into the Common Market.
5. These elements are all mixed-up together and form a potent emotional draught.
It is not clear what has brought on the outcry, but the factors include a heightening of anti-EEC sentiment as the day of membership approaches, with a strong re–assertion, particularly from right-wing Tories, of ‘gut’ feelings about British identity: resentment about non-European immigration and especially the admission of the Ugandan Asians: 1 general feeling among Tory Back-benchers of dissatisfaction with the Government (for conduct inconsistent with Tory doctrine): and the, possibly impolitic, possibly unavoidable, introduction with effect from the same day of rules enlarging EEC rights and restricting Commonwealth rights.
Aitkin’s basically anti-EEC campaign in the Daily Express has certainly stimulated these feelings, stirred up constituencies and given emotions a form of expression.
Without reflecting in any way on the genuineness of the sentiment in (A) and (B) above, it is fair comment that concern with the old Commonwealth is not a significant political force in its own right but rather a vehicle for expression of resentment and anxiety on other scores, and for national feeling.
(You will recall that concern for the Commonwealth was not sufficient to secure retention of the extended patriality provision in the 1971 legislation, which was defeated with the aid of Tory votes.)
A further observation is that the opposition to the new rules is essentially a right-wing Tory affair: the kinship, pro-old Commonwealth emotions are finding no significant expression in most of the Press and public commentators or Labour Party.
6. I suggest that the racial and anti-EEC content of the ‘crusade’ are, at least, inconsistent with Australian policy, which is not opposed to Britain’s entry into the EEC and does not seek discrimination regarding entry, residence and employment in Britain on a racial basis.
Australian policy has not sought equal rights in Britain in these respects for Australian citizens along with EEC nationals.
It has accepted, or not challenged, firstly, the need for Britain to control immigration, and in a non-discriminatory way, and, secondly, the inevitability of a preferred position for EEC nationals once Britain joined the Community.
In these respects the presentation of Australian concern and of ‘the Australian case’ in London is seriously misrepresenting our position.
7. In regard to the other factors, you may agree that it is much to be regretted that a fruitful, long-standing relationship is changing and diminishing and that for the foreseeable future it will be important to our community to preserve what we can of the relationship and to protect the rights of Australians to visit and reside here from further erosion.
But the way this sort of consideration is being presented here does not do us full justice.
There is a strong suggestion of Australian resentment about the new rules, of Australian dependence on Britain, of the rights to work and settle in Britain still being regarded as a necessary part of our national life, and so on, that is not consistent with our status and dignity as an independent nation.
8. Australians are being presented as a people concerned about betrayal and desertion, deeply concerned about Britain and the EEC, anxious to hang on to the old Commonwealth relationship in all its traditional features.
I suggest that it is time to modify that image and that, while giving full and emphatic expression to the substantial value we place on the British tie in its many and complex forms, we try to bring the image up to date by recognising the diverse and. independent development of the two nations in many fields and the new circumstances to which the old relationship is adapting.
Such recognition can also acknowledge the important interests and ties that still relate the two nations in a special way and express confidence that the relationship, though changed, will continue to prosper.
9. In terms of the politics of the Anglo-Australian relationship, a statement along these lines, sympathetically phrased so as not to offend opinion here (even thought [sic] it may disappoint), would be more fruitful than any encouragement to the present campaign or than any retaliatory attitude.
10. Whether such a statement should be made, and when, is for your consideration.
I consider that in the situation here the Australian position should not go unexplained and be allowed to be presented in a way prejudicial to our reputation.
I should be grateful for your guidance as to the degree the foregoing is acceptable for discreet background briefing.
(As an alternative, you may wish at this stage to confine comment to the fact that the Australian Government has made no statement on the new rules and, while informing itself about them, is making no representations against them.[)]
It will be helpful to have guidance quickly, also for a meeting with the Agents-General of the States on Thursday.
11. The Home Secretary’s statement in the Commons tomorrow should provide us with sufficient material to allay anxiety about the impact of the rules on Australians (the vast majority, tourists and people on working holidays, are unaffected).
In drawing on this statement it will be necessary for us to indicate that we are not challenging it and accept the position described.
1 On 4 August 1972, Uganda’s 70,000 Asians were expelled by President ldi Amin, who gave them ninety days to leave the country. Many of these people were holders of United Kingdom passports, and were subsequently admitted to Britain.
[NAA: A1838, 6711/3 PART 6]