Australian High Commission, London, 26 November 1972
19078. Confidential
Immigration into Britain
Thank you for your 15097 and other cables containing guidance and for the useful advice on Australian Press coverage.1
Desirability of considered public guidance
2. Your instruction should be sufficient for us to manage for the time being, although you will appreciate that however careful and low-key our backgrounding we cannot guarantee that it will not be transposed by other performers. (Although the Government’s Commons defeat has to some extent deflated things here, the situation is still volatile).
It is still most desirable, in my judgement, that there be a considered and authoritative statement from Australia as soon as circumstances permit.
Meantime, there is risk here of exploitation of any comment that seems directly or indirectly to support the Backbenchers’ ‘revolt’ and the Aitken Campaign, leading to continued misunderstanding and misrepresentation of our position.
3. I believe a statement desirable on four grounds.
First, insofar as reactions here are a guide, Australian opinion has been misled and unnecessarily aroused by the misrepresentation of the new rules and of their implications for the Anglo–Australian relationship.
It seems desirable to provide clarification and guidance.
4. Secondly, there is the ‘special relationship’ that we seek to preserve, as valued by our community and as still helpful in the broad political conduct of our relations.
In this area, the robust, business-like approach of our practical conduct of the Government’s affairs, in trade, finance, defence, foreign policy etc, is not suitable to the less tangible matters of kinship, shared heritage and way of life and war experience, nor to helping people adapt to change without disappointment and resentment.
Here feelings run deep and need to be acknowledged and respected. I have suggested, however, that the perception and expression of this must move with the times and be kept in proportion if it is to retain vitality.
When it is overworked, it leaves a residue of harmful misunderstanding.
Public guidance appears desirable in this area too.
5. Thirdly, there is the current misrepresentation.
There seems to have been very little political comment in Australia and, by and large, the press comment you have passed to us does not indicate an Australian outcry.
Yet, on top of all the ding-dong in the popular Press, this week’s ‘Economist’ states, ‘It is Australia, the white Commonwealth country with the most illiberal immigration policy, that is making the most noise.’
As I have earlier reported, we have been represented here as deeply disturbed by the new rules, as critical of British indifference to and betrayal of our interests, as deeply attached and loyal to the motherland, like the settlers of earlier generations, hurt and resentful at being pushed aside, at old family and war-time bonds being disregarded and foreigners and ex-enemies preferred, as ignorant of recent history, insensitive, when not intolerant, about race, as wanting to preserve a natural right of entry, employment and residence in the homeland and as fully sympathetic with the Daily Express ‘crusade’ and the Tory Backbench revolt.
The Commonwealth association for us is presented as essentially a connection with Britain and Britons.
Failing any authoritative indication to the contrary, the British and others can be expected to have seen the ‘campaign’ that has mounted here as an expression of genuine and substantive Australian attitudes and grievances.
6. Fourthly, a statement also seems desirable in the political context.
I have already pointed out that the campaign against the supposed maltreatment of Australia (and Canada and New Zealand, although there is some discomfort about French (underline one) Canadians) is essentially a vehicle for domestic British concerns.
However, these are not the concerns of elements in British public life that have been decisive in the shaping of British policy over at least the last decade.
Whatever the friendliness towards Australia, and it is still considerable, ‘kith and kin’ as such and the earlier war associations do not really cut much ice in the Labour Party, most of the Press, Whitehall, business and many other important circles in diverse fields, including in the Tory Party itself, when it comes to policy.
To have our relations with Britain expressed in these terms and to appear to be harping on the traditional ties and obligations of an earlier generation attract unrewarding critical scrutiny and a measure of scorn.
7. The Secretary’s conversation with the British High Commissioner2 will have gone some way to correct false impressions in British official circles, but, unless used by the Government here in its political manoeuvring, it cannot help in other quarters and among the public generally (not forgetting the large diplomatic and Press corps in London).
What I am trying to convey is that, whether we wish it or not, we have been most publicly involved in a British political controversy, and in a way that you have agreed is inconsistent with our policies and that I am suggesting also detracts from our national standing and our international reputation, and can be prejudicial to our political relations with Britain.
I repeat, therefore, my view that, as soon as circumstances permit, it will be desirable to consider publicly stating our position ourselves.
The Rules
8. Seen from London, our principal interest in the new British immigration rules is in two areas, visits and the preferred status of EEC nationals.
As regards the former, the new rules do not affect present status.
Subject to your views, I doubt that there is requirement for policy representations for modification of the rules.
However, visits, either short-term or working holiday, are the main area of personal Anglo Australian contact and provide an important opportunity of broader personal and often professional experience for younger people.
It is of fundamental importance that arrangements for visits and short-term stay be fully preserved and be administered in a liberal and sympathetic way.
Carr offered assurances in the Commons debate in both respects, but I consider this should be specifically followed up both in our continuing discussions here and by the Government as soon as circumstances permit.
I have a growing impression of less than adequate performance in the Home Office and the immigration service (although this is not easy to substantiate) and I feel the rules important to preserve our rights and reduce the anxieties, frictions and irritations arising in the administrative process.
9. We have suggested, with all politeness, that the British also look to the handling of inquiries at their offices abroad, which at present appears to be a source of some confusion and inadequate briefing, if not, as some allege, actual discouragement.
We have further some impression at present of particular confusion in distinguishing between tourists, who should get entry clearance for six months but very often get less (perhaps because they often want less), and working holiday-makers, who should get initial clearance for twelve months but often seem to be restricted as tourists to six months or less, by a process that is still unclear. (They seem to have to ‘convince’ the immigration officer that they are in one category rather than the other, an obvious source of irritation and distress if the criteria are not clearly declared and understood.)
10. As to the EEC nationals, you have indicated our acceptance of their position, which flows from Britain’s EEC obligations.
The question is, therefore, whether we wish to seek similar status, in respect of all Commonwealth citizens, or only old Commonwealth citizens, or just Australian citizens (and whether all Australian citizens, naturalised and aboriginal, or only those of British descent. First-generation patrials are not affected, so we would be dealing with second-generation and other citizens.)
That we should have equal status has been demanded for us on ‘kith and kin’ and war-association grounds.
I do not know what demand there is in Australia for equal treatment, or how well founded.
I fully appreciate that the question is a matter for your study and for ministerial decision.
At this stage I offer two observations.
11. First, the statistics state that in 1971 only 1160 Australian citizens (no distinction between native-born and naturalised) sought entry for permanent employment in Britain and the Home Office say that this was less than previous years and that the acceptance rate runs at about 75 percent. (The British assert that it will be no more difficult and could well be easier to gain entry for permanent employment in future—and, of course, patrials are still free to come as they please.)
The indication is then, that few Australians who do not already qualify in the various exempt or less restricted categories are now seeking permanent employment in Britain and few. of these are refused.
So in terms of numbers any problem would not appear to be a significant one.
What problem there is would seem to be rather in the area of political perception-primarily the perception of a lesser status for Australians than for ‘Foreigners’ and ‘ex-enemies’.
Ministers may feel that any such attitude is open to guidance, as earlier with our relations with Japan, for example, and in the light of the national and international developments over the last decade and more.
12. Secondly, I doubt that the British Government will be able to offer much scope for change in this area, certainly without casting about for a non-discriminatory basis, which, however, I am suggesting we cannot expect to be seen as other than racial, however presented.
The British have a national requirement, and the Government a pressing political requirement, to cut back hard on Commonwealth immigration and this means strict control over entry for permanent employment.
In this situation there is a question about the extent we would wish to press the British to relax their rules, particularly given the large number of persons in new Commonwealth countries who can still seek to enter Britain as of right (as UK passport holders) and who might still be expelled, as from Uganda.
13. Study here is exposing other areas of the rules requiring query and discussion, and no doubt you will be preparing questions.
At this stage, my impression is that these matters can be handled at the official level, and we are continuing our discussions and representations here.
As well as improving the explanation and administration of the rules, there is important scope in the British indication that individual cases could be open to negotiation.
This cannot be said publicly and public reference would obviously reduce what scope there may be.
But it is also important that the handling of this whole immigration issue not be such as to stimulate attitudes here restricting the scope for negotiations.
The British Proposals
14. We now have two proposals put before us, for Commonwealth consultations on immigration at the senior ministerial level and for ‘reciprocal immigration’ arrangements.
These proposals could lead us into something of a minefield.
It is not yet clear what British ministers have in mind, whether a full conference or a restricted one, or merely bilateral contact and whether this contact would be specially arranged or take place as opportunity arose with the normal visiting by senior ministers.
However, even if a conference or consultations were limited to the old Commonwealth (which seemed to be what the Foreign Secretary intended in the Commons debate, although Carr has since spoken to the Press about later talks with the Commonwealth as a whole[)], there appear obvious disadvantages to us in the presentation and handling of our own national position in a Commonwealth immigration context, which is where it has now been so prominently placed.
This is not only a question of the management of our own national affairs, in which the Commonwealth association, however valuable, is necessarily a restricted and subordinate area: we also would become immediately involved in the racial dimension by the unavoidable linkage with our own immigration policy and by entering into Commonwealth consultation on a racially discriminatory basis and about racially exclusive arrangements.
15. As regards ‘reciprocal immigration’, you have already indicated in your 14956 a serious difficulty for us, and other considerations will be in your mind.3
For example, is there a difficulty in discriminating among our citizens in the arrangements we would seek for preferred status for those of British descent as distinct from Greek or Italian, etc?
While we may not seek to obstruct the emigration of our citizens, do we wish to be put in the position of having to negotiate on arrangements that facilitate this?
It is still unclear what the Government here intends by ‘reciprocal immigration’.
The Present Position
16. My immediately following cable records a conversation with Sir Bernard Braine, the much respected and usually loyal Tory MP, who was a principal figure in the Backbenchers’ ‘revolt’ .4
He wants ammunition (though only small arms, really ) to use in his talks with the Government.
17. The situation we find ourselves in is that the Backbenchers here used complaints about neglect of Australia (and Canada and New Zealand) to belabour the Government, the Government is trying to get off the hook with the Backbenchers by promising Commonwealth talks that we have not sought and, particularly in the context proposed, may well not even want, and now the Backbenchers are trying to get off the hook with the Government by asking us for a few points that they can submit on our behalf so that they can make peace with honour.
(Prime Ministerial remoteness, Ugandan Asians, the ‘turn–about’ in economic and industrial policies and the bitter pill of the EEC, now so soon to be swallowed, seem to be the chief discontents-none of them any immediate concern of ours.)
18. My feeling is to keep Sir Bernard on-side and to respond in suitably innocuous terms, by telephone if possible but by letter at my discretion.
We could—
(A) Express appreciation of his interest.,
(B) Acknowledge that visits, including working holidays, and patrial rights in Britain are important areas to us.,
(C) Point out that the Australian Government offered no comment and made no representations against the new rules and is now unlikely to do so until it can examine the rules as re-issued.,
(D) That meantime we welcome the Home Secretary’s important assurances in the House on 22 November about the ready extension of visitors’ permits, the maintenance of the working holiday provisions and the arrangements to make actual entry into the country ‘as easy and as welcoming as possible’.
May I have your instructions, please.
19. As to the Government, it would clearly have done better to have treated the questions of Commonwealth, foreign and EEC immigration separately, to have given us at least some advance notice of the new rules and to have made a special public effort clearly to explain them and their effect on ‘Commonwealth citizens’.
You may feel that it could be helpful for them to adopt these courses with the re-issue.
You may also feel it desirable to intimate to the British that we should have appreciated being consulted before they announced that they were going to have Commonwealth consultations about immigration matters.
20. As to the rules themselves, I have already suggested that there is little scope for the Government to introduce substantive re-formation.
I should expect the scope to be even less after the rules have been re-issued and once more laid before the Parliament.
If there are any points of substantive policy we wish to raise, as distinct from administrative queries and requests, it would therefore appear desirable to communicate them as soon as possible (unless the Commonwealth rules are to be issued separately and much later, which we are trying to check).
21. Finally, do you wish the assertion in ‘The Economist’ to go uncorrected, or do you consider a short letter for the December 2 edition desirable, simply pointing out that the Government in fact offered no comment, made no representations, noted that the rules did not seem substantially to affect the status of Australian citizens but had not completed its study of them before they were withdrawn?
1 Waller had advised against a major public statement, proposing that Pritchett adopt a low-key approach.
2 Document 351.
3 The ‘reciprocal’ solution raised the problem that Australia hitherto had not granted unrestricted entry rights to all UK citizens—the White Australia policy had governed entry rules for non-white UK citizens, and Australia had always reserved the right to select migrants from Britain.
4 Document 353.
[NAA: A1838, 67/1/3 PART 6]