British High Commission, Canberra, 27 November 1972
1649. Unclassified
Australian Press and Immigration
1. Week-end papers continued to give prominence to London reports on aftermath of Commons debate and there have been more editorials on alien status for Australians.
2. ‘The Australian’ (25 November) reports accusation that Mr McMahon deliberately misled Parliament on question of Australia’s action on British immigration Bill. Mr W.L. Morrison, a Labor spokesman on foreign affairs, said that Mr McMahon told House of Representatives on 25 October that Australian High Commissioner had discussed entry of Australian citizens into Britain with Mr Carr and officials. But Mr Carr said on ABC Radio he had received no representations on the Bill from the Australian Government.1
3. ‘Melbourne Sun’ (25 November) reported Mr McMahon as saying Government was ready to discuss with British Government the controversial aliens Bill. Government wanted to ensure Australians were treated in satisfactory way under new legislation. ‘We are ready if they would like us to participate in any ministerial consultations on this matter’ he said.
4. ‘Sydney Sunday Telegraph’ in editorial heading ‘Alien Status Won’t Do for Australia’ stated most Australians had been willing to accept Britain’s restrictions on Commonwealth immigration but there was limit to understanding. Australians who fought to preserve Britain and her way of life were not willing to see themselves insulted and humiliated at Britain’s gates, reduced to alien status and treated in the same way as Britain’s former enemies. There was no reason under terms of EEC or anything else why Australians should not enjoy their historic and well-earned right to enter Britain freely. Otherwise if Britain insisted on keeping them out, they might well decline to keep out some of them—starting with congenital grumblers and troublesome shop stewards.
5. ‘Canberra Times’ (25 November) in editorial headed ‘Reluctant Mother’ stated Commonwealth citizens were entitled to expect Britain would take their views into consideration and this Mr Carr had solemnly promised to do. Further Commonwealth citizens of British extraction surely were entitled to expect that ties of consanguinity with UK citizens would count for something in their right of access to British Isles. They were even justified in asking that such ties should give them priority rights over other Commonwealth citizens who could not claim such a relationship, including large numbers of coloured British citizens, without thereby bringing upon themselves or Britain accusations of racial prejudice. How British Government would be able to reconcile all claims on its hospitality was for itself to decide but it would be unrealistic not to acknowledge separate and inescapable obligations to Common Market nationals.
1 The discussions did take place (see Document 336), but in the context of Downer paying a farewell call on senior ministers. No formal written representations were made to the United Kingdom by the Australian Government.
[UKNA: FC0 24/1316]