London, 28 November 1972
Confidential
I thanked Mr Carr for receiving me and explained that I had not called on any specific instructions from my Government. However, it would be helpful to me to have a private and informal talk with him. Mr Carr responded that it would be helpful to him too and that he much welcomed my visit. He said that he assumed that we were talking quite privately and not for attribution. I said that this was certainly my wish, and, though he may want to draw on what I had to say, I hoped also that this would not lead to public attribution. Mr Carr readily assented to this.
2. I then said that he would understand that nothing I said should in any way prejudice the position of the Australian Government as regards any comment it may wish to offer on the new British immigration Rules and matters arising there from. He would understand that, with the Federal Election so imminent, the present Government was not in a position to give these questions their full attention and there would, of course, be a new Government next week, whose position we could not anticipate. Mr Carr said that he completely understood this position and that we were talking without prejudice.
3. I said that I expected that he could not have been misled about the Australian position by the London press campaign and other public comment here. As he knew, the Australian Government itself had offered no comment on the new Rules and made no representations. In some respects presentation of the Australian position here in London had misrepresented Australian attitudes. Indeed, commenting personally, I thought that Australia had adapted to the prospect of Britain’s entry into the Common Market earlier and more readily than many British people themselves, although I acknowledged that the implications for our two communities were different.
4. Mr Carr interjected to say that most unfortunately he had not been able to secure the figures in time for last week’s debate, but he could now tell me that over 139,000 Australians had come to Britain as visitors in the first nine months of this year and only 79 had been given a permit for less than the normal initial period of 6 months. It was regrettable that anybody at all should be barred or restricted, but the record was not really unsatisfactory. It was good to see Australians visit in such large numbers: they were always welcome. Mr Carr agreed with my remark about adaptation to the Common Market. He recalled a conversation with a Sydney taxi driver in Sydney in 1961, who had expressed a surprisingly sophisticated attitude about Britain’s entry into the Common Market and the need for Australia to get out and make its own way. Mr Carr had the same impression of our attitude from other contacts with Australians and from personal correspondence from relatives in Melbourne. They had also written to him that, despite the fuss in London, the new immigration Rules had not excited significant hostile comment in Australia.
5. I then drew on Canberra’s cable No. 15135 1 to describe Australian reactions and gave Mr Carr a copy of the Prime Minister’s oral statement […] I said that feelings about kith and kin, war–time association and closeness to Britain were undoubtedly an important aspect of our relations; however, any assertions that might come before him about ill-feeling in Australia because of the new immigration Rules needed to be seen in perspective and treated with some reserve. But I pointed out again that the Australian Government had yet to address itself to this question—and we had to wait to see what effect the public handling of it here might have on Australian opinion.
6. I then said that it would be helpful if Mr Carr could tell me what he had in mind regarding the two proposals for Commonwealth consultations and ‘reciprocal’ immigration.
7. Mr Carr said that the opposition to the new Rules had blown up very suddenly. The position in legislation had long been clear and the new Rules themselves had been tabled on 23rd October, but criticism had only mounted in about the last ten or eleven days. (He seemed to think this rather unreasonable.) Anyway, the Government had been suddenly faced with a very difficult political situation among its own followers and the proposal for Commonwealth consultations had been ‘pressed out of the Foreign Secretary in the pressure of the Commons debate’. Otherwise, he would, of course, have wished to consult with us and other Governments before making such a proposal.
8. The arrangement of the consultations was properly a matter for the Foreign Secretary, but the two of them worked closely together and he did not feel that he was breaching protocol in saying to me what was in their minds. In fact nothing firm had yet been decided, but it was realised that there were new Governments assuming office in both New Zealand and Australia and that the Christmas holiday season was approaching there. There seemed little point in thinking of consultations until some time in the New Year, February maybe, when the new Governments would have settled in. Talks would probably be bilateral.
9. I asked if it was envisaged that contact would be limited to Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and intimated possible difficulties in this respect. Mr Carr said that it would be important, for the British Government anyway, not to limit the talks in this way. The West Indians and India would certainly want to be brought in and also presentationally this was most desirable. Mr Carr said that there would be absolutely no problem if the question were simply arrangements for the Old Commonwealth, because of the natural affinities between our communities and because there was no inward pressure on Britain from the Old Commonwealth. But, as I certainly realised, there was huge inward pressure from other Commonwealth countries, going far beyond what the British community would now tolerate.
10. I intimated that reciprocity could have particular difficulties for us, and Mr Carr immediately seized the point and said that he knew that not all UK citizens were acceptable to us.
11. Mr Carr went on to say that any immediate changes in the Rules would only be marginal and ‘cosmetic’. He gave no details and my clear impression was that these were still under study. He did, however, make a passing reference to possible modification of the Rules to bring the status of Australians somehow more into line with that of EEC nationals during the initial six months period. (It was not clear to me what he might have in mind, but, in view of his vagueness, I did not consider it worth yet seeking clarification.) Mr Carr emphasised again that there was extremely little scope to change the Rules, certainly without unacceptable discrimination. Some of his Party members spoke as though the Commonwealth consisted only of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. However, presumably any Australian Government would also have other members of the Commonwealth in mind, e.g. in South East Asia. Mr Carr thought that it would be possible to get the Rules through with very minor modification if the Government gave solemn assurances of Commonwealth consultation and convinced its followers of its earnestness on this score. I said again that I could not anticipate what the attitude of the incoming Australian Government would be, but Mr Carr would realise that it could not be represented at this stage that the Australian Government was pressing for consultations: these were a United Kingdom initiative, although the Australian Prime Minister had indicated readiness to participate. Mr Carr indicated full agreement with this point.
12. I asked about the timing of the tabling of the revised Rules and what sort of pressure may be on Australia to take a position before the Rules were re-tabled in Parliament. Was it contemplated that Rules dealing with EEC nationals and Commonwealth citizens respectively would now be issued separately and the latter later? Mr Carr indicated a tight programme in this respect and said that it was unavoidable that the revised Rules be issued before any Commonwealth consultations could take place. After that, however, if consultations should expose substantive demands for change, the Rules could always be altered later. I did not pursue this point.
13. I then said that I would like to talk briefly about the administration of the Rules. Mr Carr said that he appreciated that there could be difficulties in this area. There were, after all some forty million visitors to Britain a year and under this sort of pressure officials at ports of entry were likely to feel the strain from time to time. He himself had visited Heathrow without notice last August to observe procedure there and he thought that his official were coping pretty well: he had seen lots of Australians passing through without difficulty or delay. However, he fully recognised that difficulties were bound to arise and, as he had said in the Commons and on Panorama the previous evening, he was determined to do everything he could to reduce difficulties and to make entry easy and welcoming. He would welcome substantiated complaints and asked me specifically to bring those to attention.
14. I expressed appreciation of this attitude and then spoke of the particular importance to Australians of the arrangements for visitors and working holidays. It was extremely important to us that these arrangements be in no way eroded. Mr Carr said that there was not the slightest intention of introducing any restrictions in this field. He fully understood the importance of these arrangements, and they were valuable also to Britain, which much welcomed Australian visitors. The working holiday was designed in principle to cater for people up to about 32 years of age, but it was flexibly administered.
15. I said that one particular area of difficulty seemed to be in distinguishing between ordinary visitors and people seeking entry on a working holiday. Mr Carr was immediately receptive to this point and asked me to pursue it with his officers. He asked his private secretary to arrange this.
16. I then referred to the public presentation of the Rules and said that in many ways this was as important as the substance of the Rules themselves. Mr Carr was immediately receptive on this point also, and it had clearly been concerning him personally. He said that he thought there should have been a greater effort to present the Rules clearly and commented to his private secretary in this sense. He asked his secretary again to pursue the idea of getting out a special pamphlet, clearly and simply explaining the rules, for issue by British missions abroad, by Qantas, BOAC, travel agencies and so forth. He said to me that he had some difficulties with his officials about rewriting the rules more simply. The legal people particularly were wanting rather to tighten up the presentation. He accepted, however, that there was an important public relations dimension and he wanted to give it full attention.
17. The meeting concluded with Mr Carr again expressing appreciation and satisfaction at our talk and urging me to follow up vigorously with his officers any complaints that might come to me.
1 Document 355.
[NAA: A1838, 67/1/3 PART 6]