British High Commission, Canberra, 6 December 1972
Confidential
Immigration into Britain
1. Sir Max Aitken’s ‘Daily Express’ campaign,1 and the Government’s defeat in the House of Commons on 22 November at the end of the debate on the new immigration rules, gave fresh lease of life to the agitation in Australia (which I believe we were earlier in a fair way to getting on top of) against what is so persistently thought of here as the intended equation by Britain henceforward of Commonwealth citizens with aliens for all purposes, and not just for purposes of employment. I am afraid that our Ministers’ clear and repeated statements—which have been fully publicised here—that this is not and never has been intended have not carried complete conviction. Australians generally are now looking for deeds rather than words; they hope that the new immigration rules will take greater account of their special relationship with Britain, and they hope also that our streaming arrangements at points of entry will be radically modified so as to prove less of an affront to visitors.
2. As evidence, I enclose a copy of a self-explanatory letter which Sir William Kilpatrick, the National President of the Australia/Britain Society, wrote on 29 November to Lord Carrington in the latter’s capacity as President of the Australia Society in Britain.2 I attended (in my capacity as a National Vice–President) the meeting in Melbourne at which it was decided that a letter on these lines should be sent to the Australia Society. I can testify to the deep feelings of the Australians present. They included all the State Presidents or their representatives. They were unanimous in feeling that the immigration problem has—for the time being anyway—‘flooded out’(as Kilpatrick put it) the ground which the Australia/Britain Society was beginning to gain.
3. The Committee members are all people who know and have close ties with Britain, and it is precisely Australians such as they whose feelings have been most hurt. I did my best at the meeting to put the matter once again in perspective, and succeeded to the extent that the letter to Lord Carrington is written in cooler and more reasonable terms than might have been the case had I not been there.
[ matter omitted ]
5. I was glad to see Mr Carr’s assurance on 22 November about the Commonwealth citizen’s right to use the UK gate at points of entry if the Commonwealth gate is closed. But I believe […] that we should do even better to abolish the system of differential gates altogether. To do this would remove one of the main irritants in the present situation. (You will see that Kilpatrick makes special mention of it in his letter.) I know the Home Office believe from experience that it would anger United Kingdom nationals if they had at any time to queue. But frankly I cannot believe that it is beyond our wit to devise a system like that used in most advanced countries which does not categorise travellers at points of entry but still allows enquiries to be made where necessary. In my letter under reference I propose that the gates at points of entry should be unmarked, and entrants allowed to join the shortest queue. It would be necessary for immigration officers to take aside for more detailed and private questioning in an adjoining special interview area by back-up staff anyone whose credentials appeared to require lengthy examination, so that all queues could move forward speedily. As far as Australians are concerned, this new arrangement would overcome the emotional problem of being segregated in a queue which is not that for UK citizens. It would stop families being split up and directed through different gates. It would ensure that without offence to other Commonwealth peoples, those who believe, like Australians and New Zealanders, that they have quite different (because especially close) tie with us, are not needlessly upset on arrival in Britain.
6. As you know, I wish also that we could get rid of the albatross which the Home Office hung round all our necks when they issued their press notice of24 October containing the damaging phrase ‘for the first time Commonwealth citizens are placed on a footing with aliens …. ’. This single unfortunate (even if strictly true) phrase is the source of most of our trouble. It is very hard for me and my staff, or indeed for British Ministers, to argue convincingly that Australians will not be aliens whilst this passage remains unaltered on record. I therefore hope that political requirements at home do not preclude the possibility of it being rephrased in a less misleading form, and the sooner this can be done the better.
[ matter omitted ]
8. My telegram No. 1690 described the warning shot which Mr Whitlam has fired across our bows in regard to any ostensible discussion of our immigration policy during Lord Carrington’s visit. Keith Waller followed this up at our talk yesterday by saying that he hoped it was realised in London that no Australian Government, of whatever party, could be expected to put its signature to any kind of document approving (or disapproving) our immigration policy, for fear of setting a precedent for the international discussion of these matters which Australia itself would inevitably find perilous later on. I said I felt sure this was already appreciated in London, but would nevertheless draw the point to the FCO’s attention.
1 See Document 336.
2 Document 359.
[UKNA: FCO 24/1317]