London, 15 December 1972
1330. Confidential
Immigration
[…]
2. I would now like to propose directly to Messrs Whitlam and Kirk1 that there should shortly be consultation with their Governments, in line with the undertakings given by me and the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on 22 November.
3. Please now seek an interview with Mr Whitlam/Mr Kirk and speak along the following lines:–
(A) As you know, the House of Commons on 22 November rejected the immigration rules which had been laid before the House in order to bring into effect the 1971 Immigration Act and new obligations arising as a result of our entry into the EEC on 1 January 1973.
(B) This rejection was primarily due to the fact that a number of members of Parliament thought that the rules did not adequately take into account feeling against them in Australia and New Zealand. Had this feeling not existed in Australia and New Zealand (and been reflected in the Press there, especially in Australia) it is unlikely that the British Press would have taken up the issue in the way it did or that the rules would have been rejected.
(C) This has put HMG into an embarrassing position. To get revised rules through the House of Commons, they need to give reassurance that Australian and New Zealand interests are safeguarded. But only the Australian and New Zealand Governments can speak with authority as regard these interests. That is why ministers felt it necessary to undertake to have consultations with those Governments about the immigration rules.
(D) Since the controversy mainly arises from the application of the rules to Australians and New Zealanders, we would be grateful to know whether the Australian and New Zealand Governments are ready to hold such consultations. In the House of Commons on 22 November, ministers referred to consultations at senior ministerial level. One possibility, therefore, would be for Lord Carrington to hold consultations when he visits Australia and New Zealand in the New Year. But since new rules have to be tabled within 40 Parliamentary days from 22 November (which in practice means by about the end of January) it would be desirable for consultations to begin earlier at official level, and we should like to propose that officials from here should visit Canberra and Wellington early in the New Year for this purpose.
(E) In any consultations, HMG would be ready to discuss any aspect of the rules which affects Australians and New Zealanders and to consider any proposals which the Australian and New Zealand Governments might wish to put forward. In particular, they would be interested to hear the views of those Governments on what aspects of our immigration procedures give unnecessary offence to their citizens.
(F) The term reciprocity, was much used during the debate and although it is not an easy concept to define we will be examining it in more detail. It would be useful to know what the Australian and New Zealand Governments think of the concept.
(G) In conclusion, you should make clear that because of public and Parliamentary interest here, ministers will need before Christmas to inform Parliament that they have approached Commonwealth Governments concerned about holiday consultations.
Wellington
4. I realise that this approach is likely to put Mr Kirk on something of a spot. If he sticks to the line that he proposes to reserve comment until we publish revised rules (para. 5 of Wellington Tel No. 780) you should make plain that ministers could not avoid saying in Parliament that the New Zealand Government had been offered an opportunity to enter into consultations and to express views on our immigration rules, but had not done so, and that HMG therefore had to conclude that New Zealand had no substantial complaints about the rules. I hope that it will not be necessary to speak as bluntly as this, but if necessary you must do so. Ideally, we should like Mr Kirk eventually to reply that, after careful consideration (possibly including consultations with HMG), his Government had concluded that the rules adequately took account of New Zealand interests.
Canberra
5. Mr Whitlam’s case is rather different. He can with reason claim that this problem is one for HMG alone to resolve, and one in which he has been careful to avoid interfering. But, again, you should if necessary insist that HMG’s problem arises from an interpretation placed by some British Members of Parliament on Australian wishes and interests, and by pronouncements by some prominent Australians including both the previous Australian High Commissioner and the High Commissioner Designate.2 If Mr Whitlam thinks that this interpretation is wrong and that the rules, either in their present form or as amended in any way which he might propose, do not disregard Australian interests, then he should be prepared to say so. But if he does not wish to enter into consultations or to make proposals ministers will in due course have to make this public. Again, I hope that it will not be necessary to speak as bluntly as this and that Mr Whitlam will sympathise with the difficulties in which we find ourselves and be disposed to be helpful.
6. As regards Canada, the problem does not arise since Mr Trudeau made clear when he was here earlier this month that he had no complaint about our treatment of Canadians coming here.
1 Norman Kirk, Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand, 1972–74.
2 John Ignatius Armstrong—see Document 412.
[UKNA: FC0 24/1318]