British High Commission, Canberra, 18 December 1972
1773. Confidential
Immigration
1. As you know, the Prime Minister and Sir Keith Waller (Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs) have spoken to me in ways which suggest that Australian Government will not (repeat not) easily be brought to co-operate with us in the way which we want. Prime Minister’s reason is a party-political one. Waller’s point (unless we can persuade him otherwise, it will doubtless figure in his advice to Mr Whitlam) is the traditional one that each country has the sovereign right and duty to determine for itself its own immigration policy: and that no Australian purpose would be served if the Australian Government were to become publicly involved in controversy arising from our or any other country’s immigration policy. […]
2. Naturally, we here shall do our very best on basis of your instructions to steer Australian thinking into a more helpful path. But I cannot be very sanguine as to the upshot. It would follow logically enough from the Whitlam-Waller line, if it is sustained, for Mr Whitlam himself to want to publicise his refusal to enter into consultations with us on this subject, i.e. his withers could be quite un-wrung by the statement that such a refusal might have to be made public. 1
3. When I see him I shall of course try to talk him into a more helpful frame of mind. But if I succeed, it is more likely to be by dint of appealing to him to give us confidentially the benefit of candid and friendly Australian advice, without his thereby entering into any formal commitment to endorse our eventual decisions. Would this be an acceptable line for me to take, please?
4. Your tel under ref2 arrived here only today, 18 December, which sees start of three exceedingly busy days for Mr Whitlam. During them:–
- ALP caucus must select the 27 men who will form the second Whitlam ministry:
- Mr Whitlam must allocate portfolios among them:
- His present administration must resign: and
- The new Government must be sworn in.
5. I have sought earliest possible interview with the Prime Minister, but his principle Private Secretary says it is not possible for him to see me before Wednesday afternoon, 20 December, at earliest. I see some advantage in this, since given his pre–occupations until then an earlier meeting would perforce be a very rushed one, and could produce a snap answer of just the kind which we do not want. Moreover, there might also be advantage in delaying my call on Mr Whitlam until Sir Arthur Galsworthy’s3 report on his talk with Mr Kirk is available. (Mr Kirk’s reaction could affect Mr Whitlam’s decision), provided this were not too long delayed.
6. In these circumstances I propose (if you agree) in the course of tomorrow, 19 December, to see Waller and go over ground with him, in preparation for my later interview with Prime Minister. Such an interim approach to DFA would allow ministers to make statement to Parliament foreshadowed in your para 3(G), even if I do not in the end manage to see Mr Whitlam on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Inter alia, I would urge on Waller the view that as guardian of their citizens’ welfare overseas, Australian Government would be helped by being able to tell their own public that talks (however informal) were to take place with us about our immigration rules. I would say that it seemed clear from the evidence reaching us here that there are many Australians who would react adversely to any suggestion that their Government were not (repeat not) pressing the case on us for easing British immigration controls for benefit of Australians.
7. Grateful to learn by 0900 hours Canberra time tomorrow, 19 December, whether you agree that I should see Waller as suggested.
1 This is a reference to Home’s statement in Document 360, paragraph 5: ‘But if he does not wish to enter into consultations or to make proposals ministers will in due course have to make this public’.
2 Document 360.
3 British High Commissioner, Wellington.
[UKNA: FC0 24/1318]