Canberra, 27 September 1967
Australia House1
If there is to be Party discussion about Australia House being outside the control of External Affairs, the notes sent to you will give you good background for any remarks you are called on to make.
2. But what strikes me as the central point is that the United Kingdom is still in a major sense the centre of Australian activity abroad. This is being nibbled away at the edges, but it is still the situation. Australia has relations in all directions with the United Kingdom, with the result that practically every Australian Department is represented there. There is a major Trade section, a major Treasury section, a major Immigration section, a major Customs section, very large Services sections, a major Defence section, a major Supply and Procurement section, an Auditor-General’s representative, a Taxation section, an Education section, and so on.
3. What the Government has done up to date is to say, in effect, that this is a microcosm of the Australian Public Service. It is different in this respect from other embassies, and as on the domestic scene, the central co-ordinating Minister is the Prime Minister and the administration goes to the Prime Minister’s Department.
4. It may not always be the same, but it would be a shift in our understanding of functions between Departments if we were to make External Affairs at this stage the governing Department in London. It is a piece of administration which, as yet, should be in the Prime Minister’s hands.
5. The best thing is not to be drawn too far in the debate, but you hear what the allegations are and reserve your reply. But if you are required to speak, the above would be suitable, plus an indication that the whole thing is something to be kept under study, without taking any long term attitude either way at this stage.
Australia House
The following points are relevant in any discussion as to whether our diplomatic post in London should be, as it is, under the control of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Department or whether it should take its place with other posts under the External Affairs cover.
(1) There is a long history behind the present situation which has Australia House under the Prime Minister’s Department and has Prime Minister’s Department in Canberra responsible for relations with the British High Commission here. A study of the history is unprofitable. The question is whether a change should be made.
(2) The practice has been, for good reason, that our post in London is headed by a political man of status within his own country. Quite simply, Sir Eric Harrison2 and Sir Alexander Downer3 are and have been able to talk on personal terms to any British Cabinet Ministers in an intimate way which would never be achieved by a career official. This gives Australia a direct government-to-government contact to supplement the personal and intimate relations that have always existed between the British Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister.
(3) It has been said that because Britain is now going into Europe that there is no reason for us to seek or maintain this special relationship with Britain any more than any other country. We would put the contrary view that never before has it been so important for Australia to be heard in the intimate councils of the British Government.
(4) The Deputy High Commissioner in London has been a senior official of Permanent Head status but not necessarily from External Affairs. Sir Edwin McCarthy,4 the first Deputy High Commissioner, went on to take other diplomatic posts abroad as did Sir Allen Brown.5 The present Deputy is Mr Knott,6 former Permanent Head of the Department of Supply. The fact that our Deputy High Commissioners are of Permanent Head status here is an advantage in London.
(5) Is External Affairs under some disadvantage in London because its senior representative does not hold one of the two top positions? The External Affairs staff in London headed by a senior officer of Minister status and the staff under him have unfettered access to the diplomatic community there and to the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office sources. They report direct to the Department of External Affairs as necessary. The EA representative ranks third after High Commissioner and Deputy, and ahead of the Official Secretary.7
(6) The administration of Australia House is under the Official Secretary and the Prime Minister’s Department but in fact is run under a separate High Commissioner Act and has a large locally engaged staff. This is an administrative and consular function and on the consular side the External Affairs requirements are fully followed.
(7) Other Departments are represented in London at a quite senior status—at times by officers who might be senior in Public Service status to the External Affairs representative appointed there. It is a useful element of control and cohesion for the High Commissioner at Australia House to be of a status superior to any departmental representatives.
(8) It is not uncommon to hear External Affairs officers complain about the lack of control by their Department in London and what they regard as lost opportunities for career officers. A good deal of this criticism is not borne out by the facts.
(9) The British themselves value the special relationship of our representation in London and the special relationship in which their High Commission in Canberra stands and its direct access to the Prime Minister’s Department and the Prime Minister. The way British/Australian representation is handled in both capitals does reflect the special nature that has always been regarded as part of the intimate bonds between the two countries.
(10) It should also be remembered that the Australian States have Agents General in Britain under the direction of the Premiers’ Departments of the States. New Zealand has New Zealand House under the direction of the Department of External Affairs but it is usual for the New Zealand Prime Minister to also accept the post of Minister for External Affairs.
1 On 12 October 1966, Liberal backbencher Harry Turner (Member for Bradfield, 1952–74) delivered a speech in the House of Representatives on 12 October 1966 in which he described the administrative status of Australia House as ‘a throwback to the past, a historical accident, an anachronism and it is high time it was altered’. Over the ensuing months, Turner lobbied to have the issue brought forward for discussion in the Liberal party room, prompting the Holt Government to explain and justify the administrative arrangements for Australia House.
2 Australian High Commissioner, London, 1956-64. Formerly Member for Wentworth (1931–56) and Minister in the Lyons and Menzies governments.
3 Australian High Commissioner, London, 1962–72. Formerly Member for Angas (1949–64) and Minister for Immigration in the Menzies Government (1958–63).
4 Deputy High Commissioner, 1949–57, and formerly Permanent Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, 1945–49.
5 Deputy High Commissioner (1959–65). Formerly Secretary, Prime Minister’s Department, 1949–59.
6 John Laurence Knott, Deputy High Commissioner, London, 1966–68; formerly Secretary, Department of Defence Production, 1957–58, and Department of Supply, 1959–65.
7 Emphasis in original.
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART I]