Canberra, 20 August 1971
You wrote to me on 11th August about the transfer of Australia House and the Prime Minister’s desire for a paper on this subject. I shall be happy to discuss this with you and Sir Frederick Wheeler. In the meantime I am sending a few thoughts which may be worth incorporating in such a paper.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Sir Frederick Wheeler.
1. Australia House is an historical anomaly dating back to a period when there was no Foreign Affairs Department in Canberra and no independent foreign policy. The Prime Minister held the External Affairs portfolio and his Department naturally administered our only overseas post.
2. Today, the only other case of Australian representation overseas which is not administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs is the Trade Commission in Hong Kong. The question of changing this into a Commission is under consideration by Trade and Foreign Affairs.
3. Until 1968, Commonwealth or Dominion relations were handled by a separate Department of State. This provided some justification for a special channel between Australia and the UK. The Commonwealth Relations Office has now been absorbed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
4. So far as we are aware, relations with the Crown in such matters as Honours and Awards, acts that require the Queen’s approval, such as the appointment of Ambassadors etc, are handled through the Governor General’s office. Some originate in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Others originate in Foreign Affairs. These matters would not be affected by a transfer of authority to Foreign Affairs.
5. There was in the past, a special relationship between Australia and Britain. This covered Foreign Affairs, Defence, Trade and Treasury in particular. Today our relations with the United States Government are much closer than they are with Whitehall. For every instance of consultation on political or defence questions with London, there are probably six with Washington. Relations with Japan which has replaced Britain as our largest single customer are closer than with Britain.
6. A factor in the past was that Australians thought of themselves primarily as British. Most now think of themselves as ‘Australians’. The need to mark our relations with Britain as something special was reflected in an arrangement whereby these relations were, quite deliberately, handled outside the normal orbit of our foreign relations. This state of affairs no longer exists. The British High Commission would presumably, continue to deal with both the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and with Foreign Affairs as they do at present. There might be some shift in emphasis but nothing more. In fact, all Departments would be open to them as they are at present.
7. It is difficult to argue that Australia House would be more efficiently managed if it were under the control of Foreign Affairs. It can however, be asserted that as part of a management operation which already covers 68 overseas posts, there is no reason to suppose that it would be any less efficient. The increasing systemisation of our management techniques are already shared with other Departments. The only possible improvement is that they would be applied direct instead of at one remove.
8. Some improvement in efficiency could be achieved in Canberra without the actual transfer of authority to Foreign Affairs. For example, ‘consular’ cases were almost unknown in London until recent years. The passage of new immigration legislation and the limitation on Australians obtaining work permits, has led to an increasing number of these cases, involving denial of entry or deportation. These cases are referred to Foreign Affairs by the Prime Minister’s Department to whom they are addressed by Australia House. If Australia House dealt direct with Foreign Affairs, delays could be avoided.
9. Much of the reporting from Australia House is already in fields in which Foreign Affairs has a direct interest. Full use of the High Commissioner depends on his receiving adequate instructions, in the way that these are sent to all other Heads of Mission. This is not happening at present because it is easier for Foreign Affairs to deal direct with the Deputy High Commissioner who is an FA Officer than to seek the concurrence of another Department to send instructions to the High Commissioner. This in turn lessens the range of the High Commissioner’s contacts.
10. No other Commonwealth country has a separate Department to deal with Britain.
11. The attitude of the British High Commission in conversations following the press reports that a change was contemplated is that they regard it as natural and normal, more especially since the abolition of the Commonwealth Relations Office.
12. It may be suggested that the change would weaken the ties with London and that this flows from British membership of the EEC with the resulting weakening of Commonwealth links. This does not seem to have any substance. We could argue truthfully and convincingly that the changes were purely mechanical and in the interest of producing a unified approach to our overseas representation.
13. If Foreign Affairs were to take over administrative responsibility for Australia House, it would in time seek with the help of the Public Service Board, to streamline staff and procedures. It would also re-organise the chain of command and abolish the old nomenclature, giving normal diplomatic titles to the Australia House staff (as has been done by the British High Commission here).
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART 1]