Canberra, 22 October 1971
Confidential
Australia House—Responsibility
Talking Points
You told the Leader of the Opposition on 5 October that you would not agree to a change in responsibility until you had discussed the matter with the British Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear that he was in favour of a change.
2. Historical reasons for having the High Commissioner in London responsible to the Prime Minister have disappeared. Thus there is no longer a separate Dominions or Commonwealth Relations Office. The Australian Mission no longer represents one of four ‘Old Dominions’ but is one of a large number of diplomatic missions, all of which deal with the British Foreign Office. No other Commonwealth country has a separate department dealing with Britain. (Paragraph 7 of notes).
3. A change of control would not necessarily remove or reduce opportunities for direct access by the Australian High Commission in London or the British High Commissioner in Canberra at Prime Minister or other senior level. A change would, in fact, increase the flow of information passing between Governments. (Paragraph 8 of notes).
4. If a change is to be made at all, we should seek to avoid the change being interpreted (and criticised) as being linked with Britain’s entry to the EEC (Paragraph 9 of notes)
5. While Australia House is, by far, the largest and most costly overseas establishment, the experience of the Department of Foreign Affairs in management of diplomatic missions would ensure that it would administer Australia House no less efficiently than it is administered at present (Paragraph 10 of notes).
Background
6. The Prime Minister’s reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition on 5 October implied that he thought that Mr Whitlam did not favour a change in responsibility and indicated that in any event he would not make a change until he discussed the matter with the British Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace. This brought a personal explanation from Mr Whitlam that he had been advocating a change for some time and that he would like the British Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace to know that he favoured a change. It is not unlikely therefore that Mr Whitlam will ask the Prime Minister on his return to Australia whether he discussed the matter in Britain.
Changes in Anglo-Australian diplomatic relations
7. Until the beginning of World War II the High Commission in London was Australia’s only diplomatic post. Australia was one of four self-governing Dominions and its affairs in London were handled by a Secretary of State of Dominion Affairs. High Commissioners, and at one period a Resident Minister, had special access to the British Prime Minister. With the expansion of the British Commonwealth, the change in title of the responsible British Minister to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the final absorption of the Commonwealth Relations Office into the Foreign Office, the High Commissioner’s place in the diplomatic corps in London has become no different from that of many other heads of missions, all of whom are directed by their Foreign Offices. There is little requirement for the High Commissioner to remain under separate direction from that exercised over other Australian Heads of Mission throughout the world.
The need for access at high levels
8. A change in control would not result in a loss of access at high levels nor lessen the ability of the British and Australian Prime Ministers to communicate with each other on important matters. For example, direction of the Australian Ambassador at Washington by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and of the American Ambassador at Canberra by the Secretary of State does not prevent rapid communication between the Prime Minister and the President when this is necessary. On the other hand, full use of the High Commissioner depends on his receiving adequate instructions in the way these are sent to all other missions. This is not happening in the case of the High Commissioner in London because it is easier for Foreign Affairs to deal with a Foreign Affairs Officer at Australia House than to seek concurrence of another Department to send instructions to the High Commissioner. This in turn limits the range of the High Commissioner’s contacts. The flow of information from Britain to Australia on international affairs is, in fact, much less than from such countries as the United States and Japan.
The importance of timing in any change
9. If as seems likely, at an early date, the British Parliament approves Britain joining the EEC a decision to transfer Australia House to Foreign Affairs might be interpreted (and criticized) as a reaction to the British decision. In terms of Anglo-Australian relations and for domestic political reasons, it might be preferable to avoid such publicity and to announce as soon as possible that an administrative examination of the responsibility for Australia House will be undertaken.
Foreign Affairs capability
10. The Department of Foreign Affairs controls 63 overseas missions. The largest is the Embassy at Washington with a total staff of 339 persons (including 187 locally engaged) compared with an establishment at Australia House of 1141 (including 919 locally engaged). The multiplicity of problems associated with operations under many different conditions, its experience with the integration of staff from other departments and its building and accommodation expertise would equip the Department to manage Australia House no less efficiently than is the case under the present administrative arrangement.
11. Some establishment comparisons. 23 Communications staff in London to 11 in Washington; 115 Purchasing staff in London to 30 in Washington and New York; and an Army staff of 37 in London compared with 31 in Washington.
1 Circulated to Australia House and the Prime Minister’s Department.
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART 1]