Australian High Commission, London, 9 May 1972
I have been looking through the file 71/9449 ‘Transfer of Responsibility for Australia House to the Department ofForeign Affairs’. I am afraid that—although this is not stated explicitly—I do gain the impression on reading the Foreign Affairs papers that Australia House is regarded as just another post. This I do not accept.
Its activities and output bear no relation to those of the small posts and the environment is certainly different from that of the two other large ones, Tokyo and Washington. Ignoring all the emotional ties, there are a great number of very practical links between the two countries which are used by Australians in and out of Government and which show little indication of fading away.
Firstly, 105,000 Australians visit UK each year, they are not all tourists and certainly at least 50% appear in the House at some time or another during their stay. I would estimate about 15 Ministers and an equal number of Permanent Heads of Department, together with parties of Parliamentarians, would also be in England each year. Many of these visits arise from the very strong links we have with the learned societies in England, the Institutions of Engineers, the Medical Colleges and the Royal Societies. There are 11 Australian banks established in London, there are an increasing number of commercial and industrial enterprises being set up in UK, and there is a continual stream of university graduates and public servants who are visiting the country for further training. Certainly there is no counterpart in the other posts to the official links with the Palace on matters such as Honours, Royal Visits, etc. The Commonwealth Secretariat has its headquarters in London and throws up a number of matters of very little direct interest to the Prime Minister’s Department.
Then in our dealings with Government, the Parliamentary system and the civil servants in UK are similar to those in Australia, but this is not so in the US or in Japan. An Australian politician is a very similar animal to the British one and the two accept each other freely. The Australian permanent head carries out much the same functions as his UK counterpart. As you will know, Australian and UK personnel are interchangeable in practically every Department, and I think we have had many examples where this interchange has been effective in the Services, the Cabinet Office, Labour and National Service, Supply etc. In other Departments such as Civil Aviation, Post Office, Education and Science, the UK principles and practices are much the same as our own.
All of this gives an opportunity in London for a comparatively low level horizontal co-operation between offices without the necessity to climb up the pyramid and down the other man’s organisation. But it also means that if we are to exploit this system to the utmost we must appoint people to the post who are accepted as colleagues by their opposite numbers.
This sort of liaison is reflected in the social contacts of practically all officers in Australia House. We all have the usual protocol engagements, but in addition we do much to stimulate these extra mural links. My own diary for the last week before I returned here included a visit to Jersey with Les Bury on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, annual dinners with the Institution of Naval Constructors and the Institution of Civil Engineers—at which I spoke—attendance at a concert of the Australian Musical Association, a lunch with Warburgs the bankers, a lunch with the UK delegation to OECD Science and Technology Committee and finally on the Saturday the first match of the Australian Test Team at Arundel.
I think that over the years there has been developed in Australia House an organisation structure which takes account of, and optimises for our benefit, these links with the UK.
The High Commissioner has usually been an ex-Minister, quite often with previous contacts with the Government of the day. The Deputy High Commissioner has been an ex-Permanent Head of a Department who has I think, been readily accepted by his opposite numbers. They each have contacts at two important levels of the UK structure and share the major protocol and extra mural activities. They also handle directly relations with the Crown and with the Commonwealth Secretariat. The other 15 or so Heads of Division deal with their opposite numbers largely on a Departmental brief without much intrusion from the High Commissioner or Deputy High Commissioner unless there is difficulty which can be sorted out by intrusion or co-ordination at a higher level.
There is no hierarchical pyramid and I don’t believe one is necessary. The Foreign Affairs adviser is—for protocol reasons which may or may not be valid—also designated a Deputy High Commissioner but again operates in practice in a fashion similar to other heads of branches. Perhaps one result of this organisation is that the information output from the House tends to be in signals rather than broad post surveys. I think this is appropriate for a broad survey of the English scene is being presented daily by quite authoritative newspapers and is already available in Australia.
If there was to be a change of management, I would hope that the basic structure and method of working would not be altered. Certainly it should not be altered merely to give uniformity with other posts. I think that the High Commissioner should continue to be filled from the Ministry because of the unique links between the Governments. I believe the Deputy High Commissioner should continue to be an ex-Permanent head—a generalist with a wide knowledge of Australia and Australians and that it would be appropriate that the Prime Minister’s Department should nominate him. The Deputy High Commissioner should be specifically responsible for relations with the Palace and the Commonwealth Secretariat. As a continuing administrative core it would probably be appropriate for him to take in the Reception Officer who is responsible for arranging visits of the more important Australians.
I see little point in continuing the designation of the Foreign Affairs adviser as Deputy High Commissioner. 1 do not believe it has achieved its purpose, but the dual titles have certainly caused confusion and on occasion some embarrassment to the pair of us. However, redesignation of Heads of Branches as Counsellor or Minister as appropriate would do much to clarify their position vis-a-vis other missions and embassies. I do not see the necessity for many other changes, the Official Secretary post and branch is still required to administer the House and should formally report to the High Commissioner. He had adequate delegations which I hope he would retain and can always use the Deputy High Commissioner as a source of advice. He is the person concerned with the 900 locally engaged staff and this man and his deputy should be chosen with very great care. The present occupants of the position are carrying out their duties most effectively and I would hope that their replacement would be achieved on an end-of-tour basis.
One final thing, our relations with UK are, I believe, very good, not only at Government level but with the general population. There seems now to be a sympathetic backlash, resulting from the proposed UK entry into the Common Market and I would not like to see anything done which would give an impression that we are re-organising in pique.
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART 5]