Canberra, 22 August 1972
Confidential
I have received on 15 August 1972 your letter concerning arrangements for the transfer of responsibility for the administration of Australia House. 1 I have now had an opportunity of discussing the proposals set forth in the letter at some length with Sir John Bunting.
Before commenting on the particular proposals, I believe it is necessary to consider the reasons which led to the decision to make the transfer. It is clear that a stage had been reached where we have a dual relationship with the United Kingdom. The first aspect is the continuance of the old special relationship, exemplified particularly by the continuing link with the Crown. This aspect of the relationship clearly requires the continuance of a direct channel of communication from yourself and your Department. No doubt officers are required to service this. However, a great part of this relationship is channelled through the Governor-General and does not greatly occupy the energies of the establishment at Australia House.
The second aspect is the relationship between the United Kingdom and Australia as two independent countries. In this aspect of our relationship we have foreign policy considerations of considerable importance, just as we do with any other independent, i.e. foreign, country. It is the rapid growth in the importance of these foreign policy considerations, both in regard to the United Nations, where recently our policies have diverged from those of the United Kingdom, as for example on the China question and in regard to the proposed entry of the United Kingdom into the enlarged European Communities that has made this question one of some urgency and importance. You will recall that, while we were attempting to concert action with the United Kingdom on the question of the recognition of Bangladesh, at a late stage Great Britain delayed and acted in concert with the European countries. The enlarged European Community not only has its separate Minister responsible for External Affairs (Dr Dahrendorf), but their representatives at ambassadorial or High Commissioner level in various places, for example in Canberra, meet together informally to concert foreign policy matters. Currently in Canberra the Ambassador of the Netherlands is chairman of this committee.
It is in the highest degree important for Australia that our Foreign Affairs representation in the United Kingdom at this time is at least as strong as it is in any other country. Foreign Affairs has an Ambassador in Washington, in Moscow and in Tokyo. It is my personal observation since I have been Foreign Minister that it is not practical for Australia’s foreign policy interests to be served by having in London a junior Deputy High Commissioner. Our foreign policy interests are at least as great there as in the other countries concerned and I cannot see them being satisfactorily serviced unless Foreign Affairs is represented there by someone at the level of Ambassador or High Commissioner.
Some of the disadvantages which flow from the present position become evident when one is dealing with a particular problem or going to the United Nations. As Foreign Minister of Australia one has less information as to what is the thinking of the United Kingdom Government on various issues than from the other capitals in which we have the higher representation from Foreign Affairs.
It may be suggested that in some way my current representative, Mr Pritchett, as junior Deputy High Commissioner, is at fault in not keeping me better informed. However, it is my belief that, however able is the Number 3 on a High Commission, it is impossible for him to perform the task that is required. In the first place, you yourself will recall when you were Foreign Minister the almost instinctive reaction which you have as a Minister if the Number 3 in a Foreign Embassy seeks to see you to discuss something when the Ambassador himself is available. Foreign Ministers and Heads of Foreign Offices simply do not deal on the same basis with the Number 3 as they do with the High Commissioner or Ambassador of a country. Nor is he invited to functions to the same extent or on the same footing as a High Commissioner. It was a point made to me by the German Foreign Minister in New York last year, in speaking of our getting closer together with the countries o(the Common Market, that the Ambassadors in London of, say, Germany and France could not deal at their own level with the Australian Foreign Affairs Department, in other words the German Ambassador could not speak to the Australian High Commissioner as a representative of the Foreign Affairs Department effectively.
If in fact a Deputy High Commissioner did succeed in performing the tasks of a High Commissioner, for example, by contacting Ministers, however junior, he could then be criticised for undercutting the position of his own High Commissioner, who is an officer of the Prime Minister’s Department.
In the case of other posts we issue lengthy directives analysing policy and the matters to which we wish the Ambassador or High Commissioner to give special attention. We expect him to attend Heads of Mission meetings when they are called and to make an appropriate contribution. When the Heads of Mission meeting was called in Europe in 1971 the posts in the European countries were represented by Ambassadors but the London post was represented by a junior Deputy High Commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that it is the most important post of all.
Turning now to the procedural suggestions in your letter, may I say at once that I would see no difficulty in isolating the particular administrative matters which relate to the link with the Crown, nor do I see any difficulty in direct communication between Prime Ministers, but I join issue with the suggestion that in Australia House senior levels should always operate separately back to their own Departments solely (see page 2, second last paragraph). While it is common practice for representatives, say of Immigration, in well-run posts there is an overall responsibility on the Commissioner or Ambassador, who generally calls, say twice a week, conferences in which there is discussion. I cannot accept that a deliberate policy of non-co-ordination is an efficient system.
It is suggested that the specialised direct links, for example with the British Defence Liaison Service, with Cabinet Office, Labour and National Service, Supply and the Armed Services, places the London post in a special category. If one looks at Washington, with its Defence Liaison, talks with the White House and its close relationship on Air Force purchasing, Atomic Energy, National Science Foundation, Education and Science, Treasury, Trade, Civil Aviation and so on, I would think that it would hardly be said that there was anything ‘without parallel’ in the United Kingdom situation.
So far as the Commonwealth Secretariat is concerned, with the possible exception of the calling of Conferences of Prime Ministers, the range of matters dealt with will largely fall into the field of foreign affairs—aid matters, Rhodesian sanctions, etc.—or into fields handled as a matter of course in every other country by our Embassies and High Commissioners under Foreign Affairs control, such as co-operation in education, information, etc. Every other Commonwealth country is the responsibility of my Department. It is hard, therefore, to see why the co-ordination of their activities through the Commonwealth Secretariat can be logically separated from that Department.
Finally, I emphasise the difficulty presented by paragraph 2 at the top of the page 2, which starts ‘Normal matters of Foreign Affairs will of course rest with yourself and your Department, as indeed has been increasingly the case in recent years’. This paragraph I take to mean that Foreign Affairs officers such as the junior Deputy High Commissioners may have contact with the British Foreign Office, but that what is important is that any responsibility of myself or the Foreign Affairs Department is entirely restricted to what may be described as ‘normal matters of Foreign Affairs’ and there would be no responsibility in relation to Australia House except in that closely defined and narrow area. So far as the appointment of the High Commissioner is concerned, the suggestion on page 3 is that this continues to be your appointment. Also on page 3 is the suggestion that there is need to discuss the appointment of the senior Deputy High Commissioner. From our verbal talks with Sir John Bunting, I assume that what is to be put forward here is the appointment of a first division public servant by you or your Department or the Public Service Board.
To sum up, what is really suggested in the letter, according to my understanding, is that the Foreign Affairs Department has a junior Deputy High Commissioner, with a very narrowly defined area of responsibility in future described as ‘normal matters of Foreign Affairs’, that there is to be no co-ordination of any of the functions of Australia House, which must continue to operate in an unco-ordinated manner as a matter of ‘conscious policy’, and that the only change will be a transfer of the financial responsibility from your vote to mine.
May I suggest that if these proposals were adopted, they would even increase the difficulties that at present exist and would defeat the attempt to improve the situation. Indeed, it is difficult to see any point in altering the financial responsibility from one vote to another, if there is to be no alteration in responsibility for administration. I would not wish to accept a transfer on that basis.
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART 2]