Canberra, 28 August 1972
Thanks.
I agree very much with the points you made1 —if anything I would want to be tougher. As you know I have come to feel that transfer itself is premature.
At his request I gave the Secretary a rough line of reply—a chopping block—at weekend […]
[Lawler’s draft follows]2
I have been turning over in my mind the further views which you set out in your letter of 23 August concerning the transfer of responsibility for Australia House.
2. What you say does, I think bring into sharper focus the fundamental issue which has come to occupy our attention as we have moved to give effect to the transfer decision.
3. This is summarised in the link with the Crown which as we both agree continues to express a special relationship.
4. What finds expression in this relationship which we summarise as the link with the Crown is not a narrow concept of monarchy alone but something much wider and deeper which expresses and is a reflection of a total association between Australia and Britain. It is a relationship which expresses not only the historic links of culture and kinship but comprehends a whole set of dealings which are not to be found in similar kind in our associations with other overseas countries.
5. The relationship is a total thing and is I believe, for all its intangibilities, generally seen by the Australian public as a totality and valued as such.
6. And it is not only the Commonwealth Government which has direct link [sic] and interest in this regard. The States as well have their own links with the Crown and maintain their own offices and representation in London.
7. They can reasonably be expected to have a view and I am sure will have a view about the future of this, what I might call total image.
8. It is against that background that I find difficulty with your view that ‘the stage has been reached where we have a dual relationship’ with Britain. In certain of its aspects—particularly those which directly involve your own portfolio responsibility—the relationship has undoubtedly changed over the years and is changing. Certainly we must recognise and respond, where necessary, with new arrangements, to these changes. But as I see it notwithstanding these changing aspects the relationship still maintains its essential entity and does not admit of a concept of duality. Its essential element is that association with total image which we summarise in the expression ‘the link with the Crown’.
9. The special relationship has caused us to make special arrangements with regard to our representation in London, not only as regards the High Commissioner and his Deputies but also as regards the interests of other Departments and in provisions for Australian visitors. Australia House has become, over the years a very considerable symbol in respect of the association with Britain.
10. I am not suggesting that there is any difference of view between us as to the desirability of continuing to uphold the special relationship to which I am referring. You have emphasised its importance in your letter. But I now see in this a real dilemma the full force of which perhaps escaped us at the earlier stage when we decided to make the transfer. But having said that I at once go on to say that the motive which prompted us to make our decision—namely that Foreign Affairs should have prime responsibility for foreign policy as this touches Great Britain—remains valid and whatever arrangements we may make to resolve the dilemma I would want to ensure that responsibility in the ‘foreign policy area’ is unambiguously with the foreign Minister.
11. How then are we to resolve the dilemma?
12. In our recent correspondence I have suggested one possible arrangement namely that formal responsibility for certain of the most senior appointments should rest and be seen to rest with the Prime Minister with whom dealings with the Palace and the Governor-General must remain. Put another way the course I contemplated was to transfer the administration of Australia House to Foreign Affairs but to build into the arrangements provisions which would uphold with Britain with the States and publicly in Australia the association expressed in the Crown link. In view of the comment in the final paragraph of your letter we may perhaps need to contemplate an alternative approach where we seek a solution by retaining the administration of Australia House formally under portfolio responsibility of the Prime Minister but with effective arrangements clearly provided in the Administrative Arrangements Order and conveyed to our colleagues in the Ministry which provide direct responsibility for the Foreign Minister in all foreign policy areas.
13. I am inclined to think that all this calls for still further consideration of the matter. I would be interested to have your reactions. And it may at some point be useful to obtain the views of some of our colleagues.
14. There are other matters mentioned in your letter to which I would like to refer but I set these aside for the moment since it seems to me that we must first of all settle the major issue.
1 Document 401.
2 N.b.: This draft was never sent. The Prime Minister’s eventual reply is Document 404.
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART 2]