Canberra, 21 September 1972
Confidential
I refer to your letter of 22 August1 on Australia House in reply to mine of 15 August.2
I think it is best if in this letter I re-state certain matters so that we do not get into misunderstanding.
I begin by saying that I have decided that the administration of Australia House should now be transferred under the Administrative Arrangements Order to the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
This decision carries with it the intention that the Minister and Department of Foreign Affairs should have in respect of Australia House a role analogous to that which it has with High Commissions and Embassies elsewhere.
I have not regarded any of the above as being in question, nor do I now.
But having said that, there are two other things I must say.
The first relates to the reason for transfer. It is a decision of evolution—one which it is appropriate to make at some stage and which might usefully, given Britain’s entry into the EEC, be made now.
What it is not, however, is a decision owing anything to the view that Australia House could not properly and efficiently continue under the administration of the Prime Minister.
I realise that you have referred in your letter to certain disadvantages flowing from the position as it has been up to now.
If there have been disadvantages, then I have no doubt that they could be remedied within the present arrangements. And as you will agree, there have been certain advantages deriving from the present system.
It is these advantages which bring me to my second comment. I am concerned with securing them for the future.
We have agreed in our letters that there is a dual relationship between Australia and Britain. One is the long-existing special relationship which we have spoken of so far as being symbolised in the link with the Crown.
That, of course, is an apt symbol. But it is not by any means a total description.
The relationship goes wider and deeper. There is a whole set of historic and other associations between Australia and Britain not to be found in similar kind in our relations with other countries. l do not elaborate beyond what I said in my earlier letter but I repeat my view that they are directly relevant to administration in the High Commission. I have no doubt that you agree—in so far that I believe anything else would be to misconceive the situation.
None of this is to say that our Foreign Affairs representation in Britain should not be at least as strong as it is in any other country. I am all for that strength and more if necessary.
But equally I have no doubt that the Prime Minister should retain a special authority in relation to the High Commission in London and that the High Commissioner should be in a special state of relationship with the Prime Minister, different from other Heads of Mission.
Because of this, the appointment of the High Commissioner must remain a matter for the Prime Minister—though in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. And further, I would want the Prime Minister and the High Commissioner to have the right and responsibility of direct communication to each other on appropriate matters.
I have discussed further with the Head of my Department the matter of a First Division Public Servant as a Deputy High Commissioner and as I have already said to you, I am not, in deference to your views, now putting this forward. I would, however, wish to be consulted before Deputy High Commissioner appointments are made.
I have only one point remaining. It concerns the Commonwealth Secretariat. The fact is that when the Secretariat was established, the Australian Government of the day decided that, as an instrument of the Prime Minister’s Conference, its links to Australia should be with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Department.
I would prefer this situation to be continued. My Department would, of course, work in closely [sic] with the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In my 15 August letter, I suggested a formal transfer date of 2 October. Because time has gone by I now believe we should choose a later date. My suggestion is 1 November but I am open to other suggestion [sic] if you wish to make it.
If there are any matters arising from this letter or our earlier exchange of correspondence which need discussion, I shall of course be available. But if they are matters of detail; I suggest they be left between the Permanent Heads of our Departments.
1 Document 399.
2 Document 395.
[NAA: Al209, 1971/9449 PART 2]