Australian High Commission, London, 11 December 1972
Personal
Appointment of New Australian High Commissioner in London
In your letter of 24th November you invited me to offer ideas about what should be included in the Ministerial Directive for the new High Commissioner. I doubt that anything I can say will be new to you. However, some impressions and suggestions as from the man on the spot may help in deciding emphasis.
What I have to say is unspecific regarding the particular departmental interests on which you are consulting in Canberra. My own inclination would be to minimise departmental material and limit the Directive to general orientation and definition of primary areas of work. I stress the need here for this basic instruction. Particular matters, regarding, e.g., the EEC, defence relations, immigration work, foreign policy questions etc., would seem best dealt with in separate correspondence. However, this is for you to decide.
I have two overriding impressions. The first is of neglect. The second, despite this neglect, is of Branches going effectively about their business and of a generally quite efficient central administrative operation. As a collection of departmental representatives and an agency for common administrative services the Mission seems to be ticking over reasonably well.
My impression of neglect is perhaps unfair given the earlier concept of the Mission. It relates to what would be in our Service the elementary responsibilities for information and assessment, policy consideration and advice, interdepartmental consultation and leadership and for the central management of Anglo-Australian relations. The substantive work of the Mission has been left almost entirely to the attached Branches and their parent Departments in London, anyway, there has been no systematic treatment of the politics of our relations with Britain either here or, it appears, in Canberra. As far as this Mission and its previously managing Department have been concerned, we do not even know what sort of a nation we are dealing with in Britain to-day and what is its situation (although information and assessment on particular aspects are certainly lying about in the Branches and their Departments). The major changes in the relations between the two countries over the years have received no systematic scrutiny from a central policy position. The political presentation in Britain of Australia has continued in essentially traditional terms (‘We are British’). These comments inadequately convey the full situation, but can be supplemented by your own observation and insight. I do not need to elaborate further.
Anglo-Australian Relations
I suggest that the first requirement will be for the High Commissioner to inform himself as thoroughly as he can about Anglo-Australian relations. I would hope that before leaving for Britain he secure the most extensive briefing time allows, including well prepared discussions in all relevant Departments and other governmental agencies, the banks and major financial and commercial interests, the State Administrations, etc. He should see as much of Australia as he possibly can, particularly areas likely to be in the public eye here, such as the modem mining developments and the Northern Territory (Vesteys and the Aborigines)1 —and, if possible, also Papua-New Guinea. Fields in which I particularly mention the desirability of close briefing, because of unfavourable publicity here, are Aboriginal affairs (and what is within the Commonwealth’s and what States’ powers), immigration, including non-European immigration, and Australian intellectual and cultural life. On arrival in Britain, it will be most desirable for the High Commissioner to repeat much of the briefing process, by talking with his Branch Heads, with the States’ Agents General, the Banks and other important Australian representation in the diverse fields of our relations with Britain, and, sooner or later as the case may be, their principal British and other local contacts.
Perhaps it will have been possible for the Department to have prepared a brief setting out the principal features of Anglo-Australian relations, offering some assessments and indications of policy attitudes and questions. If so, the High Commissioner should set to work developing this material. I do not envisage in this a ponderous, detailed survey of departmental business here, although the High Commissioner will need first to inform himself of this; rather a description of the salient features of our relations with Britain and the major problems and the prospects, indicating coincidence, dependence or divergence of interest, assessing the relative importance of these relations to the two countries and any desirable modifications, and suggesting a basic policy posture for Australian conduct and presentation of the relationship. We need a well informed, up-to-date account and evaluation of our relations with Britain and ‘feel’ of the total relationship, just as with, e.g., Indonesia or Japan or India.
A particular area of inquiry will be the ‘special relationship’ constituted by kinship, shared heritage etc. The High Commissioner should give an account of this and assess the contemporary significance of these relations in themselves and in the management of practical business between Australia and Britain, what advantage they may offer in bilateral relations and in international dealings.
[…] It is most desirable that public opinion be given leadership in understanding and accepting the nature of our contemporary relations with Britain. This matter is currently receiving prominence here because of the immigration debate and the Government’s decisions to abandon the Honours system, ‘God Save The Queen’ and so forth.2 The High Commissioner will have an important role in this leadership and, in consultation with the Government, will need to consider carefully how he goes about it. (Apart from press interviews, he will have to speak at the Australia Society dinner on 30th January.)
Presentation of Australia
There is an associated requirement to share and modernise the British perception of Australia, of our national development and international involvement to-day. (Hurd3 told me that Mr Heath is himself anxious to give the Anglo-Australian relationship a more up-to-date expression, in the light particularly of the recent immigration debate and Britain’s entry into Europe.4 I would expect this to be in pretty general terms, something like talking of ‘close friends’ rather than ‘cousins’, which would be harmless enough; but we do not want the relationship defined for us.) The High Commissioner will have a major task of presentation in this respect, in his official and private dealings and in his public comment and posture. As the recent furore over immigration into Britain showed, and the issue is still alive, this task will have significant political content both in the foreign relations field and domestically here and in Australia (going well beyond the particular question of immigration). It will therefore need thoughtful handling and should not be rushed.
There are two basic requirements for this task. The first is the solid and extensive briefing I have recommended. That may seem to you a tall order, but I cannot emphasise enough the requirement for personal authority in the High Commissioner. Detailed information and clear understanding of our contemporary national development and governmental affairs, domestic and international, will be indispensable to the effective management of this Mission and to the High Commissioner’s own personal operations as Australia’s chief representative. Secondly, he will need a framework of Government policy towards Britain. This should normally be clear enough at the level of departmental business. However, as I have commented, the consideration of our relations across the board and of their basic political value and direction has been neglected. The High Commissioner will need guidance in those respects. You may want to develop this guidance together with the reportage and assessment that I have suggested above, i.e. in an informed and considered way; but it will be necessary to give some broad guidelines from the outset. I have already drawn your attention to this in my cables about the immigration question: other matters regarding which early guidance about Australian attitudes will be necessary include Britain’s entry into Europe on 1st January, Australia and Europe, the Commonwealth, Britain’s role in Asia (do we want to encourage and in what ways?), immigration policy, Aboriginal affairs, Rhodesia, investment policy (you may want to consider to what extent the Commonwealth should bear the brunt of criticism here about the Aborigines and to what extent the States’ representatives should be left to defend their own Governments’ policies.)
In all this it will be most desirable that the High Commissioner ensure the informed support of the High Commissions in his endeavours and also carry with him what may be loosely described as the Australian representative community here, such as the Agents General. There has been no routine liaison between the Mission and these people (the Agents’ General recent meeting with me in Australia House was the first for a very long time, they said); they need regular attention and guidance—and they can, of course, be very helpful to us.
Contact work
The High Commissioner’s cultivation of contacts here will naturally be a primary area of his own and his Mission’s activity. I should like to mention two particular points.
First, I feel that contact with the Diplomatic Corps has been much neglected. This can be overdone, I know; but apart from often being helpful in the Mission’s business, it can offer significant advantage in the presentational field that we are now discussing […] I suggest that the High Commissioner be asked to give the Corps careful attention in both these respects.
Secondly, I feel that other local contacts have been too restricted and that too much importance can be given to socialising and semi-ceremonial, a substantial aspect of London official life, as you know. Social contacts must not be neglected: they are too important here for access and influence. But there is need for discrimination and the range of contact needs to be widened and deepened and to show a catholic basis. This question of contact will need careful consideration and deliberate effort by the High Commissioner. All too easily he can find himself more than fully occupied here by contacts in High Society, essentially incidental to his work, and by business contacts. Given particularly the presentational task I am suggesting, he will need to go beyond this. I mention especially the neglected intellectual and quasi-intellectual circles, ranging from academics to the people who run and contribute to the media. This is a key area and good connections will pay dividends in a number of respects. However, it is not easy to gain entry and acceptance.
Visitors to Australia
A further point about contacts is the need to develop a visits programme from Britain. There are already many British visitors to Australia in the ordinary course of governmental and private business. We need to select some other prominent people who know little of Australia and our region and often enough care less. Michael Howard was a good example: his visit has been distinctly beneficial to us. I would like to see David Watt, the Political Editor of the ‘Financial Times’, go out, and there are many more of substance and influence in other fields. (It may be worth-while letting others in our region know about such visitors in case they can arrange for them to visit some of their countries as well.) The High Commissioner might make a greater effort also regarding those people going out on business. For example, there is a regular visit to Australia from the British Parliament, but this group has not been briefed and entertained before departure by the High Commissioner in my time. (The Mission’s contacts generally with the Parliament are minimal.)
Reportage
Another major area of the High Commissioner’s duties will be to inform himself about the principal features of the social, economic and political situation in Britain so that Ministers and Departments in Australia can receive up-to-date information about and evaluation of the Britain they nowadays are dealing with. This is another neglected area. Although the Foreign Affairs Branch has made a small start, a concentrated effort is required for some time. There is not staff of the appropriate level free for this in the present FA Branch.
The High Commissioner should be asked for some basic reports, but, given the extensive and quickly available cover of British affairs in public media, his routine reportage need not then be voluminous: detailed requirements in the various fields can be worked out with the Department, and you will probably want the emphasis on analysis and assessment rather than chronicle. This reportage seems to me basic to the considerations of most Departments having business with Britain, and will also usefully inform the work of their Branches here.
[ matter omitted ]
Consultation and leadership
A third area which the High Commissioner will find much unexplored scope is consultation and leadership, among the Branches of the High Commission and beyond them among what I have called the Australian representational community in London, the State representatives, the Primary Produce Boards, the Banks, the Australian press, business and cultural communities.
I have found Branch Heads responsive to a demonstration of interest. There are also areas of common interest in which consultation and co-ordination, on a continuing or regular basis, between Branches are most desirable and a co-operative effort could be fruitful, especially in the broad economic field. I would also hope that the Branches could be encouraged by the High Commissioner, and their parent Departments if necessary, to contribute to the central reportage of the Mission, not only about their own activity but, from their special knowledge and expertise, about matters of general interest. There are, you will certainly be aware, jurisdictional aspects to watch, but my impression has been that these do not present insuperable obstacles.
Another aspect of leadership and co-ordination is bringing the relevant Branches into general consultations. There are first-class, experienced officers among the Branch Heads here and, even in my limited time in the High Commissioner’s office, I have found it valuable to me, and, I believe, interesting to them, to discuss with them matters outside their particular jurisdiction.
Given effort in these directions the Mission will become a ship under way instead of a haystack floating in the flood.
Administration
The next area to which I suggest the High Commissioner be directed is that of the functions, organisation, staffing and operation of the Mission. Your desire in this has been to proceed slowly and with deliberation and my short experience in office strongly supports this approach; but also the view that, at least for the time being, our examination of the Mission be kept firmly in our own hands and we make no commitments to others about any later studies. It is also important that we free ourselves of fixed preconceptions—about ‘shake-up’, staff cuts and so on—and proceed on the basis of fully informed judgement. The first requirement is to find out exactly what we are talking about and to ensure that the Mission and the Department understand each other.
There are two main areas of inquiry, the functions and requirements of the Branches, and the administration of the Mission. In both cases I suggest that the High Commissioner be asked to report and comment comprehensively so that the Department can develop a clear understanding of the situation and determine requirements for closer study and for change.
It will be convenient and politic to conduct the study of the Branches primarily within the framework of the High Commissioner’s other study of Anglo-Australian relations. This will give him an unexceptionable basis for quite detailed enquiry. The survey can also proceed as part of the general consultative and leadership effort I have suggested. A particular aspect will be the activity of some Branches in Europe, whether this is best handled from London and how it may be co-ordinated with other posts, e.g. in the nuclear and defence fields.
The administrative inquiry does not need such jurisdictional finesse, but it will be desirable to limit disturbance to staff morale and to the Mission’s administrative operations, so it should be conducted with minimum fuss and with an eye to the effect of change in one area on other areas.
I suggest that the High Commissioner be required to have these preliminary surveys essentially completed by a certain date, lest they drag; but I doubt it realistic to look for this before June next year. I strongly recommend that a senior departmental officer, who will have personal responsibility regarding the review, come to the Mission for, say, a fortnight to acquaint himself with the situation here and for consultation on the surveys going forward. This would be most welcome at any time, but it would probably be most fruitful after the High Commissioner has begun his work and can talk in an informed way. Meantime the Mission and Department might consult on priorities and a programme.
It will probably be the case that these inquiries will reveal matters susceptible to immediate handling without raising complications in other fields. I am not suggesting that action there be postponed until all information is complete. Indeed, where reform can be affected without disturbances there is everything to be said for getting on with it, so that change is gradual.
In all this, it will be important for the High Commissioner to keep a close eye on staff relations and place himself in the best position possible to carry through any large changes firmly and with minimum disturbance.
Conclusion
What is elementary and obvious to you in the foregoing, is largely novel here in Australia House. In certain respects we are really setting up a new Mission, or introducing a new concept of the Mission and its work. We are also for the first time in our modem history coming to grips with our relationship with Britain and the large changes that have taken place in it. Our basic job, as I see it here, is, first, to inform ourselves and to take a policy grip; secondly, to get the High Commission working as an alert and co-ordinated Mission in the basic responsibilities and routines I have indicated. This is important governmentally, but also for our own Department, whose approach and performance in London we can expect to be closely watched and whose favourable reception among the Branches here on the transfer we shall not want to disappoint. Sustained drive will be required from the High Commissioner, but the challenges offer ample reward. For the next two years, anyway, while work in the areas I have indicated is being developed and consolidated, special attention will be necessary from the Department, to guide, service and generally support the effort here.
I hope the foregoing will be of some value in your consideration of a Directive, and in. briefing the High Commissioner. The other matters raised in your letter I am replying to separately.
1 Refers to the dispute over pay and working conditions for Aboriginal (Gurindji) workers at the Wave Hill Cattle Station in the Northern Territory, owned by British pastoral company Vesteys. The Indigenous workers launched a widely publicised strike in August 1966 that was not resolved until 1974.
2 See documents in parts 3 and 5.
3 Douglas Hurd, Political Secretary to Edward Heath at Downing Street (1970–74).
4 See Part 3.
[NAA: A1838, 67/1/3 PART 7]