Canberra, August 1967
Confidential
Use of the Word ‘British’ on Covers of Australian Passports
Australia is now the only country, other than the United Kingdom, which has on the cover of its national passports the word ‘British’. Australian passports have on the first inner page a second use of the word ‘British’ in the context ‘Australian Citizen and British Subject’. This is, of course, a correct description and will remain in its present position. This submission is concerned only with the word ‘British’ on the cover of the passport. It now appears in the context ‘British Passport’. I propose that the cover should simply state it to be ‘Australia’—‘Passport’.
2. The present passport cover appears as in ‘A’ (page 2). I propose that it should appear as in ‘B’ (putting aside the question of a form of print which will give greater clarity to the Coat of Arms ).1
3. The cover now also carries the Crown. That symbol will be retained as symbolic of our constitutional monarchy. The word ‘British’ is now, in Australian terms, inappropriate for use on passports and creates anomalies for the following reasons:
(i) The United Kingdom Government has taken a specific decision to use ‘British’ to describe all things pertaining to the United Kingdom. For example, the title of the United Kingdom High Commission has been changed to ‘British High Commission’; the cover of the passport issued by Britain has the words ‘British Passport’ in large print at the top of the cover and in smaller print beneath the Coat of Arms the words ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’;
(ii) Our passports are in fact issued as Australian passports by the Australian Government to Australian citizens; citizens of other Commonwealth countries, wishing to obtain passports in Australia, apply to their own High Commissioners’ Offices;
(iii) Australians holding ‘British passports’ expect that these should confer a right of entry into the United Kingdom for any purpose. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 of the United Kingdom ended this. Australians going to Britain (especially if intending to work) have had to obtain entry permits. This Act has been more strictly administered in the past year. At the time of the Immigration check on arrival in Britain, Australians do not pass through the same check point as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are the only other persons holding passports with the words ‘British passport’;
(iv) All other Commonwealth countries have now dropped the word ‘British’ from their passport covers (A reproduction of the Canadian and New Zealand passport is annexed);2
(v) People in other (non-Commonwealth) countries tend to regard a ‘British’ document as one issued by the United Kingdom authorities (especially because of (i) above).
4. Australia’s own national identity is much more manifest today throughout the world and especially in Asia. Without canvassing that statement I draw attention to the fact that we now negotiate and maintain our own visa agreements with foreign countries.
5. It is necessary to inform Cabinet of the background to this question.
6. Until each country of the Commonwealth enacted legislation creating her own citizenship (Canada in 1946; Britain, Australia and New Zealand in 1948; others later) the only national status possessed by the peoples of the Commonwealth was ‘British subject’. It was then general practice for each country’s passport offices to issue ‘British passports’ (so described on the covers) to any British subjects applying for passports—from whatever Commonwealth countries the applicants came.
7. Recognising problems which this situation engendered, a conference was held in London in 1947 at which the framework of the general ‘citizenship scheme’ was drawn up. It was a conference of officials, experts in nationality matters, which had been convened on the directions of the Governments concerned. Some advantages seen by this conference as accruing from a separate citizenship for each Commonwealth country were:–
‘(a) the separate identity of the countries comprising the British Commonwealth is clearly recognised;
‘(b) diplomatic protection will be placed on a more satisfactory basis because each country will know who are its citizens and so entitled to its protection;
‘(c) when making treaties, a Government will be able to define with precision who are the persons belonging to its country and on whose behalf it is negotiating.’ It was accepted by each country as a logical consequence of separate citizenships that each would in future issue its own passports to its own citizens only. This has been done by all Commonwealth countries.
8. Following the conference the then Minister for Immigration decided in 1949 that Australian passports should no longer show the word ‘British’ on the cover (although the description of the bearer’s national status on the first page was to be ‘Australian citizen and a British subject’).
The removal of the word ‘British’ was opposed at the time by members of the Liberal Opposition on the grounds that:–
(i) ‘a British passport’ enabled the holder to have the benefits of visa agreements between the United Kingdom and Continental countries. This is no longer true;
(ii) The fact that there were many parts of the world where the United Kingdom had diplomatic representatives able to help holders of ‘British passports’ but where Australia was not represented. Since 1949, Australian missions have greatly increased and where there are none the British mission (or some other Commonwealth mission) will assist Australian citizens pursuant to inter-governmental arrangement.
10. Upon the change of Government following the elections of December 1949, the word ‘British’ was restored to our passport covers and has since remained there.
11. In March, 1964, the then Minister, without memorandum, raised in Cabinet the question whether the word ‘British’ should be deleted. Cabinet decided to retain it.
12. I believe that in the context of present day relations between Commonwealth countries the word ‘British’ on the face of our passports does not appropriately describe Australian passports, and is in fact misleading. Further I believe that our loyalty to the Crown and other traditions that we share with Britain will be unimpaired by such a change. From the history of the evolvement of Commonwealth citizenship and the actions of all other Commonwealth countries, I am satisfied the British Government and people would not see significance beyond that intended by the change.
13. I recommend that Cabinet approve the deletion of the word ‘British’ from the covers of Australian passports.
Note:
(1) No legislation would be necessary; a statement in the House would be desirable;
(2) No extra cost would be incurred because the action to make the change would be associated with the need to print new stocks of passports.3
1 Illustrations not published.
2 Annex not published.
3 The Cabinet Legislation Committee minuted: ‘We find the Minister’s arguments for dropping the word “British” persuasive. There is, however, a question of timing. Following the issues of Britain’s application to join the E.E.C. and Defence Policy East of Suez, the change in the Australian passport might be interpreted as yet another weakening of the tie with the United Kingdom or even as a positive step by Australia to point this up. If comment of this sort seems likely to arise, it is a matter of judgement as to whether the proposed move at this stage is a good or bad one—or whether it can be presented as neutral.’ Cabinet approved submission no. 433 on 22 August 1967. It also indicated it might wish to drop the words ‘and British subject‘ from the first inner page of passports, and asked the Minister to submit a paper directed to this matter (NAA: A5842 volume 14, decision no. 517 on submission no. 433).
[NAA: A5842 VOLUME 14]