Canberra, 23 March 1973
Confidential
Record of Conversation with Sir Morrice James, High Commissioner:
1. Prime Minister’s Trip to Europe, 2. Non-Aligned Conference
Sir Morrice called this morning at his request and we had an amiable gossip on a few matters not worth recording. Sir Morrice then raised the question of the Prime Minister’s visit to London and said that he would be talking to Sir John Bunting about it in due course. He was very hopeful that subjects for discussion between the Prime Minister and Mr Heath should be identified before the visit took place. I asked him whether he thought, in the light of the possibility of Mr Barnard’s visiting England in May, Sir Morrice having indicated knowledge of this possibility, the British would want to have substantial discussions with the Prime Minister on ANZUK and Five Power matters.
Sir Morrice said that he thought to go into any great depth on these questions would be doublebanking but that there would be merit in the two Prime Ministers’ outlining their general position on these matters. We then had some discussion about the business of clearing away the ‘colonial relics’. These appear to fall into two categories: the first being matters such as the Royal Style and Titles, Letters of Credence, Agreement, etc. which were questions for discussion between the Prime Minister and The Queen of Australia.
The second category related to matters more properly discussed between the two Prime Ministers, in particular the non-applicability of parts of the Statute of Westminster to the Australian States, questions connected with the Privy Council, etc. These matters had been the subject of discussion between the British authorities and the Attorney-General, Senator Murphy,1 and according to Sir Morrice the ball was now in our court. We were, Sir Morrice said, preparing a document on these matters possibly involving the amendment of the Statute of Westminster for subsequent discussion between Britain and Australia. He expressed the view that it would be extremely helpful if this document could be completed and given legal consideration in both countries prior to the Prime Minister’s visit. Sir Morrice commented that while the Australian Prime Minister was a substantial lawyer in his own right,2 his own Prime Minister was not and would need legal advice prior to discussion of these questions. I said that I was unaware of the status of these matters but would see that what Sir Morrice had said was drawn to the attention of the proper authorities.
The burden of what the High Commissioner was saying is that it would be useful not only to identify the matters which might be discussed between the two Prime Ministers, but also perhaps to have some preliminary consultation on them. He did say, incidentally, that he hoped that the question of calling High Commissioners Ambassadors would be cleared out between the Governments of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and before it was raised at Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Ottawa in August.
Sir Morrice then went on to say that he had noticed references to non-alignment arising out of the recent visit of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. I said that it should be clear that we were not applying for non-aligned status. The Prime Minister had indicated an interest in the contacts between countries who described themselves as non-aligned and the possibility of Australia’s participating as an observer at the next Non-aligned Conference. The Yugoslavs expressed some willingness to try to facilitate this if need be. I told Sir Morrice that Australia, because of the international agreements to which she was a party, could not claim to be nonaligned. I told him that I thought some of our neighbours, including the Indonesians, while happy that we showed some interest in and sympathy for the non-aligned countries, were not only doubtful about the usefulness of the concept of non-alignment and the effectiveness of non-aligned conferences, but also could be somewhat nervous about the possibility of Australia’s showing too much interest in these ideas. It was possible that Indonesia and some of our other neighbours were anxious that the closeness of our relations with countries like the United States should be as fully maintained as possible because they attracted the interest of the United States towards this part of the world. It was also probably the case that a number of countries were more interested in Australia and her views because of the obvious breadth and closeness of these relationships.
1 See Documents 440 and 441 .
2 Whitlam studied law at the University of Sydney and was admitted to the New South Wales Bar in 1947.
[NAA: A1209, 1973/6292]