Your D.579 , 580 , 581. 
1. We note your intention to publish on a non-committal basis the statement of monetary principles agreed between United Kingdom and United States experts.
2. We note from the text of the proposed announcement that reference is not made to participation by Australian officials in noncommittal discussions. We are anxious that in any subsequent announcements nothing should imply that the principles published are agreed to by either Australian officials or by the Australian Government. Our reasons for this are:
(a) The reservation entered by Australian officials in regard to annual drawing rights under Clause 4(ii)(c) of the principles  has not been accepted by the United States Treasury;
(b) The United States Treasury has not accepted the proposal that the quota of smaller countries must be increased above that assumed in previous discussions;
(c) The agreement of Australian officials to important clauses in the principles was expressed on the assumption that the Australian quota would be not less than the equivalent of $300,000,000.
3. We feel that in any announcements made the main emphasis should be placed on a high level of employment and rising living standards as the objectives of a general plan of economic collaboration. 4. With regard to paragraph 2 of D.579  the Australian Government holds strongly that, for the reasons outlined by the Australian officials at the recent London Talks, an employment Agreement should be signed before Governments are asked to enter an international Stabilization Fund or any arrangement involving far-reaching obligations. We, therefore, request that you should propose to the United States that employment policy be included in the agenda of any formal conference [which] the President may call; or, alternatively, that the subject be treated at a separate conference to be called prior to consideration of the Stabilization Fund and Investment Bank.
5. With regard to the proposed international conference, we would be glad to learn whether it is to be on a governmental level or on expert level without governmental commitment. In either event, we feel that May is inconvenient insofar as Australia is concerned as it does not leave sufficient time to permit of proper examination of documents arising from London talks and to arrange for appropriate representation.