174 Ball to Department of External Affairs
Cablegram 147 TOKYO, 7 April 1946
1. It appears to me the following distinctions should be made- (1) Personnel who are on my staff as British Commonwealth Member;
such personnel are- (a) under my executive control and (b) concerned with British Commonwealth and not with specific Australian interests.
(2) Personnel designated as advisers. The United Kingdom Mission here has already nominated MacDermot as United Kingdom adviser to me as British Commonwealth member. New Zealand and India will do likewise.  These advisers are not under my executive control nor are they concerned with S.C.A.P. and with particular interests of their government in Japan but with the attitude of their governments towards British Commonwealth policy.
(3) Personnel who might be designated as concerned with specific Australian interests as distinct from Australia's attitude towards British Commonwealth policy.
2. This raises two questions. Do you desire:
(1) To nominate someone as Australian adviser to me on British Commonwealth policy? Such an appointment would parallel appointments of advisers by the other three governments.
(2) Do you desire to appoint someone to handle specific Australian interests? The United Kingdom Mission is being careful to distinguish between these two functions. Gairdner insists that he and his mission represent purely United Kingdom interests and MacDermot alone represents United Kingdom viewpoint on British Commonwealth policy.
3. If you contemplate an appointment in terms of paragraph two (1), do you wish to follow a different line and to appoint Ballard both as Australian Government adviser to me on British Commonwealth questions, and as Accredited Representative with S.C.A.P. to deal with purely Australian interests.
4. (1) I feel in so far as you desire Ballard to represent purely Australian interests it is probably undesirable for him to be counted as a member of the staff of the British Commonwealth member. In this case, I would suggest that it is better for you to arrange his accreditation with S.C.A.P. direct rather than ask me to do so. On the other hand despite the United Kingdom precedent I can see no objection to his combining the functions of Australian Political Liaison Officer, dealing specifically with Australian interests and Australian Adviser to the British Commonwealth Member.
(2) In this case he would enjoy executive independence and provide me by agreement with cyphering and communication facilities.
(3) Since Lloyd as Counsellor is a member of my staff, I think that it would not, repeat not, be advisable to appoint him as adviser.
Will you please clarify?