182 Addison to Shedden
Letter CANBERRA, 2 September 1947
Here is a copy of the draft note of our talk this afternoon. I should be glad if you could let me have any of your comments on it not later than tomorrow morning, and I will hold it over until I receive them.
Conversation with Sir Frederick Shedden on matters arising out of the Prime Minister's letter of the 17th August 
We took note of the fact that [in] para.7 the Prime Minister agreed that J.C.O.S.A. should be dissolved as soon as practicable, and it is quite evident that a very overgrown staff in Melbourne, as we anticipated, is not required for the purposes of B.C.O.F. So far as this is concerned, the suggestion is that as this staff will be dispersed certain officers that may be required should remain to be integrated with the Australian and New Zealand staff remaining for the direction of B.C.O.F. and the small combined staff resulting therefrom will be responsible for what remains of B.C.O.F.
It is understood that the result of this arrangement is that the Australian staff with these elements integrated therewith will be responsible for running what remains of B.C.O.F.
With regard to the problems mentioned in para.8 of the Prime Minister's letter covering future planning responsibilities in the Pacific, it is understood that requests will be made for appropriate British officers to be integrated into the Australian Joint Staff machinery for planning these services and the measures of co-operation involved.
The proposals so formulated would be discussed at the Australian Defence Committee and by the Council of Ministers and then remitted to London for observations and further comments.
I expressed misgivings to Sir Frederick as to whether the officers competent to draw up the plans contemplated in para.8 might not be senior to the Liaison Staff referred to in para.5. He pointed out, however, that the officers required for the purposes of para. 8 should be of similar calibre to the officers employed on the joint Planning Staff of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, and that, therefore, the inequality to which I referred would not arise.