I have already congratulated you on your appointment [1] and I
look forward to a very pleasant association with you because I
think that you have the qualities which will bring about an
efficient organisation and get the best work out of your staff in
Canberra and the Legations which are working under the Department.

I have now been a Minister for four years and during that time I
have from time to time pointed out what I consider to be the
deficiencies in the administration of the Department. So far I
have received absolutely no response in action and generally
speaking, I have received no answer to any of my letters.

There are several reasons for this, some of them are personal, but
the main reason, I think, is one of understaffing both in Canberra
and in some of the Legations, particularly in London and
Washington. I told Evatt in a private and confidential letter the
other day that owing to lack of staff at both ends, the voluminous
telegrams which he sent to London and here on the arrangements for
the peace with Japan failed in their effect. The telegrams were
hurriedly coded, causing difficulty in decoding, and in some
cases, owing to telegrams being wrongly marked, they were much
delayed. Here we got about eight foolscap pages of telegram in
three days. From that we had to prepare a long memorandum to the
Secretary of State and we could only see him the day before the
surrender was announced, too late to have any effect. [2] The
suggestions were very valuable and I feel sure that if the
telegrams had come a week before or even three days before, and
the mistakes due to haste had not occurred, they would have been
productive. The following matters need your consideration.

Staff: The question of staff here has been a subject of many
cables and a long report which I made early in January of this
year. [3] I am enclosing a copy. I have in fact written a private
and confidential letter to the Prime Minister about this and other
things. He may discuss the matter with you. I will not go further
into the matter of staff with you as my telegrams put the matter
shortly and adequately.

Coordination of activities in U.S.A.: I draw your attention to
Departmental Circular Despatch No. 16 and the opening sentence of
the enclosed agreement. [4] I would only say that it is impossible
to carry out the responsibilities involved in these instructions
with the present staff. As I am unable to cope with routine of
this department, I cannot be responsible for other departments.

Information: I have from the first pointed out that we never get
sufficient information. We get better information than we did, but
I fancy that Dr. Evatt's idea is that nothing is given out on
policy issues except what he gives from time to time. This makes
efficient work impossible. To be faced with an instruction on a
policy matter without any preparatory information is embarrassing.

I never knew, for instance, what the Government's attitude was to
the Dumbarton Oaks draft until the delegation to San Francisco
arrived in America, and then it was too late to influence the line
of policy which had already been decided upon. There should be
some officer of the Department with some administrative knowledge
to take charge of looking after the Legations, seeing they get a
lot of newspapers, a regular report and a news cable at least once
a week. Have a look at the confidential telegrams circulated by
the Dominions Office and you will see how the British Foreign
Office treat these matters. There should also be a confidential
letter to me or my Counsellor, informing us of pending issues,
somewhat like my letter to the Minister, copy of which I will
usually send to you.

Negotiations and Communications: There is no system here. In the
spate of telegrams that came when the surrender of Japan was being
negotiated, some referred to telegrams and documents which had
passed between the British Government and Australia, of which we
had no copies, and yet we were asked to act on them. Again,
although Australia has criticised the British Government for not
pressing the Australian case with the United States, the major
number of the telegrams for representation to U.S. go to the
Secretary of Dominions, London, and we do not know what action is
taken on them. I get a copy of them, but do not feel at liberty to
act unless an opportunity presents itself.

There is no set channel of communication. Representations are
sometimes made to foreign diplomats stationed in Canberra and we
hear of them only by accident or afterwards. Sometimes we do not
hear at all. It is the universal practice where a Minister or head
of department has an interview with the foreign diplomat in one's
own country, that a telegram be sent to that country's
representative in the other country. This is essential and every
diplomatic interview of this kind should be reported. Otherwise,
the most embarrassing situations may arise.

Protocol: I would like to impress on you the importance of
protocol, and the difficulty of the subject. Foreign diplomats of
all kinds take very great offence if questions of seniority and
precedence as prescribed are not rigidly followed. Unfortunately,
most of the officials of the Department who know about protocol,
particularly Waller and Stuart, are away from Canberra, but it is
a matter which needs attention.

Consulate-General: I am afraid that the announcement of an
appointment of a Consulate-General in New York on the 3rd of
September was somewhat premature. The proper procedure for the
appointment of a Consul-General was not followed. No Consular post
should be set up in a foreign country without the concurrence of
that country, and before he can take up his position a document
called an Exequatur should be issued to him and to all the members
of his staff of Consular status. It is considered discourteous to
announce the appointment until these phases have been gone
through. It is possible, of course, that the Department has
initiated this through the American Legation in Australia, but as
Mr. Kellway [5] is in New York and the State Department is here
where we have a Legation, I can hardly think that that would have
been done. When my appointment was prematurely announced, Minter
affected to be very much offended. However, if he acts in this way
on the present occasion, you may answer him that the United States
always make the announcement before the name is submitted because
it has to go to the United States Senate. Other matters of equal
importance in connection with the Consulate-General in New York
have been raised in the report of mine of the 2nd of January.

These questions of integration of Australian activities in North
America are highly important and cannot be overlooked. These also
require the concurrence of other departments such as Commerce.

U.S. Representation in Australia: The Americans show no
disposition so far as I have been able to ascertain to filling the
vacancy caused by the retirement of Nelson Johnson. I have not
even heard a name mentioned, although I brought the matter under
the attention of Grew before his retirement. At one time, Mr.

Joseph Kennedy [6] was mentioned and I think that Donald Nelson
[7], when he was in Australia, broached the matter to somebody,
but Curtin cabled to us suggesting that we should say that he
would not be acceptable. [8] This, however, on Dr. Evatt's
instructions, was not communicated.

Press Attache: At times I have been threatened with the
appointment of a Press Attache. I need one very badly because I do
not make sufficient contacts here as we are all too busy, and
Press contacts are needed especially. At the same time, I have
always been afraid of an unsuitable journalist being appointed and
I have asked that the name of a proposed Press Attache should be
submitted to me before his appointment.

Finally, the most important matter of all is the question of
staff. Unless you can relieve the deficiencies of staff here, you
cannot expect the work to be efficiently done and you may have
breakdowns. There should be members of the staff, who were in war
service, coming back, and I suggest that you take up the position.

There are few more important departments than External Affairs and
the work is constantly expanding.

I hope you will excuse me for speaking frankly on these matters,
but there is no use going on as it is.

F. W. EGGLESTON