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. [1] 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? [2]