We are at a loss to know exactly what your telegram on Two Year
Period [1] really means. The Charter is explicit on the point. The
Elections have taken place, the Term of Office dates from the time
of election and the fact that this means that some Countries may
be on Councils with the certainty that they cannot hold office
after the time subsequent is obvious and unavoidable. What you are
in danger of acquiescing in is a tearing up of the express
provisions of the Charter. This is not a matter for the Assembly
but is purely a question of legal interpretation. Your reference
to new elections is not understood. They have been duly held and
must be given effect to according to the Charter the terms of
which are mandatory.

I assume that the situation will be covered by ensuring that
Second regular session is not held before January, 1947 and a
Third regular session is not held before January, 1948. it is
important to make sure of this. Bailey's judicial argument is so
plainly right that I am surprised at the suggestion that it should
be abandoned. I am afraid that other considerations have
intervened which are quite irrelevant to Australia's interests.

The fact is that by no manner of juggling can the Charter be
evaded and therefore I presume you will make sure without
necessarily amending rule F [2] that holding of regular sessions
is controlled as I suggest. It was always out understanding that
the next session of the Assembly would be part of the first
regular session and all that is necessary is to make sure that no
second regular session takes place during the present year. An
alternative is to regard the May session as the first regular
session. The essential point is that the Charter must be obeyed
and that if there is real dispute court must decide it and Bailey
must appreciate position fully. I do not agree for a moment that
our view can be fairly criticised and on the contrary lack of
frankness and firmness now would be fatal.