Notes (extract) [GENEVA], 28 May 1947

Dr. Coombs reported that his visit to Australia had been most
satisfactory and that he had discussed at meetings of the
Interdepartmental Committee and the Cabinet sub-committee matters
arising under the Charter and the problems arising from the
absence of a U.S.A. offer on wool duties. A series of cables will
be sent from Australia concerning these discussions.

Wool:

Dr. Coombs said that the attitude of Cabinet to the absence of an
offer on wool is just as serious as the Delegation had
anticipated. The Prime Minister had said that the U.S.A.

Delegation should be informed that neither his Government nor any
other could secure acceptance of the Charter and Tariff Agreements
without a substantial concession on wool and the Australian
Delegation must make quite clear that there is no compromise on
this attitude.

Dr. Coombs said that it was not clear what should be done if the
negotiations do break down. Originally it had been thought that if
after the return of Clayton', there is no concession offered on
wool, Mr. Dedman would come to Geneva and withdraw the Delegation,
but the question has now been left open. Dr. Evatt's view is that
Australia should not withdraw from the Conference but continue
fighting the case and that finally, the Cabinet should decide,
after the Conference, whether or not it will accept the Charter
and any Tariff Agreements. The Delegation, however, should
continue to press its view that, in the absence of any reduction
in wool duties, Australia would not be prepared to give up
anything, including preferences accorded to the United Kingdom in
the Australian market even though United Kingdom might be willing
to have them reduced.

Dr. Coombs said that he discussed with the Cabinet sub-committee
the position that might arise if there was a breakdown in the
Conference and the various Dominions had to choose between the
I.T.O. and the Ottawa Agreement. He had pointed out that the
United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand might be prepared to
continue with I.T.O. and the Prime Minister said that even if this
position were forced upon Australia, it might be possible
politically to withstand it. However, the alternative of making
reductions in preferences and duties without an offer on wool
would not be politically practical.

[matter omitted]