To Be British—Is It Now A Handicap Or A Protection ?

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30396, 21 March 1964, Page 5

To Be British —Is It Now A Handicap Or A Protection ?

[By DAVID ROBERTS in the "Sydney Morning Herald." Reprinted by arrangement.] AUSTRALIANS must have been mildly startled to learn that New Zealand is to remove the word “British” from the passport covers.

According to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Seath, the present passport cover (which has at the top “British Passport” and at the bottom “New Zealand”) will be replaced by one which has “Passport” at the top and “New Zealand” at the bottom.

The reason is severely practical and—one needly hardly say—implies no weakening of New Zealand's ties with Britain. The trouble seems to be that “British” has become what is described as a “provocative word” in certain parts of Asia and Africa. New Zealanders travelling through these areas have, in fact, found their “British” passports a handicap rather than a protection. The Australian Government, though it is considering a new design for its passports, does not apparently intend to follow the New Zealand example. Tried Once As a matter of fact, it has already tried the experiment —for about 18 months in 1949-50. The Chifley Government dropped the word “British” on January 26, 1949: but, soon after the General Election at the end of the year, the Menzies Government decided to reinstate it, and did so with effect from July 1, 1950. Since then, there has never been any doubt about the desirability of a “British” passport for Australians. Or, if there has been, it has so far escaped public attention.

But it is worth looking back, at this stage, to see why, in 1948, the Federal Government of the day set about getting rid of the word “British."

There was, as a matter of fact, very little fuss about it The real argument had taken place over the provisions of the Nationality and Citizenship Act which had converted us from just plain British subjects to the status of British subjects and Australian citizens. Naturally, the traditionalists had grave doubts. They saw no need for the change . . . and so on. The change in our passports seemed to most people to be a logical corollary to the previous rather drastic change, and there was only a mild debate in the House of Representatives when the then Minister for Immigration. Mr Calwell, introduced the Passports Bill, 1948. Until then, Australians had been issued with passports which bore on the outside

the words “British Passport”; underneath was stamped the Australian coat of arms, and over it the words “Issued in Australia.” More accurately, this was the case for Australians at home. If they applied in London however, they were issued with a passport bearing the British coat of arms and indicating that the document had been issued in Britain. “Hitherto,” said Mr (now Sir) Howard Beale, during the second-reading debate on the Passports Bill, “we have maintained the common link that all passports are British passports, though they may be issued in various parts of the Empire. I understand from the Minister that it is intended to change that.” Mr Calwell at once confirmed the intention, and Mr Beale proceeded to deprecate it

He maintained that, if the word “British” were dropped from the outside of the passport and replaced by “Australian,” it would create disadvantages and that, in fact, Australian travellers would be worse off. Quoting his own experiences as a traveller, he concluded: “I beg the Minister not to proceed with this wrong-headed idea. To do so would merely deprive Australians of the benefit of being able to claim British nationality, of British subjecthood, when they travel abroad." Mr Calwell, however, seemed unmoved. Troubled Whereupon Mr Harold Holt rose to make his own mild remonstrance. “I was troubled,” he said, “by the statement that henceforth Australian citizens will be issued with the passports labelled Australian Passport My difficulty does not arise from any sense of inferiority as an Australian ... I yield to no-one in my pride in my

own country, but . . . there are practical advantages for Australians abroad in being the possessors of British passports.” He saw nothing inconsistent with the new Nationality and Citizenship Act in issuing passports labelled, “on the outside at any rate,” with the words “British Passport."

“It is true,” he added, “that Australia has become better known in recent years, but it is also true that there is no other passport in the world which carries with it the same magic for travellers when they are abroad as does an official British passport. . . . Protection

“Let the Minister have stated as clearly and emphatically as he likes in the body of the passport the fact that the traveller is an Australian citizen, but let him not throw overboard the protection which the traveller enjoys when outside Australia by virtue of his possession of a British passport.” In reply, Mr Calwell said it was “all on the side of convenience” to adopt his proposal.

After some brisk further exchanges with the Opposition, he promised to give favourable consideration to stamping “British Subject” as well as “Australian Passport” on the covers of the new passports. (In the event, he decided against it.) His most remarkable statement, however, was this: “If we do not label our passports as Australian passports, then Australia has no right to the possession of a separate flag.” It is not clear whether today he would reiterate this view. The debate in 1948 was enlivened by some remarks from Mr T. W. (later Sir Thomas) White. “In 1943, in the United States,” he said “I found that an official who decided whether or not one should be allowed to travel on an aeroplane did not know that Australia was not part of New Zealand, and there are other parts of the world in which an Australian is confused with an Austrian. “We are all very proud of our Australian nationality and we want to make the most of it, but the words ‘British subject.’ which are known throughout the world, should appear very plainly upon the Australian passport." But from January 26, 1949, they did not Complaints followed.

“Passport control officers on Continental frontier posts,” wrote one irritated news-

paperman, “think that ‘Calwell’ is a new Australian swear word. They hear people expressing opinions on Mr Calwell almost every time they examine the Labour Party’s legacy to wearied Australians aboard—the Ausralian passport. “Mr Calwell, in doing away with the old British passport, sought to show that Australians were a race apart. There is no doubt he succeeded. There is only one greater hindrance to travel than an Australian passport, and that is having no passport at all.” Bitter. Very bitter. But there was some truth in it.

In 1950, however, the new Minister for Immigration (Mr Holt) moved swiftly to restore the word “British.” The change, he said, would give proper emphasis to the fact that Australian passports were not only Australian but were as they always had been, British passports in the widest sense. He added that Australians were British subjects and had every right to participate in the prestige and privileges which went with the British passport. Prestige and privileges which, 14 years later, are not —unhappily—what they were. That is, if New Zealand is right.