CONSULS’ STATUS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20632, 5 June 1935, Page 5

CONSULS’ STATUS.

Not Able to Claim Diplomatic Privileges. RED TAPE IN AUSTRALIA. (Special to the “Star.” SYDNEY. May 28. During the recent Royal Jubilee celebrations at Melbourne an incident occurred which was noted with great interest by all the official representatives of foreign countries throughout the Commonwealth. All the members of the Consular Corps in Melbourne, representing twenty-five foreign countries. absented themselves from the Jubilee levee, to place on record their dissatisfaction with the treatment accorded to them at such public functions. The Dean of the Consular Corps, Signor Bidoni, explained to the newspapers at some length the reasons for the action taken by himself and his colleagues. It appears that on the occasion of the Royal levee held during the visit of the Duke of Gloucester. seven consuls-general from Sydney, and about twenty from Melbourne, all in uniform, had to wait nearly an hour behind a crowd of local officials before they were able to pay their respects to the Prince. No official notice was taken of them, and several of them left in disgust for Sydney immediately after, taking no further part in the ceremonies. As for the Jubilee levee, they had received no invitations or extra cards, and they did not feel disposed to risk personal and official humiliation again. Public Curiosity Aroused. These statements naturally aroused public curiosity, and Sir George Pearce, as Federal Minister for External Affairs, thought it necessary to explain the position from the strictly official standpoint. What he said amounted to this: that consuls are not entitled to the right of private entree when calling upon the Governor or other representatives of Royalty, because they are not ambassadors, and. if they want ambassadorial distinctions and privileges, they should apply to their own Governments to approach the Federal authorities at Canberra. This characteristically bureaucratic comment aroused the indignation of Sir Thomas Bavin, who at once wrote

a letter traversing Sir George Pearce’s statements. He pointed out that while foreign consuls-general are not plenipotentiaries in the diplomatic sense, they are often entrusted by their Governments with messages or missions of great public importance to us, and it would be only courteous to treat them, in some circumstances, as if they actually held diplomatic rank. The refusal to adopt this course dates back to the time when no self-governing Dominion had any direct relations with foreign States, and all communications on behalf of any part of the Empire had to pass through the hands of the British Secretary of State for the l Colonies. In Sir T. Bavin’s opinion, the treatment that the foreign consuls received at Prince Henry’s levee in Melbourne was offensively discourteous, because the Federal Government had already been informed that these officials had been instructed by their respective Governments to pay their respects to the Duke of Gloucester on behalf of their various countries. Abandonment of Rule Urged. In any case, there is no doubt that in Australia, where we have no foreign ambassadors, the consuls-general frequently discharge political and diplomatic. as well as commercial, functions, and Sir T. Bavin argued forcibly that the time has come to abandon a rigid rule which grew originally out of very different circumstances, and so “ to remove a quite unnecessary appearance of discourtesy toward those whose goodwill we have, in these days, every reason to desire.” This must seem to most people quite a reasonable and judicious statement of the case, but Sir G. Pearce, a discerning public man, whose worst defect is probably lack of imagination—evidently did not understand it, and was simply annoyed by it. He reiterated his contention that consuls are “ not ambassadors," and so must not claim any purely diplomatic privilege, such as the right of entree. Then some industrious person, who apparently disapproves cf “ foreigners.” delved into our historic past, and exhumed records of a dispute—thirty years old—between Sir Dudley de Chair and our Consular Corps. In those faroff days the consuls-general claimed this same right of entree, and the Governor, after consulting with the Imperial authorities, refused it. It was agreed to temper the force of the in-

dignity by offering the consuls the use of a private room at Government House, where they might await, in dignified seclusion, their turn to be presented after the guests who had the right of entree. But the consuls declined to take advantage of this humiliating concession, and since that time the foreign consuls stationed in Sydney have simply abstained from attending Vice-regal levees here. Cultivation of Courtesy. Of course, this story about Sir Dudley de Chair is historically accurate, just as Sir G. Pearce’s argument is logically and constitutionally sound. But nothing of all this really disposes of Sir T. Bavin’s contention that—red tape aside—it is to our interest to cultivate a reputation for courtesy in dealing with representatives of foreign countries here, and that there is nothing whatever to be gained by clinging to an antiquated tradition which cannot be maintained without at least appearing to inflict a public indignity upon our foreign friends and their “ nationals.” __________