Your No. 396. [1]

1. We are glad you agree with the proposals in our telegram 305.

[2] We note that you would like to be sure that your
interpretation of certain aspects of the machinery proposed, is
correct, and we make the following observations.

(A) THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT MACHINERY
2. In Australia, the set-up of the Joint Service Machinery and
procedure for administrative action on matters emanating from it
differ somewhat from that in the United Kingdom.

3. The primary function of our Chiefs of Staff Committee is to
deal with operational matters and strategical appreciations.

Another body, the Defence Committee, which comprises the Chiefs of
Staff and the Secretary of the Defence Department, is the advisory
body on Defence Policy and all Joint-Service questions of an
administrative nature. Both bodies and their subordinate
Committees are part of the Defence Department.

4. It has been our experience with the United States Forces and
the British Pacific Fleet that the Defence Committee, associated
with American and Royal Navy representatives, is the more
effective body for the control of the planning of requirements and
programming of commitments for authorisation. Furthermore, it has
a wider scope for investigation of aspects relating to the impact
of service requirements on the civil economy. The Defence
Committee's recommendations are submitted to the Minister for
Defence who controls questions of policy and principle and
transmits the recommendations to Service and Supply Ministers for
authorisation and provisioning action. The Defence Department thus
furnishes the link between the Joint Service Machinery and the
various other Departments that may be concerned.

5. (a) If the Australian component of the British Commonwealth
Force had remained an independent force, its operational control
would have been exercised by the Australian Chiefs of Staff, but
all planning of requirements and programming of commitments for
authorisation would have passed through the Defence Committee and
its appropriate sub-committees.

(b) Presumably the administrative planning for the British
Commonwealth Force will be done in Australia. If it is the
intention to look to Australia as a source for supplies and
services, or an agency of control for the maintenance of the
British Commonwealth Force as a whole, it will be imperative to
establish a close link with the administrative machinery of the
Defence Department as indicated in paragraph 6(VII) of our
cablegram of 21st September. As there also will be related
questions of inter-Governmental financial adjustments, the
administrative planning and programming must be linked with the
appropriate Departmental machinery from the beginning.

(c) It would therefore appear that, as the problems will primarily
be those relating to the administrative arrangements for the
Force, it would be preferable if these were dealt with by the
Defence Committee with which the United Kingdom representatives
should be associated as was the case with the representatives of
the United States and the Royal Navy. As indicated in paragraph
6(VII) of our cablegram, this association should extend to
subordinate committees as well as to the Defence Committee itself.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff in Australia would deal with the purely
military questions.

(d) As provided in paragraph 6(V) of our cablegram all
instructions to the Commander-in-Chief will of course be issued by
the Australian Chiefs of Staff as the agents of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff in Australia.

(B) OBSERVATIONS ON SPECIFIC POINTS RAISED BY UNITED KINGDOM
GOVERNMENT
6. (a) In regard to your paragraph 3, provision for reference by
the Chiefs of Staff to their respective governments was considered
to be covered by paragraph 6(V) of our cablegram.

(b) Paragraph 6(VI) was inserted to make it clear that the normal
channel of direct exchanges between Governments was not superseded
by the arrangement authorised by 6(V).

(c) The reference to inter-governmental views in paragraph 6(VII)
was inserted to fill a gap which appeared to exist. There will be
occasions when communication will be necessary with the New
Zealand Government, which is not represented on the Joint Chiefs
of Staff in Australia. We are not clear as to your intention about
procedure relating to India. It was also considered possible that
the Chiefs of Staff might wish to project something requiring
urgent initiating action on the part of the Australian Government
with other Governments simultaneously with their separate
representations to their respective governments. In all these
cases, the Chiefs of Staff Committee would act in the normal
manner of the Australian Chiefs of Staff Committee, and the
necessary action would be taken by the Defence Department.

7. With reference to your paragraph 4 whilst the reason advanced
for the proposed change of title from 'Joint Chiefs of Staff' to
'Chiefs of Staff in Australia' is appreciated, it is felt that
this alternative could be as readily confused with the Australian
Chiefs of Staff as the former with the American. The title 'Joint
Chiefs of Staff in Australia' would be more acceptable to us.

8. Referring to your paragraph 5, we will be glad to make the
necessary approach to the United States Government with the joint
proposal, on receipt of your reply and that of the New Zealand
Government, to which we are repeating this cablegram. We will also
inform both Governments shortly of our nomination of the officer
to command the Force.