As I understand you are leaving for England with the Prime
Minister on the 14th instant, I think it advisable to set out in
writing my recollection of our conversation this morning. I do
this as I am anxious to obtain authority to proceed in the
achievement of the object of my mission during your absence.

As stated to the Prime Minister, Mr. Forde and yourself, this
object is to reach an understanding with your Government so that
we-the members of the British Commonwealth-secure the best
possible range to enable full scale firing trials to be carried
out of all types of Guided Missiles, and to make a general survey
of the associated technical and industrial facilities.

For the range, an area of some 1,000 miles long by 200 miles wide
will be required, and we in England believe that, having taken
into consideration all the factors of which we have knowledge,
Australia alone contains a suitable site. I realise, of course,
that such a large area covering certainly more than one of the
Australian States may involve political problems with which I, of
course, am not acquainted.

If, however, your Government welcomes the idea of setting up such
a range in Australia, my Mission would welcome your permission to
start work as soon as possible, in conjunction with the Australian
authorities to:-

(a) Select the actual site of the range; and
(b) Make a general survey of the technical and industrial
facilities which exist to enable full scale firing trials to be
carried out.

As the main research work on Guided Missiles will be undertaken in
the United Kingdom, we think it is essential to control the actual
programme of range work from the United Kingdom, but, of course,
Australia's participation in the formulation of policy is highly
desirable and, indeed, will be heartily welcomed. I feel,
therefore, that what my Mission wants to do is to launch a co-
operative venture between the United Kingdom and Australia, so
that, between us, we will really contribute towards obtaining the
technical initiative in armament development-which is of paramount
importance if we are to prevent another war. Co-operation with the
United Kingdom would, for example, comprise:-

(a) Australian representation on any Board or Committee set up in
the United Kingdom to supervise the work of the range; and
(b) The permanent attachment of Australian Service and technical
officers to the Ministry of Supply establishment at Westcott in
Buckinghamshire, the Royal Air Force establishment at Farnboro,
and any other establishments which may be concerned with the
development of Guided Missiles.

To our way of thinking, the range would be mainly concerned with
trials and experiments. It is not intended that research proper
would be undertaken at the range, and development would be
confined to that which must be, or is best, undertaken close to
trials and experiments.

My Mission would like, in addition, to make enquiries as to the
ability and willingness of Australia to arrange for research and
development work to be conducted in your own Government
establishments, or by Australian Universities and commercial
firms, and I would welcome your agreement that the programmes of
any such work should be co-ordinated with those of the main
research and development work in the United Kingdom.

While the programme of work will necessarily be controlled by the
United Kingdom machinery in England, including Australian
representation, the detailed administration of the range will most
suitably be undertaken by the Australian authorities, and I hope
you will agree to this procedure.

If possible, we would like Australia to make provision for the
manufacture and modification of components and production of fuels
on a scale necessary to meet the needs of the experimental
programme as they arise. You will remember that the Prime Minister
asked if, under the threat of another war in which Australia might
be cut off from the United Kingdom, as she was in World War II,
there would be any objection to her undertaking the large scale
manufacture of the latest types of Guided Missiles for her own
defence. My reply was that I felt sure there could be no possible
objection to this, providing that Australia felt she was able to
undertake the work. I inferred also from the Prime Minister's
remarks that he was anxious to know whether the United Kingdom
wishes the Australian Government to consider the possibility of
future production of Guided Missiles in Australia other than for
experimental purposes, and my reply to this was that it is
unlikely that the United Kingdom would invite the Australian
Government in the near future to take any immediate steps towards
the establishment of capacity for large scale production.

I now come to the question of financing the venture. We realise
fully in the United Kingdom that a range such as is envisaged will
provide facilities which are essential for the United Kingdom
research and development programme. We also realise, but for the
impossibility of finding the necessary space in the United
Kingdom, there would be no question at all of securing
contributions from other parts of the Empire towards the cost of
such facilities. The position as regards the range we hope to set
up in Australia is not similar to that of the Chemical Defence
Research Establishments of Suffield in Canada or Proserpine in
Australia. In the case of chemical defence there are fairly
comprehensive facilities for trials and experiments at Porton in
the United Kingdom. Suffield is a Canadian venture-the 50%
contribution which the United Kingdom Government has made during
the war has been discontinued. The Australian Chemical Defence
Establishment is a joint Australian - United Kingdom venture set
up on the initiative of Australia, the cost of which is equally
shared between the two Governments. As you will remember, I
advanced as an argument for the Australian Government sharing the
capital cost and/or upkeep of the Guided Missile Range as apart
from the general question of Dominion contributions to Empire
defence-of which this might be taken as an outstanding example-the
specially close association of Australia with the project. This
will undoubtedly result in Australia having better opportunities
than the other Dominions of acquiring effective knowledge of the
research and development work and the manufacturing processes.

There is, however, no easy basis on which to assess the division
of capital or maintenance costs between the United Kingdom and
Australia; nor can this be settled until fairly firm estimates of
capital and maintenance costs have been worked out.

At this stage, therefore, I hesitate to do more than invite the
Australian Government to agree in principle to bear some part of
both the capital and maintenance costs of the range.

In addition I would suggest that the Australian Government bears
the cost of any research and development work conducted in their
Government establishments, the Australian Universities or
commercial firms, as this work would form your counterpart of the
main research and development programme in England, the cost of
which is borne entirely by the United Kingdom.

My mission would also like to find out what personnel, including
service and scientific staff, the Australian Government may be
prepared to train and allocate to this important work.

Finally, if satisfactory understandings are reached between your
Government and my mission on the above matters, I would ask you to
agree that a fully representative technical mission should be sent
from the United Kingdom to Australia later in the year to draw up
detailed proposals which would, of course, include an estimate as
to capital and maintenance costs.

I shall be most grateful if you will confirm this letter as a
record of our conversation this morning in the Prime Minister's
study and if you will let me know to what extent I can now proceed
with my mission during your absence from this country.

J. F. EVETTS