MENZIES VERSUS EVATT: THE GREAT RIVALRY OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS – Michael Kirby

No two contestants in Australian political history could be said to have affected each other as much as Robert Menzies and Bert Evatt – one to have helped to establish a workable platform – the United Nations – to bring nations together in the cause of peace, the other to establish himself as Australia’s longest serving prime minister and become acknowledged globally as the leader who made steadfast Australia’s alliances in the Pacific. Anne Henderson’s Menzies Versus Evatt – The Great Rivalry of Australian Politics traces this contest through the 1940s and 1950s. On Thursday 10 August 2023, former Australian prime minister The Hon John Howard AC joined former justice of the High Court of Australia Michael Kirby AC to launch the book – a memorable occasion for The Sydney Institute.

MENZIES VERSUS EVATT: THE GREAT RIVALRY OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

 MICHAEL KIRBY

I pay respects to the First Nations people as has become the practice in Australia. I also pay a particular respect to John Howard and his great distinction. It’s wonderful to be here with him. And to Anne Henderson for this excellent book.

I didn’t become the most popular book launcher in Australia, succeeding Barry Humphries, without taking great care to speak only about the book I am launching. That’s what I’m going to do because it’s a very readable book, and none of you must go home without buying it. The whole point of a book launch is to sell books. If you read the book, you’ll see, as John Howard has just said, the very great similarities between these two giants.  They were giants of our youth, and they are still very important figures in our history.

Both of them born in 1894 in colonial Australia. Both of them were younger sons in their families; Menzies the fourth, Evatt the fifth in his. Both of them into rather modest, domestic family situations. Both of them in regional and rural Australia. Both of them, by religion, Protestant Christians. Both of them beginning their education in the local public schools. Like John Howard and me, they were, each of them, products of that great continuing experiment in colonial and post-colonial Australia: public education.

The common factor in their personalities was a certain vanity.  They had been extremely successful in their schooling and in university. That led to a certain arrogance on the part of both of them.  However, perhaps you don’t really get far in this world unless you’ve got a great confidence in yourself. Both of them served in their respective State parliament. Both of them became top lawyers: King’s Counsel. Both of them had a big practice before the High Court of Australia and argued very influential cases. Both of them had a stable and loving family life, which was so important in going ahead and achieving things. Mary Alice Scheffer, known as MAS and Dame Pattie, whom we all remember. Both of them were elected members of the House of Representatives. Both of them became Federal Attorney General. Both of them were active in the early phase of the Second World War in combating communist activity. In the case of Evatt, as federal attorney general, putting communists in jail because they were interfering with the Government’s early war plans of Australia.

Both of them were appointed to the Privy Council.  Each of them was a Right Honourable. Both of them accepted constitutional monarchy, though Menzies was to embrace it with great enthusiasm, as is pointed out in Anne Henderson’s book. Evatt was probably closer to Chifley’s view: that constitutional monarchy was a “handy constitutional fiction” for a country like Australia. Both of them were overshadowed during times in opposition.  And both of them had down times, hard times and dark times.  Yet both of them had moments of glory in political life. Both of them are buried in public cemeteries. Neither of them should be stereotyped.  Each of them is a very important Australian historical figure. The wonder of this book is that Anne Henderson has brought out all of these facts in a marvellous analysis of these two very strong personalities who played a great part in our history in the middle of the last century.

Nevertheless, there were differences.  The book brings the differences out. Menzies won a scholarship and went, for secondary school to Wesley College in Melbourne. That was a Methodist private college pretty close to the Presbyterians.  It gave him an appreciation of private schools. Both of them had played a part in the judiciary, but Evatt had been a Justice of the High Court for ten years, and later Chief Justice of NSW for two years. Menzies never served on the judiciary.  However, he had very close friendships with many of the Justices of the High Court, including Latham who had been in Federal Parliament on the Conservative side.  Latham was a model, in many ways, for Menzies as a lawyer. Menzies was a person who embraced a relationship with the Catholic community, and supported state aid to Church schools. Evatt had a very rough and difficult relationship with the Roman Catholic church. Anne Henderson takes a point on the fact that Dr Burton kept referring to the Catholic church as the Roman Catholic church. She doesn’t like that. But if you’ve been brought up as an Anglican, or in any Christian denomination where you declare that you are a believer in the “Holy Catholic Church”, you’ve got to draw a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of us, who are members of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That’s why Dr Burton was describing it in this way.

A very big difference between them was, as Anne Henderson points out, that Menzies had a great scepticism about the United Nations. Bert Evatt had really been one of the founders of the United Nations. He participated when they were drafting the Charter of the United Nations. He played a very important part fighting for the little states, like Australia. He played an important part in the negotiation that led to the permanent five members of the Security Council, without which we probably wouldn’t have had the United Nations.  Their special status and veto was necessary to get the United States into the United Nations. They had never joined the League. Menzies, on the other hand, paid annual visits to the United Kingdom. He was very keen, as a certain other person here is, on cricket. He received his presentation by the Queen of his role as the Commander of the Cinque Ports in the Long Room of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, such was Menzies’ great devotion to cricket. Menzies was an important imperial Australian. His international activities, as is pointed out in the book, were largely about the British Empire. That was congenial to him. Anne Henderson points out that Menzies was very sceptical about the United Nations. Evatt was idealistic about the United Nations.  Evatt played an important role – as John Howard has pointed out – in the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 75^th anniversary will be celebrated later this year on the 10 December 2023.

I think a very important part, the point of essential difference that’s brought out in the book, is that fundamentally, Menzies was a better politician. That was reinforced by the fact that Menzies, was an extremely important team player. He played a role in the establishment of the Liberal Party in Australia, which over the long haul since its creation, has been the most successful political party in the country. That was a difference. Anne Henderson repeatedly says, when analysing activities of Evatt, that it was “all about him”. It was all about his personality; all about his ego; and his very considerable achievements. She also brings out the fact that he looked at problems too much as a lawyer, and that was a big mistake. Even calling on Mr Molotov to provide details of the documents which were alleged to be the basis of the “cell of communists” in Dr Evatt’s office and in other high offices in Australia. Yet doing that was really Evatt, the lawyer, saying “audi alteram partem”, “hear the other side”. But that wasn’t a very convincing view from the point of view of the Australian public. As John Howard said, it was probably the beginning of the end of the road for his political credibility.

If I look at the book, I think it’s a wonderful presentation of the personalities of the two central figures who are examined in the book. It is a fair analysis. It’s a very readable account. Therefore, I commend it and launch it.

I think that Anne Henderson has been a bit too hard on the importance of the two men looking back at it from 2023. Looking back from 2023 to Menzies the imperial figure, and Evatt the United Nations figure.

I think many today would think that the United Nations, for all of its faults, was a more important component of the world community without which we couldn’t deal with the problems of nuclear weapons, even as imperfectly as we have. We couldn’t deal with the problems of pandemics, even as imperfectly as we often have. We couldn’t deal with the problems of climate change, even though we haven’t succeeded in that.  Therefore, in a sense, a history has unfolded.  Menzies was yesterday’s man.  Evatt was beckoning us to try to build a better international community that would try to deal with and have the resources and the role to deal with big problems that face us today.

So, this is a very interesting read. Like John Howard, I would always, as a schoolboy, listen to the federal parliamentary broadcasts.  I hope they always continue to provide broadcasts of our federal parliament. I would listen to these two men, and I was proud, as a young Australian, even then, that these two men, as politicians, political leaders who presented us, the citizens, with a real difference.  A real choice.  Real opportunities to think about politics and where it should go. That is brought out in Anne Henderson’s book. So, I commend it to you all.  Don’t go home without buying a copy.

*******

Menzies versus Evatt  – Q&A

Gerard Henderson: Was Menzies just an Imperial sort of guy, or was he a bit more than that?

John Howard: It’s an unfair depiction of Menzies just to dismiss him as an old fashioned imperialist. He believed in the monarchy, he believed in British values. He felt a surge of enjoyment when he first arrived in Britain in the 1930s because that was his upbringing and his background. But remember, Menzies rebuffed the British when it came to the formation of the ANZUS Treaty; they wanted to be part of it. Menzies might have liked Britain, but he always bought American when it came to defence equipment. And he was the prime minister who irretrievably committed this country to the most unpopular war it’s ever been involved in and that is the Vietnam War. Menzies’ decision to commit an infantry battalion in 1965, was in response to the entreaties of a centre-left American president. Remember this – the biggest commitment made by this country to American military was done by a centre-right prime minister to a centre-left president.

Sure, Menzies was unashamedly British to his boot heels, and nothing was wrong with that. It was the temper of the times. And you know, I’ve often said the luckiest thing that happened to this country was to be colonised by the British. It’s true – better than the others who would have colonised us inevitably. That’s my view. I defend Menzies against the charge that you can write him off as just being an old fashioned Imperialist. There was a lot more to the bloke than that.

Michael Kirby: I certainly agree that neither of these very distinguished Australian politicians should be stereotyped. In fact, it’s interesting that when he was arguing the Communist Party Dissolution referendum, Evatt repeatedly said that the fault of the legislation was that it was breaching British values and British justice. Over and over, he referred to that. So, the lesson is, as John has just said, that both of them were the products at the time, both of them were the product of their upbringing. Each of them brought their own values to their role. And each of them was a very, very clever person. And we’ve got to get more people of that calibre into our politics. Because that was something which, apart for everything else, made politics very exciting, interesting. And, John, I think you were in China at one stage, and somebody raised with you the referendum, and you said, looking back on it, you thought it was a big mistake. And it shouldn’t have been persisted with. And I think I saw hints of that in what you just said today.

John Howard: In China at that time, and addressing a gathering of the cadres of the Chinese Communist Party, they said to me, how do you maintain that you want good relations with China when you meet the Dalai Lama? I said to them, that if we can have a referendum to ban the Communist Party and reject it, why can’t you be comfortable with me meeting the Dalai Lama? I think the contrast was lost on my audience.

Anne Henderson: As someone who voted Yes in the Republican referendum, I fully appreciate Menzies’ respect and continued support for our links with the British Westminster system, and the way in which the law and politics in Australia is conducted. When you read those old Hansard debates, the quality of the speeches is amazing. Although they do go for a long time, two hours and so forth. But I respect that too. I find it very hard to lose that. It is stability plus, and there’s great things in it. Michael is a monarchist. But I can be more conservative on other political issues than Michael. I still think it’s time for an Australian Head of State. The problem is we haven’t got an idea in our head of how we’re going to make that work. And that’s where the referendum in 1999 went down. No one has solved that problem. So, for the moment, let’s make the best of what we got.

Gerard Henderson: You [Michael Kirby] sat on the High Court for a long time. You would have read many judgments. How do you think they stand up?

Michael Kirby: Isaacs, Evatt, Dixon, Wyndeyer – some justices have a way of conceptualising the issues and seeing the problem of the time in a broader concept and a broader context. Amongst the justices, Evatt I believe has stood up. He was a very smart man. He wrote several very important books. The King and his Dominion, Governors and so on, during the time that he was on the High Court. He was a very able and a big achiever with a big ego to match. His flaw was that he was a lawyer in politics. And he was a man who looked on problems in a legal way instead of in a political way. And he wasn’t really a team player. That’s the point Anne brings out in the book. He was a man where, as she rather unkindly but accurately said, it was all about him. As Sir Paul Hasluck – quoted in the book – said, he was a man who was a child, having a child’s desire to achieve, to please his mother and to be a very successful scholar.

Evatt won a doctorate, not an honorary doctorate, but a real doctorate from the University of Sydney. That’s why he was called Dr Evatt. He was a genuine, brilliant intellectual. But he had the flaws that Anne brings out in the book and Menzies had his flaws. That’s the interesting thing about the book. The towering figures of my youth. The Commonwealth scholarships that John and I won were a creation dreamed of by the Labor government and then implemented vigorously by the Menzies government. They weren’t a bad system and they produced people like John and me, products of public schools with the opportunities to go to university. That was a very important achievement in a sense of both of them.

Gerard Henderson: Let’s have a final comment from John Howard. In a sense, you’re a beneficiary of Bert Evatt, unintentionally, because Bert Evatt presided over the split in the Labor Party. We have heard from Michael about Evatt the lawyer, a very distinguished lawyer. Give us a feeling about Evatt the politician, as a politician, you are looking back.

John Howard: I can debate Michael about the UN and Doc Evatt, but we don’t have time. His greatest achievement was to defeat the 1951 referendum because he thought it involved a huge assault on human rights. That was an enormous achievement. But he lost his political judgement after he lost the 1954 election and issued the statement attacking the industrial groups and the influence, effectively of Catholics in the Labor Party. It was the principal cause of the great split in the Labor Party. As I have said before, if the Labor Party had had the federal constitutional structure of the Liberal Party, the split would never have occurred.

Evatt he was a great person who lost his judgement. Of course, he magnified that loss of judgement with his attack on the Royal Commission in the Molotov embrace, a move that was unbelievable. Molotov had been Soviet foreign minister for so long and he’d survived in that position. He’d survived the death of Stalin, the brief interregnum of Malenkov and then Khrushchev.

Politics does involve a lot of judgement and part of that judgement is how you handle people. You’ve got to be a team player. Menzies was far more of a team player the second time around. I probably was the second time around; you learn. You’ve got to. You can’t do it all yourself. Menzies learned that and it was one of Hawke’s great virtues. I regard Hawke as the greatest Labor Prime Minister – I stress the adjective – this country has had. He had great people skills, he had great judgement. That was something Bert Evatt lacked. But I don’t want to denigrate his intellect. I think he was an extraordinary figure. And he did champion human rights to the end. And that’s something you’ve got to respect.