LAUNCHING MENZIES VERSUS EVATT – THE GREAT RIVALRY OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS – JOHN HOWARD

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.

LAUNCHING MENZIES VERSUS EVATT – THE GREAT RIVALRY OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

JOHN HOWARD

Thank you very much, Gerard. It’s great to be here and it’s great to share a platform with Michael Kirby. Michael and I haven’t always agreed, but we have sometimes agreed. And I think we both remember with some affection having seen off the roundheads some 20 or more years ago in the Republican referendum. But I won’t dwell on that. I simply want to say that this book has long been overdue for writing. I have a little bit of a personal interest in the story. I grew up – and Michael did too – when these two men dominated the Australian political scene. As Anne records, their great standoff over the referendum to the ban the Communist Party brought about the only occasion, to my knowledge, that my parents voted differently in a ballot. My father voted Yes, and my mother voted No – and she did so very emphatically. I remember a fairly short, sharp exchange around the kitchen table ending with her saying “Lyall, I don’t care what you say, I’m voting no”. That was the end of it. I was 12 at the time and I listened respectfully, but I remember it very vividly.

On a rather more sombre note, the last time I recall listening to parliament with my long dead father was in October of 1955, when we listened to Bert Evatt’s long statement to parliament addressing the final report of the Royal Commission established after the Petrov defection. It was during that speech that he produced extraordinary gasps of amazements when he indicated that he had written to Molotov – who was still the Soviet Foreign Minister and the infamous author, along with Ribbentrop, of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact concluded between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia on the eve of the outbreak of World War II. And before Hitler violated the agreement with his operation Barbarossa, the attack on the Soviet Union, which resulted in the deaths, in military conflict or otherwise, of some 27 million Soviet citizens. So, I remember that very vividly, and my father died just a few weeks after that. We had grown accustomed to listening to parliament together. We were a little surprised, and it reinforced our views of Dr Evatt, politically speaking.

He was an interesting man. I had the very interesting experience, between my completing the leaving certificate and commencing my law degree in early 1957, of working as a messenger boy for a barrister’s clerk on the second floor of Denman Chambers. One of the chambers there was occupied by Bert Evatt and his brother Clive. They were an interesting contrast, very different personalities. Clive appeared to be the bon vivant of the family. I sensed then – and I’ve remembered it a lot since – that Evatt at that time was going through the political horrors. It was December of 1956, the Labor Party had split the previous year, he had lost the 1955 election and moves were then underway to have him installed as Chief Justice of NSW. They were both quite remarkable men and were about as near to contemporaries as you could get. Born barely a year apart, and they both had great academic careers. I think it’s fair to say that Evatt’s academic career excelled that of Menzies. Although Menzies career at the Bar was quite stellar; appearing, as he quite famously did, in the engineers case, at the age of only 25.

It is written by Anne – and I have no reason to disbelieve it – that Evatt’s mother was very keen on his academic achievements, and she had every reason to be proud of him. His early forays into politics were very spectacular. He won the seat of Barton – in which my old family home of Earlwood is now located – with a swing of 13.9% on a two-party basis in 1940. He was seen than, and understandably so, as very much a rising star. His performance on the international stage, where he was the first president of the United Nations General Assembly and played a major role in the resolutions of the General Assembly that brought into being the state of Israel. An issue which is now very much in the news because of the apparent changes of the policy of the government regarding the recognition of a Palestinian state. He was a dominant figure both legally and internationally. He personally appeared to the government in bank nationalisation cases. It is said – I don’t know if it’s accurate, it sounds a bit extraordinary – that he addressed the Privy Council for about 13 days in the bank nationalisation case. It’s also recorded – and this can be checked, but I think it’s right – that two members of the Privy Council died during the case. There will be people in the audience who know whether that’s right or wrong. I see from a few nodding heads that it could well be close to the truth.

He was not as good a public orator as Menzies. Menzies certainly surpassed him with his rapier wit and his lordly presentation style. But there can be no doubt that Bert Evatt deserved an important place, not only in the history of the Australian Labor Party but also in Australian history generally. The fact that their two careers intersected so much added a bit of real colour. Who was right and who was wrong? Well, it depends on what period you’re looking at. There’s no doubt that the occasion of the referendum to ban the Communist Party represented the high point of Evatt supremacy over Menzies. It’s interesting that some months out from the referendum, opinion polls were recording 70-80 per cent in favour of the Yes vote. It seemed astonishing that the Yes vote could lose, because this was September of 1951.

The big worry was that Soviet Communism, having never vacated the areas of Eastern Europe from which the Nazis had been expelled, the fall of the Chiang Kai-shek regime in China only two years previously and a general concern about the Communist control of trade unions. Which was beginning then to cause internal tensions inside the Labor Party through the activities of the industrial groups. The growing influence of B.A. Santamaria and others who argued for a stronger resistance for communism. One of the interesting things about this period is the attitude of the British Labor Party, which was then in government under Clement Atlee, the foreign secretary was Ernest Bevin. He was far more anti-communist than his counterparts in the Australian Labor Party. That government was far more obsessed with the Soviet threat, and that was understandable because they were in Europe. We were a long way away, and we were yet to become concerned. Although, we were very rapidly concerned about the spread of communist influence in Southeast Asia. This was an area of departure between Evatt and his counterparts in the Labor government until 1949 and the Coalition government after 1941.

Evatt was a person who placed enormous store on human rights. He believed passionately that the legislation Menzies had put up – which I thought went unnecessarily beyond what was needed to restore or achieve the aim of the legislation declared invalid by the High Court of Australia some months previously. Though it was a titanic struggle, it’s fair to say that it ended with many sad aspects because of the circumstances in which Evatt was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the fact that he resigned that position because of failing health. But he did make a huge contribution to the Labor Party; he gave it a massive profile internationally. But there is little doubt that his extraordinary claim in the speech he made in October 1955, that the Australian public should believe the word of Molotov against that of three respected Australian judges, condemned him in the eyes of many people as having extremely bad judgement.

I think this is a fascinating book. Oddly enough, not withstanding my political tribalism, I had more personal acquaintance with Bert Evatt than I dd with Bob Menzies, who I met on only one occasion at a cocktail party at The Lodge ni the middle 1960s. I was an insignificant delegate from the NSW Branch to a gathering of the federal council of the Liberal Party. As I admired Menzies from a distance, I have grown to respect the prodigious commitment of Herbert Evatt to the cause of human right. I admire what he achieved in that referendum. I can remember I was 12 years of age, but I was precociously following it very closely. I remember the day after; my Sunday school teacher was a very good Labor man, very decent fellow, good Christian man, but he said, “What do you think of the result, John?”, and I said, “Counting’s not over yet”. I must have been echoing the comments of my father, certainly not of mother. Although they didn’t continue the debate, they just had their little demarche and that was it.

It was a titanic struggle, and I think those of us who followed politics very closely owe Anne a debt for having written this and written it in the context of the fact that they were contemporaries and fought each other doggedly. Some wins and some losses. I have one mildly inquiring observation. There’s no reference as I can find to that landmark commerce agreement between Japan and Australia, to which we must be indebted above all to John McEwen. I look back on Australia’s engagement with Asia; there are some – maybe in this audience – who would argue that our engagement didn’t start until 1972. But our real engagement with Asia, post World War II, was when we signed that agreement. Remember that our parliament then contained a large number of men who had fought the Japanese about 10 or 12 years previously. Many of them such as Alick Downer, Reg Swartz, Tom Uren, both sides of politics, had been prisoners of war. But we rose above that as a nation and signed this commerce agreement, and it paved the way for the expansion of our trade with North Asia once Britain turned her back on imperial preference and entered the common market. A decision that she finally had opportunity to recant many years later with Brexit. But that’s another matter.

Anne, thank you very much for what you’ve done. I think it’s a great read, and I am delighted that I share the platform with Michael. We’ve partnered each other on platforms, disagreed on things. But always retained a very warm affection for each other and our commitment to political combat in the best sense of that word.

*******

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.