|
In his 1994 book Menzies’ Child — The Liberal Party of Australia 1944 - 1994, executive director of The Sydney Institute Gerard Henderson strongly asserts that former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser’s memory of the events surrounding then Governor-General John Kerr’s conduct during the Dismissal is wrong.
Fraser asserts that Kerr made a phone call to him on the morning of the dismissal discussing what he would do if he was commissioned as Prime Minister, including, among other things, details about the Budget Bills and the timing of a double dissolution election.
Kerr later denied that this phone call ever took place. Henderson repeats that assertion in his book, namely on the basis of a handwritten note by John Kerr, dated November 16, and comments that Kerr said to Henderson between 1987 and 1991.
Upon obtaining a copy of Malcolm Fraser and Margaret Simons’ new book Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs, Henderson began to correspond with Simons over the events in question, Fraser’s handwritten note recording the conversation and Kerr’s note of events.
These are those letters, and this is his story. Crikey presents The Henderson Letters:
On 23/02/2010, at 11:45 AM, “Gerard Henderson” wrote:
Margaret,
I look forward to you addressing The Sydney Institute on Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs on Tuesday 23 March.
I obtained a copy of your book yesterday and will read it soon. At the moment I am delving into chapters which are of particular interest. Hence this note.
At Page 304 you refer to a note which records a phone conversation between John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser which took place at 9:55 am on 11 November 1975. You write that this “piece of paper remains in Fraser’s possession today”:
It would be appreciated if you could answer the following questions, viz:
1. Did you see the note?
2. Assuming that you did see this note, why are there no direct quotes from it in your book?
3. Did Mr Fraser decline to allow you to quote from this note?
4. If so, what would be the reason for refusing permission to quote form a note which is close to four decades old?
Best wishes
Gerard Henderson
Gerard Henderson
Executive Director
The Sydney Institute
From: Margaret Simons […]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 1:21 PM
To: Gerard Henderson
Subject: Re:
Hi Gerard on the move so a brief reply. Yes I saw the note — handled the original and took a copy. The note is reproduced as a photographic plate in the book. There were no restrictions placed on me so far as quoting is concerned. I don’t have a copy of the book on me at the moment but from memory I described the contents and of course the plate is there for people to see.
Cheers Margaret
Sent from my mobile
On 23/02/2010, at 3:20 PM, “Gerard Henderson” wrote:
Margaret
Thanks. I had not checked the illustrations when I sent my note to you earlier today.
It is an observable fact that the handwriting and the pen used on the note differ. The points numbered 1 to 5 are lighter and more scrawled — whereas the time, date and signature are neater and darker.
I wonder whether you and/or Malcolm Fraser have an explanation for this.
Best wishes
Gerard Henderson
From: Margaret Simons […]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 6:14 PM
To: Gerard Henderson
Subject: Re: RE:
Malcolm put the time and date on the note later — he believes after the joint party meeting that immediately followed the call.
Sent from my mobile
From: Gerard Henderson [mailto:…]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2010 10:57 AM
To: ‘Margaret Simons’
Subject: RE: RE:
Thanks — so the dating of the note turns on the accuracy of Malcolm Fraser’s memory.
This section of your book relies a lot on memory.
In view of the serious allegations made against John Kerr in this instance, it is unfortunate that you did not see fit to examine all the evidence — some of which is contained in my book Menzies Child: The Liberal Party of Australia (which is not cited in your bibliography).
I may cover this in next Friday’s Media Watch Dog.
Looking forward to seeing you at the Institute on 23 March.
Best wishes
Gerard
From: Margaret Simons [mailto:Margaret@margaretsimons.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2010 8:52 PM
To: ‘Gerard Henderson’
Subject: RE: RE:
Hi again Gerard.
I have read your book, though it is true it was not a reference for this work. I did of course refer to Kerr’s memoirs.
I have just reread the relevant pages of Menzies’ Child. The weight of evidence is clearly on Fraser’s side.
As he says, Kerr signalled with the phone call that he was going to act — to force a resolution — but as stated in the book it was certainly in Fraser’s mind that the result might be an election which Whitlam would contest as PM.
On your account Kerr’s note was written on 16 November. Fraser’s was written on the 11 November. In support of this, we have not only Fraser’s memory, but that of his principal private secretary, Dale Budd, who recalls late in the afternoon of the 11th seeing the note on Fraser’s desk, “signed and marked to show they had been made at 9.55am.” Which supports Fraser’s memory that he added the date and time on the same day that he made the note. (pg 48 of The Dismissal, Edited by Sybil Nolan, MUP 2005.)
Not a huge amount turns on this. Nobody, at this distance, is suggesting that Kerr did anything improper in making the call. Fraser certainly is not.
He is saying that Kerr reacted to pressure in denying the substance of the call.
Another possible explanation is that it was Kerr whose memory of that dramatic day was at fault.
I might beat you to publishing this correspondence by offering it to Crikey.
See you on the 23rd.
Cheers Margaret
| 
11 Comments
oh goody, another article proving that Gerard Henderson is a tedious, boring, irrelevant pedant, still stuck in the 60s and 70s. Tell us something we don’t know.
Judging by Kerr’s demeanour on that fateful Melbourne Cup day, when he was as p****d as a fart, one would automatically raise a question over anything he asserted as fact.
What part of the day did he make the note? Morning, noon or night! Kerr didn’t know what was what that day at Flemington, and it was about 3.30pm or so???What an embarrassment - I nearly fell over laughing, as did my work colleague! We thought it was poetic justice????
While I wasn’t a fan of Malcolm Fraser over that disgraceful debacle, I’ve certainly changed my opinion of him in the last 12yrs or so! (gee, I never thought I’d say that?)I’d put more store in his recollections than Kerr’s. What a grub of a person?
Liz I couldn’t agree more. Who would I believe between Henderson and Fraser? Whilst I was and remain very angry at the contempt with which the Libs abused our political processes, I think Fraser an honourable man. I wouldn’t say the same about Henderson.If Gough can forgive Malcolm it would be churlish of me not to do the same, but I won’t countenance any defence of the outrage itself.
What an idea! A Gerard Henderson/Malcolm Fraser Dismissal Cage Match. He/she who yawns first loses.
Whoops, I lose.
I await Gerontius’ next rewriting of reality. As Liz & DavK, 1975 informed my politics for decades and, as the man himself evolved into a statesman, I found it difficult to appreciate the redemption is possible for even the lowest cur. Now we unreconstructed lefties have a new villain, Krudd, to carry to the grave.
There has to be more to life than endless snorkeling into the sewers of history. Come on, we all used the Fraser printed toilet paper decades ago. The staring at the resulting piles with a rear vision mirror does no good. Keep hands above the blanket.
I need cheering up now.
http://oosterman.wordpress.com/
AR It’s far too early for me to be totally pissed off with Kevin, but give it time. I, like Venise remain pissed off with Hawky however. As for carrying to the grave, I’m trying to walk the other way. Gerard, those who forget history will repeat the mistakes, but keep up the references to masturbation if you want, it might cheer you up.
With the sacking of Whitlam came the ‘maintain the rage’ movement.Someone in the local Sydney’s Balmain ALP branch made a huge curry. Each year the remnants of the previous year’s curry would be taken out of the deepfreeze added onto and re-heated and consumed by the membership. This would often involve imbibing large schooner glasses filled with cheap red wine.
As the momentum of the ‘rage’ got a bit sour, so did the curry and Messrs Whitlam and Fraser made up amicably.
Must we keep life in Australia so dull that we keep stirring those stale curries.
History zzzzzzzzzzzz?
http://oosterman.wordpress.com/
Yes Gerard, otherwise they may happen again! While I’ve changed my attitude to Fraser as stated, I still feel bloody angry over what happened in 1975 - always will. My vote was ripped up and thrown in my face for greedy reasons, and also pushing the Uranium question - of that I have no doubt - which I’m passionately against!
Why NOT maintain the rage? You can be sure that if the boot was on the other foot THEY’D maintain the rage.
You’re right Cuppa, they’ve maintained their confected rage anyway. How dare we vote them out of office not once, not twice, but three times? Every time they get back in they do the same thing: attack unions, demonise the disadvantaged, sell any assets, subsidise the rich and then tell us all what a great job they’ve done whille waving the flag and using sporting metaphors.