Letters to the Editor

Myth and misrepresentation Dear Editor, Lyndon Megarrity’s review of my book, I Am Bound to Be True: The Life and Legacy of Arthur A. Calwell, begins with assertions about Arthur Calwell that appear to be intended to deter the reader from being interested in my book (April 2013). It recycles comments that have made the history of postwar immigration to Australia a maelstrom of myth and misrepresentation. Megarrity ignores the detailed explanation of Australian Labor Party policy that was binding onevery ALP member, and widespread community support for the Restrictive Immigration Act, which Calwell was the first to amend in March 1947. His efforts were eventually successful in achieving Australian citizenship for Asian residents and those of Papua New Guinea. Megarrity appears indifferent to the environment in which events occurred. The quotation from 1972 (‘No red-blooded Australian wants to see a chocolate-coloured Australia in the 1980s’) was in the context of turmoil overseas by ‘Black Power’ and the wish to protectAustralia from social divisions based on race, while continuing to promote education for people from Third World countries. Megarrity would find many refutations of racist comments by Calwell in Hansard and should have mentioned his support for Australian Aborigines and the people of Papua New Guinea. Megarrity’s approach to the book is eclectic, and his arguments are generallynot advanced in satisfactory ways. The ‘disunity’ in the ALP in the 1960s was caused by Gough Whitlam’s unsuccessful efforts to take over the leadership. Both the 1961 federal election that Calwell effectively won and the 1963 election are ignored, as are the near-expulsion of Whitlam in 1966 and his admission of the identification of anti-Calwell propaganda during the 1966 election that was lost. Calwell and many of his colleagues were motivated by beliefs, values, and policies, not cynical opportunism as in opposition to the war in Vietnam. After the 1966 election, Calwell stated that: ‘It was better to lose on principle than to win on lies.’ Megarrity is not familiar with some topics. The enormity of the possible consequences of B.A Santamaria’s activities, and of those of his supporters, is not understood and theological implications are described as ‘church literature’. Calwell transformed Australia through immigration. He prevented threats to democracy and the broader society through his defence of the separation of church and state. My book is based on my master’s and doctoral theses. I was an observer or participant in many events and my objectivity can be determined by consulting the numerous endnotes in my book. Mary Elizabeth Calwell, Travancore, Vic. Lyndon Megarrity replies: I enjoyed reading and reflecting upon Mary Elizabeth Calwell’s book, and believe that I reviewed it fairly. Book reviews have word limits: the reviewer cannot cover everything. To fully contextualise immigration policy, Santamaria’s political activism, and the Calwell–Whitlam rivalry would have taken more space in this publication than was available. I have a strong personal admiration for many aspects of Calwell’s career, and feel this is demonstrated in my review, which includes clear praise for Calwell’s role as immigration minister and highlights his capacity for relating to people regardless of race. While we may not agree on the merits of my review, Mary Elizabeth Calwell and I can agree that her father was a great Australian. Not my idea of plain Dear Editor, I agree with Val Wake (Letters, March 2013). Henry Handel Richardson was an extraordinary-looking woman, certainly not my idea of ‘plain’, and poor Nettie does get treated a bit unfairly by Brenda Niall in an otherwise fine article (‘Ettie and Nettie’, February 2013). After the comment quoted by Wake, Niall goes on to say that Nettie ‘dressed dowdily, let out her dresses (the seams “strained” against her plumpness) and wore the mended shoes that figured on the tight Palmer budget’. There is no source for the ‘strained’ in the parenthesis, but I think it comes from an error in Michael Ackland’s biography of Richardson (2005). He quotes Mary Kernot: ‘She really is a picture of robust-ness. I always feel nervous about her frocks, they strain’, and says that this refers to Nettie. The sentence before the one that Ackland quotes indicates that Kernot is referring to Nettie’s sixteen-year-old daughter: ‘All this Aileen told in nervous bursts. She really is …’ etc. (Kernot to Richardson, 1 September 1931). Nettie Palmer wasn’t plump; her adolescent daughter was. Sylvia Martin, Katoomba, NSW

From the New Issue

The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on effective altruism, engaged Buddhism, and how to build a better world by Peter Singer and Shih Chao-Hwei

Pursuit of the New: Louise Hanson-Dyer, publisher and collector edited by Kerry Murphy and Jennifer Hill

Vincent Namatjira edited by Vincent Namatjira

Saving Lieutenant Kennedy: The heroic story of the Australian who helped rescue JFK by Brett Mason