GERARD HENDERSON AND MARGARET SIMONS – FEBRUARY 2010
Gerard Henderson to Margaret Simons 23 February 2010, 11.45 am
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:
- Did you see the note?
- Assuming that you did see this note, why are there no direct quotes from it in your book?
- Did Mr Fraser decline to allow you to quote from this note?
- 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
Margaret Simons to Gerard Henderson 23 February 2010, 1.21 pm
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
Gerard Henderson to Margaret Simons 23 February 2010, 3.20 pm
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
Margaret Simons to Gerard Henderson 23 February 2010, 6.14 pm
Malcolm put the time and date on the note later – he believes after the joint party meeting that immediately followed the call.
Gerard Henderson to Margaret Simons 24 February 2010, 10.57 am
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
Margaret Simons to Gerard Henderson 24 February 2010 – 8.52 pm
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 too publishing this correspondence by offering it to Crikey.
See you on the 23rd.
Cheers Margaret
Gerard Henderson to Margaret Simons 25 February 2010 – 12.03 pm
Margaret
I admire much of your work on the media but note that when you write on politics you tend to become somewhat of a barracker.
Your 2004 pro-Mark Latham tract, Latham’s World (Quarterly Essay), was a bit embarrassing. Especially all that gush about a Latham ascension “to power” being a “signal of succession to our generation” when you lot will be in “your prime”. What tosh.
Now that you have switched your barracking, you seem to believe that everything Malcolm Fraser tells you is accurate. Mr Fraser is a man of considerable ability. However, there are quite a few occasions where his memory of events of some three decades ago is faulty.
I do not doubt that you have read John Kerr’s memoirs. But the key fact is that that they were published in 1978. Malcolm Fraser’s allegation that Kerr had advised him around 10 am on 11 November 1975 that he would withdraw Gough Whitlam’s commission later that day was first reported in Phillip Ayers book Malcolm Fraser: A Biography which was published in 1987.
By ignoring the account of Kerr’s reaction to the Fraser/Ayers assertion – which was documented in my 1994 book Menzies’ Child – you have effectively censored Kerr’s reply to this most serious allegation. Your use of sources is disturbingly selective. For example, you quote Peter Nixon’s recollection about the details of the Kerr/Fraser phone call but not those of Bob Ellicott QC who was also in the room. Ellicott told both Kerr and myself that Fraser’s recall of the phone conversation was quite inaccurate. In 1975, Ellicott was Shadow Attorney General and deeply involved in the tactics over the blocking of supply.
You quote the recollections of Malcolm Fraser’s loyal staffer Dale Budd. But you seem unaware that Mr Budd’s recall was challenged by Sir David Smith, Kerr’s official secretary in 1975. The Budd/Smith correspondence was published in Issues 27, 29 and 30 of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. You receive this publication – also, copies of the SIQ are on the Institute’s website.
The fact is that Kerr did have a contemporaneous note of his phone conversation – it was dated 16 November 1975. Malcolm Fraser’s handwritten note, which is reproduced in your book, is dated 11 November 1975 but the time, date and signature is in a quite different style from the rest of the note. It is significantly darker and looks newer.
In his book Phillip Ayers acknowledged Malcolm Fraser’s generous assistance. If you have read this book you would be aware that in 1987 neither Fraser nor Ayers could pinpoint the time of the call – see page 292. This suggests that Malcolm Fraser and his supporters became more convinced about the time of this call as the years rolled on.
In relation to the note in question: (i) Malcolm Fraser told Paul Kelly in 1995 that it no longer existed and (ii) Malcolm Fraser refused to allow Dale Budd to quote from it in his essay on The Dismissal which was published in 2005. Also, to believe Mr Fraser’s account, which was first made in 1987, you have to accept that Fraser lied to Alan Reid in the late 1970s when Fraser told Reid that he had no advance notice whatsoever that Kerr would dismiss Whitlam – see AR’s The Whitlam Venture.
Malcolm Fraser’s allegation about John Kerr was – and remains – damaging to Kerr because it fits in with Gough Whitlam’s conspiracy allegation which was made shortly after the dismissal.
I have responded at some length following your comment that you may offer this correspondence to Crikey today. I will probably publish a documented account in Media Watch Dog which should go about 2 pm tomorrow.
Best wishes. Looking forward to catching up on 23 February.
Gerard
Margaret Simons to Gerard Henderson 25 February 2010, 2.09 pm
Gerard,
I got this just moments ago – too late to go in today’s Crikey. I will send it to them with the suggestion that they publish it tomorrow, together with this response. I am sure they will be delighted.
As you know, this book was written with Fraser – a different activity than writing an essay by myself, such as that on Latham. My essay on Latham was researched and published well before the election of 2004 – indeed months before the beginning of the election campaign. You and I have corresponded before on its faults of prescience and those areas where it was prescient. Much of it, in my opinion, stands up reasonably well given the period in which it was written.
I did interview Ellicott for the Fraser book. He did not make the assertion you recall to me. In any case, he was not a party to the call and Fraser was not on speaker phone.
If Fraser did say those words to Reid, there is no contradiction. As explained in the book and in these emails, Fraser did not take the call as warning that Whitlam would be sacked. Only that Kerr would force a resolution. He thought it quite possible that Whitlam would contest the resulting election as Prime Minister.
And how on earth am I censoring Kerr’s response when I say, loud and clear, that he always denied the call took place? Are you saying the account would only have been satisfactory if I had added words to the effect “and Gerard Henderson says he has seen a document written by Kerr and dated 16 November which supports Kerr’s version”?
You are effectively calling Dale Budd a liar with no evidence other than your certainty that Kerr is to be believed over Fraser.
If you are not calling Fraser a liar, then you are coming very close. And what possible motivation would he have to invent this account? Nothing turns on it for him.
Gerard, I don’t suppose anyone will fret if you continue to believe Kerr over Fraser. It’s up to you.
Anyone else who is interested will make up their own minds.
Yours,
Margaret
Gerard Henderson to Margaret Simons 25 February 2010, 4.11 pm
Margaret
I wrote to you at 12.30pm. You write that you received my note after 2pm. I don’t know your explanation for the delay. However, you could have contacted me to see if I intended replying before you sent our correspondence to Crikey without my reply.
My responses to your latest missive are as follows:
- It is true that Bob Ellicott was not a party to the John Kerr/Malcolm Fraser phone conversation which took place on the morning of 11 November 1975. But neither was Peter Nixon – and yet you quote Nixon’s recollections at page 305 of Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs. This is an evident double standard.
- I have never said that Malcolm Fraser lied about the events of 11 November 1975 and I have always believed that what he told Alan Reid was truthful.
- You seem to believe that if two people come to a different view about past events then one of them must be lying. This is not my position. I am very conscious of the unreliability of memory.
- It is mere verballing to accuse me of calling Dale Budd a liar. I have never done so. The fact is, however, that his comments in the book The Dismissal, in 2005, turned on his recall of an event which had taken place 30 years previously. It may be that Mr Dale has an ability to recall in 2005 exactly what was written on a document which he viewed in 1975. But it may be that his memory is flawed.
- I have never called Malcolm Fraser a liar. But, as your email correspondence documents, you have relied on Malcolm Fraser’s memory as the only evidence for when he timed, dated and signed the note.
- The fact is that John Kerr did have a contemporaneous note of these events. This was published in Menzies Child and it was also reported in The Australian in November 1987. The fact is that you ignored the details of Kerr’s response after Malcolm Fraser’s allegation was first made. You also ignored the fact that David Smith has challenged Dale Budd’s recall of these events.
- In November 1975, life was very busy for Mr Fraser and Mr Budd. In my view, Malcolm Fraser confused two conversations which he had with Kerr on 11 November 1975. This is no conspiracy. Just confusion. If you had done the necessary research you would have been aware of these matters before you wrote the book with Malcolm Fraser.
In conclusion, in Menzies Child I canvassed the views of both John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser – and included lengthy quotes from both men – before finding in favour of Kerr on the evidence. In your barracking way, you did not cite Menzies Child in the bibliography nor mention Kerr’s account in The Australian as reported in 1987. It’s called sloppy research.
As far as I am concerned this correspondence is concluded – perhaps we can continue this discussion at The Sydney Institute on 23 March. Anne and I invited Malcolm Fraser to come along.
Cheers
Gerard
Margaret Simons to Gerard Henderson 25 February 2010, 4.41 pm
Gerard.
You wrote to me at 12.30pm. However I was not at my computer at that time, nor was I checking emails on my mobile phone. I was otherwise engaged. I received your email when I switched on my computer.
I will forward your reply to Crikey. I agree that this correspondence is concluded.
Yours Margaret
* * * * *
The latter part of this correspondence was not published in Crikey. Hence the reproduction of the full correspondence here.