I recently read this two volume biography of the great man by A W Martin. Although very sympathetic to Menzies it is not a hagiogrphy.
I must say I was unimpressed by this biography.
Let us take elections. There were a hellva lot of them in Menzies lifetime yet we do not even get a paragraph on any on them.
Take the controversial 1954 election. We get a few sentences where we learn at the end the ALP got the majority of the vote. This is irreconcilable with what the author had written about the campaign.
Most people take it for granted Menzies was very good at constitutional law given that is how he made his repudiation yet he merely states Menzies stated in the 1949 the ALP could still nationalising the banks despite both the High Court and Privy council ruling against this. What were Menzies's arguments. We do not know. Was this a political ploy or did his statement have substance. We do not know.
Martin tries unsuccessfully to show Menzies was not embarrassed by the Sues crisis and the UN debacle but I think his heart was not in it. This is also the case on south Africa. I think without realising it he shows Menzies as a man who simply does not realise the winds were changing in the world and Menzies did not realise this.
One major defect was the inability to perceive how restrictive trade practices were the norm in Menzies time.There was no competition. Why and how was this allowed? We do not know indeed this topic is not even broached!
The only time we learn of Menzies work habits was after the 1949 election. People were used to Chifley arriving at work at 8. Menzies did not arrive until 10!
Perhaps relation to this Martin completely avoids why Menzies wore double breasted suits everywhere and anytime, whether it be the tropics in Malaya then Malaysia or summer in the USA. Why would the man do such a stupid thing. He was obese. He wanted to wear clothing which did not highlight this. Thus I am not convinced by Martins reasons Menzies was not indolent.
Menzies loved cricket but taking valuable days of his working life to watch a game of cricket is another example of indolence Martin does not appreciate.
Martin quite regularly says understood his brief on economic matters yet he NEVER proves proof of this. This is very frustrating. Perhaps Martin like Menzies does not understand economics.
Indeed we never learn from this book that following the 1949 election win Australia has its highest inflation rate and by far its highest current account deficit as a % of GDP. Economics is not covered very well at all. For those of us who read all about the Vernon report at University and how Whitlam embraced this Martin's commentary on this subject is very one-sided/.
Okay I have been critical thus far so let me get sympathetic to Menzies, He is brought in to Federal politics from State politics to replace Lyons when he retires. Lyons himself confirms this. Many times he tells Menzies he is weary of politics BUT he never retires. Menzies finally resigns from Cabinet on a matter of principle.
Why did not Lyons resign as he wanted, No question in my mind it was his wife. In this instance Menzies was no Keating.
We might cogitate that Menzies left his party with no direction. They should have lost in 1969. his cabinets were lacklustre ( I do not realise in 1949 the highly impressive John Dedman was beaten by Hubert Opperman who at best could be called a plodder.
I think this is a good place to stop as this typified the Menzies era.
Menzies was a very lucky man. If either Curtin was still alive or Chifley had not had a brain explosion on banks it is unlikely Menzies would have regained government. In both 1954 and 1961 fair electoral boundaries would have seen him beaten.Again this is never broached,
This should have been a very enjoyable biography however it merely proved frustrating. This is a great shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment