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