Paul Keating hits back

[Joseph27]

This is a great story - I love the Hawke Keating rivally and always think immediately of life of brian - "the only people we hate more than the romans are the f*cking judean peoples front"... Must admit I was a Keating fan more than a Hawke - it would be good to get an accurate historical account from an independent source than either of these guys who are so heavily invested in this embittered relationship.

Paul Keating writes in a letter to Bob Hawke of his displeasure with Blanche d'Alpuget's biography
IT was with much disappointment that I opened The Weekend Australian to find on page three the headline "Hawke's take on ditherer Keating and lying Richo" and to read at the first line that either you or Blanche had described me as "an ailing vacillator".

As you know, I have written no book about my years as treasurer or prime minister. I have declined repeated requests to "get it all down and set the record straight". And not only have I not written a book, as prime minister I did not respond to the book you yourself wrote after you left office; the so-called history of the Hawke government. In it, as you know, you treated me shamefully while attempting to diminish my motivations and larger schematic. Yet I did not upbraid you for it.

Indeed, you will have well noticed that I have desisted from writing any exposes; that I have not reflected adversely on your years as prime minister. When criticism of the Labor years often arose at the hands of Howard and Costello, I would more often than not make a defensive comment in terms of "us" or "Bob and I", because I believed the unity of our purpose reflected more strongly on what we achieved and on Labor's record. That is, we looked stronger together than as two personalities separated as to objectives and outcomes. And this was the way I was happy to leave it.

But you are not happy to leave it. You want to retrace the ground for a second time in a major book, only this time a book written by your wife. Of course, I have not yet seen the book; I can only go on the serialised excerpts and news stories of the kind referred to above. But the Dusevic news story on page three is obviously a lift from the book where you (or Blanche) wilfully misrepresent my role in the float of the exchange rate with supportive quotes for your line by Ross Garnaut, your rusted on, if one-eyed, adviser at the time. The book apparently quotes Bill Hayden saying "he wanted me to be onside with him to oppose it". This, of course, is totally untrue, as my real mission with Hayden at that time was to bring him onside as he was one of the few people in cabinet able to upend or delay it. But to give Hayden his due, he always saw the sense of it. Or at least from May 1983 when it became apparent that the managed system was on its last legs.

The Dusevic story then goes on to misrepresent my position in relation to the first Gulf War. As you know, in 1991 I was in favour of the UN system returning to life after the long impasse of the Cold War and, in meetings with you, I said that if President Bush, two years after the (Berlin) Wall had come down, was prepared to reinvigorate the UN with a UN-mandated assault upon Saddam Hussein, I believed Australia should support it. And if you remember, I advised you to get in early before Mulroney and the British because the Americans were looking mainly for early moral support rather than material support. I went on to say this should allow us to put a couple of ships up the top of the gulf rather than commit ground forces and aircraft. And you were happy to agree. As I remember at the time, mighty happy, for I was both deputy prime minister and treasurer and effective leader of the Right in the parliamentary caucus. My agreement meant full political protection for you.

Which brings me to the point, what do I do from here? The first thing I will do is, when I get a hold of a copy, read the book. But I suspect the book will be a more polished reflection of your self-serving account of your years as prime minister. I will bet, London to a brick on, that the book will do way less than share those years of achievements with me, or my work or indeed adequately with the work of other ministers. I will also bet, London to a brick on, that notwithstanding what the serialised account on Saturday had to say of your breakdown in 1984, that the book will fail to make clear that your emotional and intellectual malaise lasted for years. All through the Tax Summit year of 1985; through to your lacklustre performance through the 1987 election, to the point when in 1988, four years later, (John) Dawkins had to front you, asking you to leave. It was only after that that you approached me, at your initiative, to enter into an agreement with me to succeed you following the 1990 election. An agreement you subsequently broke. The fact is, Bob, I was exceedingly kind to you for a very long time. I knew the state you were in in 1984 and notwithstanding a lot of unhelpful advice from Garnaut and other obsequious members of your staff, I carried you through the whole 1984-1987 parliament, insisting you look like the prime minister, even if your staff, the Manchu Court I called them, were otherwise prepared to leave you in your emotional hole. No other prime minister would have survived going missing for that long. But with my help, you were able to. Kevin Rudd had two months of bad polls and you were the first to say he should be replaced. And you have since repeated it. Indeed, when Blanche asked me to be interviewed for her book, I told her she could not write about your years with me, without dealing honestly and fully with your long years of depression and executive incapacity. I told her for that reason alone, I should prefer no interview with her.

This letter is written now, not simply to express my disappointment but to let you know that enough is enough. That yours and Blanche's rewriting of history is not only unreasonable and unfair, more than that, it is grasping. It is as if, Narcissus-like, you cannot find enough praise to heap upon yourself. In hindsight, it is obvious yours and Blanche's expressions of friendship towards me over the last few years have been completely insincere. I can only promise you this: if I get around to writing a book, and I might, I will be telling the truth; the whole truth. And that truth will record the great structural changes that occurred during our years and my own as prime minister, but it will also record without favour, how lucky you were to have me drive the government during your down years, leaving you with the credit for much of the success.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politic ... 5891811095

[Tas]

The best letter so far was written by his daughter with respect to the treatment of Hazel. Sounds like a heck of a lot of narcism exists in that Hawk / d'Alpuget relationship.

A daughter enraged: 'If only Hazel could speak for herself'
NICK RALSTON


The daughter of Bob and Hazel Hawke says Blanche d'Alpuget has crossed a line with comments and insinuations about her mother in a new biography of the former prime minister .

Sue Pieters-Hawke said she was fond of her stepmother and the happiness she now shared with her father.

But she said D'Alpuget's book, Hawke: The Prime Minister, and a telemovie to screen tomorrow have dragged the spotlight into personal family matters.

Ms Pieters-Hawke said she had previously declined to comment on her family as she believed they deserved privacy.

However, she said she was now persuaded that it was time to say something.

''I have observed what I believe are fair and respectful boundaries about commenting publicly on the personalities and complex relationships of my family life or anyone else's,'' she said, writing for The Age.

''I am loyal to both my parents. But a line has been crossed, a legacy hijacked, and a lot of people are seriously unimpressed.''

Ms Pieters-Hawke said she took particular offence to comments made about her mother.

In the book, D'Alpuget writes that Bob and Hazel's marriage ''had been unstable for decades, but The Lodge had brought them happiness. It had been the fulfilment of a long-shared dream, for the achievement of which both had been willing to make sacrifices.''

D'Alpuget says once that dream had been achieved the relationship began to deteriorate.

Ms Pieters-Hawke said that account was ''rewriting of history'' on the basis of a series of inaccurate premises. ''Forbearance extends only so far before it becomes a complicit silence, and I think it's time that, as someone who has known her well for 53 years and spoken previously on her behalf, I set a few things straight,'' Ms Pieters-Hawke said.

''My mother is entitled, on the basis of the life she has lived and the way she has lived it, to be recognised as a person of deep conviction and principled choices. She was consistently motivated by far more noble concerns than money, where she lived, or the 'reputation du jour' of her ex-husband.''

''While public comment about my mother can be a bit overblown in its adulation, there is really no argument from people who know her well about her essential attributes and motivations.''

Hazel Hawke has withdrawn from public life and is suffering from advanced dementia.

Ms Pieters-Hawke said her mother remains mostly cheerful and positive, still plays the piano a little but no longer recognises her family.

''What you saw about Mum was what you got. This was absolutely the case among friends and family, and among her many friends over the years,'' she said.

''And it became true about who she was as she was exposed on the wider stage of Australian public life. And what did I see?

''Of course, she's my mother, and I love her to bits. Yes, I'm biased.

''But I can honestly say that who I know her to be is not in the least bit at odds with most of the public image of her. She is a loving human being. She has always had a deep instinct for connection with people, a completely warm and natural way of respecting the worth and dignity of anyone she encounters.

''Her support of my father throughout his career was not that of a loyal doormat ''standing by her man''- she shared the values and aspirations for living in the country of the ''fair go'' that so inspired and drove dad,'' Ms Pieters-Hawke said.

''She respected people for the fact of contribution, irrespective of scale or whether she agreed with their views. And she believed in the authentic motivation of my father's ambition to lead in pursuit of that vision.

''That never wavered, despite the periodically turbulent nature of their marriage. She pretty much only got really snitchy when she felt strongly that someone's actions were causing harm to others.''

Her mother, Ms Pieters-Hawke said, never aspired to live in The Lodge and concepts of status, money and position meant nothing to her.

''To suggest that mum stayed with Dad because he was a 'good material provider', or that she dreamed of being in The Lodge, is about as diametrically opposed to the truth as you can get, as those of us who know her motives and aspirations for remaining with him well understand,'' she said.

''I'm not going to go into providing an alternative detailed account of the private lives and decisions and dynamics of my family over the past 50 years.

''That others of you see fit to do so is your call.

''Of course, there is no such thing as an objective account - history is always an interpretation. But there are such things as facts, relevance, and well substantiated assertions, and then there is the rest of it …''

As well as D'Alpuget's portrayal of her mother, Ms Pieters-Hawke has also taken exception to her sister's battle with heroin addiction being aired publicly again.

''The notion of a right to privacy extends, I believe, to respecting a person's preference to not bang on about their past, or the parts of it that are of no legitimate concern to others,'' she said.

''My sister has asked all her family to refrain from talking about or facilitating further public discussion of the complex difficulties she fought her way out of many years ago.

''That request has not been fully respected, to her distress and my profound distaste.''

Ms Pieters-Hawke has also asked that the portrayal of her father in a Network Ten telemovie tomorrow not be taken seriously.

''If you choose to watch the telemovie, then maybe … you will incidentally glimpse something of what mattered about my father's life as PM, the honest dedication and innovative approach with which he set about leading four governments that are often agreed to have been a high point in Australian political and social history …

''Those years and the political dynamics of them are a legitimate matter of public interest and debate to all of us who care about the world we live in … Dad's role in public life, and public affection and respect for him because of it, are the key memories that endure in people's minds, I hope.

''Personally, I think that glib observations of character and events, or the ill-informed and tawdry dwelling on deeply personal dimensions of a family's life, demean public conversation, political commentary, and the people who indulge in them.

''Mostly, I have lost interest or learned to ignore them. Gratuitously 'pouring hot water on old dried s---', as a friend of mine pithily observed, while it may politely be called 'drama', is a cheap substitute for viewing of substantive worth.

''If I'm in front of the telly, I plan on watching the final episode of Little Dorrit on the good ol' ABC.

''That, at least, is nothing but honest fiction.''