Extreme and Dangerous – The Curious Case of Dr Ian Macdonald

1 June

A review of the book, Extreme and Dangerous: The Curious Case of Dr Ian Macdonald, written by Kate Hutchison

Written By: Bob Briton

For a movement that is said to have failed to set down deep roots in Australian political and social life, the Communist movement has a remarkable volume of literature tracing its long and turbulent history. To the mountain of scholarly works and memoirs from supporters and opponents there has been added a growing pile of recollections by family members of Communists who moved away from the movement or stayed the course to the end.

Kate Hutchison’s recent book, Extreme and Dangerous, falls into this last-mentioned category. It is the story of her father, Dr Ian Macdonald who, along with his wife Molly, joined the Communist Party of Australia in the 1930s while studying at Melbourne University. Her late parents’ activism and beliefs stirred a curiosity about the historical record they left behind. Her first port of call was a request for her father’s ASIO file, which contained documents gathered over the decades about her father’s association with the Communist Party.

“It was during his posting to Darwin that official hostility to Dr Macdonald hit its peak”

The volume of documents surprised her, given that Dr Macdonald wasn’t a leading Party member or, from her memory, even a notably active one. One of the interesting points raised in her book was the fact that it wasn’t only the federal Attorney General’s Investigation Bureau and state Police Special Branches that spied on the Party. Defence force intelligence services also maintained close surveillance. The Navy took up this task during World War One when it was feared that the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) might disrupt ports considered vital to the war effort on behalf of the British Empire.

The spark to record Dr Macdonald’s story came from documents alleging that he was “extreme and dangerous”. What did he do in the course of his medical and political career that could warrant such a damning judgement – one that would shape a major part of his later life? The short answer is “nothing” and Kate’s exploration of the documents makes this clear. What the assessment reveals is the thinking and plans for control of those who were in charge of his destiny and, by extension, all Australians.

Ian Macdonald joined the Party in the 1930s and was quickly caught up with the various causes championed by it at the time. He was something of a “people’s doctor” to the poor of his district. He was active in solidarity with the Soviet Union and Republican Spain. He worked as a general practitioner and at the Commonwealth Serums Laboratory where his openly declared politics drew attention. He volunteered to serve in the Army during WW2 during the ban on the Party between 1940 and 1942 even though the Party still held to the line that it was an inter-imperialist war.

It was during his posting to Darwin that official hostility to Dr Macdonald hit its peak. His support for trade unions and association with leading figures within it was frowned upon given the potential for strike and other industrial activity had to hamper the war effort. This led to his “case” being considered at all levels of the security bureaucracy right up to the War Cabinet.

One of Dr Macdonald’s first acts upon arriving in Darwin was to donate £300 (a hefty sum at the time) to continue publication of the town’s only newspaper, the North Australian Worker’s Union’s Northern Standard. He regularly visited and discussed trade union and other political matters with NAWU secretary and fellow-CPA member, Jack McPhillips. Ian Macdonald gave vigorous support to a union claim for a tropical allowance to compensate workers for the insufferable heat, humidity and potentially deadly diseases encountered in Darwin. The city was in general, isolated and underserviced with a grim shortage of suitable accommodation.

“What worried the ruling class then and now is the potential of the working class to organise to serve their own, and not their masters’ interests”

Authorities agonised over how to extract the good doctor from Darwin. He wasn’t guilty of any misbehaviour and his selfless work was widely praised. The Communist Party was legal and so his support for Communism could not be given as the reason for a transfer back to Melbourne. Vague national security reasons were used instead. Dr Macdonald returned home to continue his war service, then his medical career and his work for the CPA.

Kate Hutchison’s book contains a number of startling revelations. One is the above-mentioned involvement of military intelligence in spying on the Communist Party. The duplication of intelligence gathering services presumably was rationalised with the foundation of ASIO in 1949, though it’s never wise to make assumptions. Modern readers of this history could not help but wonder how much easier the life of a spy agency has become with the advent of the smart phone and social media.

Another is about the existence of secret armies at deniable arm’s length from the regular military and other repressive instruments of the state. It seems the New Guard in NSW was the only one of these armies to present a public face. Following WW1, these armed groups stood ready to deal with the threat from Communists, who were deemed the most “disloyal” and “anti-Empire” elements on the political landscape. The biggest of these armies had 100,000 members in a country of just 5.5 million inhabitants.

Kate Hutchison’s own analysis of the work of the spooking bureau is interesting, too. Summing up on this mystery of what made her father so “extreme and dangerous” is the conclusion that he had status as a capable doctor and a gift for communicating with what were called the “industrial classes”. Jack McPhillips, too, was extreme and dangerous for having the same capacity and for waging an effective fight against the hard-drinking, disorganised culture of the union in Darwin. What worried the ruling class then and now is the potential of the working class to organise to serve their own, and not their masters’ interests.

“If the Communist Party had been able to mount a more existential threat to the order of things so loved by spy agencies and secret armies, would they have continued to leave comrades like Dr Ian MacDonald relatively unmolested?”

Kate Hutchison’s account of her father’s “case” is obviously respectful and sympathetic. While reading it I was wondering if the author would feel obliged to declare her own political thinking or distance herself from that of her parent’s. The depiction of the surveillance of her parents and whole generations of activists is not damning. So, it was no surprise when on page 130 she left readers with a question:

“If Ian had been a ‘subversive’ in Stalin’s Soviet Union, which he supported for so many years, would he have just been removed or would his story have ended with his disappearance or death? He voiced dissent in a country with a strong sense of the rule of law and was free to live his life doing so.”

I have a question of my own after reading Extreme and Dangerous. If the Communist Party had been able to mount a more existential threat to the order of things so loved by spy agencies and secret armies, would they have continued to leave comrades like Dr Ian MacDonald relatively unmolested? Given the direction of world events, we may yet witness the answer to that question.