Paul Hasluck’s personal view on biography was that it ‘should wait until the subject is dead’ (Porter 1993: 4). Judith Brett (1997: 1) refers to the ‘task of political biography’ which involves telling the story of a life in an intelligible way. When writing a biography of someone who is dead, as in the case of Arthur Fadden, where does the biographer begin to travel down the path of a life and hope to understand it, especially when few contemporaries of the study are still alive? How do we begin to feel like we know, even remotely, someone who leaves few personal records, nor kept any diaries? Dealing with live subjects also poses risks. Walter (1980: xv) refers to image maintenance which is one of the important pieces of political armoury. Studies of live subjects must not be hampered by the subject’s natural desire to appear in a favourable light. Even after death, family sensibilities may need to be considered. Sometimes a difficult balancing act ensues between the need to write a truthful account, while at the same time doing the minimum of harm to family reputations. Decisions to include information gleaned about the private lives of public figures will always be controversial.