GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 60

2 JULY 2010

IN THIS ISSUE

●It starts today – MWD inaugural award for journalistic inventions – well done RN Breakfast

● Conspiracy of the Week – The Guardian-on-the-Yarra and the new Prime Minister

● Nancy’s pick of the week – Bruce hawks his (Labor) wares on Meet The Press

● Late Night Live (almost dead?) and the Julia Gillard changeover – as told on the ABC

● MWD raises queries what went wrong with Radio National – Scott tweets while news burns

● Phillip Adams throws the switch to denial – with a little help from Laura Tingle

● Meet Harold Mitchell – Q & A bore of the week

● All aboard the (Joshua) Gans rejection express – told to the beat of an ABC Drum

● Fran Kelly misinterprets lesson from Scullin Government

● Simon Benson Forgets Billy Hughes, Jim Scullin and William McMahon

STOP PRESS

It starts today – MWD inaugural award for journalistic inventions – well done RN Breakfast

On Radio National Breakfast this morning, a certain Emeritus Professor Brian Stoddart was interviewed by James Carleton on the failure of Australia and New Zealand cricket authorities to have John Howard appointed as vice president of the International Cricket Council.

Mr Carleton said nothing when Professor Stoddart made the following comment:

For someone [ie John Howard] who was renowned for being the self-professed “sheriff for the United States in Southeast Asia”, that’s perhaps not the best quality that was sitting in behind someone that was looking to deal with some emerging African and Asian and, it should be said, Caribbean powers in the matter of cricket and, er, and the reform of the game.

MWD will donate $100 to a charity of his (canine) choice if Professor Stoddart – or the RN Breakfast team) – can provide a primary source to support his claim that John Howard ever said that Australia should be “deputy sheriff” to the United States in the Asia Pacific. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

CONSPIRACY OF THE WEEK

The Guardian-on-the-Yarra and the new Prime Minister

Last Tuesday, The Age ran a page one story – replete with (dated) colour photographs – of Julia Gillard with her partner Tim Mathieson along with Albert Dadon who was depicted as a “pro-Israel lobbyist”. See below.

The story went a bit like this. Ms Gillard issued a soft statement on Israel’s military action against Hamas in Gaza in December 2008 – on account of the fact that she and Mr Mathieson visited Israel to take part in the Australia Israel Leadership Forum in June 2009 and Mr Mathieson commenced employment with Mr Dadon’s Ubertas Group in December 2009. Or something like that.

Great story, don’t you think? It is true that the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum was held in Israel in June 2009 – as was reported in the media at the time. And it’s true that a second Australia Leadership Forum was held in Melbourne in December 2009. Among those attending the latter function was, er, Age editor Paul Ramage. For some reason or other there was no mention of this fact in The Age’s scoop last Tuesday. Fancy that.

NANCY’S PICK OF THE WEEK

Bruce hawks his (Labor) wares on Meet The Press

Nancy just loves Labor strategist Bruce Hawker’s front. More front than Myer’s – in the Australian vernacular.

In her book So Greek, journalist Nikki Savva related how – in her time as a Howard Government staffer – the Coalition regarded Network 10 as having a “news menu … laden with anti-Coalition government stories”. So much so that she decided that there was no point in rolling out senior Liberal or National Party politicians to appear on 10’s Sunday morning program Meet The Press, then presented each week by Paul Bongiorno.

No such belief applies to Bruce Hawker. Despite the fact that his profession is that of spin doctor, your man Bruce has appeared on Meet The Press twice this month.

On 6 June – when Kevin Rudd was still prime minister – Bruce Hawker was interviewed by Paul Bongiorno on Meet The Press. He told viewers that Opposition leader Tony Abbott was a real problem for the nation but that the Rudd Government and Kevin Rudd in particular were travelling well. Here is Hawker-speak circa 6 June:

… Kevin Rudd led the party to a historic victory. For the last two of the last three years, he has been riding high in the polls. There has been a jolt but he is the intellectual powerhouse of that party. He is the person who will lead the Government in this election campaign and well beyond and I think he is a very effective campaigner.

On 27 June – after Julia Gillard had become prime minister – Mr Hawker went spinning for Labor again on Meet The Press. This time Hugh Rimington was in the presenter’s chair. Here is Hawker-speak, circa 27 June:

… the polls seem to indicate that there has been a real bounce for Labor as a result of the change of leadership [to Julia Gillard]. I think what we have seen is a significant circuit breaker. Obviously … Rudd was struggling on a range of fronts and now we’re seeing the new prime minister, I think, setting out some markers with the community, which I think are going to be very interesting going forward. Obviously today, the statement about population and sustainability is a very big one for the Australian population and the Prime Minister is saying, “I’m here to listen to you.”

Apparently, Network 10 believes that getting Labor spin doctors to come on Meet The Press and run the party line is news.

NANCY’S FIVE PAWS AWARD GOES TO, WAIT FOR IT, NANCY

Late Night Live (almost dead?) and the Julia Gillard changeover – as told on the ABC

Last week Nancy – in her persona as Media Watch Dog – was the first media outlet to raise the question of how ABC News and Current Affairs handled the biggest news story in Australian politics for a generation – namely, the ousting of Kevin Rudd from the prime ministership position and his replacement by Julia Gillard. Five Paws.

MWD Issue 59 acknowledged that Mark Simkin had broken the story on the ABC1 News bulletin shortly after 7 pm on Wednesday 23 June – and that Heather Ewart had followed up on the 7.30 Report. MWD should have added the Chris Uhlmann was also involved in the ABC’s terrific scoop.

MWD then pointed out that ABC TV had then gone into siesta mode until the Lateline program went to air at 10.30 pm – by which time Kevin Rudd had announced that Julia Gillard would be challenging for his position the following morning. In addition, ABC TV experienced several technical hitches. MWD also mentioned that Radio National (including Phillip Adams’ Late Night Live program) and ABC Local Radio and ABC News Radio had all but missed the story as it was taking place. And MWD pointed out that Sky News – whose resources are much less than the public broadcaster – was the “go to” place for anyone who wanted to follow the breaking news. Sky News covered the story live from just after 7 pm until around 11 pm.

Unlike the public broadcaster, Sky News is not burdened by a process driven management structure. Its manager Angelos Frangopoulos headed to the Sky News studio in Sydney and it put together a team of journalists in Canberra and Sydney to comment on the breaking story – including David Speers, Kerean Gilbert, Ashley Gillen, Peter Van Onselen and Helen McCabe.

MWD raises query about what went wrong with Radio National

MWD wrote to Dr Jane Connors, the managing director of Radio National, at 11.28 am Thursday 24 June 2010 as follows:

Jane

It would be appreciated if you could answer the following question – especially in view of the fact that the ABC has signed up to the Right to Know Coalition: Was Late Night Live really “live” last night?  If so, how did it come to pass that LNL did not cover Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s media conference which commenced at about 10.15 pm?

Cheers

Gerard Henderson

Radio National’s inaccurate response

At 3.04 pm on Thursday 24 June 2010 the following reply was received:

Hi Gerard

Jane has had a very busy morning as you might imagine… however, she has asked me to send you these dot points so you got an answer today, sorry they’re not more polished.

    • The program was indeed live to air.
    • The EP became aware of the looming situation in Canberra mid-evening and rang one of the program’s regular Canberra commentators. She declined to come on, as the situation was so fluid at that stage.
    • The story only really broke after the program commenced.
    • The story was covered live on Local Radio, NewsRadio and ABC TV, offering a wide variety of alternatives to listeners.
    • Radio National provided extended coverage of the leadership story this morning.
    • Late Night Live will cover it tonight.

Thank you so much.

Regards

Carmel Conlan

Assistant to Manager

ABC Radio National

The claim that the Labor leadership challenge story “was covered live on Local Radio, News Radio and ABC TV” was grossly inaccurate. But Radio National’s initial response to MWD was very much in line with the position held by ABC management at the time – as the following examples demonstrate.

Mark Scott’s commentary on Twitter

On the evening of Wednesday 23 June, as the leadership was unfolding, Mark Scott sent the following tweets:

Conclusive proof why free-to-air TV needs a news channel. ABC News 24 almost here. Sorry it is not ready tonight. Soon. 9:57 PM Jun 23rd via TweetDeck

Live coverage on #ABC1 now 10:17 PM Jun 23rd via TweetDeck

Live press conference coverage on #ABC1, ABC Local Radio and streaming at abc.net.au 10:21 PM Jun 23rd via TweetDeck

Lateline now. AEST #ABC1 10:35 PM Jun 23rd via TweetDeck

Great work tonight by @CUhlmann. He breaks the big stories and will anchor ABC News 24 from Canberra. 10:42 PM Jun 23rd via TweetDeck

Mark Scott’s tweet log demonstrates that he was aware of the leadership story by 7.09 pm on Wednesday 23 June. However, the ABC’s editor-in-chief did not ensure that ABC TV, Local Radio, Radio National and News Radio were covering the story as it broke and ABC TV and Local Radio missed the start of Kevin Rudd’s media conference. News Radio had a legitimate excuse since it had no journalists on duty at the time the leadership story broke. But there was no excuse for ABC local Radio National. Even so, at 10.42 pm Mark Scott was of the opinion that the ABC had done a great job.

Friday 25 June – Mark Scott praises ABC coverage

Certainly the ABC did well covering the events of Thursday 24 June, when Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as prime minister. But that was the day after the story broke. Even so, the ABC’s initial response was to be so impressed with its own coverage. So much so that, at 4.04 pm on Friday 25 June 2010 Mark Scott sent the following email to all ABC staff:

Firstly, I want to thank all our staff who were involved with our round-the-clock coverage of events from Canberra this week. As you know, the story was broken by our team in Canberra on Wednesday night’s 7pm News and how it came about is documented today in The Drum.

From Wednesday night we were able to showcase the very best of the ABC in action – on radio, television and online. Many commented it was a shame that our 24-hour news channel was not quite ready to go to air this week, but we did an outstanding job. We were as flexible as possible in bringing this story to the Australian people and those checking the coverage from around the world. Our coverage this week was a result of a big effort from our reporting teams – and the many, many people behind the scenes who made it all happen. I know our audiences greatly appreciated the quality of the journalism and I want to convey thanks to all involved on behalf of the ABC Executive.

Kind regards

Mark Scott

Mr Scott’s reference to The Drum was to an article by Chris Uhlmann which praised the role of ABC journalists in breaking the story but did not address the issue of why the ABC failed to cover the issue live.

Before midday on Friday 25 June, the ABC1 Media Watch program commenced making its own enquiries over the public broadcaster’s coverage of the Labor leadership challenge. Media Watch’s email to Radio National – which was sent at 5.59 pm on Friday 25 June – mentioned Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog which had been published earlier that day.

The Critics emerge

The ABC Media Watch program which is presented by Jonathan Holmes – went to air at 10.20 pm on Monday 28 June. It contained a withering criticism of ABC TV and Radio’s coverage of the Rudd/Gillard leadership change of the previous Wednesday in the hours immediately after the story was broken by Mark Simkin. This issue had first been raised in the mainstream media by the “Strewth!” column in The Weekend Australian of 26-27 January.

On Wednesday 30 June The Australian carried an opinion piece by former ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen along with an editorial on the issue – both were critical of the ABC’s coverage.

Wednesday 30 June – Mark Scott orders review into the ABC’s coverage

Later that day ABC managing director Mark Scott announced that there would be a review of the public broadcaster’s coverage of the issue.

Mr Scott did not issue a media release. But he did answer questions at a doorstop in Western Sydney which was covered by The Australian and ABC News. According to The Australian’s report, which has been verified by the ABC, Mark Scot said:

There were some challenges to breaking news the other night. I think there were some communication problems, some issues with the technology and we’ll review those protocols. It’s inevitable when you have a big new enterprise like that. We should have done better, we’ll do better in the future and we’ve learnt from the experience,

The Australian’s report continued:

Mr Scott rejected any suggestion that Sky News, which provide live coverage after the ABC 7pm news broke the story, did a better job of covering the political events of last Wednesday night.

“Sky did a totally different job on the night,” Mr Scott said. “It’s an unfair point of comparison frankly. I think a fair point of comparison would be if we had our 24-hour news channel running. You’ve got to remember the ABC broke the story.”

Mr Scott said ABC1 updated throughout the evening, went live to former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s press conference, covered the story on Lateline and had the only interview with a cabinet minister.

Mr Scott’s reference to an interview with a Cabinet minister was to the Tony Jones’ interview with Environment Minister Peter Garrett on the evening of Wednesday 23 June. Mr Garrett was at a conference in Morocco and knew nothing, absolutely nothing, about what was going on in Canberra – as the following extracts demonstrate:

TONY JONES: It’s difficult for you to influence the process from Morocco, that’s obviously the case, but it’s not so difficult to answer the question I originally asked you. Are you surprised to hear that senior figures are putting on a challenge to Prime Minister?

PETER GARRETT: Well Tony, I’m hearing it, I’m hearing it from you and I don’t have any other information in front of me other than what you’re putting to me …

What were the likes of Kerry O’Brien and Tony Jones doing?

In any event, in the afternoon of Friday 25 June Mark Scott said that, in its coverage of the Labor leadership challenge, the ABC “was able to showcase the very best of ABC in action”. And by the following Wednesday he was acknowledging that the ABC “should have done better”.

To be fair to Mr Scott, he does not run the ABC. No one does. Not the chairman nor the board nor even the managing director. Rather the ABC is run by a number of cliques, led by high profile presenters and influential behind-the-scene producers. Which explains why Mark Scott, the ABC’s editor-in-chief, was tweeting away while the public broadcaster failed to cover the biggest story in Australian political history since the Dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government in 1975.

MWD hopes that the ABC’s most recent review of the ABC will answer the following questions:

• What did 7.30 Report presenter Kerry O’Brien do? The Labor leadership issue was covered by Heather Ewart for the 7.30 Report from Canberra. But sometime after the program concluded at 8 pm, Kerry O’Brien left the ABC Studio at Ultimo. Why?

• What did Tony Jones do? The Labor leadership story was breaking as Tony Jones was in the ABC studio in Ultimo, Sydney, preparing for the evening’s program. It appears that Tony Jones didn’t bother to pressure his colleagues to give priority to covering the breaking news.

Phillip Adams throws the switch to denial – with a little help from Laura Tingle

Meanwhile, over at Radio National, LNL presenter Phillip Adams is doing what ABC types do best. Namely, he is heavily into denial. The ABC’s Man in Black was criticised in MWD last Friday, on ABC1’s Media Watch on Monday and in The Australian on Saturday and Wednesday. He used his own program to defend himself on Monday and again on Tuesday and again on Wednesday – and he wrote to Crikey on Wednesday about ABC Media Watch’s criticism.

Here’s part of what Phillip Adams had to say on Monday, when talking to Laura Tingle on LNL. Let’s go to the audio tape:

Laura Tingle : – I think there is a really interesting story, or analysis, to be done at some stage, Phillip, about the role that the media did play in this… This was such a strange coup, if you like, and you could see over a period of weeks this – these attempts at building some momentum –

Phillip Adams: Absolutely.

Laura Tingle: – about destabilising on stories which really didn’t stand any scrutiny. Now they might have all been plotting like mad but it wasn’t gaining momentum.

Phillip Adams: Which is why you were reluctant to come on last Wednesday ‘cause you’d heard a lot of this and there really, there was smoke but you doubted, well you weren’t convinced there was fire.

Laura Tingle: Well I think the thing when I spoke to you – you guys – last Wednesday was that there was this very bizarre situation where you had Caucus members and Cabinet ministers who were saying: “Look sorry we don’t know; nobody’s rung us about this; we don’t know what’s going on”. We knew that Gillard was having a meeting with Rudd. We knew that there was number counting going on. But – it wasn’t at that point, you know, you could keep – everyone was saying that but nobody really knew what it meant in terms of where it was going to end up. And everyone was making these big assertions. But I didn’t think, you know, we were in a position to say anything intelligent about it at that stage.

Phillip Adams: Laura, thanks again.

What a load of tripe. By 10.30 pm Wednesday 23 June, halfway through the Late Night Live program, Kevin Rudd had already announced that there would be a leadership challenge. Ms Tingle didn’t call Mr Adams about this. And the Man In Black devoted the second half of the program to discussing the history of cooking. That was bad enough. It was even worse that the day after, ABC managing director, Jane Connors was maintaining that LNL had done well. Really. MWD awaits the result of Mark Scott’s review with interest – but expects a whitewash. We’ll keep you posted.

MEET HAROLD MITCHELL – BORE OF THE WEEK

What a stunning performance by Harold Charles Mitchell – AC, Hon. D. LLD. (Deakin) – on Q&A last Monday. Mr Mitchell – who was described as an “Advertising Guru” – used to have a regular slot on ABC Local Radio 702 in Sydney when Virginia Trioli presented “Mornings with Virginia Trioli”. So it was no surprise when he bobbed up as a guest on Monday’s Q&A, which was presented by La Trioli – along with biographer Christine Wallace, National Party senator Barnaby Joyce, comedian Magda Szubanski, Gillard Government parliamentary secretary Bill Shorten and Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen.

As those who follow Harold Mitchell would know, this advertising guru prefers to ask questions rather than make comments. And so it came to pass that he attempted to do La Trioli’s job last Monday – as the following examples demonstrate.

• Harold Mitchell: What do you think of that, Bill? (MWD’s Comment – HM’s reference was to whether Bill Shorten agreed with the late Kerry Dunlop on leadership.)

• Harold Mitchell: Do I have to sit between these two? Can I sit somewhere else? (MWD’s Comment: The reference was to HM’s panel seating placement between Joyce and Shorten.]

• Harold Mitchell: Now, I would imagine that she [Ms Gillard] will go to the polls before the end of August. What’s wrong with that? Why wouldn’t that be completely acceptable? This is an unusual circumstance. She said that. She said she had decided that she should go and approach the prime minister [sic]. I think I can believe that. And she will now go to the people. I don’t see that’s such a bad thing after all and if the people want to throw her out, well, they will, won’t they. What’s wrong with that? (MWD’s Comment: What was wrong with that turned on the fact that Julia Gillard is the prime minister. To call an election she must seek the approval of the governor-general. Also, an election is scheduled for late 2010 – irrespective of the Prime Minister’s wishes. So of course it would be “completely acceptable” for Ms Gillard to call an election. HM’s comment in this regard is meaningless.)

• Harold Mitchell: I was just trying to work out with these two fellows [i.e. Barnaby Joyce and Bill Shorten] here, Magda, what do you think? Do you reckon their funny?”

Magda Szubanski: Not always intentionally.

• Harold Mitchell: Will Bill [Shorten] make it to the top job? Will he be prime minister one day?” (MWD’s Comment: Magda Szubanski sensibly declined to answer HM’s question.)

• Harold Mitchell: I mean, if it wasn’t for Magda and her – what are those on your fingers there? Are they…

Magda Szubanski: Rings.

Harold Mitchell: No. No. Not rings, I think they’re knuckle dusters. Yes, quite right. (MWD’s comment: Here HM agreed with himself)

There were other such highlights. Including Harold Mitchell’s claim that he had never heard of former Queensland premiers Mike Ahearn and Russell Cooper and his claim that “our life is made up into 30 second and 60 seconds”. [What about our 15 minutes of fame? – Ed.] However MWD must concede that your man Mitchell asked the best question of the night – following Bill Shorten’s positive response about whether he agreed with Mitchell’s take on Weary Dunlop. Let’s go to the transcript:

Harold Mitchell: You agree. There you go. Trouble there. Trouble there. We’re going to agree all night, aren’t we? Why have you got a higher chair than I’ve got?

Bill Shorten : I don’t know.

Enough said.

ALL ABOARD THE (JOSHUA) GANS REJECTION EXPRESS

Remember Joshua Gans? See Issues 26, 28 and 29

Professor Gans wrote a paper – which was embraced by Jonathan Holmes and the team at the ABC1 Media Watch program – which suggested that ABC TV News is biased to the Coalition. Yes he did. Professor Gans is an academic. He has also done some hold-the-front-page research on urinal protocol in (male) public toilets.

On 23 June the taxpayer funded The Drum Unleashed website contained the following complaint about how the Labor Government is not listening to Professor Gans and probably does not love him any more. It certainly brought a tear to Nancy’s eyes when she read the following Gans complaint on the ABC website:

… praising the [Rudd] Government is as thankless a task as critiquing it. I was someone who fell behind the Government and wanted to get the ETS done and said so publicly in the face of criticism myself. I was someone who fell behind the Government and argued that we should pay attention to the evidence on FuelWatch and give it a go. And I was someone who, after years of critiquing their broadband policy, praised them when they moved in the right direction. And was I ever able to be brought in to help improve these policies (something they could clearly use)? No. Whenever I tried I was given the clear message that there are insiders and there are outsiders. …

I write blogs and occasionally newspaper pieces only to find the Government abandoning those policies that I supported for political and expedient reasons rather than on the basis of evidence. I find myself often wondering these days if it is really worth the effort to write long submissions to Parliamentary inquiries, conduct research in policy-relevant areas and stick my neck out at all only to wake up and find that we are all really just an annoyance anyway.

MWD sympathises with Professor Gans. It’s time he gave up supporting the Labor Government in Canberra. Can’t someone give him some money for some new ground-breaking research. Maybe into cubicle protocol in (female) public toilets.

HISTORY CORNER

The Labor leadership tension – and the essential decision of the Caucus members to replace Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard on account of their belief that the Rudd Government would not get a second term – has led to more than the usual quota of historical howlers among the journalistic profession. Some are set out below.

Fran Kelly misinterprets the lesson From the Scullin Government

• Radio National Breakfast 21 June 2010 – Fran Kelly talks to Lenore Taylor about the latter’s co-edited book titled Shitstorm. Let’s go to the transcript:

FRAN KELLY: And they had history in their minds didn’t they? You can tell us about the similarities really of the Labor government dealing with the Depression – so not just the history of, you know, what happens with Labor in government as big spenders and being crucified at the polls, but also what happens when a Labor government, at the time of Depression, when not enough is done.

LENORE TAYLOR: Well exactly. I think they were really aware of the ghosts of Jim Scullin and it was interesting how often that came up in interviews. Scullin, of course, won office in 1929 just before the Great Depression, just before Black Thursday, and lost government two years later when unemployment was something like 20 per cent I think and that’s what they really wanted to avoid. And it was interesting how many of the key players had been reading books to do with that period just before all of this happened.

FRAN KELLY: So, brave action. But the consequences could be more echoes of the ghost of Jim Scullin than they were counting on at the time. We’ll get to that.

And so she did. Towards the end of the interview Fran Kelly theorised that the rationale for the Rudd Government’s “go early, go big, go households” economic stimulation package was motivated by a determination that it would not “go the way of the Scullin Government”.

Well, here are the facts:

• Jim Scullin led Labor to victory at the election held on 12 October 1929 and was sworn in as prime minister on 22 October 1929.

• Certainly, virtually on becoming prime minister, Scullin was beset by the difficulties of the international economic collapse, commonly known as the Great Depression. However, many of Scullin Labor’s problems were of its own making – including the prime minister’s disastrous decision to take a lengthy overseas trip to Europe in late 1930.

• The Scullin Government was beset by political scandal after the resignation of its treasurer, Ted Theodore, following an allegation that he had accepted bribes when he held the post of treasurer in the Queensland Labor government some years previously. Theodore was out of the Cabinet between 9 July 1930 and 29 January 1931.

• When Theodore returned to the position of treasurer, Joseph Lyons and James Fenton resigned from the Cabinet in protest – three Labor backbenchers supported the Lyons/Fenton group. Lyons later joined the conservative United Australia Party and led it to victory over Labor in the 1931 election.

• In March 1931 six New South Wales MPs resigned from the Labor Caucus. They were followers of the NSW Labor operative Jack Lang and formed the Lang-Labor group in the Commonwealth Parliament.

• On 2 March 1931 Caucus voted for a spill of ministerial positions and three ministers (Fred Anstey, Jack Beasley and John Daly) were dropped from the ministry.

• In June 1931 two of the newly appointed ministers (Edward Holloway and Charles Culley) resigned from the ministry due to their opposition to the Scullin Government’s economic policy.

• On 25 November 1931 the Lang-Labor group joined effectively with the Opposition in a motion of no confidence. The Scullin Government was defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives. Scullin obtained a dissolution of the House of Representatives and Lyons led the UAP to victory in the election held on 19 December 1936.

The message should be clear. There are virtually no comparisons between political and economic developments in Australia in 1931 and 2010. For starters, Rudd Labor did not experience splits and defections in its term. Moreover, Australia did not even go into recession – and certainly did not experience a depression.

Simon Benson Forgets Billy Hughes, Jim Scullin and William McMahon

In the Daily Telegraph on 29 June, Simon Benson made the following claim:

You’d have to wonder what Kevin Rudd is thinking. Why on earth would he want to remain on the back bench? What is left for him to achieve on government after being prime minister? While it is not uncommon to stay around in Opposition, you would have to go back 100 years to find a precedent for a prime minister willing to serve on the back bench indefinitely after losing office.

Not so. There are quite a few one-time Australian prime ministers who spent quite some significant time on the backbench. The list includes William Morris Hughes, Jim Scullin and William McMahon (who sat on the backbench from December 1972 until his retirement from the House of Representatives in January 1982).

Red Kerry Over-Eggs The Billy McMahon Comparison

On 7.30 Report Thursday 24 June 2010, Kerry O’Brien interviewed Julia Gillard on her first day as prime minister. Having neglected to ask Kevin Rudd a follow-up question on the date of the forthcoming election when he interviewed the then prime minister on 17 June (See Issue 58) “Red Kerry” was determined not to let another election question pass. The only problem was that O’Brien exaggerated somewhat. Here we go:

KERRY O’BRIEN: I’ve got another statistic for you now, actually, on the election timing. You will have governed for three years in November – although as Kevin Rudd recently pointed out – technically you could govern until March or April of next year. But five of the six prime ministers who tried to hang on significantly beyond three years lost at the ballot box. I don’t imagine you are too keen to follow prime ministers like Billy McMahon down that road are you?

A significant exaggeration, to be sure. The Coalition was elected on 25 October 1969 and McMahon led the Coalition to defeat at the election held on 2 December 1972. This was just five weeks over the accepted time of the election – and not the “significant” delay suggested by O’Brien. A significant delay would have pushed Gough Whitlam’s victory back to March or April 1973.

…..

Until next time – when the thought of some commentators who fell out of love with Kevin ’07 in 2010 will be analysed.