Issue 67

GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 67

20 AUGUST 2010

IN THIS ISSUE – AN ELECTION SPECIAL (MOSTLY)

● 7.30 Report Misreads The Greens’ Political History

● Yet More Leftist Opinion In The Guardian-On-The-Yarra

● Tomorrow’s Election – Waiting For Hugh Mackay’s Prophecy To Be Fulfilled

● Q&A – Where Tony Jones Asks Lotsa Questions

● The Canberra Times’ Exclusive On The Greens (Via The Greens)

● Dick “Call Me Wilberforce” Smith Gets Away With Verbal Indiscretion

● Why Jill Singer Can’t Find A Liberal Woman Outside the Kitchen

● Well Done! Red Kerry O’Brien Brings Down Labor’s Only Budget Surplus

● Wendy McCarthy’s RN Breakfast Free Kick

● Lib/Lab John Hewson Has Stunning Election Campaign

● Jayne Dullard On Rangas & The Need For Hair Products

● Marieke Hardy – Cock-A-Hoop About The Opposition Leader

● Special: Is Mark Scott About To Run For Parliament?

● Nancy’s Old Bones: Mark Latham Weeps – But Not For Taxi Drivers

● Correspondence: Paul Collins In Eureka Street Bags Tony Abbott Via The Ghost of Bob Santamaria

● The Cliché In The Room: This Time The Perspective of Many An Elephant – Thanks to Margaret Simons

SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION (WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS)

STOP PRESS

• Beware ABC/Age Howler Re The Greens

If the Greens candidate, Adam Bandt, wins the seat of Melbourne on Saturday he will do so on Liberal Party preferences. Shame Liberal Party, shame. This fact is seldom mentioned by Greens-friendly journalists.

Meanwhile an avid MWD reader has drawn attention to Kerry O’Brien’s introduction to the 7.30 Report on Wednesday 18 August in which Red Kerry declared:

Labor heartland is under attack by the Greens in a number of inner-city seats, but nowhere more than the seat of Melbourne. If the current trend holds firm, Greens candidate Adam Bandt is poised to win a seat that’s been a Labor stronghold since 1904. If successful, he’d create history by becoming the first Green to win a Lower House seat in the federal Parliament….

And now for some facts. The Greens have threatened to win Melbourne at the 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections. But Michael Organ was the first Greens candidate to win a seat in the House of Representatives – he did so in the October 2002 election when he defeated the Labor candidate to win the seat of Cunningham in a by-election following the retirement of Stephen Martin.

• Hold The Opinion Page

Guardian-on-the-Yarra Does A Guardian-on-the-Yarra

This morning’s Age editorialises in favour of a Labor victory on Saturday. Fair enough. Editors are entitled to express political preferences in editorials.

Turn to the Opinion Page however, and the Age once again morphs into The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra. The lead piece is by Byron Bay leftie sandal-wearer Mungo MacCallum – who, believe it or not, retired from journalism some two decades or so ago and who never quite got over his (unrequited) love for Labor guru Gough Whitlam. Your man Mungo banged on about how Julia Gillard should have done more to promote Labor’s you-beaut scheme to establish the National Broadband Network at the cost of up to only $43 billion. MM bagged Tony Abbott in the process.

Turn to Age house leftist Martin Flanagan who urged a vote for Julia Gillard and Labor. But not before praising Bob Brown and the Greens and, yes, Mark Latham. Oh yes, Mr Flanagan bagged Tony Abbott – and John Howard.

There was also (yet another) opinion piece by Michelle Grattan on something or other. And Jen Uuk had a go at the Australian Family Association.

How predictable. How very Guardian-on-the-Yarraish.

HUGH MACKAY HANDS OVER THE KEYS TO THE LODGE – BEFORE VOTERS DO

Nancy is a huge fan of social researcher and author Hugh Mackay. So she wonders why Australia bothered to have an election. Nancy’s thought process goes something like this. Why not follow Mr Mackay’s analysis, put Labor in for another term and save the cost and time involved in winning an election campaign?

You see Hugh Mackay (or “Hugh McKay” as The Age called him) predicted the outcome of the election in a column which he wrote for the Fairfax Media and which was published in The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra on 24 July 2010 – under the heading: “The result is a formality. We already have a new PM”. As Hugh Mackay put it:

The character of this election is now clear. The reason we’re all feeling bemused – or bored – is that it’s not really an election at all, in the conventional sense. It’s not about issues; it’s not about policies. It’s certainly not about competing visions. It’s not even about personalities.

It’s essentially a formality: an opportunity for the electorate to ratify the recent change of prime minister. The axing of Kevin Rudd was 2010’s political climax; this is the denouement…. Julia Gillard, poised and charming, is simply asking us: ”May I move into The Lodge now?” Having been installed as PM only four weeks ago, she knows we wouldn’t subject her to the indignity of a bizarre double: Australia’s first female and shortest-serving prime minister.

Good point, don’t you think? So why bother about an election at all? Australians could have saved lotsa money by junking the ballot and simply arranging to hand Julia Gillard – poised and charming as she is – the key to the Lodge. By the way, if Labor loses on Saturday, Ms Gillard will not become Australia’s shortest serving prime minister. This honour is held by Frank Forde, who held office for just eight days.

In any event, the election is about to occur. Here are a few highlights.

Q&A – WHERE TONY JONES ASKS THE QUESTIONS

The ABC’s promo for its Q&A program has presenter Tony Jones declaring: “Q&A: Where you ask the questions.”

Not so during election campaigns, apparently. Prime Minister Julia Gillard appeared on the program on 9 August with Opposition leader Tony Abbott fronting up last Monday.

According to MWD, Tony Jones asked the Prime Minister no fewer than 24 questions – and the Opposition leader no fewer than 20 questions. Mr Jones’ most gratuitous question was directed to the Opposition leader, following a query from the floor about Tony Abbott’s attitude to gay marriage. Asked Jones:

You’ve said that in the past you’re confronted or have been confronted by homosexuality or found it confronting. Do you think if you really got to know some gay men you might change your opinion?

Tony Abbott replied that he knew “some gay people extremely well”. The Weekend Australian’s columnist Christopher Pearson has written about his long-time friendship with Abbott. And it is well known that Abbott worked closely with former judge Michael Kirby when both were involved in the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy organisation. Tony Jones, Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy and the Q&A team should have known this – it’s called research.

THE CANBERRA TIMES – EXCLUSIVELY GREEN

Without question, the most exclusive “exclusive” of the 2010 campaign involved The Canberra Times. On 9 August, the national capital’s broadsheet ran with an exclusive report by Chris Johnson headed “Contest for Senate seat too close to call, polling shows” which commenced:

Polling commissioned by the Australian Greens and obtained by The Canberra Times shows a tight contest looming for the second Senate seat up for grabs in the ACT. The Independent YourSource survey of 407 interviews conducted at the end of last month shows one in four Canberrans intend to vote Green in the Senate on August 21.

Hang on a minute. The poll was commissioned by the Greens and obtained by [could this mean “handed to”? – Ed] the Canberra Times. So what’s it doing as a lead story in the Canberra Times? Later in the story, Chris Johnson conceded that it would be difficult for the Greens’ candidate Lin Hatfield Dodds to defeat the Liberal Party’s Gary Humphries for the second Senate seat in the Australian Capital Territory. This did not stop many other media outlets picking up the story. Well done Mr Johnson.

WHAT’S OKAY FOR DICK SIMTH IS NOT OKAY FOR ANDREW PEACOCK

Didn’t former Liberal leader Andrew Peacock get hammered by journalists and others when he declared: “You’d need to be pretty handicapped not to appreciate that this [Labor] government is dissolving before your eyes daily.” The comment was made when Peacock was campaigning for Liberal candidate Josh Frydenberg in the Melbourne based seat of Kooyong on 9 August.

Immediately the language guardians in our midst warned Andrew Peacock not to use the word “handicapped” in a political contest.

Not long after the Kooyong episode, business entrepreneur and media tart Dick Smith turned up with $1 million in cash plus five blonde blonde female models in tee-shirts to publicise his gimmick to give a $1 million prize to a young Australian who can come up with alternatives to what Dick Smith regards as Australia’s “population and consumption growth based economy”.

On 12 August the Herald-Sun ran an AAP report that, when questioned by a female journalist about whether his attitude to immigration might be racist, Mr Smith had replied that there must be something “mentally wrong” with her. Whereupon Mr Smith’s wife, Pip, was heard to comment “Dick!”. Quite so.

Did Dick Smith’s insensitivity evoke criticism by the language guardians in our midst? Not on your nelly. Nor did any journalist find reason to query Dick Smith’s decision to call his prize the “Wilberforce Award”.

What a misnomer. William Wilberforce led the successful campaign to end Britain’s involvement in the slave trade. Dick Smith’s belief that the growth in Australia’s population should be significantly constrained has none of the moral purpose – and courage – of Wilberforce’s campaign. It’s just yet another self-centred manifestation of the not-in-my-backyard phenomenon – in this case extended to not-in-my-country.

JILL SINGER LOCATES THE LIBERAL PARTY’S (WOMEN ONLY) KITCHEN

Herald-Sun columnist Jill Singer has had a busy campaign against Tony Abbott. She has also been involved in the resurrection of the “This I believe – and you should know” circular letter – which was so fashionable when academics/scribblers and the like sought to declare their support for Gough Whitlam’s Labor government in the early 1970s.

On 10 August Sushi Das reported in The Age that “Melbourne feminists have warned that women’s equality would be undermined if Tony Abbott becomes prime minister”. The article was headed “Feminists sceptical of Abbott”. Das reported that 45 signatories had written to The Age about Abbott. The Age ran the letter in full – but only gave the names of eight signatories – one of whom was Jill Singer. MWD’s request to obtain the complete list has been unsuccessful.

This was just one of the many public stances taken by Singer against Abbott. Writing in her column in the Herald-Sun on 8 July, Ms Singer used the Coalition’s parental leave scheme – which would be funded by a levy on some 3000 larger businesses – to score points on Abbott. Here we go:

Women would also be more than a little foolish to think Abbott has their interests at heart with this – any parental leave scheme that is financed by business rather than government risks rendering women less employable than men. But then, the Coalition really doesn’t know how to cope with women who dare step outside the kitchen.

Jill Singer’s claim that the Coalition’s parental leave scheme would render women less employable than men is nonsense. The Coalition’s scheme would be financed by a levy on large businesses which would be levied whether or not females were employed. In this sense, it is similar to Labor’s scheme, which will be financed from general revenue and will not be a factor in whether businesses employ women.

As to Jill Singer’s claim that the “Coalition doesn’t know how to cope with women who step outside the kitchen” – well, what about Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop? She seems to cope pretty well away from the baking.

KERRY O’BRIEN DELIVERS LABOR’S ONLY SURPLUS

Apart from Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Bob Brown, one of the stars of the 2010 election campaign has been veteran journalist Kerry O’Brien. “Red” Kerry distinguished himself by having more to say during his interview with Tony Abbott on 27 July than he allowed the Opposition leader.

MWD was most impressed by the ability to discover the Labor Government’s budget surplus – which does not, in fact, exist – not yet, at anyrate. Interviewing Tony Abbott on the 7.30 Report on 10 August, Mr O’Brien declared:

…You’re talking about the [i.e. Labor’s] big bang spending sprees. The [Labor] big bang spending spree would have been $20 billion more than your big bang spending spree that Joe Hockey has already acknowledged a Coalition government would have spent. And, in fact, if you’re fair you would acknowledge that, before the global crisis came along, the Rudd Government also delivered a budget that was more than $20 billion in surplus.

The fact is that the Rudd Government did not deliver a budget surplus. Certainly Labor planned a budget surplus but, due to the international economic downturn, could not deliver this.

UMPIRE FRAN KELLY AWARDS FREE KICK TO WENDY McCARTHY

As far as MWD recalls, the ABC Radio National Breakfast “Friday Political Panel” which usually consists of three journalists or commentators. This morning, for example, the panel comprised the Courier Mail’’s Dennis Atkins, Channel 10’s Paul Bongiorno and The Age’s Michelle Grattan.

However, on 6 August the powers that be at RN Breakfast invited Wendy McCarthy along – the co-founder of the Women’s Electoral Lobby. She joined the Daily Telegraph Malcolm Farr, Michelle Grattan and presenter Fran Kelly. Ms McCarthy is a considered person. However, on this occasion she took up the role of barracker for the Gillard Government and an opponent of the Abbott Opposition.

This was quite obvious to listeners. Even so, Ms Kelly decided it was only fair to give Ms McCarthy a free kick to make a political statement. And as you would expect, the co-founder of the Women’s Electoral Lobby did not miss. Let’s go to the audio tape:

Fran Kelly: And just a final word to Wendy McCarthy. Wendy I think it’s clear from everything you’ve said that you’re pretty happy we’ve got a female prime minister in this country. She may only be prime minister for eight weeks. What would that mean for Australia, if our first prime minister only lasted eight weeks? Female Prime Minister.

Wendy McCarthy: I think it would mean that we’ve lost an amazing chance. I think it would be extraordinarily disappointing. And I think –the thought that we would be having Tony Abbott as the prime minister, with his recorded attitudes toward women. I know he’s meant to have changed and I believe in personal change. But it’s simply not credible to have him as a prime minister for 51 per cent of the population in my view.

Well, thanks for that. Leaving aside the fact that no one was given the opportunity on any “Friday Political Panel” during the campaign to bag the PM and barrack for the Opposition leader, what about the McCarthy analysis?

Let’s say that, on average, the opinion polls have Labor ahead of the Coalition by 51 per cent to 49 per cent. And let’s say that Julia Gillard is more popular among women than Tony Abbott. This would suggest that support for Labor among women could be around 55 per cent – which means that around 45 per cent of the women will support the Coalition. Yet according to Wendy McCarthy – unchallenged by Fran Kelly – Abbott either is, or should be, opposed by all Australian women. If this is the case, then Labor should record the biggest electoral victory in Australian history on Saturday. Maybe it will – but the polls do not suggest this.

NANCY’S FIVE PAWS AWARDS FOR THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN

• Lib/Lab Hewson And The 2010 Election

Nancy admires the clever and the brave. So Nancy’s awards for 2010 go to the very clever Dr John Hewson and the very brave Jayne Dullard – along with the very granddaughterish Marieke Hardy.

How clever is John Hewson? During the campaign he got gigs on Sky News and ABC programs in his capacity as the former leader of the Liberal Party. Sky News and the ABC used Dr Dr Dr Hewson to provide some pro-Liberal Party balance to the discussion. But John Hewson also appeared on the Labor Party’s attack advertisements – where his past criticisms of Tony Abbott were quoted and highlighted. Clever, eh?

• Jayne Dullard Talks Hair On News Breakfast

And just how brave is Jayne Dullard who appears regularly on the ABC2 News Breakfast program in her role as a commentator on the morning newspapers? On Friday 16 July Ms Dullard could not help herself and just had to tell News Breakfast presenters Michael Rowland and Virginia Trioli along with ABC viewers about – wait for it – the condition of Julia Gillard’s hair. Declared Ms Dullard on Friday 16 July:

I already hate myself for doing this. But I was sitting there last night watching the news and thinking: “Uh, she [Julia Gillard] needs to touch up her roots”. Isn’t that terrible? I’ve never thought that about a male politician.

Brave surely. But what would Wendy McCarthy say about this?

• Granddaughter Marieke’s Cock-Up

Then there was Marieke Hardy’s tweet on Tony Abbott. Ms Hardy – who is invariably referred to as a granddaughter of the long-time liar and occasional Stalinist Frank Hardy – sent out the following tweet on Tony Abbott:

Tony Abbott. I hope your cock drops off and falls down a plughole.

With wit like this, is it any wonder that Ms Hardy appears regularly on the ABC and writes for The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra?

15 Paws in all.

NANCY’S PICK-OF-THE-WEEK

Mark Scott Channels Julia Gillard – Or Is It Tony Abbott?

Could it be that Mark Scott – whose term as ABC managing director expires next year – is planning a career in politics?

This might be the case – if Mr Scott’s appearance on the ABC 1 Media Watch program last Monday is anything to go by. The ABC managing director’s evasive responses to interviewer Jonathan Holmes could well have been scripted by Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott. Let’s go to the transcript – where Mark Scott is discussing the decision of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation’s plan to charge for the use of some of its online material. Let’s go to the transcript:

Jonathan Holmes: Apart from the challenge to ABC News 24 and Australia Network from Sky and Foxtel and so on, the ABC’s expansion online – especially in text based media – is viewed as a real problem by newspapers in particular. Certainly Rupert Murdoch has made it clear that he wants News Corporation websites around the world to go behind a pay wall. And as James Murdoch made very clear last year, he regards public broadcasters like the BBC especially but the ABC also, as the biggest obstacle to that goal… Now last year you were quite scathing about the idea of charging for news online. You called it the last gasp of a dying empire.

Mark Scott: And I think that’s a bit of a simplistic depiction of what I actually said. What I said about the ABC is we’re not going to charge for our content online because the public has already paid for it. We’re not going to charge them twice for it. But I think this argument, that public broadcasters should be tucked away in a corner speaking to no one, engaging with no one is a dangerous concept in many ways. We have a very important role to play at providing fair balance and impartial journalism, making the investment in journalism that private sector media organisations often won’t make and if we’re not there, I don’t think there’s any guarantee at all that private sector media organisations step up to fill that gap.

So, there you have it. Mr Scott told Jonathan Holmes that it was a “simplistic description” to maintain that he described News Corporation’s proposal to charge for news online as “the last gasp of a dying empire”.

However, the fact is that Mark Scott did say what Jonathan Holmes claimed he said. See MWD Issue 32. In his 2009 A.N. Smith Memorial Lecture in Journalism titled “The Fall of Rome: Media After Empire”, Mark Scott said:

…now, the man [Rupert Murdoch] who just four years ago said he wanted to “make the necessary cultural changes to meet the new demands of the digital native” says he’s not going to respond to the demands of these digital natives. Instead, they – who have never in their lives paid for news online – will be asked to respond instead to his demands and start paying. The argument seems to be that people once didn’t pay to watch television but now many do. We fought against timed local calls but now make them every day on our mobiles. Some of us might pay for recorded music we might once have illegally downloaded. And because we want to read and see this great content so badly, now we will pay for that.

It strikes me as a classic play of old empire, of empire in decline. Believing that because you once controlled the world you can continue to do so, because you once set the rules, you can do so again. Acting on the assumption that you still have the power that befits the Emperor. And while it is always dangerous to underestimate Murdoch, the assumptions that underpin the Murdoch plan seem wistful, and perhaps, wishful….[Italics added].

So you see, Mark Scott did depict Rupert Murdoch’s plan to charge for news online as a classic ploy of an “empire in decline”. And he avoided responding to Jonathan Holmes’ question with all the skill of a skilled politician.

NANCY’S OLD BONES – DIGGING UP LATHAMISM

• Mark Latham – No Tears For An Injured Taxi Driver

Mark Latham’s piss-poor report for 60 Minutes last Sunday – which rated poorly – encouraged Nancy to go-a-digging for remnants of Lathamism. And she came up with two juicy bits. Here we go:

On 13 July 2001, Mark Latham got into an altercation with the Sydney taxi driver Bechir Mustafa. The argument was over the route taken by Mustafa from Darling Harbour – where Latham had attended yet another dinner in honour of his one-time mentor Gough Whitlam – to Campbelltown in Sydney’s south west.

According to Mustafa, your man Latham was so tired and emotional that he fell asleep on the way home. However, on waking in Bankstown near King Georges Road, Latham complained that his driver was taking a longer (and more expensive) route than should be the case. For the record, Latham was using a Commonwealth Government Cabcharge – in other words, his trip home was on the taxpayer.

It turned out that Latham was wrong about the route – and the taxi-driver was correct. (See Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2001). But this did not stop an ugly scene – which culminated when the big Latham tackled the small Mustafa from behind. The father of four dependent children sustained a fractured arm in the scuffle, could not drive his taxi and became the (unwilling) recipient of worker’s compensation benefits.

In the House of Representatives on 26 August 2002 Mark Latham decided to give all his critics a spray – under parliamentary privilege, of course. He issued his intended speech to the media – but went over allocated time when delivering it. Consequently, Latham’s reference to Gerard Henderson – and, in particular to Henderson’s claim that Latham needed an anger management course – did not make it into Hansard. Henderson had also written, that for all Latham’s professed interest in the aspirations of people in Western Sydney – Latham had no regard for the aspirations of lowly paid taxi-drivers like Bachir Mustafa.

This is what Mark Latham wrote in the media release which he issued on 27 August 2002.

Henderson also claims that I have denied the Bone Collector, Bachir Mustafa, his aspirations. Far from it, Mr Mustafa aspired to worker’s compensation and that’s what he’s now got.

How about that? Latham breaks a taxi-driver’s arm. Then he issues a statement deriding Mr Bachir Mustafa as the “Bone Collector” – and claiming that Mustafa had achieved his wish of wanting to be the recipient of worker’s compensation benefits. This from someone who aspired to be – and briefly became – the leader of the Labor Party with its history of supporting the rights of workers.

• Mark Latham – Lotsa Tears For Mark Latham

Nancy continued digging and eventually placed a paw on Marilyn Dodkin’s book Bob Carr: The Reluctant Leader – which contains extracts from the former New South Wales Labor premier’s diaries.

Aware that Mark Latham presented himself as a non-nonsense bloke on 60 Minutes, Nancy was shocked – absolutely shocked – to read Mr Carr’s diary entry for 14 March 1989 which deals with Mark Latham’s failure to win Labor pre-selection for the New South Wales State seat of Liverpool in 1989.

The NSW Labor right-wing power-brokers at the time decided that Peter Anderson should contest the safe Labor seat and Carr supported him for the pre-selection. This upset Latham who was on Bob Carr’s personal staff at the time. On 14 March 1989, Bob Carr wrote the following entry in his diary, viz:

14 March 1989

As soon as I got the news I summoned Peter [Anderson] and did a news conference in which I boldly endorsed him as my choice. Earlier I’d had a phone conversation with Mark Latham, unsuccessful right-wing candidate and staff member. He in tears. Hung up on me. He later phoned in to resign. Bugger him. He failed to do the grassroots organisation that was necessary for a clear cut, unambiguous win. We bled on the canvas for three weeks as a result.

Fancy that. Mark Latham, tough as nails and breaker of arms, bawling over the phone due to his failure to win an ALP pre-selection with the financial lengths that entailed, including a taxpayer funded and indexed superannuation scheme. Can you believe it? Well, Nancy sure can.

CORRESPONDENCE

Jesuits’ Eureka Street Protects Paul Collins As He Bags Tony Abbott Via The Late B.A. Santamaria

On 17 August 2010 Eureka Street.com.au published an article by author, journalist and former ABC specialist editor Paul Collins titled “Abbott and Santamaria’s undemocratic Catholicism”. See here. Paul Collins is also a former Catholic priest. Later that day, Eureka Street published a response by Gerard Henderson. See here.

Michael Mullins, Eureka Street’s editor, deleted the final two sentences in Henderson’s critique of Collins’ article. The following correspondence explains why – or perhaps not, as the case may be.

Gerard Henderson to Michael Mullins – 17 August 2010, 3.48 pm

How times change. Early in the 20^th Century, it was Protestant Orangemen who warned Australians not to vote for a Catholic. In the early 21 Century, such warnings are now delivered by a former Catholic priest in a publication of the Jesuit Order.

As Eureka Street readers who have followed my work will know, I have been a considered critic of the late B.A. Santamaria over the past three decades. This is evident in my book Mr Santamaria and the Bishops – and elsewhere. However, I am concerned about the extent to which Santamaria’s many opponents have exaggerated the case against him and those who associated with him.

Paul Collins is a case in point. In his article titled “Abbott and Santamaria’s undemocratic Catholicism” (Eureka Street, August 17), Collins projects his considerable dislike of B.A. Santamaria on to the Opposition leader Tony Abbott. In his piece, Collins makes a number of assertions – none of which are documented. They deserve correction or clarification.

• Collins claims that Cardinal George Pell is “another self-proclaimed disciple of Santamaria”. I am not aware that George Pell has ever said that he was a “disciple” of Santamaria. Nor am I aware that Abbott has ever declared himself as one of Santamaria’s “disciples” – although he has described Santamaria as “my first political mentor”.

• Collins asserts that “essentially Santamaria embraced a form of theological integralism”. I am not aware that Santamaria ever proclaimed such a commitment.

• Collins maintains that Santamaria “refused to recognise that there were other equally sincere Catholics who had other theological ideas about the relationship of the church to the world and the state, people like Archbishop Justin Simonds, Dr Max Charlesworth, the YCW and the Catholic Worker group…”.

In fact, Santamaria did not doubt the sincerity of the people named by Collins. He just happened to disagree with them on politics. That’s all. The late Xavier Connor (who was associated with the Catholic Worker group) told me that he enjoyed a warm personal relationship with Santamaria – despite the fact they had disagreed on the relationship between religion and politics for decades.

• Collins’ claim that “integralism has much in common with Italian Fascism, Franco’s Spain or Salazar’s Portugal” is a cheap shot. First, Collins identifies Santamaria with integralism. Then he links integralism with Italian Fascism. Quite a debating trick, when you think about it.

Santamaria, like the rest of us, had many faults. But support for Italian Fascism was not one of them – and Collins has not supplied any evidence to the contrary.

• Collins links Santamaria’s support for immigration to “the mantra ‘populate or perish’ with its racist overtones”.

Another cheap shot. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that Santamaria was in any sense racist. Indeed Santamaria and his colleagues were ahead of both the Labor and Liberal parties in advocating the abolition of the White Australia Policy.

• Collins opines that “Abbott is wrong to suggest that [integralism] has made Australian Catholicism ‘more intellectual’”. I am not aware that Abbott has ever commented on integralism – and Collins does not quote any sources in support of his implied assertion. This is mere verballing.

So, what is the point of Paul Collins’ Eureka Street piece? It seems that he is saying that Tony Abbott and the Coalition should not be supported at the election on Saturday because, by the process of “osmosis”, Abbott might have absorbed Santamaria’s integralism without knowing it. That’s about it.

The fact is that Santamaria discouraged Tony Abbott from seeking Liberal Party pre-selection. Moreover, during his years as a minister in the Howard Government, Abbott did not act as an integralist Catholic – whatever that might mean. Paul Collins seems to have been “ossified” – to use one of his favourite terms – by all those years at the ABC, taking in the rampant anti-Catholicism of the left and/or ex-Catholics. Just a thought.

Gerard Henderson

Michael Mullins to Gerard Henderson – 17 August 2010, 6.29 pm

Dear Gerard,

Thanks for sending the reply which we are pleased to publish on our front page and in our newsletter tomorrow. We have published it already and you will find it now in the top right hand column.

You may have anticipated that we would have a problem with the last two sentences which referred to the ‘ossification’ of Paul Collins. We have removed them to avoid defaming Paul and to ensure that the focus is on the argument rather than the personalities. I trust that you will understand this.

Best wishes,

Michael

Gerard Henderson to Michael Mullins – 18 August 2010, 11.58 am

Dear Michael

Thanks for your email – and for running my response to Paul Collins in Eureka Street. Or, rather, most of it.

In the final paragraph of your email you wrote:

You may have anticipated that we would have a problem with the last two sentences which referred to the ‘ossification’ of Paul Collins. We have removed them to avoid defaming Paul and to ensure that the focus is on the argument rather than the personalities. I trust that you will understand this.

Your comment about defamation – and the need for argument rather than comment about personalities – is nonsense. I understand why you might want to protect Paul Collins from criticism – after all, you accepted his undocumented polemic – for publication in Eureka Street – in the first instance. However, I did not defame Paul Collins in my response – and it is incorrect for you to assert otherwise.

There are two sentences by me about Paul Collins which Eureka Street decided to censor, viz:

Paul Collins seems to have been “ossified” – to use one of his favourite terms – by all those years at the ABC, taking in the rampant anti-Catholicism of the left and/or ex-Catholics. Just a thought.

So, according to you, it is proper for Eureka Street to run Paul Collins’ article implying that B.A. Santamaria’s (alleged) Catholic integralism had “much in common with Italian Fascism” – and that Tony Abbott has absorbed Santamaria by “osmosis”.

But, according to you, it is defamatory and personal for me to write that Paul Collins has been ossified by the rampant anti-Catholicism which he may have absorbed by mixing with the secular left and ex-Catholics while on the ABC payroll.

This is a tough point. Yet is in no sense libellous. Paul Collins spends a lot of time criticising others – including Tony Abbott. I do not believe that Mr Collins needs or deserves the protection of you or Eureka Street. Just a thought.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

Michael Mullins to Gerard Henderson – 18 August 2010, 1.53 pm

Dear Gerard,

Thanks for your response. You have convinced me that I am drawing a long bow by asserting that the sentence about Paul could be defamatory. However I think that my other point is still quite valid in that it goes against our policy that requires that content in our articles and feedback responses to ‘play the ball and not the man’.

This morning we rejected at least one reader response that criticised you rather than your argument. Also, in the past, I can recall cutting a personal criticism from one of Paul’s articles.

I hope that if there remains a difference between our positions, we can agree to disagree.

Best wishes,

Michael

Gerard Henderson to Michael Mullins – 18 August 2010, 3.25 pm

Dear Michael

Thanks for your note.

I am pleased that you now agree that there was nothing defamatory in what I wrote about Paul Collins.

On the question of playing “the ball and not the man”, Eureka Street has a double standard.

According to you, it was okay for Paul Collins to link Tony Abbott with (alleged) racism and Italian Fascism by the process of “osmosis” from the late B.A. Santamaria. But, according to you, it is playing the man if I link Paul Collins with the rampant anti-Catholicism which pervades the left and ex-Catholics at the ABC, where he once worked.

Eureka Street seems to believe that playing the man is okay if the player is Paul Collins and his target is Tony Abbott and the late B.A. Santamaria. In other instances, it seems, contributors to Eureka Street are encouraged to play the ball.

My reaction to criticism is well known. I do not object to criticism. I only object to people making false claims about me – and others. To repeat, Paul Collins’ implied claim that Santamaria was a supporter of racism and Italian Fascism never should have been published in the first place.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

Michael Mullins to Gerard Henderson – 18 August 2010, 9.10 pm.

Dear Gerard,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Best wishes,

Michael

THE CLICHÉ IN THE ROOM – AN ELEPHANT’S PERSPECTIVE

Margaret Simons Steps Up

Margaret Simons of Flemington has yet to respond to numerous howlers in the book The Fraser Years: A Political Memoir which she co-authored with the former prime minister. But she did step up this week in Wednesday’s Crikey where in a piece on the Australian Broadband Network she wrote, inter alia:

What hope, then, for the elephants in the room?

Good question. To which MWD responds, “What hope, then, for the clichés in the corridor?”

* * * * *

Until next time.