GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 760

30 January 2026

* * * *

* * * *

THE LATEST

  • It’s all criticism of Scott Morrison on ABC Radio National’s Breakfast’s Friday political panel

What happens when a Guardian Australia journalist, a Sydney Morning Herald and The Age chief political correspondent and an ABC political correspondent get together in the ABC studio at Parliament House in Canberra? Answer – they all tend to agree with each other in a left-of-centre kind of way.

And so it came to pass that, on 30 January, ABC Radio National Breakfast’s Friday Political Panel came together to discuss the week in politics. Sally Sara was in the presenter’s chair.

When discussion turned on former prime minister Scott Morrison’s speech in Israel on anti-Semitism, this is how the discussion commenced:

Sally Sara: We had a speech during the week from former Prime Minister Scott Morrison to a conference on anti-Semitism in Israel. He was raising the prospect of requiring Islamic preachers to be registered – and a number of other initiatives that he was putting forward. What did you make of that?

James Massola: I thought it was a provocative speech and a provocative, sorry, at a provocative point in time in the Australian news cycle. Look, I mean, I think that sort of overall point that the prime, sorry, former prime minister, was trying to make Sally about, you know, Australia’s Muslim community having, gosh, how do I say this?

Sally Sara: He was saying responsibility, I think.

James Massola: Yeah, yeah. Look, I mean, up to a point, that’s right. But it’s also, there’s also that, I mean, I’m a Catholic, right? Am I responsible if you know, or does the Catholic faith in Australia bear responsibility if you know, a pair of people go off and commit a crime, like Bondi. Like I don’t – no, of course, they don’t. And I, I think there was a sense from some of Australia’s Muslim community that he went too far, Morrison that is, in his speech. I think he’s raising some interesting questions, but yeah, I don’t think he quite landed it. If you see what I mean. Sal.

What a load of (inarticulate) tosh. For the record, “Sal” may know what James means. But Ellie’s (male) co-owner does not have a clue. Having been educated in a Catholic school, your man Massola should know that there is no radical Catholicism which equates with radical Islam. As Scott Morrison pointed out in his speech in Israel, some Muslim majority nations have effectively outlawed radical Islamists from preaching. This is not the case with respect to Catholics in Vatican City.

And then Tom McIlroy had a go:

Sally Sara: Tom McIlroy, what do you think?

Tom McIlroy: I think it’s a problematic statement. I thought that it didn’t really reflect the way that religious organisations work. I thought it was a political contribution. I think Tony Abbott has made similar suggestions in the past, but I just am not, I mean, I think it’s problematic to blame the entire Islamic community for the awful crimes at Bondi. I don’t think that’s a considered way to conduct the debate. I think the suggestion of licensing Imams is problematic in different ways as well.

More (inarticulate) tosh. No one – not Scott Morrison, not Tony Abbott – has blamed the entire Muslim community for the Islamist attack on the Jewish community at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. Comrade McIlroy just made this up. It’s akin to saying that the government of Egypt blames all Muslims for the activities of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood which it has banned. And Imams require a licence to preach in Saudi Arabia and UAE – which are Muslim majority countries. The fact is that governments have to defend citizens against terrorist attacks – whether from Islamists or anyone else.

Sally Sara did not challenge the view of Massola or McIlroy. And then the panel ended before Melissa Clarke had her say. But the ABC political correspondent (Clarke) would have agreed with Nine’s political correspondent (Massola) and The Guardian Australia’s political correspondent (McIlroy). After all, Melissa Clarke expressed similar views when criticising Morrison’s speech on RN Breakfast on 28 January.

And so the ABC/Nine/Guardian trio joined in a political chorus in bagging Scott Morrison. No other view was heard. That’s the ABC in operation as a Conservative Free Zone.

  • Nick Bryant only interviews Liberal Party critics

As avid readers will recall, early last year former BBC journalist Nick Bryant took over as presenter of the influential ABC Radio National Saturday Extra program.  At the commencement of his inaugural episode your man Bryant promised to preside over a program which would cover a variety of viewpoints. How’s that going, then? Not too well – if the first program for 2026 is taken into account.

Last Saturday, in its final segment, Saturday Extra covered the split in the Liberal Party-Nationals Coalition and the emergence of One Nation. Bryant interviewed Niki Savva – a vehement critic of the Liberal Party under all leaders after Malcolm Turnbull. Then Bryant interviewed Malcolm Turnbull who, since he was replaced as leader in the Liberal Party room ballot by Scott Morrison, has become a constant critic of the Liberal Party.

The interview commenced with a flattering introduction by Bryant:

Nick Bryant: Now to our next guest. He’s a product of Oxford University, a former executive of Goldman Sachs, somebody who has led the Liberal Party, and a leader famed for standing up to Donald Trump. No, it is not Mark Carney who has all of those things on his curriculum vitae. It is Malcolm Turnbull, the former Prime Minister of Australia, who also has all those things on his curriculum vitae. Malcolm Turnbull, thanks for joining us on Saturday Extra.

Malcolm Turnbull: Yeah thank you, Nick. Great to be with you.

Nick Bryant:  I don’t know whether you were listening there to Niki Savva. She suggested that you might lead a new force in Australian politics. What do you think about that?

Malcolm Turnbull:  Well, it’s very flattering, but, but I don’t think that’s – that’s not for me. I’m definitely retired from politics.

Very flattering indeed.  But no one mentioned that, when prime minister in 2016, Malcolm Turnbull led the Liberal Party in a disastrous election campaign after which the Liberals lost 14 seats and escaped defeat with a one seat majority. Can You Bear It?

[No, not really – now that you ask. The Liberal Party has been in decline since Malcolm Turnbull’s near (political) death in 2016. Scott Morrison replaced Turnbull in August 2018 and narrowly won at the 2019 election – despite Comrade Savva’s prediction to the contrary, who believed that the Liberal Party could not win without Turnbull. Turnbull went close to leading a government which only survived one term and Niki Savva reckons he’s the one to lead a new non-Labor party. How delusional can a commentator get? – MWD Editor.]

  • David Marr only interviews critics of the Nationals

For a further example of the ABC’s lack of viewpoint diversity check this out. On 28 January, Radio National Late Night Live presenter David Marr commenced the program with a segment on the Nationals.  He interviewed left-of-centre academic Judith Brett (who once co-edited with Comrade Guy Rundle the left-wing Arena Magazine) and the left-of-centre commentator and one time Labor Party staffer Mark Kenny before he became an ABC and later Nine journalist and later still an ANU professor.  Brett bagged John Howard for “throwing money at the baby boomer generation”. And Kenny fanged Australian political conservatives for their (alleged) “repugnance for what’s changed and for what’s to come”.

Marr joined in the chorus.  This is an exchange which took place in the discussion where, in ABC style, everyone essentially agreed with everyone else about almost everything in a left-of-centre kind of way:

David Marr: Judith, have the Nats for a long time, perhaps always, exercised influence in the Coalition that’s way out of proportion to the vote it receives.

 Judith Brett: Well, yes, I think so. The original Coalition agreement that was made in the early 1920s when Stanley Melbourne Bruce was the prime minister. He was extraordinarily generous to this newcomer, the Country Party, as it was then called, in terms of offering cabinet positions, for example. And so, in a way that Coalition agreement has stayed, I think, disproportionately beneficial to the Country Party, slash Nationals.

 David Marr: Mark, that’s your view as well?

 Mark Kenny: Yes, I think it is….

How about that? Comrade Brett agreed with Comrade Marr and Comrade Kenny thought he agreed with Comrade Brett who agreed with herself. How very Late Night Left. Can You Bear It?

  • Nine’s Peter FitzSimons in counterproductive sneer at One Nation

One explanation for the evident increase in support for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party is the reaction of leftists who believe that their morality is superior to others and that they are wiser and better informed.

How else to explain Nine columnist Peter FitzSimons’ put-down of Malcolm Roberts – the One Nation senator for Queensland? You be the judge. On 28 January, FitzSimons posted this message on X:

Now, here’s a serious answer. Whether you agree with Senator Roberts or not, he has an engineering degree from the University of Queensland and an MBA from Chicago Graduate School of Business. Roberts is certainly equipped to change a lightbulb. Even if, unlike the very tall Mr FitzSimons, the somewhat small Senator Roberts would need a ladder to reach that high. Also, Roberts has worked at senior levels in the mining industry.  This compared to Peter FitzSimons who has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Sydney University and has earned his fortune playing Rugby and in journalism – as well as identifying as a historian by writing a book a year – or is it week? – with the assistance of lotsa researchers.

In a recent review in Australian Book Review, the historian James Curran used the words “the Peter FitzSimons of Australian political biography” as a mocking put-down of another historian.

One of the problems with the modern left is that it sneers at, rather than argues with, political conservatives.  As to Fitz’s “would you trust Malcolm Roberts to change a light bulb” joke – that was around when Moses was in short pants. Cannot Peter FitzSimons get one of his (many) researchers to write new put-downs? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

  • Melissa Clarke reckons that Robert Menzies was a progressive/moderate Liberal

When interviewing Liberal Party Senator Andrew Bragg on 28 January, ABC Radio National presenter Sally Sara made it clear that she opposed prime minister Scott Morrison’s view that imams should have a licence to preach in Australia – along the lines that occurs in a number of Muslim majority countries. For example, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. ABC journalist Melissa Clarke supported Sara. Earlier in the program, Comrade Clarke – who is more of an activist journalist than a commentator – had this to say:

Melissa Clarke: The Coalition has just split, primarily over concerns about restraints on freedom of speech stemming from the government’s proposed hate speech and vilification laws – only some of which passed parliament. And to now have the most recent Coalition prime minister now suggesting licensing of who can lead religious services and making sermons available in certain languages, is certainly one that has not been seen by some Liberal MPs as aligning with the traditional Liberal, Menzian views around freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice.

Comrade Clarke seems unaware that, when prime minister for the first time during the early part of the Second World War, Robert Menzies banned the Communist Party of Australia.  He tried to do it again – by referendum – when prime minister in 1951. Robert Menzies was a political conservative, in office in the 1960s, who toughened up the Crimes Act with respect to subversive activity.  When Menzies was prime minister, the left detested him.  But, half a century later – in its historical ignorance – the left has embraced Menzies and what Clarke calls “Menzian views” allegedly held by “some Liberal MPs”. Can You Bear It?

  • Sally Sara’s Failure to Correct Greens’ Senator David Shoebridge’s Misstatement About the Bondi Terrorist Attack

An avid reader has asked (courteously, of course) whether Ellie’s (male) co-owner could document the comment he made on Sky News’ The Media Show last Friday concerning ABC Radio National Breakfast presenter Sally Sara. It was this – about Sara’s interview with Greens Senator David Shoebridge. For accuracy’s sake, let’s go to the transcript – the date was 21 January 2026 and discussion turned on the Greens’ response to the radical Islamist terrorist attack on the Jewish community at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025

Sally Sara: There’s been criticism of the Greens contribution to this debate – accusations that the Greens used the condolences to suggest that, quote, “powerful forces are using the Bondi attack to promote their own agenda”. How do you respond to that?

David Shoebridge: Well, no, the attacks were even worse than that. The attacks were that me saying that [sic] the hate that was directed by these two hateful men, against the LGBTIQ community at Bondi – that same hateful ideology could have been equally directed against women in positions of political power or against the LGBTIQ community. I have been accused by The Australian of making that statement as being anti-Semitic statement.

Sally Sara: What about your colleague, Senator Mehreen Faruqi?

Now, everyone from time to time makes verbal “typos”. The problem here is that Senator Shoebridge referred to the terrorist attack being on the LGBTIQ community – not once but twice. Which suggests that he was not concentrating on the Jewish Community. And that Sally Sara not only ignored Shoebridge’s first misstatement but also his second. Which suggests that Ms Sara was not listening to what the senator was saying. And nor was her production team in the control room. This with respect to the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil. Can You Bear It?

  • ABC Editorial Director in denial about the reason high-profile ABC journalists boycotted Adelaide Writers’ Week

In its edition of 13 January, the Crikey newsletter revealed a list of individuals who had withdrawn from the 2026 Adelaide Writers’ Week. The following ABC journalists were listed. John Lyons, Jonathan Green, David Marr, Sarah Ferguson, Laura Tingle and Louise Milligan. It was widely reported that the boycotters protested against the decision of the Adelaide Festival board to disinvite Palestinian Australian writer/academic Randa Abdel-Fattah. In the event, the Festival Board resigned along with 2026 AWW director Louise Adler. A new Adelaide Festival board invited Ms Abdel-Fattah to next year’s AWW. This despite the fact that she had stated that Zionists do not warrant cultural protection.

As Steve Jackson reported in The Australian “The Diary” column on 26 January, an ABC viewer wrote to Gavin Fang, the ABC’s editorial director, complaining about the decision of John Lyons (the ABC’s Editor Americas) and Laura Tingle (the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor) to withdraw from the 2026 AWW.

Jackson reported that, in response to the ABC viewer, Fang declared that there was “no evidence” that Lyons and Tingle had withdrawn from the 2026 AWW in solidarity with Abdel-Fattah. According to Jackson, Fang wrote:

The ABC welcomes feedback from the community. [But] on this occasion, and after consideration, I do not agree with the assertions in your complaint. You assert that John Lyons and Laura Tingle chose to withdraw from the Adelaide Writers’ Week in support of Dr Randa Adbel-Fattah [sic]. You provide no evidence of this claim. At no stage [have] neither Mr Lyons nor Ms Tingle made any such suggestion.

Asserting that either has taken this step to withdraw because of support for Dr Abdel-Fattah’s views is not grounded in any evidence. In doing so, you have unfairly sought to align both Mr Lyons and Ms Tingle with views they have never expressed. As you rightly point out in your email, the ABC has obli­gations for independence and integrity and impartiality in its news and information content. Both Mr Lyons and Ms Tingle are senior ABC journalists aware of these obligations and nothing in their conduct around this matter is in breach of the ABC’s editorial standards.

Turn it up. Clearly Fang is in denial. Moreover, the ABC’s editorial director apparently did not ask Comrade Lyons or Comrade Tingle why they had withdrawn.

This is another example of ABC management in denial about the fact that the taxpayer funded public broadcaster is a Conservative Free Zone. Of course, Comrades Lyons, Green, Marr, Ferguson, Tingle and Milligan went out in unison with their fellow comrades in support of Comrades Adler and Abdel-Fattah. Indeed Lyons, Ferguson and Milligan conceded this. However, it would appear that Gavin Fang believes what he wants to believe, rather than face reality.

  • Canine Ellie gets offended at Tony Armstrong’s claim that those whom he disagrees with are going to the dogs

As a very modern canine, Ellie readily takes offence at any perceived slight on dogs in general, her Queensland Heeler breed and virtually everything concerning which she feels uncomfortable.

Gerard Henderson – Ellie’s (male) co-owner – wrote about the ABC Australia Day “special” Always Was Tonight presented by ABC fave Tony Armstrong, in his Weekend Australian column on 24 January. The program was essentially a taxpayer funded rant about how (allegedly) racist Australia is – supported by a number of bad jokes and much whinging. This despite your man Armstrong’s brilliant career.

In his sign-off comment on Always Was Tonight, Armstrong, whose mother is white, had this to say:

Tony Armstrong: That’s it for Always Was Tonight. We will be back next year, unless the ABC is racist or something. I’m sure you’re expecting me to use this moment to do a big viral speech about what January 26 means and why you, the good white people watching, ought to feel real sad. But the problem is you already know. You’ve heard it before. You know it’s wrong. Don’t be a dog.

It turned out that the Always Was Tonight audience (the program was filmed at the ABC studio in the inner-city suburb of Ultimo) was overwhelmingly white. It would seem that they were essentially Teal or Greens voters – and just loved the self-guilt engendered by Comrade Armstrong. Forgetting for the moment that, with a white mother, Armstrong would not be with us without colonisation. And then it was home to the Always Was Tonight audience’s inner-city abodes where they live in denial about the stolen land in which they reside. Not far from the unceded land on which the ABC Ultimo headquarters is located. After all, guilt can only go so far. And, so far, the inner-city luvvies who own property on “stolen land” show no signs of giving it back.

So, there you have it.  Armstrong is declaring that “any white people” who do not agree with his view that Australia is racist are dogs.  This includes Australian taxpayers who make possible his appearances on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.

But MWD digresses – once again. MWD’s editor asked Ellie how she felt after Comrade Armstrong used the word “dogs” as a term of abuse. Here’s what Ellie had to say:

  • Ellie comments translated from canine language for MWD – with a little help from AI

I feel offended by Mr Armstrong’s comments. And I also feel unsafe. I’m worried that if I go outside my co-owners’ abode, I may be blamed for all of society’s imperfection since The Fall. It’s true that we Queensland Heelers – sometimes called Blue Heelers – chase colonial introduced cattle around large tracts of land. But we have some dingo genes in us – so we are not racist in a canine kind of way.

I’m surprised that nice Mr Armstrong would insult a canine by using the word “Dog” the way he did. Perhaps he should attend the late Nancy’s Courtesy Classes which are conducted with a little help from American psychic John Edward. This is a matter of some urgency since Always Was Tonight is likely to reappear next year and there are only 12 months to divest Mr Armstrong of his canine-phobia.

This overwhelmingly popular segment of Media Watch Dog usually works like this. Someone or other thinks it would be a you-beaut idea to write to Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous) about something or other. And Hendo, being a courteous and well-brought-up kind of guy, replies. Then, hey presto, the correspondence is published in MWD – much to the delight of its avid readers.

There are occasions, however, when (the late) Jackie’s (male) co-owner decides to write a polite note to someone or other but does not receive a response.

Nevertheless, publication of this one-sided correspondence still takes place in MWD. For the record – and in the public interest, of course.

Old Parliament House’s howler re John Kerr in its exhibition on The Dismissal of 11 November 1975

There was enormous interest in last week’s Correspondence section which covered Gerard Henderson’s visit to Old Parliament House on Saturday 20 December 2025. He looked at the Exhibition at the Museum of Australian Democracy (MOAD) about Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s dismissal of Gough Whitlam’s Labor government, 50 years earlier, on 11 November 1975.

The Correspondence segment contained Gerard Henderson’s letter to prominent former ABC presenter Barrie Cassidy who is MOAD’s chair, pointing to one serious error in The Dismissal Exhibition and another minor error. Last week’s Correspondence section can be read here.

Barrie Cassidy did not acknowledge or reply to Henderson’s letter. This despite the fact that he played a prominent role in MOAD’s coverage of the Dismissal. However, Stephanie Bull, MOAD’s director, did respond after Henderson emailed her in the absence of a Cassidy response. In last week’s issue, MWD advised that any response from MOAD would be carried in this issue. The Henderson/Bull correspondence is set out below – only some personal matters concerning Henderson’s time working at Old Parliament House in the late 1970s and the mid-1980s have been omitted. Now read on s’il vous plait:

 

Gerard Henderson to Stephanie Bull – 19 January 2026

Subject: Misinformation in MOAD’s “The Dismissal” Exhibition (continued)

Dear Ms Bull

You may recall that I emailed Barrie Cassidy on 7 January, and forwarded a copy to you, concerning a serious error in MOAD’s “The Dismissal” exhibition. Since I do not have Barrie’s current email address, I sent my note to Karen Laing who advised me that she had forwarded it to Barrie. Barrie has not responded – it’s possible that he is on holiday.

I wrote to Barrie Cassidy in the first place because I know him. I understand that, as the MOAD’s director, you are primarily responsible for exhibitions – not the chair.

In view of this, I would be grateful if you could respond to my email of 7 January concerning the incorrect statement in “The Dismissal” exhibition that Governor-General Sir John Kerr “later claimed he had not spoken to Fraser that morning [i.e. the morning of 11 November 1975]”. The exhibition states that “this document [i.e. Fraser’s handwritten notes] suggests otherwise”. The implication here is that Kerr did not tell the truth. No evidence is cited in support of this assertion.

As I pointed out in my original email, in his book Matters for Judgment Kerr wrote that he spoke to Fraser on the morning of 11 November 1975 by phone. This is widely accepted by Kerr’s supporters and critics alike – but not apparently by MOAD.

What is contested turns on what was said during the conversation – something that MOAD does not acknowledge (but this is a separate matter).

This is a significant howler. I would appreciate it if you – or MOAD’s chair – could respond to my email to Barrie Cassidy by the close of business on Thursday 22 January 2026.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

 

Stephanie Bull to Gerard Henderson – 19 January 2026

OFFICIAL

Dear Gerard – thank you for your emails – both your original email and also your follow up email today. Thank you for taking the time to visit the exhibition and provide feedback.

I forwarded your email on to Barrie, and I also provided a copy to the curatorial team who developed the exhibition.  I have asked that the details are reviewed, however the key exhibition curator is on leave at the moment and I would also like their input.  They are back at work next week and I anticipate that I will be able to send a reply to you next week.

It was lovely to hear that you are a fan of Old Parliament House.  One of the privileges I have of working at MoAD is the opportunity to hear from people who worked at OPH, or have a long affiliation with OPH when it was the Federal Parliament….

Many thanks

Stephanie

Stephanie Bull

Director

 

Gerard Henderson to Stephanie Bull – 20 January 2026

Dear Stephanie

Thanks for your prompt and friendly response.  I assume that Barrie Cassidy is on what journalists (past and present) are wont to call a Well Earned Break. Or WEB, for short….

I was disappointed by how OPH handled the 50th Anniversary of the Dismissal.  As I referred to in my email to Barrie Cassidy, Session 1 lacked any viewpoint diversity – everyone on the panel was either critical of or hostile to the former governor-general Sir John Kerr. No other view was heard. On 20 December I found this imbalance extended to The Dismissal Exhibition.

I note that you have avoided making a decision about the Kerr error until the return to work of the key Exhibition curator.  This should not be necessary.  Anyone who has bothered to read Chapter 22 of John Kerr’s Matters for Judgment (Macmillan, 1978) knows that Kerr never said or wrote that he did not talk to Fraser on the morning of 11 November 1975.

It should not take OPH up to 15 working days to correct a howler which never should have been made in the first place.  After all, the entire entry consists of only 38 words.  The OPH should also acknowledge in the Exhibition that Kerr and Fraser strongly disagreed about the content of their phone conversation which took place on the morning of 11 November.

* * * * *

It is disappointing that MOAD presented The Dismissal in an unbalanced manner – which made it possible for it to be mocked by George Brandis (in his Sydney Morning Herald and Age column) for essentially presenting the Whitlam side of one of the most significant events in Australian political history.

I knew John Kerr and spoke to him on a number of occasions about the Dismissal – I have also written and spoken about the matter.  If MOAD’s curator had contacted me, I would have been willing to fact-check the Exhibition before it opened.

Since this is a significant matter, I will be covering it in my Media Watch  Dog blog on Friday 23 January.  I cannot leave the matter till next week in view of the importance of the error.  But I am willing to publish correspondence from MOAD the following week or later.

* * * * *

In conclusion, on my occasional visits to OPH I have been very impressed by the staff who are invariably friendly and willing to advise and assist.  They seem to like their work.

Best wishes

Gerard

 

Stephanie Bull to Gerard Henderson – 22 January 2026

Dear Gerard – thanks for sharing the story about journalists and a Well Earned Break.  I have never heard that term – it’s so interesting.  Hopefully, you had a WEB over Christmas too.

Just to clarify, MoAD hasn’t avoided making a decision about the label until the exhibition curator is back from leave next week, and we have already updated the label.  Your feedback on the label was very helpful.  Following your initial email to Barrie, I asked the team to review the text.  The final sentence is imprecise, and we acknowledge that this could lead to an incorrect implication.  The label text was updated, a new label printed and it has been installed in the showcase.  I was planning to liaise with the exhibition curator when they came back from leave and then reply to your original email – but I understand that you were keen for an update sooner.

In relation to the draft speeches/handwritten notes, we loaned a number of items from the Malcolm Fraser Collection at the University of Melbourne Archives for the exhibition and we based label text on the Archive’s documentation.

Thank you for your lovely message about the staff at MoAD and their friendliness – I am pleased that the team were welcoming and of assistance….

Many thanks

Stephanie

 

Gerard Henderson to Stephanie Bull – 27 January 2026

Dear Stephanie

Thanks for your email of 22 January. In response, I make the following comments.

The final sentence of the label headed “Malcolm Fraser’s handwritten note on conversation with John Kerr – 11 November” was not “imprecise” such that it “could lead to an incorrect implication”. It is simply wrong. As you know, the original label read:

Kerr called Fraser on the morning of 11 November to discuss the conditions of his appointment, including a guarantee that Supply would pass. Kerr later claimed he had not spoken to Fraser that morning – this document suggests otherwise.

Sir John Kerr never said or wrote that he did not speak to Malcolm Fraser on the morning of 11 November 1975. In fact, he wrote that he spoke to Fraser at that time – see Chapter 22 of Kerr’s Matters for Judgment (Macmillan, 1978). Kerr and Fraser disagreed about the content of the call. That’s all.

This error could have been corrected immediately on 7 January 2026 by Barrie Cassidy or a MOAD staffer had they approached the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library or the Australian National Library and checked out Kerr’s book.

When I make mistakes, I correct them. I do not try to pass off a howler with the defence of imprecision.

MOAD’s (minor) error of attributing David Kemp’s handwritten speech notes as being Fraser’s own notes would have been avoided if MOAD’s curator had read David Kemp’s chapter in Sybil Nolan’s edited collection to which I have previously referred. As you will be aware, David Kemp was Fraser’s speech writer in November 1975 and he is easily contactable. I have examined the Malcolm Fraser Collection at the University of Melbourne and do not recall that the handwriting on the green paper was specifically described as Fraser’s – but, then, I could have missed something.

I do not have Barrie Cassidy’s email address and he has not responded to my email of 7 January 2026. (You might advise Barrie that I answer my own correspondence.)

I would like to learn MOAD’s reasoning for having only critics of Sir John Kerr in Session 1 at Old Parliament House on 11 November 2025. Namely Governor-General Sam Mostyn AC, Kim Williams, Niki Savva, Paul Keating, Barrie Cassidy, Gareth Evans, Paul Kelly and Kerry O’Brien.

It is understandable why the Governor-General was invited. But the rest of those involved during the time between 8.30 am and 11 am were all critics of Kerr’s actions with respect to the Dismissal. The same is true concerning the coverage of the Dismissal on the ABC Radio National Breakfast between 8.30 am and 9 am which headed MOAD’s coverage. Presenter Sally Sara interviewed Niki Savva, Kerry O’Brien, David Solomon and Jenny Hocking – all of whom are Kerr antagonists.

It’s all so boring where everyone agrees with essentially everyone else on essentially everything.

There are numerous individuals who could have defended Kerr or given a sympathetic account of the predicament Kerr experienced in the lead-up to the Dismissal. But none was heard at the MOAD function before 11 am – and not that many after. MOAD described the Dismissal as “one of the most controversial political events in Australian history”. Yet MOAD essentially presented only one side of the controversy.

I have not seen the new label (to which you refer). In any event, the Exhibition remains in error since nowhere is it acknowledged that the content of the Kerr/Fraser conversation is contested. For example, MOAD’s time sheet, states, inter alia:

11 November 1975

10 am

Kerr telephones Fraser, who agrees to the terms of an interim appointment as prime minister.

This is Fraser’s version of the phone conversation he first made verbally in 1987. It is not Kerr’s version of the call which he recorded in writing on 16 November 1975. As well as in his 1978 book. Which raises the question: Why does MOAD believe Fraser’s version and not Kerr’s version?

As I understand it, the Exhibition concludes on Saturday 8 February. It is a pity MOAD put on a display so lacking in viewpoint diversity.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

 

* * * *

Until Next Time.

* * * * *