GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 771

24 April 2026

* * * *

* * * *

THE LATEST

  • ABC Radio’s decline illustrates the failure of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster as a conservative-free-zone

Writing in The Australian on 20 April, Steve Jackson revealed that the ABC is about to announce a big restructure of ABC Radio. Namely, ABC News Radio, Radio National Breakfast and AM (which airs on ABC metropolitan radio as well as RN Breakfast). This seems to be a move by ABC chair Kim Williams to improve the quality of ABC radio.

On 24 April, James Madden and Steve Jackson wrote an article titled “ABC Radio suffers rating humiliation in crucial morning timeslots”. Such ABC “stars” as Hamish Macdonald (ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings), Raf Epstein, (ABC Radio Melbourne Drive), Craig Reucassel (ABC Radio Sydney Breakfast) and Bob Murphy and Richelle Hunt (ABC Radio Melbourne’s Breakfast) have performed poorly. For example, Macdonald has an audience share of 5.5 per cent compared with 2GB’s Ben Fordham’s 16.8 per cent. While Melbourne’s 3AW’s rating are also dramatically higher than those of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.

What could be the problem? Media Watch Dog hears avid readers cry. In MWD’s view, ABC Radio is losing listeners because it is a boring Conservative Free Zone. In short, the taxpayer funded broadcaster does not have a conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its key television, radio or online outlets.

ABC management is in denial about this. But no one has been able to name one prominent conservative on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s payroll.

Then there is the lack of debate on ABC programs with producers and presenters having cancelled individual conservatives and their organisations from appearing on ABC programs. For example, the avowedly leftist Australia Institute’s personnel are frequently heard on the ABC. But the politically conservative Institute of Public Affairs is effectively banned.

A consequence of this is that the ABC’s output is increasingly boring – since there is scant viewpoint diversity and lesser debate. In the modern era, Australians can get their news and current affairs from all around the world. The commercial radio channels are holding support because they are more interesting than the ABC because they exhibit viewpoint diversity.

For example, the likes of Macdonald, Epstein, Reucassel and Murphy are essentially left-of-centre “progressive” types with predictable views. ABC TV’s Media Watch presenter Linton Besser maintains that a well-funded taxpayer funded public broadcaster is essential to the continuation of Australian democracy. That’s tosh. Viewers of Sky News are prepared to pay for diversity. And commercial TV and Radio audiences are prepared to watch/listen to advertisements. And then there is the Web. The ABC ain’t what she used to be. As the old saying goes – or went.

  • 7.30 PRESENTS BILL SHORTEN AS A “FORMER PRIME MINISTER”

Sure, we all make mistakes. Indeed, sometimes Media Watch Dog claims it makes “Deliberate Mistakes” as described by the late John Laws.

However, the ABC TV’s 7.30 did a super-clanger error on Thursday 23 April. It was between Gin & Tonic time and Pre-Dinner Drinks when even Ellie’s (male) co-owner noticed this Supers (in journalist’s language).

How about that? What a super Supers. Bill Shorten as Australia’s “Former Prime Minister”. Brought to you by what the ABC presents as Australia’s leading current affairs program. By the way, this howler was not corrected by presenter Sarah Ferguson at the end of the program.

[Perhaps this should have gone in your highly popular “Can You Bear It? Segment. Just a thought. MWD Editor].

  • THE GUARDIAN AUSTRALIA RECKONS THAT AFGHANS TODAY ARE THINKING ABOUT BEN ROBERTS-SMITH

Many thanks to the avid NSW reader who drew MWD’s attention to this headline which appeared in the leftist Guardian Australia on 14 April 2026. It was followed by a Shadi Khan Saif article. Here we go.

Ben Roberts-Smith’s arrest won’t erase the pain for Afghans – but it shows Australia is willing to face uncomfortable truths.

First, this should never have been published since it implies that Ben Roberts-Smith is guilty of war crime – murder before he goes on trial. How is that consistent with the accused receiving a fair trial?

Also, the headline implies that the pain that Afghans are suffering is due to BRS. Really. After all, the Taliban is in control of Afghanistan. Women are in veils and burkas and kept indoors. Moreover, girls are denied education. And there is no freedom of expression. Yet, according to the headline in the Guardian Australia, Afghans today all think about Ben Roberts-Smith. Turn it up. And, Can You Bear It?

  • Peter FitzSimons quotes leftist Guardian journalist Paul Daley in support of his criticism on the Australian War Memorial

The vibe to Ellie’s (male) co-owner from avid Media Watch Dog readers is that they wait to hear more about what Nine columnist and all-round bore Peter FitzSimons is up to. You know, the multi-millionaire who wore a red rag on his head for a decade or so until, due to popular demand, he had to send it to the laundry where it was lost. [Thank God. – MWD Editor]

In his “5 Minutes With Fitz” column in the Sun-Herald on 19 April – leading up to Anzac Day – Peter FitzSimons interviewed Matt Anderson, the director of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. The story was headed “Memorial boss is a staunch supporter of ‘uncomfortable truths’”.

It was not clear what “uncomfortable truths” Anderson is allegedly defending. Presumably, this is a reference to the forthcoming trial of Ben Roberts-Smith VC on charges of war crime murder. In which case, this is the kind of comment which makes it unlikely that BRS will be able to have a fair trial.

This is how FitzSimons’ article commenced:

Matt Anderson is the director of the Australian War Memorial, which is about to open its new galleries, once derided as a “Disneyland theme park”.

This is a demeaning reference re the Australian War Memorial. And who might have said this? Read through the article and the following appears:

Peter FitzSimons:  OK, so this Anzac Day will see you opening 80 per cent of the massive rebuild and expansion of the AWM to the public. My friend, the journalist and author Paul Daley made a famous and now oft-repeated criticism of the expansion, writing: “We demean our history when we turn the Australian War Memorial into Disneyland.” He argued “the expansion would turn a place of solemn reflection into a theme park spectacle that prioritises hardware displays and celebration over uncomfortable truths.” Your response?

Matt Anderson: My response is: we don’t. The Australian War Memorial has always told stories through objects, and we have since the days of the founder, Charles Bean. I look out the window now and see the Amiens Gun. We have the Lancaster Bomber. Those who criticise the expansion are OK with us using a Lancaster Bomber to tell the story of Bomber Command. But somehow they are not OK with me using the classic Hornet from 75 Squadron, the first Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to drop bombs since the Vietnam War, to tell the story of Australian service in Iraq in 2003 all the way through to Syria in 2017. It doesn’t make sense to me.

What Comrade FitzSimons did not say is that Paul Daley is a leftist journalist who writes for the avowedly left-wing Guardian Australia. And yet he is the only person quoted in the FitzSimons/Anderson interview. No conservative journalist who is a supporter of the Australian War Memorial was cited by the Red Bandannaed One. Can You Bear It?

  • The Saturday Paper’s Erik Jensen mocks Ben Roberts-Smith’s “imagined bravery”

While on the topic of Anzac Day, lotsa thanks to the avid MWD reader who drew attention to an editorial in The Saturday Paper. As MWD readers know only too well, The [Boring] Saturday Paper is the only newspaper in Australia which contains no news. Look at it this way. TSP goes to print on Thursday evenings and arrives in inner-city coffee shops – where it is read by sandal-wearing leftists of the Sandalista Class – on Saturday mornings. Ellie’s (male) co-owner reads it on Mondays at Gin & Tonic Time. What’s the hurry?

On 11 April, The Saturday Paper (editor-in-chief Erik Jensen) ran an editorial titled “The alleged crimes of Ben Roberts-Smith”. It concluded as follows:

A curious feature of this case is the way it fractures along ideological lines. Roberts-Smith’s defenders are uniformly right-wing. His benefactors are conservatives. He represents a simplistic vision of Australian heroism. He is an archetype, a national myth, forever running ashore at Gallipoli.

This myth is the foundation of modern Australia. It is a self-image sustained by decades of larrikinism and imagined bravery. It is challenged by multiculturalism and postcolonialism. Now it is challenged by a court.

This is the fight Roberts-Smith’s defenders are really having. It is not about protecting a wronged soldier. It is about the outdated expression of a simple Australia, one that has changed and cannot be changed back. Tony Abbott cannot say this, however. Instead, he has to talk about men, “doing their best to serve our country”.

How’s that for a leftist rant? According to Comrade Jensen, Ben Roberts-Smith VC represents “a simplistic vision of Australia’s heroism” – followed by an allegation of “imagined bravery”. If Jensen has read Aaron Patrick’s book The Last Battle: Our Greatest Victory In Our Longest War he would know that Roberts-Smith’s actions at the Battle of Shah Wali Kot, for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross, was no act of “imagined bravery”.

Moreover, Erik Jensen expressed ignorance when he wrote that the (so-called) “running ashore at Gallipoli” myth is now being “challenged by a court”.

Ben Roberts-Smith has been charged with war crime – murder. He will appear before the Supreme Court of NSW. His fate will be determined by a jury of 12 persons. Ben Roberts-Smith is not being “challenged by a court”. How ignorant can an editor-in-chief get? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

[It’s difficult to see how BRS can receive a fair trial in view of editorials like this one. – MWD Editor.]

  • 7.30’s Adam Harvey alleges that President Trump is at odds with key Christian values

On 22 April, ABC TV’s 7.30 ran a story by reporter Adam Harvey titled “Will Trump’s stoush with Pope turn US Catholics against the President?”

Harvey interviewed two American commentators – Larry Sabato and Robert Jones. Both were critical of President Donald Trump.

Sabato said that Trump’s comments on the Pope were stupid – not just because Catholics are 15 to 20 per cent of the electorate but because Leo XIV is the first American pope and he’s actually very popular in the United States. Harvey did not mention that Sabato, an academic at the University of Virginia, is a long-standing Trump critic. He publishes a newsletter titled Sabato’s Crystal Ball. However, he falsely predicted that Trump would lose the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections. It would seem that your man Sabato’s crystal ball needs a service.

Jones said that Trump’s popularity was down among Latino Catholics due to his administration’s policy on immigration. He also criticised Trump for lecturing Leo XIV on theology. A Trump antagonist, Jones is the author of White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity. By the way, Jones is white.

There were also two Vox pops – both were highly critical of Trump’s handling of the Pope. No other view was heard.

Then Adam Harvey declared:

Adam Harvey: Alienating Catholics will be a problem for Republicans long before 2028. November’s midterms approach in the wake of an unpopular war, presidential rhetoric at odds with key Christian values like compassion and mercy. And crucially, as far as American voters are concerned, the soaring cost of living.

Adam Harvey, the born-again preacher, is entitled to express an opinion on the cost of living issues. But he is not an expert on “key Christian values” like “compassion and mercy”. Moreover, Comrade Harvey did not state precisely where Trump has erred with respect to compassion and mercy – as distinct from, say, vulgarity. Can You Bear It?

[Good point. In the whole of the United States, 7.30 could not find one person – Catholic or otherwise – who would support President Trump’s criticism of Pope Leo XIV’s willingness to publicly attack the US president but not the mullahs in Iran. MWD Editor.]

  • Learned Professors Frank Bongiorno & Mark Kenny don’t mention the howlers in anti-Howard rant

It would seem that the Australian National University is committed to leftist-stacks when it comes to what it presents to public debate. Just like most of Australia’s taxpayer funded writers’ festivals.

How else to explain the ANU’s “Meet the Author” function on 10 March 2026 which Media Watch Dog recently discovered online? The speaker was Amy Remeikis – author of Where It All Went Wrong: The Case Against John Howard (Simon & Schuster). The occasion was a Canberra launch of the said tome by Professor Frank Bongiorno of the University of Canberra. The vote-of-thanks was moved by MWD fave Mark Kenny.

Comrade Remeikis is chief political analyst at the leftist Australia Institute. Comrade Bongiorno is, among other things, a Whitlam Institute Distinguished Fellow at Western Sydney University. [Well, at least he’s distinguished. – MWD Editor.] And Comrade Kenny is a one-time Labor Party staffer who has worked for Nine Newspapers and the ABC and is now a professor at the ANU. [Why is he not also distinguished? – MWD Editor.]

Not a conservative among this lot. Just another left-wing love-in. The learned professors Bongiorno and Kenny apparently did not detect one error in Remeikis’ howler-ridden book. Re which see Media Watch Dog of late. Frank agreed with Amy about John Howard’s “averageness”, which should have raised the question: “Why write a book about someone so (allegedly) average?” But it didn’t. Amy agreed with Frank that Howard was “a kind of authentic expression of our deepest instincts” – which, Quelle Surprise!, they regard as somewhat bad.

The function was introduced by a bloke who was named Colin. Presumably – Colin from the ANU Soviet. He bagged John Howard. And Comrade Kenny commenced his vote-of-thanks by stating: “I think we’ve all found it [the book] in equal measures entertaining, piercing, perhaps even triggering at certain parts.” Really. He also ranted against the Capital Gains Tax concession.

The ”highlight” of the occasion was a Remeikis answer to a Bongiorno comment which went for close to 12 minutes. Groan. And a question from the audience which urged support for Britain’s Greens party.

And then, barely had the decaf black coffee and vegan sandwiches been cleared when Simon & Schuster announced that any new edition of the Remeikis tome would include the correction of Remeikis howlers in the book. None of which, apparently, were noticed by Frank or Mark or Colin. Can You Bear It?

A NIKI SAVVA MOMENT

  • Niki Savva forgets the “sensible centre” in her praise of Andrew Hastie

Thank God, or is it god?, for Niki Savva. Who else around could be so consistent in providing advice to the Liberal Party of Australia. The problem is that The Thought of Niki is not always consistent. You be the judge.

In the wake of the Coalition’s defeat at the May 2022 election, Comrade Savva wrote in her column in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on 25 May 2022 that the Liberal Party should not lurch to the right or unthinkingly lurch to the left but rather it should be in the “sensible centre”. However, she wrote the Coalition would have to support the Albanese Labor government on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, climate change and more besides. To Comrade Savva, that was the centre.

On 30 April 2025, in the lead-up to what seemed the Coalition’s inevitable election defeat in the May election, Savva criticised the Liberal Party for not moving to the centre following the debacle of the 2022 election. This overlooked the fact that there was little policy difference between the Coalition and Labor policies in the 2022 and 2025 elections. For example, both parties supported Net Zero emissions by 2050.

Niki Savva is one of many left-of-centre Canberra-based journalists who will tolerate a Liberal Party government provided it is led by someone like Malcolm Turnbull. This despite the fact that Turnbull lost 14 seats to the Labor Party – and very nearly lost government – in the only election he contested as leader. Namely, the 2 July 2016 double-dissolution election.

On Sunday 29 March 2026, Andrew Hastie (the Liberal MP for Canning and Shadow Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability) was interviewed on Insiders. Savva was one of the Insiders’ panellists. At the end of the interview, Speers asked Savva what she made of Hastie’s performance. She responded: “Well, as usual, I thought it was a very interesting and thoughtful position by Andrew Hastie at every point.” Andrew Hastie is close to Malcolm Turnbull.

In the interview, Andrew Hastie:

• Criticised President Donald J. Trump for the way the United States waged war against Iran describing it as a “huge miscalculation”. This went far beyond what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said at the time.

• Advocated that Australia needs “to do exploration in this country” and “should drill in this country for unconventional oil, shale, gas.” And that Australia “should also talk about using coal”. Hastie added that Australia has an abundance of coal and “we could have coal to liquid refineries that produced diesel and aviation gas”.

• Queried the “integrity” of the Albanese government’s home battery subsidy along with “the electric vehicle discount, the subsidies for green hydrogen and production tax credits”. He added “This is all good and well if you can afford these things but we want to focus on looking after Australians now who are getting hit at the bowser”.

• Said that, in his capacity as Shadow Minister for Sovereign Capability, his number one priority is to “get out of Net Zero”.

• Spoke about Australia’s “abundance of coal, gas, uranium”.

• Commented that “the Liberal Party is not the first line of defence for corporate Australia” and stated that “multinationals and big business in this country have lost their social licence”.

• Mentioned that he is “open to negative gearing [and] capital gains tax changes”.

Now, not many of Hastie’s responses were in the “sensible centre” – whatever that means.

For example, Andrew Hastie’s call for an end to Net Zero and his advocacy for coal sounds like Nationals’ leader Matt Canavan rather than Malcolm Turnbull. And his claim that multinationals and big business in Australia have lost their social licence seems like an editorial in the Green Left Weekly. Both go beyond what Savva calls the sensible centre.

Yet writing in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on 2 April 2026, Savva praised Hastie’s “thoughtful reflections” on Insiders saying that they “piqued the interest and admiration of a whole new group of Australians”.

Could it be that Comrade Savva now regards opposition to Net Zero and claiming that big business has lost its social licence as in the “sensible centre”?.

[I note that in her Nine column, Comrade Savva referred to Hastie’s decision to give evidence against Ben Roberts-Smith VC in his recent defamation case against Nine. She described Roberts-Smith as a “former fellow SAS officer” of Hastie. Roberts-Smith was an SAS corporal. Hastie was an SAS officer. – MWD Editor.]

Verily, a Niki Savva moment.

Since the ABC TV’s Media Watch program commenced in 1989 it has consisted of presenters laying down the (media behaviour) law as if they were a modern-day Moses descending from the mountain, commandments in hand. All of them have been left-of-centre types as befits a Conservative Free Zone. In over three decades, the taxpayer funded media “czar” has never had a conservative presenter.

  • ABC Media Watch again avoids key media stories

The big media stories of last week remained the media’s coverage of (i) the Ben Roberts-Smith case, (ii) the impact of the US/Israel-Iran War in Australia and (iii) the May Budget (including the NDIS).

However, once again, the ABC TV’s 10-person strong Media Watch team focused on its own interests.

Media Watch led with what it called “Hungary’s media recovery” – following the defeat of prime minister Viktor Orbán and his replacement with Peter Magyar in a democratic election. Despite the fact that Orban had been depicted by many in Australia and elsewhere as an oligarch and a dictator. Dictators do not hold free elections. Or, if they do, abide by the will of the people.

This was a significant story – but of little interest to Australia. However, Media Watch presenter Linton Besser used it to, wait for it, defend the ABC – his employer. Let’s go to the transcript:

Linton Besser: Viktor Orbán liked to boast he had turned Hungary into an “illiberal democracy” and this damaging transformation now so thoroughly rejected by his people offers sharp lessons including for Australia about the price that can be paid when the independence of public broadcasting is compromised and the press is permitted to become so highly concentrated.

It’s happening right now in the United States — and there’s no reason it couldn’t happen here too.

What a load of absolute tosh. The US has a free press. And the continuation of democracy in Australia is not dependent on the likes of Comrade Besser and his Gang of Ten at the taxpayer public broadcaster.

Last Monday, Media Watch also covered an Australian company PhotobookShop which was soliciting undisclosed influencer endorsements. Along with what Besser called “some jolly news for lovers of the gee-gees”. As in the horse races.

It was a story of the media coverage of a NSW government grant to the Scone Race Club and the media coverage of same. But, in the end, Besser concluded that there was no evidence that Peter V’landys – the chief executive officer of Racing NSW – had done anything wrong with respect to influencing the media’s coverage of this issue. A non-story story. But it gave Besser a chance to criticise a young member of the Murdoch family. Namely, Kalan Murdoch, son of Lachlan Murdoch, who directed a documentary about prize-winning jockey James McDonald. Lachlan Murdoch was quoted as praising the jockey in late March 2026. According to Linton Besser, this was big news – because Racing NSW selected Kalan Murdoch to direct the film. Unlike the Ben Roberts-Smith case, the impact of the US/Israel-Iran war on the May Budget and the fate of the NDIS. Really.

  • ABC RN Breakfast’s Right-of-Reply – by an ABC journalist

This year the low-rating but influential ABC Radio National Breakfast has introduced an ABC right-of-reply. An example occurred on Tuesday 21 April when presenter Sally Sara interviewed Andrew Bragg, the Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness.

Early on, Sara put it to Bragg that he had said last November that he opposed blaming migrants for the housing crisis and suggested that he had changed his mind to adapt to Opposition leader Angus Taylor’s view. Bragg said that he had claimed in November that migration is an input on the demand side with respect to the housing problem – but that if you cut migration to zero you would still have a whopping housing problem. Bragg has always focused on the supply side when discussing the housing crisis.

Then, after the interview, Sara spoke to ABC journalist Tom Crowley. This is how the discussion commenced:

Sally Sara: I’ll bring in our political correspondent Tom Crowley, who’s been listening in. Tom, what did you make of Andrew Bragg’s efforts there to square his previous comments on migration in the housing context with the Coalition’s stance?

Tom Crowley: Now, I thought there was a degree of discomfort in doing so Sally. I mean, it’s pretty clear to everybody that there are a couple of moderates in the party, and Andrew Bragg is one of them, who are less comfortable talking about migration. But at the current moment, with One Nation support in the polls being what it is, have decided to make their peace – perhaps a little bit more with it than they have in the past.

So, an ABC journalist interviews a politician. And then another ABC journalist comments on the interview. This assumes that listeners are incapable of working out for themselves how the politician performed. It was Tom Crowley’s opinion that Andrew Bragg showed a “degree of discomfort”. No more than that. Yet Bragg had no right-of-reply to Crowley’s right-of-reply.

JOHN-LAWS-STYLE DELIBERATE MISTAKE

As avid Media Watch Dog readers know only too well, Ellie’s (male) co-owner follows the teaching of the Australian radio legend – the late John Laws – in classifying any mistakes as “deliberate”. However, from time to time, Hendo plants a real deliberate mistake in MWD to reward his (pedantic) critics – who are looking for something to do at either Gin & Tonic Time or Hangover Time.

  • MWD’s “awkward” mistake re Margaret Simons

Well done to the avid Melbourne reader who picked up The John Laws Style Deliberate Mistake in last week’s issue. An error which the said avid reader described as “awkward”. Sure was.

In “Howler Watch” last week, reference was made to the fact that the leftist journalist and left-wing Australia Institute agitprop Amy Remeikis was being criticised for the errors in her book Where It All Went Wrong: The Case Against John Howard (Simon & Schuster). Gerard Henderson was the first to address this issue – initially in The Weekend Australian on 14 March 2026 and then in MWD Issues 766, 767 and 769.

However, Ellie’s (male) co-owner made the point that the leftist journalist Margaret Simons had all but escaped criticism for the significant errors in the book Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs (MUP, 2010) which she co-authored with the late prime minister. In fact, there are many more serious errors in the Fraser/Simons book than in the Remeikis book.

But MWD digresses. What was the Deliberate Mistake? – MWD hears avid readers cry.

Well, MWD referred to Comrade Simons as being an “honorary fellow at the Centre for Advanced Journalism at the University of Melbourne”. It’s The Centre for Advancing Journalism.

After all, no journalist advances journalism by filling a book on Malcolm Fraser with serious errors and failing to correct them – even if they may advance their careers.

HISTORY CORNER

  • In 1992 Malcolm Fraser was in denial about his criticism of Gough Whitlam in 1987

There was significant interest in the previous Media Watch Dog concerning former Liberal Party prime minister Malcolm Fraser and Sir John Kerr’s Dismissal of Gough Whitlam’s Labor government on 11 November 1975.

In “Howler Watch”, attention was drawn to the large number of serious errors – not typos – in Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs (MUP, 2010) which Fraser authored with left-wing journalist Margaret Simons. They have never been corrected (with one exception) despite the fact that the book is still in print – as a print-to-order publication. The historian Professor Brian Costar read the entire manuscript but missed the howlers. In his book, Fraser wrote that his own memory was “notoriously fallible”. Not a reassuring message from the author of memoirs.

Then in last week’s Documentation, MWD analysed the comments on the Dismissal by journalist Troy Bramston in his address to the conference titled “True Liberal: The Record and Legacy of the Fraser Government” held at Trinity College Melbourne on Friday 12 December 2025. MWD challenged the reliability of the sources used by Bramston (including Fraser) to establish his (contested) case that Kerr effectively tipped off Fraser that he was intent on dismissing Whitlam.

Now there is more information about the unreliability of Fraser as a witness – well, to anything. Between 11 February and 15 April 1987, Malcolm Fraser did an audio recording with Clyde Cameron, who had been a minister in the Whitlam Government. The sound recording was commissioned by the National Library of Australia.

What is extraordinary about what the NLA called this “reminiscential conversation” turns on the fact that, five years after the occasion, Fraser challenged the content of the recording. At the beginning of the 504-page transcript, available at the NLA online, the following comment appears:

In a letter dated 30 October 1992, Mr Fraser requested that the following statement be read in conjunction with his interview: “Over a period I was interviewed by Clyde Cameron, former Member for Hindmarsh and former Member of the Whitlam Government, for the Oral History project. In my opinion, this history will give an inaccurate view of a number of things that happened, especially during the period of the Whitlam government. On many occasions Mr Cameron seemed to be using me as a sounding board for his views, with which I often disagreed. He seemed to be especially putting views that were detrimental to Mr Whitlam. As a participant in this oral history, I want readers to know that many parts of the oral history are inaccurate. It was not, however, for me to start to debate with Mr Cameron, who had been employed in the Oral History Programme to interview me.” [signed] Malcolm Fraser.

How about that? It took Malcolm Fraser from 15 April 1987 (when the interview concluded) until 20 October 1992 (when Fraser wrote to the NLA) to complain about Cameron’s interviewing style. According to Fraser, he “often disagreed” with what Cameron put to him but it was not his role “to start a debate with Mr Cameron”. It is not clear why Fraser could not have contested the “detrimental” comments about Whitlam in his responses to Cameron at the time.

It is also not clear why Fraser spoke to Cameron for around 20 hours without realising that, allegedly, Cameron was using him to attack Whitlam. And why it took some five years for Fraser to bring his complaint to the NLA’s attention.

The likely explanation is that, by late 1992, Fraser had moved to the left and had palled up with Whitlam. Indeed, in 1991 Fraser and Whitlam appeared together at a rally in Melbourne in support of the left-of-centre Melbourne newspaper The Age.

It would appear that, by the early 1990s, Fraser wished to soften his past criticism of Whitlam and thereby soften his own image in the eyes of the Australian left. Some of this past criticism appeared early on in the Cameron/Fraser interview. For example, on 11 February 1987, in response to an innocuous question, Fraser said this:

I think if Gough had got away with it, that he would have been unstoppable and God alone knows what he might have done.

That’s what Fraser believed in 1975. That’s what he said in 1987. And that’s what in 1992 he wanted listeners/readers of his interview to disregard. Presumably, since he and Whitlam had become besties.

Which again raises the question: Why would anyone believe a person with a notoriously fallible memory who claimed in 1992 that he did not mean what he said in an interview in 1987?

Gough Whitlam & Malcolm Fraser in 1991 – as depicted in Gerard Henderson’s Malcolm Fraser: A Personal Reflection (Connor Court, 2025)

 

* * * *

Until Next Time – In the meantime, Keep Morale High.

* * * *