GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 775

22 May 2026

* * * *

 

* * * *

The Latest

  • ABC chair Kim Williams “Can I see the manager” moment

Nine’s The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on Friday 22 May carried a report by its media writer Calum Jaspan titled “ABC boss lays into divisive reporting on antisemitism”. And what an odd piece it is. Comrade Jaspan commenced his report as follows:

ABC chair Kim Williams has hit out at “inflammatory” and “divisive” media critics after News Corp published a piece attacking the national broadcaster’s coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Asked about a piece published in The Australian at the weekend under the online headline “ABC reporting on Gaza war failed nation, feeding into demonisation of Israel, fuelling antisemitism”, Williams issued a scathing statement. “Reporting that is highly charged and inflammatory, or lacking in evidence is divisive, undermines community cohesion and does not contribute to an informed or reasoned public debate,” said Williams. “This is especially important when dealing with the recent sensitivities.”

Williams’ complaints are about Chris Kenny’s column in The Weekend Australian last Saturday titled “How ABC’s Gaza coverage fuelled antisemitism”.

For the record, Kenny’s 1546-word piece was replete with evidence – which Williams declined to address. The ABC chair told Jaspan that the ABC “stands by its reporting of the conflict in the Middle East”. Quelle Surprise! So much so that he has contacted News Corp’s executive chair Michael Miller to complain about Kenny’s column. [Does your man Williams regard Mr Miller as student Kenny’s headmaster? I wonder – MWD Editor.]

Just a reminder. Mr Williams presides over the taxpayer funded broadcaster which is a conservative free zone. The ABC is replete with left-of-centre or leftist journalists and it is devoid of conservative presenters, producers or editors.

Your man Williams is both deluded and in denial if he truly believes that the ABC’s coverage of the Israel Gaza War and the US/Israel/Iran War has been balanced. For example, the ABC’s two leading reporters – John Lyons and Laura Tingle – are vehement critics of contemporary Israel and the Trump administration in the United States. This is evident in their reporting.

  • ABC removes Jane Caro from its website

Media Watch Dog will return to this issue next week. However, it is important to record that on Friday 22 May ABC management junked an 8-minute episode of its Behind the News program which is directed at school children. Titled Public v Private Schools, it interviewed Jane Caro – a vehement critic of non-government schools, including low-fee ones. No other view was heard. This issue has been covered in The Australian by the media editor James Madden.

Over the years, Media Watch Dog has drawn attention to the close association between the ABC and the leftist think tank The Australia Institute. Guess what? The ABC’s Behind the News episode was inspired by Jane Caro’s recently published book Rich Kid, Poor Kid: The battle for public education. And Comrade Caro’s publisher is, wait for it, Australia Institute Press. Enough said.

  • David Marr sneers at Australians who feel the pain of the budget

Some journalists who have little or no experience in business do not understand that small businesses are impacted by changes to the Capital Gains Tax and some individuals with trusts are not wealthy. On Monday 18 May, SBS political reporter Anna Henderson did the Australian politics slot on ABC Radio National Late Night Live with presenter David “I have a Pymble accent” Marr.

This is how Comrade Marr responded to Anna Henderson’s suggestion that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was having trouble explaining the budget – with mockery concerning the words “hurt” and “pain”.

Let’s go to the transcript:

Anna Henderson: I think at the moment it’s [the Albanese Labor government’s] not managing to sell this in the way that it was hoping to. But you know, it’s early days. We’re a week after the budget, two years from the election –

David Marr: Maybe not all the dust has settled. But Anna, do you love the word “hurt” appearing. You know, this is going to hurt small business, and it’s going to hurt people with trusts, and it’s going to hurt business in general. As if, as if we’re not just talking here about, you know, paying a few bills. But it’s pain, it’s the pain. And, of course, I’m also in love with the argument that to tax people is to destroy their aspirations.

Marr’s mocking tone towards Australians in businesses with respect to capital gains tax and those who have trusts is evidence of how out-of-touch he is. The truth is that some Australians have been hurt and feel pain concerning the likely impact of the budget on their economic security. Most Australians are not in receipt of taxpayers’ money as a salary – unlike David Marr. Can You Bear It?

[Your man Marr is a great broadcaster. But perhaps the inner-city dweller should get out more – as the saying goes. As far as I can work out, he has never run anything except for to a bus every now and then – and has spent his life as an employee. Let’s hope Comrade Marr – he of Sydney’s North Shore – does not read Media Watch Dog. I wouldn’t like to hurt him or make him feel the pain. – MWD Editor.]

  • Nick Bryant does not challenge “progressive” Hannah Ferguson’s acceptance of broken promises

When former BBC journalist Nick Bryant took over as the presenter of ABC Radio National Saturday Extra in 2025 he promised to bring listeners “a diversity of voices”.

For the most part, it hasn’t worked out that way. There are only a few political conservatives heard on Saturday Extra but many left-of-centre and leftist types or “progressives” as they like to be called.

On Saturday 16 May, your man Bryant had a discussion on the budget with ABC economics reporter Peter Martin along with Hannah Ferguson, the founder of Cheek Media. Martin was broadly supportive of Jim Chalmers’ budget – which he described as being essentially about imposing a flat 30 per cent capital gains tax on unearned income.

And then there was the 27-year-old Hannah Ferguson who described herself as an “openly progressive person” who wants much more government intervention in the economy. She also supported what she termed the “attack on people that build wealth outside of formal employment”. Ferguson added:

Hannah Ferguson:  I think that what we’ve seen from so much of the Murdoch Media this week is such a boring, reductive conversation that panders to a minority, when most Australians agree that something fundamental needed to change. And so this broken promises rhetoric isn’t the interesting part. These discussions, like, you know, wage earners versus people who have, you know, earnings from property portfolios. This is the crux of the conversation that needs to be happening, and it’s a far more interesting perspective to look at.

Nick Bryant: And just give me a sense of the sort of response from the people who follow your work. I mean, you tap into that kind of demographic in a way that Peter and I don’t. What’s that response been?

Bryant did not contest Ferguson’s false claim that only the Murdoch Media took on the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s broken promises about not changing negative gearing or the Capital Gains Tax. Even ABC 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson challenged the PM on this. Nor did Bryant understand that many young Australians are opposed to the Albanese Government’s tax agenda. Since they are attempting to gain wealth in small businesses, start-ups, shares, cryptocurrency, ETFs (exchange traded funds) and the like and are concerned about changes to Capital Gains Tax along with restrictions on the purchase of negatively geared properties.

Bryant accepted Ferguson’s view that the budget was universally popular among young people. That’s called, not reading the nation. Can You Bear It?

  • Opposition Shadow Treasurer “learns” Nine’s Charles Croucher on Capital Gains Taxes

While on the topic of journalists and the Australian taxation system, did anyone see this exchange between shadow treasurer Tim Wilson and Nine’s political editor Charles Croucher at the National Press Club last Wednesday? Let’s go to the transcript during the Q&A period.

Host (Tom Connolly): Charles Croucher from Nine Network

Charles Croucher (Nine): Thank you Tom. Thank you Tim. The fundamental argument here seems to be a discussion of taxation and investment and risk versus taxation and labour. With the average tax rate of a nurse is between 20 and 25 per cent, same with teachers. Coal miner or iron ore miner is probably double that. Are you fundamentally okay with someone selling an investment property or business or shares or crypto and being taxed at a lower rate than a nurse or a teacher and half the rate of a coal miner?

Tim Wilson: Well firstly, depends on when they’ve purchased the asset etcetera, etcetera. And remember, people buy assets with post-tax income. Like this seems to be completely forgotten in a lot of the conversation.

Quite so. Most people buy assets with earned income on which they have previously paid tax. Yet Nine’s political editor seems completely unaware of the fact. Can You Bear It?

[No. Not really, now that you ask. One of the problems with the media is that many journalists have limited, if any, experience in running a business. But, being confident types, they manage to hide this. – MWD Editor.]

  • Reuben Kaye, a non-funny comedian throws the switch to Adolf Hitler

While on the topic of Nine Entertainment, on 18 May the Sydney Morning Herald published a review of comedian and drag queen Reuben Kaye’s Hard to Swallow comedy performance at Sydney’s Enmore Theatre. The reviewer Daniel Herborn commenced his piece as follows:

Many comedians are concerned about the rise of fascism worldwide but few are responding to it with such great jokes and such bad taste as Reuben Kaye. Concerned that society is making a right turn “faster than Caitlyn Jenner at a busy intersection” the opening stretch of his new show sees him making indecorous but wickedly funny quips at the expense of Jeffrey Epstein, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk and Melania Trump, the latter of whom he dubs the Temu Eva Braun.

What a load of absolute tosh. As the historian Michael Mann wrote in Fascists (CUP, 2004): “As a word usage today, it [fascist] appears largely as the exclamation ‘Fascist!’ a term of imprecise abuse hurled at people we do not like.”

Clearly Comrade Kaye does not like such so-called fascists as the late Charlie Kirk or the US First Lady Melania Trump. How great a joke is it to laugh at a father of two who was assassinated by an alleged leftist activist. And what’s so funny about comparing Mrs Trump to a cheaper “Temu” version of Adolf Hitler’s partner Eva Braun? As readers know, Temu is an online platform known for its very cheap prices. With this comparison, Kaye implies that President Donald J. Trump is a modern Hitler. As someone with Jewish ancestors, Comrade Kaye should know better than this and should be able to find more appropriate sources to feed his attempts at humour.

Yet Daniel Herborn did not find problems with Kaye equating western societies with fascism. It seems that Hard to Swallow does not contain any “indecorous but wickedly funny jokes” at the proponents of radical Islam. Could this be because drag queens do not last long in Islamist theocracies like Iran or Gaza under the control of Hamas? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

[Maybe it’s old age – but I don’t find references to Hitler and fascism funny. It would appear that, in the late Barry Humphries’ words, Comrade Kaye just identifies as a comedian. – MWD Editor.]

An ABC Update – With Reference to SBS

  • ABC & SBS reject definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the Australian government and the Royal Commission

Nine Newspapers reported on 19 May that both the ABC and SBS have declined to adopt the definition of anti-Semitism which has been endorsed by the Albanese government, the Royal Commission headed by Virginia Bell KC, and Jillian Segal, Australia’s special envoy to combat anti-Semitism.

The ABC provided a comment to Nine and Nine has seen the SBS’ talking notes on the issue.

The ABC maintains that the implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which is accepted by Australia, could be used to stifle legitimate debate. This is the point of the definition which states: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” – implying that some criticism of Israel can be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Such as, it seems, any references that the Jewish state has no rights.

The ABC told Nine that adoption of the definition could be used to stifle legitimate debate. SBS also said that adoption of the definition would inhibit its ability to report on issues in a balanced and impartial way. This overlooks the fact that large sections of the coverage of the Israel/Gaza war by the ABC and SBS have been biased against Israel.

Media Watch Dog approached ABC Communications for comment on the report that the taxpayer funded public broadcaster will not follow the Australian government’s definition of anti-Semitism. An ABC spokesperson replied as follows:

The ABC recognises that many organisations find the IHRA definition useful but have chosen not to adopt it. This is consistent with the ABC’s longstanding practice to maintain independent editorial policies, which is a key element of ensuring public trust. Editorial independence of the ABC is fundamental to its effective operation as the national public broadcaster.

The ABC has its own clear and established guidance regarding a range of issues, including antisemitism and hate speech in general. The IHRA’s core definition of antisemitism is broadly consistent with the ABC’s definition. However, the IHRA’s examples are contested and in some cases risk conflating legitimate political criticism with antisemitism. We note these matters are before the Royal Commission and notwithstanding our obligation to independence we look forward to any findings it may make.

It is not clear what this statement means. The Royal Commission has adopted a definition of anti-Semitism which the ABC has declined to adopt. But the public broadcaster declares that it will “look forward” to “any findings” that the Royal Commission “may make”. Even though it will not adopt the Royal Commission’s finding about the appropriate definition of anti-Semitism. Work that out if you can.

  • The End is not so Nigh: Good news in the world of climate change models

There was enormous interest in last week’s The End is Nigh segment, in which MWD reported on an interview with Sarah Wilson on Radio National Saturday Extra. Ms Wilson, perhaps most famous for hosting Network 10 reality cooking show MasterChef Australia, has written a book on how to live a (relatively) happy life during the end of the world. She was given a relatively free rein by Saturday Extra presenter Nick Bryant to rant about the impending climate catastrophe.

This week brings good news for those, like Ms Wilson, who are consumed by visions of rising sea levels and melting glaciers.

It seems the most extreme climate change scenarios are being dropped from the next round of projections put out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC draws on projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which is released by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), International Science Council (ISC) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO’s IOC).

So, what are the WCRP, WMO, ISC and IOC going to say in the CMIP? Well, a new paper lays out the emissions scenarios for CMIP7:

For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before: on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.

In other words, the most disastrous climate change scenarios, which were always considered unlikely but nevertheless dominated media coverage, are now considered totally implausible. The highest projections for emissions now come in far below the previous worst-case scenario.

Hopefully, in time, this good news will filter down to the ABC and other left-leaning media organisations.

A Fran Kelly Moment

  • Fran Kelly censors reasons why there was a controversy about Khaled Sabsabi representing Australia at the Venice Biennale

As avid MWD readers know well, ABC presenter Fran Kelly is the embodiment of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster as Hotel California – as depicted in the Eagles’ song of the same name. To wit, you can check out of the ABC but you never leave.

And so it has come to pass that after Comrade Kelly stepped down as presenter of ABC Radio National’s Breakfast she moved to host the ABC TV’s interview program Frankly. This, er, frankly was a one series dud. And not long after the demise of Frankly, Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly got another role on the taxpayers’ teat. This time presenting ABC Radio National’s Hour between 6 pm and 7 pm.

The Venice Biennale is currently under way. Once again it is very much a left-wing stack. Australia is being represented with two works by the Australian artist Khaled Sabsabi. Last year, he was chosen by the taxpayer funded Creative Australia to represent Australia. The decision was subsequently overturned by Creative Australia which led to an outcry by many members of Australia’s left-wing dominated artistic community. In the wake of the protests, Sabsabi was reinstated.

On 7 May, Sabsabi and his curator Michael Dagostino were interviewed by Fran Kelly on the ABC Radio’s The National Hour. Kelly discussed the fact that Creative Australia initially chose Sabsabi as Australia’s representative before changing its mind then changing its mind again. But listeners were not informed about the nature of Sabsabi’s work which led to the controversy in the first place.

For the record, in his 2006 Thank You Very Much video, Sabsabi has President George W. Bush saying “Thank you very much” after footage is shown of al-Qaeda terrorists flying jets into the Twin Towers in New York on 11 September 2001, leading to the deaths of thousands of individuals of all religious backgrounds.

And in 2007, Sabsabi produced the video “You”. It depicted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (1960-2024) reciting the words “O most honourable, pure and generous people, may God’s peace, mercy and blessings be upon you”. These words were used by Nasrallah at the end of Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel that Hezbollah had initiated.

In short, the controversy over Sabsabi’s work turned on the fact that he was seen, rightly or wrongly, to have been soft on such terrorists as Osama bin Laden and Nasrallah. Fran Kelly did not tell her listeners this. And so the interview took place devoid of the factual background.

Verily, A Fran Kelly Moment.

  • Henry Reynolds – nearly once a (teenage) communist

Media Watch Dog just loves exclusives which are real exclusives.  So it was lotsa fun to read James Dowling’s exclusive in The Australian on 23 April.  Headed “Councillor barred for ASIO file attack”, it told the story of Hobart Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds and Hobart City Councillor Louise Elliott.  Anna Reynolds, a one-time Greens candidate, is the daughter of former ALP senator Margaret Reynolds and left-wing historian Henry Reynolds.

The long story is that, on 11 March, the Tasmanian Local Government Investigating Panel suspended Cr Elliot for two months for having breached the Hobart City Council Code of Conduct with respect to comments she had made about the Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds and some others.  Cr Elliot was also required to provide a written apology to Margaret Reynolds.

What’s the point of this? – MWD hears avid readers cry.  Well, the Investigating Panel found that Cr Elliot had embarrassed Anna Reynolds by making reference to her parents – and had acted in a “divisive” manner “in relation to the Council and her fellow councillors”.

This is how the matter was covered in Pulse Tasmania Online on 22 April:

The complaint related to Facebook posts made between February and May 2025. The document Elliot shared was dated December 4 1967 and references the parents of Hobart Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds. It states that Anna Reynold’s father, historian Henry Reynolds, had attempted to join the Communist Party while a student at the University of Tasmania “but his application was rejected”. The document also suggests Anna Reynold’s father and her mother Margaret “would probably join the Townsville branch of the Australia-USSR Society in 1968”.

 Elliot said the document was freely available online and not confidential. The panel found the post “had no purpose other than as an attempt to cause political harm to Cr Reynolds by association”. It found the caption sought to infer Margaret Reynolds and Cr Reynolds were members of the Greens. In a witness statement, Margaret Reynolds said she was “shocked” by the use of her personal information and felt Elliot had “exploited” her and her husband’s names. As part of the outcome, Elliot has been ordered to apologise to Margaret Reynolds for causing “embarrassment and offence”.

Now, obviously, Anna Reynolds is not responsible for what her parents said or did over half a century ago in Townsville.  But the revelation says something about the young Henry Reynolds.

Reynolds was born in March 1938. According to ASIO’s files, he was about 20 years old when he applied to join the Communist Party of Australia circa 1958.  ASIO’s files indicate that his application was rejected. Margaret Reynolds did not contest the veracity of the ASIO report. The Investigating Panel had this to say:

Cr Reynolds said that Cr Elliot “must have dug around in the web” to find articles about her parents which she posted along with a caption that stated, “the Greens are today’s Communist Party, but with many more men in dresses and young girls with double mastectomies”. Cr Reynolds said that this statement was derogatory and inaccurate as her parents are neither Green nor Communists. In her witness statement Margaret Reynolds stated she had never seen the information Cr Elliot posted on her Facebook and “was shocked by her use of our personal information to pursue her political agenda.” Cr Reynolds said that this particular post has caused both her and Ms Reynolds embarrassment, hurt and offence.

So, Margret Reynolds and Anna Reynolds were offended by Cr Elliot’s post.  In view of this, it would have been advisable not to raise the matter with the Tasmanian Local Government Code of Conduct Panel.  Since, without this, the story was unlikely to become widely known.

But there is a genuine question here. At aged about 20 in December 1958 –  as a University of Tasmania student – what was Reynolds thinking when he attempted to join the Communist Party of Australia (CPA)?  In 1958, the CPA was funded by Josef Stalin’s heirs in Moscow.  The Soviet Union (USSR) had successfully crushed the Hungarian Uprising in 1956. The CPA supported the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution and was backing the Stalinist communist regime in Budapest.  The CPA did not split with the Soviet Union until 1968.

Henry Reynolds is a clever, well-educated man. At aged about 20 in 1958, he should have been aware that the Soviet Union was a brutal communist totalitarian dictatorship.  Even so, he chose to join the Communist Party but failed to achieve his aim. Henry Reynolds was approached for comment. Here we go:

Gerard Henderson to Henry Reynolds – 20 May 2026, 3.53 pm

Good afternoon Henry

You will be aware of the recent reports in The Australian and Pulse Tasmania that you applied (unsuccessfully) to join the Communist Party of Australia in 1958.

I am aware that Margaret Reynolds has been quoted as saying something about the report.  But I have not located any comment by you.

My question: Have you made a comment?  If so, where can I locate it?

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

Henry Reynolds to Gerard Henderson – 20 May 2026, 8.09 pm

Hello Gerard,

Nice to hear from you. I was amazed that this story surfaced after such a long time. But yes I did once ring up a leading CPA member in Hobart late at night while quite drunk. Not surprising they had no interest in my call and suggested I needed the think more clearly about why I was interested in the party. Very wise of them because my recollection is that I made the call as a dare and another member of the group rang up the Catholic Bishop.

Regards

Henry

* * * *

How frightfully interesting, don’t you think? Just as well an inebriated Henry Reynolds phoned the Communist Party of Australia and not, say, the Nazi Party. That would have been a career-ending move.

It’s surprising that the CPA was not particularly interested in recruits at the time. If one of Henry Reynolds’ Comrades really did ring Guilford Young, the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart in 1958, he probably would have been around with a bucket of Holy Water to do an on-site baptism irrespective of whether the willing convert was drunk or sober.

You Must Remember This.

[I certainly will. Comrade Reynolds surely has a good memory. I struggle to remember my phone calls at age 20 – even when I was sober. Alas, it seems that ASIO was not interested in me at the time – so there is scant hope of a reminder. – MWD Editor.]

History Corner

  • Crikey’s confused message about the real United Australia Party (1931-1944)

Thanks to the avid Rockhampton reader who drew the attention of Ellie’s (male) co-owner to the Crikey newsletter of 4 May. In a segment titled “Something Better – or much worse? An incomplete history of splinter parties in Australian politics”, Charlie Lewis wrote about the United Australia Party. The heading was “Ununited Australia Party (the proper one).” Comrade Lewis had this to say:

Summing up the general seriousness of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party was a section of its website that claimed that it had first formed government under prime minister Joe Lyons in 1931. This, like much of what Palmer said at the time, was palpable bollocks, though Lyons did become PM with a party that also called itself “United Australia”.

Lyons had been postmaster-general and then acting treasurer in James Scullin’s Labor government. Falling out with Scullin when the depression hit in 1930 over the best policy response, Lyons resigned from the cabinet and then the Labor Party. He then poached four right-wing Labor MPs and joined Australia’s ship-jumping GOAT Billy Hughes to start the United Australia Party. At the next election in 1931, a massive swing delivered UAP into government, and Lyons became prime minister.

It’s true that some years ago Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (which was originally formed in 2013) claimed on its website that Palmer’s UAP was the successor of former Australian prime ministers Billy Hughes, Joseph Lyons and Robert Menzies. All of whom, for a time, were UAP members. This was absolute tosh.

However, Lewis’ history is superficial. Joseph Lyons, who had been a senior minister in James Scullin’s Labor government, quit the ministry in January 1931 in protest at the fact that Scullin had reappointed Ted Theodore as treasurer along with a disagreement about economic policy. In March 1931, Lyons and five others quit the Labor Party – becoming what was called the Group of Six. On 7 May 1931, the Nationalist Party (then the main non-Labor party) invited Lyons to become the leader of a United Australia Party – comprising the Nationalist Party and the Group of Six. Contrary to Comrade Lewis’ claim, the UAP was not a “splinter” party.

Lyons was not present in the Nationalist Party room when the decision was made to appoint him leader. So Lyons became Leader of the Opposition with John Latham, the former leader of the Nationalists, as deputy UAP leader.

To repeat, Joseph Lyons did not form the United Australia Party. He was invited to join and lead a new party (the UAP) by the Nationalists – the then Opposition party. One time prime minister Billy Hughes joined the UAP because he was an existing member of the Nationalists. Robert Menzies joined the UAP for the same reason. Lyons died in office in May 1939 while prime minister and was succeeded by Menzies.

The UAP was wound up in 1944 and its existing members helped form the Liberal Party of Australia under the leadership of Robert Menzies (who had stepped down as Nationalist Party prime minister in August 1941).

All this is explained in Anne Henderson’s Joseph Lyons: The People’s Prime Minister (New South, 2011) and Gerard Henderson’s Menzies’ Child: The Liberal Party of Australia (HarperCollins, 2nd Edition, 1994).

So, Lyons did not start the UAP – and the UAP was not a breakaway from Labor. Rather, Lyons joined the Nationalists after it invited him to lead a new main non-Labor Party – i.e. the United Australia Party.

[By the way, I noticed that MWD fave Vikki Campion, in her Daily Telegraph column on Saturday 2 May, referred to a certain “Sir Joseph Lyons”. Lyons, who was a one-time Labor premier of Tasmania and a Catholic, would not have accepted a knighthood – even if it were offered. Working class/middle class Catholics of Irish origin had more regard for the Pope in the Vatican than the King in Buckingham Palace during Lyons’ time. – MWD Editor.]

 

* * * *

Until Next Time.

* * * * *