Latest news with #SallySara
ABC News
26-05-2025
- ABC News
Sally Sara
Sally Sara is an award-winning journalist, writer and author. She has reported from more than 40 countries as a foreign correspondent with the ABC, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Sally has won two Walkley Awards, one for television news and the other for radio. She has twice been a finalist in the Graham Perkin Award — Australian Journalist of the Year. She has won four UN Media Awards and been nominated for AACTA and Logie Awards. In 2007 she was selected as the International Women's Media Foundation Elizabeth Neuffer Fellow in Washington DC. Sally has written for the New York Times and Boston Globe. Her book, GOGO MAMA, profiled the lives of 12 African women and was longlisted for the Walkley Non-Fiction Book Award. In 2011, Sally was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia, AM, for service to journalism and the community. She grew up in town of Port Broughton in South Australia.
Sky News AU
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
ABC journalist Sally Sara lets Zali Steggall spout 'absolute tosh', while Niki Savva bags ALP's right wing in 'overwritten' think piece
One of the clear messages which emerged from the May 2025 election was that the Teals have no immediate political relevance. The Labor government has a large majority in the House of Representatives and the Teals have no senators. Since it is expected that Labor will win at the next election scheduled for early 2028, the Teals will probably have no influence until at least 2031 (if they last that long). As Media Watch Dog has demonstrated, the ABC gave the Teals (Kate Chaney, Zoe Daniel, Monique Ryan, Sophie Scamps, Allegra Spender, Zali Steggall) a great run in the lead up to 3 May. The Teal candidates in Bradfield (Nicolette Boele) and Wannon (Alex Dyson) were also the recipients of soft interviews on the taxpayer funded broadcaster. Despite the political realities, Zali Steggall received another soft interview on the ABC on Thursday 15 May. It occurred on ABC Radio National Breakfast with Sally Sara in the presenter's chair. This is how the ABC introduced the segment: Zali Steggall renews call to cut emissions. While the Coalition is reviewing its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, climate-focused Independents re-elected to parliament say the next big challenge is Labor setting the 2035 emissions targets – which it didn't do before the election. In fact, the Teals are not in a situation to challenge anyone in the Commonwealth Parliament. Nevertheless, this is how the oh-so-soft interview commenced: Sally Sara: Climate-focused independents re-elected to Parliament say that the next big challenge is Labor setting its 2035 emissions target. Which it didn't do before the election. The independent member for Warringah Zali Steggall is my guest. Zali Steggall, welcome back to breakfast. Zali Steggall: Thank you good morning. Sally Sara: This week you've renewed your calls for the government to set a target of a minimum of 75 per cent cut of emissions by 2035. Why that number? Zali Steggall: Well, because we have to remember the purpose of the Paris Agreement is actually to keep temperatures within liveable band range, so we minimise the impact of climate risk, of catastrophic events that will completely disrupt our economy, environment and communities. Now to stay on a scientifically based trajectory that keeps temperatures within check requires an acceleration of our decarbonisation and that is a minimum of 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. What a load of absolute tosh. The Albanese government has no reason to bow to the Teals' demands. And even if the Teals' demands for a 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035 were met, it would have absolutely no impact on the climate. Especially since China, India, Russia and the United States are not cutting emissions and Australia produces just over 1 per cent of total global emissions. And yet the likes of Zali Steggall still get free publicity at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster which remains a Conservative Free Zone with no conservative presenters, producers or editors for any of its news and current affairs outlets on television, radio or online. CAN YOU BEAR IT? ABC 7.30 PRESENTS LIBERAL PARTY ANTAGONIST JUDITH BRETT AS A 'LIBERAL PARTY HISTORIAN' Laura Tingle, the ABC TV's 7.30 political correspondent (who is soon to become the ABC's global affairs editor), is a long-time critic of the Liberal Party – except when it is led by a leader like Malcolm Turnbull. Judith Brett (emeritus professor at La Trobe University) is a long-time critic of the Liberal Party – except when it is led by a leader like Malcolm Turnbull. So it was no surprise, then, that La Tingle only interviewed Dr Brett (for a doctor she is) in the 7.30 report segment titled 'New Leader' which aired on Tuesday 13 May. The segment contained commentary by Tingle along with clips from Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley's first media conference plus extracts from an interview with Brett. Comrade Brett's pre-recorded comments were placed in the segment on four occasions. Let's go to the transcript where Judith Brett was introduced: Laura Tingle: Liberal Party historian Judith Brett says history doesn't make her optimistic that the party can overcome its divisions. Judith Brett: Well, look, I wouldn't be very confident at all. But I guess we have to give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage, and the seriousness of the loss should surely be a wake-up call that they have to, they have to move back to the centre. Because, as people say again and again, the centre is where Australian elections are won and lost – and they've clearly drifted too far to the right. Turn it up. This is misinformation to borrow an ABC fave term. Judith Brett is not a 'Liberal Party historian'. Sure, she has written about the Liberal Party of Australia. Most notably her 1992 book Robert Menzies' Forgotten People . As Gerard Henderson documents in his Menzies Child: the Liberal Party of Australia (HarperCollins 1998), Brett was highly critical of the Liberal Party's founder. This is not understood by those who have not read Brett's work from cover to cover. In fact, Judith Brett is a left-of-centre academic. For example, in the early 1980s she co-edited the avowedly leftist magazine Arena. Writing in The Age on 17 July 1983, Brett declared: 'The Liberal Party in the 1980s seems doomed'. That's four decades ago. However, Comrade Brett has not retired her crystal ball. Writing in the leftist The Guardian , on 5 May 2025, Brett declared that 'the Liberal Party is in dire straits'. This piece was written a mere four decades after she said the very same Liberal Party seemed 'doomed'. During her appearance on 7.30, Brett said that the contest between Andrew Peacock and John Howard in the late 1980s and early 1990s as to who would lead the Liberal Party was 'partly driven by ideological differences over social policy, not so much economic policy'. This is hopelessly wrong. The principal policy disagreement between the two turned on economic policy. And then the La Trobe University Professor had this to say: Judith Brett: The Liberal Party historically, certainly under [Robert] Menzies and under [Malcolm] Fraser, put itself forward as the party that provided competent government. And there was, there was philosophical values there around individualism and freedom. But, very much, it sold itself in terms of its competence that compared with the more poorly educated Labor members. What about John Howard? – MWD hears avid readers cry. Menzies won seven elections as Liberal Party leader. Fraser won three elections. And Howard won four elections. Contrary to the leftist Brett's implied claim, the Howard government was competent and had philosophical values. MWD has no problem with Comrade Brett being interviewed on 7.30 . The problem with last Tuesday's program is that it provided no viewpoint diversity. Someone who disagreed with Brett could have commented that, when they were prime ministers, both Menzies and Fraser were conservatives. And someone could have said a positive word about John Howard who is, after all, Australia's second-longest serving prime minister. Last Tuesday's 7.30 demonstrated, once again, that the taxpayer funded public broadcaster is a Conservative Free Zone. Can You Bear It? JOHN LYONS 'TRANSLATES' PRESIDENT TRUMP IN SAUDI ARABIA FROM WASHINGTON D.C. WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM THE STARS AND STRIPES As Media Watch Dog readers are well aware, speaking from Washington DC on 18 March, John Lyons told ABC TV News Breakfast viewers that his new role as ABC Americas Editor was to 'translate the Trump presidency to an Australian audience'. Fancy that. Soon after, your man Lyons virtually disappeared from ABC TV and Radio. After an inquiry from Ellie's (male) co-owner, the ABC advised that, in fact, the ABC Americas Editor had returned to Australia. It seems that the reason was related to the publication of his book on Ukraine. But here's the good news. John Lyons is back in Trump Land and Australians who follow the ABC can have the Trump administration interpreted for them. What a relief. To demonstrate that he is back in 'The Land of the Free', the ABC's Americas Editor posed in front of a United States flag to translate President Trump to Australians. In fact, he delivered a 377-word long monologue that ran uninterrupted for over two minutes. Here's how it commenced: James Glenday: Here's Americas Editor John Lyons, who is in Washington. John Lyons: President Trump has used his first trip to the Middle East since his re-election to outline how he sees the world in these deeply troubled times. Firstly, he could not have been more effusive towards his host. Saudi Arabia's leader, Mohammed bin Salman…. And here's how the monologue concluded: …Based on this extraordinary speech that [Trump] doctrine could be summed up with four words – don't mess with America. How about that? The ABC Americas Editor translated President Donald Trump's Saudi Arabia speech, for Australians, from the United States. He could have made the same report from the ABC's headquarters in Sydney's inner-city Ultimo. Can You Bear It? FIONA SCOTT STATES – AND SALLY SARA DOES NOT CORRECT – THAT JOSEPH LYONS WAS A 'LABOR PRIME MINISTER' It was Hangover Time on Sunday 11 May. Even so, Ellie's (male) co-owner managed to read Angira Bharadwaj's 'Exclusive' in the News Corp Sunday papers. It told the tale of yet another occasion of a senior Liberal Party operative publicly criticising the Liberal Party. In this instance, Fiona Scott – the former Liberal Party MP for Lindsay in Western Sydney and currently a federal vice-president of the Liberal Party. Ms Scott, a self-declared Liberal Party 'moderate', had an article published in the News Corp newspapers that very Sunday and also spoke to Ms Bharadwaj. Referring to her victory in Lindsay in 2013 under the leadership of the conservative Tony Abbott, Fiona Scott had this to say: In 2013, we ran on three words: Hope. Reward. Opportunity. They weren't slogans — they were values. And we backed them with a plan that made sense to Australians. Where is that now? This is just denial. In 2013, Tony Abbott ran on three slogans (not words). Namely, 'Stop the boats', 'End the waste' and 'Axe the Tax'. The references were to (i) unlawful immigration, (ii) government waste and (iii) the Labor government's carbon tax. By the way, the Liberal Party 'moderate' Scott was defeated by Labor at the 2016 election – when, under leadership of the 'moderate' Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal Party lost a total of 14 seats. Being a self-proclaimed 'moderate' Liberal opens up the ABC door to interviews – most notably Mr Turnbull himself. And so it came to pass that Fiona Scott, on Wednesday 14 May, was invited to ABC Radio National Breakfast to discuss the Liberal Party. Sally Sara – a Liberal Party antagonist – was in the presenter's chair. Let's go to that part of the (oh-so-soft) interview where discussion turned on the Liberal Party's founder Robert Menzies: Fiona Scott: Now, it was out of that [desire for change] that the Liberal Party was formed in the first place in the '40s. And Menzies brought all those different groups together. In fact, he brought together one of the units, which was the back end of the suffragette movement. You know, bringing Enid Lyons into the parliament for her to also be the first minister, female minister. I mean, let's remember she was the wife of a Labor prime minister. But these things sit with some of these early achievements of our party. How do we forget those? How do we move away from those? How do we get back to those? Sally Sara: You're listening to Radio National Breakfast , and my guest is Liberal Party vice-president, Fiona Scott. Why do you think the Liberals were so resoundingly defeated in the election? Ms Scott holds the female position of Liberal Party vice-president. The male position is held by Gerard Wheeler. In view of this, it would be expected that Ms Scott would have a general understanding of the history of the Liberal Party and its immediate predecessor the United Australia Party. Sure, Enid Lyons was the first female member of the House of Representatives and the first female cabinet minister – having been appointed to this position by Prime Minister Robert Menzies. But Enid Lyons was not 'the wife of a Labor prime minister'. Joseph Lyons, a one-time leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania, quit Labor in 1931 following a disagreement over economic policy and helped form the United Australia Party. Lyons was UAP prime minister from January 1932 until his death in office in April 1939. So, there you have it. Fiona Scott believes that Joseph Lyons was a Labor prime minister. And an experienced journalist like Sally Sara did not correct her. How's that for misinformation? And here's another question: Can You Bear It? A NIKI SAVVA MOMENT IN WHICH NIKI SAVVA CHANGES TACK AND FANGS THE VICTORIAN LABOR RIGHT FACTION LED BY RICHARD MARLES BEFORE FANGING POLITICAL CONSERVATIVES IN THE LIBERAL PARTY Did anyone read Niki Savva's column in Nine Newspapers – The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – on Thursday 15 May? It was titled 'Told to wait, Marles blew things up.' Now readers of the left-of-centre Sydney newspapers are used to Comrade Savva bagging various Liberal Party leaders, deputy leaders and so on. Except for the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull – who, these days, does not express public support for the party he once led. So, it was a change to see Ms Savva bagging the Australian Labor Party – or, rather, a section of the ALP's right-wing faction. Here's how the piece commenced: It says a lot, none of it flattering, about the mentality of senior politicians on the front lines of the major parties, that as soon as the election campaign ended, losers and winners began devouring one another. Young cannibals joined with older mentors to inflict mayhem and misery across the spectrum. Labor's months-long disciplined focus on the issues that mattered to Australians evaporated in an egocentric grab for power spearheaded by the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles. At a time when Labor should have been rejoicing or enjoying the spectacle of their opponents fragmenting, Marles and his Victorian right-wing factional bosses tipped a big bucket of cow manure over Anthony Albanese, besmirching his resounding victory by ruthlessly executing two of the government's better performers, Mark Dreyfus and Ed Husic. Somewhat overwritten don't you think? With those references to cannibalism, cow-manure and all that. As to the Labor Party's post-election contest for positions – has it really been the case that this has inflicted 'mayhem and misery' across the land? This is very much the output of a Canberra-based journalist who has spent too much time hanging around Parliament House. The essential point was this. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles heads Labor's Victorian right-wing faction. Following the election it was entitled to an extra position in the ministry for one of its members out of the general Labor Right. He got what he wanted, and Victorian MP Sam Rae was appointed to the ministry. Marles also chose to replace the (then) Attorney General Mark Dreyfus KC with Daniel Mulino. Rightly or wrongly, this is the way factional politics works in the ALP. Labor MPs who do not belong to a faction are not eligible for ministerial positions. This, no doubt, is the reason why the talented Dr Andrew Leigh (the Labor MP for Fraser in the ACT) is not a member of the Albanese Government's Ministry. According to Savva, the NSW ALP right-wing faction – led by Chris Bowen, Tony Burke and Matt Thistlethwaite – wanted Marles 'to chill' and wait for natural attrition to create vacancies. He declined to do so. This meant that the NSW Labor Right had to drop one of its own. It happened to be Ed Husic. Now, the leaders of the NSW Right could have decided to drop any one of four cabinet ministers – i.e. Bowen, Burke, Jason Clare or Husic. None volunteered to step down. In the end, Husic very reluctantly decided to surrender in order to avoid a lengthy row within the Labor National Right faction. Bowen and Burke are strong factional leaders and were always unlikely to walk-the- plank – as the saying goes. Bowen and Burke could have elected to drop Clare – or Clare could have walked the plank. Neither happened. Consequently, it was not the Victorian Right who dropped Husic – but, rather, the NSW Right. Savva appears not to understand this. Comrade Savva proceeded to tip the proverbial bucket on Marles – by claiming, in part, that Marles 'wanted to ward off the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, whom normal people see as the natural successor to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese'. According to Savva, those who favour the deputy prime minister in such an eventuality are not 'normal'. It's a big call. After this rant, Comrade Savva went back to familiar territory. She bagged such political conservatives in the Liberal Party as Angus Taylor, Tony Abbott, 'Trumpeteer Jacinta Nampijinpa Price' and even former treasurer Josh Frydenberg who has not been in politics for three years. [The reference to Senator Price is just abuse. – MWD Editor.] Comrade Savva concluded her column by maintaining that 'progressive and centrist Liberals' threatened before the leadership vote, which Sussan Ley won, that if Taylor was victorious they would walk away from the party. No names were named and no evidence was provided to support the claim. Well, at least those readers who got to the end of Niki Savva's column knew that she was back on familiar ground. Verily a Niki Savva Moment. AN ABC UPDATE JACOB GREBER TO REPLACE LAURA TINGLE ON 7.30 – MAYBE On 15 May, Calum Jaspan reported in Nine Newspapers Online that Jacob Greber, the ABC's chief political digital correspondent, is the hot tip to replace Laura Tingle as ABC TV 7.30's chief political correspondent. The left-of-centre Nine Newspapers have good contacts with the Conservative Free Zone that is the ABC. So, it's reasonable to assume that Jaspan's story has some legs. As Media Watch Dog commented last week, La Tingle – who regards Australia as a 'racist country' and is a Liberal Party antagonist – has been appointed to the role of ABC Global Affairs Editor. This plum job will take Tingle out of Australia for considerable periods of time – and away from the 7.30 program. It is noted that many Coalition senior MPs will not appear on 7.30 in its current format. It remains to be seen if your man Greber will get the job. In any event, Media Watch Dog recalls the last time Greber appeared on the ABC TV Insiders program. Let's go to the transcript when discussion turned on productivity and industrial relations reform during the second term of the Albanese Labor government. It was Sunday 4 May, the morning after the election: David Speers: I just want to pick up on what we heard there, David [Crowe], I did think it was interesting the focus on productivity there. The second term focus or list of priorities does shift to productivity…. Just on the productivity point, Jacob, it's something that economists will welcome hearing. But what will that [the Albanese Government's approach] look like? I guess, is the question. Jacob Greber: Well, we'll have to wait and see. And IR will yet again be a big feature of – of the second Albanese term. That's the magic source. That's how all of these things that Labor would like to do become possible. Without that productivity growth, we're relying on the rest of the world to deliver this stuff. That's the only bit we control directly as a – as a – as a government, as a country. And so, yeah, he has to – he [Anthony Albanese] has to deliver on that, to do the things like childcare that the Prime Minister has clearly told is a priority in the second term. There's a big military burden coming – David Speers: The money for all of that has to come from somewhere. Jacob Greber: It has to come from somewhere. The Political and Economic Wisdom of Greber was expressed on Insiders on Sunday 4 May. On Saturday 10 May, Phillip Coorey and Michael Read had a Page One story in the AFR Weekend. It was headed: 'No magic for Chalmers'. This is how the report commenced: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has warned that fixing Australia's flatlining productivity will require a third term of government, as he ruled out accepting every proposal that will arise from a crisis review into the problem that he commissioned [from the Productivity Commission] before the election. Chalmers promised in the aftermath of Labor's landslide election victory that the priority of his second term as treasurer would be lifting productivity. However in an interview with AFR Weekend , he said the task would not be completed before the next election. It would seem that Greber is a bit politically naïve. The evidence suggests that Labor is in no hurry to preside over productivity reforms. Moreover, having further centralised and regulated industrial relations in its first term, it is most unlikely that IR reform will be a big feature of the second Albanese term. But we shall see – maybe via Jacob Greber's reports on 7.30. NINE NEWSPAPERS – AN UPDATE THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD LETTERS PAGE – A CONTINUING ANTI-LIBERAL PARTY RANT WHICH NOW CARRIES CORRESPONDENCE MOCKING SUSSAN LEY There has been enormous interest in Media Watch Dog's coverage of the letters published in Nine's Sydney Morning Herald in the lead-up to the May 2025 election. Overwhelmingly, they were hostile to the Coalition. Boring, to be sure. But the lack of balance on the Sydney Morning Herald Letters Page ignores the fact that, even after a dreadful campaign leading to a substantial defeat, some 45 per cent of Australians on 3 May preferred Peter Dutton to become prime minister rather than for Anthony Albanese to continue in the position. Writing in the SMH's Postscript column on 3 May, Ivan Hemens had this to say about the letter published in his newspaper: Certain readers often point out the disproportionate number of 'anti-Dutton' letters on our pages. Some even hint at a conspiracy. Ross Drynan, a self-declared member of the silent majority, went so far as to say 'The name of the game at the Herald 's letters desk these days is hypocrisy writ large.' We assure Ross that what you see is what we get – Herald letter writers don't seem to be fans of Peter Dutton. But in the name of balance, more considered and interesting correspondence from our good Liberal-leaning readers would be very welcome. That was on 3 May. On 7 May the SMH's Letters Page carried this 'considered' contribution. Suss or Gus? Yep. The Libs have hit rock bottom. Rob Mills, Riverview. By the way, 'Suss' is Sussan Ley and 'Gus' is Angus Taylor – who contested the Liberal Party leadership on 13 May. Apparently, the SMH's Letters Editor regarded Mr Mills' comment as clever or witty or something or other. It's just literary sludge. On 10 May, your man Hemens commenced his Postscript column as follows: 'A resounding majority of Australians voted for decency. They defeated hate. Hate in politics. Hate in the media. The hate of those who peddle grievance and division.' In his post-election letter, Terry Quinn spoke for the many Herald correspondents relieved to see the back of Peter Dutton and his Liberals after their sound thumping last weekend. Comrade Hemens then proceeded to quote from oh-so-many SMH Letters contributors saying much the same thing. He concluded his piece by suggesting that SMH's 'trusty keyboard warriors would find something else to write about' than the Liberal Party now that the election is over. MWD doubts it. It would seem that the SMH has lost many of its conservative readers (including letter writers) in recent times. This is great for Media Watch Dog since the SMH Letters Page contains great copy. But not such good news for advertisers who essentially pay the income of SMH's journalists. SHANE WRIGHT & CANDLESTICKS Nine's Shane Wright has risen without trace (as the late Kitty Muggeridge once said about the late David Frost) to become the senior economics correspondent for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – not having published anything of note apart from newspaper articles and columns plus the occasional essay. Even so, you would expect a person in such an elevated position to know about the international energy market. It's only a few years since your man Wright ridiculed anyone who said that coal had any future as a part of energy supply – even in such markets as India, China and Indonesia. He declared on ABC TV Insiders on June 11, 2017 that 'coal is like candlesticks' and compared those who said that there is still a demand for Australian coal exports with members of the Candle Makers Union circa 1870 who (allegedly) argued the case for candles over electricity. Now read on. As reported by Perry Williams in The Australian on 16 May, according to energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, Australia is likely to miss its 2030 renewable energy target by 14 percentage points, achieving only 68 per cent renewable energy share instead of the 82 per cent goal. Delays in the renewable transition may force Australia to keep coal-fired power stations operating for an additional five to seven years beyond their planned closures. This is far beyond your man Wright's prediction that in 2017, 'coal is like candlesticks'. The reality is that for the foreseeable future some coal is required to keep the lights on, unless we return to candles – this would no doubt please the Candle Makers Union of recent memory. HISTORY CORNER CASEY BRIGGS AND ABC FAVE JILL SHEPPARD FUDGE THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA Increasingly, the ABC is banging on warning us mere mortals about misinformation and disinformation and all that stuff. In view of this, it is only reasonable to expect that the taxpayer funded public broadcaster abides by its own advice. So, lots thanks to the avid reader who drew Media Watch Dog's attention to Episode 2 of the ABC's Swingers podcast documentary which is presented by Casey Briggs. The episode in question was titled: 'Whatever Happened To Party Loyalty?' MWD is interested in what Comrade Briggs and his mates said about the Liberal Party of Australia. Let's go to the transcript. This is what your man Briggs had to say initially: Casey Briggs: For the Liberal Party, forming an identity has been much harder [than for the Labor Party]. First of all, they didn't form until about 50 years after the Labor Party. Before that, political parties in Australia chopped and changed. There was, at various points, a Protectionist Party, a Free Trade Party, an anti-socialist party, a Nationalist Party and a United Australia Party – parties forming, reforming, splintering. Until 1944, when the Liberal Party that we know today was founded. This is a simplification. Sure, in the first decade after Federation in 1901, there were two non-Labor parties. Namely, the Protectionist Party (best known politician Alfred Deakin) and the Free Trade Party (best known politician George Reid). The parties joined together in May 1909 under what was called the Fusion. The Fusion soon became known as the Liberal Party. After Labor split over conscription in 1916, the breakaway Labor MPs called themselves National Labor and then joined with the Liberal Party – becoming the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party survived until it became the United Australia Party in 1931. The UAP became the Liberal Party of Australia in 1944. Contrary to your man Briggs' claim – there never was an anti-socialist party at the Commonwealth level. Moreover, the Fusion, Nationalist, and United Australia parties were essentially the same loose organisation with a different name. In his reference to parties forming, reforming and splintering – Casey Briggs overlooked the fact that the Labor Party split in 1916 over conscription and again in 1931 over economic policy in handling the Great Depression. In view of this, in the lead up to the Second World War, the non-Labor parties were more united than the Labor Party – in spite of their name changes and all that. Then along came Jill Sheppard (of the Australian National University) who had this to say. Dr Sheppard (for a doctor she is) has no particular knowledge of the Liberal Party: Jill Sheppard: The Liberal Party doesn't have the advantage that the Labor Party has of emerging as an obvious social group. They really emerged as a response to communism. They were a large and disparate grouping of different advocacy groups of organisations who are all opposed to communism. Robert Menzies [old footage – no date given]: The communist pressure all around the world has been very, very cleverly designed. It's a very, very grave problem. Casey Briggs: But a party built around the things you're not, is a hard party to sell. Robert Menzies [old footage – no date given]: We want to develop and develop and develop the material resources of the country. Casey Briggs: So, the Liberals set about building up their brand. What a load of absolute tosh. The Liberal Party did not emerge as a response to communism. Sure, communism was a serious problem in Australia during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact between August 1939 and June 1941 – the Communist Party of Australia and its members in the trade union movement sought to undermine the war effort since the Soviet Union was supporting Nazi Germany. But by the end of 1944, when the Liberal Party was formed, the Soviet Union was on the side of the allies. The objectives of the Liberal Party of Australia proclaimed in 1944 are cited in Gerard Henderson's Menzies' Child: The Liberal Party of Australia . They contain no reference to communism. Moreover, the film of Menzies talking about communism is not dated – it could be of a press conference given when he was the UAP prime minister between April 1939 and August 1941. By the end of the Second World War, however, communism had become a significant problem in Europe and by the end of the 1940s in parts of Asia. But this was not the case in 1944. Jill Sheppard continued: Jill Sheppard: One of Menzies' great strengths and achievements was building a Liberal Party constituency. One that made sense, that feels like: 'Okay, we have this shared set of interests'. And originally, you know, this is 'The Forgotten People'. But they were middle-class battlers. People who wanted to get ahead. They weren't working class, but they also weren't the top end of town. They were just a kind of photogenic, suburban class of people. Casey Briggs: The Liberals turned to the blockbuster media sensation of the time. A radio series. Hold it there for a moment. How does the learned doctor know that part of Menzies' appeal was to 'photogenic' suburban types? Also, the ANU academic overlooks the fact that Joseph Lyons led the United Australia Party to victory in the 1931, 1934 and 1937 elections before dying in office in 1939. Menzies then led the UAP to victory in 1941. In other words, when Menzies formed the Liberal Party in late 1944 the political conservatives had only been out of office for three years. As to the Liberal Party building its brand, Comrade Briggs came up with a you-beaut idea about advertising. Let's go to the transcript starring Stephen Mills – a journalist and author who was a one-time Labor Party staffer: Advertisement [old footage]: Van Winkle Wakes Up! a further broadcast in the intriguing and unusual series: John Henry Austral Presents. Casey Briggs: It ran over nearly two years with hundreds of episodes. Stephen Mills: It cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. So, the first thing to say is that it was an unusually expensive campaign. Casey Briggs: This was perhaps one of the earliest examples of political sponcon [i.e. sponsored content]. A Liberal Party advertorial. Stephen Mills: It was based around this fellow. Yes, a kind of influencer of his day, a fictional character obviously, John Henry Austral. And he had an upper-class accent. Might have been like a solicitor or a country doctor or a vicar, you know, talking to the people about what's gone wrong with Australia under the terrible socialists of Chifley. Casey Briggs : There were many messages that now feel of their time, but some of it still feels relevant. Stephen Mills: There was one very funny one about Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the 1930s, when prices were at one level. And when he woke up, he was staggered to see how much prices in all of the shops had risen. Van Winkle Wakes Up! [old footage] : But surely those vegetables are wrongly marked. One sixth a pound for peas. Four shillings for a cauliflower and two shillings for a cabbage. I mean the right price is four pence for peas and no more than six pence for a cabbage or a cauliflower. Stephen Mills: He [Van Winkle] was astonished that people weren't more alarmed. He said, Van Winkle Wakes Up! [old footage]: What I can't understand is everybody's resignation. They accept this state of affairs. You can't have lower prices or anything else until you have increased production. Stephen Mills: The call to action was: 'We've got to get rid of this [Labor] government which is causing all of these price rises.' Van Winkle Wakes Up! [old footage]: This program was presented for your thought and consideration by the Liberal Party of Australia. Stephen Mills: These radio plays dramatised and exemplified Menzies' own political philosophy. Which was all about how the middle-class and farmers and ordinary Australian men and women were getting squeezed by the dreadful socialists. Turn it up. The idea of Dr Mills (for a doctor he also is) suggesting that Robert Menzies defeated the Ben Chifley-led Labor Party government in December 1949 presumably due to Van Winkle Wakes Up! advertising is, well, a bit of a stretch. It overlooks the fact that in 1947, Chifley announced that Labor would nationalise the private trading banks. Bank employees and those in similar employment such as insurance industry workers understood that bank nationalisation was a threat to their lifestyle and that of their families. What's more, sections of the Catholic Church were also concerned by Labor's attempt at nationalisation. For example, Daniel Mannix, the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, was opposed to bank nationalisation. His position was non-ideological. The Catholic Church ran its own school system. If there were many private banks, the Church could shop around for the best deal to borrow for the building of new schools, churches etc. If, however, there was only a government bank the Church would be at the whim of the government bank run by public servants. Traditionally, most Catholics had voted Labor. After 1947, many moved to support the Liberal and Country parties. This is a matter concerning which Mr Briggs and Dr Sheppard seem blissfully unaware. 'Whatever Happened To Party Loyalty', written by Casey Briggs, was just fudge in so far as the Liberal Party of Australia is concerned. About half the segment on the Liberal Party was devoted to Stephen Mills talking about Van Winkle Wakes Up!. Moreover, neither Dr Mills nor Dr Sheppard appeared to be sympathetic to the Liberal Party. Whereas the discussion on the Labor Party featured left-wing historian and Liberal Party antagonist Frank Bongiorno. Yet another example of the ABC's lack of viewpoint diversity. * * * * * Until Next Time. * * * * *
