Like just about every other media forum today, emails on The Affair raced into Webdiary and the vast majority hated the disclosure. I came in for criticism for my defence of Laurie Oakes in a debate with Gerard Henderson on Lateline last night. After the transcript your say, leading off with a welcome guest appearance by Don Arthur, former star Webdiarist who now his his own weblog, http://donarthur.blogspot.com/

LATELINE, 3/7/2002

Where is Australian journalism headed?

TONY JONES: Channel Nine’s political correspondent Laurie Oakes broadcast the allegations tonight, claiming that he’d been sitting on the information for years. It was only the publication of Ms Kernot’s book this week that prompted him, reluctantly, he says, to break his silence. Why? Because the “big secret” of a liaison between Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans was not revealed. He claims the book had left out a critical element of recent Labor Party history. Well, was the reporting of these, essentially private allegations justified? Or have we now plumbed the depths of America’s Clinton-Lewinsky-style reporting?

Laurie Oakes declined our invitation to appear on Lateline tonight but joining me now to discuss these issues — Gerard Henderson, executive director of the Sydney Institute and Sydney Morning Herald online political reporter, Margo Kingston.

JONES: Gerard Henderson, starting with you, has Laurie Oakes actually taken us over some rubicon here into a new territory?

GERARD HENDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SYDNEY INSTITUTE: To start with I think sections of the press gallery in Canberra have had an obsession with Cheryl Kernot’s sex life for some years. In relation to Laurie Oakes’s reporting, well he’s certainly gone further than any other journalist has gone in Australian political history, as far as I’m aware. He’s a fine journalist but I don’t think he has a strong case on this occasion.

JONES: So what do you think the implications of this, both for politics and for political reporting?

HENDERSON: We’re dealing with two retired politicians about what may or may not have happened some time ago, and there is no evidence of causality. If Mr Oakes’s case is correct he hasn’t proved a causal relationship with what may have happened and what we know did happen in relation to Cheryl Kernot moving from the Democrats to the Labor Party. It seems to me if you’re going to justify this, you have to demonstrate causality. He hasn’t done so.

As Shona Martyn said earlier on, there is enough evidence as to why Cheryl Kernot may have wished to switch sides from the Democrats to Labor without any involvement of any personal considerations whatsoever.

JONES: Let me bring in Margo Kingston. What do you think? Is there any justification there your point of view of what Laurie Oakes has done in reporting this, Margot Kingston?

MARGO KINGSTON, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: He’s completely justified. I certainly didn’t think that this morning with his big secret in the Bulletin and in fact myself and a lot of other people are very critical, if you’re going to cross this line, you have to cross it, not make an innuendo to let everyone else cross it.

As it turned out all he was doing was splitting the story so he could get scoops for both legs of his employer, the Bulletin and Channel Nine.

As to the lack of causality, I mean really, Gerard, one of the intriguing things about the defection was that it had all the hallmarks of an elopement, all these secret little notes between Gareth and Cheryl. I remember Michelle Grattan saying to me years ago that is what she suspected, there was this whole undercurrent of ‘I’m about to leave my husband without notice and run off with my lover’… The person I’m critical of here is Simon Crean. That is an unbelievable statement he made in London tonight, that both sides had a duty to explain all to the Australian people.

Now, that’s the real precedent. I would have thought (the) precedent for that is something is published somewhere and then you’ve got to tell all the details of your private life. That is outrageous, which gets us back to, of course, the paybacks going on within Labor, and one would suspect that a couple of people that didn’t have much time for Cheryl in the last term of — have done a fair bit of confirmation to Laurie.

… HENDERSON: Going back to your earlier comment – you don’t know that. Because someone passes a note it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. We know what the Democrats comprise. There were some people who had a Liberal background and some people who had a Labor background. Cheryl Kernot was always an admirer of Gough Whitlam and Whitlamism. It wasn’t surprising to me that she moved. You don’t know the reason, Laurie Oakes doesn’t know the reason.

JONES: Let’s get right to what we do actually know at this point. Neither of the parties have confirmed there was an affair at all. I mean, at the moment Laurie Oakes is saying so, and everyone is accepting that it may be true.

KINGSTON: Well, there’s two aspects to this. There’s two names in the gallery. If they make a serious statement about news … they’re automatically believed. They are Oakes and Grattan. The second point is that –

JONES: That can’t be right. They’re not documentary evidence in and of themselves, are they?

KINGSTON: No, I’m talking about the credibility factor.

HENDERSON: Oakes is talking about motivation, not about facts. He’s talking about motivation. He doesn’t know motivation. You don’t, I don’t, and nor does Michelle Grattan, none of us do. It’s a matter of motivation.

KINGSTON: I think the fact is the thing, isn’t it? I don’t think we’d be on tonight if Laurie Oakes had given a psychological portrait of Cheryl Kernot.

HENDERSON: No, it is a question of motivation. If we’re talking facts, there are many politicians who’ve had affairs, there are politicians who’ve had affairs with journalists. These are facts. They are not run because there’s no causal link with some motivation for what happened. So what’s crucial here is the issue of motivation. I’m simply saying I don’t know and you don’t know and Laurie Oakes doesn’t know.

JONES: Margo Kingston, let me throw a question to you. Do you believe that Laurie Oakes has crossed a line that we have never crossed before in political journalism in Australia, as Gerard Henderson said earlier?

KINGSTON: Well every factual situation is different, but I don’t believe he has crossed the line. I mean, what keeps flashing through my head is Alan Ramsey’s comment this morning: ‘I believe Cheryl will truly regret lifting this scab. What have you done again, Cheryl’. Cheryl has invited this, and listening to Shona, I mean, you have a whole new theory. Shona actually said, ‘Cheryl thinks this was par for the course and was bound to happen’. Well then you have to start to think if she thought it was bound to happen is this her way of paying Gareth back?

Cheryl has enough experience with the media to know what’s possible. The fact of this matter is – Cheryl – a tragic figure, really – has chosen to write a tell-all book, Speaking for Myself Again, and has not disclosed something that is clearly of enormous relevance.

HENDERSON: Well the test here is to name a politician who’s written a memoir in recent years in Australia who has done a tell-all book. I mean who has actually done it? There are plenty of holes in most memoirs. I mean Laurie Oakes’s essential criticism was, tonight on Channel Nine, that Cheryl Kernot had purported to write a political history when it was based on a falsehood. I mean how many memoirs are based on falsehoods or — or ignore issues?

We know heaps of cases, but nobody in the media in Canberra has chosen to write these up before, and in my view, rightly so. But I think what you have here is a very unpleasant double standard. If everyone is going to have their private life, or alleged private life, revealed because they’ve written what Laurie Oakes regards as a false history or a bad book, where will we stop?

JONES: Margo Kingston, this has been around for years, this scuttlebutt, hasn’t it? Laurie Oakes said he’s been sitting on this information for years. The only reason he’s decided to come forward, he says, is because this book was published. And yet Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans are now not public figures. They’re no longer politicians?

KINGSTON: Well, the explanation that Laurie gives is that once you know this big secret, it puts a whole different tenor and a whole different interpretation on some of the things Cheryl describes in the book, like Beazley not wanting to have much to do with her, and so on. It also helps explain some of her, you know, behaviour at certain times. I mean, to me – and, you know, I just thought watching Laurie tonight that the person that came out terribly from this was Gareth Evans. I mean the betrayal of his colleagues, the inherent conflict of interest in –

JONES: If there’s any truth to it at all, we have to keep saying.

KINGSTON: It’s true! It’s true that they had an affair. And I was about to get to the second thing. Labor figures have confirmed to us tonight – and I’m sure to other people – that they found out about this affair some time after the defection.

HENDERSON: But this goes back to the other issue. This goes back to your judgment. You say that certain activities explain certain behaviour. You have no knowledge of that. I mean Laurie Oakes has been talking tonight about a steamy affair. He has no knowledge of that. You have no knowledge as to whether –

KINGSTON: Well he has Gareth’s words in the email, Gerard. ‘Consuming passion’, I mean usually if someone’s got a consuming passion it effects their life in some way –

HENDERSON: This is getting a bit tabloid: Steamy affair.

KINGSTON: …especially (if) the person they’ve got the consuming passion with seduces them into defecting and changing parties.

HENDERSON: Well I think you might calm down a bit…

JONES: None of us have actually seen this email and, after all, it can be written by any person. We don’t know the email came from person X to person Y. We don’t know anything about the email except Laurie Oakes tells us it exists.

… HENDERSON: Just because someone does something after something else doesn’t mean they did it because of something else. And if you’re going to run that line, which you’re running very strongly tonight, you should have some evidence, preferably primary sources. You have none, and as far as I’m aware Laurie Oakes has none, that goes to causality, which is pretty important.

JONES: Can I just jump ahead to the other point that point that Margo Kingston made, which is a very important political point. Simon Crean did jump into this issue today in London and he has said that both of these parties have to come out essentially and clear the air. Has he made a misjudgment here?

HENDERSON: I haven’t seen the full context in which he said that. I was surprised by his comment, but it was probably thrown at him and he responded. I don’t know that they do. Unless we’re going to change the rules in Australia, but I must say if we change the rules, they’re going to be people in the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, and the Democrats and other places, who will be required to say things they never have to have been before.

I mean, it is in the recent biography on John Gorton by Ian Hancock, the late John Gorton told him he’d had what he called two or three affairs while the Prime Minister, but no-one raised them at the time. There was no public interest in that and if John Gorton chose to reveal that late in his life that was his judgment. What we’re dealing with here is something quite different. I think it’s an unnecessary move in Australian politics.

I think we’ve been better off without it. If we’re going to do it with politicians, I mean they’re figures in business, they’re media proprietors, they’re figures in the media. Where are we going to stop?

Just because I think or Margo Kingston thinks or Laurie Oakes thinks there’s a causality here, we can then say what we like?

JONES: Margo Kingston this is precisely the debate that the United States had, isn’t it, when the Lewinsky-Clinton affair was first brought into the public. We’re bound now to have it here. Which side are you going to fall on? Are you saying that it’s history and therefore it’s an unwritten history, we need to know all the truth and therefore that justifies this personal exposure?

KINGSTON: No, not at all. That’s why I say if it’s a precedent, it’s a very particular precedent. Cheryl Kernot put out her jaw to have it punched by writing that book, and, you know, it’s Cheryl all over: It is just the saddest, saddest thing. To me the real villain in this is Simon Crean. Neither of those people have any duty or any obligation to say anything.

HENDERSON: You just said the real villain was Gareth Evans. Now it’s Simon Crean. Who is the real villain here? In my view the issue didn’t have to be raised in the first place. Perhaps it might be some figures in the Canberra press gallery.

KINGSTON: The fact of the matter is Laurie sat on this for several years. Cheryl has made all sorts of aspersions about all sorts of people in the Labor Party whom she felt distanced themselves from her and we now have a possible explanation for that.

GERARD HENDERSON: Her book is pretty mild. It’s not a strong critique of people.

***

Princess Cheryl’s Revenge

By Don Arthur

The Mercedes has entered the tunnel. Let’s see who’s on board…

In the back seat is Princess Cheryl sipping chablis and chatting to journalists on a mobile phone. What a long strange trip it’s been, she says. And what a useless lump of lard that chauffeur is…

At the wheel is the addled Mr Oakes. Enraged by spiteful comments from the back seat he turns the wheel sharply towards the gutter…

And trapped in the boot, grinding his teeth with rage, is Gareth Evans.

Will anyone get out alive?

***

Susan Metcalfe

I just heard you on Lateline and have to strongly disagree with most of your views on this one.

I don’t believe this revelation by Laurie Oakes takes us any closer to any kind of truth. What this does is once again attempt to discredit an individual, a woman – Cheryl Kernot. The media may feel justified in doing this but I fail to see how this is in the national interest. I am not served by the constant attacks on this woman, in fact I am sickened and diminished. All she has done is put out a book which expresses her point of view. But heaven forbid she criticised the media, so now she needs to be punished yet again.

I don’t need to know about Cheryl’s sex life, I am not interested in Cheryl’s sex life – it is irrelevant to me. Do we attack the decisions of male politicians because of who they are sleeping with? No. It is only because she is a woman that there is an assumption that her decisions were based on her relationship with a man.

But where does this truth telling end? Will Laurie Oakes continue playing God and decide which of our gay politicians, past and present, should be outed. Will he start pointing the finger at all the sham marriages and affairs because surely then that would help us to explain their motivation and decision making. That’s not the kind of truth I’m interested in.

Perhaps we should all have to disclose who we’re sleeping with before we express our point of view or tell our side of a story. Or maybe we could start disclosing which journalists have had affairs with which politicians – undoubtedly this would reveal something, although I don’t think it would be the truth.

To all of the media please leave Cheryl Kernot alone and focus on more important political issues. Get out of the gutter. I DON’T WANT TO KNOW.

***

Bernadette Neubecker

I’ve just seen you on Lateline. Now, as a woman, I don’t really care who has an affair with whom or whether they disclose this information or not. The fact that Laurie Oakes should ‘hello’ express this to us all says a lot more about Laurie Oakes than it does about Cheryl Kernot. I really don’t care if John Howard has affairs! I do care about whether it has any relevance (which I believe from your interview this evening, you think ) to the situation. I don’t. But then I’m just your ordinary jo blow. I feel this has more relevance in the parliamentary press gallery than it does with the rest of us!

***

Jozef Imrich

It appeared that Gerard last night just wanted to disagree for the sake of disagreement for the sake of ABC viewers …

No writer can be a hero in his or her memoir and Cheryl is no acception. Memoir is risky and writers must take the good and bad. Human nature is complex and I assume this is what makes us read the paper:

***

Jim McKenna

I’ve just finished watching your encounter with Gerard Henderson on Lateline and I feel a little saddened. As a person I have some time for in the media I was very disappointed by the line you took and the seemingly poorly thought out reasoning you presented.

The whole idea that this affair – relationship has any relevance is nonsense. Most of us have had affairs and do dumb things but in most situations others don’t have any right to know about it. The same goes for politicians. Up until now this has set us apart from the Americans and British. I hate the thought that our politics and media should go down that path.

Gerard is correct – no cause can be shown! Please return to the side of the good guys.

***

Richard Hand

I was very disappointed to see you supporting Laurie Oakes, he has gone over the line and should be condemned for it.

***

Peter Hannemann

Gerard Henderson was appalling on Lateline. You did an excellent job in putting up with his continous ridiculous interjections. He was almost an apologist for Kernot and her pathetic book and her more pathetic affair with Gareth. Shona Martyn made herself look stupid.

***

Paul Kilborn

I was an admirer of your work until I watched your performance on Lateline. Sleazy!

***

Laura Taylor

I must say, Margo, that I was appalled by your justication of the Oakes report on Lateline last night. I remember some years ago you featured as one of the cheerleaders in the Margaret Simons book on the gallery, which among other things, made strident criticism of trivial reporting in the Press Gallery, not to mention the so-called caucusing of junior reporters.

Now a senior reporter (a “big hitter” I believe the term was) says “it’s true” because Laurie says so. I think that’s called the herd following the leader. So much for the caucus theory!

As for the Kernot affair, surely if it was relevant at all, the time for reporting it was years ago. That time has passed and the publishing of her book is a lame cover. Even Oakes looks uncomfortable trying to justify this. This is just payback, or worse a vendetta.

Margo: I argued on Lateline that big stories by two names in the gallery – Oakes and Grattan – are always considered reliable – and that we (the Herald) had independently confirmed with Labor sources that there was an affair and that it was not revealed to Labor leaders before the defection. All I am saying is that Oakes is very credible, and that we always follow-up his stories on that basis.

***

Cynthia Harris

Of course the truth impacts on all Ms Kernot’s actions. Bring out all the muck I say!!

***

Rob Schaap

I do think you’d have done well to allow Henderson’s point last night (that a legal private act neither persuasively necessary nor sufficient to cause an act in public life should stay private). Our media’s default setting is already far too individualistic, gladitorial and sensationalist to serve its purported democratic function well, and I think Henderson’s point that a journo needs a pretty compelling public interest case (as opposed to whatever might interest those weaned on news-as-celebrity-soap-opera) before vomiting a public figure’s carnal affiliations all over us is very important.

The Australian’s case, made today by its editor, that public and private life can not be distinguished that easily, has important truth in it, but not nearly enough to justify this reckless launch down the slippery slope, for mine. Michael Stutchbury’s argument affords sallacious tattle-tales carte blanche, no?

With respect to your Lateline argument, as I understood it, four points came to my mind:

(a) It’s pretty insulting to both parties (and, arguably, their respective genders) to portray a helplessly swooning Kernot being literally seduced from one party to another by an Evans you seem to frame as an unscrupulous party honey-trap;

(b) To the (undoubtedly significant) degree one’s decisions in public life might be influenced by one’s private relationships, I don’t see why sexual relationships should be considered particularly decisive in this respect, yet the front page has not bothered to tell us who Kernot’s best friends and mentors are;

(c) If one’s sex partners do have the role you ascribe them, then the sex lives of those who interpret, package and convey our news for us should be a matter of public record, no? As you often declare, journos work hard and long. Would I be too far off the mark in assuming that if they’re to have a sex life at all, it’s likely to involve those with whom they’re in such daily and prolonged contact? Certainly, the Canberra rumour mill churns out the rumours of such liaisons at a steady rate. If a particular journo bonks a pollie, should s/he be obliged to disclose this at column’s bottom?

(d) The reasoning you seemed to employ last night, that (x) occurred before (y) and therefore caused it, might as easily be applied to Oakes himself. On such an account, Oakes finds he is not as generously treated in the book as he might like, and consequently wreaks some vengeance. But you can’t be reasoning thus in this case, else you wouldn’t be supporting the act publicly, eh? No, in the case of an esteemed colleague, you’re happy to grant the benefit of a significant doubt …

This story is out of the bottle, but perhaps it’s not too late to nip a nascent sheet-sniffing journo culture in the bud, eh?

Margo: In my view, the criticisms of Laurie in Kernot’s book would be a factor weighing AGAINST publication, for the very reason that it leaves him open to allegations that he was motivated by revenge.

***

Libby Werthein

I totally disagree with your point of view on Lateline. . What about Bob Hawke and the journalist and the many other woman he had affairs with? What about all the other male politicians who have had affairs? What about all the affairs and personal friendships between journalists and politicians – do those affairs explain their articles? Why don’t we make a hit list and put them all in the newspaper. Bob Hawke would have been constantly in the media for his affairs.

This is another form of sexism and I am sorry you are buying into it. But I guess your just another journalist playing the boys game. All I think the last two days behaviour of politicans and media highlights is exactly what Cheryl Kernot said she was subjected too. The issue of the afffair should never have been raised in parliment and good on Gareth for denying it.

There are far more important issues to address, like the total lack of accountability of universities and voice and rights of the 2.4 million students, but who cares about that when you can have some fun at other peoples expense.

I look forward to seeing the list of affairs and juicy little tit bits of all the journalists and politicians who think that subjecting Cheryl Kernot, Garth Evan and their families to this is OK.

Margo: The last journo I know of who had an affair with a politician was outed in the press after suspicions that some of her stories were based on leaks from him. An affair of itself is not relevant, but an affair between leaders of opposing parties can (not MUST) be a different matter, I would have thought, as could an affair between a politician and a person who got a job under the politician’s patronage.

***

Simon Thomsen, editor, The Echo, Lismore

Tell me – perhaps it might explain why I’m a country hack at a two-bob paper….

Two ex-politicians shagged each other five years ago. Is this front page news? Is it even interesting? Evans supposedly lied to parliament – about sex between consenting adults. Like doh…

In the scheme of lies, it seems to be the Canberra press gallery would be better off watching big brother and providing analysis on the dancing doona’s importance to national security.

If you’re gonna run with this story surely the big issue is why would anyone want to shag Evans?

Margo: When I told the friend I’m staying with in Canberra over breakfast today that Cheryl had a long affair with Gareth, she said; “What a terrible breach of privacy; could you go out and buy all the papers?” People disapprove, but are compulsively interested.

***

Philip Birch-Marston in Curtin, Canberra

After watching Lateline I am a little amazed at the naivity, or professional discretion, that came over in the discussion over the Kernot/Evans soap opera. Ever a believer in the glory of conspiracy theories, I have an opinion that perhaps Simon Crean is being a lot more clever than he is being given credit for.

Living in Canberra, one of the warming aspects of frosty mornings is the latest rumour. However, one persistent rumour that has served to provide a surfeit of heat for a couple of winters is the purported relationship between (RUMOUR DELETED)

Maybe Simon Crean is trying to create a stage where moral responsibility of our elected representatives will become a major issue. If this theory is correct, Mr Crean may well prove to be the most far sighted leader the Labor Party has had since Whitlam. The backchat in the House of Representatives during the next session will probably cause more public outcry and hopefully will cause the current Speaker no small amount of apoplexy.

***

Chris Kuan

I notice Con Vaitsas in Waiting game on SIEV-X bemoaning the lack of mongrel “get-into-em” from Michelle Grattan and was reminded of your appearance on Lateline. I think aggressive confrontation tends to elicit defensive answers (duh!) which degenerates into the blandspeak which Con hopes to avoid.

How did a discussion on the journalistic merits of the Kernot revelations turn into a personal baiting competition? Not that I’ve ever been a fond follower of the interviewing technique that Tony Jones used, which seems to be more common everywhere nowadays (ie “Do you agree with my statement ‘X’?” usually phrased as “BUT isn’t it the case …” ) which is just begging to be answered by a curt “No” by a mischievous interviewee one of these days.

Anyway, it looks like you need more sleep 🙂

***

Sue Deane

Once upon a time I wrote a furious letter to you after an article you wrote on Ms Kernot. I explained that after 20 odd years in the ALP, I had let my membership lapse. The last straw was the breathless news from a friend that Cheryl had “defected” and all that followed.

At the time the safe seat of Sydney was being contested by a handful of most extraordinally capable women, the left having the numbers and deciding a woman must have the seat. Why? They should all have had a chance of a seat – wherever.

I eventually picked up my membership as Ms Kernot slid into chaos. At the post-campaign report by a failed candidate in 1998 I listened as she politely tried to find ways and means of explaining the awful situations Cheryl had placed OTHER PEOPLE in (not just C herself ) in the previous months. I’m afraid I let go a speech of sorts, full of frustration and anger re Ms Kernot. I recall “total lack of depth academically, politically, and intellectually” and “no sense of humour”.

Suffice to say I have been preening myself every since on my fabulous insight. Cheryl Kernot never did concern herself with others – Cheryl was alway numero uno and expected to be treated as such. Her outstanding flaw is the ability to be totally insensible to the feelings of others.

You talked on Lateline about the perception now of Cheryl and whether it would change. NO – but my perception of Gareth Evans has. What a twit – he was witty and articulate and and and ……. what was he thinking?

Bugger Gerard Henderson and his holier than thou third degreeing. He’s missing the point. Cheryl has betrayed the trust of all sorts of people over and over – and then paid out on them almost endlessly for anyone who wishes to set her up on a public platform. I felt miserable each time she betrayed the party which supported her. Remember – she was supported and paid for some fatuous job when endless numbers of branch members were seriously desperate for work prior to her standing. Of course there should be pay back – how long do you stand around being pummelled without reciprocating.

***

Glenn Murray in Chatsworth Is. NSW

I’ll believe in the slob’s integrity when he starts releasing info on the sexual activities of all the other members of parliament. Is he now trying to imply that he has never sat on info relating to parliamentarians? I think he is a rat. This smacks of some sort of revenge attack by Oakes.

The ABC has done itself no glory either – it has been wallowing in the “affair” under the guise of reporting the issues. As for the alleged participants I couldn’t care less and I really don’t want to know about other peoples private lives.

***

Noel Hadjimichael in Camden, NSW

What has happened to the ALP? Policy paralysis at the last election; dubious debates about the 60:40 rule that union hacks could not fathom; the tacky soap opera of Evans and Kernot …. it appears that the Prime Minister has achieved his often reported desire to return to the 1950s: an impotent Opposition, racked by policy indecision, unresponsive to the major issues of the day and tainted by petty scandal.

The Liberals have promoted a “steady as she goes” reputation and toughed out any upsetting scenarios such as the SIEV-X. Grey and dependable seems electorally sound!

The general population, especially in regional and rural Australia, are fed up with this lacklustre Opposition. The Kernot relevations have just about put the icing on the cake – Labor can’t even manage the defection of a media junky like Cheryl without collateral damage.

***

Peter Woodforde in Canberra

Laurie Oakes said on ABC RN World Today – http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s598365.htm – “If I’d wanted to be a News of the World journalist, or a British tabloid type journalist, I could knock off five front pages tomorrow , you’re right about that. But that’s not what I’m about, and I hope that’s not we’re about in Australia.”

His boast of Five More Big Secrets ready for page one must have sent an interesting frisson through the offices of politicians, journalists, public servants, service personnel and the moneyed elites watching PBL’s careful demolition of Mrs Kernot and whatever remains of the Democrats.

It’s a little like the phase-one tease aspect of the PBL magazine piece aimed at Kernot. The fact that Oakes uses the subjunctive (and elsewhere during the interview was painfully contrite) does not excuse the fact that there are plenty in and out of the profession who may now say: “Oakes got Kernot but is shielding plenty of others”, whatever his intentions. There isn’t any more particularity about Kernot’s (or Evans’s) private life than there is about Oakes’s. The email and Evans telling parliament the Randall statement was “baseless” are just furphies. Evans’s and Kernot’s private lives (if any) are not and were not the business of the Parliament any more than they are of the media. Evans’s statement will not close this issue (ie public figures’ private lives), because now, all bets are off.

What do we now say to the mawkish media bottom feeder bastards who would maintain that the public (ie the media marketplace) can’t judge what Oakes has written about Kernot until we know all about Oakes’s private life, and who, having fed off that, demand the details of other private lives, maybe starting on you or some other journalist, then going on to hector Brian Harradine from his front yard, a la Colston, about his private sexual fantasies (that would amuse the $lobbering classes, that would rate), or demanding to know what Mrs Crean or Janette Howard are like in the sack from the Opposition Leader or the PM when they are visiting some foreign capital, should they decide any of those matters are relevant.

Now that Jung and Freud are patrolling the corridors of the Press Gallery, we must know everyone’s innermost dispositions.

Big Brother has come to Australian public life and all bets are off.

PS – I particularly look forward to any forthcoming book by ex-Archbishop-Hollingwor=th-defender Professor David Flint, who crowed about the Oakes-Kernot stories and effectively said her book was asking for it. Presumably any Flint tome will come with some sort of confessional prologue, perhaps festooned with tasteful Polaroids.