What a week! Tonight the piece the paper refused to run, by me, a piece by my brother Hamish, who was in the thick of Democrats action during the last Democrats sex scandal, and loads more emails from readers on whether The Affair should have become public. I’m overrun with emails and hope to do another edition on the weekend. Have a good one.
A reader called Stephen emailed today: “Wow Margo, you sure upset “the cause” on Lateline. Gentlemanly guys and concerned feminists everywhere only see one thing: you kicking poor Cheryl when she’s down. Better not write any books this year….”
Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound.
Just a thought
By Margo Kingston
Mix sex, politics, lies and tribes and the first take on a breaking scandal might only scratch its surface.
For example, don’t automatically empathise with the Labor politicians expressing sadness and outrage at the revelation of The Affair.
Think about it. The Oakes emails made public so far were written long after Cheryl joined Labor, in 1999 and 2000. We can thus safely rule out a Democrat’s revenge, say from trawling through Cheryl’s computer on her departure. It’s a Labor leak, a Labor trawl.
Self-interest – positive or negative – motivates the overwhelming majority of leaks. Public-spirited leaks, as the children overboard scandal illustrates, are as rare as hens teeth.
In this case, a Labor person or persons leaked the emails, probably just before extracts from her book were published last weekend. Revenge is the obvious motive – hardened political players collect their evidence early and have the discipline to wait until, or if, it’s required.
For the reporter, the leaker’s motivation is irrelevant. The judgement we use is whether the material is newsworthy, and in case of private matters, whether it is in the public interest to publish.
There is an argument, not beyond the bounds of possibility, that Laurie Oakes was not “a pawn” for Labor revenge, but for Cheryl.
In her book, Cheryl is a vociferous critic of her treatment by journalists, accusing us of relentless intrusion into her privacy. Yet the media observed the privacy convention in relation to her affair with Gareth and, in reliance on that convention holding, she wrote a book omitting a central personal and political thread of her Labor Party odyssey.
She relies on the rules of the political game she has left to protect a book in which she breaks the rules of that game to attack Kim Beazley and the Labor Party for her downfall and to declare herself an innocent victim. She even discusses her private life, in particular the precious time she can grab to be with her husband.
Did she really think she would get away with it? According to her publisher Shona Martyn, she did not. On the night of the day the story broke, Lateline’s Tony Jones asked Martyn for Cheryl’s reaction. “The saddest thing is that she’s not entirely surprised”,.
“I think she thinks it’s par for the course”, and “she also feels that she’s been a target for criticism in certain sections of the media for a long time, so I guess maybe it was always bound to happen”.
So at the very least, Cheryl published her book knowing she ran the grave risk of the affair going public.
In an email to Gareth in 2000 castigating him for lying to Parliament, she writes: “Don’t say you protected all of us, because I told you I did not accept that lying. It was not for me. It was always for you. And it will be addressed one day.”
It would be bad form for Cheryl to voluntarily disclose the affair in her book. But if the audacity of omitting it triggered retaliation through its disclosure, she is a victim, again, and Gareth’s calumny is revealed. Cheryl has lost everything – husband, career, job prospects, superannuation and – vital for her self esteem – publicity. In contrast, Gareth keeps his family intact, has an interesting job and, once Labor returns to power, the possibility of an appointment to the High Court, or something equally important.
No big job possibilities for Gareth now. Instead, total humiliation for him and for his wife, who thought his denial of the affair in Parliament proved he had told her the truth in private, and now discovers he continued the affair long after he lied to Parliament and to her.
Cheryl has her revenge, is the centre of attention again, and gets enormous publicity for her book and the possibility of spectacular sales when the missing chapter is written.
Just a thought.
***
Kernot and sex
By Hamish Alcorn
It is right that politician’s social lives should not be the stuff of journalistic enquiry. Laurie Oakes does have an argument though. A conflict of interests is a conflict of interest, and no less so if one interest is private and the other is public. As a principle, it would be wrong if we were not told of political conflicts of interest merely because there was a private dimension.
But there is something else up my nose. I joined the Australian Democrats in my early twenties, shortly after Cheryl became a Senator. About eighteen months later I resigned. Here’s why.
Janet Powell was the leader of the Democrats at that time. Cheryl was our Queensland Senator. Andrew Bartlett (now a Senator) was the Queensland State Secretary. John Woodley (then a senator) was the Queensland President. I was the rookie, Assistant Secretary to Andrew. This Queensland Management Committee conspired with Senator Kernot to get rid of Janet and get Cheryl in as leader.
Janet had replaced Janine Haines as leader after the latter’s resignation following a failed bid for the lower house. Janet came to the leadership, according to the party’s constitution, with a general vote of the entire membership. Her credentials were impeccable. Her electoral base was genuinely popular as she had been a social justice activist before entering politics. To get rid of her, it was going to take muck. There were two thrusts to the muck.
Some background first. The membership in the Democrats can oust a leader by getting a certain quantity of signatures, putting them to the National Executive and thereby forcing a new vote for leader. It’s basically like a no-confidence motion but from the membership as a whole. Of course someone has to organise this effort, and have an alternate leader in mind, and in this case it was the Queensland Management Committee, led by Cheryl, who coordinated the coup.
The muck. The first was a statistical complaint about media inches as a measure of effectiveness. The previous leader, Janine Haines, had more than Janet, so the latter was clearly letting the side down. The underbelly of this complaint was about charisma, attached to the fact that we were a bit down in the polls. Cynical politics. That the Democrats had real moral credibility that would hold in the long term was not really an issue. Deconstruct this complaint for yourself. It’s ridiculous.
The second is the nub. Janet Powell was having an affair with her colleague Senator Sid Spindler and this was adversely affecting her performance as leader. How it was affecting her performance was not specified – it was the affair itself which was supposed to do the damage, alongside some muck on Spindler which I won’t even repeat in respect for the man. This affair was not just used privately, malicious though this would have been in itself. It was used TO THE MEDIA, in answer to the question “Why oust Powell?” Cheryl led this conspiracy. I believe she provided the information and the tactical brains. It was successful. Janet was ousted.
(MARGO: Cheryl told me about the affair, by then over, when I was at The Age, after I rang to ask her why? She argued that the breakup of the affair was adversely affecting Powell’s performance. I was surprised, and after consulting my bureau chief Michelle Grattan, did not write the story because of the convention against reporting private matters. But the news was spreading like wildfire – but not reported – and Powell and Spindler finally outed themselves in an attempt to close the campaign down. They agreed to an on-the-record interview with The Age’s Sally Loane.)
But to complete the story there is something else, and perhaps the reason I resigned in disgust (with myself actually – though a rookie I was a co-conspirator and must take my own share of responsibility). Cheryl was not to be put up as a candidate because that would look too much like a coup (rather than a highly principled challenge to a failing leader) and Cheryl was too new to the Senate. so John Coulter was our man and Cheryl was put up as Deputy. All respect to the man, but Coulter (the gnome, if anyone remembers the media caricature of him) was no leader. We knew – and said to each other in private – that there was no way he would last as leader after the next election, when there would be another leadership ballot automatically. THE PLAN was that Cheryl would surely become leader after that, AS SHE WOULD NOT, if Janet was still leader.
Some time after I resigned Andrew Bartlett said to me in regret that they had moved me into the thick of it too early, implying that I was still too naive about the ways of power. He was right I guess. I lost sleep. I had joined the Democrats for deeply moral reasons. It didn’t fit. So I left and became an anarchist.
So when Cheryl defected to the ALP I wasn’t surprised. She might be female and blonde but she is an animal like the rest of them.
In the current context, Cheryl and Gareth’s affair may well have had serious implications on politics, especially for Democrat members who believed Cheryl was batting for them, but to a lesser extent for all of us who were led to believe that the Democrats were playing a particular and perhaps important role in Australian politics. That might be debatable, but it is not debatable that Janet Powell’s affair with Sid Spindler, which Cheryl used in her campaign to attain the leadership of the Democrats, involved no conflict of interests at all. It was an affair between colleagues on the same side. I haven’t read Cheryl’s book but suspect that the above is not well elaborated.
Most important of all, for me anyway, is that charisma and media inches are crap. Polls blip up and down, but credibility is for the long term. Belatedly, I’d like to salute Janet Powell as the last moment of principle in the Australian Democrats. It’s been down hill ever since for them. Natasha is just the logical consequence, and it does not surprise me to see Andrew Bartlett bobbing alongside her either – a younger and blonder version of his old icon. The party is addicted to reading about itself in the paper. I hope the Green Party can do better.
***
PUBLISH?
YES!
Hugh Bingham in Toowoomba, Queensland
I’m about 40 years past my prime as a reporter. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t have hesitated to report the Kernot-Evans affair whenever it had occurred. Two significant people in leadership roles in love and bedded. There are boundaries, I guess, to what is personal in Parliamentary lives but in my view this is NOT one of them. Parliament is the people’s house and any secret liaison that might (repeat might) become influential in political outcomes should be reported.
Oakes regarded the Kernot autobiography as an unavoidable trigger – and so would I. Unhesitatingly.
The thing I do question is Oakes double-barrelled approach – the “secret” in the Bulletin, then the open allegation and the email on Channel Nine. I simply can’t take on board that a hard-head, a newsman to his bootlaces, like Laurie Oakes could believe the Bulletin piece could possibly live alone. Or intend it to! Was this an arrangement? Or is the Bullie left fuming at losing out on the real story.
Margo: Nine and the Bulletin are owned by Packer. This is the new cross-media world. A scoop for both! Everyone happy.
***
Robert Lawton in Adelaide
I’m not a SIEV-X fan – the people smugglers who pack people aboard these hideous tubs and send them off to us will never appear before the House Select Committee, and without them the story is hardly complete – but I did watch you on Lateline and felt great pride that you were able to see through the sleaze factor on the latest Kernot affair.
Of course Oakes was right to put the lie to Kernot’s grievances of isolation and alienation. You were right to defend him. And Gerard Henderson is a bizarre chap who sadly benefits from the dearth of sensible conservative talking heads in this country.
It seems that most of your readers are obsessed by Kernot’s gender, and the cheap, tacky taste of the revelation. If she had been a man, and had been wooed to the ALP by another man with whom she was on intimate terms, and both were “out”, would it have been appalling to release that information in the light of a self-styled tell-all book which attacked ALP figures for casting him adrift?
The fact of sexism in political life shouldn’t be a cover for misleading the public, just as racism shouldn’t protect people like Geoff Clark against criminal prosecution if it’s justified on the facts.
Cheryl was silly enough to leave the Dems in the first place; to write a book about her failures and thus exonerate her from them was even sillier if she intended to attack others in the process.
***
John Carson
You are correct in your views on the Kernot-Evans-Oakes matter. What I find particularly depressing in all of this is the way that the left takes a reasonable position (that women, like men, are capable of making decisions on grounds other than those of romantic or sexual attachment) and takes it to a ridiculous extreme (denying that a romantic or sexual attachment raises any presumption of influence).
To take a somewhat analogous case, are we happy to have academics (of either sex) grading the work of students with whom they have a sexual relationship? Is there not an obvious conflict of interest?
Less troubling than Kernot’s motivations for switching parties is the fact that for years she negotiated the passage of legislation with Labor on the Democrat’s behalf while having an undisclosed sexual relationship with Labor’s Senate leader. If this was not a conflict of interest (on the part of both of them), then I don’t know what a conflict of interest is.
If a trade union leader negotiating on behalf of workers had an undisclosed sexual relationship with the employer’s representative, would this not constitute a serious conflict of interest? What if a local government representative is sleeping with a developer? A judge sleeping with the accused? Would we hear the same drivel about affairs being a private matter?
***
Stuart Mackenzie
Everyone (at least those that are thinking about it) seems to be focusing on the potential public interest aspects of Cheryl Kernot’s defection to Labor. Surely of more importance are the ramifications of the then Government leader in the Senate having an affair with the leader of the minor party holding the balance of power? What legislation was passed during this period, besides Mabo?
If the press gallery knew about this affair while Kernot was still the Democrat leader, it must have been in the public interest for it to be revealed at the time.
Margo: I hadn’t heard the rumours when she was Democrats leader. I did hear rumours after the defection. I didn’t chase them down because of the convention against reporting private matters, because there were better things to do with my time, and because these things are invariably impossible to prove. If I had email proof at the time? No, unless I also had proof that the affair had compromised Democrats or Labor policy-making or Senate deals. Would I have actively sought out proof or otherwise of this? No. If I had email proof when Evans lied to Parliament? Definitely. When she published her book? I hope I would have published. The big downside would have been if I’d been extensively attacked in Kernot’s book, as Laurie was. Publishing would leave me wide open to credible allegations that I was motivated by revenge, thus impugning my professional integrity. I hope I would have been brave enough to accept that risk.
***
Dominic Puiu in Sydney
The Kernot affair is like a train wreck – both horrifying and compelling.
I saw Cheryl’s publisher Shona Martyn on the Today Program this morning, with the usual mantra that everyone is ganging up on Cheryl because she’s a woman. Not so. I agree that what people do – even public people like politicians – is not necessarily fair game for the public. The feature that makes it relevant is where there the private acts impinge on public roles.
A few years ago the media staked out US politician Gary Hart and eventually caught him in flagrante. The public interest test here was activated not just by the affair, but by Gary’s high-profile pro-family politics and his (foolish) taunt to the media that they couldn’t catch him in the act. Note to Cheryl and her publisher – Gary is a man.
With Cheryl and Gareth, we have the two main players in Cheryl’s extraordinary defection to the ALP and the fact that Cheryl gained the leadership of the Democrats in the first place by revealing Janet Powell’s affair with Sid Spindler. And of course Gareth lying to Parliament.
It’s the hypocrisy that makes the issue public, even more so when Cheryl was on ABC Radio earlier this week opining that the quality she admires most is trustworthiness! Time she practiced what she preaches, methinks.
***
Dale Grounds
Can someone please explain the process for prosecuting someone who has lied to Parliament? Is this the same as perjury in Court? Maybe we could get a photo of Gareth and Ali Alatas in handcuffs on board a plane over the Timor Gap.
Margo: The penalty is resignation from the ministry, unless your leader is prepared to pretend you haven’t lied and you are prepared to lie by saying you haven’t. No penalty for backbencher lies or former ministers.
***
Craig Schwarze
I cannot believe that people are suggesting the Evans/Kernot affair is a private matter, and no-one’s business. As a Democrat, Kernot presented herself to the public as an impartial figure who would “keep the bastards honest”. We now find out that she was actually sleeping with one of the “bastards”! It was a massive conflict of interest. And this is not relevant?
The “bastard” in question lies to parliament to cover himself. And this is not relevant?
Kernot then betrays her political colleagues (and voters) by dramatically resigning from the Democrats and joining (surprise, surprise) the party of her lover. And this is not relevant?
How silly of me. There’s no evidence that the affair had any impact on Australian politics *at all*.
***
Ben Furby in Sydney
1. Gareth’s lie to Parliament detracts from the whole intent of the private-lives convention. Similarly many years ago a British politician, after dalliance with a prostitute, had to resign after being found out for lying to Parliament.
2. Ms Kernot had a high profile in the anti-monarchist movement, which drew on the marital problems of the Royal Family. On the one hand, marital problems in Britain’s Royal Family: What’s new after near 1000 years? Secondly, what’s different about the royals from any other modern family?
However, I suggest it ill became Ms Kernot to back a movement to cast off the British queen, a movement that used the disarray of the British Royal Family as part of of its reasons to want a republic, when we find out that she herself was certainly not a Caesar’s wife, above reproach.
A small point, but one I believe she should remember – like people in glass houses….
***
***
NO!
Debbie Jeffrey in Newport, NSW
In Your say on the Cheryl Affair you write: “People disapprove but are compulsively interested”???- Margo, really! What a pathetic justification for breach of privacy. People disapprove but are compulsively interested in necrophilia, too – does this mean we should publish a whole lot of details and public discussion about specific instances of it? (Probably not a good analogy when you’re talking about Gareth Evans, but you get my point…)
Margo: I did not make that comment as a justification for publication. I agree it is no such thing. I made it in response to Simon Thomsen’s remark, “Two ex-politicians shagged each other five years ago. Is this front page news? Is it even interesting?” I was having a go at explaining why so many people hate publication, but once it happens, find themselves compelled to read all about it. It is a reason why the question of when the line between public/private should be crossed is so important.
***
Gloria
Instead of concentrating on trouble spots in the Middle East and elsewhere, let alone improving its own data gathering against terrorists, America focused its attention (and millions of dollars) for over a year on the Lewinsky affair. If we get a republic there’ll be the same problem – either a braindead gutless sexless President like Reagan or Bush or someone actually alive and with sexual impulses like Clinton and Kernot. The latter possibility means that every reporter/photographer in the region will be watching his sexlife instead of his policies.
***
Jenny Forster
Anyone who thinks Cheryl Kernot went across to the Labor Party because Gareth Evans beckoned must have read too much Mills & Boon or have rocks in their head. Laurie’s declaration – “Without the distraction and distress it caused Kernot at crucial times, she would certainly have been a less flaky and more effective shadow minister” – is purely his guesstimate and would be credible if the Labor party had a record of inclusion of and support for women. It has quite the reverse.
This whole episode is a squalid condemnation of the chase for sales and ratings by Oakes, and of the Canberra press gallery, who are shouting so loudly about truth that they cannot hear the word the public is shouting back at them – ethics.
The argument that writing a book and leaving something out makes one fair game is a nonsense. What political biography written last or this century has included every last detail. The Labor Party comes across as a boys’ club run on lines hostile to women and drenched in the male culture as exemplified by the outmoded sexist attitudes of the politicians and the conservative union leaders.
Look at the recent past history of the Labor party and see the smoking bodies of female politicians burnt on chauvinistic stakes. If Cheryl has exposed this in her book then good on her. If the stitched-up politicians and journalists can’t handle a female politician who covers the whole human spectrum of life experiences then perhaps they should look at their own failings before they seek to condemn.
On the ethics issue I feel sorry for the children of both Kernot and Evans. It is hard enough to raise children in this toxic , explicit and violent society. Their parents were in politics and they would have accepted a certain amount of negative exposure because of that.
This revelation has drawn another line in the sand right inside the personal territory of a politician’s family.They could possibly feel they have been exposed to shame and humiliation in the eyes of the whole country. Shame is one of the strongest human emotions.
I see this as another tear in the ethical fabric of this country and hope that Oakes, Margo, Stephen Mayne and co consider this when they next set off in pursuit of *the truth*. What they consider to be for the greater good of the country many of us see as the swampy depths of the gutter press.
***
Kylie Ann Scott in Haberfield, Sydney
Laurie’s reasons, and the general press consensus that it was justified to release the secret of the affair because Cheryl had written her book, are very flawed and do not stand up. No-one spoke up in the press, and in deed Laurie was silent, when Gareth’s book came out. Gareth’s book omitted the affair, why wasn’t Laurie so committed to exposing the truth then.
This is a vindictive slur, plain and simple.
Margo: Gareth has written on foreign policy. He has not written an autobiography. Keith Scott’s biography of Gareth was published in 1999.
***
Brian Bahnisch in Brisbane
I was one who admired Cheryl Kernot as a Democrat and welcomed her switch to Labor. I was saddened and distressed by her virtual public disintegration and demise.
On Oakes and the big secret, first I did not know what to think. Then Gerard Henderson, not from Lateline, which I did not see, but from an interview with Vivian Schenker, persuaded me to his view on Thursday morning. He said that in the absence of evidence of a causal link between the affair and the defection, Oakes should not have spilled the beans.
I have changed my view again. The causality may have run the other way; more likely it was all of a piece. Sex is part of life, not something restricted to a separate little compartment. The regard and affection Cheryl and Gareth had for each other was evident for all to see; the fact that they shared a bed at times for five years is really a footnote, not the main story.
Unfortunately, all the energy and air time is now focussed on the footnote, not on the story.
For that we have to thank Laurie Oakes. But look what else he has done! He has almost certainly caused pain and further harm to two families. He has almost certainly ruined any chance Cheryl and the publisher had of decent sales of the book. He has given further impetus to the notion that women are victims of their emotions, suggesting that the affair explains some of her “erratic” and “flaky” behaviour at that time. It could, in fact, have given her strength. Furthermore, as Natasha says, it will almost certainly discourage other women from entering politics. Finally, it has almost certainly damaged Cheryl’s prospects of remaking her life.
So did Laurie Oakes really think this thing through? I think not. He sought to clarify matters; instead he has distracted and confused. Part of the problem is that as a society we can’t properly come to terms with sex.
For reasons too extensive to go into here, I generally favour fidelity within marriage. It is up to Cheryl and Gareth to reflect on whether their affair was on balance positive or negative. I would prefer them to have controlled themselves and spared us all the drama.
Nevertheless, I do not see sex between consenting adults as seamy, sleazy or even necessarily steamy. The fact that two people, with attractive personalities, with shared values, ideals and political goals (purge the country of Howard and co), whose work brought them in close proximity, shared a bed for a while is, I say again, a footnote to the main story and entirely unremarkable in terms of the public interest.
So Laurie Oakes has served the public interest badly, and has almost certainly caused harm to those with a great and very legitimate interest, the immediate families.
***
Fergus Hancock in Muswellbrook, NSW
I will have one bleat on this topic before, hopefully, the thing goes out of the public mind. Both Cheryl Kernot and Gareth Evans were married at the time the affair occurred. Both have (or have had) spouses and children. It is therefore completely untrue to say that they are the only ones involved – why not jettison families all together if they are that much of an inconvenience?. It is also completely untrue to say that the whole thing was in the public interest – if it is, why don’t you publicly interview the respective spouses (or ex-) and children so that all Australia can see their shame?
Cheryl and Gareth have to deal with this before their families, and hopefully there will be reconciliation and forgiveness. Otherwise, the family issue will fester until untold damage will occur. Will any of the Canberra press gallery offer their support to the families? Or even acknowledge they exist? What about their rights?
Gareth said in about 1997, quoting St Augustine, “I pray to God for continence, but not just yet.” I didn’t realise what that meant at the time. I hope and pray that his family can find grace and acceptance and love to deal with this wrong done to them.
***
Felix Davis
The Chezza and Gazza tabloid fodder provided by Laurie Oakes only serves to demonstrate the extent that so much of our society needs to source the drama in their lives through squabbling over the bones of the past relationships of public figures.
Did Gough, Gorton or Bob tell nothing but the truth in their memoirs? Who really cares? If Laurie Oakes was intent on redressing what he saw as the besmirching of Big Kim’s character, why didn’t he encourage a tort of defamation or slander, rather than tell tales of who pashed who behind the bike shed?
Let the Kangaroo Court begin.
***
Sue Corrigan
I am amazed that you would in any way support Laurie Oakes’ latest vindictive, disgraceful attack on Cheryl Kernot.
If you look back at what happened when Kernot announced her defection to the ALP in October 1997, you will see that Oakes attacked her that very day, and in the most savage terms. And the gist of his complaint? That Kernot had had the nerve to keep her decision to defect a secret so that she could break the story herself, at a time and in the manner of her own choosing.
It struck me at the time as a petulant outburst from a pompously self-important journalist who apparently appeared to believe that he had some some of Divine Right to be tipped off in advance. It appeared to outrage him that something could happen in federal politics that he didn’t know about first. He seemed to take Kernot’s surprise announcement almost as a personal and professional slight.
From that day on he has never let up on her. When she announced her decision to join the ALP, Kernot tried to articulate important points about her political philosophy and values, and to raise significant issues to do with the country’s future political, economic and social directions. Nobody in the personality-obsessed media paid very much attention to what she was saying then; and now, the process is tragically complete. Kernot goes down in history as just another silly, emotional, airhead woman lured into giving up the leadership of the Democrats and switching to the ALP because she was having an affair with Gareth Evans.
I can understand all the boys in Canberra getting excited about that. I honestly don’t understand your attitude at all.
***
George Ooi
I’m terribly disappointed with you, Margo, with regards to your attitude towards The Affair. I agree with the comments of Rob Schaap in Your say on the Cheryl Affair. The fact that they had a prior affair does not mean that Cheryl’s defection is solely due to Gareth’s honey trap!
I’m disgusted with the media treatment of the whole affair, and Crean’s “holier than thou attitude”. Are you, Crean and Oakes, implying that ministers never lie? Gareth’s lie is of miniscule consequences and importance compared to the big lies of the PM, Reith etc. So why do you journos apply the blowtorch to Gareth and Cheryl?
Margo: It is imperative that the media put maximum pressure on those who are tempted to lie to Parliament so that they think better of it. Gareth’s mistake was the same as Bill Clinton’s – to lie. Both should have said they would not deign to respond to suggestions concerning their private lives. Gareth did because his wife insisted on it as proof that he was telling her the truth. This is morally indefensible and unforgiveably cowardly. Evans thus used a public forum for a private purpose – HE converted a private matter into one of public interest. Even worse, Gareth appears to have had no intention at the time he lied to his wife and the Parliament (ie the Australian people) to convert it to truth in retrospect. He lied on March 12, 1998. His affair with Kernot ended in 1999.
***
Libby Werthein
In your response to me in Your say on the Cheryl Affair you wrote: “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.”
I guess I don’t know as much as you and other journalists about the what is printed in the press so I don’t know about the journalist who was outed in the press. I also agree with you that if someone gets a job purely because of a personal relationship with a politician then that is different.
But I do not think Cheryl Kernot got the job with labor for having an affair. In fact it would appear that she may not have got the job if others knew of affair. That in itself is interesting. I’m sure that many people, particularly in politics and media, and if even if deserving, in part get jobs and positions of authority because of their personal relationships and friendships. Isn’t it called mateship? You know the old saying, it’s not what you know it’s who you know.
I am sure that much of what happens in politics is about personal relationship, which is most unfortunate because it means that the best leaders and politicians may not get the job.
Her affair and the attitude of Labor members to this may well explain some of the negative treatment she got. But this is also double standards, and as others have pointed out she may have better served herself and exposed more about the functioning and boys club mentality of Labour party by speaking of this.
I know little of Cheryl Kernot and have learnt more about her dealings in the past few days. What some suggest is a Lady Di syndrome, which may explain why she has been a bit of a target. But still, as it is so difficult for woman to get into politics I feel that such extreme personal attacks on the few woman in politics neither furthers their right to be there nor encourages them to get involved. This is what mostly concerns me.
Lastly I do think that the media need to address their own actions and decisions on what is published. The media, like politicians and business, should be held accountable, and many media people seem to think they should not have to answer for themselves or be held accountable. Strange, since they spend their time reporting and exposing others. The media has a huge amount of power and more serious and responsible journalism would go a long way to assisting in improving this dumb, narrow minded, selfish and still sexist country.
Margo: I agree with on media accountability – the question is, in what form? It’s fraught to have legislation enforcing accountablity , because that effectively means state control of the media, the first sign of a society heading towards fascism. Our self- regulation mechanisms are deeply flawed but are improving slowly. I favour in-house ombudsmen to receive complaints and publish responses, and to comment more broadly on decisions of the paper in the paper.
In my view, the story of the affair is not a capital-letter important story in itself. but the response certainly is. The community and its media are talking together on the merits of publication all round Australia. At the end of this discussion – which is so passionate because there is no black and white on the specifics and because different organs of our democracy have different bottom-lines – I believe a consensus about when private spills into public to the extent that publication is justified could well be reached. Perhaps Webdiarists would like to have a go at draft guidelines.