Tag Archives: ABC

The Company Their ABC is Keeping

The ABC has copped unexpected blowback in its collaborations to enforce censorship about COVID failures, US election-rigging and climate “emergencies”. Last November  ABC joined the BBC’s Trusted News Initiative(TNI), a consortium of Big Media and Big Tech global players. TNI’s gatekeeping goal concerning “misinformation” (i.e. contrary to the official line) is to flag it in real time, coordinate members internally and alert Big Tech’s enforcers to stamp it out.

But on January 10 President John Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F Kennedy Jr,  in a Texas District Court launched an anti-trust lawsuit for treble damages from TNI’s biggest news providers, namely the BBC, Washington Post, and global news syndicators Reuters and Associated Press. He wants TNI disbanded as an unlawful cartel. He cites the BBC because of its TNI lead role and US commercial operations involving millions of users.[1] The Kennedy lawsuit is here.[2]His brief says “It is also an action to defend the freedom of speech and of the press.”

If Kennedy wins, the consequences  are uncertain for the ABC, fellow-travelling TNI member SBS and other TNI members not named as defendants. The suit says,

Each participant in an antitrust conspiracy is jointly and severally liable for all the damages (including treble damages and attorneys’ fees) caused by the conspiracy, and the victims of an unlawful antitrust conspiracy are not required to sue all participants therein. (My emphasis, p93).

Quadrant emailed questions to the ABC’s media team Nick Leys and Sally Jackson including:

1/ The Kennedy lawsuit makes no reference to ABC or SBS. Is the ABC  involved in the lawsuit in any way – perhaps through an amended filing by the plaintiff or reference in proceedings?

2/ Has the ABC advised its relevant Minister about its potential exposure to the lawsuit?

3/ How has ABC been implementing TNI policies? Can you give me please any examples of “misinformation” control by ABC in line with TNI guidelines?

Quadrant sent similar questions to Guy Podmore of SBS Corporate Communications, also asking him whether ABC and SBS had joined TNI as a group exercise or independently. We received no replies by Thursday’s deadline (Feb 2) after 1.5 business days.

The BBC lists TNI’s core membership as the syndicators Associated Press (1300 media outlets), Agence France Press (1700 journalists,150 countries) and Reuters (3100 reporters, 1b audience).  In TNI the ABC and SBS has also joined with the leftist Washington Post, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union, The Hindu, NDTV and Indian Express (India), Dawn (Pakistan), NHK (Japan), Kompass (Indonesia), Financial Times (UK), and The Nation Media Group (East/Central Africa). The Big Tech members are Meta (aka Facebook),  Google, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter (which pre-dates Elon Musk’s ownership). The tech giants act to kneecap upstarts’ revenues with a tweak of an algorithm, intimidating thousands of other bloggers into self-censorship. The ABC release says (emphasis added),

The creation of the Asia-Pacific network will enable the TNI’s regional partners to share insights and best practices to tackle disinformation, discuss trends in the region and alert each other to the most dangerous forms of disinformation through the TNI cooperative framework.

ABC News Director Justin Stevens lauded TNI, saying that dangerous disinformation

weakens our society and is a threat that must be addressed … As Australia’s most trusted media organisation the ABC has an important role to play in tackling this problem. We’re pleased to join the Trusted News Initiative and, in the process, provide Australian audiences with a deeper and better-informed view of our region and the world.

He says TNI is entirely separate from, and does not in any way affect, the editorial independence of any partner organisation. He lists TNI’s methods as

♦ “Fast alerts” when disinformation threatens human life “or disrupts democracy”

♦ Intelligence sharing” in real time about evolving disinformation

♦ “Media education” on how audiences react to disinformation, and

♦ “Engineering solutions”  for authentication of trusted news sources and improving the information environment

The ABC seems to enjoy its role as a minor Google vassal. Google News Lab crowed about the expanded TNI Asia-Pacific network: “Now, we’re supporting the TNI to deliver targeted, expert training workshops on a variety of digital tools to help journalists as they seek to continue day-to-day verification and fact-checking in newsrooms across the region.”

Google (market cap $US1.3 trillion) found behind its executive sofa $US300 million (equal to roughly a quarter of the ABC’s annual taxpayer gravy) to set up “Google News Initiative” for massaging the media and journalists.[3] A BBC spokesperson, echoed by the ABC, said, “The media organisations that now make up TNI’s new Asia-Pacific network have received training, funded by the Google News Initiative, to help their journalists navigate the disinformation environment.” I’d ask the ABC for the names of their Google-trained journos, but seldom get replies.

Kennedy’s lawsuit, less kindly, claims TNI’s commercial goal is to deplatform and crush  the myriad of upstart online publishers who are contradicting the official lines and reducing trust in big media, along with its ad revenues.  The legacy, high-cost media are smarting over competition from bloggers in the shift to digital publishing, with 85 per cent of Americans now getting their news online. US newspapers’ ad revenue between 2000 and 2020 plummeted from $US48.7 billion to only $US9.6 billion, Kennedy says (p28).

A further motive for the TNI censorship, Kennedy says, is to placate governments that are threatening adverse new regulations, potentially costing Big Pharma billions in fines, liabilities and lost revenue. US conservative pundit Tucker Carlson has satirised the Big Media censorship as: “We have a monopoly on telling lies. No one else can talk.”

I set out chapter and verse of mainstream media corruption and censorship a year ago here. Among 46 countries, the US media has become the least trusted  (only 29 per cent trust it). Just 11 per cent of Republicans – who comprise half the population – trust the media, and only 10 per cent of Americans trust the media’s reporting on COVID. In Australia reporters are the second-least trusted of 30 occupations, ahead of politicians but behind delivery drivers. Only 43 per cent of Australians trust the media, which is less than in Poland, Croatia and South Africa.

Currently Big Media and Big Tech are suppressing revelations from a US sting operation against Pfizer by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas gadfly. A Veritas operative romanced a Pfizer executive, Jordan Walker, last week and video-recorded him bragging about Pfizer mutating dangerous viruses for profit, hoodwinking the public and engaging in other seriously unethical practices. As The Australian’s US correspondent Adam Creighton noted on January 30, the “jaw-dropping” story had racked up 40 million Twitter impressions but mainstream (Democrat-friendly) media in the US – except Murdoch and his Fox News – wholly ignored it.[4] Google and YouTube have reduced or deleted its visibility. Creighton appears unaware of media cartels, like the ABC’s TNI, coordinating suppression behind the scenes. A search of the ABC website on February 2 likewise yielded no current hits on Veritas or Pfizer, whether because of ABC’s TNI collusion pledge or its normal aversion to news that embarrasses the green-left establishment.

Robert  Kennedy’s own newsletters had 680,000 followers before being de-platformed, censored and shadow-banned by Google/YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook/Instagram. His writ says BBC’s Jessica Cecil, TNI’s head in 2020-21, took evident pride in the assertion that the TNI’s suppression of others’ online reporting did not “in any way muzzl[e] our own journalism”. He adds, “It was apparently of no consequence that the TNI muzzles other news publishers’ journalism.” (p44). Cecil spoke of TNI’s “clear expectations” for members to “choke off” alleged online misinformation. This incidentally prevents any one member gaining traffic by publishing “prohibited reporting” the others have binned.

Kennedy says TNI’s Big Tech members collectively have a gatekeeping power over at least 90 per cent of online news traffic. De-platforming a small news publisher typically costs at least 90 per cent of its traffic. Even well-known major online news publishers can lose up to 50 per cent of their traffic from a  seemingly minor change to Google’s search algorithms.  Smaller online news publishers have been destroyed completely when shadow-banned, throttled, de-monetized, or de-platformed.

Examples from the lawsuit’s co-plaintiffs:

♦ Jim Hoft, owner of hugely-popular blog The Gateway Pundit grew from a one-man blog in 2004 to fourth-best-rated conservative US blog in 2021 with 2 million accesses monthly. Pre-censoring, and with a 1m-plus following, he specialised in reporting scandals that TNI members hushed up or misreported, including the Jussie Smollett “hate-crime” hoax in early 2019, Wuhan covid research and statistical inflations of US covid deaths. The Big-Tech’s attacks cost him $US25 million.

♦ CD [Creative Destruction] Media, owned by L. Todd Wood.  He flew Sikorski MH-53 Pave Low combat helicopters in Kuwait in 1991 and later did classified missions for three years supporting counter-terror ops for SEAL Team Six and Delta Force.  Before being shadow-banned, his multi-lingual websites ran exposures of election frauds and Biden family corruption.[5] Big Tech attacked him on many fronts including, a suspension by  the email bundler Mailchimp, freezing his funds and blocking his credit cards. His losses: $US10 million-plus.

# Erin Elizabeth Flynn, an on-line health journalist,  who pre-censoring by TNI members had 90,000 Twitter followers, a billion YouTube views and 1.2 million likes/followers on one Facebook page alone. Losses: $US2 million-plus.

# Ben Swann, owner of news website Truth in Media, won numerous Associated Press awards as well as three Emmy Awards and was a two-time winner of the prestigious Edward R. Murrow award. His output with 750,000 followers before TNI  censoring was holding mainstream media to account, gaining up to 2 million page-views per month.

It’s hard to know how TNI bigwigs determine what is sacrosanct orthodoxy, especially with frequent 180-degree turns in the official narratives. Linked-In permanently banned one commentator merely for noting the fact that James C. Smith, president and CEO of news giant Reuters, also happens to be on the board of pharma giant Pfizer, and for suggesting (not unreasonably) the perception on the part of some of a conflict of interest.

As Kennedy puts it, TNI’s members boycotts were promoting vaccinations while undermining cheaper treatments. This helped generate hundreds of billions in profits to Big Pharma, which in turn paid the TNI Big Tech members billions of dollars for advertising.    

Kennedy quotes the TNI alleged cartel making admissions. Last year Jamie Angus, then the senior BBC controller of news, said:

the real rivalry now is not between for example the BBC and CNN globally, it’s actually between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked” reporting “that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms … That’s the real competition now in the digital media world. Of course organizations will always compete with one another for audiences.

But the existential threat I think is that overall breakdown in trust, so that trusted news organizations lose in the long term if audiences just, just abandon the idea of a relationship of trust with news organizations. [6] (p45)

The lawsuit also references suppression by the TNI group of electoral news harmful to the Democrats and other liberal establishment players. In particular the lawsuit cites the mainstream news blackout in the weeks before the 2020 Presidential election on the scandalous contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, which revealed allocating 10 per cent to “the big guy” — his father, Joe Biden — of Hunter’s lucrative influence peddling with America’s opponent nations. This coordinated blackout was justified by the lie – belatedly withdrawn by the Washington Postand New York Times 18 months post-election —  that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Kennedy blames TNI for much of the blackout, thus the  “truth controllers” propagated untruths. (The ABC originally in multiple accounts treated the laptop revelations as conspiracies or nutty, and an ABC web search finds no story yet that the laptop is genuine).

Kennedy also quotes a Facebook information-moderation executive in March 2022 emphasising that it was a mistake to think of “misinformation” as consisting solely of “false claims,” because a great deal of it is “not provably false.” (p48).

TNI silenced legitimate reporting of evidence including COVID-19 coming from a Chinese lab[7]; lockdowns, masks and social distancing being ineffective; Covid vaccines failing to prevent infection; vaccinated persons transmitting COVID; official COVID death tolls being inflated, and COVID conferring more immunity than vaccination.[8]

This TNI alliance has common elements with another consortium, Covering Climate Now (CCN), dedicated to climate news manipulation. Like TNI, this group has signed up the same AP, AFP and Reuters syndicators and the Washington Post, but also about 500 other news and opinion outlets.  Its total claimed audience is two billion. CCN members pledge to hype global warming scares and suppress ”denialist” items – whether accurate or not. [9] The ABC and SBS have not yet joined CCN, whose chief Australian members are the climate-crazed Guardian[10] and the universities-based The Conversation.

 After all this evidence of degradation of the journalism profession, you might appreciate some light relief. The TNI censors have posted a climate video panel “Trust in News – Fighting Disinformation”.  In it BBC climate editor Justin Rowlatt says orthodox climate science is not to be questioned but it is OK to get alternative views to the mainstream solutions like “using taxes, making carbon more expensive [this has been brilliantly successful], subsidising things like wind turbines or forcing people to go vegetarian.” It’s great to get this BBC agenda out in the open.

Brazil Reuters’ Adele Santelli wants every media story to be a climate story: “Well-rounded and positive coverage doesn’t happen by accident, it must be consciously planned with a commitment to continuity [i.e. non-stop].” On the Ukraine war she says,

We have to do an effort to keep the agenda to climate change … Maybe we can use this war to keep talking about climate change and how we should really be investing in energy transition, it is unimaginable  but we are still watching a war that has to do with climate change somehow.

Belatedly she recommends that journos should not be activists– but of course not give  a platform to “extremist views” and or allow “lies” to be repeated – “certainly not without calling them lies”. 

BBC compere Philippa Thomas (no relation) got more than she bargained for when asking BBC Africa colleague Marsha Ochieng about African audience response to BBC messaging. Ms Ochieng put up a slide of social media feedback including

♦ “BBC 80% fake news”

♦ “Stop these lies please, this is an evil plan”

♦ “Stop using African youth to drive  your Western propaganda”

♦ “There are young guys looking for food, give food and offer them sleep and they will all be silent.”

♦ “Africa must not worry about climate issues now. Let the Europeans, Asians and their greedy cousins in the US worry about it for now.  Our main focus should be directed towards Islamist terrorism going on in Mozambique, northern Nigeria, Somalia, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and the tribal mad things going on in Ethiopia and South Sudan.”

♦ One responder simply posted a picture of a “Bullshit Amplifier/Detector” with the dial at maximum.

Ms Ochieng sums up lamely: “We need to help our audiences understand the issue … find innovative ways to make them care about it.”

Questions from viewers produce such wonderland material as: “Extinction Rebellion accuses the BBC of suppressing the most alarming news about climate change. When will the BBC allow people to hear the most frightening news?” Ms Thomas asks the panel if BBC is really “holding back” on the bad climate news. The panel doesn’t think so.

Final thought: has the ABC become even more trustworthy since joining the Trusted Media Initiative? I don’t think so.

Tony Thomas’s latest book from Connor Court is now available: Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. For a copy ($35 including postage), email tthomas061@gmail.com.

[1] Kennedy in 2021 authored a jaw-dropping investigative book “The Real Anthony Fauci – Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the War on Democracy and Public Health”

[2] In 2018, the National Trial Lawyers Association named Kennedy and his legal team Trial Team of the Year for their work winning a $US289 million jury verdict against Monsanto for selling carcinogenic weed-killer products.

[3] The Google News Initiative is partnered with advertising agencies in a program called Trusted News for Trusted Advertising (TNTA), to ensure advertisers don’t have their ads associated with “false or misleading news,” thereby allowing them to “regain control of the media on which they publish the advertising”

[4] Creighton: “The silence was, for me, an unsettling insight into the power of pharmaceutical giants (among the biggest advertisers in the US), the groupthink in elite US media, and the Orwellian role of big tech in deciding what’s permissible.”

[5] On October 25, 2020, Facebook blocked all CD Media content after Todd Wood’s post that included images of Hunter Biden from LinkedIn and Facebook and stated, “we have the Hunter Biden sex tapes…one per hour being released.”

[6] Mr. Angus has gone from the BBC to a higher calling as executive  with Saudi Arabia’s state broadcaster.

[7] “Strikingly, all three platforms [Facebook, Google, and Twitter] not only banned the claim that COVID was deliberately created at a virology lab in or near Wuhan, China; they also banned the wholly plausible claim that COVID was accidentally created and released from a virology lab in Wuhan, China.”

[8] Kennedy says an economic motivation was expressly admitted in 2022 by the founder of the TNI, the BBC:

Of course the members of the Trusted News Initiative are . . . rivals. . . . But in a crisis situation like this, absolutely, organizations have to focus on the things they have in common, rather than . . . their commercial . . . rivalries. . . . [I]t’s important that trusted news providers club together. Because actually the real rivalry now is not between for example the BBC and CNN globally, it’s actually between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked [reporting] that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms . . . . That’s the real competition now in the digital media world. Of course organizations will always compete against one another for audiences. But the existential threat I think is that overall breakdown in trust, so that trusted news organizations lose in the long term if audiences just abandon the idea of a relationship of trust with news organizations. So actually we’ve got a lot more to hold us together than we have to work in competition with one another.

[9] The Australian Academy of Science has vigorously urged the tech giants to deal similarly with any  climate dissent and “inoculate” Australians against climate unorthodoxy.

[10] The Guardian stylebook mandates terms like “climate crisis/breakdown/global-heating” in place of the mundane term “climate change”.

A Green-Letter Day for Corrections at Their ABC


I get along great with Reena Rihan, of ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. She handles my complaints about ABCTV News’ green-Left bias and stuff-ups, and she deals with them quite promptly. I win some. I lose some. For Quadrant Online readers, this must sound like heresy. But I insist; the ABC complaints process is not all bad. Try this shapshot of the past month.

I was watching the Victorian 7pm flagship TV news on February 16, when it ran an item about President Donald Trump declaring a state of emergency to fund his border wall. The two-line opening graphic by the ABC comprised the words, “Border Wall – Abuse of Power”. OK, so the taxpayer-funded impartial ABCTV News claims Trump is abusing his powers. I wrote to the ABC on February 18,

The item included Democratic claims of an abuse of power by Trump over his wall emergency measures.

The ABC graphic must mean that the ABC endorses that  Trump is involved in an “Abuse of Power”. This cannot be correct as US courts are yet to rule on the issue. The graphic is  a violation of ABC  impartiality guidelines.

Normal practice would be to put quote marks on, as per “Abuse of Power” Claims. Or “Alleged Abuse of Power”.

Can ABC TV please put a correction on its website about this?

In the remarkably efficient turnaround time of two days, Ms Rihan wrote back: 

Audience and Consumer Affairs have (sic) reviewed the segment and assessed the contents against the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality which states, relevantly, in part 4.1: Gather and present news and information with due impartiality…

The standards are underpinned by the principles which states that assessments of impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of relevant factors including the nature of the content, the circumstances the content is presented, and the likely audience expectations.

As such we have considered the introductory graphic within the context of the full report.

Having reviewed the report, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the full context was provided in the report. In fact, the introduction explicitly stated:

“Donald Trump has been accused of abusing his presidential powers after declaring a national emergency to fund his border wall. Mr Trump says the barrier is needed to stop crime by illegal immigrants, but the Democrats have vowed to fight it, all the way to the Supreme Court.”

The report also featured comments from the Democratic Leadership statement and comments from the California Attorney General Xavier Becerra [Democrat] regarding Donald Trump’s actions.

Audience and Consumer Affairs consider (sic) that viewers would be aware that the background graphic would only provide a very limited summary of the report and would be aware that the graphic cannot contain the full detail of the report or all the nuance contained in the full report. Audience and Consumer Affairs further consider (sic) that audience expectations for the graphic in isolation would not be as high for the report and in this circumstance where the report fully explains the story, we are satisfied that the single graphic which was visible only for the brief introduction to the story was not a breach of the ABC’s impartiality standards.

So I lost that one. Maybe ABC journos and producers are unfamiliar with the word “alleged”. Or maybe they don’t consider “alleged” to be necessary when Trump is accused of any crime, such as colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election (or torturing puppies). I did look up the ABC charter, which includes,

The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC.

Fast forward to lunchtime today, and Ms Rihan’s response to my next complaint hits my inbox. Wow! Only seven days’ turnaround. And wow again … a humiliating backdown, corrections and grovel by Their ABC.

On March 17, flagship Victorian 7pm News had one of those mini-features designed to show off its reporters’ story-telling skills, in this instance Victorian political reporter Stephanie Anderson did a piece about  Yarra Valley Water running a plant at Wollert to convert 33,000 tonnes a year of food waste to energy for water treatment and electricity for the grid. All well and good, I mused, settling back with dog Natasha on my lap. But then Ms Anderson had me bolt upright and Natasha sprawling. This plant, she alleged, “creates enough energy to power nearly 750,000 homes.”

My first check with Dr Google showed that 750,000 homes is about a third of all Victorian households, of which there were 2.2 million at last census. So to solve our electricity woes, Victorians would seem to need just two more plants munching food scraps from Victoria Market.

So here’s my grouch to Ms Rihan, after googling for Yarra Valley Water’s own figures:

Wrong data: The figure is wrong by orders of magnitude… Making such claims exaggerates the impact of renewable energy and requires correction. See below 

“Yarra Valley Water is also looking at investing in another generator at its existing Wollert facility, in order to scale up its current operation, which currently produces 8000 megawatts of energy per annum, enough to power about 2000 homes. 

And:

The facility can produce one megawatt per hour, which according to manager Damien Bassett is enough power for 1500 homes.

Here’s Ms Rihan’s response:

ABC News have advised (sic) that unfortunately, as you have noted, an error was made in the report. As soon as this error came to the attention of ABC News the associated ABC News Digital article was amended and an Editor’s Note was appended to clarify this change:

A correction has also been added to the ABC’s Corrections and Clarifications page to correct the error as it aired on the 7pm News report:

On 17 March ABC News Victoria reported that the number of homes that could be powered by a waste-to-energy plant at Wollert was nearly 750,000. That figure is not correct and has been amended to the correct figure of about 2,000.

Please accept our apologies for the error and any concern caused. Please also be assured this matter has been brought to the attention of the staff involved by ABC News management who have taken this opportunity to remind staff of the need to thoroughly check information before publication.

My heart went out (as they say) to reporter Anderson for getting that 750,000 number wrong by a factor of nearly 400. At a similar stage in my career, I suffered for publishing a few howlers myself. Anderson did BA majors in French and German, and started with the ABC as a cadet in 2012. I ran a check of her print and tweet output in the past few months and didn’t notice any bias.

On the other hand, the ABC is not short of managers and supervisors. None of them, before the piece aired, saw anything odd about a small recycling plant powering up those lucky 750,000 homes. If that figure went unquestioned, how much other data in the ABC’s green propaganda pieces is also rubbish?

Ah well, it’s all been thoroughly corrected. Who says the ABC never admits an error?

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and on-line here

Pauline Hanson’s Mixed Bag

TONY THOMAS

Her economic policies reek of ratbaggery, so let us hope she doesn’t use her Senate clout to revive protectionism and tariffs. On multiculturalism and de-funding Big Climate’s fools and charlatans, however, she is with the angels. No wonder the ABC is already spitting insults

pauline smallPauline Hanson is now a powerful force in a divided Senate. She may head a team there of two, three (with a NSW seat) or even four senators, on a  platform including a Royal Commission into the corruption of global warming science. “This whole climate change is not based on empirical evidence and we are being hoodwinked,” she says. “Climate change is not due to humans.”

The Hanson policies will now, unavoidably, be brought into the mainstream political conversation. Hitherto, the media has chosen to treat her and her policies as “racism and bigotry” (they aren’t), “divisive” (code for “intolerable for us Leftists”) and as a butt for sex  gibes.

The ABC has just  now displayed a caricature of her as “Pauline Pantsdown”. The ABC’s only pretext for this crudity is “Simon Hunt’s Pauline Pantsdown character (right) was popular in the 1990s.”

Somehow I can’t imagine our ABC running an equivalent caricature of Labor’s Penny Wong as “Penny Pantsdown”, ditto Julia Gillard.

Expect new ABC managing director, Michelle Guthrie, to crack down hard on her myrmidons responsible for this sexist crudity against Hanson. Expect feminist Anne Summers to fly to Hanson’s defence any minute now. Expect ex-General David Morrison, Australian of the Year, to issue a new missive deploring ABC sexism – as he says, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Oh, and expect pigs to fly. The ABC illustration, published apropos of nothing at all, is below.

pauline

Actually, worse things have been done to Hanson by way of misogynist abuse. On March 15, 2009, while she was in her final week’s campaign as an independent for the Queensland State election, News Corp’s Sunday Telegraph and four other Murdoch tabloids published nude photographs purporting to be of Pauline Hanson in 1975. The papers paid a paparazzo $15,000 for them. Hanson’s election bid was defeated amid taunts and mockery, but the pictures of “Hanson” were manifestly fakes. In May Sunday Telegraph editor Neil Breen published a signed three-paragraph apology to her saying, “We have learnt a valuable lesson”. She obtained an out of court settlement.

Hanson is no longer easy prey. She is very likely to have as her running mate in the Senate the prominent climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts. He has been project leader for a sceptic think-tank, the Galileo Movement, founded by Case Smit and John Smeed.[i]

Roberts  is an engineering honors graduate and MBA from Chicago Graduate School of Business.  He is a one-time underground-coal miner and project executive, and his primary motive for joining Hanson is the fight against global warmists. The Galileo website says Roberts had been “statutorily responsible for thousands of people’s lives based on his knowledge and real-world experience of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide.”

Roberts explains his move to the Hanson party: “She is not as the media and political opponents have portrayed. Pauline is intelligent, quick, honest, courageous and persistent. We are passionate about bringing back our country.”

Anything is possible among Senate minor candidates and Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats includes up-front warming sceptics[ii] and a sceptical/agnostic view of the warming panic.  This includes a halt to warmist propaganda in school.

What a conundrum for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his side-kick, Greg Hunt, who  brought their faux carbon tax into operation last week, under the emissions trading label. Turnbull  said last month that Hanson “is not a welcome presence on the Australian political scene.” She responded reasonably that this was the electors’ call, not Turnbull’s.

What a conundrum for Tony Abbott, who organized the funding for the legal persecution of Hanson, claiming she had committed electoral irregularities. Hanson  in 2003 was sentenced to three years gaol for fraud and served eleven weeks in maximum security, including some time in solitary confinement. In November, 2003, the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction but she was still left $500,000 out of pocket.

What a conundrum for The Greens, with their agenda to suicidally switch Australian energy to those expensive unreliables, wind and solar.  Hanson outpolled the Greens in the Senate on Queensland first preferences, 9.15 per cent to 7.57 per cent.

And unfortunately, what a conundrum for economically-literate climate sceptics. That’s because Hanson’s party platform includes not only an anti-fracking agenda but the most primitive of protectionist policies. Those policies are designed to re-erect tariff  walls, prop up hopeless manufacturers, cancel free-trade agreements and reject the globalization which has brought unprecedented living standards to developed and Third World countries alike.

Whatever, Hanson’s main climate policy is brilliant. Here it is (I’ve re-ordered the points somewhat):

  • Hold a Royal Commission (or similar) into the corruption of climate science and identify whether any individual or organisation has misled government to effect climate and energy policy.
  • Remove all subsidies and financial advantages offered to the renewable energy industry and make them compete on an even playing field with other energy sources.
  • Support reliable, low-cost power generation. This has previously been Australia’s strongest competitive advantage.
  • Establish an independent Australian science body replacing the UN IPCC to report on climate science. It will be the beyond politicisation and be the basis of Australian policy on insurance and response to weather events.
  • One Nation will oppose all taxes levied on carbon dioxide, be it a flat carbon tax or a floating emissions trading scheme…
  • Abolish the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and support practical cost-effective research into energy efficiency, reliability and dependability.
  • Cancel all agreements obliging Australia to pay for foreign Climate Action and payment to the United Nations and foreign institutions…
  • Remove from the education system the teaching of a one-sided view of climate science. Teaching of climate science will begin in secondary school and will be based on the scientific method of scepticism until proven.
  • Environmental impacts to be assessed on the use of empirical scientific evidence, not activists or non-government organisations pushing ideology and political agendas.
  • Review the Bureau of Meteorology to ensure independence and accountability for weather and climate records, including public justification of persistent upward adjustments to historical climate records.
  • Review the CSIRO to ensure independence and accountability and determine whether funding has influenced the direction and results of CSIRO’s positions on the climate claims. Funding from the UN in particular will be probed for an agenda not consistent for what is best for Australians.
  • Ensure that all climate, energy and environmental policy decisions, requiring a scientific component, are based on the scientific method and empirical evidence. All decisions will be based on an economic, social and environmental assessment with environmental issues not automatically put ahead of humanity or economic realities.
  • Support renewable energy that does not impact on the environment and encourage research in the ability to store energy at affordable cost to households and businesses.
  • The wind industry must compensate all residents who have been proven to suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome and any residents where the presence of wind turbines have negatively effected the price of their home.

The platform says,

Climate change has and will continue to be used as a political agenda by politicians and self interest groups or individuals for their own gain. We cannot allow scare mongering by people such as Tim Flannery, who make outlandish statements and are not held accountable. Climate change should not be about making money for a lot of people and giving scientists money.  

[Emissions Trading Systems are] not going to wave a magic wand and stop nature changing the climate. It will only make it harder for Australian families and businesses to make ends meet…

…Instead of so-called ‘alternative energies’ that are really ‘alternatives to energy’, we will work to reduce energy prices, and bring back dependability and reliability through environmentally responsible  energies. Low cost energy enables efficiency and productivity that generate wealth to protect the environment.

Hanson’s policies also include signing out of duplicitous UN treaties and agendas, zero net immigration (i.e. immigration equivalent to annual departures), and tough German and Japanese-style language tests for citizenship and welfare, which would be obtained only after five years’ residence. Muslim immigration and mosque-building projects would be halted. [iii]“We don’t want or need migrants bringing their problems, laws, culture and opposing religious beliefs on us,” her website says.  “If we do not make the necessary changes now to stop the advancement of Islam in Australia, there will be no hope in the future.”

Hanson’s huge polling in House seats she contested suggests many Australian voters are doing the “Brexit” thing, giving the finger to their politically-correct overlords. (Unlike the major parties, she campaigns for, not against, freedom of speech.) She ran candidates in 12 out of 30 Queensland seats, gaining 5.34% statewide. Her best results included the Lockyer Valley (21 per cent), Hinkler, based on Bundaberg (19.6 per cent), Flynn, south and west of Gladstone, (nearly 17 per cent), and Wide Bay, covering Maryborough and Gympie, (nearly 15 per cent). In Townsville’s seat of Herbert, she got 13%, compared with the Greens’ 6.1%.

All that is left to say is congratulations to Malcolm Turnbull for his transforming of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party into a national force and a megaphone for climate sanity.

Tony Thomas’s new book That’s Debatable – 60 Years in Print, is available here


[i] “They are incensed by activists and academics misrepresenting science to falsely claim global warming is harmful and caused by humans. They are concerned by academics and activists hiding behind the appeal to authority, yet mostly unwilling to debate the facts in public.”

[ii] As their WA lead candidate, Mark Imisides, put it:  “I am a career scientist, teacher, and WA resident since 1996. I am keen to address the misinformation about climate change on

[iii] She wants a Royal Commission into whether Islam is a religion deserving of tax deductible status or a dangerous anti-democratic theocracy. She also wants an end to oft-alleged profiteering via halal certification fees.

 

 

COMMENTS [25]

  1. mags of Queensland

    As she did in the past, Pauline Hanson has her finger on the pulse of the people. Pity her critics are not so astute. They mightn’t make so many stupid decisions.

  2. Mr Johnson

    Pauline Hanson is good news for the Libs – but not for the reason many people think. She won at the expense of the far superior Australian Liberty Alliance. Just like in the past, Pauline not only wears out her welcome quickly, but manages to damage the minor party conservative brand pretty quickly as well. She does this by being extremely inarticulate, and having a low grasp on her policies. In just about every interview held she got a hiding… and even from lightweights. She showed she had an idea and a slogan to go with it, but no depth. Much as I like some of her policies, I’m afraid she is not the one to sell them. By 2019, hopefully Turnbull will be gone and a sensible Conservative leader can draw back in a lot of the lost support.

    • Jack Brown

      I concur. I wonder how many people in Queensland who might have voted for the ALA ended up voting for One Nation. On the other hand others who stuck with the major parties but might have paused to consider what the ALA had to say on migration and Islamisation will tend to discard what she does have to say on these topics simply because of her style and being lumped in with other crackpot economics. In other words her lack of credibility in this sphere sucks undermines her migration and Islam policies. :(

  3. Davidovich

    I am with Hanson on her climate change issues and a great many other people are too. Hopefully, she moderates her protectionist ideas.

    • Dallas Beaufort

      If One Nation senate candidate Malcolm Roberts gains a seat, he will articulate and tear a large hole in the left’s global warming agenda, no wonder the left bellyache here with dodgy models.

  4. Don A. Veitch

    Up from the abysmal sea the Kraken wakes. Populism? Karma for our delusional elites?
    Presumptive Senator Hanson knows things about things, for example, that (so-called) free trade benefits some, but ‘free-trade’ could never, build for the needy, a municipal country dunny in Queensland.
    The Kraken sleepeth . . . In roaring (s)he shall rise . . .

  5. Rob Ellison

    The properties of greenhouse gases were investigated 150 years ago in detailed empirical experimentation. There seems little doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse has and – all things being equal – more in the atmosphere will result in a warmer planet. The absorption bands can be measured from space using narrow aperture equipment. What it actually measures is proton scattering on interaction – and transfer of heat – with greenhouse gas molecules. So what constitutes proof? You need to get past the basics.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

    All things are never equal.

    There is – according to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper – a study in Nature confirming a ‘slow down’ in global warming. But apparently they don’t have a clue as to why. The reason is in fact obvious in retrospect – since at least early in the 1960’s. Climate is an ergodic, complex, dynamical system. Ergodic means that it operates within limits over a very long time. Complex means that there are many interacting parts. Dynamical means that the parts change and interact continuously. Dynamical complexity is the third great idea of 20th century physics – along with relativity and quantum mechanics. But that’s enough theory…

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/02/29/climate-science-and-the-third-great-idea-in-20th-century-physics/

  6. Dallas Beaufort

    Malcolm Roberts will join Pauline Hanson to run for the Senate, representing Queensland.

    Malcolm is a family man and has a background in engineering, mining, business leadership and has a keen interest in economics; he is also passionate about climate change data and facts.
    Spending the early years of his life in India, Malcolm then moved to the bush in Central QLD and also lived in the Hunter Valley (NSW) and Brisbane before graduating from the University of Queensland with honours as an engineer. He then decided to get practical experience working as a coalface miner—mainly underground—for three years around Australia. “I love working with people in the field to feel and understand their concerns first-hand, to connect with people’s needs, and to listen to ideas on-the-job,” he says.

    Malcolm also worked and travelled widely across America and Canada, before returning to Australia where he rose quickly through management ranks to lead and turnaround underground coal mines, a coal processing plant and managed an ocean shiploader. He has also led the operational development of Australia’s largest and most complex underground coal project, setting many new industry firsts.

    Malcolm also holds a masters degree in business administration from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, one of the world’s most respected universities for finance and economics and after the birth of his first child, Malcolm and his wife Christine, established a small company providing specialised leadership and management services around Australia and overseas.

    Malcolm Roberts has earned the respect of informed people around the world for his investigation of claimed global warming and climate change where he analysed the measured data and then exposed the corruption. His disappointment with Liberal-Labor-Nationals-Greens politicians, unable to listen, refusing to face the facts and lacking care for our country led to his decision to join Pauline Hanson in standing for the Senate.

    Malcolm’s climate investigations led to deep understanding of the foreign control wrecking our country and to clarity on the tax system now choking Australians and destroying initiative and responsibility, while sabotaging our children’s future.

    “I’m completely devoted to representing all Queenslanders in the Senate as a house of review, protecting states’ rights. I am totally committed to bringing back this wonderful country that welcomed me and that has since blessed my family with so much.”

    “We appreciate, value and are proud of the special qualities of being Australian and we love our country. History shows that with the right leadership and support we can achieve anything. We’ve got the resources and creative, innovative, talented people who believe in honest effort for fair reward, while looking after those less fortunate. And our strongest trait —mate-ship — is unique in the world.”

    Malcolm’s integrity and strength-of-character have helped him turn around businesses in his role as a leader and have guided him in his role supporting leaders as an adviser, guide and mentor. He has been chairman of a closely-held public company and led its successful turnaround in a very emotional business. His practical and analytical approach combines with deep respect for people and his understanding of history’s bigger picture to make him an ideal candidate for working with all people to bring back Australia.

    “Instead of people feeling voiceless, powerless and squashed, we can listen and take action together to restore democracy, ensure security and build hope for all Australians.”
    “The Lib-Lab-Greens mess is not our fault, yet as Australians it is our responsibility. We must choose wisely whom we will elect to Parliament in the future. We must think about our children, grandchildren and their future.”

    • Rob Ellison

      Cut and paste much? I had a quick look at Malcolm Roberts climate paper. I understand why people refused to reply. Life is just too short.

      There are a couple of relevant ideas. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The science there is more than 150 years old. We should pretty much accept it as fact. This causes warming. The question is how much of recent warming was natural?

      There are about 720 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere and we are adding about 10 billion a year. This is carbon that was sequestered as fossil fuels. There are some 1200 billion tonnes in the surface ocean and 720 in soils and vegetation. While warmth changes the balance of carbon in soils, vegetation, oceans and atmosphere – there is extra carbon in the stores as a result of human activity.

      Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems. Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems.

      The concentration of CO2 in the surface ocean is dependent on partial pressure (the concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere and the solubility is partially dependant on temperature. The dominant driver for ocean CO2 concentration remains partial pressure – caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2 – and oceans are always a net sink for carbon dioxide in processes that ultimately return carbon to geological stores. For God’s sake if you are going to claim something do the calculation and don’t just pull it out of your arse.

      The annual wriggle in the CO2 curve is caused by a disparity in land area between southern and northern hemispheres. Plants in summer in the northern hemisphere consume CO2. Of course there are no really simple processes in the Earth system.

      The IPCC readers digest version of climate science I stopped reading long ago. Models we know are useless – not because they mirror reality but because they can’t.

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.” IPCC TAR s14.2.2.2

      We are certainly not there yet and there is nothing to be gained in more computing power without some fundamental theoretical breakthroughs. But Robert’s is undoubtedly wrong. Try this for something a little different.

      https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/05/29/internal-climate-variability-trumps-global-warming/

      • Rob Ellison

        … not because they (don’t) mirror reality but because they can’t.

        • Alice Thermopolis

          As Victor Frankenstein said while climbing the Montanvert glacier in 1818: “We are but clouds that veil the midnight moon, nought may endure but Mutability”.

          Frankie got it in one. But a deep anthropocentric yearning for climate ‘stability’ still persists today, a reluctance to acknowledge its changing and unpredictable character.

          We live on a dynamic planet. Terra firma is actually a wobbling and spinning sphere with a liquid outer core moving through space at a combined speed of 113, 277 kilometres an hour (for a person sitting in a chair on the equator); and travelling 940 million kilometres in its annual orbit of the Sun.

          Changes in the Earth’s orbit contributed to the accumulation of two-plus kilometres of ice over much of North America and Siberia 12,000 years ago, mammoths in Mexico and so on.

          Our political/bureaucratic (UN) classes, alas, have put their/our $$$ on the Goldilocks principle – one of the great cons of pseudo-science – the notion that a climate future just right for everyone everywhere is somehow achievable and they can control the planet’s thermostat.

          As for model ensembles, their ability to “predict” the “probability distribution of the system’s future possible states” is about as good as a Roman haruspex with animal entrails, they do keep a lot of mathematical types in gainful employment.

          Some climate scientists – like Zurich-based Reno Knutti below – publicly admit model flaws and uncertainties (aka ‘challenges’), but it makes no difference to disciples of the alarmist paradigm.

          “It is common that more research uncovers a picture that is more complicated; thus, uncertainty can grow with time…..Judging the potential success of such a project is speculative, and it may simply take a long time to succeed. However, if the past is a guide to the future then uncertainties in climate change are unlikely to decrease quickly, and may even grow temporarily….It is likely that impact-relevant predictions, for example of extreme weather events, may be even harder to improve.” (Knutti, 2012, page 5)

          • Rob Ellison

            I like a nice literary conceit. Science is self correcting and Knutti is one of the many better ones.

            Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin”.

            Failing theoretical breakthroughs – what say we replace the whole mess with a work experience kid tossing coins?

            The problem with complex, dynamical systems is that abrupt changes can be extreme. 16C locally and a factor of 2 in rainfall in months to a decade. Tails. Damn.

          • Rob Ellison

            “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.” Julia Slingo – head of the British Met Office – and Tim Palmer – head of the European Centre for Mid-Range Forecasting.

            Here’s what it looks like schematically. There are many divergent solutions starting from slightly different starting points (within plausible limits of data accuracy) for any model. Chaotic – as Lorenz showed in the 1960′s. It’s just maths.

            http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/369/1956/4751/F2.large.jpg

            What they do is choose one solution arbitrarily and send it to the IPCC where it is graphed against single arbitrarily chosen solutions from many models. It is called an opportunistic ensemble. This is an accurate description of the scientifically absurd procedure they indulge in. Understood as such in the modelling world.

            ” Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams.

            Models cannot predict climate because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions and structural instability due to the depth and extent of coupled processes. Change the input data slightly – add or change a process in the model – and change in the result the result is unpredictable. This was the problem that Lorenz encountered. He truncated some data from 6 to 3 decimal places and the result was puzzlingly anomalous. The change in results was not small. Thus the third great idea in 20th century physics – chaos theory – was discovered. The solutions of the Lorenz equations came to be known as the Lorenz attractor – or more colloquially as the butterfly effect.

            Criticise climate models but understand why. It is the difference between opportunistic ensembles from the IPCC that have no plausible scientific rationale – and probabilistic ensembles that have as yet limited practical utility. You can be sure that climate alarmists don’t understand.

          • Rob Ellison

            There is another way of looking at it. Models can generate thousands of plausible solutions. Sensitive dependence and structural instability. One of them might be right but there is no way of telling which.

  7. Tony Thomas

    I lodged this complaint with the ABC tonight. Maybe I will get a substantive reply, that’s be interesting.

    Baseless sexual innuendo about a woman politician by ABC news staff
    see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/pauline-hanson-pauline-pantsdown-composite/7565914

    This photo montage falsely implies that Ms Pauline Hanson is promiscuous or in other ways operates with “pants down”. There is no basis whatsoever for such a smear and for such disrespect to a female. Could you please let me know what are the ABC guidelines on respectful treatment of females, especially avoidance of gratuitous references to sexual behaviour (in this case, also false). Can you also tell me whether the pic montage above complies with such ABC guidelines, and if not, what remedy you intend, and whether the ABC will make a public apology to this female politician.

    • Mr Johnson

      I love it – but let’s not hold our breath. The ABC is blind and deaf to conservative complaints.

    • Jody

      Don’t be fooled; the ABC has its significant share of misogynists and they’re mostly homosexual men!! Why do you think they dress us as nuns and portray themselves as female tarts if they are NOT misogynists?

    • Michael Fry

      Tony,

      In my experience complaints to the ABC get nowhere unless you explicitly invoke breaches of the ABC Code of Practice. In this case the ABC clearly breached Section 7 Harm and Offence, under Standards 7.1, 7.6 and 7.7.

      But even then you are likely to get a brush off – the ABC doesn’t actually understand accountability and due process.

      If Sky had run a piece about (to quote a great ALP leader) Winging the Wong number to Penny, or Tanty Tanya, they would surely have been hit with howls of outrage and complaint.

      That would surely have got a run on ABC Media Watch (not the original TM Nancy Media Watch version, I hasten to add).

  8. Bushranger71

    It is not just the ABC indulging in this vile character assassination,rtually the whole of the politically correct inclined media realm. Just galling.

    What was equally disgusting was the John Howard led assault by the 2 major parties to destroy her when the issues she raised were resonating with real Australians, just as they are now.

    At 79, I can remember when Australia was much sounder under protectionist policies strongly defended by the likes of Sir John McEwen.

    Now; we no longer have an Industry Commission but a Productivity Commission more oriented toward social and financial engineering. There are some functions that a wholesome nation needs to retain, even though there may be lower cost offshore alternatives.

    I disagree with your perception Tony of Pauline’s economic policies as ‘ratbaggery’. After all, it is rampant out of control capitalism that is getting Australia into a worsening mess.

  9. Colin S

    As a Defcon (Defiant Conservative), I watched a couple of her election interviews and slightly cringed. She’s is not great in the face to face interview, but a lot of conservatives suffer the same problem. I,100% support her stand on climate policy. I believe so called Free Trade Agreements do need careful re-consideration, but not thrown away. The trouble is that they are a misnomer, in fact they are a Trade Agreement with nothing free about them. Someone always loses and someone wins.

    Some of her other policies are truly frightening to me, nonetheless she was in my mix of senate preferences but not my first. She is a hard working courageous individual who has been most unfairly treated. A true Conviction politician. As a conservative, I feel we could have a lot worse in the senate and I am hopeful her presence will be positive for the cause and herself. As an Abbott supporter, his involvement in her wrongful jailing is a blot. As a Howard supporter, his blatant theft of some of her policies and phrases without acknowledgement, is also a blot.

    One thing I have yet to understand, what happened to the ALA vote? Or rather, why did it not materialise?

    • Mr Johnson

      Simple – Pauline reentered the political arena. The journos and commentators went bananas, and she ended up getting over $1m worth of free media exposure. At a time, when political brand awareness is gold, her ‘I hate Islam’ message was enough to eat the ALA vote alive.

  10. Alistair

    How dare Pauline Hanson parody transvestites by dressing up as a woman.

  11. Geoffrey Luck

    The major political parties are responsible for the Hanson phenomenon. In their supine repetition of “Islam is peace” they vacated the field, and the moral ground, to her.

  12. mags of Queensland

    I think some here are underestimating Pauline Hanson. She is older and wiser since her last stint in Parliament and has made it her business to go to the heart of the problems faced by most Australians.Should Malcolm Roberts also get in she will have an adviser who can help her articulate her ideas more clearly and perhaps temper them somewhat.

    I get so sick and tired of those who rubbish anyone who doesn’t boast a university degree but makes a stand to protect the rights of Australians first before anything else. Most of those with academic qualifications haven’t any practical experience of anything apart from their specialty. Doesn’t qualify them to denigrate others. many of the problems we face in Australia are the direct result of academics working on the Peter Principle.

“50 Shades of Red”: The ABC, the Communist Party and ASIO

Was the national broadcaster asking the Communist Party to organise telegenic protests against the Vietnam War? Documents suggest the security agency suspected as much, but the only thing of which we can today be certain is that the accusation was far from an improbable

spiesI happened to come across an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)  file containing the info below.

SECRET: Report to Regional Director (WA) OF ASIO, 25/10/68
on “Communist Influence in the Information Media”.

15. “A somewhat unusual incident occurred in this media [ABC TV] in 1967 when  intelligence received from “Q”  sources indicated that ABC television operatives  had approached the CPA [Communist Party of Australia] and asked them to organise a demonstration on Vietnam which the ABC would televise. The demonstration was duly held on 3/11/67 and filmed by an ABC television unit, but no details were obtained  as to those persons  in the ABC  responsible for the approach to the CPA.”

The report says that four persons of security interest (though not directly associated with the CPA) were employed by the ABC in Western Australia in 1968. They were an education assistant, a secretary, and two journalists. The report says, “Potential for CPA influence in television would appear to be limited again to the national [ABC] network. However, apart from the incident mentioned in para 15, there has been no definite evidence of CPA influence.”

I sent off the queries below to the ABC ‘s hard-pressed media manager Nick Leys:

  1. Are the facts in Para 15 correct?
  2. The report says that the alleged facts were only “somewhat” unusual. Have there been other instances of the ABC organising Communist Party demonstrations? If so, I would appreciate details of when, where and why.
  3. Do current ABC reporting guidelines (in general) discourage ABC staff from organising Communist Party demonstrations? If so, which guideline(s) is relevant?

With commendable speed and courtesy, Nick replied,

Thanks but we won’t comment on something that allegedly happened almost five decades ago. However I will point out a central tenet of the ABC Editorial Policies, 1.3, which requires ABC staff to “ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.

The ABC certainly covered the anti-Vietnam Moratorium in Melbourne in May, 1970, but I make no suggestion that the ABC organized it.

The ABC in Perth in 1967 was a public service monster of 700-800 people in myriad departments housed in a sprawling, 6300-square-metre complex occupying a whole block, from Adelaide Terrace to Terrace Road. Admin/management was concentrated on the Adelaide Terrace frontage, with the radio/TV people semi-isolated down on the river side.

Geoffrey Luck, who was Sydney chief of staff of ABC National News in 1967, says, “I would be absolutely certain this [ABC arranging a CPA demo] would have nothing to do with the News division.” News in those days abided by impartiality guidelines, but young staff, radicalised in their university days, were constantly wanting to put their personal views forward. As Luck puts it, “I had to tell a youngster, whose job was to interview celebrities arriving the airport, to take off his anti-Viet-war badge.”

“I can’t speak for ABC Perth but that demo episode sounds like something our This Day Tonight(TDT)  might have generated.  TDT was a  loose cannon on a bucking ship, hard to control and causing enormous problems for management, like pulling pollies’ whiskers just for the fun seeing how they reacted.  Maybe that Perth demo was just something they thought would be fun.”

One Perth ABC TV veteran says, “Absolutely nothing would surprise me  when it came to the ABC. There was tremendous tension then between the conservative Perth ABC News team and the irreverent and opinionated Today Tonight[i] staffers who set out to air provocative stuff.”

I trotted over to the State Library of Victoria and checked The West Australian (where I worked from 1958-69) for a next-day report of an anti-Vietnam demo on Friday, November 3.  Nothing was published. A Communist-led demo may still have happened, but gone unreported. As the ASIO report noted, “The West Australian pursues a conservative right-wing policy”.

The front-page of The West’s November 3, 1967 issue was chock-a-block with  controversy over President Johnson’s then-current campaign to bomb North Vietnam to the negotiating table, Johnson insisting  that it “was the right thing to do.”  Whitlam was accusing Prime Minister Harold Holt of letting “thousands of Australian, American and Vietnamese soldiers die to prove a political point”, and on page three there was Paul Hasluck was saying there was “no doubt at all that South Vietnam and its allies would win the war.” Bad call.[ii] I figured that if anything could provoke Perth’s Communists onto the streets that day, Pages 1-3 of The West would suffice, with or without guidance  from the ABC’s Today Tonight.

Now, back to ASIO’s secret report. Comprising three typed and single-spaced pages it seems a response to a demand from Canberra HQ for an update on Reds in the Perth media. Putting it together in only nine days for the WA Regional Director  J.M. Gilmour was a good effort. It covered all print, even including the student paper Pelican and the ALP’s Western Sun,  plus all radio and TV stations. I totted up 17 persons named as “of security interest”. The print pinks ranged from a staff printer on The Sunday Times to a talented and charismatic reporter on The West (a certain Anthony Paul THOMAS), along with a hotbed of security risks on The West’s afternoon stablemate Daily News, where one suspect was the assistant chief of staff.[iii]

I would be surprised if the ASIO report’s author was sloppy enough to include sheer fantasy about the ABC organizing a CPA demo on November 3. From the coding  around the summary, it seems the ASIO author had drawn on four internal files about the matter. The ultimate source is described as a “Q source”,  meaning an agent run by an ASIO staffer. These Q sources were scattered throughout the media at that time — spotters operating much like the IMs[iv] in East Germany (but less plentiful of course). For example, in 1966 someone advised ASIO that reporter Anthony Thomas had applied for and been granted two weeks leave from The West to go to Darwin. ASIO went into a flurry of checking airline ticketing but concluded he never went.

A Perth ABC source says, “I was told that embedded in the ABC were ASIO spotters; we never found out who they were.  They could have been ex-military who were then  in ABC administration. The message was to behave yourself, if you don’t you will be on report or something. Maybe the ASIO report about the demo was based on scuttlebutt overheard around the ABC coffee pot.”

ASIO intense scrutiny of ABC staff and programs at the time makes it even more mysterious that the demo deal was done under ASIO’s nose.  For all the ABC’s professed independence, ASIO could promote conformity by denying security clearance to individuals.  Historian David McKnight says,

Overall, at least throughout the 1950s and 60s, a security watchdog was peering over the shoulder of the ABC and regularly querying employees’ background and program content.

For example, in 1955, ABC Assistant General Manager Arthur Finlay asked ASIO to search ABC Radio’s kids’ show The Argonauts for subversives.

Finlay was worried “that dangers lie ahead” (as per The Argonauts theme song). Subversives in the Children’s Session could disguise their views and gradually exert their influence to put a pink slant on kiddies’ fare, Finlay thought. In 1958, the compere of Kindergarten of the Air, Joyce Hutchison, was a person of interest to ASIO. Finlay also asked ASIO to do a careful check on Children’s Session compere   Leonard Teale, who went on to to play Senior Detective Mackay in Crawford Productions’ long-running Homicide .

The programs aired were also monitored by ASIO, alert for any left slant.  The mere mention of Prague in an ABC radio travel serial was enough to generate an ASIO report (the show was  found not guilty). ABC manager and writer/historian Clement Semmler  in the 1960s had this on his ASIO file:

It is reported that Semmler, described as a strange, highly strung temperamental person, is a close friend of Frank Hardy, a CPA member and author and that Hardy has often called to see Semmler at the ABC.

ASIO applied a doctrine of lese majeste, literally. Disrespectful references on- or off-air to the Royal Family were followed up and the author’s file checked. An artist, Jack Child, wanted a job at the ABC but an informer deposed that Child had been overheard to make “scathing” remarks about the visit of Princess Alexandra. That was the last straw for ASIO, given that Child had a left or Communist past, although one operative suggested that Child was “not a communist” while observing “all artists were ‘queer people’ “.

sam aaronsPerth’s Communist Party offices were on the fourth floor of the southwest corner of the twee-Tudor London Court. Across the wall a fake Big Ben chimed on the quarter hours. Three floors below, Sir Walter Raleigh stood guard in plaster with London Mayor of history and legend Dick Whittington. The CPA State Secretary  in 1967  was Sam Aarons (left),  father of Laurie and Eric, Eastern States party stalwarts (Laurie became National Secretary).

If the ASIO story of the ABC approaching the ACP is true, Sam would have approved the broadcaster’s request for a demo. All important party decisions had to come from the top. Hence Sam’s personality is germane to my story (plus an opportunity to sex-up my dull narrative).

ASIO described Sam as “of sallow complexion, black curly hair, brown eyes, looks very Jewish”. Sam  had been a truck driver for the Republicans in Spain — no comfy task as trucks were the prize targets of hostile aircraft.

esmeFond of purging dissidents and a Stalinist to the end (1971), he also spent a life in fertile pursuit of Communist women, the more beautiful the better. Ironically, he was, pre-war, on the party’s three-man Control Commission for moral disciplining of members. He concurrently embarked on a torrid affair with a young party woman Esme Odgers (right), “one of four beautiful sisters”, in the prose of Aarons family chronicler Mark Aarons.   (“Esme Odgers” is not a pretty name but we’re talking real life here).

Party president, the oafish ex-lift driver Lance Sharkey, was also vying for Esme’s hand and other parts, so Sam lost his moral enforcer job and Esme had to write a Soviet-style grovelling self-criticism[v], despite which she was back in Sam’s arms within a month. Sharkey exiled Aarons to some remote post, but Sam had the second-last laugh when he and Esme went off together to fight for freedom in Spain.  There, Esme dumped Sam for a wealthy Spanish husband and disappeared to Venezuela.

Sam arrived in Perth as new WA boss about 1948, once again under a cloud in the party over an affair with a young and married woman, according to poet-playwright Dorothy Hewett.[vi] “I find him totally irresistible,” she wrote, “A passionate, highly intelligent, charismatic man with a glamorous history.” London Court headquarters had a Marx & Boon quality or maybe 50 Shades of Red quality. “He bends me back on the desk in his office, but before we can consummate our affair we are interrupted by the old Party caretaker, locking up for the night…”

Sam tells her, “Sharkey has already told me that if there’s any more gossip about me and other women, I’ll be on the outer. He’s had it in for me ever since I stole his girlfriend in Spain.”

They live in a ménage a trois with Sam’s unwitting wife, until Dorothy finds another lover while Sam is on Eastern States party business.  Sam threatens to blacken her name in the party all over Australia. Dorothy reports that, eventually, most of the WA State Committee went east  “to escape the heavy hand of Sam Aarons.”

I’d have to say that Sam was an unlikely collaborator with ABC provocateurs, unless they were beautiful females.

Next question is whether the ambience and culture of ABC Current Affairs, circa 1960s, was compatible with sponsoring a CPA Viet demo? I’d have to say ‘yes’. Weirder things happened in that era. For example, Prime Minister Billy McMahon in April, 1971,  told Parliament that the government wouldn’t permit  reporter John Penlington to  go to China for Four Corners unless he was first positively vetted by Ted Hill, then secretary of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist). Penlington didn’t go.[vii]

The tone at ABC Current Affairs in the 1960s had been set by Talks supervisor Allan Ashbolt, an ex-AIF commando turned actor and film-maker who led a coterie of aggressive ABC talent. He had been inspired by New York (so-called) intellectuals towards “democratic socialism”. In 1963 he took over Four Corners, and created a political storm with an unconventional take on the RSL. Though fairly mild, this program included as a talking head one Alec Robertson, editor of the Communist Party newspaper Tribune, opining that the RSL was thwarting citizens’ desire “to build for themselves a secure and peaceful future”. Though qualified for the program through his wartime service as an officer, Robertson looked shifty on the box, “a filling in a front tooth glinting under the lights”.[viii] Ashbolt  was sacked from Four Corners but reinstated in 1964.

In 1967 Four Corners was joined by a kid brother, This Day Tonight, which began in April, 1967,  seven months before the alleged ABC/CPA Perth demo in November. Historian Ken Inglis wrote, “The TDT approach was not merely to report events but to create them, especially by having people confront  each other…both news and a kind of sport.” Shades of Q&A, circa 2015. Compere Bill Peach wrote,  “There was no jealousy more intense than the jealousy between the different program divisions of the ABC.” TDT sometimes even paid interviewees to appear on TDT rather than News.

TDT set out to upset applecarts, and succeeded. An example was its second broadcast, which apart from speculating on ABC board appointments,  featured author Frank Hardy, live to air, telling yarns. Hardy said overseas tourists loved Australians: “They all said the same thing. Finest people in the world, and the most generous too. They said the Australians would share anything they had, even give you the coat off their own back. The salt of the earth. There was just one thing to watch, they all said.”

“What’s that?” Bill Peach asked.

“They all said you have to watch out for those white bastards.”

The Perth version of TDTToday Tonight,  at the time of the demo was run by New Zealander Bruce Buchanan, who later went on to become Executive Producer of  TDT in Sydney. There he became a thorn in the side of ABC top management over what they called “errors of judgement” and what staff called lively TV. Buchanan shook things up in WA with stunts like greeting random people in Albany, “G’day, you old bastard!” to see whether the term still caused offence.

The program’s Vietnam War coverage was provocative. Peach wrote that TDT was happy to give anti-Viet-war people a platform:

“We thought it was our job to pursue the truth, including the truth that many intelligent and loyal citizens believed that we were on the wrong track in Vietnam. It was TDT’s hottest potato, and the source of most accusations against us of bias.”

Historian Inglis instances TDT devoting an interview segment in 1968 to Communist journalist Malcolm Salmon, fresh from North Vietnam. In that same year, Bill Peach on TDT mistakenly claimed that two companies of Regular Army troops were standing by to quell an anti-war demo outside the St Kilda Road consulate of the US embassy. In November, 1971,  TDT interviewed a draft-resister student on the run from police.

Sadly, despite all my verbiage above, we are not going to resolve whether rogue elements of the Perth ABC organised and filmed a CPA anti-war demo in 1967. The files show ASIO was in no doubt about it. Mad things did happen in those days, but the likelihood that Perth Communist supremo Sam Aarons would kow-tow to ABC journos is low. On the other hand, the gung-ho culture of ABC Current Affairs was amenable to such stunts, but ASIO informers in the ABC were a threat to anyone wanting to liaise with CPA headquarters. We have no newspaper evidence that the November 3 demo happened, but it was a propitious day for such a rally. So is the ASIO story true? I’ll give it a definite ‘Maybe’.

Tony Thomas blogs at No BS Here (I Hope)


[i]  Not to be confused with Channel 7’s later Today Tonight.

[ii] Two months earlier, ABC General Manager Talbot Duckmanton had been personally assured by President Johnson during a White House meeting that the war “was both just and winnable”.  Ken Inglis, This is the ABC.

[iii] Several Daily News journalists, including the senior one mentioned, had in earlier years moonlighted from the Daily News at weekends putting together the WA page of the national Communist weekly Tribune. Justina Williams, Anger & Love, Fremantle Arts Centre Press, 1993, p157

[iv] Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter – unofficial cooperators

[v] “My behavior (sic) over the past 12 months has been such that it has been necessary for certain organizational measures to be taken against me, and has also necessarily called forth serious criticism of my actions…My renewal of the association with Comrade Aarons is indicative of the fact that I was willing to place my own personal inclinations and desires before the prestige and good name of the party…”

[vi]   Wild Card, McPhee, S.Yarra, p138

[vii] Ken Inglis, This is the ABC.  1932-83, Black Inc. Melbourne, 2006

[viii] Rob Pullen, Four Corners, 25 Years.  ABC, 1986.

World Leaders Face the Foe, er, Faux

That recent Paris march with its retinue of presidents and prime ministers leading the hoi polloi sure was an inspirational moment in the crusade to defend free speech. What a pity the ABC footage was spliced, edited and nothing like the sequestered reality of a stage-managed photo op

hypocrites on paradeThe iconic TV image to emerge after the Islamic massacres in Paris was the 40-plus world leaders marching   at the head of millions of Paris demonstrators. The footage said it all: Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, etc etc throwing personal safety to the winds as they led the masses through the dangerous avenues of Paris. Thus they showed Islamists that our national leaders can’t be cowed.

Let’s take a look at our ABC’s taxpayer-financed coverage. Exemplary, I’d assume, especially as the ABC boasts a dedicated fact-checking unit run by ex-Age journo Russell Skelton and financed by a $10m handout in 2013 from then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I can’t retrieve ABC TV 7pm News coverage for the day (perhaps I’m just incompetent), but a clip from Leigh Sales’ 7.30 on January 12 is illustrative.

Spliced into footage of the mass march, we see the tranche of world leaders marching shoulder to shoulder (from 3.20 to 3.40) with a voice-over hailing their solidarity with victims and determination to ‘show support’.
It would take a particularly alert viewer to notice that no ordinary marchers are in these grabs, that the street is actually empty of other life, and that there is not a soul to be seen hanging out the windows of the five-storey apartments on both sides. In fact, if you look hard, you will notice that the camera angles are specifically framed to conceal the fact that no other marchers are around.

ABC transcriptions show that the national broadcaster on January 12-13 was happy to go along with the fake symbolism. Here’s ABC’s PM  fibbing:

President Francois Hollande and leaders from Germany, Italy, Israel, Turkey, Britain and the Palestinian territories among others moved off from the central Place de la République ahead of a sea of French and other flags.

Then there is ABC News recycling the same fib, this time via wire service Associated Press:

“More than 40 world leaders headed the somber procession”.

And ABC AM fibbing: “Dozens of world leaders also answered the call, linking arms as they walked along the rally route.”

Yet more ABC News fibs:

President Francois Hollande and leaders from Germany, Italy, Israel, Turkey, Britain and the Palestinian territories among others moved off from the central Place de la République ahead of a sea of French and other flags.

And ABC AM fibs yet again:

BARBARA MILLER: Before the mass rally got going dozens of leaders, including from the UK, Germany, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Turkey, walked the route.

This report, interestingly, seems to separate the national leaders from the mass rally, but leaves us believing that the leaders marched the 3km route from  Place de la Republique to Place de la Nation.

ABC TV’s Mary Gearin also deviated slightly from the script, saying

“This was a special moment; the people leading a million others through the streets of Paris were not the super group of foreign dignitaries but a tight group of surviving workers from Charlie Hebdo and the families and friends.”

So Gearin, though confined in the ‘media pen’, managed to notice that the march was not ‘led’ by those heads of state. She did imply that the leader group was in the thick of it all, but not at the forefront.

Time now for the reality show. Below is a screen grab taken, taken from YouTube, of the dozens of heads of state pretending to be marching with Parisians for free speech and the Western way of life. Their pretendy-march is taking place in a side street blocked off and cleared of ordinary people. The regularly spaced   dark figures in the background represent the security contingent. The pic is a grab from this video, and comes to Quadrant Online via the estimable Pierre Gosselin of Notrickszone:

paris nobsThe video beginswith the fakery and then illustrates how the faux march was spliced into various German TV news reports. In this video we can enjoy the sight of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vigorously waving to non-existing supporters (2.56); plus a “whoops” moment when a bad camera angle almost exposes the faking (9.11); plus an announcer summing up, without irony: “Politiker wie Demonstranten” == “Politicians as Demonstrators”. 9.20).

Gosselin comments:

“The reality is that these world leaders were in fact too afraid to appear ‘arm-in-arm, should-to-shoulder’ with the masses. In effect they actually demonstrated their capitulation to terrorism, admitting the terror worked and that they are now too afraid to appear with the public. Congratulations terrorists, your aim has been achieved – at least among our leaders. Obviously real courage is something only for the masses.”

He continues:

“The topping on the cake comes at the 10:00 mark, where the ZDF correspondent even asks:
When was there ever a time where government leaders, or leaders of 50 nations, have come onto the streets as demonstrators, over a kilometer-long stretch that was not even completely safe? That was something particularly special.”

We can also assume from the very restricted clips of the leaders’ march that it was official footage, shot and released to the ABC and other media, not done by the media themselves. The media/ABC went along  by judiciously in-splicing the official footage with footage of the mass demonstration.

I had a go at counting the actual steps marched by the leader group. It looks like somewhere between a dozen and twenty (based on a close viewing of two clips), assuming the leaders didn’t continue stepping out once the cameras had their shots.


ABC Presenters’ Pension Paradise

Whenever salaries of the national broadcaster’s leading lights come to light, the standard defence is that, despite much smaller audiences, they match those of commercial outfits. Be that as it may, but Aunty’s solid gold super schemes rate off their charts

nest eggA deep secret about the star players of our ABC is not what they’re paid – we know that – but the size of their taxpayer-funded pensions on retirement or redundancy from the ABC.  Take  ABC presenter Quentin Dempster, newly terminated. He was on a paypacket in 2011-12 of $291,505, according to the pay data inadvertently leaked by ABC administration in a glorious own-goal a year ago. “My salary is commensurate with my skills and abilities,” Dempster clarified.

Last  month, a little item appeared in The Australian  in Sharri  Markson’s Media Diary, under the heading “Quentin on a Good Wicket”. She remarked: “While it is very sad to see local journalism disappear from 7.30 on Friday nights, people shouldn’t be too devastated for outgoing ­experienced host Quentin Dempster. His defined benefit super ­income likely to be about $150,000 a year.”

An outraged Dempster fired back, without denying the $150,000:

“Breach of Privacy

Your publication of the calculated quantum of my employee super income income (Media Dairy [sic], 8/12) following my sacking was attributed by your reporter to “ABC Sources”. This is an invasion of my personal privacy, a breach of Clause 11 of the Journalists’ Code of Ethics. It places me  at an immediate disadvantage in any job negotiation as I seek to sustain my livelihood. 

Your reporter ignored my objection on privacy grounds when she telephoned me on Sunday evening. Transparency must be consistently applied. This was selective, vicious and unfair and coated in smarm. Quentin Dempster, Ultimo.”

Still smarting, he tweeted, ” I want/need work.”

On the one hand, I do feel sorry for Quentin, aged 63, suffering what he calls an ‘industrial execution’ and now trying to sustain his 30-year ABC-type lifestyle by supplementing a $150,000 ABC lifetime-indexed pension with a new job. On  only  $300,000 a year,  it clearly wasn’t easy to save for a rainy day.

Maybe he could cut living costs in Sydney by relocating to his acclaimed beach house near Burnie, except that it’s often occupied by holiday-makers paying $2950 a week rent.[i] Quite likely, he’ll be taken to the bosom of the University of Technology’s School of Independent Journalism in Sydney. His view that Rupert Murdoch is Tony Abbott’s “puppet master” would be considered quite normal and entirely sane there. (He thinks we are governed by a “Murdoch-Abbott duumvirate”).

Dempster also thinks  the ABC’s juvenile skit by Kirsten Drysdale last November about Abbott ‘shirtfronting’ Putin was not grief-intrusive to MH17 victims but mere “satire over our prime minister’s tabloidism”. And her satire was “following a great tradition at the ABC”, he said.  So I guess Dempster, who can dish it out, can suck it up about his pension  disclosure.

Actually, anyone (including a potential employer) can get a reasonable estimate of an ABC ex-presenter’s pension from  Table 4 of the publicly-available ready reckoner for the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) members. Someone of Dempster’s age and with  30 years at the ABC could expect 48% of final salary as a pension. Based on a 2011-12 salary of $291,000 the CSS pension would be $139,680 a year, CPI-indexed for a lifetime. Someone getting $150,000 a year pension, conversely, maybe had a final salary of $312,500.

When a Commonwealth defined-benefit pensioner dies, a  surviving spouse continues the indexed pension for his/her lifetime but at a reduced rate of 67% to 85%, or (in our hypothetical above case), $100,000-127,000 a year.

The principal’s pension figures don’t include a payout  based on an ABC staffer’s own contributions (5-10% of salary), plus an employer top-up of a 3% annual “Productivity Component” (don’t laugh!) for all CSS members, plus earnings.[ii] That separate payout can involve combinations of  lump sum and non-indexed pension.

The Commonwealth defined-benefit super scheme for ABC people involves an annual employer contribution  of about 20% of ABC members’ salary. In 2005 it was an astounding 28.2%. Too good to last, it was closed to new entrants in mid-1990. (Its defined-benefit successor the Public Service  Super Scheme – with many ABC participants –  lasted until 2005). But the ABC’s old hands could continue with the plush CSS scheme, while ABC post-2005 newcomers have had to console themselves with  relatively stingy defined-contribution (accumulation) super.

So let’s play Guess My Super! for the ABC crew’s old-timer stars, those who joined in the days of the compulsory CSS scheme.

First, some warnings.  To get a hypothetical payout, we just plug into the Commonwealth’s ready reckoner  the star’s salary, age and years of service – the latter two numbers  can involve a bit of sleuthing.[iii] The pension in the case of serving ABC stars, would be as if they retired today.  They are lifetime, indexed, and with reversionary rights to a surviving partner. To add spice, I also mention the speaker bureau fee the bigshots command, thanks to their ABC branding. Here we go:

Kerry  O’Brien. Aged 69, he joined the ABC in  1989 and continued to host Four Corners in 2014. His 2009-10 salary was  $365,000.  The reckoner shows a maximum benefit factor at age 65, so taking that age and 25 years service, the pension would be 45% of salary or  about  $164,000.  Speaker fee: $10-15,000.

Tony Jones. Tony is the ABC’s current top-paid presenter ($355,789 in 2011-12), who presides over  the  Q&A circus. Aged 57 and with 29+ years of ABC service, his pension would be $141,212. Speaker fee, $15,000+.

Jon Faine. He has been with the ABC since 1989, hosting the Melbourne  774 breakfast radio show since 1997. His age (this took some sleuthing) is 57. 2011-12 salary, $285,249 – later renegotiated to $300,000. Years of service, 25. The pension   would be $109,000.  Speaker fee:  $10-15,000.

Fran Kelly. Host of   ABC Radio National Breakfast. Age 57 and with  26 years with ABC. Salary $255,000. Pension would be $95,013. Speaker fee, $15,000-plus.

Ian Henderson. Joined the ABC in 1980. Presenter ABC    TV News Victoria weeknights since 1992. Age 61. Years of service, 34. Salary $188,533. Pension would be $88,459.

Jonathan Holmes. Age 67. With ABC 1982-2013 – 31 years. Left the ABC’s Media Watch in mid-2013. Salary 2011-12, $187,380. Pension would be $94,158. Speaker fee, $15,000-plus, as well as whatever he pockets for regular columns in the Fairfax Press. His notes of complaint to Quadrant are submitted free of charge.

Geraldine Doogue. Age 62. Years with ABC, 24. Salary 2011-12, $182,013. Pension would be  $75,280. Speaker fee, $5000-10,000.

It’s a long time since 1990-95, but the ABC’s total defined-benefit old-timers are still costing the ABC and taxpayers a bomb. The 2014 ABC annual report shows its defined-contribution actuarial  costs were $40m that year, compared with only $31m for its people on accumulation super. Over the past six years, ABC actuarial costs for “Defined Benefits” totalled $212m;  while “accumulation scheme” costs totalled only $150m.

What this suggests is that there are still hordes of long-serving ABC staffers looking forward to a lifetime of indexed-pension luxury. These future expenses for all the federal public service, including the ABC types,  fall on the taxpayers, hence the need for that Future Fund nest-egg which currently totals $101 billion.

Across the Commonwealth Public Service, about 16,000 are on the CSS scheme (their average salary is above $100,000), plus 115,000 ex-bureaucrats on lifetime indexed CSS pensions. Unsurprisingly, there’s an unfunded CSS liability of about $60b, close to half a million dollars per current and retired member.

Whereas normal Australian workers can’t afford retirement at 55, ABC and others in the CSS   super scheme can go out   in style at 55 with a fat super deal known as 54/11 (i.e. get out just before your 55th birthday, and do better than if you continued to work to 60 or 65).    As one official report put it, “it is not surprising that the schemes have a sharp decline in membership around age 55 and that very few PSS or CSS members work past age 60.”

About 40% of CSS members aged 50-54 typically plan to grab the 54/11 option.   A classic example was Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, who went out on 54/11, according to the Liberal’s Bronwyn Bishop. As financial planner Theo Marinis, of the Marinis Financial Group, Adelaide,  puts it, the 54/11 device “has the potential to provide as much as $200,000 or more in additional retirement benefits over the pensioner’s lifetime, with the effect that most Commonwealth Public Servants who are 54 and 11 months of age would often need to work an additional five years or more in their current job in order to be better off financially in retirement.” The 54/11 weirdness arose by accident in the scheme and has never been corrected.

For the PSS members (e.g. employees who joined the ABC between 1990 and 1995) things can also go well. Marinis writes:

“Over the last 20 years I have shown dozens of PSS member clients how under their scheme they can take a lump-sum and choose to pay off their house, go overseas on a holiday and / or make other lifestyle and recreational purchases… draw down the pension they require until they are 65 and still be eligible (effectively double dipping) for significant social security pensions!”

For a 55-year-old CSS member with $200,000 combined contributions,  the 54/11 formula generates a $46,250 lifetime indexed pension. A non-public servant going out with a $200,000 super nest-egg would be lucky for it to last five years at a $46,000 annual payout rate. The official report gives an example of a CSS member on $70,000 salary with 30 years service. The standard age-55 lifetime-indexed pension would be $26,250; the 54/11 version is given at $34,687. That member would have to work till age 59 before his pension reached the 54/11 level. Any extra member contributions above 5%, interest and Employer Productivity Component  of 3%, can be taken as a lump sum or non-indexed pension, up to a maximum of  20% of  final salary.

Another lurk is ‘Resign and Return’. The  54/11 retirees can be re-hired by their department boss on a part-time, consulting or contract basis, further boosting the retirees’ nest-egg. Some years back, when surveyed, nearly a third of the 54/11 retirees said they went back into their jobs under various arrangements.

Many ABC big-name presenters joined the ABC between 1990-95 and  were enrolled in the Public Sector Super Scheme (PSS). These members cost the ABC nearly as much  for super as a ratio of salary, as the CSS tribe. But calculating the benefits on retirement is impossibly complex for any outsider.

Tony Thomas blogs at tthomas061.wordpress.com


[i] Cantilevered over dramatic coastal panorama, The Winged House is an adventure in art and architecture. Designed by award winning sculptor and architect Richard Goodwin, the house has won design and innovation awards and is now an established highlight for travellers looking for a unique Tasmanian experience, with easy access to world heritage listed wilderness and the Tarkine region of north-west Tasmania. The house is luxuriously appointed with a gourmet kitchen, Japanese bath and with local support services: dial-a-cray, dial-a-massage and dial-a-chef.

 

[ii]  In terms of that ABC employer “Productivity Component” of 3% per annum, try this ABC slice of life from Louise Evans about the cadre of ‘lifers’ there in 2013:

“a pocket of predominantly middle-aged, Anglo-Saxon staff … who were impervious to change, unaccountable, untouchable and who harboured a deep sense of entitlement.

They didn’t have a 9-5 mentality. They had a 10-3 mentality. They planned their work day around their afternoon yoga class. They wore thongs and shorts to work, occasionally had a snooze on the couch after lunch and popped out to Paddy’s Market to buy fresh produce for dinner before going home.

They were like free-range chickens, wandering around at will, pecking at this and that, content that laying one egg constituted a hard day’s work…

 Taxi dockets were left in unlocked drawers for the taking and elephantine leave balances had been allowed to accumulate. When programs shut down for Christmas, staff would get approval from their executive producers to hang around for a week or two “to tidy things up”. One editor asked for his leave to be cut back by a week because he’d need to pop into work during the holidays to “check emails”.That constituted work.”

 

 

[iii] The longevity of ABC stars at the ABC suggests they are not deluged with private-sector bids for their media services.

COMMENTS [5]

  1. Jody

    There’s something about this kind of article which leaves a bad taste in my mouth; it’s nobody else’s business what somebody earns and I don’t like that tactic in making an argument. This is all private information and only a matter for the people concerned, not appropriate for the public domain.

    By all means attack the ABC and its ideologies, but I think there’s enough evidence provided by these turkeys and ducks in their pens to demonstrate widespread bias without having to publish details of the salaries of its high-fliers. We know they’re Chardonnay Socialists – that’s not news – but I draw the line at income revelations.

    I’m sure Quadrant can do better than this.

  2. Geoffrey Luck

    Wrong, Jody, completely wrong. Where did this idea come from that public service salaries are sacrosant? That the facts of the salaries and entitlements of people who work for our national broadcaster should be off-limits? In an era when disclosure of corporate remuneration has become more and more obligatory, why should the pay and retirement benefits of the ABC’s front-of-house staff not be out in the public domain? Tony has laid out the basis for a better understanding of where some of the ABC money goes – it turns out a sizeable chunk of it comprises part of the Commonwealth Government’s unfunded superannuation burden. That was something Peter Costello was particularly concerned about, and the reason for his founding of the Future Fund. Anyway, there is nothing to be ashamed of in this explanation – all the cases quoted merely show what people are correctly entitled to under the schemes as they are presently defined. As time goes by, the participants in the defined benefits scheme will wash out of the system. What is more insidious and reprehensible is the return in specialist contract roles of people like Kerry O’Brien who continues completely unnecessarily in an artificially manufactured job, introducing 4 Corners

    The ABC has always had its idiosyncrasies. From the inauguration of the independent news service in 1947 until the introduction of contracts some time in the ’70s, all News Division journalists were employed as Temporary Staff. They were prohibited from joining the ABC Staff Association with automatic access to all Commonwealth Public Service benefits. For example,,

  3. Geoffrey Luck

    journalists had to wait three years before they were eligible to join the superannuation scheme. And although it was a defined benefits scheme, it was not as generous as it later became. After 26 years service, and 23 years in the scheme, I got only my own contributions back – without interest – when I resigned. As it turned out, a massive sum of $12,000, which I found could not then be rolled over into a private super scheme with my new employer. Never mind, the escape from the authoritarian claustrophobia of the most ineptly managed organisation I have ever encountered freed me to succeed and surpass my ABC prospects in private enterprise.

  4. Jody

    The defined benefits scheme for public servants is, indeed, a shocker. For example, as a self-funded retiree who earns income through dividends I’ll be paying 1.5% more tax (in short, less ‘imputation credits’ returned to me at tax time) because I’ve invested in the top 3,000 companies who will carry the burden for the PPL scheme or new childcare regime courtesy of this government. The defined benefits recipients will have NO SUCH BURDEN because the Commonwealth will pay their retirement incomes and they will be unaffected by dividend/imputation credits. This is straight discrimination.

    However, I still disagree with you about the salaries of those on the public purse being exposed dollar for dollar. I wouldn’t like it myself. I wasn’t suggesting public salaries per se should be sacrosanct – teacher’s salaries are generally known – but the explicit package for individuals should be subject to the privacy most of us enjoy. I”d have no trouble, for example, in the suggestion that so-and-so earned over $140,000 for example – but the specifics make me uncomfortable.

    I worked at the ABC in Television Features in the early to mid 1970′s so I well understand the oppressive and relentless pressure to conform. Group-think is anathema to me because it procludes the actual need to THINK for ones-self and that I eschew quite radically. It also appalled me that Chardonnay socialists preached equality and socialist principles while attending up-market functions and sipping expensive champagne. One of my friends/colleagues who worked with me referred to them as “leather-jacket-wearing 12 year olds”!! So, we are not alone!

  5. Tony Thomas

    Hi Jody, I’m not clear if you’re complaining about publication of ‘salaries’ or ‘pensions’ or both.
    The salary details were revealed by some klutz in ABC administration unwittingly sending a copious spreadsheet of names and salaries to a non-ABC third party. From there they were published in The Australian and then by the Australia media as a whole.
    The pension details I give are just simple arithmetic from public data, i.e. age, and years of service, applied to what is now known salaries.
    Thanks for your interest and views, Tony

The ABC Rights a Wrong

TONY THOMAS

No need just yet to hug your kitties and pups one last time. Climate change is still a mortal peril, according to the national broadcaster, which has admitted in one of its rare posted corrections that soaring temperatures and rising seas will take longer to kill Fido and Fluffy than originally thought

abc errorHooray! I’ve forced the ABC to correct one of its  howlers in global warming reportage. On September 2,  I wrote in Quadrant Online about Harvard History of Science Professor Naomi Oreskes and her forecast that global warming would kill everyone’s puppies and kittens in 2023, followed by the entire population of Australia. Admittedly, her book was supposedly written looking back from 400 years into the future, but as she put it, it was all based on genuine Climate Change Science ™.

Science Show host and Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science Robyn Williams loved the pet-holocaust idea, saying:

“Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things … And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, than it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it?”

 Oreskes responded:

Well, exactly. It was about bringing it literally home, literally into your home, your family, your pet, the dog or cat that you love who is your faithful and trusted companion.”

If you go to the ABC Science Show site at you will now find this correction:

Editor’s note: The original introduction stated that “Earth’s climate is changing at the highest of predicted rates, scientists have given up on the much talked about two degree ceiling …”  In context these words telegraphed the premise on which Prof Oreskes’ work of fiction is based; however, it has been interpreted as a statement of incontrovertible fact and has therefore been removed to prevent any further misunderstanding.

This is an almost-OK response by the complaints department. Timing-wise, the show was aired on 16 August, my complaint was on September 1, and the correction posted on September 23 — expeditiously by ABC standards. My only quibble is that Williams and the ABC still cannot bring themselves to admit publicly that saying “earth’s climate is changing at the highest predicted rates” is flat-out wrong, the opposite of the truth, whether or not the assertion is real or made “fictively”.

My suggestion is that, now the ABC has begun behaving almost like an impartial taxpayer-funded news institution, we should use the complaints mechanism on every occasion the national broadcaster  falls into error on climate and/or politics.  No one can now say such complaints will be frivolously dismissed or ignored.

My complaint read:

The introduction [to the Science Show’s Oreskes interview] says, “The Earth’s climate is changing at the highest of predicted rates.”

The IPCC in its final draft for its 5th Report, showed actual temperatures running below the lowest bound of the IPCC forecasting.

This graphic (re-produced below) was omitted  in the published report,tisdale graphic

replaced by this account:

However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 [modeling] historical simulations   reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations  [forecasts] show a GMST [global mean surface temperature]  trend over 1998-2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 [actual temperature] trend ensemble  ” Chapter 9, WG1, Box 9.2

In other words, actual temperatures are running lower than  97% of the forecast runs, not at “the highest of predicted rates” as claimed by   the Science Show.

I would like to see this false and misleading statement corrected on The Science Show.

Thanks

Tony Thomas

The ABC’s reply  reads,

Dear Mr Thomas,

Your complaint has been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards. These standards are explained in our Editorial Policies which are available here –http://about.abc.net.au/how-the-abc-is-run/what-guides-us/our-editorial-policies/.

The intention had been to convey Naomi Oreskes’ view but having been alerted to your complaint, the program acknowledges that the sentence read on the website as an incontrovertible fact and have undertaken to remove it.  An Editor’s Note has been added to the page.

Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that these steps are adequate and appropriate to remedy the cause of your complaint and accordingly we consider it resolved.

Thank you for giving the ABC the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Kirstin McLiesh
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

I say modestly, no, don’t give me credit for this virtually unprecedented backdown by the ABC on global warming catastrophism. Credit belongs to level-headed sceptics everywhere  in what Shakespeare once described as “a naughty world.”

And, if I may say so, Long Live the ABC!

Tony Thomas blogs at tthomas061.wordpress.com