by Julia Baird
5Gerard Ryle, ‘Behind the party girl’, Spectrum, SMH, 8 Jan. 2000, p. 1.
6Virginia Trioli, ‘The new colt’, Age (Extra), 1 November 1997, p. 5.
7Over 1998 and 1999, Stott Despoja was quoted in articles about higher education, work for the dole, West Australian abortion laws, the republic, regulation of collection of human genetic information, privacy laws, the GST, voluntary unionism, the scrapping of Abstudy, job allowance, job network, unemployment figures, HECS, gun laws, drug policy, and CD legislation. When she opposed legislation to remove controls on CD imports, many commentators were sceptical of this move, which was at odds with the Australian Consumer Association and Allan Fels, head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Peter Switzer wrote in the Australian that initially her decision had ‘added to my suspicion that this was a dizzy Democrat’, although he agreed with her after recognising the arguments of an academic who believed CDs would not be cheaper as a result: ‘Ring of truth in music reform row’, 4 April 1998, p. 54. The Bill was still passed, by a narrow margin. She also spoke about mutual obligation and the dole, the proposed preamble to the Constitution, the constitutional referendum, a GST on books, cyber porn, labelling of genetically modified foods, voluntary student unionism, internet censorship, globalisation, youth wages, school fees, and religious discrimination.
8Virginia Trioli, ‘Rising star’, Age (Extra), 11 Nov. 1997, p. 5.
9Shelley Gare, ‘Political covergirls find the dress fits’, Australian, 25 March 1998, p. 2. Gare quoted Hugh Mackay, who said it was not such a risk for Stott Despoja because she was trying to establish herself as a young voice in an old forum, ‘but Kernot’s baseline is that she has spent a lot of time establishing she’s a fairly serious political figure, not to be dismissed as fluff.’
10Greg Callaghan, ‘Internet conduit for senator’s dream’, Weekend Australian, 5 Oct. 1996, p. 5.
11Natasha Stott Despoja, ‘Stott in the name of Love’, SMH, 22 Jan 1999, p 6.
12Malcolm Farr, ‘Shot down over Kosovo’, Daily Telegraph, 1 May 1999, p. 11. According to the story, she upset her colleagues by heading off to Albania, thereby missing the tax debate in the Senate, on what was not considered official parliamentary business. Farr claimed she extended her stay in a stopover in Rome because she was tired, and was having problems getting a flight. She then asked for another two days off — thereby planning to spend as much time in Rome as she had with the refugees. It was not what she did that annoyed people, he wrote, it was the way she did it. The next day Stott Despoja issued a press release claiming the story was untrue, and based on malicious gossip. She was only in Rome for a matter of hours between connecting flights, had not asked for an extension of time, and would be seeking legal advice that week.
13Mike Seccombe, ‘Democrat’s dilemma’, SMH, 5 June 1999, p. 36.
14SMH, 12 June 1999.
15‘I’m conscious, too, that I’ve benefited from the media in as much as you have to deal with flak,’ Sunday Telegraph, 30 May 1999.
16Fia Cumming, ‘Stott Despoja under pressure over GST — and love life’, SunHerald, 6 June 1999, p. 51.
17Interview with the author, 10 April 2003.
18Editorial, ‘Senator faces a fundamental choice’, Australian, 8 June 1999, p. 14.
19He gave her credit for hard work, and her contribution to debates about censorship, euthanasia and HECs, as well as her vitality and pose, but claimed she had ‘let celebrity get in the way of professionalism’ in his column published on 10 June 1999.
20Piers Akerman, ‘Princess Leia’s public wars’, Daily Telegraph, 8 June 1999, p. 11.
21For example, he wrote she had incorrectly claimed to be the first member of her family to get a university degree (her father, whom she said was not part of her family, had one, and her mother had ‘eight-ninths’ of one) and revealed her lack of contact with her half-brother, who lived in Canberra. Note: Lees wrote a letter defending Stott Despoja on various points, saying she had a democratic right to vote on the GST according to her conscience and insisting she was not isolated.
22Peter Ruehl, ‘Are these ying-yangs just playing polly?’, AFR, 1 March 2001, p. 48.
23Mike Seccombe, ‘The politics of protest’, SMH, 28 Feb. 2001.
24In a poll by the Adelaide newspaper the Sunday Mail, Stott Despoja was found to be the preferred choice for PM by 23 per cent of voters, with Howard at 25 per cent, and Hanson 11 per cent. A Morgan poll found Stott Despoja was more popular than either major party leader, with a 64 per cent positive rating — Howard had 47 per cent and Beazley 47 per cent.
25Michelle Grattan and Mark Robinson, ‘New team buoys Democrats and jolts Labor’, SMH, 10 April 2001.
26Ross Peake, ‘A star burns out’, Canberra Times, 22 August 2002; Dennis Atkins, ‘If ratings were votes’, Courier-Mail, 26 July 2002; Mark Day, ‘Balancing act on a precipice’, Daily Telegraph, 31 July 2002; Mike Seccombe, ‘The curse of a political princess’, SMH, 22 August 2002; Editorial, ‘Democrats face sternest test’, AFR, 22 August 2002; Peter Charlton, ‘Dems the breaks’, Courier-Mail, 27 July 2002; Rex Jory, ‘Democrats undone, but who cares?’, Advertiser, 7 August 2002; Dennis Atkins, ‘Historic end for shooting star’, Courier-Mail, 22 August 2002; graphic with story by Matt Price, ‘Gang of Four now holds the reins’, Australian, 22 August 2002; Malcolm Farr, ‘Party’s over for adored Natasha’, Daily Telegraph, 24 August 2002; Editorial, ‘Democrats’ fate hangs on party reform’, Australian, 22 August 2002.
27Louse Dodson, ‘Wither the divided democrats?’, Age, 23 August 2002.
28Alan Ramsey, ‘Lees’s stance just a block off the old Chipp’, SMH, 31 July 2002, p. 13; Alan Ramsey, ‘Fools and their flibbertigibbet’, SMH, 27 July 2002.
29He did not always dismiss her so easily. During the GST debate, he expressed some respect for the ‘ambitious young deputy’ who was ‘no shrinking violet about self-promotion’ but managed to adroitly handle media questions about the GST. He concluded that it would be interesting to see how far she went. (Alan Ramsey, ‘Stott Despoja stakes out a bottom line’, SMH, 29 May 1999, p. 43.)
30Jason Koutsoukis, ‘Party will bounce back, say pollsters’, AFR, 23 August 2002.
31Mike Seccombe, op. cit.
32Gerard Henderson, ‘The blonde and the bombshell’, SMH, 30 July 2002.
33Naomi Toy & Fiona Connolly, ‘A big Natasha secret no one cares about’, Daily Telegraph, 5 September 2003, p. 14.
34Australian Style, issue 31, April 1999.
35Note that when, in 1993, the Good Weekend magazine ran a digitally altered photo of a naked Kennett on the cover, he threatened to take legal action, saying it was in bad taste and, while he was happy to be criticised as a politician, he was ‘not prepared to be held up to ridicule in that way’.
Chapter Eight: Cheryl Kernot: from Wunderfrau to whore
1Interview with the author, 12 May 2003. Kernot believes Kingston was exaggerating: ‘It was actually a small dancing space. I recall Margo having had a few and trying to get Michelle Grattan to dance.’
2Richard Farmer, ‘Tweak table to become fixture in mass mind’, Canberra Times, 27 August 1993.
3Alan Ramsey, ‘Big pictures have sharp corners’, SMH, 4 December 1993, p. 29.
4When a poll was published which found only 24 per cent of people believed that politicians told the truth, she invited voters to call her office with suggested improvements for federal politics.
5Max Walsh wrote in 1996: ‘You could say that Senator Kernot luxuriates in the situation of enjoying power without responsibility. A British prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, once described this situation (in reference to the media) as the prerogative of the harlot. It says a great deal about Senator Kernot’s skills that she not only avoids such a description, but is portrayed as the Mother Teresa of Australian politics.’ (Max Walsh, ‘Saint Cheryl lets her halo slip’, SMH, 2 Feb. 1996, p. 25.) But he said her halo had slipped when she said she would not support the privatisation of Telstra, despit
e the Coalition’s promise that they would pour $1 billion into the environment if the legislation went through.
6The Australian said there could be no integrity in making sure the government broke the promises they made to Australian people. The Australian Financial Review agreed — keeping a government honest meant they should be free to implement the policy they promised, though the Democrats could delay, debate and negotiate. Don Chipp also pointed out that the Coalition had won 48 per cent of the vote, and the Democrats had no mandate: they should refine, not block, government policies. However, an AGB McNair poll taken on 13 August 1996 found 60 per cent of respondents said they would condone attempts by the Democrats to block parts of the budget if they were unfair or involved broken promises. On 9 August 1996, the Australian Financial Review gave her another serve for her ‘disdain for the reasonable functioning of Australian democracy’. The Senate should be a house of review, not obstruction, it argued, and the Democrats did not have the right to reject the government’s program of fiscal reform. Max Walsh, then at the Sydney Morning Herald, agreed. The Australian told Kernot to ‘show some responsibility and pull back’.
7This included allowing vetting by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of non-union employment agreements, and benchmarking of non-union agreements against awards.
8The West Australian also editorialised that her move was more to do with ambition than with principle, and said she had been tarnished by the process. The Courier-Mail wrote that members of the Australian Democrats had every right to feel betrayed, and her personal ambitions may have led her into a political wilderness. An exception was the Age, which argued her decision would be good for Australian politics: ‘It may, if her hopes are fulfilled, determine the shape of government and people’s faith in our political institutions as Australia enters the new millennium.’ Praising her integrity and sincerity, common sense and fairness, the Age argued her critique of the Howard government would resonate with many voters, and in seeking a role as an initiator rather than a spoiler, ‘she presents as the most likely candidate in the country to become Australia’s first female prime minister.’ (Editorial, Age, 16 October 1997, p. 18.)
9Piers Akerman, ‘Cheryl’s no saviour’, Sunday Telegraph, 19 October 1997, p. 63.
10Marion Smith, ‘Kernot’s dark side’, Courier-Mail, 1 Nov. 1997, p. 29.
11Mike Seccombe, ‘Kookaburra’, SMH, 18 Oct. 1997, p. 34.
12A Herald ACNielsen-McNair poll found a third of Democrat supporters were now more likely to vote for the ALP, and Kernot was rated highly or very highly as a potential prime minister by 35 per cent of voters.
13Piers Akerman had hinted at something fishy, but Peter Charlton of The Courier-Mail rejected the rumours of Kernot ‘running off with a male student’ as unsubstantiated, resembling a lurid soap plot. Charlton described the attempt to dig for dirt on her past — by two Sydney journos — as representing a sea change on Australian politics — the press gallery had been ‘singularly reluctant to report the known peccadilloes of the serving politicians’. Former student and Australian sports journalist Bret Harris confessed to a schoolboy crush on his attractive blonde teacher: spending time with her was ‘teenage heaven’.
14Christopher Pearson, ‘Kernot can’t close the door on skeletons’, AFR, 15 Dec. 1997, p. 19.
15Only 9 per cent of voters said she had been harmed ‘a lot’, and 17 per cent said she had been damaged a little (Taverner Research Company for the Sunday Age).
16Email correspondence with the author, 25 May 2004.
17Email correspondence with the author, 26 Jan. 2004.
18Previously, the only serious incursion on her privacy was in 1996 when the press reported that her brother was facing charges of attempted murder and attempted sexual assault. He was later convicted. The same thing had happened to Carmen Lawrence when she moved to Canberra — suddenly stories about her de facto relationship and the child she bore while unmarried sprang into print. They died down, however, after her former de facto came out to speak of his love and admiration for her. And perhaps because it was hardly a scandal — it was legal to not be married after all.
19Journalist Virginia Trioli argued that if Kernot’s claims that she had been hounded by the media came as an accumulated response to the shameful reportage of her sexual history story, that was understandable, ‘But as a response to the orthodox treatment of a minor story it was excessive and, paradoxically, attention seeking.’ The question was stupid but she should have said ‘good morning’ and moved on. Some came to her defence, most notably journalists from the Age. Michael Gordon said it was a minor eruption which ‘would not register when compared with the temper tantrums of that other high-profile parliamentary recruit, Bob Hawke, before he was elected in 1980’. Columnist Pamela Bone argued: ‘You call that an outburst? She didn’t swear, she didn’t raise her voice, she didn’t cry, or at least not in front of the cameras. Maybe, when she got on the plane, she went to the toilet and shed some tears of anger and frustration. I would have.’ (Pamela Bone, ‘Should Kernot’s life be this hard?’, Age, 22 Jan. 1998, p. 11.)
20Her strength was her honesty, and, as Michelle Grattan pointed out, like Bob Hawke she had her own ‘special relationship’ with the Australian people. This meant her mistakes would emphasise her humanness and enhance, not detract from her appeal — the public would forgive her lapses. (Michelle Grattan, ‘Punters recognise Bob’s heir’, AFR, 24 Jan. 1998, p. 24.)
21Another critical amendment altered this passage in the draft: ‘If you look closely in my eyes you will see that I’m a fighter. I’m here to contribute to delivering Australia from one of the worst governments it’s ever had. And it will take more than a truck to flatten me.’ The final version read: ‘I couldn’t be prouder than to be a member of Kim Beazley’s team, and I’m here as a part of that team, to help deliver Australia from one of the worst governments it’s ever had the misfortune to elect. And comrades, it takes more than a truck to flatten me.’
22Shortly afterwards, on 26 February 1998, when giving a speech at the Quill media awards in Melbourne, she reminded her media audience of Christabel Pankhurst’s warning to fellow suffragette campaigners: ‘Never lose your temper with the press.’
23Alan Ramsey, ‘Foolish behaviour all round’, SMH, 14 March 1998, p. 43. A week later Ramsey embarrassed her by accusing her of lifting large slabs of a speech she gave from one given by Evans a few days earlier, and accused her of being obsessed with her own political significance.
24Robert Manne, ‘Attack on Kernot reveals Canberra’s double standards’, SMH, 16 March 1998, p. 15.
25Evans stood up in parliament and declared that Randall’s comments were ‘totally baseless, beneath contempt and a disgusting abuse of parliamentary privilege’. ‘It takes more than an apology,’ he said, ‘to heal the hurt, particularly to our families, that this sort of performance causes.’ This lie was something which, as he later confessed in an email to Kernot, weighed heavily on his conscience, particularly as the affair continued for a couple of years after this.
26Miranda Devine, ‘Red dress but redder faces’, Daily Telegraph, 24 March 1998, p. 10.
27Peter Cole-Adams, ‘Beazley gallant while Kernot’s critics see red’, Canberra Times, 25 March 1998, p. 2.
28Brian Toohey, ‘Kernot soap won’t wash’, AFR, 24 March 1998, p. 19.
29Note Gordon’s own newspaper criticised the red dress in an editorial: ‘Can a feminist wear lipstick? Of course she can. Can a woman of fairly mature years pose in a scarlet satin sheath and feather boa, eyes heavily made up and toenails painted silver, and still expect to be taken seriously? The proposition is more doubtful. And even more so when the MP in question had in the past complained about the media trivialising her by describing her as ‘Labor’s new bride’. (Age, 28 March 1998, p. 11.)
30In Speaking for Myself Again she wrote: ‘The constant barrage of criticism and the pressure on myself and my family was increasingly hard to deal with. At times I was
not my best and I readily acknowledge the provocative nature of my election night comments . . .’ At the end of the night, she wrote, she sat outside on a bus stop seat and wept.
31Tony Wright, ‘Cheryl Kernot — facing my future’, Age, 16 June 1999, p. 13.
Chapter Nine: Sex and the ‘Stiff-Dick Syndrome’
1Oakes has no recollection of these negotiations.
2Reported by Alan Ramsey, ‘A sly route to the truth’, SMH, 6 July 2002, p. 37.
3The AAP wire service ran a story that night about Oakes’s column, and the next morning about Kernot’s insistence there was no secret. They did not report on the affair until after Oakes revealed details on Channel Nine.
4Laurie Oakes, Bulletin, 3 February 1998.
5In a letter to ‘Media Watch’, sent on 6 July, Oakes queried the accuracy of the Rehame figure: ‘A 3AW poll conducted by Neil Mitchell was rather different. I am told there was at least one other radio poll that did not back up the Rehame figure. I am also told that Steve Price on 2UE said his calls were not running at anything like 85 per cent against publication. But I am not surprised that many people were offended by my decision to run this story.’