Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: 2002 / 14: Privacy and the media: should the sexual conduct of politicians be made public?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
latham
howard
politics
(the above words are for general items only. For the purposes of the issue outline, the list at the end of the outline should be looked at)
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
2004 / 18: The private lives of politicians: has the media treated Mark Latham unfairly?
What they said ...
'The seemingly relentless inquisition into Mark Latham's past by the Government and sections of the media is dangerous for our democracy ... the line between legitimate questions about a political leader's previous public life and illegitimate questions about his personal relations has been rubbed out'
Greg Barns, former Howard Government adviser, now a member of the Australian Democrats
'There is no dirt unit. This is an allegation Mr Latham has invented and the best proof of that is that over the last 24 hours, four journalists, very senior journalists ... have said publicly that at no stage have they received personal dirt from the Liberal Party in relation to Mr Latham. I am not interested in Mr Latham's private life'
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
The issue at a glance
On Monday July 5 the leader of the federal Opposition, Mark Latham, held what some political commentators have dubbed an 'extraordinary' press conference. The purpose of the press conference was, in Latham's terms, 'to clear the air'.
The previous day, July 4, Channel Nine's current affairs program, Sunday, had run a treatment of aspects of Latham's life prior to his becoming leader of the Labor Party in December 2003.
At this conference Latham aired a number of allegations about himself that he claimed were being circulated in Canberra and made reference to some investigations of or rumours about close members of his family. He denied or dismissed as old news the allegations about himself and asked that the media 'lay off' his family. He claimed that the source of the rumours was his ex-wife, political opponents from his time as mayor of the Sydney city of Liverpool and a 'dirt machine' within the Liberal Party, funded at taxpayer expense. Latham alleged this 'dirt machine' had been tracking down and circulating within the Canberra press gallery damaging rumours about him.
The press conference opened up a vigorous debate as to whether Latham had been treated fairly and whether or not unnecessary interest in the past or private life of a politician was detracting from political debate in an election year.
Background
Striking an appropriate balance between the public's right to know and the legitimate right to privacy of public figures has always posed problems.
The private lives of public figures in Australian politics
There appears to have been a long history of potential scandal among Australian politicians.
Formerly, however, such matters remained at most rumours and were not revealed until after the death of the individuals concerned. For example, it is generally regarded as fact that both of Australia's revered wartime Prime Ministers, John Curtin and Ben Chifley, had long-standing affairs. It has also been revealed that Australia's longest serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, had an affair with Lady Elizabeth Fairfax.
Shortly before his death, former Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton, revealed that he had had a number of extramarital affairs during his time as Prime Minister. Gorton's unconventional conduct was remarked on during his period in the Lodge, however, if details of his affairs were known at the time they were revealed neither within the Parliament nor by the media.
Something of a turning point in Australian political life appeared to have been reached in 1975 with the media treatment of Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns and the 'kind of love' he confessed for his private secretary, Juni Morosi.
In Parliament, Cairns was forced to defend his appointment of Ms Morosi after claims by Liberal backbencher Billy Wentworth that she was unfit for her position and a newspaper report suggesting a romantic link between Morosi and Cairns. Cairns was dismissed in July 1975 for having misled Parliament in relation to the matter.
Former Prime Minster Paul Keating was extremely belligerent on the floor of the House and it is generally regarded that during his period of influence the level of invective in parliamentary debate increased. He also appears to have been well hated by the Opposition. There were numerous attempts, both during his prime ministership and after he lost office, to associate him with political scandal, most notably in relation to a supposed conflict of interest in his ownership of a piggery.
John Howard's Coalition Government was elected in 1996. The new Prime Minister immediately promised to elevate the standard of parliamentary debate. Regrettably, this does not seem to have occurred.
Accusations of sexual misconduct do not appear to have been common, however, there have been brutal personal attacks within Parliament, one of which may have contributed to the attempted suicide of a Labor MP. Standards of parliamentary debate have been at a low level for many years, with notions of appropriate comment having become increasingly hazy. The media, however, could generally be relied upon to draw a line between political comment and character assassination.
Labour's Mark Latham has continued a long tradition, shared by members on both sides of Parliament, of crudity and viciousness in his attacks on political opponents and critics in the media. He has referred to a former Liberal Party president, crippled in a car accident, as a 'deformed character'. He has referred to the Prime Minister as an 'arse-licker' in his supposed subservience to the United States. He has made slighting references to Liberal Tony Abbott's illegitimate child and he has referred to Janet Albrechtsen, a commentator for The Australian newspaper, as a 'skanky ho'.
In their turn, Latham's Liberal Party opponents have made play of an incident in which he had a dispute with a taxi driver that resulted in the man's arm being broken. They have also referred to the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of his first marriage and his falling out with some former members of the Labor Party who had sponsored and supported him after his father's death.
In recent weeks there have also been media references to supposed financial mismanagement when Latham was mayor of Liverpool, to some supposed fisticuffs with a disgruntled Liverpudlian, and to the possible existence of a 'raunchy' bucks' night video involving Latham and a stripper.
The accusations made about Mr Latham appear fairly tame, though cumulatively they may have some impact on voters. What is interesting is the possibility that a muckraking exercise has been in progress in which the Government is claimed to have fed material to the media in the name of damaging its opponents.
Internet information
The Australian Press Council's Statement of Principles, including its position on the publication of rumours and the verifying of facts can be found at http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/sop.html
In 1994 a Press Council seminar was held to discuss 'Public Figures and the Press'. At the seminar a number of papers and submissions were presented on the topic. The views of the then chairperson of the Council, Professor David Flint were given. A report on the seminar can be found at http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/may94/public.html
On July 4 Channel Nine's current affairs program Sunday ran a profile on Mark Latham looking at various aspects of his life including allegations of double dealing in ALP pre-selection deals and having 'king-hit' an older man. The program was titled 'Latham uncut'
A full transcript can be found at http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1594.asp
A full transcript of Mark Latham's press conference of July 5 to 'clear the air' about rumours and allegations which he claimed were being spread about him can be found at http://www.alp.org.au/media/0704/20007876.html
An edited transcript of Mark Latham's July 5 press conference can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/05/1089000091431.html
This was published by The Sydney Morning Herald on July 6.
On December 4, 2003, John Miller and Ross Davie conducted a radio interview with Mark Latham. As part of the interview Latham was asked to give his opinion on media interest in his private life, in particular comments made by his first wife. Latham felt he had generally been treated fairly by the press.
A transcript of the interview can be found on the ALP website at http://www.alp.org.au/media/1203/20006550.html
On December 17, 2003, two weeks after Mark Latham was elected leader of the Australian Labor Party, Alan Ramsey had an opinion piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is titled, 'Coalition takes wrong route, learns Latham's not fair game'.
The article details personal abuse directed at Latham in the Parliament by Tony Abbott and Peter Costello. It also argues that at this point the abuse was having no affect on Latham's approval rating in opinion polls.
The article can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/16/1071336958901.html
On July 7, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald published seven letters on the supposed mark Latham smear campaign under the heading, 'Voters need relevant information, not muckraking'
These letters can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/06/1089000155055.html?from=storylhs
On July 7, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece by Alan Ramsey in which he challenged the Prime Minister to reveal the function of the 'special projects' unit run by Ian Hanke and of the Government Members' Secretariat.
The article is titled, 'Some projects, PM, that need explaining' and can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/06/1089000156096.html
WordIQ is a wide-ranging dictionary/encyclopaedia. It gives detailed and regularly updated information on past and present political leaders in Australia and the world.
It has a clear and informative entry on Mark Latham, including a reference to his positive relations with the media on his assuming the Labor leadership.
Its entry on Mark Latham can be found at http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mark_Latham
Arguments against the media treatment Mark Latham has received
1. Much, if not most, of a politician's private life is not of legitimate public interest
The former head of the Australian Press Council, Professor David Flint, has stated, 'It is responsible to investigate and report on the private lives of public figures, but only to the extent that the matters reported may have some impact on the exercise of some public office...'
Professor Flint has also stated, 'Public figures remain entitled to some privacy. Publishing what is interesting to the public is not necessarily in the public interest.'
This is a warning against journalists pursuing titillating high-interest material about public figures that is of no legitimate concern to the general public. The rumoured video of Mark Latham's bucks' night would probably fall into this category of private material. People might be interested to see it but they would have no genuine right to do so as it is no concern of theirs how Mr Latham behaved in such a situation.
The Australian Press Council defines the public interest in the following manner: '"public interest" is defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others.'
In a radio interview with John Laws on July 2, Mr Latham stated, 'We don't want to go down the American path with talk about the private - it's the public things that actually matter to the Australian people.'
A similar point was made by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, after Mr Latham's press conference. Mr Howard stated, 'I have no desire to depart from the long-standing view and convention in Australian politics that private lives are off limits unless there's a direct connection between it and the performance of a public duty.'
2. The private lives of people associated with a politician are not of legitimate public interest
It is also argued that friends and relatives of public figures should not have their lives intruded into by the media. According to this line of argument, when someone takes on a public role then they can properly expect a level of media scrutiny as some of their actions are legitimately of concern to the general public. However, this does not apply to the friends and relatives of public figures as these people have not taken on a public duty and so their actions are not likely to impact on the general public.
When Latham held his press conference his central complaint appeared to be that the media were intruding into the lives of this family. He stated, 'Things have been put to me about my sisters, my mother, my father that are not true and they don't deserve it. Say what you like about me but leave them out of it please.'
In an interview with Steve Austin on ABC radio Brisbane on July 6, Mr Latham stated, 'Last week I had a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald, Deborah Snow ... put to me a question along the lines that your first wife has said these things about your little sister when she was 13 years of age; how do you respond? Well, I respond with disgust .... What my little sister at 13 years of age has got to do with my public life, I really don't know, and it makes me feel sick to think that it has got to that level of smear ... What has this got to do with Australian politics and scrutiny of me?'
In the same interview Mr Latham also stated, 'So, too, a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald, Damien Murphy, the week before last, rang the dancing teacher of my wife, when my wife was 15 years of age, saying he was investigating something fishy at a Perth Dancing School when she was 15! ... What is going on when the media are making inquiries fed by others about little girls, 13 and 15, 20 years ago?'
Mr Latham's concern to protect the families of politicians from media intrusion appears to be shared by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard has said he had sympathy for Mr Latham wanting to keep his family out of politics.
Mr Howard has further said, 'I am close to my family, I love my family very much and if I thought that my family were being attacked I would get emotional, very emotional, because it's the most important thing in the world to me and I respect that in another man or woman, let me make that very clear.'
3. A politician's past public life should be of limited interest
It has further been argued that politician's past lives should be of limited public interest. Paraphrasing this view, Michelle Grattan has stated, 'Some would argue, and history could be mined for evidence, that people whose earlier behaviour leaves a lot to be desired can be good and effective leaders ...
One precedent often raised is Bob Hawke. Before he became an MP (although he was already in public life), he drank heavily and womanised extensively. He was often not a pretty sight. If he didn't get into physical fights, he was so verbally aggressive that he often looked as though he might.
Yet Hawke put that behind him and was a very good and well-behaved prime minister.'
It has further been claimed that all people are faulted and that there would be no candidate for public life whose past did not contain some things of which he or she was ashamed. However, it is argued, personal perfection should not be a prerequisite for public life.
This point has been made by Greg Barns, a former Howard Government adviser and now a member of the Australian Democrats. Mr Barns has stated, 'Drawing attention to the peccadilloes and behavioural lapses (unless they involve proven criminal conduct) of politicians and individuals involved in public discourse simply confirms the immutable fact that humankind is flawed. The attempt to suggest that such lapses and flaws should disqualify an individual from contributing through political life to advancing Australia's common good is abhorrent.'
Latham has repeatedly stressed that it is his policies and his current political performance which should be of interest to the media and the public. This point has also been made by Paul Kelly, a commentator for The Australian. Paul Kelly has stated, 'We need to get a few things clear. Throwing a punch (if Mark Latham did) or having an alienated first wife (as he seems to have) is no disqualification for being prime minister. The media's obsession with such issues betrays not just a nasty streak but the way the cult of celebrity debases our journalism. This obsession with private histories coincides with the media's stunning lack of interest in Latham's substance and his policies (notably his refusal to define his main policies). The character issue is a cover for the trivialisation of political analysis and a decline in our public debate.'
4. Rumours should not be circulated as news
The Australian Press Council states with regard to publishing rumour, 'Rumour and unconfirmed reports, if published at all, should be identified as such.' The implication of 'if published at all' would appear to be that rumours should only be published with strong justification.
Shaun Carney, in an article published in The Age on July 7 put a strong argument for not publishing rumours at all. Carney wrote, 'Not so long ago, newspapers, radio and television used to observe a convention that rumours were not regarded as news. When I joined The Herald newspaper as a cadet journalist in 1978, I was told that the paper banned the use of one word only and that was "rumour". It was a good policy.
Even a reference to a rumour, without describing its nature or contents, meant that the paper would be giving legitimacy to something that could not be confirmed as a fact. There were facts, which could be established, and there was nothing else.'
This conforms to another principal of the Australian Press Council. The Press Council states, 'Newspapers and magazines ("publications") should not publish what they know or could reasonably be expected to know is false, or fail to take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what they report.'
Shaun Carney suggests that the recent treatment of Mark Latham represents a low point and a turning point in the Australian media's treatment of politicians.
Carney states, 'There is no turning back now. Everything from now on will be fair game. Someone from somewhere says something about someone else and the media will only be doing its duty to ask that someone else if what is being said is true.
No need for proof. No need for the assertions to be tested.'
Carney's concern is that in publishing rumours the Australian media is giving them the undeserved appearance of fact, or, at the very least, casting doubt on a public figure's reputation when there may be no genuine reason to do so.
5. The media should not help the Government smear political opponents
It has been claimed that the Government has a 'dirt machine' dedicated to smearing Labor politicians and in particular the Opposition leader, Mark Latham. It has further been claimed that the results of this scandal trawling have been fed to the media.
In the press conference he gave on July 5 Mr Latham stated, '[Another] area for these rumours appears to be the Government's dirt machine. I've been used to Tony Abbott's staff coming out digging dirt in Liverpool for the last eight years, haven't said much about it, but I still get regular reports from people who say that Abbott's people are out there doing their worst. There is a unit headed by Ian Hanke. We had a Government Minister last week wandering around the Press Gallery saying there is a campaign worker with a broken collarbone; doesn't exist. Peter Costello telling journalists to go investigate the Liverpool Council. You all know the rumours and trash that gets walked around the Press Gallery on a regular basis.'
This alleged assault by Mr Latham had been reported in the Australian on July 2. 'One Government minister told The Australian the Liberal Party was pursuing allegations that Mr Latham was involved in an incident during an earlier election that led to an unknown person breaking a collarbone.'
Some of the comments made by members of the Government in the Parliament have been suggested as evidence of the Government's willingness to smear Latham.
In an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald on July 7 Alan Ramsey wrote of a number of 'special projects' established by the Government and funded at taxpayer expense. Ramsey's implication was that these may have been the 'dirt units' to which Mr Latham had referred. Ramsey also questioned the purpose of the Government Members Secretariat (GMS), a $1.3 million unit of 11 people housed in a suite of offices in Parliament House.
Greg Barns, now a member of the Democrats and once an adviser to the Howard Government has claimed, 'As a senior adviser to John Howard's Government from 1996-99, I was personally aware of two occasions in which government advisers spent time, energy and resources seeking to undermine the credibility of individuals it did not like.'
There are concerns that taxpayer funded investigators are looking for damaging information on members of the Opposition and then leaking this information to the media. It has been suggested that this would be a misuse of the media and a damaging attack on the democratic process.
6. Latham's personal attacks on opponents do not excuse his current mistreatment
It has been claimed that Latham's previous readiness to abuse opponents does not excuse any improper attack on him, either from the media or the Government. Janet Albrechtsen has made this point.
Albrechtsen has written, 'Some will say [Latham's] past transgressions make his claims of foul play insincere. Except that he is right to cry foul. His mistake back then was not to practise what he now preaches.'
According to this line of argument it was wrong for Latham to have personally attacked his opponents in the past and it is wrong for him to be personally attacked now.
In an editorial published on July 8, The Age endorsed the Prime Minster's claim that Mr Latham himself had been particularly abusive in his comments about opponents. However the editorial went on to conclude, 'This is not to justify the reporting of rumours as though they were facts, or the tactics of the smear campaign - phenomena that combine to diminish the quality of political discourse and the standing of politicians.'
7. Fear of negative publicity can force a politician into making private disclosures
It has been claimed that when a politician fears that either the media or his political opponents may not respect his privacy he may make private matters public in a bid to forestall more damaging revelations.
There are those who believe that this in part is what Mark Latham was doing when he called a press conference to 'clear the air'.
Latham has said, 'Some of these rumours have been around for six years. At one level I had learned to live with them. Um, but given the nature of them, the nature of them at the current time and the intensity of them, you know I've heard things come back to me that's been whispered around the press gallery and this building (Parliament), it just sort of makes you feel sick, makes you feel sick ...
So given the intensity of it, and the focus on it ... I thought the time was right to confront them head on.'
It has been claimed that politicians should not be forced in this manner to reveal aspects of their private life.
Arguments in favour of the media treatment Mark Latham has received
1. Latham has received much positive media treatment
It has been claimed that for a significant period after he became Labor leader, Mark Latham, received favourable media treatment. This has been referred to as a 'media honeymoon' during which time it has been claimed that the press was less rigorous in its examination of Latham's policies than it would otherwise have been.
It has further been claimed that for a number of years prior to his becoming Labor leader, Latham had cultivated friendly, informal relations with a number of journalists. Commentator Dennis Shanahan noted in an article published in The Australian on July 2, 2004, 'Over the years, particularly as a backbencher, Latham developed friendships and acquaintances in the media. It was a natural part of being an ambitious politician and it worked both ways. Latham's larger-than-life personality and a penchant for hanging out with journalists after hours gave a good-natured, humorous, and at times boisterous, flavour to the politician-journalist relationships.'
Mark Latham himself has claimed that the media coverage he has received since becoming Labor leader has generally been fair. In a radio interview with John Miller and Ross Davie on December 4, 2003, Mark Latham stated, 'If you want to serve in public life you've got to expect media coverage and the media, in most cases, are doing their job and I think the coverage and the way that they have handled it has been good.'
2. Latham's previous public life is of legitimate interest
It has been claimed that Mr Latham's performance during his time as a councillor and mayor of Liverpool was of legitimate public concern. The Prime Minister has argued that the level of competence Mr Latham displayed when holding down a previous public office could serve as a guide as to how he would perform if he were ever to become Prime Minister and so this is an area that the Liberal Party was entitled to investigate.
Speaking on Brisbane radio 4BC, Mr Howard said he was against any use of personal information about a political figure, but he supported examination of Mr Latham's record on Liverpool Council. 'That relates to his capacity to officially discharge a public office,' Mr Howard said. 'He's seeking another public office, the most responsible one in the country, and therefore his capacity in an earlier public office is relevant. The mayor of Liverpool is a public office and if he's bungled that, then we are entitled to say he will bungle being prime minister of Australia.'
Mr Howard said the Government did have people whose job it was to point out inconsistencies in Mr Latham's policy positions. 'That's our job. They do that to me all the time and I am accountable,' he said. 'If I say something on your [radio] program, and three months later I say something on another program which is the exact opposite, the Labor Party has a perfect right to go to the [press] gallery and say "Look at the difference". That is not a personal attack. That is just doing your job ... absolutely nothing wrong with that.'
3. Some aspects of Latham's private life may be of legitimate public interest
It has been noted that while many aspects of a person's private life have no bearing on their public performance, there are some features of private life that may be relevant.
This point was made in a comment of Michelle Grattan's published in The Age on July 4. Ms Grattan states, 'In this debate, there are some aspects of a person's past life that seem more relevant than others. For example, honesty tends to go to the core of character, while getting into a fight or womanising may not. Aggression [however] can be seen as a spectrum: a specific instance can be either out of character or a disturbing sign of character.'
Grattan goes on to suggest that some of the areas of Latham's personal life investigated on Channel Nine's Sunday program may be of genuine public interest. Referring to a supposed fight between Mark Latham and a Mr Don Nelson who claims Latham king-hit him, she writes, 'Does the incident give any backing to a suggestion that Latham has a streak of violence in him? And, given that the man, Don Nelson, claims Latham hit him and Latham insists he didn't, what implication does it have for judgements about the ALP leader's wider credibility?'
Comments such as these are part of what is referred to as the 'character issue'. This refers to the belief that a person's behaviour in a private context may indicate something fundamental about his/her character that will effect how s/he performs in public office.
4. Latham has previously attacked the private lives of his opponents
It has also been claimed that Latham is not well placed to complain about how he is being treated either by the media or his political opponents. It has been suggested that Latham's previous personal attacks on members of the media and of the Government mean he is scarcely entitled to complain when he is the subject of personal attacks.
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and other Government ministers said Mr Latham had been highly abusive in attacks on his opponents, but now seemed unable to accept legitimate criticism.
'Mr Latham himself has never been a person reluctant to use parliamentary privilege to say outrageous things about other people in a very vitriolic and wounding fashion,' Mr Howard said.
The Treasurer, Peter Costello, claimed Mr Latham was more abusive than former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. 'Paul Keating had a good turn of phrase, but he wasn't personally abusive in the way that Mark Latham has been,' Mr Costello said.
The Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, accused Mr Latham of double standards. 'He has been one of the most vitriolic and abusive politicians that I have known in my nearly 20 years in Parliament,' he said.
Latham has previously described commentator for The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen, under parliamentary privilege as a 'shanky ho who will die in a ditch to defend the Liberal Party'. Writing in The Australian on July 7, Albrechtsen claimed, 'It's true that Latham has done more to lower the bar of public courtesy for private lives than most, with his vulgar personal broadsides against opponents. Perhaps now he understands that civility is not about denuding politics of passion but instead about understanding where to draw the line ... Perhaps it's time for Latham to show how serious he is about making amends ... An apology will be gladly accepted, Mr Latham. Short of that, dry your eyes, Princess.'
5. Journalists are entitled to investigate rumours about prominent political figures
The Australian Press Council does not prohibit the publication of rumours. Rather it states, 'Rumour and unconfirmed reports, if published at all, should be identified as such.'
The rumours circulating with regard to a bucks' night video supposedly taken at either Mr Latham's first or second marriage were not claimed to be fact. On July 3 the Sydney Morning Herald referred to 'reports of a raunchy video taken at [Latham's] bucks' night before his second marriage.' The video rumour then appeared in most metropolitan tabloids with The Sun-Herald reporting where the alleged video was supposed to have been filmed.
In a comment published in The Age on July 7, Michelle Grattan has acknowledged that 'Rumours can be a two-edged sword for the media. When they are publicised, then found to be untrue, the media end up getting some of the blame.' However she has stressed, 'It is legitimate to check out rumours.'
Expanding this point she stated, 'With the video story in the ether, it was a reasonable subject for a private query of Latham's office last week. The same point applies even more strongly to the allegation of sexual harassment, which Latham said he was asked about. If there was such a rumour circulating, it is responsible, rather than irresponsible, to make a private inquiry.'
Grattan seems to be suggesting that Mark Latham should not have complained about private inquiries made to his office about the existence of the video as they were no more than an attempt to get at the truth.
6. It was Latham who made public some allegations about his private life
It has been claimed that when Mark Latham complained about unwarranted media intrusion into his private life, much of the more sensitive material that he referred to had not been published and was in fact only put on the public record when Latham referred to it himself in a press conference he called to urge the media to 'lay off [his] family'.
In the press conference he called on July 5, Latham stated, 'Things have been put to me about my sisters, my mother, my father that are not true and they don't deserve it.'
Mr Latham also claimed, 'I had a senior journalist in the press gallery ring me after the 1998 election and say the real reason you're not running for the frontbench, the real reason you're going for the backbench is because you're on sexual harassment charges ... That's what he said to me and that was the rumour that was circulating at the time and the rumour repeated to me in recent times, by another journalist. It's not true. It wasn't true then, not true now, never true at any stage.'
Numerous media commentators have noted that none of these matters have ever been reported. The most that has been done is that a reporter has made a private suggestion to Latham or asked a question either of him, his office or another person.
In an article published in The Age on July 6, Michelle Grattan noted, 'In revealing that he had been confronted years ago with questions about alleged sexual harassment (which he totally denies), Mr Latham put on record something that hasn't been in the public domain in the past few days. Nor, when he appealed to the media to lay off his sisters, mother and late father, was it clear what has been put to him about them.'
7. The Government claims it is not conducting a smear campaign against Latham
The Prime Minister, John Howard, and a number of his senior ministers have all denied being involved in or knowing of any attempt on the part of the Liberal Party or the Government to smear Mr Latham using allegations about his private life.
On July 6, the day after Mr Latham's press conference, Mr Howard stated, 'This attempt by [Mr Latham] to land it on us is ridiculous. I don't accept that [anyone from the Government] has been in the gutter or the bedroom. He's the person making that allegation and if he's got evidence of it, well he ought to produce it.'
Mr Howard also denied that the Government had established a 'dirt unit'.
Speaking on Brisbane radio 4BC, Mr Howard said of such a unit, 'There is no dirt unit. This is an allegation Mr Latham has invented and the best proof of that is that over the last 24 hours, four journalists, very senior journalists - Laurie Oakes, Dennis Shanahan, Glenn Milne and Michelle Grattan - have said publicly that at no stage have they received personal dirt from the Liberal Party in relation to Mr Latham. I am not interested in Mr Latham's private life.'
In conclusion Mr Howard said of such a dirt unit, 'It's against the instruction I've given and I deny absolutely that there's a dirt unit ... So where's his evidence? This is just a wild, baseless allegation.'
Similarly, a spokesperson for the federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, denied he had had staff investigating Mr Latham's record as either mayor or councillor in Liverpool.
Mr Latham specifically named Government adviser, Ian Hanke, as one of those involved in digging into the Opposition leader's private life. Mr Hanke has since stated, 'I categorically deny media reports that I am involved in any exercise to "dig dirt" on Mr Latham.'
'I have not and do not trade in personal gossip, nor have I been involved in any exercise to unearth such material,' Mr Hanke said
Further implications
It is hard to dispute that the Liberal Government has been attacking the character of Mark Latham for at least as long as he has been leader of the Labor Party. Two days after Latham was elected leader of the Labor Party, Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, stated in Parliament, 'The fact is [Latham] is no alternative prime minister, because in the end it is character that counts. There is the scorned former political mentor, there is the abandoned first wife, there is the bashed taxi driver - this trail of human wreckage [Latham] has left behind ... all testify to [his] brutal streak ... He is not a credible alternative.'
There is also little doubt that though the media was initially quite favourably disposed toward Latham, with time that has become less the case. There have been criticisms of his becoming less available to the media. There has been growing irritation with his failure to release major policy statements, especially in the area of taxation. However, there has also been what appears to be unnecessary coverage of more purely personal matters. There has been the claim that his ex-wife 'fled...in fear' from the marital home and the report of an acknowledged rumour that Latham broke a man's collarbone during an election campaign. There was also a lengthy newspaper interview with a man scheduled to be interviewed by the Sunday program who claimed to have been king-hit by Latham.
Further, prior to Channel Nine's Sunday program there were many other rumours circulating within the press gallery as to what it would reveal. One of these was that it would refer to a supposed bucks' night video perhaps showing Latham with a stripper. One paper published that there were 'reports of a raunchy video taken at [Latham's] bucks' night before his second marriage.' The video rumour then appeared in most metropolitan tabloids with another paper reporting where the alleged video was supposed to have been filmed.
Does this amount to a campaign of media persecution? Does it equal an unjustifiable intrusion into a politician's private life? Does it show the Government manipulating the media to damage a political opponent? Does the Government run 'dirt units' to search out and disseminate damaging information about its opponents? Was Latham's press conference an overreaction? Was it a political ploy intended to discredit the Government and blunt any future attacks on Latham's past conduct?
It is difficult to answer any of these questions with certainty. What does seem certain is that Australian politics would be more productive, if less entertaining, were both politicians and the media to focus on questions of policy rather than 'questions of character'.
The Government adviser, Ian Hanke, has stated, 'I have not and do not trade in personal gossip.' Unfortunately that is true neither for all members of our major parties, nor for many within the Australian media. It is difficult to see how the existence or otherwise of a bucks' night video or even the circumstances surrounding Latham's marriage break-up could be of help in assessing the value of his party's policies or his capacity to implement them.
The sorry spectacle of President Clinton's interrogation and ultimate impeachment should have taught both Australian politicians and our media that focusing on a politician's private life is a tawdry distraction from what should be the real business of politics - improving the lives and opportunities available to people. Politicians, even prime ministers or prospective prime ministers, do not have to be perfect human beings; they need simply to be good at serving their constituencies.
Sources
The Age
4/7/04 page 13 comment by Michelle Grattan, 'The revisiting of Liverpool'
6/7/04 page 1 news item by Jason Koutsoukis, 'On the trail of a bucks' video'
6/7/04 page 4 comment by Michelle Grattan, 'Moving right along, Latham takes the hit, changes his tone and tries to refocus attention back on to policy'
6/7/04 page 4 news item by Misha Schubert, 'The backroom boy in the spotlight'
7/7/04 page 15 comment by Michelle Grattan, 'Latham and the politics of smear'
7/7/04 page 15 comment by Shaun Carney, 'Rumour is in, and truth is on the run'
8/7/04 page 12 editorial, 'Lies, gossip and a politician's past'
9/7/04 page 11 comment by Greg Barns, 'Inside the "politics of character"'
The Australian
2/7/04 page 15 comment by Dennis Shanahan, 'Mates no more with the media'
6/7/04 page 4 news item by Samantha Malden, 'Leader turns on rumour mongers'
7/7/04 page 12 editorial, 'Latham needs to keep quiet'
7/7/04 page 13 comment by Paul Kelly, 'Beware of a focus on character'
7/7/04 page 13 comment by Janet Albrechtsen, 'Make a civil apology or dry your eyes, Princess'
The Herald Sun
3/7/04 page 1 news item by Michael Harvey, 'Man accuses fiery Labor leader'
4/7/04 page 9 news item by Lincoln Wright, 'I fled Mark in fear'
6/7/04 page 1 news item by Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey, 'Give me a break'
6/7/04 page 4 news item Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, '"Dirt machine" denied'
6/7/04 page 18 editorial, 'Latham feels the pressure'
7/7/04 page 5 news item by Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, 'Latham in the gun over dirty politics'