2011/17: Does the ABC's 'At Home with Julia' comedy series treat inappropriate material?
What they said...
'Even politicians are entitled to a private life...'
Janet Albrechtsen, commentator for The Australian
'They're relatable characters with considerable heart'
Dan Barrett commentator from The Punch
The issue at a glance
'At Home with Julia' is a four-part Australian situation comedy television series which debuted on the ABC on September 7, 2011. It depicts a fictional representation of the relationship between the current Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard (played by Amanda Bishop) and her partner, Tim Mathieson (played by Phil Lloyd) and their life at The Lodge. The series' four episodes were titled, 'Date Night', 'Code Ranga', 'The Leaker' and 'Citizens' Assembly'.
It attracted criticism for taking too personal a view of Australia's first woman Prime Minister. The third episode caused particular controversy as it showed Bishop and Lloyd lying beneath an Australian flag after apparently having had sex. Critics variously regarded this as disrespectful of the flag, the office of Prime Minister, or of Gillard and Mathieson personally.
The series also had its defenders who saw it as personalising the Prime Minister and as being part of a long and valuable tradition of political satire in Australia.
Some of the discussion surrounding the series focused on its supposed misogyny and the extent to which it was part of a general hostility toward the Prime Minister based on her gender.
Background
Political satire in Australia
(This is a slightly extended version of a description of Australian political satire to be found at the National Film and Archive Internet site. The original can be read at http://dl.nfsa.gov.au/module/1424/ )
Australia has a rich political history. A significant part of this history is political satire; this allows society to see the 'underbelly' of the political process and to gain insights into governmental behaviour and decision making.
Political satire in Australia is most often seen in the form of cartoons or television programs. The first political cartoon published in an Australian newspaper appeared in 1835 in the Cornwall Chronicle in Launceston, Tasmania. Many of Australia's major newspapers continue to feature political satire cartoons as part of their daily editorial. With the arrival of television in Australia, political satire soon moved into this medium in the form of shows such as The Mavis Bramston Show, The Gillies Report, Rubbery Figures, The Games, The Glasshouse and The Chaser's War on Everything.
Many contemporary topics are covered by political satirists. Climate change, terrorism, economics, the environment, elections and government 'indiscretions' are often targets for political satire. Often the satirists will interpret a topic in such a way that will expose the real substance of it, frequently allowing people to gain a better understanding of the topic and to be better informed. Political satire performs an important role in Australia's democratic society; it is a potent device that can expand awareness of the matters that affect all Australians.
The following links are to YouTube clips of
a) a mid 1980s 'Gillies Report' segment satirising then Prime Minister Bob Hawke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrZy8ornRxQ
b) a 1988 'Rubbery Figures' segment satirising public figures including Prime Minister Hawke and federal Treasurer, Paul Keating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ZUR9ialFc&feature=related
c) a segment from the 1998 Clarke and Dawe's series 'The Games' dealing with the behind-the-scenes complications of the Sydney Olympics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teoL6FKEtCY
d) highlights of the 2005 season of ABC-TV's 'The Glass House' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGywtzeNyE
e) a 2006 segment from 'The Chaser's War on Everything' dealing with airport security http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3grHjibNdA
Codes of ethics, practice and the law
Political satire has a long tradition in western democracies and is seen as an important element in furthering political debate. Those who engage in it are generally allowed more leeway than journalists or current affairs commentators.
In addition to laws defining and prohibiting libel, slander, defamation and discrimination, there is an Australian Journalists' Association Code of Ethics outlining what is acceptable practice for Australian journalists. It needs to be stressed, however, that entertainers and political satirists are not generally classified as journalists. The ABC operates under a Code of Practice which attempts to cover all its types of content - news and current affairs, opinion, topical and factual, and performance.
The Journalists' code includes:
* Accept the right to privacy of every person. Public figures' privacy may be reduced by their public role. Relatives and friends of those in the public eye retain their own right to privacy.
* Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief or physical or mental disability.
The full text of the Australian Journalists' Association Code of Ethics can be found at http://www.gwb.com.au/99a/ethics.html
The ABC's code of practice includes:
* the use of language, sound or images for no other purpose but to offend is not acceptable;
* content should not use language or images which disparage or discriminate against any person or group on grounds such as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability or sexual preference; marital, parental, social or occupational status; religious, cultural or political belief or activity;
* content should not make demeaning or gratuitous references; for example to, people's physical characteristics, cultural practices or religious beliefs.
The full text of the ABC's Code of Practice can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf
Internet sources
For those wishing to watch the ABC's 'At Home with Julia' it can be accessed from http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/3308449
On May 2, 2011, The Punch published an analysis and comment by Malcolm Farr which considers the extent to which misogyny has been a feature of Julia Gillard's political career. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gillards-gender-still-too-hard-to-ignore/
On June 28, 2011, Crikey published an article by Mel Campbell titled, 'The cheek of it all: does Gillard get a bum rap from cartoonists?' The piece gives an interesting overview of the manner in which Gillard has been represented in political cartoons. It includes a number of visual examples. The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/getting-personal-in-at-home-with-julia-the-tradition-of-satire-3344
On July 18, 2011, the ABC media analysis program Media Watch ran an edition looking at the level of personal and sexist comment directed at Prime Minister Gillard, especially on talk-back radio. A full transcript and the video of this program can be accessed from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3272172.htm
On July 30, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald published a series of comments by a range of interested parties on the appropriateness of treating Julia Gillard's fictionalised private life satirically. This set of opinions was published in anticipation of the release of the series 'At Home with Julia'. The full set of opinions can be accessed at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-question/is-julia-gillards--home-life-fair--game-for-parody-20110729-1i44t.html
On September 8, 2011, the ABC's opinion site, The Drum published a review by Peter Craven titled, 'At Home with Julia: inane drivel of the most idiotic kind'. The review criticises the series for failing as comedy and as political satire. It can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2877228.html
On September 8, 2011, Crikey published a review of the first episode of 'At Home with Julia' by Dan Barrett. Barrett's review argues that the series is a gentle human relations comedy rather than political satire. The full text of Barrett's review can be found at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/whitenoise/2011/09/08/review-at-home-with-julia-episode-one/
On September 9, 2011, Crikey published a comment by Sophie Cunningham titled, 'Julia undeserving of At Home with ... and so are we'. The comment argues that the series fails as both political satire and entertainment. The full text can be found at http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/09/julia-undeserving-of-at-home-with-and-so-are-we/
On 14 September 2011, The Conversation published a comment by Robert Phiddian
Deputy Dean, School of Humanities at Flinders University, titled, '"At Home With Julia" exposes obsession with personality over policy'. The comment argues that the series represents a trivialising of the Australian political debate. The full comment can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/at-home-with-julia-exposes-obsession-with-personality-over-policy-3343
On September 15, 2011, The Conversation published an analysis by Mark Rolfe, a
lecturer in the School of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of New South Wales. The piece is titled, 'Getting personal in "At Home with Julia": The tradition of satire', attempts to place the series in the larger context of Australian political satire. The full text of the analysis can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/getting-personal-in-at-home-with-julia-the-tradition-of-satire-3344
On September 18, The Sunday Telegraph published a comment by David Penberthy titled, 'Julia must be butt of jokes, not Tim' which argues that the focus of 'At Home with Julia' on the Prime Minister's partner is inappropriate. The comment can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julia-must-be-butt-of-jokes-not-tim/story-e6frezz0-1226139920086
On September 22, 2011, the ABC's Internet opinion site published a comment by Shaun Crowe titled, 'At Home with Julia: humanising politics'. Crowe argues that the series performs a valuable function in humanising Gillard and making her a more accessible figure. Crowe argues the series may serve to reduce the level of hostility in Australian politics. The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2911256.html
On September 22, 2011, The Punch published an opinion piece by Dean Jaensch titled, 'Disrespecting pollies is as Aussie as flies at a barbie'. Jaensch attempts to explain the particular features of Australian political life which make us less inclined to respect our Prime Ministers. The full text of this opinion can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Disrespecting-pollies-is-as-Aussie-as-flies-at-a-barbie/
On September 22, 2011, The Punch published an opinion piece by Marea Donnelly titled, 'Gillard attracts misogyny like kitchens attract ladies'. The piece gives an overview of the misogynist treatment it argues Gillard has received and places 'At Home with Julia' within this tradition.
The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Gillard-attracts-misoygny-like-kitchens-attract-ladies/
Arguments opposing 'At Home with Julia'
1. The series' personal focus is inappropriate
It has been claimed that the personal focus of this series is inappropriate. According to this line of argument, it is reasonable for comedy or satire to be directed at political leaders in their public roles; however, it is not appropriate to hold politicians up to ridicule in their private lives.
Janet Albrechtsen made this point in The Australian in a comment published on September 14, 2011. Ms Albrechtsen argued, 'What marks out "At Home with Julia" as different from previous satires is that it intrudes into a private arena that is, to be blunt, none of our business. By focusing its lens, even a comical one, on the private lives of Gillard and her partner, Tim Mathieson, the show crosses the privacy line. Even politicians are entitled to a private life...'
Albrechtsen quotes former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, making a similar comment in 2010 at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Advanced Journalism. Keating stated, 'The social contract we are subject to involves the surrender of certain rights in exchange for other societal benefits and protections. But at the core of that contract there must never be derogations such that the notion of individuality is materially or permanently compromised. The essence of the dignity of each of us goes to our individuality and our primary need to be ourselves.'
Critics of the series claim it exploits who Julia Gillard is in a personal and domestic sense and thus directs scrutiny at aspects of her life that are of no legitimate public concern.
The Age's Larissa Behrendt made a similar point on September 24, in relation to an episode of the series which purported to show the Prime Minister and her partner after sex. Ms Behrendt stated, 'As the Prime Minister, Gillard opens herself up to public scrutiny by social commentators ... But there are lines that are trampled where public figures are concerned and it is not simply an issue of good and bad manners or an unfettered right to free speech. The portrayal of the Prime Minister's sex life is one of those...'
In a letter published in The Telegraph on September 23, 2011, Ben Collins of Redfern stated, 'I feel our leader ... should not be treated with such disrespect.
I think we already harbour far too much personal hostility towards politicians which ultimately sidetracks us from focusing on what we need to do as a nation to prosper.
Albeit masked in satire, stripping our leader of every ounce of personal dignity is absolutely disgraceful, and a timely reflection on how far we've slid as a society.'
2. The series' focus on the Prime Minster's partner is inappropriate
There have been those who have criticised 'At Home with Julia' on the basis that it focuses unfair attention on the Prime Minister's partner, Tim Mathieson. It has been argued that Mathieson is not a legitimate target for satire as he has never run for an elected office and is not a public figure. He is the life partner of the Prime Minister which should not mean that he loses his right to privacy.
This point was made by Bruce Guthrie in an opinion piece published in The Age on September 25, 2011. Guthrie states, 'No doubt Mathieson is having the time of his life as our First Bloke, but I'm pretty sure he didn't sign on to be ridiculed on television as a needy bumbler, desperate for marriage and work.'
Similarly, Catey Baxter, in a letter published in Crikey on September 8, 2011, stated, 'Whilst I don't have a problem with political satire, I think the line needs to be drawn at the front door. What has Tim Mathieson done to be held up to ridicule on national TV? I don't recall any parodying of previous prime ministers wives and neither should there be criticism of a partner.'
On September 20, 2011, The Brisbane Times published a comment of Gerard Henderson in which he noted, 'At the halfway mark, the real victim of "At Home with Julia" is the prime minister's partner, Tim Mathieson, who is an item of humour because of his idleness and his one-time profession as a hairdresser. The joke was extended in episode two, where the Julia figure remarks that her partner "is also in real estate, granted it's more of a marketing role".'
In The Sunday Telegraph of September 18, 2011, David Penberthy also commented on the unfair and belittling treatment of Tim Mathieson in 'At Home with Julia'. Penberthy stated, 'This show is replete with unfunny jokes poking fun at Mathieson's intellect, framed in the supercilious and elitist belief that there is something innately amusing about the fact that he has worked in hairdressing.'
A similar point was made by Katharine Murphy in The Age on September 8, 2011. Murphy writes, 'The ABC's new political satire pushed unflinchingly into every potential dimension of being the Prime Minister's male de facto partner - his imagined daily frustrations, the small accumulated humiliations of being "Mr Gillard" - the problem of being "Todd" as Bob Katter called him absently at one point.'
3. The series is disrespectful of the office of Prime Minister and of other Australian institutions
There are those who have criticised the series not because of its treatment of Julia Gillard and her partner as individuals, but because they believe it is disrespectful to the office of Prime Minister.
This was especially the response after the screening of episode three which showed Bishop and Lloyd as Gillard and Mathieson supposedly having had sex in the Prime Minister's office under the cover of the Australian flag.
Nationals MP John Forrest told colleagues that the satirical treatment of Ms Gillard's private life showed no regard for the office of Prime Minister. Mr Forrest stated, 'It's nothing to do with Julia Gillard. I'm not trying to defend her. It's the office of prime minister and it's not even funny.'
Fellow Nationals member Bruce Scott has said that he also found the program offensive and disrespectful to the office of prime minister, 'no matter who the prime minister is'. Mr Scott believes that the program holds authority figures up to ridicule and asked, 'How do parents then tell their children they have to be respectful to their elders and to leaders?'
There were also those who have argued that the episode demeaned the Australian flag. Miranda Devine in an opinion piece published on September 22, 2011, argued, 'The ABC needs to realise there is a limit to pushing boundaries for the national broadcaster of any country. The ABC has a special place in the heart of Australians and therefore it has a special responsibility to respect Australian values and especially the national flag.'
Fred Menzies in a letter published in The Australian on September 23, 2011, stated, 'I find the use of our flag by the ABC in a skit to cover the naked actors playing the PM and her partner to be in poor taste. It was degrading and disrespectful. The clowns who produced it have abused the hard-fought right to freedom of expression and forgotten their responsibilities.'
4. The series is part of a larger, misogynist trend that seeks to denigrate a female Prime Minister
It has been claimed that the series is only possible in the context of a widespread misogyny or hostility toward women that has been revealed since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister.
This point has been made by Larissa Behrendt in an opinion piece published in The Age on September 24, 2011. Ms Behrendt states, 'The portrayal of the Prime Minister's sex life ... joins a list of cheap shots with a misogynistic overtone in political debate or satire. Notable examples were the disgraceful slogans at the anti-carbon tax rally that referred to Gillard as a "witch" and "Bob Brown's bitch".'
Political and social commentators have noted that a personal focus on the life of the Prime Minister was never a feature of the style in which any of her male predecessors were treated. Some commentators have drawn the conclusion that this new focus on the personal grows out of a sexist bias against women in positions of power. This point was made by Marea Donnelly in an opinion piece published in The Punch on September 22, 2011.
Ms Donnelly states, 'Tarnishing the country's first female leader has gone beyond sexism to an almost visceral hatred, fuelled by a passion far richer than the carbon debate. Consider "witch" and "bitch". Both terms demean not only Gillard, but are commonly used to disparage all women, especially those who challenge men.'
O'Donnelly continues, 'Then there is "At Home With Julia". The name says it all. The political satire of Julia's impact on our lives does not emerge from her living room. It is played out in cabinet, parliament and the public domain.
This supposed satire is at best sexist, in that it attempts to purloin Gillard, the politician, in her lounge room. At worst, it reflects misogynist resentment towards a woman who has stepped way outside the lounge room and into the public sphere.'
O'Donnelly and others have argued that the narrow domestic emphasis of 'At Home with Julia' is misogynistic in that it seeks to diminish a female political leader and return her to the house or the kitchen where social conservatives believe women belong.
5. The series is trivialising and lacks substance
Critics have claimed that the general focus on the personal in this series is not only inappropriate because it breaches privacy boundaries, it also diminishes the political debate, reducing significant political questions to minor personal ones.
On September 9, 2011, The Punch published a comment by author and editor Sophie Cunningham. Cunningham observed, '"At Home with Julia" is a symptom of the relentless drive towards trivialising politics and politicians...'
This point was made in more detail by Robert Phiddian in The Conversation on September 14, 2011. Phiddian stated, 'What the program and its imagined secret counterpart "At Home with Tony" really point to is the emptiness of policy or even political content in our public life.
Our leading politicians are presented not as proponents of ideas or programs, but as rather crappy celebrities in a Big Brother house called democracy.
It's personality politics where the decision is boiled down to a visceral choice between "like" and "don't like".'
Arguments in support of 'At Home with Julia'
1. The series may help assist the Prime Minister by humanising her image
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' have focused on the series affectionate tone and stressed that its intention does not appear to be to ridicule either the Prime Minister of her partner. There are those who have claimed that the series' focus on the Prime Minister's private life may serve to soften her image and reduce public hostility toward her.
Shaun Crowe, an honours student in government and international relations at the University of Sydney has had a comment on 'At Home with Julia' published on the ABC's comment site, The Drum. Crowe noted, 'Satire can often break down the walls between politicians and voters. The interesting thing about the show is that, amongst those who have actually watched it, many left with an inflated perspective of Gillard and our political class. According to viewers, it has been "humanising"...
Indeed, the whole point of the show is that politicians have internal lives that exist outside Parliament House: that they are not simply robots designed to legislate and irritate.
Programs like this are important because rarely has the process of humanisation been more necessary in Australian politics. If the nature of debate has, like many argue, become increasingly coarse and rude, it's largely because we've allowed our fellow Australians to become mere abstractions.'
A broadly similar point has been made by Dan Barrett writing in The Punch on September 8, 2011. Barrett states, 'The most surprising thing about "At Home With Julia" is just how restrained it was... To the shows benefit, Amanda Bishop delivered Julia with an exceedingly high level of grace and humanity... It's a sly and warm-hearted comedy exploring the humanity that exists within the identities of the political arena.
Referring as well to the treatment of the Mathieson character, Barrett claims, 'At the centre of the series are Julia Gillard and her partner Tim Mathieson. They're portrayed as an everyday Australian couple dealing with the fact that Julia has a much more important and high-profile professional life... They're relatable characters with considerable heart.'
2. As a public figure, the Prime Minister has reduced rights to privacy
It has been claimed that public figures have reduced privacy rights. It is generally considered that those who have successfully run for public office and whose actions affect the lives of most Australians should be more open to scrutiny than a private individual. This is especially the case with as significant a public figure as the Prime Minister.
In an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on July 30, 2011, press gallery veteran, Mark Metherell, stated, 'There are no real rules governing what the press gallery reports about the prime minister. A rough guide is that anything the prime minister says or does is fair game if it affects the running of the nation in some way.
Its broad scope can extend to personal matters whose links with affairs of state may appear remote. These might include Paul Keating's Zegna suits, Bob Hawke's hair, John Howard's teeth and eyebrows and church-going Kevin Rudd's predilection for barrack room language when talking to the troops.'
It has further been noted that in pursuing public office many politicians exploit aspects of their lives which would normally be seen as personal. When this has happened, it becomes harder for such politicians to try to regain their supposed right to privacy.
Mark Metherell has commented in relation to Julia Gillard, 'Gillard has a reasonably relaxed relationship with the gallery and pursues media attention no more than her predecessors. But she did invite 60 Minutes into The Lodge to domesticate the image, both hers and Mathieson's.'
Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian has also argued that Julia Gillard encouraged the media to cross the line between public and private. Albrechtsen writes, 'One has to ask, have our politicians, particularly Gillard, invited the intrusion that breaches a contract that should allow politicians to be themselves away from prying, prurient eyes?
From dressing up for a glossy spread in Women's Weekly to giggling for the 60 Minutes cameras outside Mathieson's shed at the Lodge, Gillard has encouraged a level of voyeurism into her private life that does nothing to educate or inform us about the things that really matter. Gillard is not alone here. By trying to manage the media with carefully controlled puff pieces about their private lives, politicians invariably fuel intrusions that may not be so carefully controlled.'
3. Other political figures in Australia have also been the subject of comedy
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' have noted that Julia Gillard is not the first political figure who has been the target of satire.
On September 22, 2011, Dean Jaensch noted in The Punch, 'Satire about political leaders is nothing new in Australia. The "Rubbery Figures" series showed little respect for John Howard, and cartoonists regularly take the mickey out of almost any political leader. Respect for the office of Prime Minister has never been a strong theme in Australia.'
Mr Jaensch suggested that part of the reason for this is the difference in the way in which the President of the United States comes to power compared to that in which an Australian Prime Minister does. 'The President [of the United States] is directly elected by the people, he draws his constitutional authority from the people, and the office is a symbol of American democracy. A President remains in office for four years, unless an impeachment motion is carried by both houses of the Congress.
There is nothing equivalent in Australia. A Prime Minister is elected by and from the majority party in the parliament, which means by whichever party faction has the numbers. A Prime Minister can also be removed overnight by the faction system, as Kevin Rudd discovered. The office has no Seal or anthem. It is a much lesser object than in most republics.'
Whatever the reason, many social commentators have noted that vigorous and sometimes personal criticism of our Prime Ministers is a prominent feature of Australian political life. Therefore, some argue, the treatment currently being received by Julia Gillard is not unusual.
4. The series is not misogynistic
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' claim it is not misogynistic, that is, it does not hold the Prime Minister up to ridicule because she is a woman. Rather, its defenders claim, the series makes fun of aspects of the Prime Minister's persona, which include gender-specific behaviours, but these are not its focus.
Its defenders claim Gillard's gender seems to have made the series' detractors hypersensitive and that the misogynist accusations are an over-reaction. The claim that the show is sexually motivated is misplaced as it represents no worse an attack on aspects of the Prime Minister's behaviour and image than many of her male predecessors have endured. This point was made by Janet Albrechtsen in an opinion piece published in The Australian on September 14, 2011.
Albrechtsen states, 'We seem to have reached a point where any strident commentary or even comic send-up of the PM is now sexist just because the PM is a woman. The national broadcaster's latest foray into political satire is hardly sexist when tested against the torrent of political send-ups aimed at former prime minister Howard. Count the weeks that comedy duo on the then 7.30 Report, John Clarke and Brian Dawe, aimed their Friday night fire at Howard. It became tiresomely predictable.'
Similarly, an ABC viewer commented on September 8, 2011, 'Where do people get this idea that this is the first time a sitting PM has ever been impersonated or made fun of?
People like Paul McCarthy and Max Gillies have been dressing up and taking the mickey out of the likes of Whitlam, Hawke, Howard and Keating for donkey's years, including their domestic lives.
This is the first time it has been done in sitcom format, but so what? How does that make it misogynistic?
It wasn't exactly a fierce attack, anyway. The show made her out to be a bit of an Adelaide bogan with a weird voice and a big rear end. Totally correct on all counts.'
It has further been noted that some of the elements of the series which critics of the series see as sexist, for example, its use of the Prime Minster's first name in its title are not the result of her gender. This point has also been made by Janet Albrechtsen who has stated, 'Even a cursory look at Gillard's own campaign strategy - when she unveiled "the real Julia" - reveals that the PM invited us to think of her as Julia. Just as Kevin Rudd said, "My name is Kevin and I'm here to help", at his first ALP national conference as opposition leader and then went on to become Kevin07.'
5. Critics are confounding this series with genuinely hostile treatments of the Prime Minister
It has been argued that though the Prime Minister has been the target of criticisms that seem excessive and misogynistic, 'At Home with Julia' does not represent this extreme trend.
A variety of social commentators have noted the hysterical nature of some of the abuse directed at Julia Gillard, which seems excessively focused on her gender.
As Malcolm Farr noted in The Punch on May 2, 2011, distasteful abuse based on gender bias has been a feature of some the comments made about Gillard for many years.
Farr cited former Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan who once attacked Gillard for being 'deliberately barren'. Mark Latham made a similar point in his Financial Review column, claiming that Gillard's childless state made her an inadequate leader.
Senator Heffernan also stated, 'One of the great understandings in a community is family, and the relationship between mum, dad and a bucket of nappies.' Critics have seen such remarks as an indication that some in Australian politics believe there is a natural gender-based hierarchy which should exclude women from significant office.
On July 17, 2011, Media Watch indicated that many of those who call into talk-back radio programs use Gillard's gender as a focus of abuse and present extreme and misogynistic views. Some of the calls cited included, 'Bonita: Look I can say this, but you can't: she's a menopausal monster, and she needs to resign.
Chris Smith: Ok. Good on you, Bonita. Thank you 'and 'Tony: The Australian taxpayer even pays for the toilet paper she uses.
Does she go down to the chemist to buy her tampons? Or is the Australian taxpayer paying for those as well? ...
In my opinion Julia Gillard is a piece of crap ...
Alan Jones: Ok, well you made a lot of valid points there. We've just got to avoid in our criticism the personal.'
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' claim that in the context of such extreme and clearly sexist abuse it is a mistake to view the ABC series as misogynist. Its tone is far gentler and it is not attacking the Prime Minister on the basis of her gender.
Further implications
The series, 'At Home with Julia' has now run for its full four episodes and it seems unlikely there will be a sequel. Its currency will be decided by the speed and regularity with which the ABC shows it as a re-run. However, the broader questions it raises are more important than its enduring popularity, whatever that might turn out to be.
This is the first time the supposed private life of a political figure has been treated in an Australian situation comedy. It is a significant departure from series such as the British 'Yes, Minister' because the politician treated in 'At Home with Julia' is not a generic construct like the famous Jim Hacker but a real person.
The treatment given Julia Gillard in 'At Home with Julia' is in some ways similar to the treatment received by former politicians in drama documentaries such as 'The True Believers' and 'The Dismissal' or in a doco-drama such as 'Hawke'. There are differences, however. These other treatments were not comedies and they were substantially based on actual events. Is it appropriate to treat a current political figure as a source of amusement substantially on the basis of her fictionalised private life?
There have been a number of commentators who have argued that the series is an unwarranted intrusion into Julia Gillard's private life. This is an odd statement. Some of the comments made about the series seem to confuse fiction with reality. This, indeed, is part of the issue 'At Home with Julia' raises. It needs to be stressed -
the image being presented of the Prime Minister's personal life within this series is fictional.
Normally public figures are satirised on the basis of some observed aspect of their political or personal behaviour which is then exaggerated for humorous effect. Such satire is meant to criticise these figures for weaknesses their known conduct reveals. However, the material shown in much of 'At Home with Julia' is contrived. It seems unlikely that the scriptwriter has significant firsthand knowledge of how Gillard and Mathieson interact in their personal lives. Therefore, Gillard and Mathieson are being satirised on the basis of private behaviour someone else has invented and attributed to them.
This is not to say that the series has no merit. It does present portraits of a number of contemporary political figures functioning as politicians. It also suggests some of the difficulties associated with managing a minority government. This is more conventional material for political satire and it is a matter for individual judgement how well the series succeeds on this level.
What makes it controversial is the extent to which it focuses on the imagined private life of the Prime Minister and her partner. It is difficult not to see this as stepping beyond the bounds of legitimate treatment. It is also unfortunate that this treatment has been received by Australia's first female Prime Minister because it raises the inevitable question of whether a male Prime Minister would be dealt with in the same way. Until one is, that question cannot be answered conclusively.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age: September 8, 2011, page 7, comment / review by Katharine Murphy, `Gentle on Julia, tough on Tim, beef for Bill'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gentle-on-julia-tough-on-tim-beef-for-bill-20110907-1jy2q.html
The Age: September 4, 2011, page 5, analysis (photos) by John Mangan, `Julia fair game as viewers invited to lodge for tea and Tim'.
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/julia-fair-game-as-viewers-invited-to-lodge-for-tea-and-tim-20110903-1jrhy.html
The Age: September 12, 2011, page 15, comment (photo) by Katharine Murphy, `Unsettling home truths'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/unsettling-home-truths-20110911-1k44e.html
The Australian: September 10, 2011, page 13, comment by Jennifer Hewett, `Comedy takes Gillard's lack of political popularity and layers it with personal derision'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/comedy-takes-julia-gillards-lack-of-political-popularity-and-layers-it-with-personal-derision/story-e6frgd0x-1226133474918
The Herald-Sun: September 9, 2011, page 34, editorial `The real Julia?'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/is-this-the-real-julia/story-e6frfhqo-1226132644620
The Australian: September 9, 2011, page 13, editorial, `ABC laughs at PM's expense'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/abc-laughs-at-pms-expense/story-e6frg71x-1226132582557
The Australian: September 9, 2011, page 3, news item (photos) by Bodey and Rintoul, `Viewers delight as "real" Julia dislodges PM'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/viewers-delight-as-real-julia-dislodges-pm/story-e6frg6nf-1226132642581
The Herald-Sun: September 22, 2011, page 34, Miranda Devine comment, `ABC crosses the boundary').
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/abc-crosses-the-boundary-with-sitcom/story-e6frfhqf-1226143043817
The Herald-Sun: September 21, 2011, page 17, news item (photo) by Johnston and Harvey, `Sitcom lowers our flag' (see also page 29 cartoon, page 28 letters).
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/coalition-mps-unfurl-fury-over-sitcom/story-e6frf9ho-1226142163516
The Age: September 21, 2011, page 8, news item by Katharine Murphy, `MPs flag distaste at Julia's night in'.
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/mps-flag-distaste-at-julias-night-in-20110920-1kjiq.html
The Age: September 25, 2011, page 15, comment by Bruce Guthrie, `Time for a few home truths about bad TV'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/time-for-a-few-home-truths-about-bad-tv-20110924-1kqpo.html