Our new proposed Press Gallery redevelopment will honour the previous iterations of exhibition work in this very ‘quirky’ space while re-invigorating it to become a ‘must see’ exhibition for audiences. We propose to create a more ‘theatrical’ experience for visitors so the space feels like it is ‘performative’ evoking real emotion and constant revelation throughout. We want visitors to feel they are getting an ‘all access backstage pass’ to go deep inside the biggest stories that were made by some of the country's most prolific storytellers inside the ‘house of power’ - all while unpacking how that’s shaped the democracy we know today.
We have experimented with many approaches to how we structure the exhibition. After months of consideration using the source material available and the ideas for contemporary content we would like to capture, we feel the strongest and most audience friendly way to ‘design’ the experience is Era by Era with a story led approach. To achieve the feeling that the space is more interactive, engaging and compelling, we have divided the floorplan up into three distinct ‘acts’:
An ‘act’ is a part of a play defined by elements such as rising action, climax, and resolution. In the same way that theater does it, we are too but instead of a singular stage we have many ‘stages’ (rooms) to experiment with in this site specific work. Each installation and piece of content will be a ‘scene’ in the ‘act’ that represents the designated era.
Just like theater the ‘scenes’ in each ‘act’ create:
The plot that helps the audience understand where they are
The exposition which sets up the rest of the story by teasing information
The inciting incident which starts all the action that will follow
The major dramatic question is then formed which holds the rest of the ‘era’
The majority of content in each ‘era’ is made up of complications or challenges which change the action (in our case the form or medium content is presented in)
At this point the major dramatic question is answered
Finally the exhibition culminates with a resolution, or the dénouement, where everything comes together and the questions raised for the audience throughout their ‘journey’ are resolved
Given the layout of the press gallery is not a traditional exhibition space (very large room/ four white walls), some may see the somewhat unorthodox layout as a challenge. We see it as an opportunity to present work in a very new way that lends itself well to the style of storytelling and interpretation we’d like to create.
To make our overall vision come alive we propose that the exhibition features:
Immersive AV cinematic experience/s, showing former and current journalists discussing their never before told stories of their time in the press gallery and the biggest stories of the time
Contemporary first person video and audio storytelling
Sound showers using beautifully story rich audio archive
App based electronic letter boards
‘Film set accurate’ scene and room interpretations
Engaging interactives for younger audiences, and for adults
Interactivity in the physical displays (light, sound, touch)
Heritage elements interpreted (installing sound/ video/ ephemera) within the heritage ‘nooks and crannies’ across the space
Archival still images and portraiture
Ephemeral architecture / sculptural elements
We have plenty of wall and floor space to unravel the complexity of story in the most distilled and clarified ways for most impactful audience engagement. The content lends itself to ‘drama’ and emotional pull in the same way theater does. We want to evoke a personal resonance for each and every person that comes through the ‘show’ to walk away feeling they’ve learned something they never knew about Australian democracy, about politics, about the importance of journalism and truth telling and inadvertently - about themselves.
Across each of the era’s, in consultation with the MoAD project team, we’ve defined some of the pinnacle stories and characters that will help audiences understand the importance, relevance and impact of the work of press gallery journalists and bring our ‘theatrical’ and more immersive storytelling concept to life.
-
Censorship, Wartime Reporting, Media Proprietors
-
Audio installation, sound shower, film projection
-
The exhibition starts here. As visitors enter they are met with an audio visual storytelling installation in rooms U86/ U85 that sets up the intrigue and plot for the immersive sound shower about to gently rain on visitors in the press gallery balcony. One of the most powerful elements of this exhibition is that we can tell stories in-situ - in the very place where many of these stories occurred. The use of video and sound here taken from the key stories outlined below help us bring that to life. We also propose to keep some of the elements from the previous exhibition like the press box bells that couldn’t be replicated elsewhere.
Access to a ‘journalist’s-eye-view’ over the Chamber is a very powerful moment in this part of the exhibition space, where visitors will find themselves in spaces they would never have had the opportunity to when the building was a working parliament. It gives visitors a sense of the privilege of the position, but also the responsibility. We are leaning into that in H EAST PG by creating a beautiful sensor based/ human triggered sound shower using incredibly simple but highly effective technology. This audio experience features rich archive material from the key stories outlined below that speaks directly to questions arising from the core themes of this era: censorship and media proprietors.
• Who determines what information is in the ‘public interest’ has always been contested and is a debate that is central to democracy and the public’s ability to be able to participate in it.
• What are the origins of censorship, how did this play out in the workplace in practice?
• How did the press gallery's acceptance and understanding of censorship evolve over the decades?
• Where does real power lie, with the media barrons or the political leaders?
• Is it a symbiotic relationship and when do these relationships harm democracy?
• How did these hidden forces sustain themselves over time ?
• How did they operate in the shadows remains a central tenet of the Australian democracy story?
These simple 3D drawings show initial thinking and preliminary ideas on what we’d like to achieve in each of the ‘scenes’ in ACT 1.
In the pre-production phase we will clarify in consultation with the MoAD project team which creative treatment works best in each of the spaces, but to understand the concept please see the “dream” design renders of the space below. We want the exhibition to feel alive, as if audiences are watching live performances and the emotion that comes with that. We are ‘backstage’ and deep ‘inside each story’ that charts the journalists' work of the time.
In the pre-production phase we will clarify in consultation with the MoAD project team which creative treatment works best in each of the spaces, but to understand the concept please see the “dream” design renders of the space below. We want the exhibition to feel alive, as if audiences are watching live performances and the emotion that comes with that. We are ‘backstage’ and deep ‘inside each story’ that charts the journalists' work of the time.
STORY 1
JOSEPH LYON’S DEFECTS FROM LABOR TO FORM THE UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY (UAP)
Why this story:
Australia’s two-party system has historically proven to be a source of political stability but in the great depression it was challenged. The United Australia Party was created in the aftermath of the 1931 split in the Australian Labor Party when six fiscally conservative Labor MPs left the party to protest the Scullin government's financial policies. A journalist and his media proprietor were at the centre of the action they were operating as political players.
It’s a quiet evening in late 1930, an hour or so before the debate in the House of Representatives was due to finish. No one knew it yet, but a political defector, a Minister inside the Labor ministry was about to upend Australian politics.
A whisper reached the Press Gallery that senior minister Joseph Lyons was on his way to Canberra railway station. Some journalists dismissed the early departure as a trivial matter and went home to bed. But not Warren Denning. He made a quick exit from parliament and followed Joseph Lyons to the train station, he jumped aboard the train as it pulled out of the platform. His instincts were sound, a political crisis was brewing.
Denning always felt that it was “a matter of instinct” that made a journalist good at the job.
“One has to be alive to every pulse-beat in the Parliamentary body, able to detect the slightest trace of abnormality, able to sense that things are going wrong, that something is out of tune, that somebody is ‘up to something.”
— Warren Denning, Author Inside Canberra
“The good political journalist’s attitude to politics is much like that of a trained musician to his instrument—he relies on feel and touch, on an innate, subconscious directive”
— Warren Denning, Author Inside Canberra
In March 1931 Dennings Press Gallery colleague Jo Alexander (Joseph Aloysius) broke the story wide open.
Joe Alexander reported the contents of secret cables sent from London by the Labour Prime Minister Scullin to his deputy J.E. Fenton discussing the disloyalty within his ranks.
Alexander’s story gravely damaged Scullin’s Labor government and Alexander became the first pres gallery journalist to be banned from the House of Representatives for refusing to reveal the source of the documents.
Two months after Joe Alexander’s story in May 1931 the United Australia Party was formed.
Joe Alexander was working closely with Keith Murdoch [KM] who was knee-deep in deciding who would lead the newly formed United Australia Party (UAP).
FROM JOE ALEXANDER ORAL HISTORY - citing his and Keith Murdoch’s role in choosing Lyon’s as a new leader of the UAP.
Soon after the defection, at the 1931 election, Lyons and the UAP campaigned stable, orthodox financial policies, it was the eve of the great depression.
The result was a huge victory for the UAP, which took 34 seats against 18 seats for the two wings of the Labor Party combined. UAP governed for 7 consecutive years.
As the UAP came into government, the impact of the 1929 Wall Street crash torpedoed the Australian economy. The Australian economy collapsed and unemployment reached a peak of 32 per cent in 1932.
It took Australia almost a decade to recover.
STORY 2
MUNICH CRISIS: BUILD UP OF NAZI STRENGTH AND AUSTRALIA’S EARLY APPEASEMENT TO HITLER
Why this story:
It’s a lesser told story, that on the eve of World War II, Australia in lock-step with Britain was eager to appease Hitler. That was the political position of the Lyons government. Journalists were ringing around, casting a wider net to get a picture of the build up of Nazi strength. They came to their own conclusions and had the courage to confront politicians about the wisdom of appeasing Hitler and backing the Munich agreement. This is a story of a surprising leak at a critical moment. An insider view of how journalists were speaking truth to power.
“About five o'clock one evening, when the Munich crisis was at its height. I received a telephone call from my bank manager at Civic Center. He said to me, I was in my office and Parliament House, and said Joe's [PM Joseph Lyons] just called up [Stanley] Bruce in London, on the telephone and asked Bruce to go down to Rome to see if he can get the Pope to intervene.”
— Harold Cox, Former press gallery journalist
Hitler was gaining strength, and the Defence forces of Britain and Australia were weak. It was a perilous moment.
– Joe Alexander, Former Press Gallery JournalistThat truth Joe Alexander refers to is that Britain was in no mood to confront Hitler. Australia’s political establishment was taking its lead from England.
But the Press Gallery journalists were doing what they do best. Ringing around getting multiple perspectives from multiple sources, including their counterparts overseas. They were stitching together a very different picture of what Hitler was up to and the serious threat he posed.
Joseph Alexander had another scoop. He had learned that Australia’s top diplomat in London - Stanley Bruce - was essentially “preaching appeasement of Hitler” in the lead-up to the Munich agreement.
Back home in Canberra, the Munich crisis began to unfold. Britain and Australia were in lock-step and negotiating with Hitler when press gallery journalist Harold Cox received a leak from an unusual source.
The bank manager had accidentally intercepted a telephone call from Australia’s ambassador in London, Stanley Bruce with the Prime Minister John Lyons who was urging [Stanley] Bruce to go to Rome and see if the Pope could intervene and help deliver an agreement with Hitler in Munich.
After speaking with their sources much of the press gallery felt this was a dangerous idea.
At the time Pope Pius XII also felt he could negotiate with Hitler.
Harold Cox, quickly secured his source so one would get the story out ahead of him. Then, contacted the Prime Minister and put his intel to him.
The Prime Minister and Harold Cox then negotiated the release of the story.
The political establishment in Canberra was hoping Germany would turn east toward Russia and attack rather than toward England.
World War II was declared on 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945.
“I said I'm simply telling you this I'm not asserting it's true… and he said every word of it is true. There has been a very bad leakage.”
— Harold Cox, Former press gallery journalist
-
Technology
How did technological change drive the rhythm of Old Parliament House? How did politicians and political reporters adapt to new storytelling mediums? At what point did journalists cross the line and become political players or even pawns?
Censorship
Who determines what information is in the ‘public interest’ has always been contested and is a debate that is central to democracy and the public’s ability to be able to participate in it. What are the origins of censorship, how did this play out in the workplace in practice? How did the press gallery's acceptance and understanding of censorship evolve over the decades? -
Interactive, archival stills, portraiture, ephemera, objects, scene interpretation, cinematic dramatisation
-
The exhibition starts here. As visitors enter they are met with an audio visual storytelling installation in rooms U86/ U85 that sets up the intrigue and plot for the immersive sound shower about to gently rain on visitors in the press gallery balcony. One of the most powerful elements of this exhibition is that we can tell stories in-situ - in the very place where many of these stories occurred. The use of video and sound here taken from the key stories outlined below help us bring that to life. We also propose to keep some of the elements from the previous exhibition like the press box bells that couldn’t be replicated elsewhere.
Access to a ‘journalist’s-eye-view’ over the Chamber is a very powerful moment in this part of the exhibition space, where visitors will find themselves in spaces they would never have had the opportunity to when the building was a working parliament. It gives visitors a sense of the privilege of the position, but also the responsibility. We are leaning into that in H EAST PG by creating a beautiful sensor based/ human triggered sound shower using incredibly simple but highly effective technology. This audio experience features rich archive material from the key stories outlined below that speaks directly to questions arising from the core themes of this era: censorship and media proprietors.
• Who determines what information is in the ‘public interest’ has always been contested and is a debate that is central to democracy and the public’s ability to be able to participate in it.
• What are the origins of censorship, how did this play out in the workplace in practice?
• How did the press gallery's acceptance and understanding of censorship evolve over the decades?
• Where does real power lie, with the media barrons or the political leaders?
• Is it a symbiotic relationship and when do these relationships harm democracy?
• How did these hidden forces sustain themselves over time ?
• How did they operate in the shadows remains a central tenet of the Australian democracy story?
These simple 3D drawings show initial thinking and preliminary ideas on what we’d like to achieve in each of the ‘scenes’ in ACT 2.
In the pre-production phase we will clarify in consultation with the MoAD project team which creative treatment works best in each of the spaces, but to understand the concept please see the “dream” design renders of the space below. We want the exhibition to feel alive, as if audiences are watching live performances and the emotion that comes with that. We are ‘backstage’ and deep ‘inside each story’ that charts the journalists' work of the time.
STORY 1
1954 Petrov affair - Australia’s first counter-intelligence coup
Why this story:
A press gallery journalist lies at the heart of the affair. Fergan O’Sullivan was Dr Evatt’s Press Secretary for two months leading up to the events of April 1954. O’Sullivan was the author of Document H, a series of brief and colourful biographies of members of the Press Gallery. The purpose of this document was to provide the Soviets with an indication as to which members of the Press Gallery, if any, might be sympathetic to the communist cause. Given O’Sullivan’s position in the office of the Opposition Leader, the security implications of this were enormous. The story and then Royal Commission led to the split of the Australian Labor Party and the formation of the Democratic Labor Party in 1955. This splitting of Labor’s power greatly assisted the Liberal/Country Party coalition to remain in power until 1972. This image of the time below shows Sydney crowd at Mascot airport trying to block the forced return of Russian spy defector Evdokia Petrov.
It was 8pm, and the parliament was returning from its regular dinner break. Prime Minister Robert Menzies stood up and addressed the House. He dropped a political bomb that reverberated around the world.
Menzies announced a Russian spy Vladimir Petrov had defected from the Soviet Embassy.
Press Gallery journalist Barnard Freedman was sitting in the chamber close to Menzies. He was Bureau chief for The Melbourne Argus at the time. Freedman and his team reported the news but then scooped the rest of Press Gallery by getting the only interview from Soviet Ambassador Generalov. Many other journalists in the press gallery were seeking comment from the Russian embassy but they were not taking phone calls. Freedman simply walked over to the embassy and knocked on the door. To his surprise, they were let in…
Meanwhile, in the press gallery, the Prime Minister Robert Menzies was on the phone to Frank Packer to have another press gallery journalist Alan Reid sacked following his story about the defection of Soviet spy Vladimir Petrov.
Media proprietor Frank Packer intervened and a truce was reached.
“We sat in the hallway there and two huge no doubt, KGB men with rather suspicious looking bulges under their arms looking at us rather suspiciously, also watched on high by a portrait of Stalin and of Lenin – but eventually we were admitted into the office of the Ambassador at the time, Generalov, was his name. Anyway, we got an interview with him and whilst we couldn’t get to see Mrs Petrov – who was upstairs in this building – we at least got his reaction to what was going on from his mouth, rather than through any sort of second-hand source.”
— Barnard Freedman, Author Inside Canberra
STORY 2
1967 REFERENDUM
Why this story:
The most successful of all of Australia’s referendums was in 1967. Nearly 91% of Australians voted yes to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the constitution. In terms of an overwhelming majority, few referendums have come close.
The 1976 referendum holds valuable lessons following the failed recent Voice to Parliament referendum. What was different in 1967, what does the perspective of 50 years reveal to us, and what was the chatter inside the corridors and chambers of Old Parliament House that helped forge critical relationships that would enable Constitutional change.
The story of the decade of activism that led to the 67 referendum has been told but we know less about the political machinations within Parliament House. 1967 was a rare moment of political bipartisanship.
STORY 3
HAROLD HOLT GOES MISSING
Why this story:
Along with The Dismissal the story of a sitting Prime Minister disappearing is one of the biggest of this time. Technology was changing and so too were the editorial considerations of how to report on this complex and consequential unfolding event. In the vacuum of hard information on locating Mr Holt dead or alive the press gallery had to grapple with conspiracy theories and if or how they would break with tradition and report the personal private details surrounding Mr Holt’s disappearance. Historians have said this event ended Australia's "age of innocence", that political leaders could no longer keep their private lives private.
“I was chief of staff in Sydney. And my memories of it with the shock that a prime minister could actually go missing. And secondly, the power of television and the role of Tony Eggleton. So for me, this was the first indication that television was really going to play a powerful role..”
— Ken Begg, Former Press Gallery Journalist
The prime minister who delivered the historic 1967 referendum goes missing six months later.
Only two years after being elected Prime Minister Harold Holt mysteriously disappears off Cheviot Beach on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula.
On a Sunday afternoon in December 1967 Harold Holt and four others drove to Point Nepean to watch Alec Rose who was attempting an around-the world solo journey in his yacht. Holt suggested to the party they go to Cheviot Beach for a swim. The beach was rough and looked dangerous, yet shortly after noon, Holt, wearing a pair of lace-less sandshoes, entered the water, stating, ‘I know this beach like the back of my hand’. Soon after, he disappeared.
An hour later the largest maritime search-and-rescue operation in Australian history was underway.
At the time, technology was driving a new form of visual reporting. Audiences could watch films of the search and rescue effort happening each day. This was still 40 years before the arrival of 24/7 television news yet the new visual medium was changing how the big stories were reported and how Editors considered what was newsworthy.
In the absence of an explanation for the Prime MInister’s disappearance conspiracy theories flourished including that Mr Holt was abducted by a Chinese submarine.
“There was always a level of concern about whether or not we'd get the latest pictures, what we would see, whether we'd be on top of it. But there was a team of reporters working on it, so information was coming in all the time. And the challenge for the subs was to determine what we should put to air. YOu need to remember you've only got five minutes you’ve gotta makde some decisions, so what is relevant, what is important, hat you include and what you leave out.”
— Ken Begg, Former Press Gallery journalist
POTENTIAL CREATIVE
LEAKS
Press gallery legend, Alan Reid – known as the “red fox” ingeniously found a way to find out what was happening in the top secret Cabinet Room room.
Opposite the room is the men’s toilet. It has been revealed that Reid used to conceal himself in one of the cubicles waiting for Cabinet Ministers to make a nature call. He would simply wait for them to come in and continue talking about what was happening in the Cabinet Room. He got many “leaks” by such means.
-
Leadership spills
How did they draw the line between their role as an ‘observer and communicator of political events and that of becoming a critical ‘player in the events’? How conscious were press gallery journalists in these high-pressure, high-stakes leadership spill moments? Were they reporting on the political machinery, did they become part of the political machine or were they used as pawns?Gender
What was the impact of these women entering the press gallery? Did these women simply report on parliament and policy or did they shape the debate that led to significant gender reforms including no-fault divorce, and childcare?
How did the early female journalists deal with the gender barriers in the press gallery? Were they instrumental in giving these stories like the debate about child care prominence that it would have not otherwise received? Were these women in the press gally the vanguard surfing the issues that would lead the parliament and the country to historic social change?
CENSORSHIP
Who determines what information is in the ‘public interest’ has always been contested and is a debate that is central to democracy and the public’s ability to be able to participate in it. What are the origins of censorship, how did this play out in the workplace in practice? How did the press gallery's acceptance and understanding of censorship evolve over the decades? -
First person testimony, large scale multi-channel immersive video, (app/ touchscreen driven tactile interactive)
-
The exhibition starts here. As visitors enter they are met with an audio visual storytelling installation in rooms U86/ U85 that sets up the intrigue and plot for the immersive sound shower about to gently rain on visitors in the press gallery balcony. One of the most powerful elements of this exhibition is that we can tell stories in-situ - in the very place where many of these stories occurred. The use of video and sound here taken from the key stories outlined below help us bring that to life. We also propose to keep some of the elements from the previous exhibition like the press box bells that couldn’t be replicated elsewhere.
Access to a ‘journalist’s-eye-view’ over the Chamber is a very powerful moment in this part of the exhibition space, where visitors will find themselves in spaces they would never have had the opportunity to when the building was a working parliament. It gives visitors a sense of the privilege of the position, but also the responsibility. We are leaning into that in H EAST PG by creating a beautiful sensor based/ human triggered sound shower using incredibly simple but highly effective technology. This audio experience features rich archive material from the key stories outlined below that speaks directly to questions arising from the core themes of this era: censorship and media proprietors.
• Who determines what information is in the ‘public interest’ has always been contested and is a debate that is central to democracy and the public’s ability to be able to participate in it.
• What are the origins of censorship, how did this play out in the workplace in practice?
• How did the press gallery's acceptance and understanding of censorship evolve over the decades?
• Where does real power lie, with the media barrons or the political leaders?
• Is it a symbiotic relationship and when do these relationships harm democracy?
• How did these hidden forces sustain themselves over time ?
• How did they operate in the shadows remains a central tenet of the Australian democracy story?
These simple 3D drawings show initial thinking and preliminary ideas on what we’d like to achieve in each of the ‘scenes’ in ACT 3.
It was the biggest political story of our time and one that caught the press gallery by surprise. Unlike previous era’s this is a story where the journalists who stood on the stars are still alive to retell the story today but not simply repeat it, more to reflect with hindsight about why it caught the Canberra’s press gallery by surprise and why Gough’s dismissal remains unresolved today. It was arguably the biggest political story in Australia’s history, and it caught the press gallery completely off guard.
It was the biggest political story of our time and one that caught the press gallery by surprise. Unlike previous era’s this is a story where the journalists who stood on the stars are still alive to retell the story today but not simply repeat it, more to reflect with hindsight about why it caught the Canberra’s press gallery by surprise and why Gough’s dismissal remains unresolved today. It was arguably the biggest political story in Australia’s history, and it caught the press gallery completely off guard.
It was the biggest political story of our time and one that caught the press gallery by surprise. Unlike previous era’s this is a story where the journalists who stood on the stars are still alive to retell the story today but not simply repeat it, more to reflect with hindsight about why it caught the Canberra’s press gallery by surprise and why Gough’s dismissal remains unresolved today. It was arguably the biggest political story in Australia’s history, and it caught the press gallery completely off guard.
It was the biggest political story of our time and one that caught the press gallery by surprise. Unlike previous era’s this is a story where the journalists who stood on the stars are still alive to retell the story today but not simply repeat it, more to reflect with hindsight about why it caught the Canberra’s press gallery by surprise and why Gough’s dismissal remains unresolved today. It was arguably the biggest political story in Australia’s history, and it caught the press gallery completely off guard.
STORY 1
The Dismissal of Gough Whitlam
Why this story:
It was the biggest political story of our time and one that caught the press gallery by surprise. Unlike previous era’s this is a story where the journalists who stood on the stars are still alive to retell the story today but not simply repeat it, more to reflect with hindsight about why it caught the Canberra’s press gallery by surprise and why Gough’s dismissal remains unresolved today. It was arguably the biggest political story in Australia’s history, and it caught the press gallery completely off guard.
I did not expect it. And as the day rolled on, it became harder to believe that the Queen's representative had actually sacked the Prime Minister. So it was an extraordinary day. And I think for the most part, we were caught by surprise. And subsequently, in London, I met the Governor General Sir Kerr in London and he asked me why we [press gallery] were surprised. I said because we believed there was a political solution. I still regarded it as a political coup.“
— Ken Begg, Former Press Gallery Journalist
In the early afternoon of November 11, 1975 the press galley was out to lunch across the road from Parliament house, completely unaware that the biggest political story in Australia’s history was about to break. They were all caught by surprise. A young Laurie Oakes was among them. Laurie got up and ran to Parliament House.
Within an hour Gough Whitlam was on the stairs of the House flanked by cameras and journalists declaring he had been sacked with the famous line, “Well may God save the Queen because nothing will save the Governor-General.”
“The front stairs that was the pinnacle of the day, Whitlam was like a punch-drunk boxer. It was like he'd been hit in the head too many times. But the words came out. The mind still worked. He was a man that was king hit but could still spit out the most devastating words. And so you had this impression of great drama, great pressure.”
— Ken Begg, Former Press Gallery Journalist
The gallery was in full-swing by now and the story was reported on every radio station with the exception of the ABC. Internal competition between the organisation’s news division and its current affairs division was so intense that an act of internal sabotage rendered the ABC Press Gallery mute in the early hours of the Dismissal.
One press gallery journalist dared to raise the possibility of the Governor General's nuclear option to sack a sitting prime minister. It was Brian Toohey from The National Times.
“No one thought really this could happen. Except, Brian Thooey wrote a story about Gough that he should not give in, and almost daring the Governor-General Sir John Kerr to sack him. I thought Brian Toohey's story was an important one.”
— Niki Savva, Former Press Gallery Journalist
STORY 2
WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Why this story:
The 1970s and 1980s saw important reforms for women in Australia. They included anti-discrimination legislation, legalised abortion and the increased provision of child care (although still at a cost to parents). It was also the time when women entered the press gallery.
Megan Stoyles arrived at the Canberra Press Gallery in February 1971 there was not another woman in the office. She was the first. On her first day, Megan’s team of six at the Australian Financial Review took her out to lunch, they shared three bottles of wine over their food and when a massive thunderstorm hit they ordered another bottle of wine.
”I arrived in 1983 and the 1980s was a revolutionary period for the press gallery, suddenly there is this inflow of women in the gallery but also in the parliament and these women were broadening the agenda, they really shook it all up and broadened interest in things that had been completely ignored before.”
— Kate Legge, Former Press Gallery Journalist
But it was much more than wine at lunch. The traditional boozy press gallery lunches were a relic of a press gallery and parliament dominated by men. Megan was soon joined by a second female press gallery colleague, Michelle Grattan, notorious for the attention to detail and hard work.
When in 1976 Michelle took up the post of chief political correspondent her elevation provoked strong opposition within the paper. Some executives and senior staff were convinced that a woman could not succeed in the dog-eat-dog environment of the Canberra Press Gallery.
She proved them dead wrong.
Soon more women entered the press gallery and now they not only had a female colleague in Michelle Grattan but a bureau chief.
The mood outside of the press gallery was one of revolutionary social change. More women were entering the parliament. Kate Legge remembers the reform being driven by women in the bureaucracy. Kate covered the child care debate.
“She was the most conscientious and hardworking person, putting everyone to shame men and women. She was just legendary for hard work, checking everything. She did not fit the mold and certainly later on she was famed for it.”
— Megan Stoyles, Former Press Gallery Journalist
“Meredith Edwards, who was a senior economist in the government at the time and was charged with introducing the child support system, revolutionary development. So you had a really senior female economist working in the public sector, so that enabled women reporters to have women they could talk to, who would trust them and be more open to the covering of these stories.”
— Kate Legge, Former Press Gallery Journalist
The male journalists in the press gallery noticed the shift in the types of stories that were coming out of the press gallery now that there were more female journalists.
“They changed it because they concentrated on other types of stories. They started to talk about social stories. These stories started to get greater prominence. They were the leaders. They were the ones stirring up the issues that affected women. And were important to women.”
— Warwick Beutler, Former Press Gallery Journalist
Anne Summers joined the press gallery in 1979 was instrumental in covering and giving prominence to the parliamentary debate on legalised abortion.
Anne Summers would go onto run the Office of the Status of Women and introduced sex discrimination legislation in 1985. Reforms of that era included anti-discrimination legislation, legalised abortion and the increased provision of child care. It was the work of the formidable women in the press gallery that were instrumental in this democratic policy change.
“It was a big shift, a big change. And, you know, because we were there, we could cover it. We could make it important. And that, I would argue, you know, broadened the scope of democracy, we allowed issues that have been pigeonholed as women's issues, you know, to become mainstream.”
— Kate Legge, Former Press Gallery Journalist
