David Leyonhjelm

The subjects of two recent Crikey stories have offered a reply for publication overnight. Firstly, Senator David Leyonhjelm has responded to Bernard Keane’s critiques refuting some “basic facts” about his support for certain communities. Our readers do not share this clarity in his beliefs.

Secondly Mark Baker, CEO of the Melbourne Press Club, has submitted a response to Emily Watkins’ report on accusations of exclusion. Crikey is checking the current gender breakdown of the board, but we stand by the experiences of our sources in this story. In the interest of fairness, we have chosen to run the reply in full.

 

On David Leyonhjelm’s “business model of cultivating old white males”

Senator David Leyonhjelm writes: Bernard Keane is entitled to his opinion about me but he could at least get a few basic facts straight. Keane suggests my targets are everyone I believe threatens me: “women, LGBTI people, Indigenous Australians, “millennials” (i.e. anyone under 40), Muslims, Australians from non-Anglo backgrounds, people who believe in science.” He is flat-out wrong.

I was one of the first Senators in the Australian parliament to introduce a bill giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry. I was a strong supporter of the subsequent successful Dean Smith bill. I have never criticised “millennials”. Rather, I have spoken out against moves to curtail young peoples’ rights on issues such as lock-out laws and the drinking age.

I have written and issued media releases supporting immigration, particularly of skilled migrants from Asia and the Middle East. I also negotiated an increase in the refugee intake in exchange for my vote on Temporary Protection Visas. I have called the Turnbull government out on a number of occasions over its racist welfare for indigenous Australians and abject failure to “close the gap”. I have championed women’s rights on issues such as access to RU486 and scrapping the tampon tax. I have a university degree in the sciences.

Could Bernard Keane please explain how this evidence adds up to a politician who is a racist, ageist, anti-science, homophobic misogynist?

Jocelyn Pixley writes: I have no idea what this man’s beliefs are. He states that he is a libertarian but his actions belie that. In the Sarah Hanson-Young case, the Senate was debating a serious social issue. That is violence against people, and particularly sexual hate crimes. The statistics are fairly conclusive; a vast bulk of these crimes are committed by men, some few by women, and children also suffer grievously.

Leyonhjelm decided to attack Hanson-Young, instead of engaging with the proposed policy; effectively trying to stop her from making any comment. Some “libertarian”! That is his problem, whatever he tries to say.

Julia Taylor writes: Is he driven by ideology? Only that of an aggrieved white male having to forego a minuscule portion of privilege. Attention grabbing, yes.  Nuanced discussions, no. Now if he was a sportsperson, say in Rugby League, would he be sacked? He would be reprimanded, for sure. Shame on him. In kindergarten you are taught to share and care. He must have failed those lessons.

Andrew Storrie writes: This guy is your typical bully who can hide behind his parliamentary salary and privileges. He loves to offend because he thinks he is being clever, and dresses it up in the cloak of Libertarian bullshit. However he is also the first to take offence.

Chris Mac writes: I would otherwise be in Dean, Cameron and Leyonhjelm’s demographic, as I am white, male, straight and aged 59. Sadly for them, I’m also content, semi-reitred, and appalled at the treatment meted out to Sarah Hanson-Young.

Richard Crewick writes: For some time my resentment has been growing at being lumped in as part of the cohort supposedly represented by Leyonhjelm, Cameron, Bolt, Latham, Jones, Hadley (yes, Bernard, talking about you). I have been searching for an acronym or label that describes those like myself who are white, heterosexual old men who aren’t resentful, misanthropic racists and while not necessarily rich, recognise that we generally occupy a position of unearned privilege.

The best we (my wife and I) can come up with is WHOMPies — White, Heterosexual Old Men who don’t feel threatened by women, Aboriginal people or any of those who describe themselves as LGBTQI. WHOMPies are those who laugh at those other men named above, and don’t get off on disrespecting others.

 

On alleged exclusion at Melbourne Press Club

Mark Baker, CEO of Melbourne Press Club writes: Your reporting of Jack Latimore’s account of what happened at the Melbourne Press Club AGM last week is ridiculously partisan and completely at odds with the facts, which were made clear in our detailed responses to your questions before publication.

The board election was conducted in full accordance with our rules and with full transparency and Jack Latimore was extended every courtesy at our AGM. As we told you in our answers, he was invited to speak in support of his nomination but chose to sit in silence. The idea that there is some anti-black conspiracy at play at the MPC is a figment of Jack’s imagination and an insult to the affirmative programs and policies of the club.

And please tell me how many other “boys’ clubs” have a woman president, a women vice president and a total of eight women on a 20-member board? How do you get “roughly two men to every woman” from that equation?

There is, however, one particular aspect of your report that can not be allowed to stand. It is outrageous that Jack Latimore has sought to further his own agenda by smearing our plans to honour perhaps the greatest Aboriginal journalist Australia has known.

In November, John Newfong will be inducted into the MPC’s Australian Media Hall of Fame. John, who died in 1999, was the first Aboriginal journalist to work in the mainstream media (The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian). He was a great reporter and a beautiful writer. He was spokesmen for the Tent Embassy and one of the most important figures in the Aboriginal rights movement for more than two decades.

To belittle John’s induction into the Media Hall of Fame as a cynical exercise of “black cladding” by the MPC is a disgraceful insult to the memory of a journalist whose talent and accomplishments Jack could only hope to emulate. If Jack Latimore is serious about advancing the cause of Indigenous journalism, he should respect and applaud the achievements of those who have made a difference rather trampling their memory to score a cheap point.

 

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.