A Retrospective on Nick Xenophon and SA-Best | Or, how I learned to stop worrying and drive a small car around parliament

This week marks the end of Nick Xenophon's political party legacy (statewise atleast) as SA-Best has been voluntarily de-registered. As such, I've decided to do a short post regarding the history of Nick Xenophon and SA-Best, looking at where it came from and what its left behind.

To understand SA-Best, we need to go all the way back to the start of Nick Xenophon's career (briefly, I promise). While Xenophon didn't technically enter the 'political arena' until 1997, he was heavily involved with the politics of the University of Adelaide's student publication On Dit. It was while he was part of the On Dit team that Xenophon truly found his footing in politics, being elected via the Liberal Club ticket before falling out with them over vote rigging (the articles are findable via the University's archival site, they are very much worth the read considering the way both Xenophon and those he is accusing write). This issue was what led him to become removed from party politics, or so he claims.

In any case, Xenophon's first foray into non-university related electoral politics came in 1997, when he stood as an Independent for the state election. Under the ticket 'No Pokies' - anti-gambling becoming a trademark of Xenophon's politics - Xenophon went on to win a seat in the Legislative Council through preference flows from many smaller parties. The first Independent on the South Australian Legislative Council in 60 years, Xenophon was occasionally kingmaker, as the Legislative Council at the time had no majority, and both Liberal and Labor needing his vote alongside the Democrats to pass legislation at times. It was during this time, in 2003, that Xeniphone drove a miniature car around parliament to protest car perks, an image that is permanently burned into my mind. While Xenophon was a vocal parliamentarian at the least active of times, his brand of pageantry and spectacle really came across at the 2006 state election, where he used props such as a model train, a goat, and a wearable sandwich board to campaign. Though this may seem odd, in time, this came to be something Xenophon was well known for. His 2006 campaign was so effective, winning him over 20% of the vote, that not only was he re-elected, the second person on his ticket, Ann Bressington, was also elected. 

Following the resounding success of his state campaign, Xenophon did the next logical thing and resigned to run for federal Senate. This was another demonstration of one of Xenophon's most forward-facing features, ambition that would make even Eric Bischoff bluff. Pulling a few more animal-related stunts (such as walking a mule down Rundle Mall to show how he was stubborn) in the process, Xenophon managed to win a Senate seat at the 2007 federal election as an Independent, with 14.78% of the vote. His resignation from state politics for this did cause some issues, as his spot had to be filled - being done so by John Darley, his ticket's 3rd candidate - and causing Bressington to slam Xenophon in parliament, calling him a sham who had forced her to put $50,000 towards the state election campaign. Much like many of Xenophon's 'allies and friends', Bressington's story goes into some wild places, but I'll leave that for the end of this reflection. 

In the Senate, Xenophon played kingmaker at times once more, though this finished up by 2011 as the Greens got more and more seats. He continued to push against gambling, while appearing at times in the news for attacking Scientology and accusing a Catholic priest of rape in parliament. Fast forwarding past the 2013 election, we get to 2014, where the roots of SA-Best appear properly.

You see, while Xenophon continued his role as Senator, Darley remained a diligent ally in the SA Legislative Council. He won, for the first time, at the 2014 state election, and did so as part of the Nick Xenophon Ticket. This ticket, the brainchild of the Nick Xenophon Group (another feature of Xenophon is his use of his name brand), morphed into the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), of which Darley was the first sitting member. Back on the federal side of things, NXT registered as a party and ran at the 2016 federal election, which was the infamous double dissolution (where all Senate seats were to be elected, not just half). With Xenophon leading things, NXT ran candidates across Australia, including 4 lower house candidates in NSW, 2 in Queensland, 1 in Victoria. In South Australia, NXT had candidates in every seat, as well as 4 candidates for the Senate. The election went well for Xenophon, with him getting re-elected to the Senate alongside the newly elected Striling Griff and Skye Kakoschke-Moore. NXT also won a single seat in the lower house, with Rebekha Sharkie winning the seat of Mayo in SA.

This was, again, quite the success story. And, if you can believe it, following this success, Xenophon decided it was time to transition back to state politics. In doing so, he was replaced by the Transparency Warrior himself, Rex Patrick (soon after, Kakoschke-Moore also had to be replaced due to the parliamentary eligibility crisis, with Tim Storer, who was 4th on the NXT ticket, taking her place but only after he left the party to become an independent). Xenophon announced his resignation in October 2017, only a few months after the titular party, SA-Best, was registered in the state.

Finally, we can talk about the deregistered party. SA-Best was intended to replace NXT at the state level, which was never registered with the ECSA, so you might think that Darley would be SA-Best's first sitting parliamentarian. Well that's where you're wrong, because nothing can be simple in this story. He did sit with the party for one month until August 2017, but left the party as he was about to be expelled for voting against the party's stance on electoral reform, calling Xenophon a dictator as he did. No matter though, as in the lead up to the 2018 state election, it became clear that Xenophon may have struck gold orange. Multiple political commentors, including Antony Green, predicted SA-Best to do quite well at the election, with it very much seeming like the party was going to situate itself as a genuine third-party alternative to Labor and Liberal. Polls came out showing that Xenophon was by far the preferred premier to Jay Weatherill and Steven Marshall, with some going so far as to show SA-Best as polling better than either party in the state. I can't even pretend that I wasn't caught up in it all, 17 year old me barracked for them hard at high school and tried to volunteer for them (though they never responded to my email). That is not to say SA-Best didn't have issues during the campaign. Xenophon had to remortgage his house to pay for candidates to register, with 36 SA-Best candidates nominating for the lower house and 5 doing so for the upper house. He was opposed heavily by the Australian Hotels Association due to his anti-gambling policies as well. Perhaps his biggest (and most memorable) fumble though was the TV advertisement he and the party put up for the election. I've linked it for your entertainment, and its the right level of cringe to have a good laugh no matter the amount of times you've seen it, but Xenophon being unable to sing made a 2-minute musical ad a hilariously bad choice, as did some of the very amateur level acting throughout. 

In the end, SA-Best didn't reach the heights that many believed it would (with Xenophon's goal being the balance of power), but it also did find relative success. It got 14.2% of the vote in the lower house, and 19.35% in the Legislative Council, enough to win 2 seats and elect Connie Bonaros and the Watch Dog Frank Pangallo. It won no seats in the lower house despite getting to the two-party-preferred vote in 12 seats and winning over 45% of the 2PP vote in Heysen and Finniss. Xenophon himself was left without a seat, losing a 3-way race in Hartley to Vincent Tarzia (who was not the favourite to win the seat against Xenophon and Labor candidate Grace Portolesi), winning 24.9% of the primary vote but being leapfrogged by Portolesi via preferences, meaning he did not reach the 2PP stage. Besides a failed attempt to return to politics alongside Stirling Griff at the 2022 State Election, which saw them get only 2.99% of the vote for the Senate, this was the end of Xenophon's time in politics (and considering his current battle with a brain tumour, it seems unlikely that he'll ever return). 

While Xenophon was out, SA-Best was very much a living and breathing entity, led now by Bonaros and Pangallo. It quickly removed Nick Xenophon out of its party name, attempting to position itself as its own thing, with NXT doing the same at the federal level and becoming Centre Alliance. SA-Best became a case of two independents in a top-hat, with Bonaros putting forward bills regulating child-like sex dolls and anime/manga which included within it themes of sex and sexual crimes while Pangallo was the architect of the bill which removed the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption's ability to investigate misconduct. While the two were not the most united of allies, the party did stand a single candidate for the lower house and two for the upper house at the 2022 state election, though the result of 1% in the upper house elected demonstrated what many knew, that the party was essentially dead without Xenophon. By 2023, Bonaros and Pangallo had split, seemingly over whether to support the merger of the University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, though Darley had, all the way back in 2018, stated that a split was inevitable. Pangallo went on to join the Liberal Party and run a terrible campaign which I've covered elsewhere on this blog, while Bonaros remained with SA-Best. I was optimistic for her going into the 2026 state election, as was she for herself to be fair, running 5 candidates in the upper house and 1, Thomas McNab for Flinders, in the lower house. The result of 0.6% dashed that optimism and meant that Bonaros was not re-elected, leading to the deregistration which led to this blog post.

SA-Best was perhaps a blip in South Australia's history, but it was a blip which, had some seats gone slightly differently, could have completely changed the state's political scene. I do not think Xenophon was ever going to be the party of government in the state, but it was possible a slightly larger orange wave could have made SA-Best a longer-term institution in the state. It's also possible that if Xenophon remained content in federal parliament, that he would have remained a parliamentarian until the tumour made it impossible to do so. Either way, SA-Best demonstrated how discontent surrounding the two major parties could allow a third option to have its time in the limelight. And to quote Dr. Doofensmurtz, if I had a nickel for every time an orange party suddenly rose to prospective third party dominance in SA state elections, I'd have two nickels, which isn't alot but still weird that it happened twice. 

Before I end this post, I think its worth showing where the 'legacies' of Nick Xenophon's time in politics ended up, the politicians whose careers were birthed because of his. 

Firstly, Ann Bressington, who always had weird ideas (including the time she proposed a bill that would enforce two random drug tests per year on high school students), attempted to run as a member of the Katter's Australian Party (yes, that Katter) at the 2014 state election, though it never ended up registering in SA and she did not end up recontesting her seat. She also helped Greens MLC Mark Parnell set a record-breaking filibuster in 2008.

Next is John Darley, who we've already talked about a few times. Following his resignation from SA-Best in 2017, he and Peter Humphries (who also worked with Xenophon previously) formed Advance SA, which never found any electoral success and which died with Darley's failed re-election campaign in 2022.

Quickfire now, with Stirling Griff and Skye Kakoschke-Moore, perhaps two of the most 'normal' Xenophon-spawns in existence. While Kakoschke-Moore's was cut short due to the eligiblity crisis (and was unable to win her seat back at the 2019 election), Griff remained in parliament until his term expired, choosing to resign at the end of his term as opposed to fighting what was a certainly lost battle of re-election. While a Senator, he supported same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and cancer research, pushed for bans on manga and anime which depicted "child exploitation", and took part in an Israeli Fellowship program. Since leaving politics, Griff has been a part of various health advocacy programs.

Moving on, we reach Tim Storer, the man who wasn't technically a member of any of Xenophon's parties but got to parliament because of him. Main thing to note about him is that he actually had his own party (with one of the worst logos I've ever seen) called Tim Storer's Independent SA Party. As Tim only made it a year and 3 months due to 'family reasons', there's not much else to say, though apparently his brother is married to Annabel Crabb.

I've already talked about both Bonaros and Pangallo, so that leaves us with Rex Patrick and Rebekha Sharkie. Patrick remained in Senate until 2022, generally fighting for transparency measures, and splitting from Centre Alliance in 2020 to form his own party, the Rex Patrick Team (obviously inspired by NXT). He'd had no luck at the 2022 election, failing to be re-elected, but this simply gave him more time to do what he loves most, submit Freedom of Information requests. Between submitting those, he did run for local government in August 2022, attempting to become Lord Mayor of Adelaide. And while he came tantalisingly close, losing to Jane Lomax-Smith by 52 votes, his appetite for electoral politics, as he ran for Senate at the 2025 federal election as part of the Jacqui Lambie Network, doing better than his previous attempt but not getting a seat.

That leaves us with the genuine last woman standing, Sharkie. Since being re-elected at the 2018 by-election after being forced to resign due to the parliamentary eligibility crisis, Sharkie has generally been seen as an immoveable rock in the seat of Mayo, winning by larger 2PP results at every election. While Centre Alliance still survives through her, she is an Independent, a fact she has essentially admitted, and she generally leans closer to the Liberal Party (having planned to run for the party back in 2014, and showing her support for them at the latest federal election). Considering her latest politics include banning flag-burning, a signature policy of the right-wing these days, one can only guess where she leans now.

In any case, I hope this post serves as an interesting and entertaining recount of Nick Xenophon's time in politics and SA-Best's time as a party. The party may be deregistered, and Centre Alliance may as well be dead, but I am sure dreams of an orange wave led by a man in a small car (and not Pauline Hanson) still play in the heads of some South Australians. Godspeed SA-Best, you were fun while you lasted.

Which German propagandist coined the term 'Scrap-Iron Flotilla'? [Rabbithole]

 The other day I asked y'all which nazi propagandist coined the term 'scrap-iron flotilla'. Well, that was because I was deep in a rabbit hole, caused by a friend on discord asking me 'is there a primary source for Goebbels saying it?' This thread is the answer to that.

To start, I had a quick perusal on Wikipedia. Obviously, this has issues, but it always helps to uncover potential additional 'crinkles' in the hole I'm digging. Checking the article for 'Scrap Iron Flotilla', it outright states "The name was bestowed... by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels". Furthermore, and I couldn't believe my eyes, there was a citation! Now, it was to a 2011 website which is simply a reproduction of an earlier book (which we'll get to in time), so I didn't learn much. What I did learn though was that this didn't just start on Wikipedia, which is a boon.

Okay, so now we've got a starting point. I take my next step, and go straight to Trove. Surely, such an infamous title would've been news in Australia at the time? Of course not, y'all should know by now that these things can never be that simple (else I wouldn't need to be making this thread). There is no, and I mean not a single mention, of this title or any derogatory title given to the Australian ships in any newspaper in 1939. Same for 1940, 1941, and 1942. It is only in March 1943 that something even close to the title appears in the newspapers. It would be a Sydney Morning Herald article, describing a new work from the Admiralty about the five Australian destroyers, where this first appears. That article, out on the 20th of March 1943, would state that "Goebbels had contemptuously labeled [the ships] 'scrap iron from Australia'. However, it wouldn't even be until December 1943 when the title "Scrap Iron Flotilla" would appear in any newspaper. Another article from the Sydney Morning Herald would be the source, however, this ones peculiar. It is an *advertising* article, pushing a new book by John F Moyes (more on him soon). The article, from the 10th of December, advertises that he has written a history of the five Australian destroyers. Another ad the next day would go into more detail. This includes the first mention of Goebbels providing the ships the title of "scrap iron flotilla". 

So, I hear you asking, what is this book. Well, it's "Scrap Iron Flotilla" by John F Moyes. This is the exact book that website the wikipedia citation leads to had transcribed, so we've come full circle. However, I wanted to be certain of the books contents, so I requested it from my library. That request was going to be fulfilled over the weekend, so I was at a dead end. Except... I wasn't actually. There was a second book on the ships, written far more recently in 2022, which I could immediately get my hands on. That being, The Scrap Iron Flotilla by Mike Carlton. Its first few chapters don't mention the title at all, however, coming into chapter 4 I stumble across a rather significant sentence. Carlton writes "It was at around this time [early 1940] that Lord Haw-Haw’s sneer about scrap iron and ‘the consignment of junk’ began to percolate among them".

Huh. That's both a different person, and as we'll later see, time, than has previously been suggested. Furthermore, Carlton doesn't have a specific citation for this sentence.

So now I'm extra confused, which isn't helped by the fact that for some reason the Rats of Tobruk Wikipedia article also claims Lord Haw-Haw coined the term. We've now got two German propagandists who might've said this term, and no actual primary source to verify this information. This is where I decided to take a break. With no clear paths forward, and it rapidly reaching the weekend, I let the rabbit hole sit. I picked it up again today, Moyes' book ready for me to collect. Surely this must have the original source for the title, some hint as to where it came from. Right?

"Goebbels called the scrap iron. He welcome them to the Mediterranean in that bleak, cold December of 1939 as a 'consignment of junk' and 'Australia's scrap-iron flotilla', ridiculed their fighting power, scoffed at their age and infirmities."

That is how Moyes starts his first chapter. And as far as I can tell, this is where the written record ceases to exist. Even though both 'Titles' are in quotation marks in the book, no citation exists for them, nor does the book contain any references. To be fair to Moyes, I guess that does make sense. You see, the Moyes actually served on one of these vessels. As we can see by his file in the National Archives (digitised thankfully), he served on the Voyager, one of the five destroyers which made up the 'flotilla', in 1942.

Alas, this is where the trail finally runs cold. Moyes left us no hints as to where he learnt that Goebbels' said such a thing, and it is extremely likely that the term originated with Moyes work, considering it does not appear prior to the book's advertisement. I have even looked through Goebbels' many speeches and articles, searching to see if this was recorded anywhere. I could not find such a statement from him, the closest being the below statement from an article he wrote in 1941 titled, 'How not to do it'.

Does this mean that the story of Goebbels, or even Lord Haw-Haw, naming the five Australian destroyers the 'Scrap-Iron Flotilla' was invented out of whole cloth? Not entirely. We do have to reach into the realm of speculation here now, but this isn't line of thought isn't a stretch by any means. It is possible, that sometime in late 1939 or early 1940, a German propagandist of some variety (whether it be Goebbels, Lord Haw-Haw, or someone else entirely), made a derogatory remark towards the Australian destroyers. This remark, likely heard by the British, may have been passed to the Aussies. If such a thing did happen, it is then highly likely that the story would've circulated throughout the men who served on the destroyers, gradually picking up steam until it was passed on to Moyes, who, as a journalist, decided to write about the 'Scrap-Iron Flotilla".

Now, I wanted to note, while the above is plausible, there are a few things working against it. Namely, Moyes gives no indication that he was told this by men on the ship. He simply states it as a matter of fact. Furthermore, if something had been said, surely we'd see mention of it before the book. As it stands, the title only appears as Moyes is advertising the book. And so, equally likely then, is that the term "Scrap-Iron Flotilla" was fabricated or invented by Moyes to increase interest for his book. And alongside terms like 'Rats of Tobruk' it seemed unquestionably real. I cannot verify if either case is true. But the fact remains that this title did not appear for years after it was said. So whether Goebbels or Lord Haw-Haw said it is less relevant now, when we cannot verify that it was ever said.

In any case, I think this demonstrates the dangerous nature of history. We've seen it before, where something gets accepted as fact despite a complete lack of evidence (hello Woolworths name dare). But normally, those are from Wikipedia. This is 'deep history', and a title known by many Aussies. In the end, maybe Goebbels did say it, oral history and personal testimony can't just be ignored. But since Moyes gives no indication from where he learnt about it, it is likely we'll forever be in the dark.

Original Bluesky Thread

A Japanese Pirate in 1600s Australia?? - The alleged story of Yamada Nagamasa and his claimed $100mil treasure [Rabbithole]

So, it's that time of the month when I fall down a rabbit hole again. This time, I was talking to u/Fijure96, another flair from r/askhistorians, about a Japanese adventurer in the 1600s whose Wikipedia claims he buried treasure in Australia (spoilers: there's no source).

The star of our rabbit hole today is Yamada Nagamasa, a Japanese 'adventurer' whose life is super interesting even ignoring this whole 'mystery'. The big claim that his article makes is that stories of Yamada burying treasure on/around Magnetic Island, Australia "persist".

Now, as always with these rabbit holes, there is of course no citation. Having learnt from my previous rabbit hole (the Woolworths name dare), I immediately checked Yamada's Wikipedia article history, to see when this part of the article came to be. The claim did not exist when the article was first created in December 2004, and would not be on the article for the next 3+ years. However, in late December 2008, a guest user with no other edits before or since would add the claim in its entirety and leave no citation. The claim has remained there for over 16 years, uncited, essentially untouched. And when I went to look through google for blogs/forums/sites that mention Yamada and his arrival in Australia, I quickly realized that the Wikipedia article was in fact the earliest 'source' for the claim.

Atleast, on the internet. I quickly made my way to trove and searched up Yamada's name. It only appears 19 times in Australia's digitised newspaper history, so that made my life easier. And lo and behold, the first two articles were key to understanding this rabbit hole. These would be a November 1933 and a January 1934 article, both in Brisbane's Courier Mail. Both were written by a Dr W.G. Goddard (who I'd later figure out was William George Goddard). He has a lot of claims (check the pictures below), but, he seems to be the first to claim much of this story.

Now, I cannot fully verify or deny Goddard's claims due to a lack of sources provided, but the fact that this seems to be the only time he talks about this suggest his evidence is not strong. Fijure and I both agree its probably more 'wishful' thinking and mistranslation than anything concrete. However, this provides us with a clear source regarding Yamada's 'arrival' to Australia. Some Australian academic in 1933 wrote about it twice, it was parroted a few more times in the coming decade, and somehow entered into local legend right? Well, most likely, but there is abit more. 

You see, a 1977 article titled "A Short History of Thursday Island in Six Parts" from Torres News mentions Yamada in a more specific context. It suggests that Yamada used Booby Island, just north of Cape York Peninsula, as a base and saw 'substantial' success from it.

Well, as you probably just thought, this makes it sound like Yamada not only 'touched' Australia, but was here for a decent while. And yet, this article is the only source I can find anywhere claiming this. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article mentions Magnetic Island, which is over 1000km away. You'll also note that none of these 'sources' even mention a buried treasure, despite some 2010s sites claiming that this treasure was worth over $100mil (yep, that's what sites like this claim in anycase).

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Yamada's Australian 'adventures' are not mentioned at all from 1977 until 2008, when it arrives on Wikipedia, no longer just a visit to Australia but a full-blown pirate mystery attached, with no evidence, to Magnetic Island.

And so, one would believe that to be it right? Except its not. An obscure TV documentary, called "Search for the Sunken Treasures", makes mention of not only Yamada, but the $100mil treasure. So that must be the source for the wikipedia article? Right???

The keen eye of you probably spotted this, but of course not! That clip came out in April 2009, and the whole documentary was out in 2010 according to IMDB. If you'll remember, the Wikipedia section was added in December 2008. If you'll note though, that article doesn't mention the amount of money, a claim that only appears with the documentary (atleast, it seems that way). This disconnect is telling, in my opinion. Is it possible that Ben Cropp, the documentary maker who did basic nature films, made it up?

In any case, we're left with a fragmented story. The Wikipedia article's origins seem certain, stemming from a couple old newspaper articles. The treasure part, likely massively exaggerated later on, is probably a local legend that has little basis beyond "pirate=treasure", as Fijure put it. In the end, we see how things added to Wikipedia early on, with no citation, can grow and shift far beyond the initial premise. Did Yamada Nagamasa visit Australia? Highly unlikely. Did he bury $100mil in treasure? Certainly not. Will we ever know more? I doubt it.

Original Bluesky Thread 

How many members make a guard? - The mystery of the New Guard/Centre Party's candidates in 1935 [Rabbithole]

Back from holidays (thank you Perth and Carrickalinga), and I've flung myself into some preparations for my PhD topic, the New Guard. To start, I am making a list of all known members... and the 5th person I put on it already sent me down the rabbit hole that is this thread.

Now, to start, I guess I should quickly explain what the New Guard is. Essentially, they were a fascist paramilitary group based in NSW during the 1930s. Led by the erratic Eric Campbell, the group rose to prominence in opposition of the ever-controversial Premier, Jack Lang. 

The rabbit hole then started as I searched through Wikipedia to see the names that came up. Obviously, these names won't be entirely accurate, especially for such a niche group, but it provided a good base. And a few names did appear for the Centre Movement/Party, the New Guard's 'political party'. Running in the 1935 NSW state election, it achieved no real results and was essentially the last death rattle of the already terminal group. Now, while I can't say that all members of the Centre Party were New Guardsmen, as it wasn't an official party arm, I doubt many were exclusive to only it. In any case, I, as a 'good student' of history, did my due diligence and checked newspapers from the time to ensure these members, candidates for the 1935 election, were actually part of the Party. And for 4 of them, including Campbell, there were no issues. But, of course, it's never that simple.

One, an Aubrey Frederick Carlile Murphy, stood out. Now, the official NSW parliament site, which contains all information for state electoral nominations and elections, and is run by none other then Antony Green, notes Murphy as a Centre Movement member. Case closed, right? 

Except it wasn't. Many newspapers discussing nominations for the 1935 election, such as the 18/04/35 edition of 'The Sun', presented Murphy, running for Concord, as an Independent. Now, one might that it could be an error, these newspapers simply linked a minor party as being Independents.

But, as you can see from the image above, other candidates such as Enoch [E.] Jones, running for Arncliffe, were presented as Centre Movement members. And this is present across multiple papers, by a tiny few which do make the mistake of labelling the Centre Movement as Independents. 

So now I've got an issue. The NSW parliament site says Murphy is a Centre Movement candidate while the newspapers of the time say he isn't. I could've left it here, Murphy isn't that relevant to the story of the New Guard. I instead let myself be swallowed by the rabbit hole. 

I do abit more digging and find that Murphy, had, in 1932, actually put himself forward to run for the UAP in that seat back in that year's state election, though was obviously not nominated in the end. Does this mean he wasn't a New Guardsman? Hard to tell, but it does show his changing of sides. I would soon after stumble into a pretty clear indicator that Murphy had no connection to the Centre Party. A campaign ad for the party, in the 05/05/35 edition of 'Truth', would note only 4 candidates as part of the party. Campbell, Jones, J.B.Fowler, and F.F.Munro, no Murphy. 

There is another rabbit hole that image provides, mainly in trying to figure out who G.F.Pearce is, as, while being the campaign director, he only appears twice more in newspapers and no where else. The well-known George Foster Pearce is active at this time, but its certainly not him. 

Diversionary rabbit hole aside, the ad is a pretty good piece of evidence that Murphy wasn't a member of the Centre Movement. But I still couldn't be certain, maybe the party just didn't have room to add his name. So I kept digging, certain something would appear. And it did. The final piece of the puzzle, the smoking gun if you will, was a tiny article, tucked away in the 22/04/35 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. Plainly titled "Concord Electorate", it put the entire mystery to bed. In it, Murphy himself directly refutes being a member of the Centre Movement. 

The smoking gun is quite clear. Murphy, likely seeing previous articles labeling him as a member of the Centre Movement, refuted such claims and directly stated his Independent status. I could strike him off the list... 

Two questions remain though.

1) Why did newspapers label him as a member of the Centre Movement in the first place? The Movement itself seemingly never claims him, so was it just miscommunication or a mistake? 

2) What source was used on the NSW parliament's site to have him labelled as a Centre Movement candidate there?

These are questions, so far removed from my topic, that I shouldn't really keep digging for their answers. And yet, I am certain they're out there. I won't find them today, but maybe another day. In any case Murphy was an Independent, and likely never a New Guardsmen.

Original Bluesky Thread

Tasering an Australian Politician?? - The story of taser use in South Australia [Rabbithole]

Did you know that in 2009, the SA opposition leader, Liberal MP Isobel Redmond, let herself be tasered to prove a point? It sounds insane, but its true! The point she was trying to prove was that SA police should get tasers. This thread takes us down that rabbithole!

Let me take you back to the magical, mystical time that was 2008. At this time, tasers were, in many Australian states, used by all police officers. However, in SA, tasers remained limited to STAR (Special Tasks & Rescue) Group officers since 2003. This was to change in June 2008. A small trial would begin in 'two suburban local service areas', Elizabeth and the South Coast, as well as at Port Augusta, initially pledged for six months. Given to a limited amount of officers, they were only to be used in situations with people using a weapon. Despite the 6-month trial, Police Minister and MLC Paul Holloway, and Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, would both see it pertinent to begin talks of an expanded trial in September 2008. Hyde, in particular, would state this expanded roll-out was due to the 'weapons' effectiveness.

Although it seemed likely that tasers were to become a standard issue-'weapon' for SA police officers with relatively little fanfare, 2009 would see it become a hot-topic political issue. The Liberal Party, led by Martin Hamilton-Smith, would go all in regarding a push for general use tasers. Such a push would lead to some funny exchanges in parliament, as Holloway, who was cautiously pro-taser use, would fend questions from Liberal MLCs who were also pro-taser use. Such a reality can be seen in this Hansard transcript of a March 2009 parliament sitting.

Now, Hamilton-Smith would end up giving up the leadership of the SA Liberal party over poor polling, a bad by-election, and weirdest of all, accusing Labor of accepting Scientology donations based on documents he didn't realise were forgeries. He would be replaced by the aforementioned Redmond. Redmond, taking over in July, would immediately pick up on the trail of tasers. As the issue was debated in parliament and select committees, Redmond would decide on the ultimate publicity stunt. In October, she would offer herself up to be tasered, as to 'prove the worth' of tasers for the police. Such an offer led to hilarious news article titles, including "Taser me, says SA Opposition leader" by the ABC and "SA Liberal leader offers to be tasered", both titles leaving alot to the imagination as to why this person 'wants' to be tasered. Mike Rann, then-SA premier, was not impressed.

Now, a major roadblock would appear in the way of Redmond's offer. In November 2009, the SA police would be provided 300 tasers for 'high risk' cases. The issue was now a political non-factor. However, not one to be deterred by the small matter of reality, Redmond would push on. She'd accuse the government of being 'too slow' on rolling out tasers, since she pledged 500 tasers to the police, and would state that despite the rollout she was still going to get tasered. I'm not exactly certain why she wanted to continue, seeing as though there was no point to prove? 

In any case, the big day would come on the 15th of December. Redmond, at the Liberal Party SA HQ, would be shot with a taser by ex-police officer George Hateley. Such a tasering would provide us with another hilarious, but detail-lacking title, "Liberal leader shot with Taser". According to Hateley, Redmond took the tasering like a champ. "She didn't fall down at all, and she didn't make a murmur." Meanwhile, Redmond rated the pain 9.5/10. The SA Government, still unimpressed, would state that "good government was about making the right choices, not about gimmicks." 

Tasers, as a police weapon, have now become ubiquitous in SA. In 2014, rules would be changed significantly. While police were meant to keep their taser locked in their patrol car's boot, only for use against an armed offender, the 2014 changes would allow police to wear tasers on their belt. In addition to now keeping the tasers on themselves, SA police were now allowed to use the weapon on unarmed offenders as well. Training requirements remained, and remain, in place, but taser-use had essentially reached the 'logical' endpoint for police.

While Redmond was the first elected politician to willingly be tasered, such a 'stunt' had occurred previously in NSW. There, in 2006, now-disgraced police minister Carl Scully would get a volunteer, Raff Del Vecchio, to be tasered in parliament. Shame on Scully for not doing it himself.

That stunt, which caused uproar due to the bringing in of a weapon to parliament, has video evidence readily available (see here). Redmond's stunt though, despite readily available textual evidence, does not seem to have a video. Redmond has talked about the stunt in more recent years. She'd do an interview in 2010 (see here), as well as evidence of a Port'n'Talk, a type of sit-down interview event held at St Mark's College, from the St Mark's newsletter.

However, an Advertiser article from 2010 claims, "the Tasering was eventually done in private at Liberal Party headquarters on Greenhill Rd, and not even people in the next room knew it was happening." As such, perhaps a video does not exist at all? Despite this, a friend of my claims to remember watching the incident as a kid, it being one of their 'formative' political memories. In any case, Redmond was tasered, and despite the hilarity around the event, I don't think it ever did much for, or against her, politically.

To end, I am putting a small request out there. If anyone happens to have the video, or knows of its existence, I would be incredibly grateful for it/the information! Of course, it may very well not exist, in which case, I still hope you enjoyed this SA history thread!

Original Bluesky Thread

UFO sightings throughout colonial and early modern Australia [Rabbithole]

With all the news and hype around the New Jersey UFO flap, I figured I'd do a little digging through trove and find some historical 'UFO' sightings throughout Australia's earlier history, pre-WW1. No particular rhyme or reason for many, just a fun thread.

Perhaps the earliest newspaper reference to an 'unknown' object in Australia's skies, this 1839 column details an earlier sighting of a 'mid-day' star, one which is presented as Venus. While it is unclear if this is a UFO sighting, it demonstrates the characteristics of some modern-day sightings.

This 1842 sighting of a "strange phenomena" in Portland describes, in decent detail, an oddly moving faint light. The observer describes it like many modern UFO sightings, with erratic, stop-start movements. Besides the language used, this could pass as something from modern-day New Jersey.

Sightings of strange lights in the sky seem to die down from here, but pick back up in 1909, when the people of Victoria seem to be accosted by what could be a 'UFO flap'. More likely, these sightings were simply meteor showers, but so many articles in a single week make you wonder.

Not only were these seen in Victoria, but the northern coast of Tasmania. These sightings in Tasmania are far more detailed, and describe even weirder lights, such as a "strange body travelling along at a high altitude" with "two bright lights attached". Weird, although likely not unexplainable.

This 1909 flap seems to encompass the entire country by the middle of August, with "phantom airships" nearly hitting chimneys being reported in Western Australia and "Strange Lights" in NSW. Some attributed this to stars and planets, while an 'astronomer' suggested a hoax using a kite and a light.

This 'flap' seems to have ended with that article. Other minor sightings would occur, such as this one in Queensland in 1910. Here, oddly moving, flashing lights would be spotted in February around Milbong, though apparently the light had been seen since January.

A single light, seen around Adelaide in 1911. This short sighting is fairly detailed, describing the light as "tadpole"-shaped. In addition, the observer seems to know the easy explanations for UFO, as he preempts suggestions of meteors and searchlights. Interesting, although a singular account.

Heres the final sighting, this time in Gympie, Queensland. This seems to suggest a trend, as this light, like the previous one, is not just a strange light/circle, and instead has a different shape. In fact, this one changes shapes, from sparking meteor to comet tail to triangle and semi-circle.

There are likely plenty more sightings, however, finding them isn't the easiest as you can't just search up 'UFO' like you can nowadays. In any case, these showcase the way early colonial Australians dealt with sightings, with wonder, with fear, with confusion, similar to the modern-day I guess. It also, weirdly, shows a sort of evolution, going from 'angels' to 'strange circular lights' to phantom airships and shape-changing meteors, things which may not seem out of place in New Jersey, or any other more modern UFO 'flap'. ‪In the end, whether you believe or not, I think these are super interesting, just in the way they tell us how people, over a hundred to two hundred years ago, dealt with unknown things in the sky. And how, like us, they viewed these things with awe.

Original Bluesky Thread

Whats in a name? - The Story of Woolworths' name and whether a dare led to its existence [Rabbithole]

While submitting an answer to r/Askhistorians regarding why the US and Australian Woolworths have the same name, I fell down a rabbit hole of decent proportions. This post is that rabbit hole, all started because of a 'possible' dare made exactly 100 years ago.

One of the first things I found while researching was an article by news.com titled "Woolworths is only called ‘Woolworths’ because of a cheeky dare in 1924". In it, it states that the Australian Woolworths got its name through a dare made to use the already-extant US brand's name. Simple enough right? Except it wasn't. Woolworths' site doesn't mention the dare at all, not even in their 'about us' section which specifically discusses their name's origin. Even weirder, the news.com article states that its source was Stephen Ward, "manager of the Woolworths Heritage Centre".

So now we have a dilemma. Woolworths doesn't mention the dare, an interesting tidbit that'd 100% fit a corporate 'about us' page, and yet the news.com article, whose source is a person in charge of Woolies history, does. And instead of just letting this lie, I fell deep into the rabbit hole. You see, Wikipedia's article for the Australian Woolworths Group also mentions the dare. It states that "according to Ernest Robert Williams, Percy Christmas dared him to register the name Woolworths". Even if it is Wikipedia, surely this must corroborate the news.com article, right?? Nope! Not only is the Wikipedia article lacking a citation (more on that soon), but the person taking the dare is completely wrong. In the news.com article, it is Cecil Waine who Percy Christmas dared, not Ernest Williams. Both men were partners in the original Woolworths, but not the same at all.

Okay, so now we've got three variants. No dare, Ernest dared, Cecil dared. Trying not to be dragged further in, I did a direct search for the stated line from the Wikipedia article, hoping to find an original source. This however, led me down deeper into the rabbit hole. Most of the hits which weren't from post-2020s were blogs during a period between 2007-2010. All of them contained the exact same line from the Wikipedia page, and most actually linked back to the Wikipedia article. While this was annoying, I assumed that it meant there existed a common 'ancestor'. This seems certain by the fact that another news.com article, this one from 2018, titled "How SPC, Milo and other iconic brands really got their names", mentions the dare. Only this article mentions the Percy-Ernest dare, not the Percy-Cecil one.

Determined to find this ancestor, and answer the r/Askhistorians question in the proper way, I began searching through some academic sources. The Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Percy Christmas mentioned nothing of the dare, which seems to line up with the 'about us' page. Going onto Trove and searching a myriad of phrases and words throughout the 1900s for a decent while also came up with no hits. At the very least, the newspapers Trove has digitized never mention a dare, but that is not conclusive proof that such a dare never existed. However, this left me at my wits end. No clear common source made me believe that the answer may have just been out of my reach.

Throwing one final hail Mary, I checked the Wikipedia page's version history. And that's when I found it. While the original article for Woolworths Group (Australia) is just a stub, the first major update completely expanded the page. Amongst this expansion, a single line appeared, the same one regarding Percy and Ernest's dare. And shockingly, it still lacked a citation. That version of the article was created in AUGUST 2004! That line, uncited for 20 years now, has sat there, untouched. And through it, dozens of blogs have taken up this as 'fact', all the way up until 2018 where news.com reported it as truth. 20 years, and not a single time has it been questioned.

Based on this find, I have an idea of what probably happened. This is mostly conjecture though, so take it with a huge grain of salt. The user who updated the Woolworths page in 2004, had, at some point, gone to the Woolies Heritage Centre and knew of the 'dare', but had misremembered the names involved. They added it, without a citation as would regularly happen with Wikipedia 20 years ago, and likely thought little of it. This line than trickled down throughout blogs and articles, before finally being put to rest in 2019, with the more recent news. com article which, unlike anything else, seems to have a concrete source.

That leaves us with a massive question, though. Did a dare actually occur? The answer is, most likely, probably.

While I think there is misinformation which needs to be cleaned up, I doubt the Woolies Heritage Centre and Stephen Ward lied to news.com. So, at the very least, they presumably have some sort of evidence for the dare (which I cannot get to right now). Whatever the case, it seems the dare probably occurred. What did occur, though, was this rabbit hole, of which I had been stuck for hours in while answering that question. Out now, I am simply struck with curiosity about how much other history has ended up wrong due to a Wikipedia article.

Original Bluesky Thread