Speaker 1: Tony have it. Welcome to straight Talk, Mark.
Speaker 2: It's wonderful to be with you.
Speaker 3: You are, by the way, my mum's it sounds very
Speaker 3: tried and commonplace, but my mum's favorite politician.
Speaker 2: Well, your mum must have been a wonderful woman.
Speaker 1: Good start mate, Thanks very much for coming in.
Speaker 3: So maybe, if possible, I don't know if many people
Speaker 3: know much about you other than the fact you were
Speaker 3: Prime Minister of the country for that matter, and there's
Speaker 3: some instances where they remember you with you know, the
Speaker 3: Budji smuggler's shirt f and the onion and I want
Speaker 3: to talk about those things because they're their fun things.
Speaker 3: But if we could just go back a bit, you know,
Speaker 3: ideology is an important thing in the way we conduct
Speaker 3: ourselves and our behavior, all of us, and it's also
Speaker 3: what we tend to believe in. And our ideology I
Speaker 3: think is formed largely from how we grew up influences
Speaker 3: as on ask.
Speaker 1: When we're kids, et cetera. So who's Tony Abbott the kid?
Speaker 2: Well? I had two wonderful powers parents, my late father
Speaker 2: my mum who's still with us at ninety two. I
Speaker 2: grew up in a lovely tranquil neighborhood in a house
Speaker 2: backing on the bush, Sydney or in Sydney. Mum and
Speaker 2: Dad had a good marriage. I had three younger sisters
Speaker 2: who claim to worship me, although they don't give that
Speaker 2: much evidence these days. Mum reckoned they did. I went
Speaker 2: to school, first of all the Holy Family Convent, Linnfield,
Speaker 2: then at Saint ala Wish's College, Nelson's Point, then at
Speaker 2: Ignacious College Review Sydney University Economics law. Was lucky enough
Speaker 2: to get a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford.
Speaker 1: Could you just stop then? What is a Rhodes scholarship? Everyone?
Speaker 1: He talked to me that no one knows what it.
Speaker 2: Is, okay, Well, A Rhodes scholarship is a scholarship funded
Speaker 2: out of the bequest of Cecil Rhodes, who was a
Speaker 2: mining magnate in the country which was known as Rhodesia
Speaker 2: after him. He was the first Prime Minister of Rhodesia
Speaker 2: back in the eighteen nineties, mining magnate and when he
Speaker 2: died in nineteen hundred and two, his fortune, which doesn't
Speaker 2: sound like much in these days money, but it was
Speaker 2: about three million pounds. It funded the Rhodes scholarships it's
Speaker 2: done that to this day because it's been very well invested.
Speaker 2: The Rhodes Scholarship is essentially a leadership scholarship. Cecil Rhodes
Speaker 2: said that he wanted men for the world's fight, and
Speaker 2: so every year each state, each of Australia's sixth states,
Speaker 2: sends a Rhodes Scholar to Oxford. There are three Australia
Speaker 2: at large Rhodes Scholarships, so that's nine Rhodes Scholars go
Speaker 2: from Australia every year to Oxford. They've got to be bright,
Speaker 2: they're supposed to be potential leaders. In the old days,
Speaker 2: at least, they were usually people who had achieved a
Speaker 2: bit in sport, and so I guess I didn't have
Speaker 2: a stellar academic record by any means, but I've been
Speaker 2: the president of the student's Counselor at Sydney UNI. I'd
Speaker 2: played quite a bit of first grade rugby, so I
Speaker 2: guess that's how I got there as a Rhodes Scholar.
Speaker 2: Previous Rhodes Scholars in politics included Bob Hawk, Kim Beasley.
Speaker 2: Malcolm Turnbull was also a Rhodes Scholar a couple of
Speaker 2: years before me. So there's been a lot of Rhodes
Speaker 2: Scholars over the years going too public life. And I
Speaker 2: guess that's fitting because in his will Cecil Rhoades said
Speaker 2: he wanted to produce leaders and the idea was to
Speaker 2: bring the leaders of the English speaking world as thirty
Speaker 2: odd Rhodes scholar a year from America. There are some
Speaker 2: from Canada. There are quite a few from South Africa
Speaker 2: as well. For a while there were Rhodes Scholars from Germany.
Speaker 2: The idea was to bring the potential leaders of the
Speaker 2: major countries of the world, particularly the English speaking world,
Speaker 2: to Oxford, where it was thought by Cecil Rhodes, these
Speaker 2: young men and subsequently young women would get the best
Speaker 2: possible education and would develop the kind of comradeship between
Speaker 2: each other that would lead to a more peaceful and
Speaker 2: harmonious world.
Speaker 3: That's a probably good introduction to asking you a question,
Speaker 3: and I know it's probably bit early because we are
Speaker 3: talking about yourself growing up, and I'll come back to
Speaker 3: that in a moment, But what do you think about
Speaker 3: leadership today? I mean, what do you think Cecil rhads
Speaker 3: would think about? And of course Rhodesia used to be
Speaker 3: Rhodesia now called Zimbabwe. What would he now think aboutleadership
Speaker 3: outside of the Hodes scholarships. But think about leadership and
Speaker 3: what does it mean? What does leadership mean? I don't
Speaker 3: know what it means to someone like you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, Well, a leader is someone who can make
Speaker 2: a decision that involves people other than simply himself or herself,
Speaker 2: and can make the decision stick. So a leader's got
Speaker 2: to know his or her own mind, has got to
Speaker 2: be capable of turning thoughts into resolutions, communicating successfully those
Speaker 2: resolutions to others, and encouraging, inspiring, persuading others to join
Speaker 2: in with those resolutions. That's essentially leadership. And whether the lead.
Speaker 2: Whether leadership is exercised in persuading your mates that we
Speaker 2: should go and see film X rather than film why,
Speaker 2: Whether the leadership is exercised in getting together a group
Speaker 2: of people to go on a holiday, whether it's starting
Speaker 2: a business, whether it's leading a country. Leadership is exercised
Speaker 2: in all sorts of different ways, by all sorts of
Speaker 2: different people. But without leadership, nothing happens.
Speaker 1: So where does courage fit in in leadership? That virtus?
Speaker 3: Because you know, I just don't think we talk about
Speaker 3: virtues enough. But where does the virtue of courage fit
Speaker 3: into leadership. For rate, say running a country. Let's not
Speaker 3: decide who's going to go to the movies. Let's just
Speaker 3: say we're running country because that's your area of expertise,
Speaker 3: or you're certainly your formal era expertise. And you mentioned
Speaker 3: a number of other former prime ministers in the same
Speaker 3: category or leaders of the opposition, you would have seen
Speaker 3: common traits.
Speaker 1: Was courage or common trait?
Speaker 2: I think courage is an important part of good leadership.
Speaker 2: I think courage is pretty rare. It was Lord Slim
Speaker 2: who said moral courage is a far higher and rarer
Speaker 2: virtue than physical courage. It was our old friend, father EMMITTT. Costello,
Speaker 2: who used to frequently quote an obscure French cardinal that
Speaker 2: I'd never heard of, But nevertheless Emmett loved.
Speaker 1: His phrase, being a Jesuit priest for review.
Speaker 2: Yes, Emmett kept quoting this cardinal pa from the nineteenth
Speaker 2: century who said, prudence is everywhere, courage is nowhere. We
Speaker 2: will all die of prudence. And I must say, I
Speaker 2: think that's quite a useful reminder that prudence is a virtue,
Speaker 2: but it's not the only virtue. Courage is equally and
Speaker 2: no less important.
Speaker 3: Because I mean, I will come back to you history
Speaker 3: in a second because I want to know more about it.
Speaker 1: But just on that topic, I.
Speaker 3: Think it was Aristotle said that there was the courage
Speaker 3: was He talked about the golden mean, which is the
Speaker 3: point between reckless or fearless.
Speaker 1: Fearless reckless or I should.
Speaker 3: Say, which is down one end of the scale and
Speaker 3: on the other end of the scale, was you know
Speaker 3: you were coward and courage was the gold means somewhere
Speaker 3: that somewhere in between, not in the middle, but somewhere
Speaker 3: and different for everybody. But if you're becoming a leader
Speaker 3: of a country, it would seem to me that finding
Speaker 3: that golden mean as a leader of the country, as
Speaker 3: a prime minister leading your party in this case in Australia.
Speaker 1: In america's leading the country a bit different.
Speaker 3: But do you think that we've lost that courage a
Speaker 3: little bit?
Speaker 2: Well, if you look at our political leadership, Mark, I
Speaker 2: think that it peaked in the Hawk Howard Era Hawk
Speaker 2: and Howard each in his own way, they were both very,
Speaker 2: very effective and quite brave prime ministers. Hawk defied labor
Speaker 2: or that I to I guess deregulate the labor market,
Speaker 2: to privatize or begin privatization processes, to reduce tariffs, to
Speaker 2: keep the unions more or less in their lane. And
Speaker 2: then Howard did things like introduce work for the doll
Speaker 2: he brought in tax reform, he reformed the waterfront. Howard
Speaker 2: Hawke did most of his reforms with the support of
Speaker 2: the Coalition, so at one level they were easier to
Speaker 2: do because they weren't opposed in the Parliament the way
Speaker 2: Howard's reforms were ferociously opposed by the Labor Party. But nevertheless,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't underestimate the courage that both Hawk and Keating
Speaker 2: showed in the economic sphere, because frankly, it's a very
Speaker 2: unusual labor leader who can get out of the old
Speaker 2: Marxist capital versus labor paradigm and appreciate that workers do
Speaker 2: best when the boss does well too. So we had
Speaker 2: a quarter century of good leadership, really excellent, outstanding leadership
Speaker 2: under Hawk and Howard. I think it's been of lesser
Speaker 2: quality since then. And that's not because the individuals are
Speaker 2: necessarily of lesser caliber, but I suspect there's certainly been
Speaker 2: less courage, And I think in some instances less character.
Speaker 3: And how much do you think courage is or courage
Speaker 3: derives from what as possible? So it would seem to me,
Speaker 3: particularly these days, with the ability to know what people
Speaker 3: think polls, polling, and the ability to try and satisfy
Speaker 3: as many people as you possibly can in order to
Speaker 3: stay in government, because if you're not in government.
Speaker 1: You can't make change.
Speaker 3: How much do you think courage is being diluted by
Speaker 3: more information and not as ideologically based as it would
Speaker 3: have maybe in the past.
Speaker 2: I think political leadership is more difficult today because social
Speaker 2: media and the twenty four to seven news cycle means
Speaker 2: that you tend to be more distracted. I mean, in
Speaker 2: Howard's time, you basically have to worry about the nightly
Speaker 2: news and the morning's papers. But you're constantly being besieged
Speaker 2: by the media today. So I think in one sense
Speaker 2: leadership is more difficult. But what do you want in
Speaker 2: a leader? You want character, You want conviction, you want courage,
Speaker 2: you want judgment, and frankly, you also want luck. Some
Speaker 2: people have it, some people don't. But I think that
Speaker 2: far too often these days politicians consult the polls, they
Speaker 2: consult the focus group, and they allow themselves not to
Speaker 2: give the public what the public needs, but they try
Speaker 2: to give the public what the public wants. Now, we're
Speaker 2: all human, so we tend to want to have our
Speaker 2: cake and eat it too. And the truth is you
Speaker 2: can't mostly do that. You've got to make choices, often
Speaker 2: hard choices. And in the Hawk Howard era, there was
Speaker 2: a greater tendency on the part of our leadership to say, look,
Speaker 2: this is what's right for the country. This is the
Speaker 2: argument in favor, and they would prosecute the case. That's
Speaker 2: much less common. I mean, let's take the vexed subject
Speaker 2: of climate change for instance. Now the Liberal Party is
Speaker 2: having a huge inter discussion at the moment about energy
Speaker 2: and climate policy. One of the reasons why we are
Speaker 2: so angst written over abandoning the straight jacket of net
Speaker 2: zero is because we think the public have been totally
Speaker 2: if you're like, they've basically been brainwashed into excepting that
Speaker 2: there is a climate crisis. Now, I don't think there
Speaker 2: is a climate crisis. I think reducing emissions is nice
Speaker 2: to do, but I don't think it's something that should
Speaker 2: dominate our policy making as it does right now. I
Speaker 2: think what the coalition should be prepared to do is
Speaker 2: to say, look, frankly, net zero is leading us down
Speaker 2: a path of economic ruin. We have to abandon it.
Speaker 2: My former colleagues are very worried that doing this will
Speaker 2: cost them seats and prevent them from winning the so
Speaker 2: called Teal seats back. But if it's actually right, I
Speaker 2: think the important thing is to make the case and
Speaker 2: argue it day in day out between now and the
Speaker 2: next election. And if you fail and you still believe
Speaker 2: it's right, keep arguing it. I mean, take the GST
Speaker 2: for instance. The GST, or at least a general Goods
Speaker 2: and Services Tax, was first proposed by Keating at the
Speaker 2: time of the tax summit in nineteen eighty five. The
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Hawk decided it was a step too far.
Speaker 2: That was when I suppose Hawk's caution and judgment trumped
Speaker 2: Keeping's innovation and political courage. Then the GST was proposed
Speaker 2: by John Houston, as you'd remember Mark in the fight
Speaker 2: Back package, and Keating, having supported it back in eighty five,
Speaker 2: ferociously opposed it in the ninety three election. And then
Speaker 2: eventually the GST was brought in because John Howard had
Speaker 2: the guts to take it to the people in the
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety eight election. So the GST was an idea
Speaker 2: that even its proponents eventually shied away from. Then it
Speaker 2: was an idea that was ferociously fought about, initially in success, unsuccessfully,
Speaker 2: finally successfully, and now it's totally accepted. So it is
Speaker 2: possible to put forward policy initiatives that you think are
Speaker 2: right but which are fiercely resisted, and you just argue
Speaker 2: your way through to success. And it is the mark
Speaker 2: of a six successful country that it can make tough
Speaker 2: decisions and that it's leaders can successfully persuade people to
Speaker 2: change their minds on things. And I think that if
Speaker 2: you believe as I do, that reducing emissions is no
Speaker 2: more than nice to do. If you think that the
Speaker 2: important thing for the long term well being of our
Speaker 2: country is economic growth, more jobs, more successful and more
Speaker 2: dynamic industries, all of which requires an abundance of cheap
Speaker 2: and reliable power, all of which requires continuing our mineral resources, agricultural,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Development. If you think this is necessary, well,
Speaker 2: and if you think that the net zero straight jacket
Speaker 2: is gravely impeding all of this, well, then you should
Speaker 2: be prepared to argue the.
Speaker 1: Case and that's leadership. That's leadership, thank you.
Speaker 2: And another example, if I may say so, mark of
Speaker 2: successful leadership, initially very much against the odds, was the
Speaker 2: whole Voice debate that we had a couple of years back.
Speaker 2: I mean, initially the Voice was pitched as just a lovely,
Speaker 2: gracious mark of politeness and courtesy towards our Aboriginal fellow Australians.
Speaker 2: In fact, this was a trojan horse in the heart
Speaker 2: of government. And thanks to courageous individuals, particularly just Enterprise
Speaker 2: and Warren Mundine, also Peter Darton and others. Thanks to
Speaker 2: those courageous individuals, the public were persuaded that something that
Speaker 2: they'd initially supported out of an abundance of goodwill was
Speaker 2: something that they should oppose out of an abundance of
Speaker 2: political judgment.
Speaker 3: And in your world when you were the Prime minister,
Speaker 3: what points do you remember where you had to tap
Speaker 3: yourself on the shoulder and say, okay, Tony, it's time
Speaker 3: to stand up straight and exercise courage in relation to
Speaker 3: leading this country. What's some examples that you experienced.
Speaker 1: What wars are like to doing do you have to
Speaker 1: fight within your own party? Where does it go?
Speaker 2: It's a very good question.
Speaker 1: Apart from daily.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess one of the biggest fights in my
Speaker 2: time was what to do about illegal boat rifles. And
Speaker 2: you'll remember that it started up at the end of
Speaker 2: the Keeping era. It got worse during the Howard era
Speaker 2: after the Tampa business. Effectively the boats were stopped and
Speaker 2: then they started up again under Kevin Rudd when Kevin
Speaker 2: Rudd closed down offshore processing and abolished temporary protection visas
Speaker 2: and so on. And in I think August of twenty thirteen,
Speaker 2: we had five thousand illegal arrivals by boat, so it
Speaker 2: was a real crisis. We think that during the course
Speaker 2: of the Rudd Gillard government, as well as fifty thousand
Speaker 2: illegal arrivals in one thousand boats, there were at least
Speaker 2: a thousand people who died at sea doing this very
Speaker 2: unsafe business of jumping in a leaky fishing boat trying
Speaker 2: to cross the three hundred kilometers of open sea between
Speaker 2: Java and Christmas Island. Anyway, it was very important to
Speaker 2: stop this. What was happening at the time was that
Speaker 2: as soon as an Australian naval or customers vessel hove
Speaker 2: into view, the people smugglers would scuttle their boats. The
Speaker 2: passengers would be in the water, our personnel naturally had
Speaker 2: to pick them up to stop the from drowning. Under
Speaker 2: Rutt and Gillard, they were all taken to Christmas Island,
Speaker 2: where effectively all of them eventually got to Australia and
Speaker 2: many of them are still here to this day. I
Speaker 2: determined we would do and obviously this was done in
Speaker 2: consultation with my shadow cabinet colleagues, particularly Scott Morrison, who
Speaker 2: was the relevant Shadow Minister. We decided under Operation Sovereign Borders,
Speaker 2: that we would hold the people, the people that would
Speaker 2: be illegal migrants. We would hold them on a mother
Speaker 2: ship until a calm night when we would put them
Speaker 2: in a big orange life raft just outside Indonesian territorial
Speaker 2: waters came from with just enough fuel to get back
Speaker 2: to Java. And this was hugely controversial at the time.
Speaker 2: When I said that we would turn boats around when
Speaker 2: it was safe to do so, Kevin Rudtha, prime Minister
Speaker 2: at the time, said that this would this was not
Speaker 2: only illegal, it was not only immoral, but it was
Speaker 2: it would cause conflict with Indonesia, and that certainly was
Speaker 2: the view of many of the officials. When I became
Speaker 2: Prime Minister and I said, look, no self respecting country
Speaker 2: can accept what amounts to a peaceful invasion, No self
Speaker 2: respecting country can lose control of its borders. We simply
Speaker 2: have to stop this. And frankly, we should not allow
Speaker 2: somewhat nebulous concepts like international law which can't be enforced
Speaker 2: in any court that has effective control over the actors.
Speaker 2: We shouldn't let that stop us. And because it was
Speaker 2: so remarkably successful so quickly, a policy that was hugely
Speaker 2: contentious at the time is now, however begrudgingly by the left,
Speaker 2: is now accepted. And to its credit, the Albanezy government
Speaker 2: has largely maintained the border protection practices that began in
Speaker 2: my time and that were then continued through the Turmbul
Speaker 2: and morrison eras as well.
Speaker 3: And when you when you came up with this idea
Speaker 3: to do this, what was your objective was it? Was
Speaker 3: it a matter of principle or is it a matter
Speaker 3: of principle that people should meag just out to turn
Speaker 3: up whenever they feel like it and coming through a
Speaker 3: legal processes et cetera. Or was there something else beyond that,
Speaker 3: like you know, economically made sense or it didn't make
Speaker 3: sense economically, What was the what was your objective behind it?
Speaker 2: Well, Mark, the principle is countries have got to keep
Speaker 2: control of their borders. I mean, the mark of a
Speaker 2: sovereign country is that it keeps control of its borders.
Speaker 2: It controls who comes or doesn't come into the country.
Speaker 2: So that was the principle, and the mechanism for realizing
Speaker 2: the principle was to stop the illegal boats. And the
Speaker 2: best way to stop the illegal boats was to turn
Speaker 2: them back. And if the original boats were sunk or
Speaker 2: otherwise destroyed, we gave them substitute boats and sent them
Speaker 2: back in the unthinkable orange life raft. So the end
Speaker 2: was national sovereignty. The means was turning boats around, and
Speaker 2: the mechanism was supplying boats where the people smugler's boats
Speaker 2: were no longer available.
Speaker 3: And I asked John Howard a couple weeks ago about this,
Speaker 3: but is national sovereignty? Is that?
Speaker 1: Should that be a value that gets attributed to the nation.
Speaker 2: Well, Marke, ask yourself this, what might people make huge
Speaker 2: sacrifices for even their life if necessary, your family, your faith,
Speaker 2: your country. I think that patriotism, love of country is
Speaker 2: one of the most powerful emotions that people have and yes,
Speaker 2: I think we certainly should respect it and in appropriate
Speaker 2: circumstances appeal to it.
Speaker 1: That's very interesting. It's a high order.
Speaker 3: Value, very high order value, and maybe one that some
Speaker 3: generations might be not that tuned into today these days.
Speaker 2: Well, if you go back to the generations that fought
Speaker 2: the First and the Second World Wars, they obviously had
Speaker 2: a very strong sense of patriotism. Now it's possible, indeed,
Speaker 2: it's certain that the patriotism of Australians at the time
Speaker 2: of the Two World Wars was, if you like, an
Speaker 2: empire patriotism as well as simply a national patriotism. But
Speaker 2: I think that Australians today still feel strongly patriotic. I
Speaker 2: think that official Australia is less inclined to appeal to
Speaker 2: people's patriotism. One of the reasons why I wrote my
Speaker 2: book Mark was because I think we've got a proud history.
Speaker 2: I think there's far more to look back on with
Speaker 2: pride and satisfaction than there is to look back on
Speaker 2: with shame and embarrassment. But I think these days official
Speaker 2: Australia has very much imbibed what Jeffrey Blainey once called
Speaker 2: the black armband view of our history. It's interesting that
Speaker 2: many people on the left of politics don't want us
Speaker 2: to be particularly excited about Australia Day because they see
Speaker 2: that in terms of sorrow more than they see it
Speaker 2: in terms of pride and achievement. So I think it
Speaker 2: is important if citizens are to feel appropriately proud of
Speaker 2: their country, that they have a good understanding of our history,
Speaker 2: particularly given that our history is on balance such a
Speaker 2: shining success. But yes, patriotism is very important and if
Speaker 2: our country is to flourish, people have a need to
Speaker 2: have a strong sense of commitment to it and a
Speaker 2: strong desire not just to succeed themselves, but have the
Speaker 2: country succeed too.
Speaker 3: Do you think that one of the reasons perhaps that
Speaker 3: patriotism as opposed to nationalism patriots is feeling and feeling
Speaker 3: pride in your country has somewhat diminished over the past
Speaker 3: maybe ten years, because Australia has done so well economically.
Speaker 3: Our unemployment is so low and it always has been
Speaker 3: for a long and definitely even during the COVID period,
Speaker 3: you know, the government managed to keep unemployment where no
Speaker 3: one else was and post COVID austrai as unemployment was
Speaker 3: at record levels because you know, generally speaking, unemployment up
Speaker 3: in the fives these days are still down before when
Speaker 3: it gets the four point five, it's the headline. Do
Speaker 3: you think that there's a generation of people here who
Speaker 3: have had it so good that they just think this
Speaker 3: is a place. Australia is a place and we use
Speaker 3: it like a utility, and therefore we don't need to
Speaker 3: have any patriotism because we don't work hard enough for it.
Speaker 3: Do you think that's a point? Because I'm in you
Speaker 3: and I similar generation. You know, important to get your job,
Speaker 3: important to work hard, important to respect the boss, is
Speaker 3: portant to respect the.
Speaker 1: Business that you work for.
Speaker 3: You didn't jump between jobs to job generally speaking state
Speaker 3: for period time because it was really important to have
Speaker 3: a job. It was jammed into us respect as well
Speaker 3: for your boss. But these days people can leave a
Speaker 3: job six months and they get another one because there's
Speaker 3: unemployment so low. Do you think that there is a
Speaker 3: correlation between unemployment and maybe the diminution in patriotism towards
Speaker 3: the country that you know that is looking after you.
Speaker 2: Mark, I certainly do think that we've had it very
Speaker 2: good for a very long time in this country, and
Speaker 2: I do think that these and luxury can breed indulgence
Speaker 2: and entitlement, and I think their vices, if you like,
Speaker 2: I suspect that we might suffer from those vices a
Speaker 2: little more than we did, and I personally wish it
Speaker 2: were otherwise. I mean, earlier generations of Australians did have
Speaker 2: a tougher life physically financially, and I think they were
Speaker 2: more alive to the need for sacrifice, to do one's duty,
Speaker 2: to be prepared to live a life of service. I
Speaker 2: think people were more in tune with that. And again,
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why I've written this history is
Speaker 2: to remind people today of the strengths of applebears, both
Speaker 2: individually and collectively. Because you never know what's around the corner.
Speaker 2: We think that the world will continue more or less
Speaker 2: as it is, that our country will always be rich,
Speaker 2: that our country will always be safe, that our country
Speaker 2: will always be free. But look at other countries where
Speaker 2: people aren't safe, they aren't free, they aren't rich, or
Speaker 2: they might be rich enough, but they're certainly not free.
Speaker 2: I mean, the world over the last two hundred years
Speaker 2: has basically been shaped by the long Anglo American ascendancy.
Speaker 2: We are a product of the long Anglo American ascendancy.
Speaker 2: Our institutions, our attitudes, our way of life, all fundamentally
Speaker 2: shaped by the Anglo American ascendancy. If the world of
Speaker 2: the future is dominated by China, for instance, it'll be
Speaker 2: a very different world, much less free, certainly, I would say,
Speaker 2: much less fair, and fundamentally in the long run, I
Speaker 2: suspect much less rich, because I don't believe that a
Speaker 2: basically totalitarian society can be as creative as a free
Speaker 2: society such as ours can be. And it's quite possible,
Speaker 2: maybe even likely, that tensions between the democracies and the dictatorships,
Speaker 2: which are operating in a kind of informal alliance of
Speaker 2: the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, it's
Speaker 2: quite likely that tensions at some point could boil over
Speaker 2: into conflict. I mean, we've got conflict in Ukraine, We've
Speaker 2: got conflict in the Middle East, We've got enormous tensions
Speaker 2: in East Asia. And as a country, we have to
Speaker 2: be prepared economically, militarily, and above all else psychically for
Speaker 2: whatever might come. And I just hope that if we
Speaker 2: do face much fiercer challenges than we have in recent
Speaker 2: times that we will be ready for it, it up
Speaker 2: for it.
Speaker 3: Do you think it's often ponder on this particular question,
Speaker 3: and in terms of attitude and mindset, do you think
Speaker 3: it's often? I think to myself, you and I just
Speaker 3: a couple of old blokes who have gone through a
Speaker 3: different but I competed to the younger generation relatively speaking,
Speaker 3: who have just gone through a different type of upbringing.
Speaker 3: We have different set of values, or probably a different
Speaker 3: set of values, a different set of things that are
Speaker 3: more available to us relative to the younger generation.
Speaker 1: We don't we don't buy and buy. We live on
Speaker 1: an island.
Speaker 3: We're nice and safe here and everything's going to be great.
Speaker 3: No one's going to come near us, whereas the other generation,
Speaker 3: younger generations tend.
Speaker 1: To think that.
Speaker 3: Do you think that there's that possibility that there is?
Speaker 3: We are over over egging it and we are over
Speaker 3: worrying about these things. And because as we get older,
Speaker 3: we play more defensive. Do you think that's a possibility
Speaker 3: of from wondered myself, will test myself all the time about.
Speaker 2: Well Mark, I go back to the twenty nine in
Speaker 2: election campaign in Warringa, which I lost. I had young people,
Speaker 2: often kids still at school who no doubt had been
Speaker 2: put up to this by their teachers, but literally quite
Speaker 2: a quivering with fear and anxiety, telling me that they
Speaker 2: would probably be dead in a few years time because
Speaker 2: of climate change that my government was not or the
Speaker 2: party that I was part of, was not doing enough
Speaker 2: to fix. So young people today, I think are being
Speaker 2: scared to death over climate anxiety in a way that
Speaker 2: maybe earlier generations were worried about nuclear war for instance.
Speaker 2: Now I've got to say, I think major conflict between
Speaker 2: great powers is vastly more scary to me than the
Speaker 2: possibility of a couple of degrees of warming several decades,
Speaker 2: hence which we can easily adapt to. I mean, there
Speaker 2: have always been storms, there have always been floods, There've
Speaker 2: always been fires, There've always been droughts. And the richer
Speaker 2: and stronger we are, the better we will be able
Speaker 2: to cope with these things. And if some areas of
Speaker 2: agriculture shrink and others grow, well, so be it. Again.
Speaker 2: We can deal with it in the future as we've
Speaker 2: always done in the past. But a major war, particularly
Speaker 2: one involving nuclear weapons, would be a complete catastrophe, an
Speaker 2: unimaginable disaster. I mean, imagine Sydney being like Marier Poll.
Speaker 2: Imagine Sydney being like Gaza. That's what war does. And
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter whether your cause is just. If your
Speaker 2: country is subject to bombardment, it's ghastly beyond belief. So
Speaker 2: that's the sort of thing that I think we should
Speaker 2: be worried about. And the best way to ensure that
Speaker 2: it doesn't come is not to be weak, because weakness
Speaker 2: is provocative. It's to be strong, not aggressive, but strong
Speaker 2: and certain and clear, because the only way we will
Speaker 2: deter aggresses is by being strong and certain and clear
Speaker 2: in response. I mean, if Ukraine had been in NATO,
Speaker 2: Pudin would never have invaded. Pudin only invaded Ukraine because
Speaker 2: he thought it would all be over in a week.
Speaker 2: And it's immensely to the credit of the incredibly gallant
Speaker 2: and heroic Ukrainian. So I think of fighting for everyone's
Speaker 2: freedom that they have been able to resist so successfully
Speaker 2: for so long. But this is an object lesson in
Speaker 2: what to do or not to do. If your country
Speaker 2: is to survive and flourish, it is to be strong,
Speaker 2: economically strong, militarily, strong, psychologically and if possible to have
Speaker 2: strong alliances as well.
Speaker 3: So someone like you, when you see Dan Andrews standing
Speaker 3: there in China alongside Putin presidency and the North Korean president,
Speaker 3: it must make your blood boil, because isn't that the opposite?
Speaker 3: Isn't that to what you just said, that's the opposite?
Speaker 2: Like Well, there was a phrase mark that I think
Speaker 2: Lenin used of the capitalists who were going to sell
Speaker 2: the communists the rope by which the capitalists were hanged.
Speaker 2: The phrase was useful idiots, useful idiots. And I think
Speaker 2: there are lots of useful idiots in Australia at the moment.
Speaker 3: So when we come when you look at let's call
Speaker 3: it left of politics, it seems to me that there's
Speaker 3: a lot of ideology pushed into the left and obviously
Speaker 3: ideologies pushed into the right.
Speaker 2: Term.
Speaker 3: We were talking about the things that form your ideologies,
Speaker 3: and you talked about your schooling, and you talked about
Speaker 3: your education, and I might just ask you quickly, because
Speaker 3: we know you became the Prime minister, but how did
Speaker 3: you get into politics?
Speaker 1: What were you doing before politics?
Speaker 2: Well, my mother, my father, people like father Amer Costello
Speaker 2: had well and truly engendered a great interest in history,
Speaker 2: in you, in me, In me, I was fascinated by history.
Speaker 1: And Australian history, and history.
Speaker 2: History generally, but not certainly, not excluding Australian history, but
Speaker 2: history generally. And I am by the great Man theory
Speaker 2: of history that the world is shaped by strong individuals
Speaker 2: who make a difference. I think the world gets better
Speaker 2: or worse person by person, and if more people make
Speaker 2: good choices, things improve. If more people make bad choices,
Speaker 2: things get worse. And obviously, the further up the leadership
Speaker 2: ladder you are, the more significant your choices become. So
Speaker 2: I was interested in history. When I got to university,
Speaker 2: which even in those days the mid seventies, was dominated
Speaker 2: by the Green Left, I thought, well, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Let's do what I can to change that. So I
Speaker 2: ran for student politics, eventually became the SRC president. Worked
Speaker 2: out along the way that Canes was right to this
Speaker 2: extent at leastomists, that Knes the economist was right, at
Speaker 2: least to this extent, that practical men are slaves to
Speaker 2: the ideas of long dead economists. So I thought, let's
Speaker 2: try to enter the battlefield of ideas. I started writing
Speaker 2: stuff for the Sydney University paper Honi Swar. Eventually the
Speaker 2: Honi Swire editors wouldn't.
Speaker 1: Publish me because.
Speaker 2: Left, so I started getting stuff published in the Herald,
Speaker 2: the Australian, the Bulletin. Eventually became a journalist and then
Speaker 2: I became a political staffer press seguri to John Hewson
Speaker 2: when he was leader of the Opposition. Then after the
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety three election, for a year or so I
Speaker 2: was the initial executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
Speaker 2: And then in nineteen ninety four, when a fellow called
Speaker 2: Michael mckeller retired as Member for Ringer, I was on
Speaker 2: holidays at the time. A bit bored. I called my
Speaker 2: office to see what was happening and I was told
Speaker 2: that John I would have wanted to talk to me.
Speaker 2: So I rang John and he said, look, Toney, Michael
Speaker 2: McKell is just retiring as a member for Ringer. I
Speaker 2: think you should throw your hat into the ring for
Speaker 2: the Liberal preselection, which I did. The two favored candidates
Speaker 2: were Kevin McCann, at that stage a senior partner in
Speaker 2: Sydney's biggest law firm, and Peter King, at that stage
Speaker 2: a leading barrister now Kevin McCann went on to become
Speaker 2: chairman of mcquarie bank. Peter King became for a time
Speaker 2: member for Wentworth. But they were the two leading candidates
Speaker 2: and I sort of came up the middle and snagged
Speaker 2: the pre selection. And I guess then followed twenty five
Speaker 2: tumultuous and largely successful use in the parliament.
Speaker 1: Would you say you loved being in poond?
Speaker 2: I loved making a difference, and being in Parliament is
Speaker 2: probably the pre eminent way of making a difference in
Speaker 2: this country.
Speaker 1: And what about the joust that happens every day? Like
Speaker 1: you're down there in the mother sheep in camera.
Speaker 3: I guess you're walking down the aisles and you're brushing
Speaker 3: past various oppositions.
Speaker 1: What about the jousts? Did you love that part?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: And no?
Speaker 2: I mean I was regarded as a pretty ferocious parliamentary
Speaker 2: warrior because you had to be, you had to be.
Speaker 2: These days, I listened to Parliament and I think, geez,
Speaker 2: there's far too much mindless abuse, far too much the
Speaker 2: other marble all wrong and our marble all right. When
Speaker 2: the truth is, no one has a monopoly on wisdom,
Speaker 2: no one's judgments are perfect. All governments get something's wrong,
Speaker 2: and the truth is best advanced by a civil debate
Speaker 2: which at least respects the good will of most of
Speaker 2: the participants. And I think that there's not enough of
Speaker 2: that in our national conversation these days, and there's certainly
Speaker 2: not enough of that in the Parliament now. Some people
Speaker 2: will say, oh, but Abbott you were when you were
Speaker 2: the Leader of the House. You're always getting up and
Speaker 2: having a go at the other side, And that's true.
Speaker 2: But I'd like to think that I was playing the ball,
Speaker 2: not the man, and I'd like to think that I
Speaker 2: was attacking the other side's positions rather than attacking the
Speaker 2: other side personally. Although I did once say of Kim
Speaker 2: Beasley that he was a sanctimonious wind bag.
Speaker 1: Well all jawbone and no backbone, had that go.
Speaker 2: I think I got kicked out of the Parliament for that.
Speaker 2: And look, i'vectually got a lot of time for Kim Beasley.
Speaker 2: I mean, Kim Beasley is probably that by far the
Speaker 2: most substantial figure on the labor side of politics, at
Speaker 2: least in recent decades, not to become Prime Minister. And
Speaker 2: for what it's worth, I think Kim Beasley would have
Speaker 2: been a pretty good prime minister, arguably better than the
Speaker 2: people who did succeed him and go on to be
Speaker 2: prime minister.
Speaker 3: You'll never be accused of being a shrinking violent in
Speaker 3: politics and probably in life for that matter. Once you
Speaker 3: famously shirt fronted them and it was over, you know,
Speaker 3: the plane going down, and I actually I loved it,
Speaker 3: to be frankly, I thought it was fantastic. But not
Speaker 3: everybody likes that sort of stuff. And I just want
Speaker 3: to ask you about the Australian mindset, the psyche of Australians.
Speaker 3: Why wouldn't someone like for example, do well in Australia.
Speaker 3: Have we inherited some Anglo Irish thing about people being
Speaker 3: too tough or is it a tall poppy syndrome thing? Well,
Speaker 3: what is it that you know Trump will sent up
Speaker 3: to everybody used it up? I'm not sure whether people
Speaker 3: actually in Australia really like that. What do you think
Speaker 3: about that?
Speaker 2: Look, our system is different from the American system, and
Speaker 2: to become a national leader in Australia, you've got to
Speaker 2: be able to secure a parliamentary majority, which means that
Speaker 2: you've got to have a degree of respect and perhaps
Speaker 2: some level of affection from your peers, yours, your political peers,
Speaker 2: your fellow members of parliament in your particular party. The
Speaker 2: American system is quite different because the party structures a
Speaker 2: much looser. Party discipline is not nearly as tight. The
Speaker 2: primary system means that charismatic individuals can emerge from nowhere.
Speaker 2: I mean, Donald Trump had never held elective office when
Speaker 2: he ran for the Republican nomination. He'd actually been a
Speaker 2: Democrat as well as a Republican, as well as neither.
Speaker 2: Over the years, he'd created I suppose some kind of
Speaker 2: a profile via reality TV, and I guess the fact
Speaker 2: that he was a billionaire who was often in the media,
Speaker 2: at least in New York, gave him a certain cachet.
Speaker 2: But I don't think someone like Donald Trump could emerge
Speaker 2: in Australia. I think the most that someone like Donald
Speaker 2: Trump could do in Australia would be who perhaps elbow
Speaker 2: his way into the Senate, where if you can get
Speaker 2: a quota, which is about I think twelve percent of
Speaker 2: the vote or fourteen percent of the vote, you're there
Speaker 2: as a senator. But I don't think a Trump like
Speaker 2: figure could readily emerge in Australia.
Speaker 3: Do you think Australians because I mean, I'm not sure,
Speaker 3: but I think I feel as though Trump did not
Speaker 3: help Peter Dutton in the last election.
Speaker 2: Well, it's interesting that Anthony Albanesi is now best mates
Speaker 2: with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: That might worked against.
Speaker 2: Because during the election the Labor Party tried to smear
Speaker 2: Dutton via association with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Now you probably didn't even know him.
Speaker 2: Well, Look, I'd be very confident that Peter Dutton didn't
Speaker 2: know Trump certainly. And our country is different. I mean, yes,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of commonalities between Australia and the
Speaker 2: United States. I do think that the English speaking countries
Speaker 2: are in a sense family. But your brother and your
Speaker 2: sister can be quite different from you, even if there
Speaker 2: are some things you've got in common. So look, America
Speaker 2: is a great country. Americans are great people. Their political
Speaker 2: system is quite different from ours. Their political psyche, I think,
Speaker 2: is quite different from ours. And Trump plays better in
Speaker 2: the United States than he does anywhere else. But this
Speaker 2: is not uncommon. I mean, I can remember George W.
Speaker 2: Bush didn't play very well in Australia, whereas Tony Blair,
Speaker 2: and they were both I suppose very frequently in our
Speaker 2: media at the time of the Iraq War. Personally, I
Speaker 2: thought Tony Blair was a vastly better advocate for the
Speaker 2: policies that Britain, Australia and America were pursuing at that
Speaker 2: time than George W. Bush was. And that's not because
Speaker 2: George W. Bush was a lesser man. I just think
Speaker 2: that American style sometimes doesn't translate very well to other countries.
Speaker 3: So it would not be advisable for any Australians who
Speaker 3: are ambitious and aspiring to be perhaps the leader the
Speaker 3: leader party in this country to run that type of politics.
Speaker 2: Well, I think if you're in Australia would be Australian leader.
Speaker 2: On the left, Bob Hawk should be your exemplar, and
Speaker 2: on the right, John Howard should be your exemplar.
Speaker 3: It's very interesting. So I want to talk about your book.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm dying to know why you wrote a book.
Speaker 1: I mean it's.
Speaker 3: You're not doing it for the money, because I know
Speaker 3: there won't be any money in it. I've written books.
Speaker 3: There's any money in.
Speaker 1: Books and there, and they take a long time to
Speaker 1: do that. It's a mission, it's a massive mission. How
Speaker 1: long it take you write for a start?
Speaker 2: Look, I think I was from start to finish. It
Speaker 2: would have been probably three and a half, maybe even
Speaker 2: four years. I mean it all started when John Roscombe,
Speaker 2: the then head of the Institute of Public Affairs, with
Speaker 2: whom I was doing an occasional podcast, We were talking
Speaker 2: about I guess what ailed our country, and we mutually
Speaker 2: decided that not enough people were sufficiently familiar with our history,
Speaker 2: and those that were tended to see it all in
Speaker 2: black armband terms of dispossession, even genocide against original people,
Speaker 2: and I guess. I then decided that I could put
Speaker 2: together a general history of the country, a more upbeat
Speaker 2: general history of the country, and John very kindly offered
Speaker 2: to give me some research assistance. So work started three
Speaker 2: and a half four years ago. Eventually I had what
Speaker 2: I thought was a good draft. I suggested to Paul
Speaker 2: Whittaker that maybe HarperCollins might like to publish. HarperCollins eventually agreed,
Speaker 2: and they had various queries suggestions, which involved a lot
Speaker 2: of rewriting. If you like, revising, adding, subtracting, and so on.
Speaker 2: So I know, if I'm writing a speech, for instance,
Speaker 2: sometimes it'll flow very easily, and the first draft is
Speaker 2: pretty much the final draft but sometimes I'll write it
Speaker 2: and I'll rewrite it, and I'll rewrite it again, and
Speaker 2: it might go through three or four major iterations. This one,
Speaker 2: this book, I have read it so many times, and
Speaker 2: every time I read it, I would change something because
Speaker 2: I was thinking to myself, do I really need that fact?
Speaker 2: Should I include this fact? Is that the right way
Speaker 2: to look at this? Maybe I need to be more
Speaker 2: generous about that. So yeah, in the end, these things,
Speaker 2: the facts are sacred, and you've got to try to
Speaker 2: ensure that all the important facts are there and are
Speaker 2: accurately presented. Then of course there's I suppose your interpretations,
Speaker 2: and I guess it is in a sense part of
Speaker 2: the subjective process deciding which facts are relevant and which
Speaker 2: ones aren't. But facts are so important. And this was
Speaker 2: the first book I've done which was if you like
Speaker 2: a study as opposed to a piece of advocacy, I mean,
Speaker 2: if if what you are doing is putting forward an argument,
Speaker 2: you can often write it out of your own head,
Speaker 2: particularly if it's an argument that you've been making for
Speaker 2: a long time. But if it's if it's going to
Speaker 2: be a credible study, you've got to do a lot
Speaker 2: of research or get a lot of research done.
Speaker 3: So you see, you're you're I think what you're saying, though,
Speaker 3: correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: It wasn't you prosecuting any case.
Speaker 2: It was well except for the fact that I think
Speaker 2: the Australian story, on balance is a very good one.
Speaker 1: So did you discover that during the research or you
Speaker 1: already thought that?
Speaker 2: I have always I have always been that instinctively and
Speaker 2: based on my general knowledge of Australian history, I have
Speaker 2: always thought that our story was a good one, and
Speaker 2: I've always tended to arc up when people have suggested otherwise.
Speaker 2: And I thought, well, let's given the degree of ignorance,
Speaker 2: given the degree of what might be described as prejudice,
Speaker 2: I thought, let's tell the story. Let's tell the story again,
Speaker 2: more or less from the beginning right up to the
Speaker 2: present time. Let's try to be as objective as possible.
Speaker 2: Let's try to respect all the important facts, and let's
Speaker 2: see what they amount to to me. When you think
Speaker 2: that modern Australia began when fifteen hundred draggled souls were
Speaker 2: dumped not far from here, half a world away from
Speaker 2: their home, in a completely strange, unfamiliar, alien landscape within
Speaker 2: one hundred years, they had created colonies with the world's
Speaker 2: highest standard of living at the time. They had become
Speaker 2: democratic pioneers. Almost the first places where every man and
Speaker 2: then every woman and indeed people of all races had
Speaker 2: the vote was in Australia, Australian women absolutely in South
Speaker 2: Australia by the eighteen nineties, men, women and Aboriginal people
Speaker 2: they could all vote, they could all run for office.
Speaker 2: And there's almost nowhere in the world at the time
Speaker 2: where that was true.
Speaker 1: What do you put that down to in your research?
Speaker 2: There was a liberal humanity to modern Australia from the
Speaker 2: very start. I mean the British government instructed Governor Phillip
Speaker 2: to live in amity with the natives. And when Governor
Speaker 2: Phillip was speared at Manly Cove quite badly hurt at
Speaker 2: Manly Cove on the search for Benelong, instead of mounting
Speaker 2: a punitive rate and slaughtering all the Aboriginal people he
Speaker 2: could find, Philip put it down to a misunderstanding and
Speaker 2: Benelong eventually came back and continued to live with Philip
Speaker 2: at Government House and eventually went to England with Philip.
Speaker 2: When Philip went back in seventeen ninety two. So there
Speaker 2: was a liberal humanity about Australia from the very beginning.
Speaker 2: We should never forget that white men were hanged for
Speaker 2: the murder of black people after the Mile Creek Massacre
Speaker 2: as early as eighteen thirty eight. By the time the
Speaker 2: free settler started to come in very large numbers the
Speaker 2: eighteen twenties the eighteen thirties, Chartism was very much alive
Speaker 2: and well in England, and a lot of the free
Speaker 2: settlers were highly influenced by that. Henry Parks in particular,
Speaker 2: who became great statesman of nineteenth century New South Wales,
Speaker 2: he was a Chartist originally. So there was a strong
Speaker 2: instinct in colonial Australia for free institutions. Where Jack was
Speaker 2: as good as his master. We were a fundamentally, we
Speaker 2: were fundamentally liberal societies.
Speaker 3: Liberal you mean, you don't mean as a liberal party now,
Speaker 3: you mean liberal thinking.
Speaker 2: Liberal thinking, liberality if you like hu humanitarianism. Now, political
Speaker 2: liberalism developed slightly differently in Victoria and in New South Wales. Liberalism.
Speaker 2: Deacon liberalism in Victoria was statist liberalism. In order to
Speaker 2: better secure human flourishing, we need a big state, Parks
Speaker 2: Bart Parks read, liberalism in New South Wales was more
Speaker 2: small government liberalism. In order to secure human flourishing, we
Speaker 2: need government to stay in its lane and allow individuals
Speaker 2: the greatest possible freedom. So there were two strains, two
Speaker 2: strands of liberalism in colonial Australia, but nevertheless it was
Speaker 2: a fundamentally liberal project.
Speaker 3: So in terms of we're talking on modern history, obviously,
Speaker 3: how do you treat Indigenous Australia within the book?
Speaker 2: Well, I say constantly in the book that modern Australia
Speaker 2: rests on three pillars, an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation,
Speaker 2: and an immigrant character. And I think that's unarguable. I
Speaker 2: think these are simple facts that all must accept, how
Speaker 2: much emphasis they wish to place on them as of
Speaker 2: a question for people's individual judgments. But I think modern
Speaker 2: Australia's I guess mindset owes something to the fatalism, the
Speaker 2: laconic endurance of Aboriginal people. These days, it tends to
Speaker 2: be very much portrayed as the horrible colonists, oppressing, exploiting,
Speaker 2: and often enough killing the innocent Aboriginal people. That's a
Speaker 2: total caricature of what happened. Let's take very early modern
Speaker 2: Australia and its relationship with Aboriginal people. There was ben
Speaker 2: Along who exemplified the cooperation between the settlers and Aboriginal people,
Speaker 2: and then there was Pemlowi, who exemplified, if you like,
Speaker 2: the conflict between settlers and Aboriginal people. The interesting thing
Speaker 2: is that both Benelong and Pemelwe were respected and admired
Speaker 2: by the best of the settlers. Pemeilwe was a warrior,
Speaker 2: as was Benelong, but Pemilwe was a warrior who often
Speaker 2: engaged in acts of violence against the settlers, for which
Speaker 2: ultimately he was killed, but he was well respected. I
Speaker 2: mean Governor King, who was the governor at the time
Speaker 2: Pelwey was killed, said he was a stout fellow who
Speaker 2: fought for his people. And as we as our history
Speaker 2: develops and the great partial expansion takes place beyond the
Speaker 2: Blue Mountains. Obviously on the frontiers there was tremendous conflict,
Speaker 2: the mild Creek massacre simply being the best known instance
Speaker 2: of a terrible conflict. But at the same time there
Speaker 2: was also great cooperation. I mean, none of the explorers
Speaker 2: would have got to where they got without Aboriginal guides.
Speaker 2: None of the pastoralists would have been able to flourish
Speaker 2: without Aboriginal stockmen and shepherds and so on. So this
Speaker 2: idea that the history of Australia is of bloody conflict
Speaker 2: between white and black, it's simply not true. There was
Speaker 2: at least as much cooperation as there was conflict, and
Speaker 2: at all times official Australia was determined to do the
Speaker 2: right thing towards the Aboriginal people that every stressed were
Speaker 2: as much British subjects as the white settlers were.
Speaker 3: Do you think Australians, once I read your book should
Speaker 3: be or maybe I'll put it another way, do you
Speaker 3: think you're much proud of being Australia, being an Australian
Speaker 3: as a result of writing a book.
Speaker 2: Well, I think I had a strong sense of the
Speaker 2: history already. In the course of writing the book, that
Speaker 2: I was reminded of things that I'd forgotten, and I
Speaker 2: discovered things that I didn't know. But I believe that
Speaker 2: I had a strong sense of a history anyway, and
Speaker 2: I certainly had a great pride in our country anyway.
Speaker 4: Anything surprising, Well, figures who you hardly heard of suddenly
Speaker 4: leap out of the page when you go into their
Speaker 4: lives more deeply.
Speaker 2: I mean, one person who I think should be better
Speaker 2: known to contemporary Australians is John Plankett, who was the
Speaker 2: first Attorney General of New South Wales. It was Plunkett
Speaker 2: who insisted that the Mile Creek massacre perpetrators be put
Speaker 2: on trial, and when the first jury refused to convict,
Speaker 2: it was Plunkett who brought fresh charges against a slightly
Speaker 2: lesser number of perpetrators and persuaded a couple of the
Speaker 2: perpetrators to turn queen's evidence, and with another judge who
Speaker 2: said it the second trial's close that this was an atrocity,
Speaker 2: crying out to Heaven for justice. The second jury did
Speaker 2: convict and seven of the perpetrators were subsequently hanged, which
Speaker 2: was justice according to law in those days. Now, Plunkett
Speaker 2: was an Irish Catholic with a strong sense of justice,
Speaker 2: a strong sense of the universality of rights, and he
Speaker 2: did a lot to try to ensure that the law
Speaker 2: was and just fair, but was fairly applied in the colony.
Speaker 2: And I think that he's a fragrant individual who deserves
Speaker 2: to be much better remembered than he is.
Speaker 3: You just talked about some pretty important words there, fairness, justice,
Speaker 3: just to pick two. And you mentioned Irish Catholic, and
Speaker 3: you know you're it's well known that you're a man
Speaker 3: of faith and that you are and faith is really
Speaker 3: important to you.
Speaker 2: Don't put me on any pedestal of virtue, please.
Speaker 3: But I'm not going to put you on a virtuous
Speaker 3: And by the way, you know a lot of people
Speaker 3: of people of faith, that's the last place I should
Speaker 3: be put because sometimes they struggle, you know, with humanity
Speaker 3: and faith and everything else. And one of the things
Speaker 3: I've always wanted to ask someone like you, if you
Speaker 3: don't mind me asking you, is how does somebody who
Speaker 3: has a strong belief in their faith and probably turns
Speaker 3: to their faith often and has been brought up in
Speaker 3: that environment, how does something like you reconcile belief with
Speaker 3: You're also many history with facts? How do you reconcile
Speaker 3: those things?
Speaker 1: You know? Do I believe in God?
Speaker 3: But at the same time, I'm quite practical. I'm now
Speaker 3: a person of history and I'm watching the facts and
Speaker 3: I'm writing about the facts about the way things happened.
Speaker 1: You know, how do you reconcile those two things?
Speaker 2: Well? Maybe I haven't thought deeply enough about it, Mark,
Speaker 2: But I've got to say that I've never had a
Speaker 2: particular problem. I think I guess the thing that most
Speaker 2: perplexes people are most frequently perplexes people is the problem
Speaker 2: of evil. How does a good God allow evil things
Speaker 2: to have?
Speaker 1: For example?
Speaker 2: And I've always accepted that God gave human beings agency,
Speaker 2: and often enough flawed agency values. Yeah, flawed infallible human
Speaker 2: beings will make bad choices, sometimes downright evil choices. And look,
Speaker 2: he created a natural world where I suppose nature does
Speaker 2: things which hurt people, storms, floods, et cetera. But again,
Speaker 2: this is the natural world that God created, and we
Speaker 2: are in this natural world to make the best of things,
Speaker 2: to make the most of things. And it's how we
Speaker 2: handle the challenges that we face in our lives, which
Speaker 2: I guess is the measure of us. And hopefully we'll
Speaker 2: measure up and one day Saint Peter will welcome us
Speaker 2: through the pearly gates.
Speaker 3: Is well, because I often think about someone like Albert Einstein,
Speaker 3: who was a Jewish by faith and obviously lived by
Speaker 3: that faith, but at the same time, you know, he
Speaker 3: was pining on relativity and all sorts of formulas like
Speaker 3: equals M three squared working out you know he didn't
Speaker 3: quite get to this point, But did you know his
Speaker 3: stuff led to sub atomic particles, and all of us
Speaker 3: are made up of these little bits and pieces that
Speaker 3: we can't even see or even contemplate.
Speaker 2: But knowing do you think knowing more? Knowing more? I
Speaker 2: think just adds to the sense.
Speaker 1: Of war and wonder where did it start?
Speaker 2: At, how at how it's all come about? And I
Speaker 2: guess I don't think something as incredible and as wonderful
Speaker 2: as the natural world, and indeed the human world in
Speaker 2: the units, happened by accident. I accept that at some
Speaker 2: point in time a good God created all of this
Speaker 2: and our challenges people who are in some way, and
Speaker 2: the image of likeness of God is to be our
Speaker 2: best selves, to come closer to being our best selves
Speaker 2: every day?
Speaker 1: Does Tony Abbott ever struggle with these things?
Speaker 3: Do you ever look at what's going on and say,
Speaker 3: place where people are in terrible conditions and dying, do
Speaker 3: you ever struggle with that?
Speaker 2: Well? I lament it, But the struggle is to make
Speaker 2: things better, not to despair. So I think the problem
Speaker 2: with the problem with atheism, as I understand it, is
Speaker 2: that it often leads people to despair, and despair can
Speaker 2: lead people to suicide. It can lead lead people to
Speaker 2: neglect of their fundamental responsibilities. And I mean, for instance,
Speaker 2: how many atheist hospitals are there, how many atheist schools
Speaker 2: are there. So much of the things that we value
Speaker 2: and take for granted the product of religious endeavor, or
Speaker 2: more broadly, the inspiration of religious faith. And I just
Speaker 2: think that's almost self.
Speaker 1: Evident making things better.
Speaker 3: Do you think that's one of the things that drove
Speaker 3: Tony Abbott to one day become or want to become
Speaker 3: the leader of this country.
Speaker 2: Look, the Jesuits back in my day had this, if
Speaker 2: you're like injunction to be a man for others. And
Speaker 2: while there are all sorts of different and valid ways
Speaker 2: of being a man for others, I always thought that
Speaker 2: for me, being a man for others was making a
Speaker 2: difference in as widespread a way as possible. And I
Speaker 2: guess that's what led me into journalism and politics.
Speaker 1: In your book it's called Australia.
Speaker 2: Australia a history can ask you about.
Speaker 1: A history, not the history.
Speaker 3: Was there some thought about which in definite article or
Speaker 3: definite article is going to put in front of the history,
Speaker 3: did you decide it should be a history? In other words,
Speaker 3: it's an objective and not subjective.
Speaker 2: Well, plainly, it is possible to put a different interpretation
Speaker 2: on the same facts. I mean, for instance, let's take
Speaker 2: fraguments sake the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
Speaker 2: American interpretation is that this was necessary to end the
Speaker 2: most destructive war in history. I suspect the Japanese interpretation
Speaker 2: is slightly different. Yes, although to the great credit of
Speaker 2: modern Japan.
Speaker 1: They have accepted or reconciled that, And I.
Speaker 2: Reconciled very much to the Americans, and have greatly embraced
Speaker 2: democracy and the rule of law and concepts of justice
Speaker 2: and freedom and so on. So it was, in the end,
Speaker 2: you're right, I thought a history was a better title
Speaker 2: than the history.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: I accept that others might see things differently, but I
Speaker 2: have tried to tell the story of Australia as objectively
Speaker 2: as I can. And the subtitle how an ancient Land
Speaker 2: Became a Great Democracy, I think is an indication of
Speaker 2: the fact that I, at at the very least want
Speaker 2: to see our story as a glass half full rather
Speaker 2: than a glass half empty.
Speaker 3: And do you think Tony Abbott today more mature past
Speaker 3: those periods in your life where you were a PM
Speaker 3: and an active politician is a much more humble person.
Speaker 3: It displays much more humility. Do you feel that about yourself?
Speaker 2: Well, Mark, I am a little reluctant to put tags
Speaker 2: on myself because.
Speaker 1: Well, how important is humility to you?
Speaker 2: Then? Well, humility is very important human quality, a very
Speaker 2: important human quality. And none of us like individuals who
Speaker 2: are full of themselves and who are self obsessed. And
Speaker 2: I would not want to claim to be free of
Speaker 2: the vice of self importance, but I certainly I dislike
Speaker 2: it in others, and if it's present in myself, I
Speaker 2: should try to get rid of it.
Speaker 3: Well, my sense is that it's not present in yourself
Speaker 3: in just in terms of this conversation. And I think
Speaker 3: as we get older, maybe only one of the few
Speaker 3: bet of us getting on is a wisdom sort of
Speaker 3: bestows a few of these things upon us, and we
Speaker 3: start to be able to reflect on ourselves a bit
Speaker 3: better than we ever did when we were younger.
Speaker 2: But I think I think some of us improve with
Speaker 2: age because we become wiser and perhaps more compassionate, perhaps
Speaker 2: more sensitive, others become more impatient, more difficult. Perhaps in
Speaker 2: some ways we can be both deeper and less patient
Speaker 2: at the same time. I know I'm less patient now
Speaker 2: that I was. I was probably never very patient.
Speaker 1: I'm the same. Are you still a member of the
Speaker 1: surf Club?
Speaker 2: I am still. I'm a life member of our surf club.
Speaker 2: I haven't done patrols for a couple of years. The
Speaker 2: pandemic and the fact that there were no patrols for
Speaker 2: ridiculous reasons in twenty twenty two kind of that was
Speaker 2: the end of my patrolling. But I'm still a very
Speaker 2: active member of the rural Fire Service. I'm now a
Speaker 2: member of two brigades, the Davidson Brigade, which I've been
Speaker 2: in for twenty five years or more, and in more
Speaker 2: recent times I've become a member of the North arm
Speaker 2: Cave Brigade up at Port Stevens.
Speaker 3: And famously you were, you know, the budget smugglers. Yeah,
Speaker 3: do you still get in your.
Speaker 1: Good man?
Speaker 3: And do you ever I said to you earlier about
Speaker 3: the shirt fronting of Putin. I think that was for
Speaker 3: me one of the great moments in Austry politics.
Speaker 1: Do you think we don't get enough of that today.
Speaker 2: Well, I wish I'd been able to do more than
Speaker 2: just shirt front Putin, because Putin he's done monstrous things,
Speaker 2: absolutely monstrous things. I mean, the initial invasion of Ukraine
Speaker 2: in twenty fourteen was was a horrible, horrible, active aggression,
Speaker 2: and what he's now embarked upon is effectively a campaign
Speaker 2: of extermination against the Ukrainian nation. And I just think
Speaker 2: that's evil, absolutely evil, and it must be resisted. And
Speaker 2: I wish we were doing more to help the Ukrainians.
Speaker 3: As an Australian. Yeah, me too, Well, Tony, it's been
Speaker 3: a great pleasure. I'm good luck with the book mate.
Speaker 3: I guess people can buy it on book Toby in
Speaker 3: all the usual places, all usual places.
Speaker 2: And there's a doco as well that they can get
Speaker 2: on the Sky website. They've got the foxtail app they
Speaker 2: can get it through that.
Speaker 1: The doco three part series, three part.
Speaker 2: Documentary is outstanding, wonderful.
Speaker 1: I've actually listened on the radio.
Speaker 3: You can listen on the radios because what happens, the
Speaker 3: Sky plays it and you can actually listen to it
Speaker 3: as well on radio.
Speaker 1: So I've been listening to it at night.
Speaker 2: But the pictures are worth watching too. I mean it's
Speaker 2: been it's beautifully done. Now the book, I take one
Speaker 2: hundred percent responsibility for the doco I presented, and the
Speaker 2: doco was inspired by the book and it is faithful
Speaker 2: to the book. But in the end the credit belongs
Speaker 2: to Sky and the producer Alex Garipoli, who did just
Speaker 2: the most wonderful job.
Speaker 1: Is there many illustrations in the book.
Speaker 2: The book's got I think sixteen pages or something of
Speaker 2: photographs and if you want to get a rough idea
Speaker 2: of where I'm going, flick through the photos because the
Speaker 2: captions and the little narrations the bottom of the photos
Speaker 2: helps to tell the story.
Speaker 1: Thanks for signing, Tony.
Speaker 3: So this is the book How an Ancient Land Became
Speaker 3: a Great Democracy Australia A history.
Speaker 1: I really love the cover actually, and.
Speaker 2: It's beautifully beautifully presented.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it really is something you should be proud of.
Speaker 3: Digital and audio book mate, I did in your voice.
Speaker 2: My voice. It was about twelve hours of Narrasian.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And it's quite hard, isn't it, Because you're sitting in
Speaker 3: there as a dude in a box with a soundprov box.
Speaker 2: Stating telling you no, you didn't get that right. You're mumbled,
Speaker 2: or I think you've mispronounced that word or something like that.
Speaker 1: The word you wrote.
Speaker 3: And what's interesting too, when I have found I did
Speaker 3: it like again? I wonder what you found is that
Speaker 3: when you were reading aloud what you had written for
Speaker 3: someone to read, did you think to yourself at any stage, Wow,
Speaker 3: maybe I could have changed it a little bit.
Speaker 2: Well, obviously, if you are writing for something to be read,
Speaker 2: that is often a bit different to writing for something
Speaker 2: to be spoken. Ye, And occasionally I thought this sentence
Speaker 2: is a bit too long. It should have been broken
Speaker 2: up for the purposes of the audio book. But I've
Speaker 2: got to say there were fewer moments than I thought
Speaker 2: there would be. When reading it out aloud, I felt
Speaker 2: that there was infelicity of one sort or other. I
Speaker 2: did come across one error, one a grageous error, which
Speaker 2: I like to think must have been the fault of
Speaker 2: the publisher as opposed to the author. But nevertheless, I've
Speaker 2: got to say that I think that it's come up
Speaker 2: wonderfully well. The publishers have done a great job. The
Speaker 2: cover is I think beautiful. Interestingly, Graham Edwards Peacock, the
Speaker 2: artist whose painting forms the cover exemplifies if you like
Speaker 2: the early Australian story. He was a lawyer in London
Speaker 2: who was sentenced to death for forgery. It was commuted
Speaker 2: to transportation for life. He gets to Port mcquarie because
Speaker 2: of his education. He's immediately given a ticket of leave
Speaker 2: and works in the administration of the penal settlement at
Speaker 2: Port mcquarie. He brings his family out to join him.
Speaker 2: He then gets a job as effectively a meteorologist at
Speaker 2: the south Head Weather Station and while there develops his
Speaker 2: skills as an artist, becomes one of our more notable
Speaker 2: early colonial artists. And his work, as I said, a
Speaker 2: dawns the cover. But he is typical of how people
Speaker 2: made the most of their second chants, made the most
Speaker 2: of the opportunities that life in Australia gave them.
Speaker 1: Thank God, because my mother's.
Speaker 3: One of my mother's family or mother's side, was on
Speaker 3: the series and they first as you know that, they
Speaker 3: first arrived in south Head and stopped at place called
Speaker 3: Camp Cove.
Speaker 2: And there's a plaque there marking the spot.
Speaker 3: And I live in the very first house ever building
Speaker 3: Camp Cove in ninety six and it was given to
Speaker 3: a Russian scientist because it was the first marine by
Speaker 3: logical station in the Southern Hemisphere. And I feel as
Speaker 3: though and the reason why I've always wanted to live
Speaker 3: there is because of my mother's side of the family
Speaker 3: first coming in on one of the ships.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a wonderful place to live. I occasionally have
Speaker 2: a cup of coffee at Camp Cave when I'm cycling
Speaker 2: around the Eastern Suburbs and it's a gorgeous spot.
Speaker 1: You're one of those guys.
Speaker 3: I can hear get in there early in the morning
Speaker 3: up the top there up the first place called green Point,
Speaker 3: and I can hear voices. I'm going to be looking
Speaker 3: out for we next so I'm going to come and say, hey, mate.
Speaker 2: Could possibly be there on Saturday morning.
Speaker 1: I might see turning of it. A great pleasure, mate
Speaker 2: Thank you make