Speaker 1: You can listen to the Front on your smart speaker
Speaker 1: every morning to hear the latest episode. Just say play
Speaker 1: the news from the Australian. From the Australian, here's what's
Speaker 1: on the Front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Monday, August nineteen.
Speaker 1: Patients are waiting nearly two years to access medicines even
Speaker 1: after they've been approved by medical regulators. The new report
Speaker 1: in The Australian reveals widespread delays in vital treatments getting
Speaker 1: on the shelves. That stories live now at the Australian
Speaker 1: dot com dot you. Today is the ultimate episode in
Speaker 1: a special series honoring The Australian's sixtieth anniversary. On today's episode,
Speaker 1: one of the country's most famous political journalists, The Australian's
Speaker 1: Editor at Large, Paul Kelly, telling us about the most
Speaker 1: important characteristic of a journalist, the courage to think for yourself.
Speaker 1: Paul Kelly is a legend thing speak things glove. Not
Speaker 1: that one because he does it. Not that one, this one.
Speaker 2: There's a conflict between economics and politics. This has been
Speaker 2: the Treasurer's dilemma.
Speaker 1: Just like the singer and the AFL superstar are Paul
Speaker 1: Kelly is one of the greats. He started at The
Speaker 1: Australian in nineteen seventy one, when our paper was just
Speaker 1: seven years old. Paul was a public servant who decided,
Speaker 1: quite rightly, political journalism was a lot more interesting than
Speaker 1: being a bureaucrat. His bosses at the Department of Prime
Speaker 1: Minister and Cabinet couldn't believe it.
Speaker 2: They were asking me, well, Paul, I mean, what on
Speaker 2: earth are you doing. You've got a wonderful career ahead
Speaker 2: of you and the public service if you really know,
Speaker 2: concentrate for the next forty years you might end up
Speaker 2: at departmental head. And by the way, what are you
Speaker 2: going to do? And I said, well, I'm moving to
Speaker 2: the press gollery. Whereupon there was a you know, the
Speaker 2: sort of smiles disappeared from their face and there was
Speaker 2: an awareness this could be a problem for them.
Speaker 1: That's Paul speaking at a live gathering to mark The
Speaker 1: Australian's sixtieth anniversary. He started out as the most junior
Speaker 1: reporter in a bureau of nine, but Paul had a
Speaker 1: stunning rise. Within four years, this rookie had been promoted
Speaker 1: to political correspondent.
Speaker 2: So I had a departure from The Australian in nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy five, which was a very dramatic year of Australian politics.
Speaker 2: We had the constitutional crisis. I was the political correspondent
Speaker 2: at the time and I had a bad falling out
Speaker 2: at the paper. Well, may we say, God say the Queen.
Speaker 1: A dramatic year indeed well not.
Speaker 2: Being well say with the Governor General. The paper supported
Speaker 2: the blocking of supply and supported Sir John kerse dismissal
Speaker 2: of the Whitlam government. I both opposed at the blocking
Speaker 2: of supply and wrote to that effect, and strenuously opposed
Speaker 2: Sir John Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam's Prime Minister, and wrote
Speaker 2: to that effect that the paper not surprisingly felt that
Speaker 2: given the discrepancy between its position and my position, it
Speaker 2: was best if I had part of the post of
Speaker 2: critical correspondent, which I did, which I did.
Speaker 1: Governor General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional power to
Speaker 1: dismiss the government and call a double dissolution election, which
Speaker 1: was won by Malcolm Fraser. The Australian had endorsed Whitlam
Speaker 1: when he was elected in nineteen seventy two, but the
Speaker 1: paper took an editorial line supporting the dismissal and endorsing
Speaker 1: Malcolm Fraser's election in nineteen seventy five. Was part of
Speaker 1: your decision making informed by who John Kerr was, that
Speaker 1: he was sort of getting drunk at the races and
Speaker 1: that he was very unorthodox Or was it about for
Speaker 1: you about the constitution?
Speaker 2: No, I wasn't interested in his personal life. I mean
Speaker 2: I learned a lot about it because I wrote four
Speaker 2: book books subsequently about the dismissal of the Whitlam government.
Speaker 2: It's been something that I've followed for a lot of
Speaker 2: my life. But No, I wasn't interested in kurs, drinking
Speaker 2: or anything like that. The judgments I made were the
Speaker 2: way he conducted himself as Governor General, his use of
Speaker 2: the constitutional powers he had. He had the power to
Speaker 2: dismiss the Prime Minister, there was no question about that.
Speaker 2: But he should not have dismissed the Prime minister. His
Speaker 2: obligation as Governor General was to advise an warn He
Speaker 2: dismissed Whitlam in an ambush, an ambush that the Crown
Speaker 2: would never have engaged in. So yes, So the judgment
Speaker 2: I made was about the way he conducted his constitutional responsibilities.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's easier to just go along with the company line,
Speaker 1: especially when you're young and in a job you're very
Speaker 1: much enjoying.
Speaker 2: There's only one rationale. There's only one, isn't it for
Speaker 2: being in journalism, and that is to make your assessment
Speaker 2: of situation, to engage with the politicians, gather the facts.
Speaker 2: But then you're under an obligation to reach a conclusion
Speaker 2: which you think is the correct conclusion in terms of
Speaker 2: making assessments of the politicians. And this was the most
Speaker 2: important constitutional crisis in the history of the country. I
Speaker 2: had very firm views about it, partly formed by my
Speaker 2: period as a public servant, because when I was a
Speaker 2: public servant, we serve as government house. I used prepared
Speaker 2: the Executive Council documents for the Governor General, so I
Speaker 2: understood how the Governor General functioned and operated. I was
Speaker 2: well aware of the powers of the Crown, the powers
Speaker 2: of the Governor General, the relationship between the Prime Minister
Speaker 2: and the Governor General, the relationship between the Palace and
Speaker 2: the Governor General. And so I took this position. And
Speaker 2: that's what you do. And if you've got political journalists
Speaker 2: who aren't prepared at the end of the day to
Speaker 2: back their judgment, then they're not worth a bumper.
Speaker 1: By the mid eighties, Paul came back as National Affairs editor.
Speaker 1: He covered all the big characters.
Speaker 2: Golf was wonderful. The point about Golf was Golf was
Speaker 2: a politician, but he was an actor. See if GoF
Speaker 2: hadn't gone into politics, he would have gone onto the stage.
Speaker 2: He would have made a brilliant actor all through the
Speaker 2: English speaking world. And so Goff was always playing at
Speaker 2: two games. He was the politician, but he was the actor.
Speaker 2: I remember bumping into him one day in King's Hall
Speaker 2: when he was very angry with the Secretary of the
Speaker 2: Treasury for Frederic Wheeler, and he said to me, now, comrade, comrade,
Speaker 2: I like your advice. I like your advice. Do you
Speaker 2: think I should sack that bastard Wheeler? And I said, oh, GoF,
Speaker 2: you know, it would be most unlike you to act
Speaker 2: so rationally. And he said, do you think do you
Speaker 2: think do you think I'm a rash person? And so
Speaker 2: we had this extraordinary conversation, which was all a joke.
Speaker 2: Of course. That was sort of Goff's personality as the
Speaker 2: actor rather than the series politician. He fluctuated between the
Speaker 2: two The most extraordinary politician I dealt with was Rex Connor,
Speaker 2: who was the Minister for Minerals and Energy in the
Speaker 2: Whitlam government, who was the architect of the great Kam
Speaker 2: Laney Loane. I was very young. He took a shine
Speaker 2: to me and I used to go down and see him,
Speaker 2: and he locked the door so I couldn't get out,
Speaker 2: and we talked for about two or three hours, and
Speaker 2: eventually I'd say, mister Connor, look, it's been wonderful talking
Speaker 2: to you. I've really loved it. But I've got to leave.
Speaker 2: I've got to go upstairs and do some work. I've
Speaker 2: got a file for the Morrow's Paper.
Speaker 1: Was his nickname Buckets.
Speaker 2: His nickname was the Strangler.
Speaker 1: In the nineteen nineties, Paul became editor in chief.
Speaker 2: I've been through two fundamental technological revolutions in journalism. Before
Speaker 2: these revolutions, we were told, we were briefed about how
Speaker 2: it would work out, what the consequences would be. All
Speaker 2: the briefs were completely wrong. It's almost impossible when you
Speaker 2: get big technological changes at the start before the change,
Speaker 2: for people to accurately assess what it's going to be.
Speaker 1: This chat with Paul was recorded at a recent life
Speaker 1: gathering of The Australians subscribers. It's part of a deal
Speaker 1: when you subscribe. Every so often we hold a party
Speaker 1: for our readers with drinks, cannopis and some great insights
Speaker 1: into journalism, plus a chance to meet the country's most
Speaker 1: experienced and respected journalists. Check us out at Theaustralian dot
Speaker 1: com dot au. What's the cliche of a journo A
Speaker 1: bit disheveled, a bit beery, a bit smoky pie crumbs
Speaker 1: down the front of his tie. If you can't find
Speaker 1: him shouting questions at a politician, he's probably sinking beers
Speaker 1: at the pub. Now, that's not really a fair representation
Speaker 1: of journalism in twenty twenty four, but it was the
Speaker 1: real deal when Paul Kelly was first working in the
Speaker 1: Canberra Press Gallery.
Speaker 2: Look, when I started political journalism, it was a dangerous
Speaker 2: and cutthroat business. It was incredibly competitive in the press
Speaker 2: Gallery was a much larger press gallery. It was a
Speaker 2: stronger media. The Press Gallery was a beast. It was
Speaker 2: like being in a Catholic seminary. Inasmuch as there are
Speaker 2: about one hundred and forty journalists and how many women
Speaker 2: two two Michelle Nan Gay Davidson.
Speaker 1: Alcohol was all part of a gig.
Speaker 2: We all drank of a knife. Foster's was compulsory. If
Speaker 2: you went into Lorry Oak's office, he had a very
Speaker 2: large blue circular ash tray and at the end of
Speaker 2: the night, when Laurie left, there were about fifty or
Speaker 2: sixty cigarette butts in that ashtray. So that was Australia
Speaker 2: in the early nineteen seventies. People have no idea what
Speaker 2: sort of workplace it was because it was not subject
Speaker 2: to any industrial relations laws. We occupied the top floor
Speaker 2: of Parliament House. We had our own rules, we had
Speaker 2: our own operation, and there were very few politicians actually
Speaker 2: game enough to walk up that final flight of stairs
Speaker 2: to the press gallery. A few did, but a lot didn't.
Speaker 2: They were two terrified. So we actually run that press
Speaker 2: gallery according to our own rules.
Speaker 1: Things are of course a bit different today. Every industry
Speaker 1: in Australia has changed and grown. In journalism, we've seen
Speaker 1: the demise of the office bar fridge and rigid newspaper
Speaker 1: deadlines and the advent of dynamic twenty four to seven
Speaker 1: publishing on app, web, video and right here in audio.
Speaker 1: We've seen our journalism aggregated and commodified by giant tech platforms.
Speaker 1: And now we're dealing with the rise of generative artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence and what that will mean for our beloved craft.
Speaker 2: The skill in art of journalism is eternal, so the
Speaker 2: method will remain. And what's the method, Well, the method
Speaker 2: is engagement with people, engagement with institutions, attempting to find
Speaker 2: out what's happening, reporting analysis, so that will continue. What
Speaker 2: will change is the transmission mechanism. How will the copy
Speaker 2: be delivered to the individual. So that's where we'll see
Speaker 2: more and more changes. And of course the method of
Speaker 2: delivery and the transmission will put pressure on journalism. There's
Speaker 2: absolutely no doubt about that. I mean, we are now
Speaker 2: moving into video big time, so again there's going to
Speaker 2: be all sorts of innovations that we see. The way
Speaker 2: to think about it, and this is optimistic, I know,
Speaker 2: but the way to think about it is that the
Speaker 2: journalistic skill and art stays. The journalists are going to
Speaker 2: be required to learn more, think more about how they
Speaker 2: deliver copy, about how they deliver the information about words
Speaker 2: as well as video. But I think that transmission will
Speaker 2: continue to see a lot of changes.
Speaker 1: Any old journals are resistant to change. They bang on
Speaker 1: about how things were much better in the good old days.
Speaker 1: Paul isn't like that, no.
Speaker 2: I think one of the points about journalism is that
Speaker 2: you're on the cutting edge, have changed the entire time.
Speaker 2: All the time, you are dealing with the big issues,
Speaker 2: but it's a changing agenda. So I think journalists, in
Speaker 2: terms of the way they think, in terms of their culture,
Speaker 2: they're alert to that. I mean, if you've got someone
Speaker 2: in journalism and they can't stand change, well they're not
Speaker 2: going to be much good.
Speaker 1: You can read all Paul Kelly's journalism and the rest
Speaker 1: of the nation's best news, business, sport and commentary right
Speaker 1: now at the Australian dot com dot au