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. A 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 au. 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 Cory'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.
Speaker 2: Speak things gloss.
Speaker 1: Not that one, because.
Speaker 2: He does it needs.
Speaker 1: 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: a departmental head. By the way, what are you going
Speaker 2: to do? And I said, well, I'm moving to the
Speaker 2: press gollery. Whereupon there was a you know, the sort
Speaker 2: of smiles disappeared from their face and there was an
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 1: Well, may we say, God save the Queen. A dramatic year. Indeed,
Speaker 1: was nothing well say with the Governor General.
Speaker 2: The paper supported the blocking of supply and supported Sir
Speaker 2: John kurse dismissal of the Whitlam government. I both opposed
Speaker 2: at the blocking of supply and wrote to that effect,
Speaker 2: and strenuously opposed Sir John Ker's dismissal of Whitlam's Prime Minister,
Speaker 2: and wrote to that effect that the paper not surprisingly
Speaker 2: felt that given the discrepancy between its position and my position,
Speaker 2: it was best if I had part of the post
Speaker 2: of political 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 the
Speaker 1: for 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 subsequently about the dismissal of the Whitlam government. It's
Speaker 2: been something that I've followed for a lot of my life.
Speaker 2: But No, I wasn't interested in kurs, drinking or anything
Speaker 2: like that. The judgments I made were the way he
Speaker 2: conducted himself as Governor General, his use of the constitutional
Speaker 2: powers he had. He had the power to dismiss the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister, there was no question about that. But he
Speaker 2: should not have dismissed the Prime minister. His obligation as
Speaker 2: Governor General was to advise an war. He dismissed Whitlam
Speaker 2: in an ambush, an ambush that the Crown would never
Speaker 2: have engaged in. So yes, So the judgment I made
Speaker 2: 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 for being in journalism,
Speaker 2: and that is to make your assessment and situation, to
Speaker 2: engage with the politicians gavern the facts. But then you're
Speaker 2: under an obligation to reach a conclusion which you think
Speaker 2: is the correct conclusion in terms of making assessments of
Speaker 2: the politicians. And this was the most important constitutional crisis
Speaker 2: in the history of the country. I had very firm
Speaker 2: views about it, partly formed by my period as a
Speaker 2: public servant, because when I was a public servant, we
Speaker 2: serve as government house. I used prepared the Executive Council
Speaker 2: documents for the Governor General, so I understood how the
Speaker 2: Governor General functioned and operated. I was well aware of
Speaker 2: the powers of the Crown, the powers of the Governor General,
Speaker 2: the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Governor General,
Speaker 2: the relationship between the Palace and the Governor General. And
Speaker 2: so I took this position. And that's what you do.
Speaker 2: And if you've got political journalists so unprepared at the
Speaker 2: end of the day to back their judgment, then they're
Speaker 2: 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 GoF was always playing at
Speaker 2: two games. He was the politician, but he was the actor.
Speaker 2: I remember bucking into him one day in King's Hall
Speaker 2: when he was very angry with the Secretary of the
Speaker 2: Treasury for Frederick Wheeler, and he said to me, now, comrade, comrade,
Speaker 2: I like your advice. I'd 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 rashly. And he said, do you think do you think?
Speaker 2: Do you think I'm a rash person? And so we
Speaker 2: had this extraordinary conversation, which was all a joke. Of course.
Speaker 2: That was sort of Goff's personality as the actor rather
Speaker 2: than the series politician. He fluctuated between the two The
Speaker 2: most extraordinary politician I dealt with was Rex Connor, who
Speaker 2: was the Minister for Minerals and Energy in the Whitlam government,
Speaker 2: who was the architect of the great Kam Laney Loane.
Speaker 2: I was very young. He took a shine to me
Speaker 2: and I used to go down and see him, and
Speaker 2: he locked the door so I couldn't get out, and
Speaker 2: we talked for about two or three hours, and eventually
Speaker 2: I'd say, mister Connor, look, it's been wonderful talking to you.
Speaker 2: I've really loved it. But I've got to leave. I've
Speaker 2: got to go upstairs and do some work. I've got
Speaker 2: a file for tomorrow'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 the deal
Speaker 1: when you subscribe. Every so often we hold a party
Speaker 1: for our readers with drinks, cannaps 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 the Australian
Speaker 1: dot com dot au. What's the cliche of a journo
Speaker 1: A bit disheveled, a bit beery, a bit smoky pie
Speaker 1: crumbs down the front of his tie. If you can't
Speaker 1: find him shouting questions at a politician, he's probably sinking
Speaker 1: beers at the pub. Now, that's not really a fair
Speaker 1: representation of journalism in twenty twenty four, but it was
Speaker 1: the real deal when Paul Kelly was first working in
Speaker 1: the Canberra Press Gallery.
Speaker 2: Look, when I started a political journalism, it was a
Speaker 2: dangerous and cutthroat business. It was incredibly competitive in the
Speaker 2: press Gallery was a much larger press gallery. It was
Speaker 2: a stronger media. The Press Gallery was a beast. It
Speaker 2: was like being in a Catholic seminary. Inasmuch as there
Speaker 2: are about one hundred and forty journalists and how many
Speaker 2: women two two Michelle n and Gay Davidson.
Speaker 1: Alcohol was all part of a gig.
Speaker 2: We all drank of a knight if Foster's was compulsory.
Speaker 2: If he went into Lorry Oak's office, he had a
Speaker 2: very large blue circular ash tray and at the end
Speaker 2: of the night, when Laurie left, there were about fifty
Speaker 2: or sixty cigarette butts in that ashtray. So that was
Speaker 2: Australia in the early nineteen seventies. People have no idea
Speaker 2: what sort of workplace it was because it was not
Speaker 2: subject to any industrial relations laws. We occupied the top
Speaker 2: floor of Parliament House. We had our own rules, we
Speaker 2: had our own operation, and there were very few politicians
Speaker 2: actually game enough to walk up that final flight of
Speaker 2: stairs to the press gallery. A few did, but a
Speaker 2: lot didn't they were too terrified. So we actually ran
Speaker 2: that press 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 of rigid
Speaker 1: newspaper deadlines, and the advent of dynamic twenty four to
Speaker 1: seven 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 and 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 of 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