#211 Former Prime Minister John Howard on Australia’s Future, Political Rivals & Immigration Policies

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
John Howard, welcome to straight Talk.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Thank you. I am very happy to be with you.
I won't use that sort of you know, the riga
good to be with you expression when people are interviewed
on TV these days.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
It's actually it's a great privilege actually to be honest
here for me to sit here, and I'm not trying to,
you know, do the usual thing. I'm sure everybody says
that to you, but you know, someone who's been around
a long time, in my case and your case too,
I remember you back in the treasurer days, and a
long time ago it was, and it was I was
in my twenties, early twenties, and I remember you one time.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
You're a young treasurer, you.

Speaker 3 (00:45):
Hosting something for the Australia, for the Tax Institute of
Australia or something like that. I got to be right,
and I was a member and it was held at
the Hilton Hotel and you you were like all it.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Was Friday and Business Review. I didn't you didn't like
the tax system because of made your pay tax? Yes,
totally yeah, And I thought Kerry Packer got taxed right
when he said that. You know, you don't queue up
to donate extra.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yeah, correct, and to some extent in his following comment
was and I don't think you use it very well
or you spend it very well, or something along those lines.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
They collect, he said, you have to have.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
And you're not doing such a great job.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
That's what it was.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
They're queuing up to donate extra.

Speaker 3 (01:25):
And I have to tell you you look great for
someone of your vintage.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
Are you still walking?

Speaker 2 (01:31):
I still walk and everything. I'm lucky got reasonably good genes. Yeah,
I'm still perpendicular. That helps better than the alternative.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
Absolutely end you and you probably were how old in
now eighty five or ready six?

Speaker 2 (01:49):
Sick? I turned eighty six in July. Wow, well I
just had lunch with somebody who was close to ten
years older than that.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
Wow, that's well. And I presume still and he was.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
As sharp as attack. So give me a goal. My
wife said to me that there are what three former
prime ministers who reached ninety or more, So your immediate
goal is to make that four. So I think that's
a reasonable goal. It's only four years off, but four
years at the age of eighty six, it's quite an eternity.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
And you're very sharp still. Oh you feel good?

Speaker 2 (02:31):
A lot of people, fifty percent of the population never
thought I was a loose bit sharp.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
Well, of course they didn't vote for you, but they
were never going to vote for you anyone you're respected.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
Do you mind if I just asked you this? See
where did you grow up?

Speaker 2 (02:45):
I grew up in the suburb of Ullwood, which is
near Camps in Canterbury, and I attended Elward Public School
and Canterbury Boys High School. And I lived in Irwood
until I married and I was thirty one or something.

Speaker 1 (03:03):
And your parents my mother and father.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
My father was born in a place called Cowper on
the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales, and he
was apprenticed as a fitter and turner at the see
As Sugar Mill in Harward Island and he left that
at the age of nineteen to go and fight in
World War One. He volunteered for service and he was

(03:30):
gassed in Belgium and he recovered but affected him and
he when he came back, he established a garage business
near Dulichill Station.

Speaker 1 (03:40):
You mean like petrol station, pedal station, they call it
a garage.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
He actually he was a.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
Qualified motor mechanics, so he fixed cars and in those days,
private car private entrepreneurs provided certifications when you wanted to
register your car, so it was a case of being
It was nationalized by I don't know who. I always

(04:08):
thought that was a sort of an unnecessary regression. But anyway,
Dad did that, and my very first job was serving
petrol that dad's garage, and he had what was called
a multiple service. He had He had a shell pump
and a mobile gas pump and csr ampole plump, different Atlantic,

(04:38):
different ones. And then later on he signed up with
one of your companies. But it was a different business there.
And I enjoyed working at a garage. I did a lot.
I enjoyed a lot. I was paid what I described
as son's rates.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
That can't be good.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
No, no, they the Industrial Relations Commission would have gone
berserk about them, but I didn't. I thought it was
a great privilege to do it.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
And your and your mom did she work or she?

Speaker 2 (05:10):
No?

Speaker 1 (05:10):
No, mom was that time.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
I was the youngest of four boys in the family
and Mum was a what is now called a full
time homemaker. She worked out and she was a wonderful woman.
Both my parents were My father died only sixteen and
my mum lived to the age of about eighty and

(05:32):
they were great parents, and they were sort of fiercely patriotic,
pro monarchist, conservative voting people that he ever voted differently
on one occasion from each other. That is, in the
referendum in nineteen fifty one to abolish the Communist Party,

(05:55):
my father voted yes, which was what Menzies wed. He's
in the prime minister. My mother vo didn't know. She
just sort of thought that you didn't ban anything, and well,
it didn't ban any opinions.

Speaker 3 (06:09):
Because most people would not know how serious the view
on the Communist Party was in period one.

Speaker 2 (06:18):
You've got to understand in nineteen fifty one, the world
was well into the Cold War. It had only been
less than two years since mountsa Toong took over in China.
And when you think of them threat that China and

(06:39):
our posers and the preoccupation of the world would China's power,
particularly in our region, and the Korean War, which involved
communists North Korea invading the South and also involved China
entering the war when the Allied forces large but not

(06:59):
only Aecans had driven north to the border between North
Korea and China and the Yalu River. It was pretty
hecked and a lot of people thought at the time,
and I was only about twelve, and I thought, Jesus
will get carried, and Mum and Dad just disagreed. They didn't.

(07:21):
I remember them had a bit of a what I
would call a lively discussion about it on the kitchen
table one night, and my mother made it very clear
that she would make up her own mind. Not that
my father was trying to convince. He was just putting
his point of view and he said okay, and that
was that.

Speaker 1 (07:38):
So you went to University of Sydney I think it was,
and you did a law degree.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
I did a straight law degree. In those days. You
didn't have to do an arts or economics degree you
could do beforehand. You could do it, Laura as a graduate. Yeah,
just like it was just like a single degree. Four
years and I got an LLB from Sydney University and
I was articled after the first two years. And I

(08:07):
was articled to a wonderful man, Maya Rosenbloom, who played
rugby for Australia and his son Rupert played rugby for
Rupert I'm thinking of Yes, he was one of the
most remarkable people I met. He was Polly math is
probably not the right description, but he was a great solicitor,

(08:28):
a good business head, could speak several languages, and he
held the state hammer throw record and represented Australia at
what was then known as the Empire Games Hurdles. And
on top of all of that, he was a good lawyer.
And I learned a lot from him.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
And how is though a young man goes from a
family growing up in a wood, going to Canterbury Boys
High and then you know working class area parents are
why did you become a sect?

Speaker 2 (09:02):
Would call Allward was what you would call a lower
middle class area. How I best describe it would be
in a good year, the Liberal Party would poll fifty
two percent at the local public school. In a bad
year we'd poll forty seven or forty eight. So it
was pretty even. It wasn't strong labor, but it certainly

(09:24):
wasn't a blue ribbon area. And I moves a nice suburban.
I was very happy living there because I.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Grew up in the punch bowl.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
The Canberra, well, the punch Bowl would be more labor more.

Speaker 3 (09:37):
And it was one of the juraks I can't remember
which Durak was like the members and it was part
of the Stuart family.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
Correct, the Stuarts of Canterbury yep, like the Kennedys of
Canterbury is a.

Speaker 1 (09:48):
Very strong Catholic family, a.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
Very strong and very strong rugby league. Yeah, because the
father of Frank and Kevin was the president of the
Canterbury banks Down Rugby League for many years and launched
O Covings. And it was the pattern of those days
more so than now. If you were if you saw

(10:14):
yourself as working class, you followed rugby league. And it's
true that until probably the nineteen nineties eighty nineties, the
overwhelming majority of Catholics in Australia voted Labor, not for
any doc trial reason. It was just that they did.

(10:35):
They were so they were socioeconomic reasons. They were less
well off than many others and they identified more immediately
because of that with the Labor Party. But that changed
the big changed, big time during the period that I
was in Parliament.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
We did your brothers. So you've got four.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
I had three older brothers, the oldest two of them
are now deceased. The next oldest one who is eighty nine,
maybe eighty nine, and go you a good thing, Go
you good thing? You want him to keeping good thing? Yeah, labor,
but he's good. It doesn't matter. We're good friends. He
good Blackball. We get together regularly and chat about politics,

(11:18):
and he lives in like art. We go around to
the local coffee shop and solve the problems.

Speaker 1 (11:28):
Of the world.

Speaker 3 (11:28):
Do you think though it was an unusual thing, because
I know it was an unusual thing in where I
grew up for a young person in those environments. But
would punch bowl wherever to end up in a law school,
like you know, for me, I actually want to become
a brick layer, but my mother drave me to the university.
It wasn't a thing in where I grew up like
the other kids weren't doing it. Nobody else seemed to

(11:50):
be doing going to university to become a professional. Why
did you decide you want to go and become a
lawyer or is it just because you matriculated a lot of.

Speaker 2 (12:00):
I mean, Canterbury Boys High School was a selective high
sto for that area, for the Canterbury Banks Down Saint
George area, along with Sydney Tech. Sydney Tech's most probably
most famous product of that era was reg Gas, right,
yeah he was. And but you know a lot of

(12:26):
my classmates went to university in those days. To get
to the university you had to pass five subjects, one
of which was English, and I managed to do that
just and I got there and on the first year,

(12:46):
my mother was able to pay my fees. Second year,
I picked up a Commonwealth scholarship, which meant my fees
were paid, and I picked it up because somebody else
had dropped it. And I completed my law degree and
in my articles and articles.

Speaker 1 (13:04):
Being like an apprenticeship weship.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
For a lawyer. Yeah, you go in Georgia system and
you weren't paid much, but then you weren't worth much. Yeah,
but your loan a lot. You learned a hell of
a lot. I learned a lot from my He was
a very good teacher.

Speaker 3 (13:19):
And then so you worked a lot in the legal
environment for five ten years or something along those lanes.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
Well, I worked after I left law school. I finished
my article, and then I got a job with a firm,
a large firm, very good firm, and then I went
abroad when I was twenty four. I did the usual
thing of going to London and working there. For a
while and then doing Europe, and I worked with a

(13:49):
firm of solicitors in Ilford in Essex, just not far
out of London, and but a lot of time at
the Stratford Magistrate's Court, which was close to the east
end of London. And he had usual collection of characters

(14:11):
as you would get at the Waverley Police Court whatever.
And that was all part of life's experience. And I
met some interesting people and a couple of friends of mine,
and I happened to be in London when Winston Churchill died.
He died at the age of ninety in nineteen sixty five,

(14:34):
and I remember standing at the foot of Bloodgate Hill
and watching his funeral procession go by, and along with
an English girl that I was seeing a bit at
the time, I went back to her family's home and
listened to a few speeches from the crypt of Saint Paul.

(14:55):
The one of them was delivered by MENSI, who was
in of course Prime still Prime mi at attended the
funeral and he was so eloquently all the English people
that I can we have him? I said, no chance.
So that's and I came back.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
And were you inspired listening to Mensies.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
Oh, I thought Menzies was a great orator. He is
the best political orator I've ever heard. He was terrific.
He was magisterially, he had a deep, resident voice, and
he commanded things. And it's often comparisons made between him

(15:35):
and Winston Churchill. I've studied the speaking methods and it
is very different. He was a better stump orator, if
I put the Churchill wrote all his speeches and they
were wonderfully inspirational. Me the language was terrific. But Mensies
could command the presence in a hall or whatever splendidly. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:01):
And so what inspired you then to think about politics?
Or you always interested in the policic I.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
Was always interested. I remember when I was at school
in the last year though, teachers said English, get which one?
So I want age of year boys to write out
the three occupations that you'd like to embrace. And I
write a lawyer, journalist, and detective. I suppose you can

(16:34):
sort of see some connection between the detective and the journalist.
And I was always interested in journalism as a profession.
I think it's a very important part of our social fabric.
A good journalist and there are plenty of them, in
Australia and the rest of the world is a great asset.

(16:55):
And we've had some wonderful journalists in Australia.

Speaker 3 (16:59):
And so, but did you at some stage get inspired
to become two It's like can become one of the young.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
Liberals or ways interested in politics because we talked politics
at home and being the youngest in the family, I
absorbed all the talk. And my dad, I think partly
because of his service in World War One, and he'd
been quite an admirer of what Winston Churchill was saying

(17:30):
in the nineteen thirties before Churchill became Prime Minister, when
Churchill was really out of favor and people thought he
was a warmongering rat bag they did. And in fact
he owes as much to the Labor Party opposition in
Britain and the English Liberals as he does as the

(17:52):
Conservative Party. And finally becoming Prime Minister, well, the Conservative
Party didn't want him. The British Estate Blishment wanted the
then Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax to become the prime minister,
but Halifax didn't want it, or perhaps deep down was
honest with himself and realized he couldn't do it. And

(18:15):
it is said I and will never know that the
late king didn't want him either. That was the current
king's grandfather, King George George the sixth. Now look in
the end, Churchill got it. But when he got it,
and it's often Danny matter of not a matter of

(18:36):
great significance, or that's interesting for political fanatics that when
he became Prime minister he was not actually leader of
the Conservative Party. Chamberlain remained a leader of the Conservative
Party utterly died six months later.

Speaker 3 (18:50):
And if because I often wonder about when I think
of your prime ministership and also your periods of treasurer,
I often think wonder to myself, why was it? What
was it about John Howard that made him so popular?
Now you know, I'm not here to Yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
I don't think it was all that popular, but towards
the laps and on occasions were.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
But generally speaking, you were. And I talked to people
today people still talk about very fondly.

Speaker 1 (19:21):
In fact, I asked.

Speaker 3 (19:22):
Her, and next door to us, downstairs next door to
us is a real estate agent called Kramer, and his
grandfather was your predecessor, Sir Kramer, Sir John Cramer.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
On real estate. He owned half of Wilston Craft.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
And he was the benelong predecessor.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
He was a joke about him. I'm sure it's a
joke that he was in the latest stages of his
career army minister, and he was reviewing pausing our parade
and his huge expanse. He turned around to the commanding officer,
Brigadier general, who was taking salute. He said, I was

(20:00):
so this would make a wonderful subdivision.

Speaker 1 (20:04):
But it sounds like what Trump's talking about in relation
to Palestinea. We won't go.

Speaker 2 (20:09):
There, so I don't mind if you do.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
I've got a view, yeah, and I will. I'll bring
that a bit later. But Earl did say to Earl Kramer,
who's the grandson of Sir John Cramer.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
Said, he said to me exactly what I said to
you a moment ago. He said. He said, I've always liked.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
John Howard and it would be late sixties and he said,
I've always liked John Howard.

Speaker 1 (20:28):
And I said, well, what question would you ask him?

Speaker 3 (20:30):
So I wouldn't ask him a question, he said, but
I'd like to know what from his point of view,
from your point of view, what was it in your makeup?
Is that your humble beginnings. Is it the fact you
you lived in Norwood? I don't know, were you well?

Speaker 2 (20:42):
I like to think that I was brought up to
be you do the right thing a lot to my parents.
We were a close family, but we all had our
own views, and I remained close to my three older brothers.
There was a thirteen year age gap between the eldest

(21:04):
and me, and then Stan was nine years and then
Bob three, and we were We talked about politics and
I just it attracted me. I think from the very
beginning I enjoyed public speaking or debating, and that gave
me years later in Parliament. I reflected that whatever capacity

(21:31):
I had to speak of the car or respond with
a degree of spontaneity I had learnt at school. I
debated from the second year I was at high school,
and I was in the schools debating team which participated
in what was called the Human barber With competition, which

(21:54):
was the competition between the eight or nine selective high
schools Canterbury, Ford Street in North Sydney or Sydney Tech,
Sydney High.

Speaker 1 (22:04):
Sney Boys High.

Speaker 3 (22:05):
Heah, yeah, So, but John Lake, do you think that
you represented certain values?

Speaker 2 (22:13):
I mean, do you think oh, yes, well had I
mean I represented the values of what I called Middle Australia.
And I mean I I was certainly not brought up
to think the government could solve every problem. If anything,
my my father thought that people who were connected with

(22:40):
the government were a nuisance rather than no. That was unfair,
but it was his experience. Later on, I my wife's
father became a very senior public servants in the news,
so Wald's government and I and he was a wonderful man,
and he ended up being the chief civilian year of

(23:00):
the news, well, the Railways department. And you're a very
ethical man, very proper. And I suspect although he was read,
I suspect you always fad at liberal. But that was
the matter for him. But my point is that you
can't typecast people. One of the things I learned early on.

(23:22):
You can't regard all people who've got a trade union
background as being automatically labor, although most of them were
equally not everybody in business is anti labor. Yeah, I
agree with that, particularly more recently, more recently, when I say,
last ten fifteen years. Oh, I think the I was

(23:49):
certainly brought up to believe in the essential fairness and
decency of the average Australian now fairness decency, average Australian.
There are words that have flung around, but I think
they mean something. And I've met a lot of people
on all sides of politics who've fit that category, and

(24:10):
I've met a lot who don't, including some in my
own party.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
But I won't come into and I've often.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
Said good leaders, very good treasurers make good leaders, both
at state level and we've seen it on many occasions
and at the federal level. Your period as a treasurer,
what were your what are your recollections of that period?

Speaker 2 (24:34):
Oh? It was difficult because I inherited a fiscal position
that was worse than I.

Speaker 1 (24:43):
Expected, as in deficits and debts.

Speaker 2 (24:45):
Oh yeah, the previous budget which had been I mean,
spent too much money and I had to win my
first budget.

Speaker 1 (24:57):
I have to.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
I had to increase personal income tact, which didn't make
me very popular. And then I did some very tricky
things with tax avoidance. When I say tricky, imposed what
was seen by many people's retrospective methods of collecting unpaid
tax that should have been paid in the first place,

(25:19):
and that didn't make me very popular in many traditional
liberal voting areas of Australia was.

Speaker 3 (25:28):
That around the period with Sergafiell Berwick the Chief Justice
at the time.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
No, he had had gone before then, although it's fair
to say that a lot of people said that one
of the reasons why tax avoidance flourished was that there
was a belief that the so called Barwick dominated High

(25:56):
Court took an excessively pro taxpayer view of the anti
avoidance sections of the Act. Now, I think some of
that was unfair. I think some of it was probably
a bit accurate, but whatever it was, it was an issue,
and I felt that the ordinary taxpayer, whether it an

(26:18):
employee of public service or small businesses who did the
right thing, had every reason to complain. Yet, on the
other hand, there was a lot of truth in what
carry Packer said. Not that he was advocating a tax
of asion, but he was just saying you shouldn't pay

(26:39):
more than you have to. Well, and a lot of
people believe that. I don't think I probably do. But equally,
there are some dodgers that people shouldn't embrace. And I
remember the time that a couple of very prominent accountants

(27:01):
in Sydney wrote to me and said they agreed with
what I was doing because they didn't like these tax
avoidance practices. But many of their clients said, why can't
you get me one of those schemes, And we felt
that we were under increasing pressure to do so.

Speaker 3 (27:18):
And then we're talking about the seventies and eighties, and
it was it was pretty full on then too, these schemes.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
And I remember many years that prior.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
But sigarfu Barwick at one time there in what they
call it an antivoid's case, he made very interesting observation.
He said, war paint does not make the warrior. And
the reason he said that is because people used to
dress up these schemes.

Speaker 1 (27:41):
It's been something that they weren't.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Oh well, he was right. And what I set out
to do was there was a general anti avoidance provision
in the tax a section two and sixty that said
that if you the dominant purpose in effect the layman's
explanation not very good when I'm sorry, but if the

(28:04):
dominant purpose of the transaction is to avoid tax rather
than achieve a commercial objective, than its void. Now the
problem became that most people in the tax office, and
many people in the Professions said around that time that
the High Court had so interpreted and so read down

(28:28):
the impact that section two hundred and sixty was virtually worthless.
So I said to the Tax Commissioner when I became
Treasure that one of my goals was to rewrite section
two hundred and sixty to make it more effective. And
he said, you're wasting your time. The High Court will
find a way around it. Now, I thought that it

(28:50):
was just after Barwick had gone. Let me say, I
thought this was close to the time that he went.
I thought that was a bit unreasonable, defeatist capitulated. So
I sat about having it rewritten, and eventually we did,

(29:11):
and we produced the news section, which in the technicians
language is called part for a for a And that
seems to have worked. You've obviously studied well.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
I worked in that environment.

Speaker 3 (29:25):
I worked in a law firm that we used to
advise on those things for many many years.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
You agree with my assessment, Yes, I do before I worked, Yes,
that still does work. Yeah, I think it's largely stopped,
not completely, and probably never will perhaps never sure.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
There's always going to be someone who's going to try
and work around.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
Just part of the to and fro as ofose.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
So you would have been around and I don't know
what capacity, whether you're in opposition or whether you're in
government at the time. But on the first of July
tooth nineteen eighty I over, I think it was they
introduced the couple of gainst tax and negative gearing also
came in, and I think there was a labor party
was which the capital gains tax. Oh, that was that
was That was a labor party in one July. And

(30:10):
of course negative gearing. Negative gearing became a part of
that process because you know, you're losing money, so you're
trying to earn income losing money, so you should be entitled.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
To tax reduction.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
That legislation, going right back to nineteen eighty five, still
stands today and we often hear politicians want to tink
with that stuff.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
What do you think.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
I would I would leave the capital gains tax provisions.

Speaker 1 (30:37):
Were the discount capital.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
I would go, Well, the discount was introduced by by
my gutment, by Boat Costello, and but the we had
no capital gains tax at all out of eighty five yep.
And that was introduced by Paul Keating's treasurer Uh and
what is often forgotten is that we had from my recollection,

(31:02):
we had a period brief period of where negative gearing
was abolished.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Yeah, do you remember that? And it was only six
short keating abolished that I did, and.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
It resulted in a massive visire recall, a massive increase
in rents and there was a lot of hurrying and
scurrying and they decided to bring it back and it's
remained ever since, and of course a lot of the
labor people push for its removal. Look, I think the

(31:38):
debate will go on about it. I think there's a
case for capital gains tax.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
That that that there should be a tax on capital gains.

Speaker 2 (31:46):
Oh yeah, I think there is a case for it.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
Yes, and exemptions and now now whether.

Speaker 2 (31:51):
With exemption appropriate exemptions. I don't for a moment think
it should apply to the family home. They'll always be
very pricey family homes and that escape it. But that
doesn't all the fact as a principle, And where do
you draw the line, what's what's an excessively valuable family home?

Speaker 1 (32:14):
Yeah? Totally.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
A lot of people in different parts of Australia are
brought in a ludicrously to row cost and then over
the years of seeing the value right, So I think
there's there's certainly a strong case for it, but with exemptions,
and I think it'd be a mistake for the government
to try and get rid of the discount. I think

(32:36):
there I imagine that they are looking at it.

Speaker 3 (32:39):
I don't know, because of course Chris Bowen and Bill
Shorten found that out in very short shrift.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
Well, I thought Bowen and Shortened mis read the mood
of Middle Australia. They saw that as an attack, as
an attempt to pay for their express excessive spending by
increasing tas on Little Australia. And people who've saved hard

(33:05):
and gone from not rags to richards, but gone from
modest circumstances to relatively comfortable circumstances normally have done that
because of their hard work, and they resent like hell
that being heavily taxed.

Speaker 3 (33:24):
John, You've mentioned on a couple of occasions the phrase
Middle Australia, and I seem to recall Mensies made a
very famous speech about the forgotten people, which was that
about Middle Australia.

Speaker 2 (33:35):
Well, I mean that was the phrase he used. He
was really talking about, on the one hand, the organized
power of the trade union movement, and that was an
era where everybody, so to speak, belonged to a union
if you could. And the other group he was talking

(33:58):
about what he called big biss organized and he thought
that people in the middle they were forgotten, they were squeezed. Now,
both descriptions were a bit of an exaggeration, a broad rush,
but there was some truth in that. And the union

(34:18):
movement when I first went into Parliament had a lot
more members than it does now. But so does every organization.
One of the things we have to understand about contemporary
Australia is that we are no longer a nation of joiners.

Speaker 3 (34:36):
Joiners as in trades, joiners unions, joiners of unions right
and the joiners.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
Of any of organizations. We have fewer trade unions, we
have fewer people who are religiously affiliated. They don't join churches.
We have even local pncs, often straight for members. And
this is it's been I mean it started I think

(35:02):
with the widespread adoption of television because and then it's
only been aggravated by social media. I mean social media
is so anti social. I mean it's social intent, but
it takes away why do you get need to have

(35:25):
morning coffee with your friends when you've got social media
not I mean I have to say to you, I
don't have Facebook. I don't embrace social media, and also
should not talk, I should not pronounce. But my instinct
tells me that it has accelerated the trend towards a

(35:48):
more insular society away and the real victims of that
our organization, I mean, people who support the Liberal Party,
say me, are our branches of weak? People don't come
and people don't join anymore. Say, dear, do you think
the Labor Party is any different that we don't Well,

(36:09):
I don't think it is. I think if you were
interviewing my opposite number in the Labor Party, he or
she might, in a moment of honesty, agree with me.
People just don't join now A lot of reasons for that.
I think the old pattern often when mum cooked a

(36:29):
meal on the table and Dad got home from work,
when you went off to the union meeting, we're meeting
of some other organization. That's part of it. I think
the spread of social media is only accelerated, but it's
a phenomenon. And I would say to people of any
of them listening to this, that if you're worried about

(36:50):
the membership of the Liberal Party. Just remember that it's
not alone. It's not just the Liberal Party suffering a
membership challenge, any other organizations across the board, across the board,
across the board. We are no longer the nation of
joiners we were.

Speaker 3 (37:09):
That's very interesting and if we look at our nation today,
and I mean this might be a difficult question to
answers straight away, but what other things have you seen
changed as at a national level like that are significant?
What are the significant things you've you've seen change apart

(37:29):
from not being a nation of joiners, what about things
like at one stage everyone was.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
Part of a religion.

Speaker 3 (37:34):
You know, you're either Jewish, Catholic, maybe Muslim, Greek, Orthodox,
whatever you identified most of us Church of England you
identified as a part of.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
One of the big changes is that, yeah, right on
the issue religion, we are no longer as sectier around.
I mean, I'm old enough to recall that there were
often great rivalries and contest between Catholics and Protestants. More

(38:07):
Catholics and Masons are really in organizations like the police,
I mean we're talking about It was often a joke
in that you ordinated between a Catholic and a Mason
as the commissioner of police, and you so well. I
mean that's no longer talked about now. I think that's
a good thing now. I'm not pretending for a moment

(38:29):
that religious observance is as strong now as it was
forty or fifty years ago. But I think the decline
has been part of this overall decline in people joining organizations,
and it's a I think the removed the end of

(38:50):
pretty well, the end of sectarian has been a good thing.
I mean the people. And I think it's affected politics.
I think I said earlier years ago, there great bulk
of Catholics voted labor, not because Catholic Church told them to.

(39:11):
It's just that they came from largely our Irish heroines
were poor and we're working class. But that's changed, and
that's good.

Speaker 3 (39:24):
During your period, let's talk when you're in opposition and
when you're in when you were the prime minister. Let's
let's look at the eighties and nineties, just at that
for the moment. Who are some who are some of
your great rivals that you admire today when you look
back at it as opposed to what happened in the
bear pit. But you know, are any of your rivals

(39:45):
standouts that you admire and what would you admire them for?

Speaker 2 (39:48):
Oh? I had an enormous respect for Kim Beasley. He's
the best labor prime minister we didn't have. I think
if Beesley had remained leader of the Labor Party and
defeated me as Kevin Rudd did in two thousand and seven,

(40:08):
Beesley would have been there for quite a while. He'd
have treated his colleagues better. Now I respected him. I
thought Hawk was undoubtedly the most the most capable labor
prime minister. I stressed the adjective this country's ever had.
He was bright, he had great communication skills on television particularly,

(40:35):
and he had an instinct for the common man. And
he had a bit of Alarican in him. Well, it
was natural, but he didn't know. I mean, I never
thought him I thought he overdid it. I just it
was he he was comfortably egalitarian. Some people try too

(40:58):
hard to be egality, and he didn't. It was he
was comfortable.

Speaker 1 (41:02):
It was natural.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
Natural.

Speaker 3 (41:03):
Do you think that style of person leading a party
where there's liberal labor today would would stand out as
a as a leader and actually help get that party
voted in.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
Because oh, well, if providing that person right, I mean,
Bob Hawk was quite bright. I had occasion to talk
to him about policy issues, and that he was quite
pra he was on top men had he's prejudices, has

(41:36):
no doubt he thought I did. But he was always
on top of his subject. Now, anybody who's a comfortable
natural legalitarian who's also bright will do well because that's
what people like. People. They want to they want to

(41:56):
understand their politicians, they want to feel they can relate to,
and they obviously want to believe in what they're saying.
Now it's not always easy to get together. But then
I'm not an expert on this.

Speaker 1 (42:10):
I don't know. I'm not sure whether they're not an
expert on these things.

Speaker 3 (42:12):
I say, you've got pretty good instincts, and because you know,
in terms of long serving prime ministers, you're right up there.

Speaker 1 (42:18):
So because like I.

Speaker 3 (42:21):
Today, everything is everything is pole driven. Okay, they do polls,
they've got digital means to find out what's going on,
what everyone thinks.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
Back in your day, what did you do to find
polling was important? Then I'm not perps, not as obsessively
so as now. I think the pressure for an instantaneous
response to everything is great on our and people get
into error because they feel they've got to say something. Well,

(42:49):
if you haven't thought about what you're going to say,
don't say it. That's any the advice i'd give anybody
in politics, and the other advice i'd give them is
get a a bit of life outside of politics before
you try and go into parliament. A lot of young
men and women come and see me and they are
you know, we're liberals. We like to be in parliament.

(43:13):
And you've got any advisor. The first thing is if
you join the local branch, you should do that. I said. Secondly,
what are you doing? Oh, we just got a degree
and I'd like to work for a politician. I said,
well don't. I mean, if you want to do that,
I don't to stop you. But you've got this pattern
now where if you labor incline, you go to university,

(43:38):
you then work for a union in not fixing a
house or anything like that. You work in the union office,
the admin, the admin, and then you get a job
on a politician staff and wonderful staffers. I mean I've
got wonderful staff and I had in people like Arthur

(43:59):
Synod doing this an outstanding chief of stuff. But you
then get pre selective receipt. What experience of life have
you had? And I say to these people, get ten years.
You know, if you're a lawyer, practice law for ten years,
if a doctor, or if you're a public servant, a teacher,
plenty of teacher. Not all teachers are labor. There's a

(44:22):
view among some liberals that are every teacher votes label.
That's not right, and public just do something. You have
a better understanding then of what the average man and
woman does and experiences in life.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
So when you won in ninety I think it was
ninety six, the ninety six yep, and you're knocked off
keeping and and we've been through a pretty tough period
economically during that period, we've.

Speaker 1 (44:52):
Had a lot of inflation and it's very high, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (44:58):
What gave you the courage to start to think about
and develop the JST the goods and service taxes?

Speaker 2 (45:07):
Well, I'd been a long term advocate of an broadening
the back indirect. When I was treasurer, I made two
attempts to do that, and both of them were knocked
back by the cabinet one of them was I talked
at large quite early on a retail turnover tax, which

(45:32):
is a form of indirect tax, and that caused a
lot of unrest among some of my ministerial colleagues, and
I think Prime Minister was unhappy about that anyway. He
just sort of said not a lot, John, So I
gave that away. And then in advance of the nineteen

(45:53):
eighty election, I reached an understanding with both Malcolm Fraser
and Doug Anthony excuse me, that we would not rule
out during the campaign plausibility of tax reform. Then after
the campaign, I announced that we would review the tax system,

(46:17):
including the possibility of introducing what I then called a
broad based indirect tax, which is a GST. And then Malcolm,
for reasons no doubt he could have explained at the time,
decided that that was politically unacceptable and it was knocked up.
But it was not on the basis that I couldn't

(46:40):
so I couldn't go ahead. So I put up a
submission to Cabinet, and I knew it was going to
be defeated, but I wanted to be on recorders and
I advocated the introduction of a tax on goods and
services and some reductions in income tax, and it was
heavily defeated in cabinet, although some of my colleagues, particularly

(47:04):
but not only from Western Australia supported me. Are really yeah,
and that was that. So then, so I had a
track record. And when Labor won the election in eighty
four and they called the tax summit, Paul Keating proposed

(47:25):
to twelve and a half percent consumption tax remembered as
Option SEE, and I publicly supported it. I was Shadow
Treasurer and I remember going to his office and he
gave me a copy of the document and then we've
talked about it a lot. I support him anyway. In

(47:45):
the end that fell foul of Bob Hawk and the unions.
They didn't want it, so they settled for just introducing
the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, that's right,
a few other things, and that was yes. And then

(48:06):
we ruled out having in a ninety six campaign. We
ruled out in different ways having an indirect tax in
our first term. Although I did use the expression never ever,
and that was hung around my neck bye obliging it

(48:26):
by the Labor Party, which was understandable because never ever
means never ever. But we then thought that if we
designed in full, which we did and Peter Costa I
did a remarkable job with the detail of this a
new tax system, including a ten percent GST, and we

(48:49):
unveiled that, and then within weeks I called the election.
I thought to myself, they can't complain that I've broken
my comitment because I'm flinging the whole thing on the
table and it's going to an election. If they don't
like it, whether they don't like me or whatever I

(49:09):
said and didn't say, they can vote against me. Now
a lot of them did. We lost a lot of seats,
but we had a big majority, and I took the
view that if you've got a big majority, you might
as well use it. Do something bold, Do something bold,
otherwise it will disappear for no return. You can be

(49:29):
certain of one thing. If you get a big majority
in parliament in one parliament, it won't last. So you
either watch it a road or you do something with it. Now.
The only occasion I can remember where the majority in
one parliament followed the majority in the earlier parliament was

(49:51):
nineteen seventy five and nineteen seventy seven seventy five was
phrase of V. Whitlam. Seventy seven was phrase of E. Whitlam.
And I think most people still sort of saw that
as a continuation. And of course by nineteen eighty, when
Bill Hayden had become Leader of the Labor Party, a
very honorable man, I thought Hayden, things had changed and

(50:18):
the Liberal Party lost quite a lot of seats, not
in Queensland so much, but certainly in Victoria.

Speaker 3 (50:26):
So when people say right now the majority that the
well the parliamentary majority that Labor Party has right now
in Australia at federal level, when they say, look, we're
probably going to see two or three terms of this
Labor Party, can't be certain of that. So you're sort
of saying we'd just be careful because things change.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Well, look, I can let me take examplely by own defeat.
I mean the night of the two thousand and seven election,
Kevin Rudwer's triumphant and I remember ringing ngratulating him in
discussing arrangements about moving in and out of Curability and
the lodge. I thought he'd be in there for a

(51:07):
couple of terms, as I thought Whitlam would be in
for a couple of terms after seventy two, but that
and the materialize, and I mean I was amazed when
the Labor Party got rid of Rudy. They would never
have done that to Beasley. If not that that's any
comfort to Beasley, it's just the theoretical musings of a

(51:28):
political opponent.

Speaker 3 (51:32):
And one of the things that not many people would
know will remember. Because you are best known for your
your GST, you're also best known for the gun laws,
the gun laws.

Speaker 1 (51:46):
Was that a courageous move or was that just something well?

Speaker 2 (51:48):
It was well, I was, well, people have been kind
enough to call it courage I think it was the
right thing to do. And I took the view that
this scale of the tragedy, thirty five people died at
the hands of one person. And one of my vivid
recollections was that John Major, who was still not for

(52:12):
long the Prime Minister of Britain. He wrang me up
and said, I'm sorry to hear about this. He said,
I never thought that he was in an email, I
never thought that after the dun Blaine massacre in Scotland,
where a government had gone was cool shot twenty seven kids.

(52:35):
I never thought you get anything like that again, I
can't believe thirty five people in remote Tasmania. I just
felt I had to do something, and I had this
huge majority. I'd only been Prime Minister a couple of months.
I think it was the twenty eighth of April nineteen

(52:56):
ninety six, and I think i'd been sworn in on
the eleventh of March, so it was barely nowhere near
two months. I just felt I didn't do something, so
I decided to throw the book at it. And we
didn't have the power constitutional power to ban the weapons,

(53:17):
but the States if they agreed to do it, and
that was enough, and it was made fairly clear that
if states didn't agree, we'd call a referendum to transfer
the power to the Commonwealth.

Speaker 1 (53:34):
And back to the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
Yeah, yep, yeah, yeah. And I'm certain that if we'd
been required to do that, the public would have voted
overwhelmingly to shift the power because they felt very strongly
that something had to be done. They didn't want us
to go down the American path. But I did understand

(53:59):
how hard it was for some of my rural colleagues,
particularly in the National Party, but not only Tim Fisher
and John Anderson and the National Party Premier of Queensland,
Rob Borbige did a wonderful job on it. They bore
the brunt of it, and you had a lot of
farmers and devils who's sort of said, well, we agree

(54:23):
with you prime in it, but why take our guns
with We keep them safely stored and we don't murder anybody.
Why should we be victimized? And I just sort of said, well,
it won't work unless there's a blanket band. And we
did offer give people proper conversation and it worked and

(54:48):
I am proud of it. I think the country should
be proud of it. And I did have good support,
not only from those National Party figures, but Bob Carr,
the Labor Premier news Well, was a very strong supporter.

Speaker 3 (55:02):
And thank god because today Australia, where's the benefit of that? I?

Speaker 2 (55:09):
Oh, it does. That's something that I mean, we still
have tragedies and murders, but mass murders, however, you might
have not occurred since now. There will be arguments and
something could happen tomorrow. I don't know, but I pray
god it won't. But there is a view around the

(55:31):
world that we've done something lasting and beneficial in that area. Now,
I don't lecture Americans about it. There's a different country
and different culture. They have a fixation about guns that
I can't understand, except they did have a revolutionary beginning.

(55:52):
The British were happy to give us our independence. God
plessent for that, and whereas in America was different and
I think America is a more polarized country. They are
very intense about the differences to the American.

Speaker 1 (56:09):
And they did have a civil war too, and they
did have a civil war.

Speaker 2 (56:13):
So civil war, yeah, that was over. I mean, well,
you'd never have a civil war. We couldn't be bothered
having a civil war out something heavens.

Speaker 3 (56:22):
And I said a bit earlier, and often people say
to me, you know, what do you remember about the
John Howard period? And one of the things that stands
out of my mind, and it's particularly important to me,
but during the nineteen ninety eight, nineteen ninety nine, two
thousand period, two thousand and one period when you were
the PM and Peter was the Treasurer, Peter Costello, there

(56:46):
was something that happened that benefited all Australians that most
Australians to this very day don't realize, and that is
that you guys, the Liberal Party, let's call it, supported
in parliament and gave voice to the people who took
on the banks. And you managed to support Ozzie home loans, buses,
Wizard home loans, which I was with Kerry Packer, and

(57:08):
another one there was another big contender. And you supported
us by putting pressure on the banks to make sure
the bank the banks every time there was an interest
rate reduction that they passed it on.

Speaker 1 (57:19):
To them to borrow.

Speaker 3 (57:20):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
Yes, it was a big deal. Well, it was very.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
Important because and it was largely just done by jaw Boning.

Speaker 1 (57:26):
Yeah, it was in parliament though you did in parliament, oh.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
Yes, better in particular. Yeah, I did it very.

Speaker 3 (57:31):
Well because I remember and Joe Hockey at the time
was the He ultimately became a service but he was
a Minister of Financial Service. And Joe Hockey one day
rang me and he said, look, and I think it
was in two thousand. It was after the you introduced
the g Just here we had a bit of a
slump in the austral economy in the two thousand period,
two thousand and one beginning, and Joe rang me up
and he said to me, Mark, the Prime Minister and

(57:52):
he quoted you and I've never been there to get
the bottom of it, and Joe's never told me whether
it's actually happened on me. He said, the Prime Minister
has asked me to ring up all the major non
bank lenders. Will you pass on the interest rate reduction
that's coming out on the first Tuesday of February to
Australians in six weeks or in a shorter period because

(58:14):
in those days, when it was an interest rate hot rise,
we passed on straight away, but when there was an
intert rate reduction everyone held back for a little while.

Speaker 1 (58:21):
We made some money out of it.

Speaker 3 (58:23):
Jane and Joe rang up and I said, well Joe,
because I knew him fairly well at the time, and.

Speaker 1 (58:28):
I said, well, oh, I asked Kerry what he wants
to do.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
So I went to Kerry and Kerry said to me, well, son,
if you think he can do a better deal than
what's currently going to do, and I said so I
ring job, said Joe Wizard, we'll pass the interest rate
reduction on in twelve days. He said, thank you, I'm
going to go back and talk to the Prime Minister
and Parliament was on. It must have just started as
something and he rings about an hour, Lady said, spoke

(58:52):
to the Prime Minister. He said he's heard that Westpac
are going to pass on in ten days and I said, well,
I offered twelve.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
And I thought, is he having a crack at me
here or not?

Speaker 3 (59:03):
And I said well, I thought, well, Kerry's left it
to me and it would be my neck on the line,
you know, if it doesn't work out. So I said, well,
we'll do it in nine days. And Joe went back
into Parliament and must he said, he told you. I
know he didn't, but that became the In other words,
from that date on, interest rate reductions by the Reserve

(59:25):
Bank were passed on at a much faster rate than
they ever have been done in the pass And I've asked.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
Joe to this very day and he will never tell me.

Speaker 3 (59:33):
I said, mate, were you having me on when you
said that the Prime Minister has spoken to Westpac and
west Pac said they're going to pass on in ten
days instead of twelve days.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
Because my assessment of.

Speaker 3 (59:42):
It would be west Pac would never agree to that,
given that they're such a big band, because the amount
of money they would lose relative to the amount of
money I would lose because of the amount of the
size of their book would be ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
Why would they even take that thing? And I've often
been waiting for the day that I have.

Speaker 3 (59:56):
John Howard's sitting in front of me and ask him,
did Joe Hockey actually talk to you about it in
Westpac say to you that they're going to beat me
and they're going to reduce the interest rate pass forward
by by two days?

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
Or is that just Joe playing me? And, by the way,
played me well and he got me perfectly.

Speaker 3 (01:00:14):
And ended up being a great outcomfort strength consumers.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Like I have a good memory, but I can't recall it.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, Joe. I'm not saying
it didn't happen. I mean, I, Joe, I could easily,
but I just have no particular recollection of that. Parliament
was sitting by the way, Yeah, well, we were very

(01:00:38):
interested in the rapid passing on of great reductions. And
it is true that the practice now is as soon
as it happened.

Speaker 3 (01:00:48):
If you it on and you know, you know what, John, like,
what's actually happened here is your government prosecuted without fear
or favor the banks and ultimately in those days of
banks making three hundred and forty basis points margin, today
they're getting one hundred and twenty only as a result

(01:01:08):
of competition.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
Oh yeah, well, well that was all idea of getting
foreign banks. Yeah, correct, a bit more competition.

Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
And you know in Australians today, you know, we enjoy
quite a low margin to cost of money.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
Quite. I mean, I just from talking to my two
sons who are various times have lived in America, and
it's good. So now, but I just don't yeah cool,
I'm not saying it didn't happen. Don't get me wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
It doesn't really matter because at the end of the day,
it happened and will happen.

Speaker 4 (01:01:39):
Good.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
That was beneficial to AUSTRAUDI in borrowers.

Speaker 3 (01:01:43):
And Joe was always very clever, Joe, Joe was good minister,
very clever. And if I then now reflect on I
want to reflect on something else because one of your.

Speaker 1 (01:01:57):
Let's call it a.

Speaker 3 (01:02:00):
Competitors in a political sense, which was Paul Keating you
defeated ninety six. Keetting introduced has you know, the superannuation guarantee,
and I think it's a great percileg I really do
as great for Australians and it's still considered to be
one of the best.

Speaker 1 (01:02:20):
Policies to make.

Speaker 2 (01:02:21):
Sure that the buzz resavings measures.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
Correct that and so much so that when people retire
they're not sort of living off. The government perse like
to this to some extent at least. But what do
you think now that I haven't asked Paul Keating? I
actually have asked him, but he hasn't responded. But what
do you think now is going on? What do you
think about this introduction of this tax over superinnuation companies

(01:02:47):
that are superinnuation people who have more than three million
dollars with that's it's accumulated in their super.

Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
Well, I don't like that when I share the criticism
of the current opposition of that measure. If there's a
level of arbitrariness in it, HY three not lower or higher.
I'm not in favor of being lower.

Speaker 1 (01:03:12):
Well, the Greens wanted to be too, by the way,
I know the.

Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
Green wanted to be two. And it can be all
held to pay it. I don't think the government will
agree to that, but they might. I just I mean,
I was critical. I have to be honest. The guarantee
system when it was introduced, and accept it, but I

(01:03:35):
also accept it. Many elections have occurred since and the
public has voted, and there are some things that you
might have criticized when they first happened, but you don't
any longer. And that's one of the men we go along.
I accept it as part of the furniture, but I
don't think it should be seen as some kind of

(01:03:59):
new cash cow by And the whole idea of superannuation
is to lift the burden on the state by reducing
the call on the pension. And if you lose sight
of that, I think you lose sight of the purpose
of superannuation. There was a time when there was no

(01:04:24):
superannuation for self employed people. I remember when I was Treasurer,
I introduced for the first time a tax deduction for
people who made provision for superannuation for themselves if they
were self employed. I mean, you doctor, solicit you didn't.
And there was a lot of skepticism about that in

(01:04:47):
section of the public service. Some of them I'm not
saying the Treasury, but some said, I will, Why would
you introduce a tax concession for self employed people? Most
of them don't pay any tax anyway. Now that was unfair,
but that was part of the prejudice from government employees

(01:05:08):
against self employed people. Now that all over time that
has all changed and we no longer argue about that.
Neither we should. But it's just a reminder that what
is contestable at a point of time can become uncontestable

(01:05:31):
if the measure remains, and that's happened with the supernation guarantee.
But having said that, I'm not in favor of what
the government is proposing to do, and I hope they
I have no idea, and I say I hope they
don't do it, or finish that sentence, I have no
idea whether they will or they won't, but I hope

(01:05:53):
they don't.

Speaker 3 (01:05:55):
If I could just maybe just turn the page a
little bit on moving away from that type of stuff,
and let's just you know, right now, it's jew political
tensions around the world, I dare say you would agree
in lots of forms, and our partners, our long standing partners,
the United States, who you must have had relationships interactions

(01:06:19):
with them during your prime ministership and your leadership. How
sensitive are our alliances with organ place on the US, UK, Japan,
South Korea, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
How sensitive are they as to.

Speaker 3 (01:06:38):
Policies that we might get up Our leadership today might
get up on a stage about and where they clash
with their policies, I mean, and how do we put
our relationships and our alliances at risk by coming up
with policies that are different to theirs on a global scale,
global scale of policies.

Speaker 2 (01:06:55):
So there's no blanket answer to that. Market depends on
a given situation. Now, there is a permanence about our
relationship with the United Kingdom and the United States. We
have mystorically our relationship with the British is deeper and
stronger than any other, but the relationship with America is

(01:07:17):
very close and it transcends labor and liberal Republican. A Democrat,
I had a very good relationship with Bill Clinton, Democratic president.
I served four and a half years with him and
seven and a half years with George Bush. And I
was very close on a personal basis with Bush, and

(01:07:41):
we have remained in touch at various times since. I
also had a very close relationship with Tony Blair. In fact,
I was the only Australian Prime minister that Tony Blair
ever dealt with When he became British Prime Minister, he
defeated John Major and by the time I was defeated,

(01:08:05):
Gordon Brown had replaced Blaire. But I got on very
well with Blair. And one of the things is that
at an international level, domestic political differences don't matter all
that much. And on some very important issues, Blair and
I were on the same page, in the same page

(01:08:26):
on Afghanistan and Iraq and terrorism. Now right at the
moment there's a lot of debate about the differences on
Palestinian recognition, and now you can debate that. I don't

(01:08:46):
think in the long run they're going to damage in
a permanent way the relationship. The relationship between the two
countries is been nurtured by battle fields together and common values.

(01:09:08):
We have a lot of sporting rivalry with the United Kingdom,
particularly in the cricket field and the rugby league and whatever,
and that's I think that's a symbol of the closeness
of the relationship. You're going to have that fierce, hateful
rivalry on the sporting field, but not shake the relationship.
And we had an opportunity as a nation, and in

(01:09:32):
retrospect on please I was able to give it to
break the link with the British Monarching. We decided against
it in in nineteen ninety nine. I mean by fifty
five to forty five.

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
Those are that for Republicans both for now.

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
I mean I was against a Republican. A lot of
my friends are in favor of some against anyway. But
the point is that the opportunity was given, we decided
against it. I suspect at the moment they're even less
support for republic in Australia than there was then. I
think partly because people think, well, what the heck it works,

(01:10:12):
and we are very pragmatic people. We're more pragmatic and
less sentimental than Americans. I mean, you think of the
money people as all that's sentimental. Now it's not really
part of the system that works, and it seems to
work better than the American The American political system has
had a bad couple of years, and you had two

(01:10:36):
people in Donald Trump and Kamila Harris that were regarded
by a lot of people as a poor choice. Now
I'm not saying the American people chose Trump. I agree
with some of the things he said. I disagree totally
with his refusal to leave the field when the umpire's

(01:10:58):
finger went up in two thousand than twenty, he tried,
according to all the evidence I've seen, to stop the
Vice president certifying the lawful outcome of that election. Now,
I don't think you should do that, and you have
to accept it. May not like it. You've got to
accept what public says.

Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
I think you're quite vocal at the time too, But
you were quite vocal at the time too.

Speaker 4 (01:11:21):
It wasn't And I don't run away, but I accept
that he won the last election and the American people
are entitled to elect to who they elect.

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
I don't think their system works well. I think a
parliamentary system is better. I think back to the Watergate scandal,
where for months the American president he was paralyzed with Nixon.
Would he be removed? Would he be impeached? Now, in
our system of government, that had been easily solved. If

(01:11:54):
the Prime minister had been in the situation Nix was in,
the party would have said time for you to go, mate,
we're going to we're not going to copy this any longer,
and would have replaced him or her with somebody else. Now,
I think that's a better system, but they're not going
to change and we're not going to change ours. But
the point I make, and I connect it to the Republic,

(01:12:16):
is that we are a pragmatic people. Now. I think
having a monarchy is a better system. But I think
one of the reasons that survived is it works, and
one of the we're skeptical of big changes that don't work.
We have what I've often called a deep deposit of

(01:12:40):
Celtic skepticism, you know, the Irish and scottishness. They sort
of suspicious people say, oh, we're going to do this,
and I what do you really want? And I think
the Voice referendum was a victim of that. Now, I
think there were reasons why people should have voted against

(01:13:02):
the boys, but I think the main reason why they
ended up ended up being beaten by a bigger margin
was because people just were unconvinced that a big They
thought it was more than met the eye, and why
take a risk and what the hell? Why should we

(01:13:23):
mess around with this? Now? That's all our skepticism, and.

Speaker 1 (01:13:27):
I think ingrained in us. It's ingrained in us.

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
And I think it's a good but it's a good thing.
It means that lunatics can't grab the stage.

Speaker 3 (01:13:37):
What do you think that you mentioned Tony Blair, you
mentioned George Bush Sr. You mentioned Bill Clinton.

Speaker 1 (01:13:45):
How is it that you were able or what was
it you did well the other friends.

Speaker 2 (01:13:49):
I'm making is that you can the common values and
the intrinsic words of the person can transcend any political difference.
I was very clever. I mean, George W. Bush and
I have the same side of politics. Clinton normally was different,
although he's a very centrist Democrat. But George W. H. W.

(01:14:13):
Bush was George Bush's father. He and Bob Hawk got
on very well together. And of course Tony Blair and eyes.
I say I to this day when normally when I
go to Britain, I always catch up with him and
have a drink and.

Speaker 3 (01:14:32):
That's But do you think that there's a process. I mean,
do you often send a message to them? Is there
something that because you know, we're getting all the media
talking to us now about you know, Albany is he's
not close enough to Trump, although he did put up
a selfie today in the papers I noticed of him
and Trump together. But do you think there's something that
John Howard did or something that John Howard represented? I'm

(01:14:54):
not talking about political culors. Is there something that you
represented all that perhaps your friendships with them, he represented
something different too, Perhaps might be might be.

Speaker 2 (01:15:03):
Well, I think it's unfortunate that it's taken so long
for the Prime Minister of Australia to have a face
to face sit down with the president in the United States.
I mean, I'll leave it. I won't say alban Easy
and Trumps because in the past that hasn't happened. But

(01:15:23):
in the past it sort of wasn't a point of contact. Mean,
I remember when I became Prime minister. I actually visited
Jakata and Tokyo and Beijing as Prime minister before I
went to Washington or London. Nobody thought for a moment

(01:15:44):
I wasn't pro American and pro British. It's just that
they weren't issues then that they are issues now, partly
because of the manner of the new President of the
United States. I mean, he's certainly different, but he one
and I agree with I mean, I watched his speech

(01:16:05):
to the UN. I have some skepticism which I share
with him, about the effectiveness of the UN, but I
certainly thought what he did on Iran's nuclear capacity was
courageous and effective. On the other hand, I don't like
him saying that people who criticize him should be singled

(01:16:31):
out any media that is you can, You've got to
accept criticism. My view is you democracy survives in Australia
because we have three essential characteristics of our institutions. We
have a robust parliamentary system, we have an incorruptible judiciary,

(01:16:59):
and we have a free press. Now, if you've got
those three things, you don't need anything else. You need
a legal system that's above approach and that if people
break the lawn and they dealt with and that applies
to everybody, to all of us, and you need I

(01:17:19):
think a robust parliamentary system is better than a presidential system.
The problem with the presidential system, allah the American one,
is that the president is not exposed on a daily
basis to questioning by the opposition when the parliament's sitting.
The President never goes to Congress except to deliver the

(01:17:40):
State of the Union. They all stand and cheer or boom.

Speaker 1 (01:17:45):
Now that's so it's not as robust in debate sense.

Speaker 2 (01:17:48):
Oh no, no, no, no, no, it's not, and it's
not as forensic. You can actually I mean, if you've
got a problem and you've got good oppers position people
who will ask you the same question in a different
way twenty times, you've got to be careful you don't

(01:18:09):
make a slip.

Speaker 3 (01:18:11):
So you just mentioned the media, the free press. In
Australia during your period, there was Murdock and Packer.

Speaker 1 (01:18:20):
And Stokes, but probably those.

Speaker 3 (01:18:23):
Two were much larger in the scheme of things at
that times. Are in fair facts of course I forgot
and the ABC and the ABC. Yes, how does a
prime minister? Does a prime minister, or should have prome minister.

Speaker 1 (01:18:36):
Build a relationship with either the proprietors of the media.

Speaker 2 (01:18:40):
Or providing it's a proper relationship. I enjoyed Kerry Packer's company.
I thought he understood what made the average Australian tick
very well, and I thought that performance of his before
the Senate in parliamentary inquiry was a vindage. I know

(01:19:01):
Rupert Murdoch well, I think Rupert Murdoch is arguably the
greatest international business Ministrata's produced.

Speaker 1 (01:19:07):
I'd say this right to you. Yeah, he's terrific long
term still, oh yeah, long, very bright.

Speaker 2 (01:19:15):
And what I liked about Rupert was that I mean
he came when he came to Australia when I was
Prime Minister, he always got in touch with me and
we'd have a meal, either just the two of us
or he had his local henchman. I hope he'd come
along and ar the Cinnadinas would come along with me
and we'd have a lodger career. But he didn't spend

(01:19:38):
that time lobbying for news corps. I mean, he had
other people doing that. They don't get me wrong. But
he spent the time talking about issues, and he was
interested in international politics and all that kind of stuff.
Now I knew what his views were on a lot

(01:19:59):
of issues. I knew that some of the positions that
we took were upset him, but mostly his papers were
fair and reasonably. They were very supportive of our position
on Iraq, which was controversial. He was very supportive in
my attitude on industrial relations Kerry Packern the other and

(01:20:24):
was very opposed to the GST. He told me that
in unrestrained.

Speaker 1 (01:20:30):
Terms, no uncertain terms, the carry.

Speaker 2 (01:20:32):
No uncertain terms and no such thing. But that's fine.
I didn't mind, and didn't order our relationship or friendship.
I wouldn't claim that I was a close personal friend
of either, but I had a good friendship with each
of them. And I'm sure that some of my labor

(01:20:52):
predecessors were the same. And Kerry Stakes I know well
it was Ryan is now the and I don't know
Lachlan as well, but I know him. But you've got
inevitably you should have a relationship with them. Now, it
only becomes improper if you have some kind of secret understanding.

(01:21:17):
You scratch my back, old scratch. Well, now, I never
had that with any media proprietor. But I didn't regard
them as ogres. I didn't regard them as dangerous species
to be avoided at all costs.

Speaker 1 (01:21:32):
So it wasn't a matter of then.

Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
I mean, is it the same bridge that you are
built with presidents and prime ministers of the UK of Britain.
Is it the same sort of bridge that you built
with proprietors of media as well? Whereas it was one
of mutual respect. But at the same time, I've got
my view, you've got your views, and you're not going
to necessarily.

Speaker 2 (01:21:53):
But as I didn't feel that you couldn't have a
certain lightheartened us in the relationship and share a joke and.

Speaker 3 (01:22:03):
Say so if I can just fast forward now to
the election, the most recent election of federal election I'm
talking about, the Liberal Party didn't do so well and
the coalition didn't just well.

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):
Actually the National Party held its own, the Liberal.

Speaker 2 (01:22:20):
The National Party did hold its ow.

Speaker 1 (01:22:22):
Held its own, but the Liberals did not.

Speaker 3 (01:22:24):
And you know, and I had Peter sitting right there,
Peter Dutton, as I did Anthony Albanisi and sitting right there.
And I was at the time, to be frank with you,
very impressed with Peter Dutton's intellect, his grasp on issues.

Speaker 1 (01:22:40):
His knowledge, his personal bliness, like very personable.

Speaker 3 (01:22:45):
To me, I thought, I felt he's not some you know,
crazy policeman who wants to lock everybody up anything.

Speaker 1 (01:22:51):
But he's the opposite. Family man.

Speaker 3 (01:22:54):
Talked about his family, you know, adoringly, and as did
Anthony Albanisi, as did the Prime Minister. And I found
them both engaging and friendly and very likable, quite affable,
both of them.

Speaker 1 (01:23:07):
Where did it go wrong for Done Well?

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
I don't think it automatically follows that because they were
both affable and everything we should have done better gone
better for done I was surprised at the labor Party
increased its majority. Now what went wrong? I think that
the normal tendency of the Australian public is to give

(01:23:39):
a newly elected government a second term just out of
a fair go principle unless there's an overwhelming reason not to.
Now I don't think we established that. Now why, I
don't know. Some people say it's, of course we didn't

(01:24:01):
spend enough time developing detailed policy and there's no alternative
to that amount. To the extent that my views have
been sort I've said, you've just got to immediately start
devising alternative policies in detail and then make calculations as
to when and how you release them, because there's no substitute.

(01:24:23):
If you're asking people to throw out a first term
prime minister, no matter what you think of him, you
gold have a reason. I think that was there. I
think a couple of particular policy as they seem to
get into strife on the work from home issue, that
would have if you look at some of the seats

(01:24:44):
that especially Peter his own seat, well the seat of Robertson,
Richard gospin the central Coast, a lot of people they're
commute to the city. Well they did, and I'm now
working from home and they thought they had to go
back to commuting in the city. That might have influenced
how they better. But that's just an example that I quote.

(01:25:05):
I don't think that was. I was surprised at the
fact that over party increased its boat.

Speaker 3 (01:25:12):
Now was that more of a protest against the Liberal
do you think as opposed to people saying, Wow, I
want to lockstep with beIN locks I can't.

Speaker 2 (01:25:21):
Again, I don't know the answer to that, Mark. I
think it's probably as always a bit of both.

Speaker 3 (01:25:30):
Yeah, because I was disappointed in the outcome, because I
was surprised. Equally surprised.

Speaker 1 (01:25:36):
I thought Peter would give it. I thought the Liberals thought.

Speaker 2 (01:25:39):
Peter held a show together. Well, I like him a lot.
I was very sorry that he lost his seat and
but he will survive and stuff. But to the Liberal.

Speaker 1 (01:25:52):
Party, I liked him a lot. I did too. I
didn't know him before, but I met him on a
couple of times.

Speaker 2 (01:25:58):
I made him a minister fairly in the peace because
I thought he was calm and sensible, and many business
people with whom he din't speak well of him as
having a common sense understanding of what they were putting
to the government.

Speaker 3 (01:26:15):
I would expect though today members of the Liberal Party,
and I would hope, I definitely would hope that senior
members of the Liberal Party, the movement, Liberal movement, do
they come.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
And talk to you. I would expect, Oh, yes, I
some of them do.

Speaker 2 (01:26:31):
Not all of them. Don't expect that. While now since
I've been in parliament.

Speaker 3 (01:26:36):
Yeah, but your observations are pretty important here actively.

Speaker 2 (01:26:43):
Look. I mean I had a meeting yesterday with Ted
O'Brien who's the Deputy Leader. It was a useful discussion
and we'll keep in touch. And I've spoken on a
number of occasions with Susan Lee and others I know well.
And although time marches on, you see a lot of

(01:27:06):
the people that I do. I mean, Peter Dutton's gone
and Josh Friedenbig who I knew very well and I
still talk to jobs, but he's no longer in parliament.
He might try and come back, but if he does,
he'll have to probably do it at the next parliament.
I know just Sinder Price very well. I think she's
a popular figure in liberal circles because of the work

(01:27:28):
she did on the referendum. But equally you've got to
be careful about people talking up your leadership prospects too soon.

Speaker 3 (01:27:39):
His politics vicious, his politics with a party within a party, Well,
it can be, and I think sometimes the viciousness can
be exaggerated.

Speaker 2 (01:27:55):
I mean people talked about the differences of opinion I
had with Andrew peat Cocky is now no longer with us. Now.
There were differences, yeah, and I said for a long
time that we were equally to blame for those difference.
But I think they can be exaggerated. And it was
made to water because he came from Melbourne, I came

(01:28:16):
from Sydney. He was a more I guess gifted, colorful,
flamboyant sort of character. But I liked Andrew and I
buried the hatchet years ago. The years after him. I
remember one of the first things I did when we

(01:28:37):
became the government was appointed the ambassador to Washington.

Speaker 1 (01:28:41):
Well that's that's not a bad job, by the way.

Speaker 2 (01:28:44):
Well he did it well, and he met third wife there, Penny.

Speaker 1 (01:28:51):
And yes he had a couple, he had a couple
of wives.

Speaker 2 (01:28:54):
Well such get into that.

Speaker 3 (01:28:58):
So because it seems to me, just as an observer,
but you know, a keen political observer that often treasurers
are sort of thinking to themselves at what they've been
countered I wanted, but they want to be the prime minister,
which is ambition.

Speaker 1 (01:29:13):
That's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
Oh yea. There's a lot of people have transitioned from
being Harold Holt did it back in. I think Watson,
who was the first labor and he'd been a treasurer
for a period of time, because when Menzies became from me,
his treasurer for a long time was Fatten. He was

(01:29:36):
leader of the Country Party, but then it was Holt,
and then when Fraser will Ship was his first treasure
and then because he dominated the scene. But that happens.
And one of the great advantages of treasury is that
you're across every portfolio as you were, and I found

(01:29:57):
that I had knowledge of filios that occasionally exceeded that
of the incumbent minister. But not because I was a genius,
but simply because the quality of people in treasury is
very high, and they give you a lot of advice
which is valuable, and you retain it and it means
that you're off to a good start later on. Of course,

(01:30:18):
Scott Morrison was in the same Well Morrison did it, Yes,
Treasury to Prime minister. He did, I'd forgotten him more
recent example, yes.

Speaker 1 (01:30:26):
And even at state level.

Speaker 3 (01:30:27):
I mean I remember Nick Reiner went from the same thing,
and so did the Glads.

Speaker 1 (01:30:31):
Well, yes, ground away from treasury to treasurer to premiere.

Speaker 2 (01:30:42):
And as was.

Speaker 1 (01:30:47):
Dominica.

Speaker 2 (01:30:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:30:49):
And it just seems to me that there's a process,
I mean and.

Speaker 2 (01:30:52):
Well, because it's the most second, it's regarded after the
Prime Minister as the most significant person out of federal level.
The foreign minister also gets. And one of the features
of my time in government, and only it contributed to
the stability we had, was that for the first time

(01:31:18):
since federation, the same three people occupied the prime Ministership,
the Treasury and Foreign Affairs for the duration of the government.

Speaker 1 (01:31:30):
Oh wow, Alexander.

Speaker 2 (01:31:32):
Each time it was my first and only foreign minister,
Peter Costello was my first and only Treasurer, and I
was Prime Minister. It was for the whole time, so
for just under twelve years.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
So each term, right, okay, yeah, yeah, And.

Speaker 2 (01:31:47):
That's quite significant because it builds up a reservoir of
experience and knowledge that is hard to replicate.

Speaker 3 (01:31:59):
And trust that trust for those people in those propos
and I often forget about and I should not.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
Alexander Downer.

Speaker 2 (01:32:08):
Downer did. He was a great foreign minister, steady hand, reliable,
And when I look at the way in which our
relations with countries in our own region are under pressure
at the moment, I think this government has got a
foreign policy almost of crisis proportions on its hands. With
PNNG is iffing and budding about signing a security dug

(01:32:34):
with us obviously under pressure from the Chinese. Banawatu has
done the same, and prior to that, the Solomon you
think of World War two, the term used endearingly by
Australian diggers of the fuzzy wuzzy Angels. I mean, we
are a lot to the people of Papua New Guiney

(01:32:56):
for the help they gave us against the invading Japanese.
I think it's just terrible. That's and you've got the
President of Indonesia talking about approvingly of China's involvement. You

(01:33:16):
gotta worry about that. Mantes, that's a big and that's
our doorstep, that's right next door to us. And instead
of worrying about whether we host the next you know,
gathering on the environment, you can imagine if we are
awarded that the government, and I'm not saying we shouldn't

(01:33:36):
do it. You can walk walk into your government at
the same time, but heavens above, I think the government
should turn its focus back on what's on our doorstep
and recognize that when you've got pn g Vanawatu President
of Indonesia, all of whom are seemingly out of sync

(01:34:00):
with us in our government, that's a worry and something
we should do something about immediately.

Speaker 3 (01:34:06):
As one of our in my opinion anyway, one of
our most revered and senior political figures over a long
period of time in this country. What do you feel
and or what do you think about the future of Australia.

Speaker 2 (01:34:21):
I'm an optimist because I think we have inherent strengths
where pragmatic, appropriately skeptical, but nonetheless idealistic, and we have
a common we have a set of values. We still
believe in the fair go and we are still welcoming

(01:34:42):
the migrants. I mean, I believe in in having migrants
flowing into this country that we've all benefited from it.
I've watched the big change from European only some Middle
East and the Lebanese Maronite really and others Eastern and

(01:35:03):
European to include migrants from China and India, so much
so that for the last few years the three biggest
source companies have been India, China, Britain slash Ireland. Now
that is a huge change, but I am very much
in favor of the old approach of assimilation integration. I

(01:35:25):
think the idea of people are attracted to Australia, they
come here, they accept and embrace our values. They're not
expected to forget their homeland. I think never. I never
thought that applied. So many people I know, of Greek
and Italian and whatever background, they never sort of gave

(01:35:50):
up an affection, and we're grateful, not only culinary reasons,
but other reasons they didn't. I think the idea of
a federation of tribes, which multiculturalism always meant to me,
is bad. Now. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just

(01:36:13):
a modern term for integration or assimilation. I don't think
it was. Actually I think it was a device to
curry support from different groups. But whatever it was, I
don't I think the instinctive notion of Australians is we
welcome people from everywhere, as long as they seek to

(01:36:37):
become Australian.

Speaker 1 (01:36:38):
I agree with that, and that's me.

Speaker 2 (01:36:41):
That's what I believe in, and it's worked. And I
think of all the people and I've met, I've not
ever met a multicultural man or woman. I've met a
bicultural person. You know. I know plenty of people who
are simultaneously Australian and China, Austraining and Greek. And I

(01:37:03):
think that works. I think it's what people want, and
they also want to be able to say, well, if
the migrant intake is so big that it's putting an
unreasonable strain on our infrastructure, then we should slow it
down until that unreasonable strain of bates. Now, what's wrong

(01:37:24):
with that?

Speaker 3 (01:37:25):
It doesn't it be permanent. It's just it's just a
slow down. It's just nobody's arguing that it's not racist.

Speaker 2 (01:37:31):
No, it's not. I mean I got into trouble years
ago when I said, if it were people were worried
that what was then a new experience, a surge in
asient migration. Maybe we should slow it down to in
the interest of social cohesion, not stop it, not keep
the slow down permanent. Oh that was racist, And I

(01:37:54):
got into all sorts of trouble, but that's years ago
before I but if I.

Speaker 3 (01:38:00):
Leave all this, I have to turn a sport for
a moment. Your favorite cricket team, which is, as I remember,
Saint George Cricket.

Speaker 1 (01:38:10):
St George Cricket. Is your Saint George your favorite cricket
local cricket club.

Speaker 2 (01:38:16):
Well, no, I no, I must say that although I
grew up in that area, was sort of part of
George called half Saint George half Canterbury and Canterbury Boys
High School took pupils from the Saint George area, I
never really had a club. I played a lot of

(01:38:37):
cricket for a local church team which was in the
news Welsh Church's competition and that embraced teams from all over.

Speaker 1 (01:38:46):
What was that team called?

Speaker 2 (01:38:47):
What was that?

Speaker 1 (01:38:48):
What was that? What was that church?

Speaker 2 (01:38:49):
The Illwood Methodists Church? And we played, I mean I
enjoyed it. Eventually we played and plays with the Tempe
and Steal Park and Rudd Park in Bellmore and it
was all good fun. But you do love your cricket.
I love cricket. I wasn't much good at it. I

(01:39:12):
did once get six for ninety seven playing against I
think punch Bowl Baptist. And that's just a vague record.
But I enjoyed cricket im mentally and I still do.
And I'm looking forward to the Ashes contest, but a
lot of sport I'm looking forward. When I'm in Dallas

(01:39:33):
in Denver, I understand sheerly by coincidence, by sheer coincidence,
there's a soccer match between the Australian team and an
American team. So I'm going to go to that. Yeah,
watch it.

Speaker 1 (01:39:46):
And what about rugby league?

Speaker 2 (01:39:48):
Oh yeah, I follow Saint George. That's that's the rugby league.
Oh yeah, I'm very much as a George man with
rugby league. Oh I've seen some good Saint George. I
was there at Coger Oval and Jubilee Oval when Saint
George defeated the Melbourne Storm the early part of this season.

(01:40:14):
Thanks Saint George, will do even better next year. And
they they were very spasmodic this year. They were happy
they had some big wins over teams that ended up
in the final eight, such as the Melbourne Stoom, but
then lost to others.

Speaker 3 (01:40:36):
So and and I have a one final thing for you.
John Arthur Laundy asked me to ask you this question, Oh, Lornie.
Now Arthur Laundy, Lord, Arthur Laundy, Yes, I'm deaf.

Speaker 1 (01:40:50):
Arthur Laundy.

Speaker 2 (01:40:50):
Yeah, I know Arthur will And I said to Arthur,
because well I know I knew his son better and.

Speaker 1 (01:40:56):
He's a great guy, Craig.

Speaker 3 (01:40:58):
But Arthur said to me, he said, and actually after
he used the words, asked the prime minister, but you're
no longer the prime ministers, but he said, ask him
that during his three terms on balance, would he say
that as prime minister it was more of a job

(01:41:18):
or did he enjoy going to work every single day?

Speaker 2 (01:41:23):
It was a job I enjoyed immensely. Yeah. Did I
enjoy going to work every day? I think I did well.
I never felt like staying in bed to avoid the day.

Speaker 1 (01:41:39):
So he fronted up, no matter what, Oh.

Speaker 2 (01:41:41):
Yeah, I found it up. I believed. And if you're
in a hole, you had to dig yourself out or
stop digging. Some people say you should stop digging, but no,
I enjoyed it and it was a challenge, but it
was a privilege and the opportunity, and I felt that
it was a rare opportunity to do something that improved things.

(01:42:08):
And when I look back and think of, you know,
what we did with guns. What I did is often
or talked about to expand the opportunity for people on
more modest means to send their kids to independent schools
if that's what they wanted. I thought, changing the tax

(01:42:28):
system is good. I thought a lot of things. I
think back, but I guess to this day, if I'm
stopped in the street by people who want to say
something nice to me, they talk about guns.

Speaker 1 (01:42:45):
It was a massive legacy.

Speaker 2 (01:42:47):
Well it is. And people, particularly but not only women,
they worry about their children at schools and people.

Speaker 1 (01:42:57):
They just want to be safe.

Speaker 2 (01:42:59):
They just want to be safe. And the first responsibility
of a government is to make the country and the
people of the country feel safe. And that drove me
and I'm very grateful, but we in the end got there. Hmm.
As to what other countries do, well, that's there. I

(01:43:20):
don't presume to lecture the Americans about that. I feel
for them. They have gun incidents all the time, and
I'm not saying we won't have any more in Australia.
I can't. But all I do know is that we
did all we could in the wake of that to
prevent it happening again.

Speaker 1 (01:43:36):
And to make it harder. Yeah, and then Arthur had
one more question to me, and he said, he's always
been curious about this. Where does missus Howard fit.

Speaker 3 (01:43:47):
Into the life of a prime minister? I mean not
saying that one would influence it, but do you do
you know, your closest person to you on the planet.
Do you have rules or don't have rules about what
you talk about, what you don't talk about.

Speaker 2 (01:44:08):
You don't have rules, You're just as instinct instinct. We
talked about everything. Jeannette was a wonderful source of support,
a bias and affection, as were my three children. They
are now the youngest is forty five, so they very

(01:44:28):
much alive to things when and they generally agreed with me.
Not all that I mean, no, I mean one of
my sons who was particularly supportive of what Peter Rees
did on the waterfront, he said, Dad, you might have
been talking about fixing the waterfront for years, well long

(01:44:49):
last somebody has done something. Now this is Patrick's days,
so yeah, yeah, yeah, Patrick's Corrigangan Pegan and Chris Kragan yeah,
and John Sharp before he left Parliament had quite a
bit to do with it, as will, but look without
a family that we could talk about issues at home

(01:45:10):
and by hope in a sensible, sober way. And we
had our prejudices, and they were broadly supportive of me
on some issues. They were to the right of me
on some issues. They were not as far of the
writer as me, but overwhelmingly supported what I did, and

(01:45:31):
we survived and remained very close. And that's the greatest
achievement of my life, without any doubt, far more than
anything I did in politics, is the affectionate bond that
I have with my wife and three adult children and
their children.

Speaker 3 (01:45:47):
Well, John Howard, I think that'll do us on that note,
and I want to thank you for the privilege of
you sharing your time with me and our word inspit
that it really is a privilege and to actually all
those ideas, but your time really importantly.

Speaker 2 (01:46:03):
Thanks very much, Thanks March. I'm enjoyed it. Thank you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#211 Former Prime Minister John Howard on Australia’s Future, Political Rivals & Immigration Policies

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

#211 Former Prime Minister John Howard on Australia’s Future, Political Rivals & Immigration Policies

Stuff You Should Know