December 20, 2025 • 42 mins
In this bonus episode of Inside Politics, former primer minister Tony Abbott joins host Jacqueline Maley and chief political correspondent Paul Sakkal.
Abbott has penned a new book, Australia: A History, describing a more positive view of our past. He also discusses the current political and cultural challenges facing the Liberal Party, as well as reflecting on his own political career, including his relationship with Julia Gillard and the accusations of misogyny.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:01):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I am Jacqueline Maley. This week
we have something a little different. A little pre-Christmas special,
if you will. Our chief political correspondent, Paul Cicala, is
here with me in Sydney, and we have a former
prime minister in the studio with us. He has just
written a book on Australian history called Australia a history,
(00:22):
and he's been spending a lot of time in the
United States. He's just flown in from the United States,
where he is on the board of Fox Corporation, amongst
other things. Tony Abbott, a very big welcome to Inside Politics.
S2 (00:32):
Jacqueline, lovely to be with you and Paul.
S1 (00:34):
Now I have before me your tome on Australian history.
It's 400 pages ish. You're a known Anglophile and you're
obviously a big patriot, but few people, I think, would
have expected you to write a book about Australian history,
particularly a book about The Expanse, the entire Australian history.
What made you want to do it and add to
the canon?
S2 (00:54):
Well, two reasons I thought it was a more worthwhile
project Then the standard form of politician thing, which is
to write your memoirs. And I absolutely accept that memoirs
can be a valuable addition to our insights into what's happened.
But they do tend to be a little self-serving, and
(01:17):
I thought that I had best let my time in
politics be dealt with by the historians, rather than try
to rehash it all myself. Second reason I think we
have a history to be proud of. It's not perfect,
but it's much more good than bad. And I think
(01:37):
too much recent Australian history has focused on the downside. Now,
maybe to some extent that was a corrective to the
old Three Cheers version that Geoffrey Blainey refers to. But
I really do think we've the pendulum swung way too far. Uh,
to the to the other side And one of the
(01:58):
reasons why I think Australians aren't really studying our own
history much is because they instinctively know that the history
that produced a country as good as ours can't be
all bad. And yet when they delve into it, it
does seem all bad. So they think, well, let's let's
block it out and let's just look forward. But a
(02:20):
country which does not appreciate itself and does not understand
its own past, finds it difficult to adequately understand the
present or to build a good future for itself.
S1 (02:33):
I really enjoyed the opening chapters on colonial history and
the history of colonial Sydney, and you sort of put
a slightly different cast on our convict past and make
the point that the convicts actually, in many ways had
a better lot than the underclass in Britain, or certainly
people languishing in prisons in Britain. What do people misunderstand,
do you think about that period of history?
S2 (02:52):
Robert Hughes, very widely read and magnificent book, The Fatal Shore,
has colored our perceptions of that time. Now, it's true
that the punishment centers Port Arthur, Norfolk Island, Port Macquarie,
Moreton Bay were pretty horrific. But about 10% of the
convicts ended up in places like that. Um, for the
(03:14):
big majority they got here. Um, they were assigned to
a master, uh, for many of them, it was just
like working in a in a in a pretty normal job. Uh, because,
let's face it, that was the only labor force or
most of the labor force we had back in those days.
(03:36):
And so, yes, there was the minority experience of the
fatal shore, so to speak, but much more the majority experience,
which I, um, stress in the book, is of convicts
riding home, uh, to their kith and kin in Britain saying,
I am actually having a better life here than I
(03:58):
would have had in London. It's interesting. Um. Peacock, the
colonial artist responsible for the dust jacket illustration. He was
a London lawyer who was convicted, uh, to hang for forgery.
It was. It was commuted to life transportation. He ended up, uh,
(04:21):
at Port Macquarie, one of the hellholes of the fatal shore.
His wife and family joined him at Port Macquarie. They
decided they would rather go to Sydney. He got a
transfer from the administration at Port Macquarie and he became,
if you like, one of the weather officers at the
(04:42):
South Head weather station. Um, all this happening while he
was actually on a ticket of leave and he became
one of our best colonial artists and an early meteorologist,
as it were. So, I mean, this redemption story characterizes
our early existence. I mean, these were people who were
(05:04):
given a second chance at life, and most of them
grabbed it with both hands and succeeded magnificently.
S1 (05:12):
Obviously, the cohort of the population that didn't come off
so well from colonization was the indigenous population. And you
deal with the massacres in the book, and you do
take your lead from historians who've covered those extensively. But
your spin on the relations between the early colonizers and
Indigenous Australians is a bit different and a bit more
positive than recent times. Tell us about that.
S2 (05:35):
Well, two, two points to make. The first is that officially,
there was this constant stress on the fact that the
Aboriginal people of Australia were British subjects with all the
rights of British subjects, and needed to be treated fairly
and properly. That's certainly not what happened routinely on the frontier.
(05:57):
But even on the frontier, it wasn't all oppression, massacre, etc..
Most of the explorers needed Aboriginal guides to get them
through the territory that was unfamiliar to them, but was
very familiar to the local Aboriginal people. The pastoralists invariably
(06:18):
needed Aboriginal men to work their herds and Aboriginal women
to keep the households going. So it was a story
of cooperation and partnership, as well as a story of
conflict and confrontation. So again, I just think we need
to see the good and the bad, and we need
(06:39):
to be very careful about judging those times. By the
standards of these times, they were just much tougher times.
Whether you were a marine. Um, uh, a free settler, uh,
a convict or an indigenous person. They were just tough times. And, uh,
(07:00):
what we find shocking, uh, was routine in those days.
S3 (07:05):
It strikes me, Tony, that the reason you wrote this
book is tied up in a lot of senses. With
the current malaise of the Liberal Party, there's a sense
that you're out of step with where elite opinion is,
is formed in universities, in schools. Conservative opinion, in your view,
is marginalized. What's happening in modern society? That means the
Liberal Party is so out of step with the culture.
S2 (07:27):
Well, I think the culture is out of step with
reality in important respects, and that certainly is one of
the reasons why I wrote the book. Perhaps the main
reason why I wrote the book, because I just wanted
to correct the misapprehensions that so many people seem to
take for granted about about Australia's past. But, look, um, I've,
(07:51):
I've occasionally, uh, probably more ruefully than anything else. Paul, uh,
accepted that I am a bit out of step with
the temper of these times. I mean, um, I don't
think there is a climate crisis. I don't get this
whole trans push. Uh, I certainly don't accept the magic
(08:12):
pudding economics. I was appalled by the virus hysteria that
we lived through, um, for a couple of years. And and, yes,
I certainly don't accept the cultural self-loathing which seems to
characterize not just Australia, but much of the Anglosphere right now. So.
So yes, the book is, in a sense, um, my
(08:34):
pushback against all of this. Um, and I guess if
we're moving on to the Liberal Party, Paul, I wish
my party, The party I still wish well and want
to succeed. I wish my party were a bit more
robust in its approach to things, and I'm pleased to
(08:56):
see that under Sussan Ley, it does seem to be
adopting a slightly more robust approach.
S1 (09:01):
Isn't that a difficult position to be in, though, that
you're basically accepting that you're against sort of mainstream culture
in a few different respects, and the Liberal Party is
also having that problem in the sense that it just
doesn't seem to reflect mainstream Australian values. And we can
see that very clearly at the ballot box. I mean,
isn't there an arrogance to a political party that says
we're going to stay here and we're not going to
(09:23):
evolve to the mainstream culture, we're going to stay where
we are, and we're going to fight and belligerently stand
our ground until everybody comes around to us. Isn't that anti-democratic?
S2 (09:33):
Well, Jacqueline, obviously, uh, in a democracy, you want to
win votes rather than alienate voters. But I also think
you've got to engage in a conversation with the public,
which is respectful but occasionally perhaps robust. I mean, I've
(09:55):
always seen the job of political leadership, not as asking
the voters what they want and giving it to them,
but asking yourself, what does the country need? And trying
to persuade voters to vote for it? Um, for instance,
when I became opposition leader back in late 2009, everyone
(10:18):
thought that I was doomed because I didn't share the
consensus that climate change was the greatest economic, political, and
even moral challenge of our time. What I think I
succeeded in doing over two elections was persuading the public
that there was an economic dimension, as well as an
(10:39):
environmental and perhaps moral dimension to climate change. And, um,
I had an unexpected, uh, swing to us in 2010
and a massive swing to us in 2013. And, and
I still think that if you look at the record
of successful governments, Hawke and Keating and then Howard and
(11:00):
Costello and then perhaps to a lesser extent, myself, it
is possible to persuade the public, um, look at the voice.
The voice debate. Um, at the beginning of the voice debate,
some 60% of the public were in favour. In the end,
some 60% were against. And that's because a strong and
(11:23):
and consistent and I thought principled argument was, was mounted.
And and again, I stress the job of political leadership
is not to reflect what the focus groups tell you.
The job of political leadership is to discern what you
think our country most needs now, and try to persuade
(11:43):
the public to vote for that.
S3 (11:45):
You, um, you said at a CPAC conference, I think,
earlier this year that, you know, the conservative supporters there
should give the Liberal Party one more chance to win,
win back their faith. And you strike an optimistic tone
on the Liberal Party. In the book, you say that
you know, all parties, even in their most parlous positions,
are 1 or 2 great leaders away from coming back
to life. Do you think the Liberal Party is in
(12:06):
this existential moment where, because of the fracturing in the
center right and the new ways people gauge information and
the new ways people engage with politicians, there is a
chance that the center right doesn't hold, and it's inevitable
that we see a Nigel Farage style third force in
Australian politics. Or do you think the Liberal Party can
hold that ground?
S2 (12:26):
Uh, we just don't know what the future holds. And plainly, uh,
previous iterations of the Australian, the Australian version of the
centre right have failed. I mean, Deakin's Fusion Liberal Party
disintegrated during the second the First World War. The Nationalist
(12:46):
Party disintegrated during the depression. The UAP disintegrated during the
Second World War. So we have no God given right
to continue to exist, uh, as the main centre right
party as liberals. I mean, we have got to lift
our game, uh, to better address the problems of the
(13:07):
day and better, better appeal to the public. But I
do think we have a better chance of doing that
than any other alternative that I can see. When I
was rolled as prime minister, I had hundreds of letters
(13:28):
and emails from different people saying, oh, Tony, why don't
you start your own political party? And apart from the
fact that I think it would be churlish if someone
who had been put into the prime ministership by the
Liberal Party to then dump the Liberal Party just because
the Liberal Party had decided to put someone else into
the job. I also wrote back to these people, invariably
(13:49):
saying that it's much easier to fix an existing political
party than it is to start a new one. And
while I accept that reform in the United Kingdom is
doing very well, I don't think you can assume, even
on the basis of their current very strong polls, that
that's going to be translated to an election win. And
(14:12):
Nigel Farage is a remarkable politician. He's been on the
scene for a long time. And but for Nigel Farage,
Brexit would never have happened. And I think that shows
a degree of resilience, a degree of insight into the
(14:33):
issues facing Britain, which I don't think any of the
potential alternatives have shown in this country. I have a
you know, I'm, I'm not anti Pauline Hanson. I think
Pauline Hanson, in her second in incarnation, uh, as a,
as a member of Parliament, has been responsible, uh, I
(14:54):
think she's often been quite constructive. But it's one thing
to mount a reasonable critique of where things are at.
It's another thing to be a credible alternative government. I
don't think Nigel Farage is succeeding, and I certainly don't
think that at this point in time, um, One Nation
has succeeded.
S3 (15:14):
How do you take on that? What's the what's the
strategy there?
S2 (15:17):
Well, look at what John Howard did. I mean, when
Pauline Hanson first came to prominence saying that too many
Australians were feeling like strangers in their own country, uh,
government was letting people down. Too much money was being wasted. Howard,
very shrewdly. Resisted the urge to personally attack Hansen. Um would,
(15:45):
from time to time, where necessary, politely disagree with her
and did his best to address the real grievances that
her supporters felt. And over time, uh, the Howard government
did restore, um, prosperity. Uh, Howard's great achievement over the
(16:08):
course of his government was to actually make Australians feel
relaxed and comfortable about ourselves and our country. Um, because
he didn't pursue, uh, those divisive agendas, um, republicanism being
just one that characterised the Keating government, for instance. So
(16:30):
I think the way to respond to Hanson today is
not to be hypercritical of her, not even to be
too focused on her. It's to look at the things
that are causing our problems now. I do think that
there's an insanity to our current energy policy and to
(16:51):
our current emissions obsession. I do think there's deep folly
in what is effectively out of control mass migration at
the moment. I do think that we need to take
better charge of a whole range of cultural institutions, which
(17:11):
seem to be going off on, really.
S1 (17:15):
What do you mean by that?
S2 (17:16):
Well.
S1 (17:17):
Look, how can a government take charge of cultural institutions
and why should it?
S2 (17:20):
Well, a government needs to express a strong view. I mean,
give us an example as a as a conservative. As
a conservative. Uh, I don't think, uh, that government should
be directing, uh, institutions other than those that are immediately
(17:42):
the responsibility of government. But I think government's more than
capable of providing a lead. For instance. Um. Uh, what?
Why wouldn't, um, senior ministers be able to say, without
any embarrassment or hesitation that there are only two genders?
I mean, why is that such a problem? Why have
(18:03):
so many politicians got themselves into absolute knots and twists?
S1 (18:08):
Do you think that's a big issue for Australians? So
you're talking, you're talking.
S2 (18:11):
It's not something. It's not something that the average Australian
obsesses about. But if your teenage kid comes home from
school and suddenly announces that, um, he is a she
or she is a he.
S1 (18:27):
Well, they come out as trans.
S2 (18:29):
Then. Then it does suddenly become a huge issue. And I,
I absolutely accept that if as an adult, um, uh,
you you've wrestled for years, maybe with this, uh, issue, uh, and,
and you want to go down a particular path. That's
(18:52):
your right. But this idea that schools should be, in
a sense, encouraging gender fluidity and this idea that cultural
institutions should be promoting, um, this kind of non-binary identity, uh,
it's I think it's slightly strange. And again, I think
it's the job of, of significant national leaders, whether they're
(19:17):
the chairman of big companies, whether it's the head of
the ABC, uh, whether it's members of parliament, premiers, prime ministers.
You've just got to stand up.
S3 (19:28):
If you if you acknowledge that you said earlier that
you don't think this is a top order issue for people,
although some would have strongly held views and be quite
shocked if their kid said that said that to them
after school, which I accept. Why should the Prime Minister
or business leaders spend any time talking about this if
it's not a top order concern?
S2 (19:45):
Because, as Reagan said of the presidency, it is a
bully pulpit. Uh, and as as both of you would know, uh,
if you are a premier or a prime minister or
even a senior minister in a government, uh, every time
you have an encounter with the media, you are questioned
(20:06):
about whatever the topical issues of the day are. And
I do think that our leadership has a responsibility to
be prepared to express a robust common sense view. Now,
that doesn't mean that you've then got to devote your
whole life to being a culture war warrior. Because in
(20:29):
the end, what people expect of government is to try
to ensure that the economy's well managed, to try to
ensure that government is efficiently run, to try to ensure
that the country is as safe as it humanly can be.
But that doesn't mean that you should opt out of
these things, particularly if there are a whole lot of
(20:53):
currents pushing society in unusual and even somewhat strange directions.
S1 (20:59):
Could it be that the responsibility also swings the other way,
and that if you have the bully pulpit, as you say,
you have a responsibility not to inflame these issues? And
isn't that something that also should be a consideration for politicians?
S2 (21:10):
Well, I think it's important to to treat people with respect.
And again, this is one of the other problems, uh,
in a more fragmented and polarized society. I think there
has been a regrettable tendency to assume that people who
disagree are not just misguided or misinformed, but in some
(21:32):
way bad people. And and I just I think this
is most unfortunate. Uh, but but again, uh, I just
think it's very important, uh, for leaders at every level
to say what they mean, to do what they say.
And if you see something significant, which you think is, um,
(21:55):
seriously out of line rather than just ignoring it, I
think you should politely deal with it in the same
way that if you're walking down the street and you
see something happening that shouldn't be happening, like the vandalizing
of a car or the harassment of of of a woman,
you you can't just walk past that, or you shouldn't
(22:18):
walk past that. And if you're a leader, you've got
a moral duty to do the best you can to
stop bad things happening.
S1 (22:27):
You talked about the the US presidency being a bully pulpit.
How is Donald Trump handling that responsibility? Well, do you think?
S2 (22:35):
Well, look, I think domestic Trump is uh, is is, uh,
pretty good. Um, I think foreign Trump has done some
good things and some, some things that I wish he
hadn't done. Uh, I, I like to see, um, exercises
(22:56):
of American power, uh, directed against people who are doing
the wrong thing. So I was pleased to see the
American attack on the Iranian nuclear installations. Uh, I accept that.
You've got to be incredibly careful that you don't make
make mistakes. But I don't have a problem with American
(23:18):
forces taking out drug running boats.
S1 (23:22):
Even extrajudicially judicially.
S2 (23:24):
Well, look, the Obama administration certainly launched lots of kill
strikes on suspected terrorists. Sometimes got it wrong, but they
certainly did that. And, um, I, I don't think there
was all that much moral outrage about what the Obama
(23:44):
administration tried to do. And I think that there should
be the same, I guess, level of understanding applied to
the current administration as was applied to to the former administration.
S3 (23:57):
The foreign sphere. You've been a big supporter of Ukraine
and its war with Russia. You famously said you'd shirtfront
Vladimir Putin, infamously, famously, I don't know which term you'd use.
Do you worry that China is watching, uh, Trump's manoeuvre
in on on Russia and Ukraine?
S2 (24:14):
Absolutely.
S3 (24:15):
And considering it in relation to its thinking on Taiwan.
S2 (24:18):
Absolutely right. I mean, you know, the the democratic West
is currently challenged by, if you like, an axis of autocracy,
whether it's the militarist dictatorship in Moscow, the communist dictatorship
in Beijing, the apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship in Iran, and these
(24:43):
challenger powers are working in a kind of loose concert,
not because they have all that much in common, uh,
except for this their deep dissatisfaction with the Anglo-American global order, uh,
which has dominated the world for much of the last
(25:06):
two centuries, but particularly since the Second World War. And
there is no doubt whatsoever that as part of the
No Limits partnership, the declared no limits partnership between Putin
and XI. If Putin in the end prevails in Ukraine
because the West's refused to support this country fighting heroically
(25:29):
for its the freedom and independence the US.
S3 (25:31):
Really?
S2 (25:31):
Um, but but of course, part of the problem is
that even Britain and France, um, are now reluctant to
do anything without American support. I mean, Sir Keir Starmer,
I think, quite properly announced earlier in the year, uh,
that once a ceasefire was in place, there would be a,
(25:53):
a British led stabilisation force in Ukraine to act as
a tripwire against further Russian aggression. But he said, but
we would need an American backstop when the American backstop
was not immediately forthcoming. He suddenly started backpedaling. Now, I
think it's sad, frankly, that That a country like Britain
(26:14):
is not prepared to act independently here.
S3 (26:16):
That's right. Just back to your point. If Russia was
to prevail and you were going to continue on to
how China would act, I'll let you continue with that.
S2 (26:23):
Yeah. Well, well, there's there's no doubt that China would
take that as a sign of, of Western weakness and
in particular of American weakness, or at least of an
American pullback from the wider, from the wider.
S3 (26:38):
And what could the consequence be in terms of the Indo-Pacific?
S2 (26:41):
Well, um, uh, if America were to pull back, uh,
to its own hemisphere, uh, that would allow China to, to, to,
to dominate Asia, um, and most likely Russia to dominate Europe.
(27:04):
And if our world were dominated by China over time,
it would be a very different, and I think much
worse world than it has been up till now. I mean,
the long Anglo American ascendancy has changed the world, uh,
(27:25):
in the Anglo American direction. More free, more fair, more rich,
more safe. Um, a a sinocentric world would change everything
in a Chinese direction. And much as I love Chinese people,
Chinese governance is. Much more, um, it's much less conducive
(27:51):
to individual freedom.
S1 (27:52):
You met with JD Vance, Vice President JD Vance on
a few days ago in the United States. Is that
something you discussed with him?
S2 (28:00):
Look, uh, we had a great talk. I'm a big
fan of JD Vance. I think he's a very, very
impressive human being. And, um, I would encourage anyone who
wants to get a handle on JD Vance to read
his outstanding book, Hillbilly Elegy. Uh, I won't go into
the detail of what we discussed. One matter that I
(28:21):
have been raising on and off in the United States
ever since Aukus was announced, and all credit to the
Morrison government for announcing Aukus and all credit to the
Albanese government for continuing with Aukus. The problem with Aukus
is that we need more naval strike power now. Um,
(28:45):
and yes, let's get Virginia class subs, uh, in 8
or 10 years time and let's get the Aukus subs, uh,
in 10 or 15 years time. But wouldn't it be
good to get a nuclear powered submarine now? And given
that the Americans are retiring a couple of LA class
nuclear powered submarines every year. My curiosity is why couldn't
(29:11):
Australia take over 1 or 2 of these boats now, uh,
and run them for a few years, uh, as Australian
ends in flagged boats? Because, um, it's nearly always possible
to extract a few more years of useful life out of,
(29:32):
out of out of these, these vessels. And why not
do that? Because we really do need more firepower now. Um,
because as everyone says, uh, a crisis across the Taiwan
Straits could be much closer than a decade away.
S1 (29:51):
So is that something you suggested to JD Vance?
S2 (29:53):
I'm just not going to go into the details.
S1 (29:55):
You brought it up in that context.
S3 (29:57):
Um, I.
S1 (29:58):
Think I will take it as a possible. Yes. I
want to ask you just lastly about something, because we're
running out of time. Unfortunately, I feel like we could
talk for a lot longer in reading around last week
about you. I read a piece in the Australian from
a few years ago that you wrote a letter of
recommendation for Julia Gillard, for her recommendation for an Order
of Australia, a companion in the Order of Australia, which,
of course, she was awarded. Is that true?
S2 (30:20):
Look, uh, I honestly don't recollect it, but but but but.
S1 (30:25):
Do you just dash these letters off all the time?
S2 (30:27):
But I, I certainly I certainly thought she was an appropriate, uh, awardee.
And I have written a lot of letters over the
years in support of people getting an award. And one
of the points I make in the book is that
Gillard was a very capable politician. I mean, uh, I
(30:49):
was uh, she was the shadow Minister for health when
I was the health minister. Um, she was the manager
of opposition business when I was the leader of the House. Uh,
she was deputy prime minister when I became opposition leader,
she and I for several years did a Friday morning
(31:09):
joint discussion on the today programme with, uh, with Carl.
And she's an impressive person, and certainly she's been really
exemplary as an ex prime minister. She's, um, occasionally said
things that she thought needed to be said, um, while
at the same time immersing herself in various good works. So, um,
(31:34):
if I did write a letter, I'm pleased. And if
I didn't, I certainly think that she's a worthy awardee.
S1 (31:42):
How do you reflect on that time now? I mean,
times have changed a lot. And certainly the way that
we talk about gender and sexism in public life. She,
of course, accused of misogyny. She wasn't the only person
to accuse you of misogyny at that time. Do you
think it would be acceptable now, for example, for a
party leader to stand in front of a sign that
says Bob Brown's bitch or ditch the witch, that kind
of thing. Do you regret that?
S2 (32:03):
Well, Jacqueline, as you might remember, uh, at the time,
I was completely unaware, uh, that those banners were there. Uh,
I mean, they were, as far as I'm aware, erected
behind me after I'd stood up to, uh, to speak.
S1 (32:21):
Yeah, I'm still. I guess the question still stands whether
you regret any of the commentary, any of your behavior,
any part that you might have played in the perceptions
and the hysteria around that time, and the undeniable sexist
treatment that Julia Gillard was subject to? Well.
S2 (32:38):
I, I often used to observe that, uh, back in
the day, uh, the parliamentary chamber was not fair, uh,
to to female to female members. I mean, I can
remember when Carmen Lawrence used to stand up as health minister. Uh,
I thought there was a. Um, uh, a nasty dimension
(33:03):
sometimes to the barracking that that she got. Um, by
all means, Jacqueline, point to something that I did or said, um,
which which was, um, an example of sexist misogyny because
I think I honestly think you'd struggle to find anything.
S1 (33:20):
What I'm asking. I'm not I'm not saying that at all.
What I'm asking is whether in your time reflecting because
it was now ten years ago, plus in your time
reflecting whether or not you would do anything differently or
how you reflect on all of the commentary and all
of the sort of, um, reflection we've had on the
sexism in politics at that time. And I'm not talking
about your behaviour necessarily, but all I'm talking about the
(33:45):
media commentary. You know, Alan Jones, who's a friend of yours,
famously was horrendously sexist.
S2 (33:51):
Towards and he and he and he apologised.
S1 (33:53):
Sure. But I guess what I'm asking is how do
you reflect on that time now?
S2 (33:56):
I mean, I mean, look, Occasionally people say things, um,
in the heat of the moment that they regret. Uh,
and when that happens, you should apologize. And Alan, to
his credit, did apologize for those observations, which were they
were silly. They were over the top. They were wrong. Um, and,
(34:18):
and and likewise, uh, I'm just trying to think back
to anything that I might have said or done at
the time. Um, I don't.
S3 (34:27):
There's the sex appeal comment. There's, uh, the, the the
daughter's comment. I'm just trying to recall my mind back.
I mean, there's the women doing the ironing. There's a
there's a couple that come to mind.
S2 (34:38):
Well, I suppose these these were, uh.
S1 (34:42):
I could make an honest woman.
S2 (34:45):
I think they're pretty. I think they were fairly innocent observations. Um,
maybe tactless observations. Uh, um, in the Abbott household, um,
when I was growing up, I'm afraid mum did the ironing.
It was as simple as that. And I think even now,
it's probably true that in more households than not, it's
(35:06):
the woman that does the ironing. To the extent that
we do any ironing these days. Um, and what was
the other thing I said wrong, Paul?
S3 (35:15):
Oh, there was the sex appeal to Fiona.
S2 (35:16):
Oh, yes.
S3 (35:17):
Yes, there was comment on your daughter's appearance, which I
think people found maybe slightly weird.
S1 (35:20):
That Julia Gillard should make an honest woman of herself.
I mean, there's a there's a list of these things,
but I suppose the, um, the but.
S2 (35:27):
If but if but if Julia Gillard had said Tony
Abbott should make an honest man of himself, would that
be a sexist observation?
S3 (35:34):
I doubt it would be seen that way, but.
S2 (35:36):
No, see.
S3 (35:36):
But that's not how gender the imbalance is on the other.
S2 (35:39):
Side. I mean, look, let's I just think we can
get we can just get overexcited about these things. I mean,
I believe that in my adult life. I have always
treated women with respect. Uh, and I have, as far
(36:01):
as is humanly possible, uh, tried to see people as people,
not as female, male, black, white, Catholic, Protestant, Australian, non-australian.
I've tried to treat people as people. Um, and and
to look for the good in them, despite your.
S3 (36:22):
Uh, what you described as some tactless comments. Uh, I
think in talking to people before this podcast, I've described
them your position in kind of conservative circles, both in
Australia and in London and in Washington and other places
you do hold, it seems to me, this kind of
special status as the leading Australian conservative, Malcolm Turnbull and
Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton don't command the crowds you command.
(36:43):
At Conservative Party conferences in London and other places. I've
seen some of this myself. The way you get mugged
in crowds, you're still also highly active in factional politics.
You engage with internal politics and just the general affairs
of the Liberal Party in a way that most of
your predecessors don't anymore. What's what's the mission that you're on? What?
(37:06):
Why are you still so engaged, and what are you
driving at?
S2 (37:10):
Well, I think John Howard has been no less involved
in the party.
S3 (37:15):
Uh, probably just due to age now.
S2 (37:17):
And and John certainly is, I think, quite appropriately, appropriately
regarded as the greatest living liberal, um, in some respects,
perhaps the greatest ever liberal. Uh, and I think he's
been altogether a force for good in the Liberal Party
in his post post-parliamentary time. And I guess in this respect,
(37:41):
at least, I would want to model myself in on
on John Howard. Um, I want my party to succeed.
I want my party to be its best self. And
I think it will succeed best and be its best
self if it is a robust alternative to labour. If
(38:04):
it is liberal in the sense of wanting smaller government,
lower taxes, greater freedom. If it is conservative in the
sense of respecting the family, small business institutions that have
stood the test of time. But above all else, if
it is patriotic because I think Australia is the best
(38:27):
place in the world to live, and I desperately want
us to stay that way.
S3 (38:30):
You've acknowledged, though, that you're some of the views you
hold are potentially out of step with mainstream Australian values.
Are you fighting some of your colleagues who served with you?
Feel like you're fighting the battles of your prime ministership,
that you're driven by a sense that you still have
work to do? Because that was cut short in the
way it was.
S2 (38:46):
Yeah. Well. Well, I mean, I don't think we should
run our electricity system to reduce emissions, and I think
a whole lot of those chickens are in the process
of coming home to roost. I do think we need to, um,
get government spending under better control. I do think we
(39:07):
need to encourage a greater sense of personal responsibility. And
I do think that Australia should, uh, be better prepared
to defend itself if needs be and to make a
contribution to defending freedom in the wider world. So I
don't think these issues really ever change. Paul. I mean,
(39:29):
I think the circumstances change, but the fundamental imperatives don't
very finely.
S3 (39:35):
Um, your keenness to contribute to public life, I didn't
realise extended to before the last election, actually having conversations
with people about running in a seat before the May election.
I've heard from people close to Peter Dutton that there
were conversations about running for a Senate spot for MacArthur,
for Parramatta. All of these things were floated and you
were you were keen and expressed this view to the
(39:56):
former opposition leader.
S2 (39:57):
I think I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration.
I had one conversation with Peter Dutton, um, after it
was publicly suggested that I could possibly take Jim Molan
Senate seat, and Peter basically said that it would make
his life more complicated if that were to happen. I
(40:20):
completely accepted that. Um, now, different people said to me, oh, Tony,
why don't you have another go? And my view then
and now is that I couldn't or shouldn't do anything
that makes the life of the leader of the Liberal
Party more complicated. And.
S3 (40:42):
Um, can you see a path back where it doesn't
make the leader's life more complicated? Is it still? Is
it in prospect in some way?
S2 (40:48):
Look, um, I've got a lot to do as things stand, Paul.
I mean, I've got a book to promote. Um, I've
got a couple of other book projects, at least.
S3 (40:59):
A couple of book projects.
S2 (41:00):
In, in, in in my mind.
S3 (41:02):
What are.
S2 (41:02):
They? Uh, let's, uh, get them further advanced before we
start talking about them in public.
S3 (41:09):
But, but.
S2 (41:10):
But thank you, thank you. I appreciate that, but, um,
I think the best thing that people like me can do, uh,
in normal political circumstances, is be as encouraging as I
can be to the coming generation of liberals. And just
as I want the Liberal Party to be its best self,
(41:32):
I want my, um, I guess, liberal successors to be
their best selves. And I'll just keep doing that to
the best of my ability.
S1 (41:40):
Tony, you've been so generous with your time. Unfortunately, we
have to let you go. You do have a book
to promote. I would encourage everyone to buy this book
for for Christmas presents. It's it's actually a really good read.
And that's for people who maybe wouldn't even be natural
fans of Tony Abbott's or might not have voted for him.
We do have an extraordinary history and he's laid it
out in beautiful, lucid prose. Tony Abbott, thank you very much.
S2 (41:59):
Thanks, Jacqueline. Thanks, Paul.
S1 (42:06):
Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
listen to your podcasts. To stay up to date with
all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age and
The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To support our journalism, subscribe
(42:29):
to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm
Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I am Jacqueline Maley. This week
we have something a little different. A little pre-Christmas special,
if you will. Our chief political correspondent, Paul Cicala, is
here with me in Sydney, and we have a former
prime minister in the studio with us. He has just
written a book on Australian history called Australia a history,
(00:22):
and he's been spending a lot of time in the
United States. He's just flown in from the United States,
where he is on the board of Fox Corporation, amongst
other things. Tony Abbott, a very big welcome to Inside Politics.
S2 (00:32):
Jacqueline, lovely to be with you and Paul.
S1 (00:34):
Now I have before me your tome on Australian history.
It's 400 pages ish. You're a known Anglophile and you're
obviously a big patriot, but few people, I think, would
have expected you to write a book about Australian history,
particularly a book about The Expanse, the entire Australian history.
What made you want to do it and add to
the canon?
S2 (00:54):
Well, two reasons I thought it was a more worthwhile
project Then the standard form of politician thing, which is
to write your memoirs. And I absolutely accept that memoirs
can be a valuable addition to our insights into what's happened.
But they do tend to be a little self-serving, and
(01:17):
I thought that I had best let my time in
politics be dealt with by the historians, rather than try
to rehash it all myself. Second reason I think we
have a history to be proud of. It's not perfect,
but it's much more good than bad. And I think
(01:37):
too much recent Australian history has focused on the downside. Now,
maybe to some extent that was a corrective to the
old Three Cheers version that Geoffrey Blainey refers to. But
I really do think we've the pendulum swung way too far. Uh,
to the to the other side And one of the
(01:58):
reasons why I think Australians aren't really studying our own
history much is because they instinctively know that the history
that produced a country as good as ours can't be
all bad. And yet when they delve into it, it
does seem all bad. So they think, well, let's let's
block it out and let's just look forward. But a
(02:20):
country which does not appreciate itself and does not understand
its own past, finds it difficult to adequately understand the
present or to build a good future for itself.
S1 (02:33):
I really enjoyed the opening chapters on colonial history and
the history of colonial Sydney, and you sort of put
a slightly different cast on our convict past and make
the point that the convicts actually, in many ways had
a better lot than the underclass in Britain, or certainly
people languishing in prisons in Britain. What do people misunderstand,
do you think about that period of history?
S2 (02:52):
Robert Hughes, very widely read and magnificent book, The Fatal Shore,
has colored our perceptions of that time. Now, it's true
that the punishment centers Port Arthur, Norfolk Island, Port Macquarie,
Moreton Bay were pretty horrific. But about 10% of the
convicts ended up in places like that. Um, for the
(03:14):
big majority they got here. Um, they were assigned to
a master, uh, for many of them, it was just
like working in a in a in a pretty normal job. Uh, because,
let's face it, that was the only labor force or
most of the labor force we had back in those days.
(03:36):
And so, yes, there was the minority experience of the
fatal shore, so to speak, but much more the majority experience,
which I, um, stress in the book, is of convicts
riding home, uh, to their kith and kin in Britain saying,
I am actually having a better life here than I
(03:58):
would have had in London. It's interesting. Um. Peacock, the
colonial artist responsible for the dust jacket illustration. He was
a London lawyer who was convicted, uh, to hang for forgery.
It was. It was commuted to life transportation. He ended up, uh,
(04:21):
at Port Macquarie, one of the hellholes of the fatal shore.
His wife and family joined him at Port Macquarie. They
decided they would rather go to Sydney. He got a
transfer from the administration at Port Macquarie and he became,
if you like, one of the weather officers at the
(04:42):
South Head weather station. Um, all this happening while he
was actually on a ticket of leave and he became
one of our best colonial artists and an early meteorologist,
as it were. So, I mean, this redemption story characterizes
our early existence. I mean, these were people who were
(05:04):
given a second chance at life, and most of them
grabbed it with both hands and succeeded magnificently.
S1 (05:12):
Obviously, the cohort of the population that didn't come off
so well from colonization was the indigenous population. And you
deal with the massacres in the book, and you do
take your lead from historians who've covered those extensively. But
your spin on the relations between the early colonizers and
Indigenous Australians is a bit different and a bit more
positive than recent times. Tell us about that.
S2 (05:35):
Well, two, two points to make. The first is that officially,
there was this constant stress on the fact that the
Aboriginal people of Australia were British subjects with all the
rights of British subjects, and needed to be treated fairly
and properly. That's certainly not what happened routinely on the frontier.
(05:57):
But even on the frontier, it wasn't all oppression, massacre, etc..
Most of the explorers needed Aboriginal guides to get them
through the territory that was unfamiliar to them, but was
very familiar to the local Aboriginal people. The pastoralists invariably
(06:18):
needed Aboriginal men to work their herds and Aboriginal women
to keep the households going. So it was a story
of cooperation and partnership, as well as a story of
conflict and confrontation. So again, I just think we need
to see the good and the bad, and we need
(06:39):
to be very careful about judging those times. By the
standards of these times, they were just much tougher times.
Whether you were a marine. Um, uh, a free settler, uh,
a convict or an indigenous person. They were just tough times. And, uh,
(07:00):
what we find shocking, uh, was routine in those days.
S3 (07:05):
It strikes me, Tony, that the reason you wrote this
book is tied up in a lot of senses. With
the current malaise of the Liberal Party, there's a sense
that you're out of step with where elite opinion is,
is formed in universities, in schools. Conservative opinion, in your view,
is marginalized. What's happening in modern society? That means the
Liberal Party is so out of step with the culture.
S2 (07:27):
Well, I think the culture is out of step with
reality in important respects, and that certainly is one of
the reasons why I wrote the book. Perhaps the main
reason why I wrote the book, because I just wanted
to correct the misapprehensions that so many people seem to
take for granted about about Australia's past. But, look, um, I've,
(07:51):
I've occasionally, uh, probably more ruefully than anything else. Paul, uh,
accepted that I am a bit out of step with
the temper of these times. I mean, um, I don't
think there is a climate crisis. I don't get this
whole trans push. Uh, I certainly don't accept the magic
(08:12):
pudding economics. I was appalled by the virus hysteria that
we lived through, um, for a couple of years. And and, yes,
I certainly don't accept the cultural self-loathing which seems to
characterize not just Australia, but much of the Anglosphere right now. So.
So yes, the book is, in a sense, um, my
(08:34):
pushback against all of this. Um, and I guess if
we're moving on to the Liberal Party, Paul, I wish
my party, The party I still wish well and want
to succeed. I wish my party were a bit more
robust in its approach to things, and I'm pleased to
(08:56):
see that under Sussan Ley, it does seem to be
adopting a slightly more robust approach.
S1 (09:01):
Isn't that a difficult position to be in, though, that
you're basically accepting that you're against sort of mainstream culture
in a few different respects, and the Liberal Party is
also having that problem in the sense that it just
doesn't seem to reflect mainstream Australian values. And we can
see that very clearly at the ballot box. I mean,
isn't there an arrogance to a political party that says
we're going to stay here and we're not going to
(09:23):
evolve to the mainstream culture, we're going to stay where
we are, and we're going to fight and belligerently stand
our ground until everybody comes around to us. Isn't that anti-democratic?
S2 (09:33):
Well, Jacqueline, obviously, uh, in a democracy, you want to
win votes rather than alienate voters. But I also think
you've got to engage in a conversation with the public,
which is respectful but occasionally perhaps robust. I mean, I've
(09:55):
always seen the job of political leadership, not as asking
the voters what they want and giving it to them,
but asking yourself, what does the country need? And trying
to persuade voters to vote for it? Um, for instance,
when I became opposition leader back in late 2009, everyone
(10:18):
thought that I was doomed because I didn't share the
consensus that climate change was the greatest economic, political, and
even moral challenge of our time. What I think I
succeeded in doing over two elections was persuading the public
that there was an economic dimension, as well as an
(10:39):
environmental and perhaps moral dimension to climate change. And, um,
I had an unexpected, uh, swing to us in 2010
and a massive swing to us in 2013. And, and
I still think that if you look at the record
of successful governments, Hawke and Keating and then Howard and
(11:00):
Costello and then perhaps to a lesser extent, myself, it
is possible to persuade the public, um, look at the voice.
The voice debate. Um, at the beginning of the voice debate,
some 60% of the public were in favour. In the end,
some 60% were against. And that's because a strong and
(11:23):
and consistent and I thought principled argument was, was mounted.
And and again, I stress the job of political leadership
is not to reflect what the focus groups tell you.
The job of political leadership is to discern what you
think our country most needs now, and try to persuade
(11:43):
the public to vote for that.
S3 (11:45):
You, um, you said at a CPAC conference, I think,
earlier this year that, you know, the conservative supporters there
should give the Liberal Party one more chance to win,
win back their faith. And you strike an optimistic tone
on the Liberal Party. In the book, you say that
you know, all parties, even in their most parlous positions,
are 1 or 2 great leaders away from coming back
to life. Do you think the Liberal Party is in
(12:06):
this existential moment where, because of the fracturing in the
center right and the new ways people gauge information and
the new ways people engage with politicians, there is a
chance that the center right doesn't hold, and it's inevitable
that we see a Nigel Farage style third force in
Australian politics. Or do you think the Liberal Party can
hold that ground?
S2 (12:26):
Uh, we just don't know what the future holds. And plainly, uh,
previous iterations of the Australian, the Australian version of the
centre right have failed. I mean, Deakin's Fusion Liberal Party
disintegrated during the second the First World War. The Nationalist
(12:46):
Party disintegrated during the depression. The UAP disintegrated during the
Second World War. So we have no God given right
to continue to exist, uh, as the main centre right
party as liberals. I mean, we have got to lift
our game, uh, to better address the problems of the
(13:07):
day and better, better appeal to the public. But I
do think we have a better chance of doing that
than any other alternative that I can see. When I
was rolled as prime minister, I had hundreds of letters
(13:28):
and emails from different people saying, oh, Tony, why don't
you start your own political party? And apart from the
fact that I think it would be churlish if someone
who had been put into the prime ministership by the
Liberal Party to then dump the Liberal Party just because
the Liberal Party had decided to put someone else into
the job. I also wrote back to these people, invariably
(13:49):
saying that it's much easier to fix an existing political
party than it is to start a new one. And
while I accept that reform in the United Kingdom is
doing very well, I don't think you can assume, even
on the basis of their current very strong polls, that
that's going to be translated to an election win. And
(14:12):
Nigel Farage is a remarkable politician. He's been on the
scene for a long time. And but for Nigel Farage,
Brexit would never have happened. And I think that shows
a degree of resilience, a degree of insight into the
(14:33):
issues facing Britain, which I don't think any of the
potential alternatives have shown in this country. I have a
you know, I'm, I'm not anti Pauline Hanson. I think
Pauline Hanson, in her second in incarnation, uh, as a,
as a member of Parliament, has been responsible, uh, I
(14:54):
think she's often been quite constructive. But it's one thing
to mount a reasonable critique of where things are at.
It's another thing to be a credible alternative government. I
don't think Nigel Farage is succeeding, and I certainly don't
think that at this point in time, um, One Nation
has succeeded.
S3 (15:14):
How do you take on that? What's the what's the
strategy there?
S2 (15:17):
Well, look at what John Howard did. I mean, when
Pauline Hanson first came to prominence saying that too many
Australians were feeling like strangers in their own country, uh,
government was letting people down. Too much money was being wasted. Howard,
very shrewdly. Resisted the urge to personally attack Hansen. Um would,
(15:45):
from time to time, where necessary, politely disagree with her
and did his best to address the real grievances that
her supporters felt. And over time, uh, the Howard government
did restore, um, prosperity. Uh, Howard's great achievement over the
(16:08):
course of his government was to actually make Australians feel
relaxed and comfortable about ourselves and our country. Um, because
he didn't pursue, uh, those divisive agendas, um, republicanism being
just one that characterised the Keating government, for instance. So
(16:30):
I think the way to respond to Hanson today is
not to be hypercritical of her, not even to be
too focused on her. It's to look at the things
that are causing our problems now. I do think that
there's an insanity to our current energy policy and to
(16:51):
our current emissions obsession. I do think there's deep folly
in what is effectively out of control mass migration at
the moment. I do think that we need to take
better charge of a whole range of cultural institutions, which
(17:11):
seem to be going off on, really.
S1 (17:15):
What do you mean by that?
S2 (17:16):
Well.
S1 (17:17):
Look, how can a government take charge of cultural institutions
and why should it?
S2 (17:20):
Well, a government needs to express a strong view. I mean,
give us an example as a as a conservative. As
a conservative. Uh, I don't think, uh, that government should
be directing, uh, institutions other than those that are immediately
(17:42):
the responsibility of government. But I think government's more than
capable of providing a lead. For instance. Um. Uh, what?
Why wouldn't, um, senior ministers be able to say, without
any embarrassment or hesitation that there are only two genders?
I mean, why is that such a problem? Why have
(18:03):
so many politicians got themselves into absolute knots and twists?
S1 (18:08):
Do you think that's a big issue for Australians? So
you're talking, you're talking.
S2 (18:11):
It's not something. It's not something that the average Australian
obsesses about. But if your teenage kid comes home from
school and suddenly announces that, um, he is a she
or she is a he.
S1 (18:27):
Well, they come out as trans.
S2 (18:29):
Then. Then it does suddenly become a huge issue. And I,
I absolutely accept that if as an adult, um, uh,
you you've wrestled for years, maybe with this, uh, issue, uh, and,
and you want to go down a particular path. That's
(18:52):
your right. But this idea that schools should be, in
a sense, encouraging gender fluidity and this idea that cultural
institutions should be promoting, um, this kind of non-binary identity, uh,
it's I think it's slightly strange. And again, I think
it's the job of, of significant national leaders, whether they're
(19:17):
the chairman of big companies, whether it's the head of
the ABC, uh, whether it's members of parliament, premiers, prime ministers.
You've just got to stand up.
S3 (19:28):
If you if you acknowledge that you said earlier that
you don't think this is a top order issue for people,
although some would have strongly held views and be quite
shocked if their kid said that said that to them
after school, which I accept. Why should the Prime Minister
or business leaders spend any time talking about this if
it's not a top order concern?
S2 (19:45):
Because, as Reagan said of the presidency, it is a
bully pulpit. Uh, and as as both of you would know, uh,
if you are a premier or a prime minister or
even a senior minister in a government, uh, every time
you have an encounter with the media, you are questioned
(20:06):
about whatever the topical issues of the day are. And
I do think that our leadership has a responsibility to
be prepared to express a robust common sense view. Now,
that doesn't mean that you've then got to devote your
whole life to being a culture war warrior. Because in
(20:29):
the end, what people expect of government is to try
to ensure that the economy's well managed, to try to
ensure that government is efficiently run, to try to ensure
that the country is as safe as it humanly can be.
But that doesn't mean that you should opt out of
these things, particularly if there are a whole lot of
(20:53):
currents pushing society in unusual and even somewhat strange directions.
S1 (20:59):
Could it be that the responsibility also swings the other way,
and that if you have the bully pulpit, as you say,
you have a responsibility not to inflame these issues? And
isn't that something that also should be a consideration for politicians?
S2 (21:10):
Well, I think it's important to to treat people with respect.
And again, this is one of the other problems, uh,
in a more fragmented and polarized society. I think there
has been a regrettable tendency to assume that people who
disagree are not just misguided or misinformed, but in some
(21:32):
way bad people. And and I just I think this
is most unfortunate. Uh, but but again, uh, I just
think it's very important, uh, for leaders at every level
to say what they mean, to do what they say.
And if you see something significant, which you think is, um,
(21:55):
seriously out of line rather than just ignoring it, I
think you should politely deal with it in the same
way that if you're walking down the street and you
see something happening that shouldn't be happening, like the vandalizing
of a car or the harassment of of of a woman,
you you can't just walk past that, or you shouldn't
(22:18):
walk past that. And if you're a leader, you've got
a moral duty to do the best you can to
stop bad things happening.
S1 (22:27):
You talked about the the US presidency being a bully pulpit.
How is Donald Trump handling that responsibility? Well, do you think?
S2 (22:35):
Well, look, I think domestic Trump is uh, is is, uh,
pretty good. Um, I think foreign Trump has done some
good things and some, some things that I wish he
hadn't done. Uh, I, I like to see, um, exercises
(22:56):
of American power, uh, directed against people who are doing
the wrong thing. So I was pleased to see the
American attack on the Iranian nuclear installations. Uh, I accept that.
You've got to be incredibly careful that you don't make
make mistakes. But I don't have a problem with American
(23:18):
forces taking out drug running boats.
S1 (23:22):
Even extrajudicially judicially.
S2 (23:24):
Well, look, the Obama administration certainly launched lots of kill
strikes on suspected terrorists. Sometimes got it wrong, but they
certainly did that. And, um, I, I don't think there
was all that much moral outrage about what the Obama
(23:44):
administration tried to do. And I think that there should
be the same, I guess, level of understanding applied to
the current administration as was applied to to the former administration.
S3 (23:57):
The foreign sphere. You've been a big supporter of Ukraine
and its war with Russia. You famously said you'd shirtfront
Vladimir Putin, infamously, famously, I don't know which term you'd use.
Do you worry that China is watching, uh, Trump's manoeuvre
in on on Russia and Ukraine?
S2 (24:14):
Absolutely.
S3 (24:15):
And considering it in relation to its thinking on Taiwan.
S2 (24:18):
Absolutely right. I mean, you know, the the democratic West
is currently challenged by, if you like, an axis of autocracy,
whether it's the militarist dictatorship in Moscow, the communist dictatorship
in Beijing, the apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship in Iran, and these
(24:43):
challenger powers are working in a kind of loose concert,
not because they have all that much in common, uh,
except for this their deep dissatisfaction with the Anglo-American global order, uh,
which has dominated the world for much of the last
(25:06):
two centuries, but particularly since the Second World War. And
there is no doubt whatsoever that as part of the
No Limits partnership, the declared no limits partnership between Putin
and XI. If Putin in the end prevails in Ukraine
because the West's refused to support this country fighting heroically
(25:29):
for its the freedom and independence the US.
S3 (25:31):
Really?
S2 (25:31):
Um, but but of course, part of the problem is
that even Britain and France, um, are now reluctant to
do anything without American support. I mean, Sir Keir Starmer,
I think, quite properly announced earlier in the year, uh,
that once a ceasefire was in place, there would be a,
(25:53):
a British led stabilisation force in Ukraine to act as
a tripwire against further Russian aggression. But he said, but
we would need an American backstop when the American backstop
was not immediately forthcoming. He suddenly started backpedaling. Now, I
think it's sad, frankly, that That a country like Britain
(26:14):
is not prepared to act independently here.
S3 (26:16):
That's right. Just back to your point. If Russia was
to prevail and you were going to continue on to
how China would act, I'll let you continue with that.
S2 (26:23):
Yeah. Well, well, there's there's no doubt that China would
take that as a sign of, of Western weakness and
in particular of American weakness, or at least of an
American pullback from the wider, from the wider.
S3 (26:38):
And what could the consequence be in terms of the Indo-Pacific?
S2 (26:41):
Well, um, uh, if America were to pull back, uh,
to its own hemisphere, uh, that would allow China to, to, to,
to dominate Asia, um, and most likely Russia to dominate Europe.
(27:04):
And if our world were dominated by China over time,
it would be a very different, and I think much
worse world than it has been up till now. I mean,
the long Anglo American ascendancy has changed the world, uh,
(27:25):
in the Anglo American direction. More free, more fair, more rich,
more safe. Um, a a sinocentric world would change everything
in a Chinese direction. And much as I love Chinese people,
Chinese governance is. Much more, um, it's much less conducive
(27:51):
to individual freedom.
S1 (27:52):
You met with JD Vance, Vice President JD Vance on
a few days ago in the United States. Is that
something you discussed with him?
S2 (28:00):
Look, uh, we had a great talk. I'm a big
fan of JD Vance. I think he's a very, very
impressive human being. And, um, I would encourage anyone who
wants to get a handle on JD Vance to read
his outstanding book, Hillbilly Elegy. Uh, I won't go into
the detail of what we discussed. One matter that I
(28:21):
have been raising on and off in the United States
ever since Aukus was announced, and all credit to the
Morrison government for announcing Aukus and all credit to the
Albanese government for continuing with Aukus. The problem with Aukus
is that we need more naval strike power now. Um,
(28:45):
and yes, let's get Virginia class subs, uh, in 8
or 10 years time and let's get the Aukus subs, uh,
in 10 or 15 years time. But wouldn't it be
good to get a nuclear powered submarine now? And given
that the Americans are retiring a couple of LA class
nuclear powered submarines every year. My curiosity is why couldn't
(29:11):
Australia take over 1 or 2 of these boats now, uh,
and run them for a few years, uh, as Australian
ends in flagged boats? Because, um, it's nearly always possible
to extract a few more years of useful life out of,
(29:32):
out of out of these, these vessels. And why not
do that? Because we really do need more firepower now. Um,
because as everyone says, uh, a crisis across the Taiwan
Straits could be much closer than a decade away.
S1 (29:51):
So is that something you suggested to JD Vance?
S2 (29:53):
I'm just not going to go into the details.
S1 (29:55):
You brought it up in that context.
S3 (29:57):
Um, I.
S1 (29:58):
Think I will take it as a possible. Yes. I
want to ask you just lastly about something, because we're
running out of time. Unfortunately, I feel like we could
talk for a lot longer in reading around last week
about you. I read a piece in the Australian from
a few years ago that you wrote a letter of
recommendation for Julia Gillard, for her recommendation for an Order
of Australia, a companion in the Order of Australia, which,
of course, she was awarded. Is that true?
S2 (30:20):
Look, uh, I honestly don't recollect it, but but but but.
S1 (30:25):
Do you just dash these letters off all the time?
S2 (30:27):
But I, I certainly I certainly thought she was an appropriate, uh, awardee.
And I have written a lot of letters over the
years in support of people getting an award. And one
of the points I make in the book is that
Gillard was a very capable politician. I mean, uh, I
(30:49):
was uh, she was the shadow Minister for health when
I was the health minister. Um, she was the manager
of opposition business when I was the leader of the House. Uh,
she was deputy prime minister when I became opposition leader,
she and I for several years did a Friday morning
(31:09):
joint discussion on the today programme with, uh, with Carl.
And she's an impressive person, and certainly she's been really
exemplary as an ex prime minister. She's, um, occasionally said
things that she thought needed to be said, um, while
at the same time immersing herself in various good works. So, um,
(31:34):
if I did write a letter, I'm pleased. And if
I didn't, I certainly think that she's a worthy awardee.
S1 (31:42):
How do you reflect on that time now? I mean,
times have changed a lot. And certainly the way that
we talk about gender and sexism in public life. She,
of course, accused of misogyny. She wasn't the only person
to accuse you of misogyny at that time. Do you
think it would be acceptable now, for example, for a
party leader to stand in front of a sign that
says Bob Brown's bitch or ditch the witch, that kind
of thing. Do you regret that?
S2 (32:03):
Well, Jacqueline, as you might remember, uh, at the time,
I was completely unaware, uh, that those banners were there. Uh,
I mean, they were, as far as I'm aware, erected
behind me after I'd stood up to, uh, to speak.
S1 (32:21):
Yeah, I'm still. I guess the question still stands whether
you regret any of the commentary, any of your behavior,
any part that you might have played in the perceptions
and the hysteria around that time, and the undeniable sexist
treatment that Julia Gillard was subject to? Well.
S2 (32:38):
I, I often used to observe that, uh, back in
the day, uh, the parliamentary chamber was not fair, uh,
to to female to female members. I mean, I can
remember when Carmen Lawrence used to stand up as health minister. Uh,
I thought there was a. Um, uh, a nasty dimension
(33:03):
sometimes to the barracking that that she got. Um, by
all means, Jacqueline, point to something that I did or said, um,
which which was, um, an example of sexist misogyny because
I think I honestly think you'd struggle to find anything.
S1 (33:20):
What I'm asking. I'm not I'm not saying that at all.
What I'm asking is whether in your time reflecting because
it was now ten years ago, plus in your time
reflecting whether or not you would do anything differently or
how you reflect on all of the commentary and all
of the sort of, um, reflection we've had on the
sexism in politics at that time. And I'm not talking
about your behaviour necessarily, but all I'm talking about the
(33:45):
media commentary. You know, Alan Jones, who's a friend of yours,
famously was horrendously sexist.
S2 (33:51):
Towards and he and he and he apologised.
S1 (33:53):
Sure. But I guess what I'm asking is how do
you reflect on that time now?
S2 (33:56):
I mean, I mean, look, Occasionally people say things, um,
in the heat of the moment that they regret. Uh,
and when that happens, you should apologize. And Alan, to
his credit, did apologize for those observations, which were they
were silly. They were over the top. They were wrong. Um, and,
(34:18):
and and likewise, uh, I'm just trying to think back
to anything that I might have said or done at
the time. Um, I don't.
S3 (34:27):
There's the sex appeal comment. There's, uh, the, the the
daughter's comment. I'm just trying to recall my mind back.
I mean, there's the women doing the ironing. There's a
there's a couple that come to mind.
S2 (34:38):
Well, I suppose these these were, uh.
S1 (34:42):
I could make an honest woman.
S2 (34:45):
I think they're pretty. I think they were fairly innocent observations. Um,
maybe tactless observations. Uh, um, in the Abbott household, um,
when I was growing up, I'm afraid mum did the ironing.
It was as simple as that. And I think even now,
it's probably true that in more households than not, it's
(35:06):
the woman that does the ironing. To the extent that
we do any ironing these days. Um, and what was
the other thing I said wrong, Paul?
S3 (35:15):
Oh, there was the sex appeal to Fiona.
S2 (35:16):
Oh, yes.
S3 (35:17):
Yes, there was comment on your daughter's appearance, which I
think people found maybe slightly weird.
S1 (35:20):
That Julia Gillard should make an honest woman of herself.
I mean, there's a there's a list of these things,
but I suppose the, um, the but.
S2 (35:27):
If but if but if Julia Gillard had said Tony
Abbott should make an honest man of himself, would that
be a sexist observation?
S3 (35:34):
I doubt it would be seen that way, but.
S2 (35:36):
No, see.
S3 (35:36):
But that's not how gender the imbalance is on the other.
S2 (35:39):
Side. I mean, look, let's I just think we can
get we can just get overexcited about these things. I mean,
I believe that in my adult life. I have always
treated women with respect. Uh, and I have, as far
(36:01):
as is humanly possible, uh, tried to see people as people,
not as female, male, black, white, Catholic, Protestant, Australian, non-australian.
I've tried to treat people as people. Um, and and
to look for the good in them, despite your.
S3 (36:22):
Uh, what you described as some tactless comments. Uh, I
think in talking to people before this podcast, I've described
them your position in kind of conservative circles, both in
Australia and in London and in Washington and other places
you do hold, it seems to me, this kind of
special status as the leading Australian conservative, Malcolm Turnbull and
Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton don't command the crowds you command.
(36:43):
At Conservative Party conferences in London and other places. I've
seen some of this myself. The way you get mugged
in crowds, you're still also highly active in factional politics.
You engage with internal politics and just the general affairs
of the Liberal Party in a way that most of
your predecessors don't anymore. What's what's the mission that you're on? What?
(37:06):
Why are you still so engaged, and what are you
driving at?
S2 (37:10):
Well, I think John Howard has been no less involved
in the party.
S3 (37:15):
Uh, probably just due to age now.
S2 (37:17):
And and John certainly is, I think, quite appropriately, appropriately
regarded as the greatest living liberal, um, in some respects,
perhaps the greatest ever liberal. Uh, and I think he's
been altogether a force for good in the Liberal Party
in his post post-parliamentary time. And I guess in this respect,
(37:41):
at least, I would want to model myself in on
on John Howard. Um, I want my party to succeed.
I want my party to be its best self. And
I think it will succeed best and be its best
self if it is a robust alternative to labour. If
(38:04):
it is liberal in the sense of wanting smaller government,
lower taxes, greater freedom. If it is conservative in the
sense of respecting the family, small business institutions that have
stood the test of time. But above all else, if
it is patriotic because I think Australia is the best
(38:27):
place in the world to live, and I desperately want
us to stay that way.
S3 (38:30):
You've acknowledged, though, that you're some of the views you
hold are potentially out of step with mainstream Australian values.
Are you fighting some of your colleagues who served with you?
Feel like you're fighting the battles of your prime ministership,
that you're driven by a sense that you still have
work to do? Because that was cut short in the
way it was.
S2 (38:46):
Yeah. Well. Well, I mean, I don't think we should
run our electricity system to reduce emissions, and I think
a whole lot of those chickens are in the process
of coming home to roost. I do think we need to, um,
get government spending under better control. I do think we
(39:07):
need to encourage a greater sense of personal responsibility. And
I do think that Australia should, uh, be better prepared
to defend itself if needs be and to make a
contribution to defending freedom in the wider world. So I
don't think these issues really ever change. Paul. I mean,
(39:29):
I think the circumstances change, but the fundamental imperatives don't
very finely.
S3 (39:35):
Um, your keenness to contribute to public life, I didn't
realise extended to before the last election, actually having conversations
with people about running in a seat before the May election.
I've heard from people close to Peter Dutton that there
were conversations about running for a Senate spot for MacArthur,
for Parramatta. All of these things were floated and you
were you were keen and expressed this view to the
(39:56):
former opposition leader.
S2 (39:57):
I think I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration.
I had one conversation with Peter Dutton, um, after it
was publicly suggested that I could possibly take Jim Molan
Senate seat, and Peter basically said that it would make
his life more complicated if that were to happen. I
(40:20):
completely accepted that. Um, now, different people said to me, oh, Tony,
why don't you have another go? And my view then
and now is that I couldn't or shouldn't do anything
that makes the life of the leader of the Liberal
Party more complicated. And.
S3 (40:42):
Um, can you see a path back where it doesn't
make the leader's life more complicated? Is it still? Is
it in prospect in some way?
S2 (40:48):
Look, um, I've got a lot to do as things stand, Paul.
I mean, I've got a book to promote. Um, I've
got a couple of other book projects, at least.
S3 (40:59):
A couple of book projects.
S2 (41:00):
In, in, in in my mind.
S3 (41:02):
What are.
S2 (41:02):
They? Uh, let's, uh, get them further advanced before we
start talking about them in public.
S3 (41:09):
But, but.
S2 (41:10):
But thank you, thank you. I appreciate that, but, um,
I think the best thing that people like me can do, uh,
in normal political circumstances, is be as encouraging as I
can be to the coming generation of liberals. And just
as I want the Liberal Party to be its best self,
(41:32):
I want my, um, I guess, liberal successors to be
their best selves. And I'll just keep doing that to
the best of my ability.
S1 (41:40):
Tony, you've been so generous with your time. Unfortunately, we
have to let you go. You do have a book
to promote. I would encourage everyone to buy this book
for for Christmas presents. It's it's actually a really good read.
And that's for people who maybe wouldn't even be natural
fans of Tony Abbott's or might not have voted for him.
We do have an extraordinary history and he's laid it
out in beautiful, lucid prose. Tony Abbott, thank you very much.
S2 (41:59):
Thanks, Jacqueline. Thanks, Paul.
S1 (42:06):
Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
listen to your podcasts. To stay up to date with
all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age and
The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To support our journalism, subscribe
(42:29):
to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe. I'm
Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.