0:00

Gooday humans, welcome

0:02

to The Safe Space for

0:04

Dangerous Ideas and wow! We

0:06

cover a lot in this

0:08

chat, even if you are

0:10

not Australian. Trust me, you

0:12

want to listen to this

0:14

conversation with Bob Carr, one

0:16

of the sort of greatest

0:18

elder statesmen of Australian political

0:20

life. He is an iconoclast,

0:23

he is a champion debater.

0:25

He's a student of American

0:27

history, of geopolitics, of diplomacy.

0:29

He also happens to be

0:31

the longest continuously serving premier of

0:33

the most populous state in New

0:35

South Wales. That means that he

0:37

was effectively what Americans would call

0:39

the governor of New South Wales

0:41

from 1995 to 2005. He steps

0:44

down voluntarily. His reign. presided over

0:46

the Sydney Olympic Games and really

0:48

a big resurgence in the life

0:50

of Sydney as kind of a

0:52

transitioning I suppose from a bit

0:54

of a regional backwater to being

0:56

the global city that it is

0:58

today. He then went on after

1:00

his premiership of New South Wales

1:03

to become the Foreign Minister of

1:05

Australia under two Prime Ministers. Julia

1:07

Gillard and Kevin Rudd, but he's

1:09

so much more than that. He's

1:11

a deep thinker about liberal democracy,

1:13

about how to structure the... global

1:15

order about China, about Trump, about

1:18

the United States. For the first

1:20

portion of this conversation, we do

1:22

talk about his premiership and about

1:24

New South Wales and about things

1:26

that might be of more interest

1:28

to local listeners. If you're not

1:30

interested in that, don't give up.

1:33

Skip through 20 minutes, 30 minutes, something

1:35

like that, because the final hour is

1:37

a really interesting reflection about what it

1:39

means to lead a successful life, what

1:41

it means to be a statesman and

1:44

a diplomat, and what it means indeed

1:46

to be a widower. who lost his

1:48

life partner not all that long ago.

1:50

Please enjoy as much as I did

1:52

a total delight, the one and only

1:55

Bob Carr. I mean it is

1:57

amazing how much the media

1:59

landscape... has changed over the

2:01

past few years in terms of

2:03

where people are getting their information

2:05

from and how young people are

2:07

consuming information. And there's like perils

2:09

as well as opportunities, obviously, in

2:11

anyone being able to have an

2:13

audience the size of Joe Rogans, I

2:15

guess. What was it like when you were

2:18

initially, like when you first became premier, did

2:20

you have a conception of the go-to media

2:22

outlets that you had to go through? There

2:24

was sort of mandatory? Yeah,

2:27

but everything was covered in

2:29

the Daily Media Conference, covered

2:31

all bases, just about. Did

2:33

you do a press conference

2:35

every day? Just about, yeah.

2:37

It was nice sometimes to

2:40

offer them a bit of

2:42

light and shade by vanishing

2:44

for a period. They just

2:46

wanted you all the more.

2:48

In the mornings, I remember

2:50

one curiosity that would interest

2:52

you, when I started as

2:54

premier, the tension between laws

2:56

and Jones was acute. Really

2:59

on laws aside, so your

3:01

appearance on Jones would arouse

3:03

in him for rocious jealousy.

3:05

In the laws? Yeah. Right.

3:07

So this was a time,

3:09

this is mid-90s, right? Yes,

3:11

well the 30th anniversary yesterday,

3:13

my election is premier. Oh,

3:16

congratulations. 30 years yesterday. I

3:18

had drinks with staff last

3:20

night. Fabulous. What stood out

3:22

as highlights? What? As you

3:24

were reminiscing with them. All

3:26

the fun of the, the,

3:28

the, the sluggish 1995 election

3:30

that we won. Was it

3:33

a surprise? It was to

3:35

me, I'm a pessimist, but

3:37

it was narrow in the

3:39

end, a few busloads of

3:41

voters determined it, so everything

3:43

counted. To what do you

3:45

attribute? your ability to then

3:47

grow that slice of the

3:50

pie? The instinct of the

3:52

electorate to back a first-term

3:54

government and our success after

3:56

staff-ups to learn our lessons

3:58

and hold the middle ground.

4:00

What was a lesson? Lots

4:02

of lessons, but not taking

4:04

them by surprise. The public,

4:07

yeah, being able to lead

4:09

them through an argument. I

4:11

mean it was early in

4:13

the second term that I

4:15

was able to talk about

4:17

the medically supervised injecting room.

4:19

I wouldn't have had the

4:21

psychological strength to have pulled

4:23

that off in the first

4:26

term. And just for people

4:28

who don't know, this was

4:30

a facility in which drug

4:32

addicts would be able to

4:34

go and safely acquire needles

4:36

and not die on the

4:38

stream, but it's controversial because

4:40

obviously people say, well, why

4:43

are you allowing drug addicts

4:45

to inject themselves? Yeah, and

4:47

I had to explain to

4:49

people that this was not

4:51

a heroin, the legal status

4:53

of the drug didn't change,

4:55

but we were saying that

4:57

if you are addicted to

5:00

the thing. There is a

5:02

space for you to retreat

5:04

where there will be paramedics

5:06

on hand and that saved

5:08

lives. When you say that

5:10

you sort of had faith

5:12

in your ability to articulate

5:14

a long form argument to

5:17

the electorate, where did that

5:19

faith come from? Because a

5:21

lot of people... From a

5:23

big election win. Right, okay.

5:25

Okay. I mean a lot

5:27

of politics is a psychological

5:29

game. And if you've got

5:31

a big election win behind

5:34

you. You know they're listening

5:36

when you're leading them through

5:38

a difficult nuanced argument. Right.

5:40

This is after your election,

5:42

after your second election. Yeah,

5:44

I've been reelected after. And

5:46

in the first term, many

5:48

people's instinct, especially, it can

5:50

be if they're cautious. minded

5:53

can be to try to

5:55

keep things simple, keep it

5:57

simple, stupid, don't overcomplicate things,

5:59

you know, the electorate doesn't

6:01

have a long attention span,

6:03

people aren't paying that much

6:05

attention to politics, talk about

6:07

tax cards, whatever it might

6:10

be, you know, whatever the

6:12

popular things are, and don't

6:14

get into the weeds on

6:16

too much stuff. Did you

6:18

have people suggesting that in

6:20

your first term? I learned

6:22

that the electorate is prepared

6:24

to forgive you. If

6:27

you can say, I'm sorry I

6:29

got that wrong, but I've learned

6:31

from that mistake. Do you think

6:34

that's still as true? I think

6:36

it would be yeah, yeah. We

6:39

have a tendency to judge politicians

6:41

quite half harshly when they flip-flop.

6:43

You know? Oh, well, how can

6:46

you even trust what this person

6:48

believes? Five years ago they said

6:51

this. Now they're saying something completely

6:53

different. I wonder

6:55

if that's a harsher instinct now

6:57

than it was 30 years ago.

6:59

Well, we've got to remember what

7:01

George Orwell said. When the evidence

7:03

changes, I change my opinion. What

7:05

would you do? What would you

7:07

do? And I think if you've

7:10

got the confidence to put that

7:12

to the electorate, they will give

7:14

you a second chance. More than

7:16

that, they'll say, Bob has explained

7:18

why he did that. Why he

7:20

did that? Why he did that.

7:22

And I think it makes sense.

7:24

And on Alan Jones and John

7:26

Laws, yes I worked for Alan

7:28

in my first big job out

7:30

of university as a producer and

7:32

knew him well and he was

7:34

a he was a friend and

7:36

mentor. Was there ever a calculus

7:38

in your mind where it's like

7:40

well I have to do this

7:42

show versus the other because I'm

7:44

going to totally piss off one

7:46

of them if I don't do?

7:49

Well when I was elected Premier

7:51

in 1995, Jones had become a

7:53

phenomenon. He worked so hard at

7:55

building those ratings, you'd know more

7:57

about it than I, but he

7:59

would be out every night of...

8:01

a rotary or a charity gathering.

8:03

And every letter got a response.

8:05

Again, you'd know all of that,

8:07

the fanatical tension. The tsunami of

8:09

correspondence that I was frequently tasked

8:11

with. Yeah, that's right. And he

8:13

was at his best, he was

8:15

on budgetment. He'd take up someone's

8:17

case. He'd press it with government.

8:19

And if a minister responded, even

8:21

with a one case, a handwritten

8:23

note, facts to him, which is

8:25

what you'd do in those days,

8:27

he'd be a fusives. So he

8:30

built his ratings and he was

8:32

overtaking clearly, and he occupied a

8:34

richer territory in the radio timetable,

8:36

the ratings from 530. Yes, to

8:38

9. Yeah. So he demanded first

8:40

call, but that upset. Right. I

8:42

see. Because laws would come on

8:44

at 9. I remember when I

8:46

was a bulletin journalist. when I

8:48

got invited to say something about

8:50

state politics on the laws program

8:52

you're aware that everyone was listening

8:54

to you but Jones moved into

8:56

the earlier segment and made himself

8:58

a phenomenon at our time so

9:00

we went there but that upset

9:02

John yeah I was like I

9:04

was happy to deal with them

9:06

both in that very pleasant exchanges

9:09

with both of them you know

9:11

you know dinner or a lunch.

9:13

Did Jones hold your feet to

9:15

the fire on anything policy-wise? Oh,

9:17

a lot of times he sought

9:19

to influence a policy outcome. And

9:21

did you find that to be

9:23

constructive and in good faith or...

9:25

Well, again, I'm quoting George Orwell.

9:27

George Orwell said on one occasion,

9:29

just because the Daily Telegraph says

9:31

something doesn't mean it's wrong. I

9:33

found himself saying to a minister.

9:35

Alan's running this furious campaign for

9:37

a drag strip in western Sydney

9:39

is a very specialised motor event.

9:41

Just cars roaring. down a single

9:43

stretch of road. Right. And I

9:45

said, he may be right. He's

9:47

campaigning on it because he's picked

9:50

up, picked up the group that

9:52

wants a drag racing group. And

9:54

he might be right. So see

9:56

if we can give it to

9:58

him. Another occasion is just asking

10:00

us to back one faction over

10:02

another in the police force. And

10:04

he was very good at picking

10:06

up whistle blowers. And I think

10:08

he may be right. if there

10:10

were a floor in his modus

10:12

operandi it was to assume a

10:14

whistleblower was always right. There was

10:16

definitely an instinct to side with

10:18

the little guy. I mean that

10:20

was the that was the stick

10:22

if not the reality always right.

10:24

I remember there was a moment

10:26

when there were all those failed

10:29

apartment buildings in, you know, in

10:31

Sydney. There were the cracks and

10:33

people were out of their homes

10:35

because they'd bought them from shoddy,

10:37

you know, builders and so on.

10:39

He had Premier Glad of Spiritgically

10:41

and on the show and just

10:43

went into her saying, give them

10:45

the stamp duty back. Give him

10:47

back their stamp duty. And this

10:49

was his cause, Salab. This was

10:51

the most important thing for him,

10:53

just to get the state government

10:55

to refund the stamp duty tax,

10:57

which you pay when you buy

10:59

a property, to these people who'd

11:01

bought these turkeys of a property.

11:03

And I think it worked. From

11:05

memory, I think she did it

11:07

off the back of his... Yeah,

11:10

I remember her. One campaign going

11:12

that there should be state government

11:14

support for anyone... or bushfire. And

11:16

I said, Ellen, we just can't

11:18

open up the budget responsibility to

11:20

be the insurer of last resort.

11:22

We can't. That's not an option

11:24

for me. No one would insure

11:26

a property if they knew the

11:28

government. Well, that's right. Yeah, exactly.

11:30

It would put the insurance industry

11:32

out of business. And it would

11:34

be a massive liability on our

11:36

books that the ratings agencies would

11:38

have judged us on. But the

11:40

ombudsman quality was his great strength

11:42

and people, I think people assumed,

11:44

even if he got it wrong,

11:46

even if he was going too

11:49

far, he was someone who might

11:51

champion their cause if they needed

11:53

champion. Yeah, that's right. What do

11:55

you make of the, what was

11:57

your attitude towards all of the

11:59

rumours swirling around him at the

12:01

time? I mean, now that he's

12:03

been arrested, obviously I don't want

12:05

to prejudge a court case and

12:07

I'm not implying that he's guilty

12:09

or anything. I have been somewhat

12:11

uneasy about the glee with which

12:13

everyone is now in lockstep about

12:15

a set of alleged misdeeds when,

12:17

as far as I'm aware, and

12:19

I was a bit too young

12:21

to be aware of the narrative

12:23

as it existed in elite circles,

12:25

but I'm told that it was

12:27

an open secret that he was

12:30

a little bit flirtatious and inappropriate

12:32

and Hansy. for years and so

12:34

now all of a sudden that

12:36

he has no political power I'm

12:38

not saying it's a witch hunter

12:40

that didn't happen I don't know

12:42

anything but do you remember that

12:44

being a narrative or no my

12:46

instinct would have been it's not

12:48

of our business it's his private

12:50

life and he's asking questions that

12:52

the public want the answer to

12:54

in any case we take him

12:56

as we find him as we

12:58

find him as we find him

13:00

as we find him as we

13:02

find him as we find him

13:04

as we find him as we

13:06

find him as we find him

13:09

as we find him as we

13:11

find him as we find him

13:13

as we find him as we

13:15

find him as we find him

13:17

as we find him as we

13:19

find him as we find him

13:21

as we find him as we

13:23

find him as we find him

13:25

as we find him as we

13:27

find him as we find him

13:29

as we find him as we

13:31

find him as we find him

13:33

as we find him as we

13:35

find him as we and his

13:37

meanwhile the public have judged in

13:39

those rating surveys that they want

13:41

to listen to him and occasionally

13:43

someone would say someone from the

13:45

left of politics would say why

13:47

do you go on Jones and

13:50

laws and my response was even

13:52

if they're hostile in an interview

13:54

I get marks including from other

13:56

newsrooms for fronting up for fronting

13:58

up and if they're 90% hostile

14:00

What if I intrude an argument

14:02

that boasts... a state government achievement

14:04

or gets people thinking about the

14:06

other side of the case. And

14:08

I was confident enough in my

14:10

debating ability to think, no I'll

14:12

go on, you'll be hostile, you'll

14:14

be fuming, you'll be cutting me

14:16

off. But if I, the test

14:18

for me is to retain my

14:20

cool during all of that. So

14:22

I welcome the professional engagement, I

14:24

like debating. I'd define myself as

14:26

a. as a debater. Did you

14:29

look forward to it when you

14:31

woke up on the morning that

14:33

you knew you had to talk

14:35

to him at 705? How are

14:37

you feeling? Oh no, it was

14:39

always a bit of news. It

14:41

was a test because you didn't

14:43

know what direction you might be

14:45

off in, but if it was

14:47

a subject where it can only

14:49

be, the exchange can only be

14:51

positive, it was... There aren't a

14:53

lot of those. Especially in the

14:55

second half, especially in the second

14:57

half of the term where he

14:59

was very hostile and he campaigned

15:01

for the other side in the

15:03

2003 election. Yeah, no, I mean

15:05

I think you're completely right that

15:07

there's a, I get constantly frustrated

15:10

with political figures who think that

15:12

there's something to be gained in

15:14

only doing softball interviews or only

15:16

doing, you know, very short format

15:18

interviews on might be 730 or

15:20

something like that where you know

15:22

that it's only going to last

15:24

for... five or six minutes. There's

15:26

a virtue in being harangued for

15:28

20 minutes by somebody because you

15:30

might land a punch, as you

15:32

say. I spoke to John Howd

15:34

about it once. He had a

15:36

roughing up on Jones. I said,

15:38

I heard you at the other

15:40

morning, John. I said, what you

15:42

did was retain your cool. That's

15:44

the challenge. What he's getting more

15:46

excited, more worked up. You've got

15:49

to take a step back. Are

15:51

you sure about that as a

15:53

strategy? Oh yeah yeah yeah yeah

15:55

absolutely I mean it doesn't as

15:57

you know the electronic is a

15:59

cool medium now that from a

16:01

time but I've lost some of

16:03

the most memorable moments of which

16:05

I'm proudest in broadcasting have been

16:07

where I've allowed myself to lose

16:09

it a bit. Not get hysterical,

16:11

but I remember during the Black

16:13

Summer Bush fires in 2020 or

16:15

after the death of the Queen

16:17

or like some moment where you

16:19

have a sense that there's a

16:21

national anger and frustration that needs

16:23

to be channeled and needs to

16:25

be given voice to. or someone

16:27

is not being fair. Why did

16:30

the Queen's Day make you angry?

16:32

Oh, it wasn't, that case it

16:34

wasn't anger, in that case it

16:36

was sorrow, in that case it

16:38

was a kind of a national

16:40

grieving and speaking in a way

16:42

that did not conform necessarily to

16:44

the proper pomp and pieties of

16:46

the moment, but in a more

16:48

raw way. But just a certain

16:50

amount of authenticity that if like,

16:52

if a bully is coming for

16:54

you, isn't there sometimes a utility

16:56

in slapping bag and being like,

16:58

you know, or whatever the case

17:00

might be. You never took that.

17:02

Oh, I did know. He was

17:04

getting stuck in me once during

17:06

something that's in the, so far

17:09

back, it's in the neo-Paliolithic. It

17:11

was the Wharf dispute of 1998.

17:13

And he thought, I should have

17:15

used the police to have cracked

17:17

heads on the picket line and

17:19

allowed the strike breakers, the scabs,

17:21

through onto the wharves, to do

17:23

the jobs of the guys who

17:25

had been sacked, just belonging to

17:27

the belonging to the union. And

17:29

I said Alan. It's not my

17:31

job to give instructions to the

17:33

police commissioner, but I said they

17:35

didn't behave any differently from the

17:37

police in Victoria under a liberal

17:39

government under Premier Kennett in respect

17:41

to the picket lines down there

17:43

on the Melbourne Wars. And he

17:45

just exploded with anger, supposed to

17:47

be an interview about my state

17:50

budget the day before, but in

17:52

fact he turned it into and

17:54

by just standing firm. I made

17:56

my point and I'm told that

17:58

the TV newsrooms are the radio

18:00

newsrooms. Thought it was a great

18:02

stouch because he said we're gonna

18:04

we're gonna I'm gonna hold you

18:06

there gonna come back after the

18:08

730 news, and he'd never done

18:10

that to my knowledge before fabulous

18:12

And someone else got bumped

18:14

Yeah But it was I

18:16

was emphatic right I stated

18:18

my right yeah, and he didn't

18:21

back down, but I thought that was

18:23

good radio was entertaining and full of

18:25

personality. I'm surprised also at how intellectual,

18:27

I mean I don't want this to

18:29

become an Allen Jones thing, but I

18:32

think that he exemplifies a bunch of

18:34

interesting other things that are going on

18:36

in the world. The capacity of the

18:38

public to understand an intellectual argument, you

18:40

know the point that you were making

18:43

about your first term and having some

18:45

faith that if you articulate something clearly,

18:47

the public will be with you. I

18:49

really think we're at risk of underestimating

18:52

the capacity of the public to understand

18:54

things. He was a ferociously intelligent broadcaster.

18:57

Whatever you thought of his politics,

18:59

whatever you thought of his bombast,

19:01

he was pitching extremely high intellectually

19:03

and linguistically and how articulate he

19:05

was and the sophistication of the

19:07

ideas and the things that he

19:09

was addressing. Is there a risk? I mean, obviously

19:11

in my industry, in my industry,

19:13

I'm... worried about the dumbing down

19:15

of podcasts, the dumbing down of the

19:17

news, a certain amount of conformism

19:20

and echo chambers in the

19:22

legacy media, kind of staleness,

19:24

a stainess, a lack of

19:26

boisterousness, a lack of playfulness,

19:28

a lack of, I guess,

19:30

just expecting that there seems to

19:32

be an expectation at the

19:35

moment from both establishment

19:37

elites in politics and also in

19:39

the media that you're always

19:41

safest safest to Give the

19:44

simplest explanation to

19:46

the lowest common denominator. And I

19:48

don't know if you see that.

19:50

Well, the ABC News on

19:52

television, when I watch it,

19:55

can lead with a murder. My

19:57

view is the public's more intelligent.

19:59

They don't. ABC listeners in

20:01

particular are not drawn to

20:03

a news report of a

20:05

murder, police coming out of

20:08

a fibrous cottage with murder

20:10

weapons. They're more interested in

20:12

the drama of our time,

20:14

which is the debauchery of

20:17

American politics, the Trump phenomenon.

20:19

That's what they're more interested

20:21

in. It's interesting how newsrooms

20:23

decide what matters. Why exactly

20:25

does a murder even matter?

20:28

Yeah, I don't think it

20:30

does. As part of a

20:32

crime scene, it's always been

20:34

there. It doesn't shed light

20:36

on the... on human nature.

20:39

Meanwhile, there's a huge geostrategic

20:41

drama taking place. The world's

20:43

dominant power. is undergoing what

20:45

looks like a political nervous

20:47

breakdown. It's going to test

20:50

the viability of the oldest

20:52

written constitution in the world.

20:54

America is disposing of allies

20:56

and entering a period of

20:58

great power competition and negotiation

21:01

with Russia and China, disposing

21:03

of its precious alliance system.

21:05

This is the and withdrawing

21:07

from so many world engagements,

21:09

they could be out of

21:12

the World Bank. They could

21:14

land the 101st Airborne Division

21:16

in Greenland and just state

21:18

it. Trump values two things

21:21

in international policy above all

21:23

else tariffs, which he sees

21:25

as a positive good, not

21:27

something that can wreck the

21:29

world economy, and an alliance

21:32

with Russia. De facto alliance

21:34

with Russia. The Greenland staff,

21:36

the Canada staff, the Panama

21:38

staff, it's all, even half

21:40

the tariff staff is rhetoric.

21:43

It's him putting bargaining pressure

21:45

on people, you know, him

21:47

blustering, how much of it

21:49

actually comes through. On the

21:51

question of Russia, they may

21:54

make arguments like, well, you

21:56

want to isolate China, you

21:58

want to sideline China, there's

22:00

no harm in necessarily having

22:02

a better relationship with Russia,

22:05

even if it is an

22:07

unseemly regime. What do you

22:09

make of the mainstream argument?

22:11

So not crazy. Is that

22:13

argument applied in the first

22:16

term? You could say it's

22:18

rhetoric, taking seriously, but not

22:20

literally. Ah, not in the

22:22

second term, because what he's

22:25

doing with Canada is tipping

22:27

the Canadian economy into recession

22:29

and creating an anti-American current

22:31

in the politics of Canada

22:33

that was never there before.

22:36

What he's doing with the

22:38

Europeans, even the headlines in

22:40

the New York Times this

22:42

morning, confirm that... They've now

22:44

got to operate on their

22:47

own. They can't assume that

22:49

NATO works. NATO had been

22:51

cultivated, the transatlantic alliance, which

22:53

NATO was one part of,

22:55

had been cultivated by all

22:58

previous US presidents since Harry

23:00

Truman. And now that's dumped.

23:02

And a working relationship with

23:04

Russia is one thing, but

23:06

the closeness he seems to

23:09

be craving with an autocratic

23:11

Russia is something different. and

23:13

it's not just rhetorical. Is

23:15

it necessary for European countries

23:17

to be basically at the

23:20

end of the day responsible

23:22

for their own defense? Yes,

23:24

but it does mean a

23:26

burden, it does mean huge

23:28

stress on their economies and

23:31

on their politics. America was

23:33

getting deriving big strategic benefits

23:35

from a manageable investment in

23:37

European security. For example, when

23:40

America walked into Afghanistan, It

23:42

had NATO, every NATO country,

23:44

contributing to back what turned

23:46

out to... be a mistaken

23:48

war and the longest war

23:51

in American history. But for

23:53

every year of that mistaken

23:55

war, America had Norway and

23:57

France and Britain supporting its

23:59

forces. But do you think

24:02

that it doesn't get the

24:04

bulk of those countries in

24:06

the absence of NATO? It

24:08

got Australia, we're not in

24:10

NATO, got a bunch of

24:13

other countries. When I talk

24:15

about NATO, I'm not just

24:17

talking about the words on

24:19

paper. in a document I'm

24:21

talking about the whole ethos

24:24

around the transatlantic relationship. Build

24:26

on trust, build on cooperation.

24:28

Right, but the Trumpist says,

24:30

yes we want trust in

24:32

cooperation on an equal footing.

24:35

Well, they're not going to

24:37

take responsibility for their defense.

24:39

They're not building trust. They're

24:41

not building trust. When the

24:44

vice president of the US

24:46

goes to the Munich strategic

24:48

conference, he says to the

24:50

most important and powerful and

24:52

biggest NATO partner. Germany, I'm

24:55

not meeting your Chancellor. I'm

24:57

meeting the leader of the

24:59

alternative for Deutschland, which is

25:01

a racist, anti-immigrant, far-right, populist

25:03

party. As vice-prison of the

25:06

US, I'm going to sit

25:08

down with their leader, but

25:10

you, as the Chancellor of

25:12

Germany, I haven't got time

25:14

to meet. Now that's a

25:17

rupture. Yes, I mean the

25:19

unholy alliance, the footsie that's

25:21

being played between the margarite

25:23

in the United States and

25:25

the far right in Europe

25:28

is worrying unseemly. But it's

25:30

a discrete question I think

25:32

from the question of whether

25:34

or not were a global

25:36

capital city to be attacked

25:39

again like 9-11, the global

25:41

community would come together in

25:43

a collective retaliation. Whether or

25:45

not there's... you know, unity

25:48

and harmony between the countries

25:50

of NATO, the way that

25:52

it has been conceived since

25:54

World War II. competitive advantage

25:56

in the world up against

25:59

rivals, Russia, China, has been

26:01

its soft power, part of

26:03

that soft power has been

26:05

an alliance system, countries putting

26:07

their hands up, Japan, South

26:10

Korea, not just the Europeans,

26:12

to be allied with the

26:14

United States. After the 2023

26:16

Russian invasion of Ukraine, you

26:18

had Sweden and Finland put

26:21

their hands up. to join

26:23

NATO, a huge source of

26:25

American strength. This new president

26:27

has abandoned it, just abandoned

26:29

it when the Europeans are

26:32

looking for a continuation of

26:34

America's deterrent power. But presumably

26:36

the American attitude is there

26:38

was a landscape after World

26:40

War II that made sense

26:43

in which it was necessary

26:45

for America in its posture

26:47

vis-vis the Soviet Union to

26:49

extend its... security guarantee all

26:52

the way to the edge

26:54

of the Soviet space. Nowadays,

26:56

there's no reason why wealthy

26:58

people in Europe who are

27:00

more populous than Americans are,

27:03

who have an economy that's

27:05

larger than Americas, who have

27:07

nuclear weapons in several of

27:09

those countries, can't have their

27:11

own nuclear umbrella for their

27:14

own deterrence of Russia, and

27:16

we will collaborate with them

27:18

on whatever we need to

27:20

collaborate with them on, and

27:22

vice versa. What's wrong with

27:25

that point? One of the

27:27

advantages of the U.S. alliance

27:29

system is that many countries

27:31

that had the power to

27:33

have nuclear weapons were safe

27:36

in not having nuclear weapons.

27:38

Japan, South Korea, are examples

27:40

and in Europe, Poland. Well

27:42

the French are talking to

27:44

the Poles now about extending

27:47

the French nuclear umbrella to

27:49

Poland. Yeah, we've got to

27:51

hope that... Would that be

27:53

happening were it not for

27:55

Trump? No, it wouldn't, but

27:58

is that better? than what

28:00

we've lived with. The point

28:02

is, he is a hugely

28:04

disruptive prison. And it remains

28:07

a mystery that is so

28:09

over accommodating for Russia. There

28:11

is, by the way, an

28:13

element of truth in what

28:15

you point to about NATO

28:18

and Russia. Why is a

28:20

huge mistake, going back to

28:22

the Clinton presidency, to attempt

28:24

to expand NATO up to

28:26

the borders of Russia, the

28:29

Russian Federation, that was threatening

28:31

to the Russians? because it

28:33

meant recruiting to the Western

28:35

Alliance, countries that had been

28:37

part of the old Soviet

28:40

Union, right up to the

28:42

borders of Russia, given that

28:44

Russia's got no natural barriers,

28:46

just this vast plain, there's

28:48

always been an invitation for

28:51

invaders, French Germans. It was

28:53

fritt. And the Russians in

28:55

the other direction, as they

28:57

were, as they rolled a

28:59

minimum invaders back. And as

29:02

the Zara's power expanded into...

29:04

and after the time of

29:06

Frederick of Peter the Great.

29:08

But yes, that was a

29:11

mistake instead of building a

29:13

new security architecture for Europe

29:15

that had Russia part of

29:17

it, even recruiting Russia for

29:19

NATO. Don't go anywhere humans,

29:22

we'll be right back. I

29:24

mean, just to play Devil's

29:26

Advocate on NATO again. There

29:28

was always going to be

29:30

a question at some point,

29:33

whether or not. Voters in

29:35

Oregon and Alabama were going

29:37

to be crazy about sending

29:39

their kids after fight a

29:41

war because Estonia got invaded.

29:44

That was always going to...

29:46

be alive as a question.

29:48

And so does that mean,

29:50

or let's say it's not

29:52

invaded, but Russia sends in

29:55

little green men who, you

29:57

know, there's an upward, it's

29:59

all of a sudden there's

30:01

up, an uprising. We don't

30:03

know who these people are.

30:06

Well, Russia has to go

30:08

ahead and keep the peace.

30:10

Just let me finish the

30:12

thought, it is not insane

30:15

to me that you want

30:17

to relocate the locus of

30:19

the deterrent. to Berlin and

30:21

Paris and London from Washington

30:23

DC. Yeah, that's not an

30:26

irrational response. And I think

30:28

one factor, one factor in

30:30

support for Trump is a

30:32

sense in those great lakes

30:34

states that had voted for

30:37

Biden, but then swung to

30:39

Trump, having voted for Trump

30:41

originally in 2016, Michigan. is

30:43

an example, a feeling in

30:45

those states that American internationalism

30:48

has cost us. And they

30:50

had contributed higher than other

30:52

communities to the war effort

30:54

in Afghanistan and Iraq. There

30:56

are a lot of boys

30:59

coming home, wounded, suffering the

31:01

disability for life. and a

31:03

lot of families that mark

31:05

the loss of a young

31:07

soldier. And that feeds into

31:10

what is the most interesting

31:12

part of the Trump pitch.

31:14

Remember he said in his

31:16

inaugural address, words to the

31:19

effect, we were to measure

31:21

our success by the wars,

31:23

we don't join. And there

31:25

could be the promise. in

31:27

all the confused messaging out

31:30

of Trump that America may

31:32

now no longer think of

31:34

military intervention as the fallback

31:36

resort option. I mean, the

31:38

two great cliches of American

31:41

foreign policy out of Washington,

31:43

sanction, sanction, sanction. I mean,

31:45

they've got sanctions delivered by

31:47

the president or the Congress

31:49

on so many countries and

31:52

so many individuals, they might

31:54

as well pass. a world

31:56

sanctioned bill and has been

31:58

set a few exemptions. So

32:00

sanctions and the other cliche

32:03

of American foreign policy is

32:05

military intervention. You got a problem.

32:07

Okay, the resort's got to be to

32:09

send in an aircraft carrier and

32:11

its associated fleet and the

32:14

101st airborne division. You think of

32:16

military intervention instead

32:18

of something a more targeted, subtle,

32:21

perhaps diplomatic approach. They

32:23

don't do targeted well. They

32:25

swing between extremes of massive

32:27

intervention versus massive isolation. It

32:30

goes back to the Civil

32:32

War, the American pattern of

32:34

war, the North won by

32:37

allowing Grant with a massive

32:39

army just to assault the

32:41

South in the summer of

32:43

1864 and in the face

32:45

of unbelievable casualties just

32:48

keep going. Just keep

32:50

going. It's an American pattern

32:53

of war. It's been written

32:55

about, it's been discussed. Although

32:58

they've switched in recent times

33:00

in West Point and

33:02

the other centers of

33:04

war scholarship to talking

33:07

about what was the

33:09

acronym coin counterinsurgency. Now

33:11

they're moving beyond that

33:13

to contemplate vast big power

33:15

conflicts. as mandated by the

33:18

traditional Russian invasion of Ukraine,

33:20

which was very much a

33:22

traditional all-purpose assault on recognized

33:24

international borders, old-fashioned aggression. Although

33:27

being responded to increasingly in

33:29

new ways with drones and...

33:31

so on like the way

33:33

that that conflict has changed

33:35

over the past 12 or

33:38

18 months in terms of

33:40

the prevalence of drugs. The

33:42

reason I was like getting

33:44

here this morning I was just

33:47

captivated by the New York Times

33:49

an article by Tom Friedman very

33:51

arresting Colin saying... Unusual for Tom

33:54

Friedman but I guess yeah great

33:56

indeed but saying perhaps the most

33:58

important event of late... last year

34:01

was not Trump's election,

34:03

but history might judge

34:06

the exchange between Ukraine

34:08

and Russia where drone-based

34:11

structures supported

34:14

by drones in the air

34:16

assaulted a Russian position.

34:18

This could be

34:20

the wave of

34:22

the future. What's

34:24

his expression? General

34:26

artificial intelligence. Why

34:28

did Henry Kissinger, Kissinger,

34:31

everyone's wise statesman,

34:33

my favorite world

34:35

historical figure, talk

34:37

about in his last years,

34:39

talk about artificial

34:41

intelligence as up there as

34:44

the biggest threat humankind

34:46

faces? What do you think? What

34:49

do you make of it? I'm

34:51

profoundly ignorant on the

34:53

subject, but if Kissinger

34:55

says that, and Friedman

34:57

challenges us, that this

34:59

military exchange was even

35:02

more important than the

35:04

election of Donald Trump.

35:06

I think we've got to

35:08

sit up and take notice.

35:11

The other example Friedman used

35:13

was the decision last year

35:15

of Uber in two American cities

35:17

to embrace electrical

35:20

vehicles. You mean automated

35:22

vehicles? Driverless. Yeah, driverless.

35:24

I've been in one. In

35:27

Phoenix, a totally driverless,

35:29

yeah, taxi cab. Hmm. I mean, I

35:31

do, I think that is

35:34

probably a bit gimmicky because

35:36

computers are not actually, they're

35:38

proving to be a lot, a

35:40

lot trickier to get good at

35:43

physical things than we thought, and

35:45

much better at reasoning than we

35:47

had anticipated. And the speed, yes,

35:50

I mean, I'm a... I'm bullish on

35:52

the pace of change that AI is going to deliver

35:54

over the next 10 or 20 years. I

35:56

think the second half of my life is going

35:58

to involve much more change. than the first

36:01

half did. Yet another

36:03

area is the change

36:05

we need is disappointingly

36:08

slow in getting to

36:10

fusion, for example, instead

36:12

of fission. If we

36:15

had fusion reactors and

36:17

they've always been on

36:19

the points of being

36:22

rendered viable, we'd have

36:24

limitless. sources of power

36:27

without a speck of

36:29

carbon. But we are

36:32

just waiting for that

36:34

technological breakthrough that can

36:36

prevent the one and a half,

36:39

two degrees warming. that is going to

36:41

make life on this planet so difficult?

36:43

Well, they might be connected. I mean,

36:45

there may be all kinds of things

36:47

that AI can see that we can't

36:49

see yet that are coming down the

36:51

pike. Certainly, if you talk to medical

36:53

and biotech people, they're very optimistic about

36:56

the ability of AI to do a

36:58

huge amount of data point connecting that

37:00

will give us new insights into cures

37:02

for cancer and things like that. So

37:04

whether or not it's possible. the energy

37:06

front. I mean while you're talking about

37:08

fusion, should fish and have a

37:11

role? Where are you on this

37:13

whole nuclear debate? In economic, I'm

37:15

coldly pragmatic about it. I don't,

37:18

I haven't got a phobia about

37:20

nuclear power, how could you when

37:22

France gets 70% or 80% of

37:25

its power from nuclear power plants,

37:27

but they're being overtaken economically and

37:30

the promise of a small

37:32

modular reactor reactor. again like

37:34

vision, is just painstakingly slow.

37:36

20 years ago, if you

37:39

looked at the clippings, we're

37:41

on the point of getting

37:44

to them. People were predicting

37:46

that within 10, 15 years,

37:48

that is earlier than we

37:50

now are, they would have been

37:52

commonplace throughout Asia,

37:55

that the Philippines and

37:57

Indonesia would all have

37:59

small... module reactor. And there's

38:01

an engineering impediment? There's not,

38:03

well there's not, they're still

38:05

on the drawing board. There's

38:07

not one American city that signed

38:10

up to them and we were told again in

38:12

the early 2000 is that we're on

38:14

the point of this. This is about

38:16

to happen. But this could also be

38:18

because people are afraid of them and

38:20

there's a lot of regulation. No, no,

38:23

no, it's technological. Technological. Okay. The models

38:25

they're looking at reportedly don't turn

38:27

out to be small at all. But they

38:29

turn out to be a big lumpy

38:31

expensive. In the context of a giant

38:33

nuclear reactor, they're small, but in the

38:35

context of a neighborhood, they're large.

38:37

Yeah. Yeah. Well, certainly that's the case, but

38:40

they even might be getting up to the

38:42

size of a computer. If nuclear were

38:44

the wave of the future, why wouldn't America

38:46

anywhere be building a nuclear reactor? Well,

38:49

why can't America build a single high-speed

38:51

rail? Why can't... There are lots of

38:53

things that America can't America can't do.

38:55

It is not an avatar of a

38:57

avatar of a avatar of a... You know, efficiency

38:59

and the magic, the magic,

39:01

the magic of America is

39:04

the New York Stock Exchange.

39:06

It just, it just disproves

39:08

marks. We haven't discovered, we

39:10

haven't discovered a different

39:12

way of producing goods and

39:15

services than capitalism.

39:17

We haven't discovered that. But

39:19

America is not a pure

39:21

capitalist. No, but if America,

39:24

if America with that

39:26

capitalist engine and all the money

39:28

that the state can mobilize

39:30

through debt and taxation can't

39:33

produce competitive nuclear power.

39:35

They're not building a single

39:37

nuclear power plant. And they

39:39

haven't succeeded. Well, if your

39:42

claim is why has American

39:44

capitalism not been able to

39:46

solve the engineering challenges of

39:48

building, of inventing a small

39:51

modular nuclear reactor, that's one

39:53

thing. But if the claim

39:55

is it's not... You know nuclear is a

39:57

dead end because America has not built

39:59

new nuclear power plants, I think that

40:02

overlooks the extraordinary thicket of regulation that

40:04

currently exists in the United States when

40:06

it comes to environmental and energy. questions.

40:09

I mean there's a new book called

40:11

Abundance by Ezra Klein and... You're a

40:13

called... Abundance by Ezra Klein and another

40:15

book called Why Nothing Works, which is

40:18

about how since... and these are lefties

40:20

who are just tearing their hair out

40:22

in frustration at, you know, they use

40:25

the California high-speed rail as an example.

40:27

There are so many infrastructure projects that

40:29

all Americans on all sides want to

40:32

happen, but they're... Since the sort of

40:34

Ralph Nader revolution on the left in

40:36

the 70s, which took a very proactive

40:38

approach towards constraining government so that doesn't

40:40

tramp on people's rights, and you have

40:42

to make sure that there's permitting for

40:45

this and permitting for that, and that

40:47

everyone has an opportunity to be heard,

40:49

community conferences, and then they can sue

40:51

over whether or not it was appropriate

40:53

for this piece of land to be

40:55

taken, or that, like a million ways

40:58

from Sunday, America has basically outlawed large

41:00

controversial. projects, in socio-racial projects,

41:02

of which nuclear reactors are

41:04

one. There's no objective reason

41:06

why America shouldn't have built

41:08

a single nuclear reactor in

41:11

the past 30 years. They

41:13

could have not burnt a lot of coal.

41:15

There is, there is, there experience

41:17

of building them in Georgia, of

41:19

building one in Georgia over time, over

41:21

budget, and both sides of politics

41:24

support nuclear power is in

41:26

Biden's policy, Biden's policy. He

41:29

didn't see any advantage in

41:31

adopting an anti-nuclear agenda, but

41:33

nothing happened during his four-year

41:36

presidency. And it's because of

41:38

the lumpiness and the vulnerability

41:41

of this sort of power and the

41:43

sheer cost of it. the shoe cost of it.

41:45

Well we can agree disagree about American red tape

41:47

perhaps because he also poured a huge amount of

41:49

money into a broadband network that was going to

41:52

revolutionize everything and I think like 15 homes have

41:54

been signed up to it because every single time

41:56

you try to do anything in the United States

41:58

it ends up running into... to regulatory

42:00

problems. So in this destabilized sort

42:03

of world that we've now got,

42:05

just going back to the question

42:07

about Trump and NATO and so

42:10

on, why doesn't it make sense

42:12

for medium-sized countries like Australia to

42:15

be as aggressive as we can

42:17

in enhancing our military capabilities? Well,

42:19

aggressive, why not say effective? There's

42:22

no easier way to waste money,

42:24

as even the Trump administration concedes,

42:26

when it takes a critical look

42:29

at the Pentagon, than with military,

42:31

grand military commitments. And I mean,

42:34

this is one of the example,

42:36

one of the vulnerabilities of Orca,

42:38

someone said, it's, it's so overengineered,

42:41

so overengineered. Grandios was the adjective,

42:43

that the chances of things not

42:46

going wrong, they're just not there.

42:48

It's going to go wrong. It's

42:50

going to go wrong. It's going

42:53

to go wrong. Because someone's going

42:55

to back out of the deal?

42:57

Or because... For a host of

43:00

reasons, the Americans need to produce

43:02

2.3 new Virginia class subs every

43:05

year. They're producing one. And Aldridge

43:07

Colbury Colby, Colby. said when he

43:09

was being ticked off by the

43:12

Congress, and when asked a question

43:14

about this, he says, and the

43:16

Congress says, we're not going to,

43:19

we may not be able to

43:21

supply the Australians if it means

43:24

losing ships, boats, to our submarine

43:26

fleet. And you can see it

43:28

happening. You can see it happening.

43:31

The qualifications are beginning to appear.

43:33

in Washington talking about this. The

43:35

easiest thing to assume happening in

43:38

the early 2030 is that America

43:40

will say we had this commitment,

43:43

but our shipyards aren't keeping up

43:45

with the Chinese. We can't afford

43:47

to peel the subs off our

43:50

order of battle. So we've got

43:52

a new deal for the Australians.

43:54

This is August, August version 2.

43:57

What we're going to do, it's

43:59

a fabulous deal for you Australians,

44:02

what we're going to do is

44:04

put more of our Virginia-class subs

44:06

with the American flag, of course,

44:09

in your ports, especially at this

44:11

port you're building for us in

44:14

HMA, in Western Australia. And of

44:16

course dumb Australians are saying, oh

44:18

this is good, this is good,

44:21

this is even better, and the

44:23

Americans say they're going to train

44:25

our sub-mariners on board, won't that

44:28

be precious? Well no it won't

44:30

be, it won't be, it won't

44:33

be, because it means Australia will

44:35

lose its sovereign submarine capacity for

44:37

the first time since the 1960.

44:40

We won't have submarines, we can

44:42

call our own, as the columns

44:44

class, the six remaining columns class,

44:47

are faded out, are retired. And

44:49

the second terrible thing about it,

44:52

loss of sovereign submarine capacity is

44:54

one thing. The loss of overall

44:56

sovereignty is the other regret of

44:59

that the shape this is taking.

45:01

That is, we'll have American subs

45:03

here. Based here, there'll be targets,

45:06

should there be a showdown between

45:08

the US and China. as well

45:11

as Pine Gap, as well as

45:13

Tyndall, the base, air base in

45:15

Northern Australia where we've got American

45:18

B52s now, aimed at attacking China.

45:20

We'll make ourselves a nuclear target

45:23

and we'll make it virtually impossible

45:25

for us to say no if

45:27

America decides on a war with

45:30

China. This is by the way

45:32

to revert to something I said

45:34

earlier where Trump gets interesting. The

45:37

possibility... that he's skepticism about overseas

45:39

military engagements might lead him after

45:42

a lot of economic warfare with

45:44

China to think about... about a

45:46

great power deal, to think about

45:49

a great power deal, where effectively

45:51

China and the US accept that

45:53

both have a role in the

45:56

Asia Pacific or that the Western

45:58

Pacific is an area where China

46:01

privacy has got to be accepted

46:03

as a fact of life, like

46:05

American primacy in the Caribbean. What

46:08

does he get out of it

46:10

if he gives China Taiwan? You'd

46:12

have to ask him. He sees

46:15

himself as the master of a

46:17

deal. He could get a commitment

46:20

from China to shift manufacturing to

46:22

the US, bringing jobs into America

46:24

or give America more market access.

46:27

Who knows how he's thinking? It's

46:29

interesting that Marco Rubio in talking

46:32

to Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign

46:34

minister, was quick to rule out

46:36

support for Taiwanese separatism. an independent

46:39

Taiwan. In other words, to assert

46:41

the long-established one China policy that

46:43

goes back to Kissinger and Joen

46:46

Li in 1972, the Shanghai Communique,

46:48

that wasn't reported, but there was

46:51

none of this, none of this.

46:53

posturing about. So wait, what did

46:55

Marco Rubio say? I missed that.

46:58

Yeah, it was his first meeting

47:00

with his Chinese car and you

47:02

missed it because no Australian newspaper

47:05

reported it. He said, matter of

47:07

factly, America accepts the one China

47:10

policy. He ruled out support for

47:12

an independent Taiwan, which is a

47:14

notion that from time to time,

47:17

people in the Republican Party have

47:19

picked up and run with. I

47:21

mean even Joe Biden said point

47:24

blank that he would three times

47:26

he would go to war with

47:29

three times he tripped up instead

47:31

of course defend Taiwan it's a

47:33

lot of tripping up eventually I

47:36

kind of thought well maybe he

47:38

means it yeah but then he

47:41

pulled back well the White House

47:43

always sends out a communicate the

47:45

day after and says just to

47:48

clarify we need a policy is

47:50

unchanged I think it's pretty yeah

47:52

I mean I think nobody did

47:55

in the end go a bit

47:57

further because it was in his

48:00

own words saying, returning to the

48:02

position that's called strategic ambiguity. Yeah.

48:04

You don't spell out whether you

48:07

defend them. You don't rule out

48:09

defending them. You leave China guessing.

48:11

That's strategic ambiguity. The Chinese can

48:14

live with it. The Taiwanese leadership

48:16

can live with it. For God's

48:19

sake, strategic ambiguity and saying, using

48:21

that key word, the West acknowledges,

48:23

the Chinese came, acknowledges that China.

48:26

has this claim, recognizes the Chinese

48:28

claim to Taiwan, but stands by

48:30

the proposition that it should be

48:33

achieved easily. And let's suppose that

48:35

August happens, right? What are your

48:38

criticisms of it, assuming that it

48:40

goes through? They manage to increase

48:42

their submarine capacity. You're asking me

48:45

to imagine something that day by

48:47

day becomes clearer. It ain't happening.

48:49

we're not getting the vessel. Right,

48:52

but I want to, I want

48:54

the, you know, there's a maximum

48:57

debating, as you know, that you

48:59

should attack the strongest version of

49:01

your opponent's argument, not the weakest.

49:04

So let's attack the strongest. It's

49:06

going to happen, let's say it's

49:09

going to happen, let's say it's

49:11

going to happen, let's say it's

49:13

going to happen, we have a

49:16

back up, we have a backup,

49:18

is it still a bad idea?

49:20

Oh yeah. Yeah, the French deal

49:23

by contrast gave us eight subs.

49:25

At least seven would be in

49:28

the water at any one time

49:30

compared with the nuclear subs. Two

49:32

out of three are going to

49:35

be in hospital at any one

49:37

time. The French side... Is that

49:39

right? Yeah. You need two? Perhaps

49:42

I should say... Up to two

49:44

out of three could be in

49:47

maintenance at any one time. It's

49:49

a fragile technology. The French subs

49:51

were there to protect, to make

49:54

inviolable. The Australian continent and our

49:56

sea lanes of communication, lethal and

49:58

affordable. The appeal to the cold

50:01

warriors of the Virginia class is

50:03

that they're able to get up

50:06

into the Strait of Taiwan. In

50:08

other words, they're locked into America's

50:10

battle plans. Effectively, effectively, well coming

50:13

close, coming close to saying we

50:15

will be... in a US-China war.

50:18

Don't they enhance house buying and

50:20

surveillance capacity over China? Over China?

50:22

Yeah, I mean, in the sense

50:25

that you can just park them

50:27

up there and then they're just

50:29

there. And they do all kinds

50:32

of funny things. Why are we

50:34

looking at a submarine type is

50:37

commanding virtue is getting us into

50:39

a war with China? What about...

50:41

We're principally worried about war with

50:44

China as our greatest strategic threat.

50:46

If we enter a war with

50:48

China. We could have nuclear missiles

50:51

landed on Tyndall, the base, the

50:53

air base, for one reason by

50:56

the way, that we've got B52's

50:58

station there to attack China. As

51:00

Keating says, he's never said a

51:03

truer thing, that the only reason

51:05

we've got B52 in the north

51:07

of Australia is to attack China

51:10

and China would have no interest

51:12

in attacking Australia, but not for

51:15

our foolishness in planting American facilities

51:17

here. to attack him. Well that's

51:19

the gamble. 59% of the Australians.

51:22

That's the suicidal gamble. You have

51:24

to be right. You have to

51:27

be 100% certain that that's right,

51:29

that China would not attack us

51:31

were it not for our involvement

51:34

with the United States. If there

51:36

is a one thousandth of a

51:38

percentage point chance that that calculus

51:41

is wrong, then you're gambling the

51:43

fate of all of Australia. Yeah,

51:46

because the price you pay is

51:48

so high. Yes. So high. This

51:50

is a beautiful continent. It's been

51:53

gifted to us. It's been a

51:55

custodian ship going back 40, 60,000

51:57

years. It's gifted to this nation,

52:00

a nation for a... continent, a

52:02

continent for a nation, none other

52:05

on the planet, we've got it

52:07

and we should do nothing to

52:09

invite a nuclear attack on this

52:12

beautiful landscape with all its riches.

52:14

And that's what we've done. We've

52:16

militarised the North of Australia. You've

52:19

had a US Congressman here saying

52:21

you are now the front line.

52:24

Now that is terrifying. That's terrifying.

52:26

You had Kurt Campbell. former Assistant

52:28

Secretary of State for East Asia

52:31

and the Pacific, say, with this

52:33

decision on August, we've locked them

52:36

in for 40 years, locked Australia's

52:38

gullible leadership in for 40 years.

52:40

And to think of Australia, I

52:43

think of this continent in different

52:45

ways, I think most Australians would,

52:47

from Americans. Americans are now thinking

52:50

of us as the frontline in

52:52

a war with China. I want

52:55

to get Australians thinking, hey. Hey,

52:57

hey, no, that's not our future.

52:59

59% of Australians, according to the

53:02

last poll, the only poll I

53:04

can recall on this subject, don't

53:06

think we should be in a

53:09

war between China and the US,

53:11

because it's not in our interest.

53:14

Of course you don't want to

53:16

be. The question is whether or

53:18

not you will be, regardless of

53:21

whether or not you're... You've got

53:23

a caucus, right? So the question...

53:25

This is the risk, this is

53:28

the risk, right? The pro-walkus person

53:30

will say... that we're not Asian

53:33

and that we're part of the

53:35

Western liberal world order. And should

53:37

it come to pass that the

53:40

Chinese Communist Party goes a bit

53:42

nuts and wants to declare war

53:45

on not just America but the

53:47

West, we will be involved whether

53:49

we like it or not. Of

53:52

course 59% of Australians don't want

53:54

war with China. We may not

53:56

get that. You just made one

53:59

big mistake. You referred to the

54:01

Western liberal world order. It don't

54:04

exist, brother. It does not exist.

54:06

With Trump. That has got to

54:08

be that has got to be

54:11

Scott from vocabulary of you in

54:13

the Lowy Institute and the Department

54:15

of Foreign Affairs. We don't have

54:18

the ability to scratch it from

54:20

the vocabulary of Beijing. Like they're

54:23

going to notice. Beijing, Beijing is

54:25

consumed by several key goals and

54:27

they don't include going to war

54:30

with the West. That would be

54:32

insane and whatever you say about

54:34

the leaders of the Marxist-Leninist one-party

54:37

state in Beijing, they are not

54:39

insane. They are calculating and they're

54:42

shaving a foreign policy. around their

54:44

definition of China's self-interest. The first

54:46

on their goal is the preservation

54:49

of the power of the Communist

54:51

Party. The second is protection of

54:53

China in this region. A subset

54:56

of that is China being the

54:58

dominant power in Eurasia. A subset

55:01

of that is protecting sea lanes

55:03

of communication and protecting their ports

55:05

from being blockaded by American naval

55:08

power. Don't forget a whole lot

55:10

of China's behavior has been determined

55:13

by America saying in 2012 during

55:15

the Obama presidency there will be

55:17

a pivot to Asia. In Beijing

55:20

you read pivot to Asia as

55:22

meaning, we're going to enhance our

55:24

capacity to blockage your ports and

55:27

to choke off your sea lanes

55:29

of communication. And China's reacted, by

55:32

the way, America said that. and

55:34

did nothing about it, did not

55:36

put a scent into it. There's

55:39

not an extra American vessel there

55:41

as a result of the so-called

55:43

too. To be fair they did

55:46

get a little distracted by events

55:48

in Europe, but yeah, they didn't

55:51

realize that they were going to

55:53

have to be involved in Ukraine.

55:55

I think the basic thing here

55:58

is that Australians would be appalled,

56:00

a majority of Australians would be

56:02

appalled, 59% compared with 17% you

56:05

thought we should be in a

56:07

war. 59% of Australians. quite acutely

56:10

say no, but the leadership of

56:12

this country is so besotted with

56:14

the idea, the romantic idea of

56:17

an Australian American alliance and an

56:19

Australian defense and foreign policy that

56:22

says There shouldn't be a sliver

56:24

of difference. People listening to this

56:26

on audio should see the hand

56:29

gesture of the fingers. Holding up

56:31

a tiny gap between your fingers,

56:33

yes. There should not be this

56:36

much difference between Australia and the

56:38

US on anything. So the defence

56:41

minister says a few things. One

56:43

is, this is one, these, as

56:45

you said, when you mentioned that

56:48

these, this equipment needs to be

56:50

in the shop quite a lot.

56:52

It is the most sophisticated piece

56:55

of equipment. Arguably. that humankind has

56:57

ever produced. Like it may be

57:00

more complicated than the International Space

57:02

Station. Yeah, than the Moonshot, right?

57:04

These things are the peak of

57:07

human engineering. We would be one

57:09

of only seven countries in the

57:11

world, apparently, to have military hardware

57:14

that's as sophisticated as this. The

57:16

United States has only shared this

57:19

once before with the Brits after

57:21

World War II, and we would

57:23

join that illustrious club. And there's

57:26

no price to be paid, isn't

57:28

it? No price to be paid?

57:31

Might there be an assumption that

57:33

doing that for us would mandate

57:35

that if there is a war,

57:38

we would fling our asset into

57:40

that war? And might the former

57:42

defense department official, you said to

57:45

me, if we send a sub

57:47

up there to a showdown on

57:50

the Taiwan Strait, we'd better make

57:52

sure that every one of our

57:54

submariners is made out of will.

57:57

Might he be right in his

57:59

reading of the threat to Australia?

58:01

And 59% of the Australian people,

58:04

might they in fact be right

58:06

when they say their instincts, drive

58:09

them to say, no, no, not

58:11

a war between the US and

58:13

China? No, that's not a war

58:16

we should join. You see, we...

58:18

I had Peter Garrett on the

58:20

show and he said that he

58:23

doesn't think that regardless of the

58:25

American administration that they will actually

58:28

defend Taiwan in the event of

58:30

a Chinese. What's your sense about

58:32

it? Yeah, my sense is the

58:35

same. Trump is reported to have

58:37

said, you know, in a spectacular

58:40

way he talks. On two or

58:42

three occasions that America wouldn't defend

58:44

Taiwan, it's too far off. I

58:47

think that would be his thinking.

58:49

Ripet Murdoch said the same, which

58:51

might suggest some channeling between the

58:54

Oval Office and News Corp. But

58:56

I mean, look, it may not

58:59

happen in the next three and

59:01

a half years, so the question

59:03

is whether or not there's any

59:06

political candidate who would. You know,

59:08

is this all just sophistry essentially?

59:10

We know that the development of

59:13

Chinese missile strength and ship numbers

59:15

makes it less likely than America

59:18

could be comfortable about sending naval

59:20

assets into the second island chain.

59:22

And as the decades go on,

59:25

it's likely that that... transformation of

59:27

the strategic balance will continue to

59:29

shift in China's favor when it

59:32

comes to China's, what it might

59:34

be seen as China's natural sphere

59:37

of influence. That doesn't mean we

59:39

don't work at building deterrence. I

59:41

think it's entirely legitimate that we're

59:44

in the quad. talking to other

59:46

nations. That's a little grouping of

59:48

India and Japan and America. That

59:51

sends a message to Beijing that

59:53

should they be too adventurous in

59:56

any of their behaviors or actions.

59:58

This diplomatic talking shop could come

1:00:00

to life, could be more serious.

1:00:03

At the present time the Indians

1:00:05

aren't making a commitment to East

1:00:08

Asia. Taiwan is not part of

1:00:10

the... strategic responsibility as they say.

1:00:12

It never will be. No, it

1:00:15

never will be. They've not been

1:00:17

in East Asian. No, and they're

1:00:19

good at they're good at playing

1:00:22

mutual when it suits them. Yes,

1:00:24

well, brilliantly. Yeah. Let's do some

1:00:27

sort of quicker questions. if that's

1:00:29

okay, just all over the shop.

1:00:31

Do you remember your first day

1:00:34

as Premier? Yes. Was it like?

1:00:36

Tremendous. Do we have been opposition

1:00:38

leader for 70 years to have

1:00:41

had people said, you know, car

1:00:43

can never do it, you won't

1:00:46

win with car? He's too bookish,

1:00:48

doesn't look the part, and then

1:00:50

do a one, and have been

1:00:53

able to move constantly on my

1:00:55

big promises like saving the Southeast

1:00:57

forests, saving twice as much. as

1:01:00

we even said in the election,

1:01:02

we'd save, as great new national

1:01:05

parks, just one morning waking up

1:01:07

and banning canal estates, to save

1:01:09

the river systems of the state.

1:01:12

I mean, it's just, the use

1:01:14

of power to achieve good policy

1:01:17

is just thrilling. Mm. My happiest

1:01:19

years, our ten years, was premier.

1:01:21

stopping jet skis on Sydney Harbour.

1:01:24

The medical service injecting room. I

1:01:26

know a few people who didn't

1:01:28

like you for the jet ski.

1:01:31

Four unit English in the curriculum.

1:01:33

Just some of the small things

1:01:36

you do as well as the

1:01:38

big things, budgetary things, infrastructure thing.

1:01:40

What country have you visited that

1:01:43

you were most surprised to enjoy

1:01:45

as much as you did? Gee

1:01:47

I know there's an answer to

1:01:50

that question. I'm not fishing for

1:01:52

one particular, whatever pops in. Yeah,

1:01:55

and I'm just, I'm just Solomon

1:01:57

Islands, Solomon Islands. I thought, here's

1:01:59

a, he's a spray of islands

1:02:02

separated by this waterway, the slot,

1:02:04

John F. Kennedy's story, of course,

1:02:06

is relevant to that. That's where

1:02:09

he struggled in the oceans, massive

1:02:11

naval battles, Garda Canal. What was

1:02:14

JFK's story in the Salt Islands?

1:02:16

He was in a PT boat.

1:02:18

It was sunk. Was this at

1:02:21

Guadalcanal when they were shipping in?

1:02:23

After. He was sunk, struggled in

1:02:26

the waters, shark-infested waters. tropical waters

1:02:28

for a day or days and

1:02:30

he saved one of his crew

1:02:33

members who was wounded and then

1:02:35

brilliantly sent a message through delivered

1:02:37

by a native in a canoe

1:02:40

message on a coconut shell that

1:02:42

that please come and look after

1:02:45

us where we're survivors of PT

1:02:47

109. Wow. It really was remarkably

1:02:49

and genuinely brave. Incredible. So funny

1:02:52

that you say the Solomon Islands

1:02:54

because I just went to the

1:02:56

Solomon Islands. You're kidding. One of

1:02:59

my best friends, yeah, who works

1:03:01

for... the public service in his

1:03:04

PhD in science in Canberra. His

1:03:06

wife is also a scientist and

1:03:08

she got a job there. And

1:03:11

so they've moved their three kids

1:03:13

to Honiara. So I took my

1:03:15

kids and my partner to go

1:03:18

and visit them and to go.

1:03:20

I mean, I agree with you.

1:03:23

It's like Tahiti in the 1950s

1:03:25

or something combined with Papua New

1:03:27

Guinea. It's like this strange mix

1:03:30

of... Yeah, when I was in

1:03:32

Honiara, I just thought what an

1:03:35

adventure it would be to load

1:03:37

a car. with supplies and just

1:03:39

drive up into those hills. Yeah.

1:03:42

Like one of the spies, one

1:03:44

of the watches left behind by

1:03:46

Australia with binoculars in the hills

1:03:49

to keep an island Japanese shipping

1:03:51

in the Second World War. Incredible.

1:03:54

What period of your life did

1:03:56

you feel most alive? I think

1:03:58

the last years as opposition leader,

1:04:01

when my whole future was swinging

1:04:03

on events. I had the support

1:04:05

of wonderful people in the Labour

1:04:08

caucus. I was down in the

1:04:10

polls against John Fay, popular premier.

1:04:13

How old were I? I was

1:04:15

born in 1947 and this was

1:04:17

the early 90s, early 90s. The

1:04:20

early 40s. Wasn't it? You're late

1:04:22

30s. 40s, definitely 40s. And I

1:04:24

had to live on my wits

1:04:27

and one day it might look

1:04:29

I had a chance being premier,

1:04:32

another day with wiser to assume

1:04:34

I'd fall into the abyss. That's

1:04:36

what I felt. So that was

1:04:39

point out. You're right. Mid to

1:04:41

late 40s. You were a late

1:04:44

starter. A late seceder. Yeah. Yeah.

1:04:46

You're writing your diary. Right on

1:04:48

my diary. about this period, I

1:04:51

thought this was the time in

1:04:53

my life I felt most alive,

1:04:55

because I was either going to

1:04:58

be flung into the abyss at

1:05:00

the 1995 election or elevated into

1:05:03

the front rank of political leadership

1:05:05

and that could lead anywhere. Yeah.

1:05:07

If I told you then that

1:05:10

it was going to lead to

1:05:12

being foreign minister, would you have

1:05:14

welcomed that? I would have been

1:05:17

very fulfilled. I have been fulfilled.

1:05:19

Enoch Powell, a bridge politician, said,

1:05:22

all political careers end in failure.

1:05:24

I'm just writing a bit of

1:05:26

a memoir now. And in all

1:05:29

modesty, I can't agree. Looking back

1:05:31

on my political career, he has

1:05:33

fulfilled every dream I had as

1:05:36

a 15-year-old, a schoolboy from a

1:05:38

working-class family. You're talking self-down to

1:05:41

a local public stool and joined

1:05:43

the Malabar South Metroville branch of

1:05:45

the Australian Labour Party. Seeking to

1:05:48

be Prime Minister one day. I'm

1:05:50

totally fulfilled. You were a senior

1:05:52

cabinet minister when the Prime Minister

1:05:55

was rolled. Julia Gillard. It was

1:05:57

when Kevin Rudd came back for

1:06:00

a second time and rolled Julia

1:06:02

Gillard. What do you remember of

1:06:04

that tussle? Yeah, I just remember

1:06:07

the sadness of seeing a government

1:06:09

do such damage. to itself, paying

1:06:12

the price for the original sin,

1:06:14

which had been the brutal removal

1:06:16

of Kevin Rudd in 2010. I

1:06:19

threw it, yeah, what a private

1:06:21

sector organization would not in this

1:06:23

fashion. If a Prime Minister was

1:06:26

performing disappointingly, a general manager was

1:06:28

performing disappointingly, they'd be coaching, there'd

1:06:31

be workshopping, they'd be mentoring, you'd

1:06:33

attempt to improve the network of

1:06:35

relationships on which an outfit private

1:06:38

sector or government does depend. So

1:06:40

amateurish to butcher Kevin Rudd and

1:06:42

for Julia to be drawn into

1:06:45

that process. and in the manner

1:06:47

of Shakespearean tragedy, it had its

1:06:50

consequence. Does Bill Shorten deserve some

1:06:52

blame for that entire fiasco? I'd

1:06:54

have to go back and watch

1:06:57

that ABC series, documentary series, on

1:06:59

it, but I don't think he

1:07:01

was in the front rank. He

1:07:04

was a minister serving in the

1:07:06

rut government. I think you'd look

1:07:09

at some factional figures and maybe

1:07:11

his successor as hit of the

1:07:13

AWU before you could point the

1:07:16

finger at him. My sense from

1:07:18

when I was a... journalist was

1:07:21

just that he was never the

1:07:23

main person to point the finger

1:07:25

to, but he was always in

1:07:28

the room. There was something a

1:07:30

bit Richard III about him to

1:07:32

me. It was just always there.

1:07:35

He was like, you know. He

1:07:37

was a common denominator. He was

1:07:40

a common thread across a lot

1:07:42

of the Labour parties. That's just

1:07:44

a huge defamation. He's far a

1:07:47

defamation lawyer. I'm saying to Bill

1:07:49

Shorten. Now we'll go through Richard.

1:07:51

We'll see what Richard. There's a

1:07:54

lovely man. I'm sure he's great.

1:07:56

I'm sure he loves his pets.

1:07:59

He's probably fine. What country is

1:08:01

Australia ignoring diplomatically at our peril?

1:08:03

None. I think there are cliches.

1:08:06

that suggests we should do more

1:08:08

with India, for example. Now listen,

1:08:10

for 30 years people have been

1:08:13

saying Australia should do more with

1:08:15

India. The question is, does India

1:08:18

want to do more with us?

1:08:20

And Indian diplomats in Delhi don't

1:08:22

want to spend their time responding

1:08:25

to Australia. initiatives. We're not that

1:08:27

important. They're not looking south. People

1:08:30

say, oh, we've got to work

1:08:32

harder with Indonesia. Well, we do.

1:08:34

One idea might be to stop

1:08:37

spying on Indonesia for the benefit

1:08:39

of the Americans. That would be

1:08:41

a nice gesture. If we're able

1:08:44

to say to the Indonesians, you

1:08:46

know we've been doing it, but

1:08:49

we're not going to do it

1:08:51

anymore. But we couldn't put a

1:08:53

bigger diplomatic effort into it. Our

1:08:56

embassy in Jakarta is our biggest

1:08:58

in the world. even bigger than

1:09:00

our one in Washington, which is

1:09:03

offers secure easy retirement jobs to

1:09:05

about 40,000 of our defense personnel.

1:09:08

Now you need to worry about

1:09:10

the defamation lawyers. Which is more

1:09:12

predictable to deal with Washington or

1:09:15

Beijing? I think Beijing, definitely. They're

1:09:17

interesting to conservative, especially now that

1:09:19

they've moved beyond wolf warrior diplomacy.

1:09:22

They're conservative, they're instincts are conservative,

1:09:24

they want a predictable world. The

1:09:27

rules of the UN are something

1:09:29

they accept, they go power in

1:09:31

the security council, you might quickly

1:09:34

say. Plus the new institutions they've

1:09:36

sponsored like bricks or the Shanghai

1:09:39

cooperation organization. Is bricks a positive

1:09:41

thing? Part of the world saying

1:09:43

we want a voice too and

1:09:46

we ought to begin building alternatives

1:09:48

to the almighty US dollar. They're

1:09:50

not succeeding in that altogether, but

1:09:53

the fact that they're coming together

1:09:55

and talking about the option is

1:09:58

a reminder of the latent pluralism,

1:10:00

the multilateralism that confirms we no

1:10:02

longer talk as you were a

1:10:05

moment ago about the Western-based liberal

1:10:07

order. that Americans repudiated that and

1:10:09

the rest of the world's got

1:10:12

to respond in view of Washington's

1:10:14

repudiation. Should we? reconstruct it without

1:10:17

Washington? Australia, given what America is

1:10:19

doing, should be running a foreign

1:10:21

policy with a lot less Washington

1:10:24

in it, with more multilateralism in

1:10:26

it, more engagement, and more Asia

1:10:28

in it. And that means that's

1:10:31

not code for China. Japan, South

1:10:33

Korea, India, and of course the

1:10:36

Ten ASEAN, as in state. We're

1:10:38

able to say to Indonesia, look

1:10:40

we're a huge strategic advantage. What

1:10:43

we're saying is that your South

1:10:45

is protected. You've got a friend

1:10:47

here. And by re... tick

1:10:50

every box we're a reliable friend.

1:10:53

And that's a huge commitment to

1:10:55

our own security. We should revive

1:10:57

Paul Keating's treaty with Indonesia. I

1:10:59

mean, that all makes total sense

1:11:01

strategically on the medium term. I

1:11:04

guess I'm thinking globally in the

1:11:06

long term about the post-World War

1:11:08

II period in which we emerged

1:11:10

from a status quo that involved

1:11:12

essentially centuries or millennia of... countries

1:11:15

just doing whatever the hell they

1:11:17

wanted in an unconstrained fashion and

1:11:19

people making a massive overinvestment of

1:11:21

resources into defending themselves and worrying

1:11:23

about whether or not they're going

1:11:26

to be invaded and incurring wars

1:11:28

from time to time and something

1:11:30

about World War two got us

1:11:32

to get our shit together and

1:11:34

all sit down and go okay

1:11:37

what do we need in order

1:11:39

to make sure this doesn't keep

1:11:41

happening and it's been great generally

1:11:43

if that's coming to an end

1:11:47

Or if America is bringing

1:11:49

its role in it to

1:11:51

an end, is there a

1:11:54

future in which we don't

1:11:56

revert back to the pre-Great

1:11:58

War period of great powers?

1:12:00

rolling tanks over borders, but

1:12:03

can find a way to

1:12:05

have NATO minus the United

1:12:07

States, I guess the EU,

1:12:09

ASEAN, maybe not ASEAN, maybe

1:12:12

it's Japan and South Korea

1:12:14

and Australia and the New

1:12:16

Zealand and Canada in an

1:12:18

alliance with the EU and

1:12:21

some other friendly nations to

1:12:23

go like, you know what,

1:12:25

we are now, what liberal

1:12:27

democracy looks like, and we're

1:12:30

not going to take any

1:12:32

shit from anybody, and we're

1:12:34

going to do our best

1:12:36

to keep things chugging along.

1:12:39

Yeah, well look, that's a

1:12:41

tremendous question. You're asking us

1:12:43

to think about a world

1:12:45

order based on great power

1:12:48

politics, national interest politics, the

1:12:50

anarchy, a world where great

1:12:52

powers can do what they

1:12:54

can and do what they

1:12:57

can in pursuit of their

1:12:59

national interest. And that was,

1:13:01

yes, as you say, modified

1:13:03

by a post-World War II

1:13:06

order in which the structure

1:13:08

and rules of the UN

1:13:10

were a factor, but in

1:13:12

the absence of real clout,

1:13:15

America at its best, when

1:13:17

it was at its best,

1:13:19

was delivering. For example, America

1:13:21

at its best, and it

1:13:24

all makes me regretful at

1:13:26

the throwing away of US

1:13:28

power and leadership, enforcing nuclear

1:13:31

nonproliferation. It wasn't in America's

1:13:33

interest that you don't have

1:13:35

a spread of nuclear weaponization,

1:13:37

but it was in the

1:13:40

world's interests. And the treaty

1:13:42

that Obama got with the

1:13:44

world and Iran... to dissuade

1:13:46

the Iranians from weaponizing their

1:13:49

nuclear capacity with America and

1:13:51

its diplomatic best. And America

1:13:53

being able to say to

1:13:55

its allies, Japan, South Korea,

1:13:58

the Europeans, the non-nuclear states

1:14:00

and Europe, will protect you

1:14:02

under our alliance umbrella, but

1:14:04

don't develop your own nuclear

1:14:07

capacity. Again, that was the

1:14:09

American-led system at its best.

1:14:11

At its worst, it was

1:14:13

the Vietnam War, the invasion

1:14:16

of Iraq, a 20-year war

1:14:18

with the dream of reconstructing

1:14:20

Afghanistan as a liberal democracy

1:14:22

with equal rights for women.

1:14:25

That was America at its

1:14:27

worst. The question is whether...

1:14:29

in the whole wreckage that

1:14:31

Trump is delivering, there might

1:14:34

be a nugget of virtue,

1:14:36

that is in America avoiding

1:14:38

that great cliche of American

1:14:40

foreign policy, military intervention, and

1:14:43

sanctions. Sanctioning everyone. You mentioned

1:14:45

Kissinger as being someone you

1:14:47

admire. What about in the

1:14:49

Australian context? Who's the best

1:14:52

Australian, either political figure or

1:14:54

speech maker, that you can

1:14:56

think of? You're forced to

1:14:58

go back to Hawk and

1:15:01

Keating. I can see them

1:15:03

as the one personality. Really?

1:15:05

I don't think either of

1:15:07

them would like that. No.

1:15:10

No. But Keating was president

1:15:12

of young labour when I

1:15:14

started going to young labour.

1:15:16

So naturally my loyalty and

1:15:19

affections gravitate to a contemporary.

1:15:21

And I think he's got

1:15:23

a vision. He's got a

1:15:26

vision. If we had a

1:15:28

French style. political system. He

1:15:30

could be presidents. He could

1:15:32

have a worker day prime

1:15:35

minister under him, but he'd

1:15:37

provide the visionary concepts. And

1:15:39

at his best, he really

1:15:41

is very, very good. Yeah,

1:15:44

I think that probably exhausts

1:15:46

my thoughts on Australian leadership.

1:15:48

There are people in my

1:15:50

own life. I watched Neville

1:15:53

Ran as Premier of New

1:15:55

South Wales and London. a

1:15:57

great deal from him. What's

1:15:59

a political opinion that you

1:16:02

hold that would be most

1:16:04

problematic for a... young aspiring

1:16:06

labor politician to express at

1:16:08

a labor conference. Yeah, more

1:16:11

independence for Australia, yes, under

1:16:13

the umbrella of the American

1:16:15

Alliance. So aligned, but independent.

1:16:17

And if you start talking

1:16:20

up an alternative to the

1:16:22

closest, closest, closest possible relationship

1:16:24

with America, you're going to

1:16:26

get a lot of criticism,

1:16:29

spark a lot of antagonism

1:16:31

from people who's lack of

1:16:33

imagination. just mandates them to

1:16:35

say, the only role for

1:16:38

Australia, the only international personality

1:16:40

for Australia that we will

1:16:42

permit is as the most

1:16:44

rusted on American ally. You

1:16:47

mentioned the Hawk Keating era.

1:16:49

Is the Australian Labour Party

1:16:51

intellectually stronger or weaker than

1:16:53

it was in the 80s?

1:16:56

It's weaker because Hawk and

1:16:58

Keating Hawk, backed by the

1:17:00

arguments of Keating. We're presenting

1:17:02

an alternative vision of the

1:17:05

Australian economy. It could be

1:17:07

open to the world and

1:17:09

competitive, focused on productivity improvement.

1:17:11

True competition. Who was the

1:17:14

best US president? Franklin Roosevelt,

1:17:16

Abraham Lincoln. What's the best

1:17:18

takeaway from Cicero? of Augustus's

1:17:21

March, Augustus's, no, no, in

1:17:23

respect of Caesar's crossing of

1:17:25

the Rubicon, Cicero said, this

1:17:27

cause lacks nothing but a

1:17:30

cause. In other words, in

1:17:32

other words, it was a

1:17:34

brutal seizure of power. Without

1:17:36

any policy justification, this cause

1:17:39

lacks nothing but a cause,

1:17:41

but a cause lacks nothing

1:17:43

but a cause. I love

1:17:45

that because in it you

1:17:48

can see the modernity of

1:17:50

Rome and Cicero's commentary on

1:17:52

it. It's something that would

1:17:54

be said about a political

1:17:57

strike for power in today's

1:17:59

world. This cause lacks nothing

1:18:01

but a cause. Is philosophy

1:18:03

and the writings of the

1:18:06

an intellectual pursuit for you?

1:18:08

Or is it also emotionally?

1:18:10

In a cafe or a

1:18:12

bar in Sarajevo, a young

1:18:15

assassin who'd been associated with

1:18:17

a failed bomb attack on

1:18:19

the air to the Austro-Hungarian

1:18:21

throne was taking a drink

1:18:24

to recovery strength and he

1:18:26

looked up the door and

1:18:28

there having taken a wrong

1:18:30

turn was the fate on

1:18:33

the open car, the open

1:18:35

car, the open car, the

1:18:37

open vehicle. with the Grand

1:18:39

Duke, Franz Ferdinand, and I

1:18:42

think Sophie, Sophie, his wife,

1:18:44

and they were strolled in

1:18:46

a traffic jam. He reached

1:18:48

into his coat pocket, picked

1:18:51

up his revolver, and stalked

1:18:53

out, and shot them both

1:18:55

dead. And what happened from

1:18:57

that moment? If it hadn't

1:19:00

been that, would it have

1:19:02

been something else? Are you

1:19:04

a bit of a fatalist?

1:19:06

Or like... How much does

1:19:09

each event matter? the world

1:19:11

could have stumbled on without

1:19:13

a trigger, although if you

1:19:16

look at that untidy mix

1:19:18

of Serbian politics and the

1:19:20

fatalistic Austrian, almost elegant fatalism

1:19:22

in Vienna and this terrible

1:19:25

thing that must not... ever

1:19:27

overtake us the idea that

1:19:29

there's going to be a

1:19:31

war coming it might as

1:19:34

well be now yeah it

1:19:36

might as well be now.

1:19:38

And that existed in some

1:19:40

of the capitals. It existed

1:19:43

in Petersburg. It existed in

1:19:45

Berlin. But that's the fascination

1:19:47

of history. It's so concrete,

1:19:49

so anecdotal. Getting into a

1:19:52

philosophic argument about... does it

1:19:54

to cheer exist if no

1:19:56

one's in the room looking

1:19:58

at it? Well, that's not

1:20:01

necessarily what I mean about

1:20:03

me. There are different strands

1:20:05

of philosophy out there. I

1:20:07

mean, you could be talking

1:20:10

about the stoics and they

1:20:12

could have a much more

1:20:14

practical one. I like Marcus

1:20:16

really. That's a popular version.

1:20:19

Yes. And I'm writing something

1:20:21

now and I'm driven to

1:20:23

look at him. He talks

1:20:25

about the quest for perfection

1:20:28

of character. What do you

1:20:30

do when you're my age,

1:20:32

when you've lost your partner?

1:20:34

Why not focus? on that

1:20:37

challenge, that huge challenge of

1:20:39

achieving perfection of character. Never,

1:20:41

in the words of Marcus.

1:20:43

It really is never attitude

1:20:46

nice. Never think harshly of

1:20:48

people. If they do something

1:20:50

that's bad, they're doing it

1:20:52

because their genes tell them

1:20:55

to do it. It's in

1:20:57

their nature. All the arguments,

1:20:59

think of all the arguments

1:21:02

of history that matter not

1:21:04

a jot. retain your cool.

1:21:06

It's a stoicism is very

1:21:08

difficult and I think impossible

1:21:11

and contemptible in ways in

1:21:13

asking us not to suffer,

1:21:15

but to think of the

1:21:17

suffering of other people. That's

1:21:20

impossible. I went to a

1:21:22

Buddhist retreat for a day

1:21:24

and someone said that and

1:21:26

I got up and walked

1:21:29

out. If someone's suffering, you

1:21:31

cannot tell them. A bereavement

1:21:33

for example, you cannot tell

1:21:35

them. You cannot tell them.

1:21:38

You cannot tell them. a

1:21:40

mum or dad who've lost

1:21:42

their soldier son in a

1:21:44

helicopter accident, pause, think about

1:21:47

how other people are suffering,

1:21:49

your suffering will go away.

1:21:51

The Buddhist who said that

1:21:53

had obviously never suffered a

1:21:56

bereavement. Why doubt that? Hmm?

1:21:58

I doubt that. I don't

1:22:00

think the Buddhist, I completely

1:22:02

understand the psychological phenomenon that

1:22:05

you're pointing to, which is

1:22:07

that it's completely useless to

1:22:09

try to finger wag, you

1:22:11

know, stoic bonmos to somebody

1:22:14

who's in the throes of,

1:22:16

yeah, that's beautifully putt, better

1:22:18

than I could prove. But

1:22:20

the... It's highly likely to

1:22:23

me that the Stoics and

1:22:25

the most enlightened Buddhists have

1:22:27

had their share of grief

1:22:29

and that they regard the

1:22:32

injunction as being one of

1:22:34

personal mastery rather than of

1:22:36

what other people ought to

1:22:38

do. That it's an internal

1:22:41

pursuit to try to do

1:22:43

the impossible. The challenge is

1:22:45

presumably the quest to do

1:22:47

what's impossible. Yeah,

1:22:51

a different approach might be

1:22:53

to embrace the suffering, to

1:22:55

make it part of you.

1:22:57

That strikes me as more

1:22:59

sensible, and that's the advice

1:23:01

I gave the mum and

1:23:03

dead who'd lost their son

1:23:05

in a letter I wrote

1:23:07

them. What have you found

1:23:09

useful in your grieving process

1:23:11

after losing your partner? But

1:23:13

it's not a process. Bereavement

1:23:16

is not a process. It's

1:23:18

a place. You inhabit the

1:23:20

place. You inhabit the place.

1:23:22

and you can rearrange the

1:23:24

furniture, straighten the painting hanging

1:23:26

on the wall, but you

1:23:28

inhabit it and you've got

1:23:30

to live with it. And

1:23:32

someone said to me only

1:23:34

a week ago, she thought,

1:23:36

it's best to think of

1:23:38

it as a two-track, two-tracks,

1:23:41

one-track. You can enjoy life,

1:23:43

you can't enjoy life. The

1:23:45

entertainment of the Trump presidency,

1:23:47

the surfer North Maroo Brother.

1:23:49

the company of friends above

1:23:51

all the friendships, the written

1:23:53

word, the surface of the

1:23:55

earth, again, the third time

1:23:57

of quoting all wealth. But

1:24:01

the other track is,

1:24:03

you can be drawn

1:24:05

into it, just the

1:24:07

yearning, the absolute yearning

1:24:09

to be reunited with

1:24:11

the lost partner. Do

1:24:13

you think you will

1:24:15

be? Do you think

1:24:17

you will be reunited?

1:24:19

No. But, you know,

1:24:21

she's before me all

1:24:23

the time. Her presence

1:24:25

is dancing around me.

1:24:27

And I don't want

1:24:29

to... I don't want

1:24:32

to lose that. People

1:24:34

say get beyond it.

1:24:36

Well, if my default

1:24:38

position, when I'm walking

1:24:40

along the coastal track,

1:24:42

my default position is

1:24:44

to think of her,

1:24:46

then so be it

1:24:48

I'm honoring her memory.

1:24:50

Would it feel like

1:24:52

a betrayal should you

1:24:54

get to a point

1:24:56

at which you weren't

1:24:58

missing her? that she

1:25:00

wasn't present or that

1:25:02

maybe you were over

1:25:04

the grief more? You

1:25:06

fear that and the

1:25:09

other the other sense

1:25:11

of panic, hint of

1:25:13

panic, is that parts

1:25:15

of her memory will

1:25:17

be lost. C.S. Lewis

1:25:19

writes about snow falling

1:25:21

on the portrait of

1:25:23

his lost wife. Other

1:25:26

writers on this have speculated,

1:25:28

and in some ways, the

1:25:30

lost person becomes an historical

1:25:32

figure. And I think one

1:25:34

element of grief, perhaps one

1:25:37

part of it that is

1:25:39

most manageable, is the sense

1:25:41

of panic that that's going

1:25:43

to happen, or is happening.

1:25:45

The disappearance of the memory,

1:25:47

you mean? Yeah. There are

1:25:50

multiple deaths as a person.

1:25:52

There's the physiological death, and

1:25:54

then there's the death of

1:25:56

all the people whoever knew

1:25:58

you. And then... there's the

1:26:00

final time anyone says your

1:26:03

name. Yeah, you know, we

1:26:05

can think about grandparents or

1:26:07

even grandparent, great parents like

1:26:09

that. Yeah, so true. So

1:26:11

a grief counselor would say

1:26:13

this is the universal experience

1:26:16

that happens to us all.

1:26:18

You're on this trajectory there

1:26:20

on it and that's that

1:26:22

common sense. Yeah. The other

1:26:24

thing that's true is that

1:26:26

there are people, you can

1:26:29

live with sadness, that track

1:26:31

of sadness, and you talk

1:26:33

to people, you talk to

1:26:35

a friend who's losing her

1:26:37

sight, you talk to a

1:26:39

friend who's living with multiple

1:26:42

sclerosis. This is full on

1:26:44

pain every minute of the

1:26:46

day. sadness should be more

1:26:48

manageable. It is more manageable.

1:26:50

Then what? Then a shocking

1:26:52

neurological condition or cognitive decline,

1:26:55

serious cognitive decline. Yes, my

1:26:57

dad's going through that. My

1:26:59

dad's got Alzheimer's and to

1:27:01

watch the everything that was...

1:27:03

profound and delightful and sparkling

1:27:05

and you know effusive and

1:27:07

intrigued about the world gradually

1:27:10

just slop into a hunk

1:27:12

of you know go is

1:27:14

barbaric. It's the most barbaric

1:27:16

thing the fates can do

1:27:18

probably isn't it? To like

1:27:20

gradually leach you of your

1:27:23

personhood. So if I'm required

1:27:25

to think... sad and nostalgic

1:27:27

thoughts to quote Shakespeare, bring

1:27:29

back yesterday bit-time return that

1:27:31

yearning that nostalgia which is

1:27:33

the big... part of grief

1:27:36

I think is something I

1:27:38

can face anyone in face

1:27:40

there are worse conditions yeah

1:27:42

there are worse conditions are

1:27:44

you a nostalgic person constitutionally

1:27:46

I don't think so I

1:27:49

think I think you can

1:27:51

a song can waken in

1:27:53

you nostalgia for a time

1:27:55

for a time for a

1:27:57

time for a time for

1:27:59

a time for a time

1:28:02

for a time for a

1:28:04

time for a time for

1:28:06

a time for a time

1:28:08

for a time for a

1:28:10

time for a time for

1:28:12

a time for a time

1:28:15

for a time for a

1:28:17

time or a smell. It's

1:28:19

quite, it's a funny thing

1:28:21

isn't it? That sense of

1:28:23

wistfulness that is at once

1:28:25

unpleasant because you want to

1:28:28

be back there or you're

1:28:30

missing that thing. You know,

1:28:32

it's sorrowful but it's also

1:28:34

beautiful at the same time.

1:28:36

I guess your life is

1:28:38

probably full of that in

1:28:41

the grief. I guess that

1:28:43

is part of the grief.

1:28:45

Yeah, it is, yeah. Yeah.

1:28:47

Yeah. Yeah. Does it make

1:28:49

you think about your own

1:28:51

mortality or your own legacy?

1:28:54

Of course. Yeah. It was

1:28:56

30 years to the day

1:28:58

since I've been elected Premier.

1:29:00

And you think of the

1:29:02

innocence of your personality at

1:29:04

that time in 1995, elected

1:29:07

Premier with Elena. One couldn't

1:29:09

have imagined what life would

1:29:11

be like 30 years on.

1:29:13

You'd be grateful to be

1:29:15

told that you'd be alive,

1:29:17

you'd be healthy. Sobered by

1:29:20

being told your partner would

1:29:22

be lost. But you were

1:29:24

still finding enough meaning in

1:29:26

life to keep, to keep

1:29:28

assisting with it. It's been

1:29:30

a good 30 years, got

1:29:32

to say. Do you think

1:29:35

about legacy? Do you think

1:29:37

about, you know? Oh yeah,

1:29:39

definitely. Yeah, what you'll be

1:29:41

made of essentially? Yeah. To

1:29:43

the extent that anyone pays

1:29:45

attention. Yeah, you're talking young,

1:29:48

but I mean, but... to

1:29:50

some university students a couple

1:29:52

of years ago now. And

1:29:54

they don't read newspapers. They

1:29:56

get their news in other

1:29:58

ways. I said, do you

1:30:01

know an Australian novelist called

1:30:03

David Boulouse? Because I did

1:30:05

it with him a couple

1:30:07

of days earlier with Elaine.

1:30:09

And none of them knew

1:30:11

him. I said, I joke

1:30:14

with him, I said, when

1:30:16

I was running this university

1:30:18

ALP club on the Kensington

1:30:20

campus all those years ago,

1:30:22

I mean, talking to someone

1:30:24

like me, I would have

1:30:27

been talking to someone who

1:30:29

had been premier, I guess,

1:30:31

before the First World War.

1:30:33

Right. Yes. That's the trick

1:30:35

that time plays. Yeah. I

1:30:37

said, you can tell your

1:30:40

grandchildren, you spoke to a

1:30:42

premier from the last century.

1:30:44

Like me talking about Henry

1:30:46

Parks or George Reed. So

1:30:48

these are the tricks of

1:30:50

time, but you should. Mmm.

1:30:53

Something to laugh. I was,

1:30:55

yes, I was thinking actually

1:30:57

the other day about how

1:30:59

recent World War II was

1:31:01

when I was a kid

1:31:03

in the 80s, right? Like

1:31:06

a 90s. And it was

1:31:08

quite recent, it was like

1:31:10

as long ago as the

1:31:12

80s are now. Yeah. When

1:31:14

I was, you know, it's

1:31:16

weird. I keep thinking back

1:31:19

to my first year at

1:31:21

high school, which was 1960

1:31:23

1960 or 1961. And how

1:31:25

close that was, right? To

1:31:27

the shock of World War

1:31:29

II. Sixteen years. So I

1:31:32

would have been traveling on

1:31:34

trains and buses, trams and

1:31:36

buses, with people who would

1:31:38

have survived the concentration camps,

1:31:40

the middle-aged guy reading the

1:31:42

telegraphs, might have been a

1:31:44

survivor of a German stalag

1:31:47

or the Thai Burma railroad.

1:31:49

When I started to pick

1:31:51

up the first paperbacks about

1:31:53

German atrocities or the Knights

1:31:55

of Bushido, I was reading

1:31:57

about a phenomenon. that was,

1:32:00

you know, five minutes ago.

1:32:02

Yeah. Well, it was 2009.

1:32:04

When you were banging about

1:32:06

in 1961, 1945, was 16

1:32:08

years ago. So, the way

1:32:10

2009 sounds to us now

1:32:13

was World War II. Yeah.

1:32:15

But in 1961. Hitler and

1:32:17

the banker on the bombs

1:32:19

on your regime. Very quick

1:32:21

lightning around. You can just

1:32:23

give one word answers. It's

1:32:26

like a raw shark test.

1:32:28

Okay. Brexit. a terrible

1:32:30

decision, such self-harmed Britain

1:32:33

on its living standards.

1:32:35

Robert Menzies? Hugely interesting

1:32:38

to me, and if

1:32:40

you listen on YouTube,

1:32:43

you can be captivated

1:32:45

by the Olivier, Lawrence

1:32:48

Olivier qualities of his

1:32:50

timber and his annunciation,

1:32:53

his modulation, his modulation.

1:32:55

Probably the best, yeah

1:32:58

certainly I drop the

1:33:00

qualification, the best of

1:33:03

the non-labor leaders in

1:33:05

the in the story

1:33:08

of the Liberal Party

1:33:10

in New South Wales.

1:33:13

Government funding for private

1:33:15

schools. Too generous to

1:33:18

the rich schools and

1:33:20

we ought to remind

1:33:23

ourselves that the low

1:33:25

fee charging non-state schools.

1:33:27

most of the religious,

1:33:30

and the struggling state

1:33:32

schools have got common

1:33:35

interest. Relocating the ABC

1:33:37

to Paramount from Baltimore.

1:33:40

Look, I'm entirely selfish.

1:33:42

It's easier for me

1:33:45

to get to the

1:33:47

studio in Ultimo. It's

1:33:50

convenient. Elon Musk. He's

1:33:52

the only business leader

1:33:55

who's biography. The

1:33:58

Liberal Party I

1:34:02

wish it were true

1:34:04

to more of its

1:34:06

foundational principles. Free markets,

1:34:08

freedom of expression, the

1:34:10

protection of middle-class living

1:34:13

standards. The Australian Republic.

1:34:15

Not an issue anymore.

1:34:17

Australians don't want it.

1:34:19

And we might as

1:34:21

well accept the reality

1:34:23

of a constitutional monarchy,

1:34:26

which is good enough

1:34:28

in New Zealand and

1:34:30

Canada. The greatest threat

1:34:32

to our independence is

1:34:34

not those constitutional arrangements.

1:34:37

It's our doewide devotion

1:34:39

to being an uncritical

1:34:41

ally of the United

1:34:43

States. That's the greatest

1:34:45

threat to our independence,

1:34:48

not the non-existence of

1:34:50

a republic. The idea

1:34:52

of workness. I'm just

1:34:54

worried that central left

1:34:56

parties with their agendas

1:34:58

of reform. of being

1:35:01

typecast as a result

1:35:03

of what can be

1:35:05

called wapeness. What's the

1:35:07

most parsimonious solution to

1:35:09

that? My own experience,