Tony have it. Welcome to straight Talk, Mark.
It's wonderful to be with you.
You are, by the way, my mum's it sounds very tried and commonplace, but my mum's favorite politician.
Well, your mum must have been a wonderful woman.
Good start mate, Thanks very much for coming in.
So maybe, if possible, I don't know if many people know much about you other than the fact you were Prime Minister of the country for that matter, and there's some instances where they remember you with you know, the Budji smuggler's shirt f and the onion and I want to talk about those things because they're their fun things. But if we could just go back a bit, you know, ideology is an important thing in the way we conduct ourselves and our behavior, all of us, and it's also
what we tend to believe in. And our ideology I think is formed largely from how we grew up influences as on ask.
When we're kids, et cetera. So who's Tony Abbott the kid?
Well? I had two wonderful powers parents, my late father my mum who's still with us at ninety two. I grew up in a lovely tranquil neighborhood in a house backing on the bush, Sydney or in Sydney. Mum and Dad had a good marriage. I had three younger sisters who claim to worship me, although they don't give that much evidence these days. Mum reckoned they did. I went to school, first of all the Holy Family Convent, Linnfield, then at Saint ala Wish's College, Nelson's Point, then at
Ignacious College Review Sydney University Economics law. Was lucky enough to get a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford.
Could you just stop then? What is a Rhodes scholarship? Everyone? He talked to me that no one knows what it.
Is, okay, Well, A Rhodes scholarship is a scholarship funded out of the bequest of Cecil Rhodes, who was a mining magnate in the country which was known as Rhodesia after him. He was the first Prime Minister of Rhodesia back in the eighteen nineties, mining magnate and when he died in nineteen hundred and two, his fortune, which doesn't sound like much in these days money, but it was
about three million pounds. It funded the Rhodes scholarships it's done that to this day because it's been very well invested. The Rhodes Scholarship is essentially a leadership scholarship. Cecil Rhodes said that he wanted men for the world's fight, and so every year each state, each of Australia's sixth states, sends a Rhodes Scholar to Oxford. There are three Australia at large Rhodes Scholarships, so that's nine Rhodes Scholars go
from Australia every year to Oxford. They've got to be bright, they're supposed to be potential leaders. In the old days, at least, they were usually people who had achieved a bit in sport, and so I guess I didn't have a stellar academic record by any means, but I've been the president of the student's Counselor at Sydney UNI. I'd played quite a bit of first grade rugby, so I guess that's how I got there as a Rhodes Scholar. Previous Rhodes Scholars in politics included Bob Hawk, Kim Beasley.
Malcolm Turnbull was also a Rhodes Scholar a couple of years before me. So there's been a lot of Rhodes Scholars over the years going too public life. And I guess that's fitting because in his will Cecil Rhoades said he wanted to produce leaders and the idea was to bring the leaders of the English speaking world as thirty odd Rhodes scholar a year from America. There are some from Canada. There are quite a few from South Africa as well. For a while there were Rhodes Scholars from Germany.
The idea was to bring the potential leaders of the major countries of the world, particularly the English speaking world, to Oxford, where it was thought by Cecil Rhodes, these young men and subsequently young women would get the best possible education and would develop the kind of comradeship between each other that would lead to a more peaceful and harmonious world.
That's a probably good introduction to asking you a question, and I know it's probably bit early because we are talking about yourself growing up, and I'll come back to that in a moment, But what do you think about leadership today? I mean, what do you think Cecil rhads would think about? And of course Rhodesia used to be Rhodesia now called Zimbabwe. What would he now think aboutleadership outside of the Hodes scholarships. But think about leadership and
what does it mean? What does leadership mean? I don't know what it means to someone like you.
Yeah, okay, Well, a leader is someone who can make a decision that involves people other than simply himself or herself, and can make the decision stick. So a leader's got to know his or her own mind, has got to be capable of turning thoughts into resolutions, communicating successfully those resolutions to others, and encouraging, inspiring, persuading others to join in with those resolutions. That's essentially leadership. And whether the lead.
Whether leadership is exercised in persuading your mates that we should go and see film X rather than film why, Whether the leadership is exercised in getting together a group of people to go on a holiday, whether it's starting a business, whether it's leading a country. Leadership is exercised in all sorts of different ways, by all sorts of different people. But without leadership, nothing happens.
So where does courage fit in in leadership? That virtus?
Because you know, I just don't think we talk about virtues enough. But where does the virtue of courage fit into leadership. For rate, say running a country. Let's not decide who's going to go to the movies. Let's just say we're running country because that's your area of expertise, or you're certainly your formal era expertise. And you mentioned a number of other former prime ministers in the same category or leaders of the opposition, you would have seen common traits.
Was courage or common trait?
I think courage is an important part of good leadership. I think courage is pretty rare. It was Lord Slim who said moral courage is a far higher and rarer virtue than physical courage. It was our old friend, father EMMITTT. Costello, who used to frequently quote an obscure French cardinal that I'd never heard of, But nevertheless Emmett loved.
His phrase, being a Jesuit priest for review.
Yes, Emmett kept quoting this cardinal pa from the nineteenth century who said, prudence is everywhere, courage is nowhere. We will all die of prudence. And I must say, I think that's quite a useful reminder that prudence is a virtue, but it's not the only virtue. Courage is equally and no less important.
Because I mean, I will come back to you history in a second because I want to know more about it.
But just on that topic, I.
Think it was Aristotle said that there was the courage was He talked about the golden mean, which is the point between reckless or fearless.
Fearless reckless or I should.
Say, which is down one end of the scale and on the other end of the scale, was you know you were coward and courage was the gold means somewhere that somewhere in between, not in the middle, but somewhere and different for everybody. But if you're becoming a leader of a country, it would seem to me that finding that golden mean as a leader of the country, as a prime minister leading your party in this case in Australia.
In america's leading the country a bit different.
But do you think that we've lost that courage a little bit?
Well, if you look at our political leadership, Mark, I think that it peaked in the Hawk Howard Era Hawk and Howard each in his own way, they were both very, very effective and quite brave prime ministers. Hawk defied labor or that I to I guess deregulate the labor market, to privatize or begin privatization processes, to reduce tariffs, to keep the unions more or less in their lane. And then Howard did things like introduce work for the doll
he brought in tax reform, he reformed the waterfront. Howard Hawke did most of his reforms with the support of the Coalition, so at one level they were easier to do because they weren't opposed in the Parliament the way
Howard's reforms were ferociously opposed by the Labor Party. But nevertheless, I wouldn't underestimate the courage that both Hawk and Keating showed in the economic sphere, because frankly, it's a very unusual labor leader who can get out of the old Marxist capital versus labor paradigm and appreciate that workers do best when the boss does well too. So we had a quarter century of good leadership, really excellent, outstanding leadership under Hawk and Howard. I think it's been of lesser
quality since then. And that's not because the individuals are necessarily of lesser caliber, but I suspect there's certainly been less courage, And I think in some instances less character.
And how much do you think courage is or courage derives from what as possible? So it would seem to me, particularly these days, with the ability to know what people think polls, polling, and the ability to try and satisfy as many people as you possibly can in order to stay in government, because if you're not in government.
You can't make change.
How much do you think courage is being diluted by more information and not as ideologically based as it would have maybe in the past.
I think political leadership is more difficult today because social media and the twenty four to seven news cycle means that you tend to be more distracted. I mean, in Howard's time, you basically have to worry about the nightly news and the morning's papers. But you're constantly being besieged by the media today. So I think in one sense leadership is more difficult. But what do you want in a leader? You want character, You want conviction, you want courage,
you want judgment, and frankly, you also want luck. Some people have it, some people don't. But I think that far too often these days politicians consult the polls, they consult the focus group, and they allow themselves not to give the public what the public needs, but they try to give the public what the public wants. Now, we're all human, so we tend to want to have our cake and eat it too. And the truth is you can't mostly do that. You've got to make choices, often
hard choices. And in the Hawk Howard era, there was a greater tendency on the part of our leadership to say, look, this is what's right for the country. This is the argument in favor, and they would prosecute the case. That's much less common. I mean, let's take the vexed subject of climate change for instance. Now the Liberal Party is having a huge inter discussion at the moment about energy
and climate policy. One of the reasons why we are so angst written over abandoning the straight jacket of net zero is because we think the public have been totally if you're like, they've basically been brainwashed into excepting that there is a climate crisis. Now, I don't think there is a climate crisis. I think reducing emissions is nice to do, but I don't think it's something that should
dominate our policy making as it does right now. I think what the coalition should be prepared to do is to say, look, frankly, net zero is leading us down a path of economic ruin. We have to abandon it. My former colleagues are very worried that doing this will cost them seats and prevent them from winning the so called Teal seats back. But if it's actually right, I think the important thing is to make the case and argue it day in day out between now and the
next election. And if you fail and you still believe it's right, keep arguing it. I mean, take the GST for instance. The GST, or at least a general Goods and Services Tax, was first proposed by Keating at the time of the tax summit in nineteen eighty five. The Prime Minister Hawk decided it was a step too far. That was when I suppose Hawk's caution and judgment trumped
Keeping's innovation and political courage. Then the GST was proposed by John Houston, as you'd remember Mark in the fight Back package, and Keating, having supported it back in eighty five, ferociously opposed it in the ninety three election. And then eventually the GST was brought in because John Howard had the guts to take it to the people in the nineteen ninety eight election. So the GST was an idea
that even its proponents eventually shied away from. Then it was an idea that was ferociously fought about, initially in success, unsuccessfully, finally successfully, and now it's totally accepted. So it is possible to put forward policy initiatives that you think are right but which are fiercely resisted, and you just argue your way through to success. And it is the mark of a six successful country that it can make tough decisions and that it's leaders can successfully persuade people to
change their minds on things. And I think that if you believe as I do, that reducing emissions is no more than nice to do. If you think that the important thing for the long term well being of our country is economic growth, more jobs, more successful and more dynamic industries, all of which requires an abundance of cheap and reliable power, all of which requires continuing our mineral resources, agricultural,
et cetera. Development. If you think this is necessary, well, and if you think that the net zero straight jacket is gravely impeding all of this, well, then you should be prepared to argue the.
Case and that's leadership. That's leadership, thank you.
And another example, if I may say so, mark of successful leadership, initially very much against the odds, was the whole Voice debate that we had a couple of years back. I mean, initially the Voice was pitched as just a lovely, gracious mark of politeness and courtesy towards our Aboriginal fellow Australians. In fact, this was a trojan horse in the heart of government. And thanks to courageous individuals, particularly just Enterprise
and Warren Mundine, also Peter Darton and others. Thanks to those courageous individuals, the public were persuaded that something that they'd initially supported out of an abundance of goodwill was something that they should oppose out of an abundance of political judgment.
And in your world when you were the Prime minister, what points do you remember where you had to tap yourself on the shoulder and say, okay, Tony, it's time to stand up straight and exercise courage in relation to leading this country. What's some examples that you experienced.
What wars are like to doing do you have to fight within your own party? Where does it go?
It's a very good question.
Apart from daily.
Yeah, I guess one of the biggest fights in my time was what to do about illegal boat rifles. And you'll remember that it started up at the end of the Keeping era. It got worse during the Howard era after the Tampa business. Effectively the boats were stopped and then they started up again under Kevin Rudd when Kevin Rudd closed down offshore processing and abolished temporary protection visas
and so on. And in I think August of twenty thirteen, we had five thousand illegal arrivals by boat, so it was a real crisis. We think that during the course of the Rudd Gillard government, as well as fifty thousand illegal arrivals in one thousand boats, there were at least a thousand people who died at sea doing this very unsafe business of jumping in a leaky fishing boat trying to cross the three hundred kilometers of open sea between Java and Christmas Island. Anyway, it was very important to
stop this. What was happening at the time was that as soon as an Australian naval or customers vessel hove into view, the people smugglers would scuttle their boats. The passengers would be in the water, our personnel naturally had to pick them up to stop the from drowning. Under Rutt and Gillard, they were all taken to Christmas Island, where effectively all of them eventually got to Australia and
many of them are still here to this day. I determined we would do and obviously this was done in consultation with my shadow cabinet colleagues, particularly Scott Morrison, who was the relevant Shadow Minister. We decided under Operation Sovereign Borders, that we would hold the people, the people that would
be illegal migrants. We would hold them on a mother ship until a calm night when we would put them in a big orange life raft just outside Indonesian territorial waters came from with just enough fuel to get back to Java. And this was hugely controversial at the time.
When I said that we would turn boats around when it was safe to do so, Kevin Rudtha, prime Minister at the time, said that this would this was not only illegal, it was not only immoral, but it was it would cause conflict with Indonesia, and that certainly was the view of many of the officials. When I became Prime Minister and I said, look, no self respecting country can accept what amounts to a peaceful invasion, No self respecting country can lose control of its borders. We simply
have to stop this. And frankly, we should not allow somewhat nebulous concepts like international law which can't be enforced in any court that has effective control over the actors. We shouldn't let that stop us. And because it was so remarkably successful so quickly, a policy that was hugely contentious at the time is now, however begrudgingly by the left,
is now accepted. And to its credit, the Albanezy government has largely maintained the border protection practices that began in my time and that were then continued through the Turmbul and morrison eras as well.
And when you when you came up with this idea to do this, what was your objective was it? Was it a matter of principle or is it a matter of principle that people should meag just out to turn up whenever they feel like it and coming through a legal processes et cetera. Or was there something else beyond that, like you know, economically made sense or it didn't make sense economically, What was the what was your objective behind it?
Well, Mark, the principle is countries have got to keep control of their borders. I mean, the mark of a sovereign country is that it keeps control of its borders. It controls who comes or doesn't come into the country. So that was the principle, and the mechanism for realizing the principle was to stop the illegal boats. And the best way to stop the illegal boats was to turn them back. And if the original boats were sunk or otherwise destroyed, we gave them substitute boats and sent them
back in the unthinkable orange life raft. So the end was national sovereignty. The means was turning boats around, and the mechanism was supplying boats where the people smugler's boats were no longer available.
And I asked John Howard a couple weeks ago about this, but is national sovereignty? Is that?
Should that be a value that gets attributed to the nation.
Well, Marke, ask yourself this, what might people make huge sacrifices for even their life if necessary, your family, your faith, your country. I think that patriotism, love of country is one of the most powerful emotions that people have and yes, I think we certainly should respect it and in appropriate circumstances appeal to it.
That's very interesting. It's a high order.
Value, very high order value, and maybe one that some generations might be not that tuned into today these days.
Well, if you go back to the generations that fought the First and the Second World Wars, they obviously had a very strong sense of patriotism. Now it's possible, indeed, it's certain that the patriotism of Australians at the time of the Two World Wars was, if you like, an empire patriotism as well as simply a national patriotism. But I think that Australians today still feel strongly patriotic. I think that official Australia is less inclined to appeal to
people's patriotism. One of the reasons why I wrote my book Mark was because I think we've got a proud history. I think there's far more to look back on with pride and satisfaction than there is to look back on with shame and embarrassment. But I think these days official Australia has very much imbibed what Jeffrey Blainey once called
the black armband view of our history. It's interesting that many people on the left of politics don't want us to be particularly excited about Australia Day because they see that in terms of sorrow more than they see it in terms of pride and achievement. So I think it is important if citizens are to feel appropriately proud of their country, that they have a good understanding of our history, particularly given that our history is on balance such a
shining success. But yes, patriotism is very important and if our country is to flourish, people have a need to have a strong sense of commitment to it and a strong desire not just to succeed themselves, but have the country succeed too.
Do you think that one of the reasons perhaps that patriotism as opposed to nationalism patriots is feeling and feeling pride in your country has somewhat diminished over the past maybe ten years, because Australia has done so well economically.
Our unemployment is so low and it always has been for a long and definitely even during the COVID period, you know, the government managed to keep unemployment where no one else was and post COVID austrai as unemployment was at record levels because you know, generally speaking, unemployment up in the fives these days are still down before when it gets the four point five, it's the headline. Do you think that there's a generation of people here who have had it so good that they just think this
is a place. Australia is a place and we use it like a utility, and therefore we don't need to have any patriotism because we don't work hard enough for it. Do you think that's a point? Because I'm in you and I similar generation. You know, important to get your job, important to work hard, important to respect the boss, is portant to respect the.
Business that you work for.
You didn't jump between jobs to job generally speaking state for period time because it was really important to have a job. It was jammed into us respect as well for your boss. But these days people can leave a job six months and they get another one because there's unemployment so low. Do you think that there is a correlation between unemployment and maybe the diminution in patriotism towards the country that you know that is looking after you.
Mark, I certainly do think that we've had it very good for a very long time in this country, and I do think that these and luxury can breed indulgence and entitlement, and I think their vices, if you like, I suspect that we might suffer from those vices a little more than we did, and I personally wish it were otherwise. I mean, earlier generations of Australians did have a tougher life physically financially, and I think they were more alive to the need for sacrifice, to do one's duty,
to be prepared to live a life of service. I think people were more in tune with that. And again, one of the reasons why I've written this history is to remind people today of the strengths of applebears, both individually and collectively. Because you never know what's around the corner. We think that the world will continue more or less as it is, that our country will always be rich, that our country will always be safe, that our country
will always be free. But look at other countries where people aren't safe, they aren't free, they aren't rich, or they might be rich enough, but they're certainly not free. I mean, the world over the last two hundred years has basically been shaped by the long Anglo American ascendancy. We are a product of the long Anglo American ascendancy. Our institutions, our attitudes, our way of life, all fundamentally
shaped by the Anglo American ascendancy. If the world of the future is dominated by China, for instance, it'll be a very different world, much less free, certainly, I would say, much less fair, and fundamentally in the long run, I suspect much less rich, because I don't believe that a basically totalitarian society can be as creative as a free
society such as ours can be. And it's quite possible, maybe even likely, that tensions between the democracies and the dictatorships, which are operating in a kind of informal alliance of the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, it's quite likely that tensions at some point could boil over into conflict. I mean, we've got conflict in Ukraine, We've got conflict in the Middle East, We've got enormous tensions
in East Asia. And as a country, we have to be prepared economically, militarily, and above all else psychically for whatever might come. And I just hope that if we do face much fiercer challenges than we have in recent times that we will be ready for it, it up for it.
Do you think it's often ponder on this particular question, and in terms of attitude and mindset, do you think it's often? I think to myself, you and I just a couple of old blokes who have gone through a different but I competed to the younger generation relatively speaking, who have just gone through a different type of upbringing. We have different set of values, or probably a different set of values, a different set of things that are more available to us relative to the younger generation.
We don't we don't buy and buy. We live on an island.
We're nice and safe here and everything's going to be great. No one's going to come near us, whereas the other generation, younger generations tend.
To think that.
Do you think that there's that possibility that there is? We are over over egging it and we are over worrying about these things. And because as we get older, we play more defensive. Do you think that's a possibility of from wondered myself, will test myself all the time about.
Well Mark, I go back to the twenty nine in election campaign in Warringa, which I lost. I had young people, often kids still at school who no doubt had been put up to this by their teachers, but literally quite a quivering with fear and anxiety, telling me that they would probably be dead in a few years time because of climate change that my government was not or the party that I was part of, was not doing enough
to fix. So young people today, I think are being scared to death over climate anxiety in a way that maybe earlier generations were worried about nuclear war for instance. Now I've got to say, I think major conflict between great powers is vastly more scary to me than the possibility of a couple of degrees of warming several decades, hence which we can easily adapt to. I mean, there have always been storms, there have always been floods, There've
always been fires, There've always been droughts. And the richer and stronger we are, the better we will be able to cope with these things. And if some areas of agriculture shrink and others grow, well, so be it. Again. We can deal with it in the future as we've always done in the past. But a major war, particularly one involving nuclear weapons, would be a complete catastrophe, an unimaginable disaster. I mean, imagine Sydney being like Marier Poll.
Imagine Sydney being like Gaza. That's what war does. And it doesn't matter whether your cause is just. If your country is subject to bombardment, it's ghastly beyond belief. So that's the sort of thing that I think we should be worried about. And the best way to ensure that it doesn't come is not to be weak, because weakness is provocative. It's to be strong, not aggressive, but strong and certain and clear, because the only way we will deter aggresses is by being strong and certain and clear
in response. I mean, if Ukraine had been in NATO, Pudin would never have invaded. Pudin only invaded Ukraine because he thought it would all be over in a week. And it's immensely to the credit of the incredibly gallant and heroic Ukrainian. So I think of fighting for everyone's freedom that they have been able to resist so successfully for so long. But this is an object lesson in
what to do or not to do. If your country is to survive and flourish, it is to be strong, economically strong, militarily, strong, psychologically and if possible to have strong alliances as well.
So someone like you, when you see Dan Andrews standing there in China alongside Putin presidency and the North Korean president, it must make your blood boil, because isn't that the opposite? Isn't that to what you just said, that's the opposite?
Like Well, there was a phrase mark that I think Lenin used of the capitalists who were going to sell the communists the rope by which the capitalists were hanged. The phrase was useful idiots, useful idiots. And I think there are lots of useful idiots in Australia at the moment.
So when we come when you look at let's call it left of politics, it seems to me that there's a lot of ideology pushed into the left and obviously ideologies pushed into the right.
Term.
We were talking about the things that form your ideologies, and you talked about your schooling, and you talked about your education, and I might just ask you quickly, because we know you became the Prime minister, but how did you get into politics?
What were you doing before politics?
Well, my mother, my father, people like father Amer Costello had well and truly engendered a great interest in history, in you, in me, In me, I was fascinated by history.
And Australian history, and history.
History generally, but not certainly, not excluding Australian history, but history generally. And I am by the great Man theory of history that the world is shaped by strong individuals who make a difference. I think the world gets better or worse person by person, and if more people make good choices, things improve. If more people make bad choices, things get worse. And obviously, the further up the leadership ladder you are, the more significant your choices become. So
I was interested in history. When I got to university, which even in those days the mid seventies, was dominated by the Green Left, I thought, well, this is ridiculous. Let's do what I can to change that. So I ran for student politics, eventually became the SRC president. Worked out along the way that Canes was right to this extent at leastomists, that Knes the economist was right, at least to this extent, that practical men are slaves to the ideas of long dead economists. So I thought, let's
try to enter the battlefield of ideas. I started writing stuff for the Sydney University paper Honi Swar. Eventually the Honi Swire editors wouldn't.
Publish me because.
Left, so I started getting stuff published in the Herald, the Australian, the Bulletin. Eventually became a journalist and then I became a political staffer press seguri to John Hewson when he was leader of the Opposition. Then after the nineteen ninety three election, for a year or so I was the initial executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. And then in nineteen ninety four, when a fellow called Michael mckeller retired as Member for Ringer, I was on
holidays at the time. A bit bored. I called my office to see what was happening and I was told that John I would have wanted to talk to me. So I rang John and he said, look, Toney, Michael McKell is just retiring as a member for Ringer. I think you should throw your hat into the ring for
the Liberal preselection, which I did. The two favored candidates were Kevin McCann, at that stage a senior partner in Sydney's biggest law firm, and Peter King, at that stage a leading barrister now Kevin McCann went on to become chairman of mcquarie bank. Peter King became for a time member for Wentworth. But they were the two leading candidates and I sort of came up the middle and snagged
the pre selection. And I guess then followed twenty five tumultuous and largely successful use in the parliament.
Would you say you loved being in poond?
I loved making a difference, and being in Parliament is probably the pre eminent way of making a difference in this country.
And what about the joust that happens every day? Like you're down there in the mother sheep in camera.
I guess you're walking down the aisles and you're brushing past various oppositions.
What about the jousts? Did you love that part?
Yes?
And no?
I mean I was regarded as a pretty ferocious parliamentary warrior because you had to be, you had to be. These days, I listened to Parliament and I think, geez, there's far too much mindless abuse, far too much the other marble all wrong and our marble all right. When the truth is, no one has a monopoly on wisdom, no one's judgments are perfect. All governments get something's wrong, and the truth is best advanced by a civil debate which at least respects the good will of most of
the participants. And I think that there's not enough of that in our national conversation these days, and there's certainly not enough of that in the Parliament now. Some people will say, oh, but Abbott you were when you were the Leader of the House. You're always getting up and having a go at the other side, And that's true. But I'd like to think that I was playing the ball, not the man, and I'd like to think that I was attacking the other side's positions rather than attacking the
other side personally. Although I did once say of Kim Beasley that he was a sanctimonious wind bag.
Well all jawbone and no backbone, had that go.
I think I got kicked out of the Parliament for that. And look, i'vectually got a lot of time for Kim Beasley. I mean, Kim Beasley is probably that by far the most substantial figure on the labor side of politics, at least in recent decades, not to become Prime Minister. And for what it's worth, I think Kim Beasley would have been a pretty good prime minister, arguably better than the people who did succeed him and go on to be prime minister.
You'll never be accused of being a shrinking violent in politics and probably in life for that matter. Once you famously shirt fronted them and it was over, you know, the plane going down, and I actually I loved it, to be frankly, I thought it was fantastic. But not everybody likes that sort of stuff. And I just want to ask you about the Australian mindset, the psyche of Australians. Why wouldn't someone like for example, do well in Australia.
Have we inherited some Anglo Irish thing about people being too tough or is it a tall poppy syndrome thing? Well, what is it that you know Trump will sent up to everybody used it up? I'm not sure whether people actually in Australia really like that. What do you think about that?
Look, our system is different from the American system, and to become a national leader in Australia, you've got to be able to secure a parliamentary majority, which means that you've got to have a degree of respect and perhaps some level of affection from your peers, yours, your political peers, your fellow members of parliament in your particular party. The American system is quite different because the party structures a
much looser. Party discipline is not nearly as tight. The primary system means that charismatic individuals can emerge from nowhere. I mean, Donald Trump had never held elective office when he ran for the Republican nomination. He'd actually been a Democrat as well as a Republican, as well as neither.
Over the years, he'd created I suppose some kind of a profile via reality TV, and I guess the fact that he was a billionaire who was often in the media, at least in New York, gave him a certain cachet. But I don't think someone like Donald Trump could emerge
in Australia. I think the most that someone like Donald Trump could do in Australia would be who perhaps elbow his way into the Senate, where if you can get a quota, which is about I think twelve percent of the vote or fourteen percent of the vote, you're there as a senator. But I don't think a Trump like figure could readily emerge in Australia.
Do you think Australians because I mean, I'm not sure, but I think I feel as though Trump did not help Peter Dutton in the last election.
Well, it's interesting that Anthony Albanesi is now best mates with Donald Trump.
That might worked against.
Because during the election the Labor Party tried to smear Dutton via association with Donald Trump.
Now you probably didn't even know him.
Well, Look, I'd be very confident that Peter Dutton didn't know Trump certainly. And our country is different. I mean, yes, there are a lot of commonalities between Australia and the United States. I do think that the English speaking countries are in a sense family. But your brother and your sister can be quite different from you, even if there are some things you've got in common. So look, America is a great country. Americans are great people. Their political
system is quite different from ours. Their political psyche, I think, is quite different from ours. And Trump plays better in the United States than he does anywhere else. But this is not uncommon. I mean, I can remember George W. Bush didn't play very well in Australia, whereas Tony Blair, and they were both I suppose very frequently in our
media at the time of the Iraq War. Personally, I thought Tony Blair was a vastly better advocate for the policies that Britain, Australia and America were pursuing at that time than George W. Bush was. And that's not because George W. Bush was a lesser man. I just think that American style sometimes doesn't translate very well to other countries.
So it would not be advisable for any Australians who are ambitious and aspiring to be perhaps the leader the leader party in this country to run that type of politics.
Well, I think if you're in Australia would be Australian leader. On the left, Bob Hawk should be your exemplar, and on the right, John Howard should be your exemplar.
It's very interesting. So I want to talk about your book. I mean, I'm dying to know why you wrote a book.
I mean it's.
You're not doing it for the money, because I know there won't be any money in it. I've written books. There's any money in.
Books and there, and they take a long time to do that. It's a mission, it's a massive mission. How long it take you write for a start?
Look, I think I was from start to finish. It would have been probably three and a half, maybe even
four years. I mean it all started when John Roscombe, the then head of the Institute of Public Affairs, with whom I was doing an occasional podcast, We were talking about I guess what ailed our country, and we mutually decided that not enough people were sufficiently familiar with our history, and those that were tended to see it all in black armband terms of dispossession, even genocide against original people,
and I guess. I then decided that I could put together a general history of the country, a more upbeat general history of the country, and John very kindly offered to give me some research assistance. So work started three and a half four years ago. Eventually I had what I thought was a good draft. I suggested to Paul Whittaker that maybe HarperCollins might like to publish. HarperCollins eventually agreed, and they had various queries suggestions, which involved a lot
of rewriting. If you like, revising, adding, subtracting, and so on. So I know, if I'm writing a speech, for instance, sometimes it'll flow very easily, and the first draft is pretty much the final draft but sometimes I'll write it and I'll rewrite it, and I'll rewrite it again, and it might go through three or four major iterations. This one, this book, I have read it so many times, and every time I read it, I would change something because I was thinking to myself, do I really need that fact?
Should I include this fact? Is that the right way to look at this? Maybe I need to be more generous about that. So yeah, in the end, these things, the facts are sacred, and you've got to try to ensure that all the important facts are there and are accurately presented. Then of course there's I suppose your interpretations, and I guess it is in a sense part of the subjective process deciding which facts are relevant and which
ones aren't. But facts are so important. And this was the first book I've done which was if you like a study as opposed to a piece of advocacy, I mean, if if what you are doing is putting forward an argument, you can often write it out of your own head, particularly if it's an argument that you've been making for a long time. But if it's if it's going to be a credible study, you've got to do a lot of research or get a lot of research done.
So you see, you're you're I think what you're saying, though, correct me if I'm wrong.
It wasn't you prosecuting any case.
It was well except for the fact that I think the Australian story, on balance is a very good one.
So did you discover that during the research or you already thought that?
I have always I have always been that instinctively and based on my general knowledge of Australian history, I have always thought that our story was a good one, and I've always tended to arc up when people have suggested otherwise. And I thought, well, let's given the degree of ignorance, given the degree of what might be described as prejudice, I thought, let's tell the story. Let's tell the story again, more or less from the beginning right up to the
present time. Let's try to be as objective as possible. Let's try to respect all the important facts, and let's see what they amount to to me. When you think that modern Australia began when fifteen hundred draggled souls were dumped not far from here, half a world away from their home, in a completely strange, unfamiliar, alien landscape within one hundred years, they had created colonies with the world's highest standard of living at the time. They had become
democratic pioneers. Almost the first places where every man and then every woman and indeed people of all races had the vote was in Australia, Australian women absolutely in South Australia by the eighteen nineties, men, women and Aboriginal people they could all vote, they could all run for office. And there's almost nowhere in the world at the time where that was true.
What do you put that down to in your research?
There was a liberal humanity to modern Australia from the very start. I mean the British government instructed Governor Phillip
to live in amity with the natives. And when Governor Phillip was speared at Manly Cove quite badly hurt at Manly Cove on the search for Benelong, instead of mounting a punitive rate and slaughtering all the Aboriginal people he could find, Philip put it down to a misunderstanding and Benelong eventually came back and continued to live with Philip at Government House and eventually went to England with Philip.
When Philip went back in seventeen ninety two. So there was a liberal humanity about Australia from the very beginning. We should never forget that white men were hanged for the murder of black people after the Mile Creek Massacre as early as eighteen thirty eight. By the time the free settler started to come in very large numbers the eighteen twenties the eighteen thirties, Chartism was very much alive and well in England, and a lot of the free
settlers were highly influenced by that. Henry Parks in particular, who became great statesman of nineteenth century New South Wales, he was a Chartist originally. So there was a strong instinct in colonial Australia for free institutions. Where Jack was as good as his master. We were a fundamentally, we were fundamentally liberal societies.
Liberal you mean, you don't mean as a liberal party now, you mean liberal thinking.
Liberal thinking, liberality if you like hu humanitarianism. Now, political liberalism developed slightly differently in Victoria and in New South Wales. Liberalism. Deacon liberalism in Victoria was statist liberalism. In order to better secure human flourishing, we need a big state, Parks Bart Parks read, liberalism in New South Wales was more small government liberalism. In order to secure human flourishing, we need government to stay in its lane and allow individuals
the greatest possible freedom. So there were two strains, two strands of liberalism in colonial Australia, but nevertheless it was a fundamentally liberal project.
So in terms of we're talking on modern history, obviously, how do you treat Indigenous Australia within the book?
Well, I say constantly in the book that modern Australia rests on three pillars, an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation, and an immigrant character. And I think that's unarguable. I think these are simple facts that all must accept, how much emphasis they wish to place on them as of a question for people's individual judgments. But I think modern Australia's I guess mindset owes something to the fatalism, the
laconic endurance of Aboriginal people. These days, it tends to be very much portrayed as the horrible colonists, oppressing, exploiting, and often enough killing the innocent Aboriginal people. That's a total caricature of what happened. Let's take very early modern Australia and its relationship with Aboriginal people. There was ben Along who exemplified the cooperation between the settlers and Aboriginal people, and then there was Pemlowi, who exemplified, if you like,
the conflict between settlers and Aboriginal people. The interesting thing is that both Benelong and Pemelwe were respected and admired by the best of the settlers. Pemeilwe was a warrior, as was Benelong, but Pemilwe was a warrior who often engaged in acts of violence against the settlers, for which ultimately he was killed, but he was well respected. I mean Governor King, who was the governor at the time Pelwey was killed, said he was a stout fellow who
fought for his people. And as we as our history develops and the great partial expansion takes place beyond the Blue Mountains. Obviously on the frontiers there was tremendous conflict, the mild Creek massacre simply being the best known instance of a terrible conflict. But at the same time there was also great cooperation. I mean, none of the explorers would have got to where they got without Aboriginal guides. None of the pastoralists would have been able to flourish
without Aboriginal stockmen and shepherds and so on. So this idea that the history of Australia is of bloody conflict between white and black, it's simply not true. There was at least as much cooperation as there was conflict, and at all times official Australia was determined to do the right thing towards the Aboriginal people that every stressed were as much British subjects as the white settlers were.
Do you think Australians, once I read your book should be or maybe I'll put it another way, do you think you're much proud of being Australia, being an Australian as a result of writing a book.
Well, I think I had a strong sense of the history already. In the course of writing the book, that I was reminded of things that I'd forgotten, and I discovered things that I didn't know. But I believe that I had a strong sense of a history anyway, and I certainly had a great pride in our country anyway.
Anything surprising, Well, figures who you hardly heard of suddenly leap out of the page when you go into their lives more deeply.
I mean, one person who I think should be better known to contemporary Australians is John Plankett, who was the
first Attorney General of New South Wales. It was Plunkett who insisted that the Mile Creek massacre perpetrators be put on trial, and when the first jury refused to convict, it was Plunkett who brought fresh charges against a slightly lesser number of perpetrators and persuaded a couple of the perpetrators to turn queen's evidence, and with another judge who said it the second trial's close that this was an atrocity,
crying out to Heaven for justice. The second jury did convict and seven of the perpetrators were subsequently hanged, which was justice according to law in those days. Now, Plunkett was an Irish Catholic with a strong sense of justice, a strong sense of the universality of rights, and he did a lot to try to ensure that the law was and just fair, but was fairly applied in the colony. And I think that he's a fragrant individual who deserves to be much better remembered than he is.
You just talked about some pretty important words there, fairness, justice, just to pick two. And you mentioned Irish Catholic, and you know you're it's well known that you're a man of faith and that you are and faith is really important to you.
Don't put me on any pedestal of virtue, please.
But I'm not going to put you on a virtuous And by the way, you know a lot of people of people of faith, that's the last place I should be put because sometimes they struggle, you know, with humanity
and faith and everything else. And one of the things I've always wanted to ask someone like you, if you don't mind me asking you, is how does somebody who has a strong belief in their faith and probably turns to their faith often and has been brought up in that environment, how does something like you reconcile belief with You're also many history with facts? How do you reconcile those things?
You know? Do I believe in God?
But at the same time, I'm quite practical. I'm now a person of history and I'm watching the facts and I'm writing about the facts about the way things happened.
You know, how do you reconcile those two things?
Well? Maybe I haven't thought deeply enough about it, Mark, But I've got to say that I've never had a particular problem. I think I guess the thing that most perplexes people are most frequently perplexes people is the problem of evil. How does a good God allow evil things to have?
For example?
And I've always accepted that God gave human beings agency, and often enough flawed agency values. Yeah, flawed infallible human beings will make bad choices, sometimes downright evil choices. And look, he created a natural world where I suppose nature does things which hurt people, storms, floods, et cetera. But again, this is the natural world that God created, and we are in this natural world to make the best of things,
to make the most of things. And it's how we handle the challenges that we face in our lives, which I guess is the measure of us. And hopefully we'll measure up and one day Saint Peter will welcome us through the pearly gates.
Is well, because I often think about someone like Albert Einstein, who was a Jewish by faith and obviously lived by that faith, but at the same time, you know, he was pining on relativity and all sorts of formulas like equals M three squared working out you know he didn't quite get to this point, But did you know his stuff led to sub atomic particles, and all of us are made up of these little bits and pieces that we can't even see or even contemplate.
But knowing do you think knowing more? Knowing more? I think just adds to the sense.
Of war and wonder where did it start?
At, how at how it's all come about? And I guess I don't think something as incredible and as wonderful as the natural world, and indeed the human world in the units, happened by accident. I accept that at some point in time a good God created all of this and our challenges people who are in some way, and the image of likeness of God is to be our best selves, to come closer to being our best selves every day?
Does Tony Abbott ever struggle with these things?
Do you ever look at what's going on and say, place where people are in terrible conditions and dying, do you ever struggle with that?
Well? I lament it, But the struggle is to make things better, not to despair. So I think the problem with the problem with atheism, as I understand it, is that it often leads people to despair, and despair can lead people to suicide. It can lead lead people to neglect of their fundamental responsibilities. And I mean, for instance, how many atheist hospitals are there, how many atheist schools
are there. So much of the things that we value and take for granted the product of religious endeavor, or more broadly, the inspiration of religious faith. And I just think that's almost self.
Evident making things better.
Do you think that's one of the things that drove Tony Abbott to one day become or want to become the leader of this country.
Look, the Jesuits back in my day had this, if you're like injunction to be a man for others. And while there are all sorts of different and valid ways of being a man for others, I always thought that for me, being a man for others was making a difference in as widespread a way as possible. And I guess that's what led me into journalism and politics.
In your book it's called Australia.
Australia a history can ask you about.
A history, not the history.
Was there some thought about which in definite article or definite article is going to put in front of the history, did you decide it should be a history? In other words, it's an objective and not subjective.
Well, plainly, it is possible to put a different interpretation on the same facts. I mean, for instance, let's take fraguments sake the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American interpretation is that this was necessary to end the most destructive war in history. I suspect the Japanese interpretation is slightly different. Yes, although to the great credit of modern Japan.
They have accepted or reconciled that, And I.
Reconciled very much to the Americans, and have greatly embraced democracy and the rule of law and concepts of justice and freedom and so on. So it was, in the end, you're right, I thought a history was a better title than the history.
I know.
I accept that others might see things differently, but I have tried to tell the story of Australia as objectively as I can. And the subtitle how an ancient Land Became a Great Democracy, I think is an indication of the fact that I, at at the very least want to see our story as a glass half full rather than a glass half empty.
And do you think Tony Abbott today more mature past those periods in your life where you were a PM and an active politician is a much more humble person. It displays much more humility. Do you feel that about yourself?
Well, Mark, I am a little reluctant to put tags on myself because.
Well, how important is humility to you?
Then? Well, humility is very important human quality, a very important human quality. And none of us like individuals who are full of themselves and who are self obsessed. And I would not want to claim to be free of the vice of self importance, but I certainly I dislike it in others, and if it's present in myself, I should try to get rid of it.
Well, my sense is that it's not present in yourself in just in terms of this conversation. And I think as we get older, maybe only one of the few bet of us getting on is a wisdom sort of bestows a few of these things upon us, and we start to be able to reflect on ourselves a bit better than we ever did when we were younger.
But I think I think some of us improve with age because we become wiser and perhaps more compassionate, perhaps more sensitive, others become more impatient, more difficult. Perhaps in some ways we can be both deeper and less patient at the same time. I know I'm less patient now that I was. I was probably never very patient.
I'm the same. Are you still a member of the surf Club?
I am still. I'm a life member of our surf club. I haven't done patrols for a couple of years. The pandemic and the fact that there were no patrols for ridiculous reasons in twenty twenty two kind of that was the end of my patrolling. But I'm still a very active member of the rural Fire Service. I'm now a member of two brigades, the Davidson Brigade, which I've been in for twenty five years or more, and in more recent times I've become a member of the North arm Cave Brigade up at Port Stevens.
And famously you were, you know, the budget smugglers. Yeah, do you still get in your.
Good man?
And do you ever I said to you earlier about the shirt fronting of Putin. I think that was for me one of the great moments in Austry politics.
Do you think we don't get enough of that today.
Well, I wish I'd been able to do more than just shirt front Putin, because Putin he's done monstrous things, absolutely monstrous things. I mean, the initial invasion of Ukraine in twenty fourteen was was a horrible, horrible, active aggression, and what he's now embarked upon is effectively a campaign of extermination against the Ukrainian nation. And I just think that's evil, absolutely evil, and it must be resisted. And I wish we were doing more to help the Ukrainians.
As an Australian. Yeah, me too, Well, Tony, it's been a great pleasure. I'm good luck with the book mate. I guess people can buy it on book Toby in all the usual places, all usual places.
And there's a doco as well that they can get on the Sky website. They've got the foxtail app they can get it through that.
The doco three part series, three part.
Documentary is outstanding, wonderful.
I've actually listened on the radio.
You can listen on the radios because what happens, the Sky plays it and you can actually listen to it as well on radio.
So I've been listening to it at night.
But the pictures are worth watching too. I mean it's been it's beautifully done. Now the book, I take one hundred percent responsibility for the doco I presented, and the doco was inspired by the book and it is faithful to the book. But in the end the credit belongs to Sky and the producer Alex Garipoli, who did just the most wonderful job.
Is there many illustrations in the book.
The book's got I think sixteen pages or something of photographs and if you want to get a rough idea of where I'm going, flick through the photos because the captions and the little narrations the bottom of the photos helps to tell the story.
Thanks for signing, Tony.
So this is the book How an Ancient Land Became a Great Democracy Australia A history.
I really love the cover actually, and.
It's beautifully beautifully presented.
Yeah, it really is something you should be proud of. Digital and audio book mate, I did in your voice.
My voice. It was about twelve hours of Narrasian.
Yeah.
And it's quite hard, isn't it, Because you're sitting in there as a dude in a box with a soundprov box.
Stating telling you no, you didn't get that right. You're mumbled, or I think you've mispronounced that word or something like that.
The word you wrote.
And what's interesting too, when I have found I did it like again? I wonder what you found is that when you were reading aloud what you had written for someone to read, did you think to yourself at any stage, Wow, maybe I could have changed it a little bit.
Well, obviously, if you are writing for something to be read, that is often a bit different to writing for something to be spoken. Ye, And occasionally I thought this sentence is a bit too long. It should have been broken up for the purposes of the audio book. But I've got to say there were fewer moments than I thought there would be. When reading it out aloud, I felt
that there was infelicity of one sort or other. I did come across one error, one a grageous error, which I like to think must have been the fault of the publisher as opposed to the author. But nevertheless, I've got to say that I think that it's come up wonderfully well. The publishers have done a great job. The cover is I think beautiful. Interestingly, Graham Edwards Peacock, the artist whose painting forms the cover exemplifies if you like the early Australian story. He was a lawyer in London
who was sentenced to death for forgery. It was commuted to transportation for life. He gets to Port mcquarie because of his education. He's immediately given a ticket of leave and works in the administration of the penal settlement at Port mcquarie. He brings his family out to join him. He then gets a job as effectively a meteorologist at the south Head Weather Station and while there develops his skills as an artist, becomes one of our more notable
early colonial artists. And his work, as I said, a dawns the cover. But he is typical of how people made the most of their second chants, made the most of the opportunities that life in Australia gave them.
Thank God, because my mother's.
One of my mother's family or mother's side, was on the series and they first as you know that, they first arrived in south Head and stopped at place called Camp Cove.
And there's a plaque there marking the spot.
And I live in the very first house ever building Camp Cove in ninety six and it was given to a Russian scientist because it was the first marine by logical station in the Southern Hemisphere. And I feel as though and the reason why I've always wanted to live there is because of my mother's side of the family first coming in on one of the ships.
Well, it's a wonderful place to live. I occasionally have a cup of coffee at Camp Cave when I'm cycling around the Eastern Suburbs and it's a gorgeous spot.
You're one of those guys.
I can hear get in there early in the morning up the top there up the first place called green Point, and I can hear voices. I'm going to be looking out for we next so I'm going to come and say, hey, mate.
Could possibly be there on Saturday morning.
I might see turning of it. A great pleasure, mate
Thank you make