Skip to main content

tv   Book Discussion  CSPAN  November 16, 2014 9:00am-10:24am EST

9:00 am
campaign instead i predict within a price on carbon and climate change will become a flashpoint part of your shoe, they would've looked at you very oddly in a campaign where people were fighting about the paperwork we are fighting about. and yet has become the flashpoint part is an issue of our decade and in many ways if you're a decade. .. since the, and our nation and in your the people can realize the
9:01 am
true opportunity and social mobility for the future. the book takes some of the biggest shifts, is happening in our region of the world. the explosive growth economically and asia and the rise of china. it's economic rise and strategic rise. its desire for a larger and more military force. my conclusions are overwhelmingly optimistic ones and i come to those optimistic conclusions informed by my experience as prime minister. it was impossible for our nation, for history to improve its relationship with the u.s. and china at the same time. this is a zero-sum game county could only improve the relationship with one at the cost of the relationship with the other. i set out to prove that that was the right. you could improve both.
9:02 am
during my time as prime minister we took a step forward in our alliance with the eu. we know trained u.s. marines in our northern territory. president obama said he wanted a harsh environment for them to train and. or, have i got a harsh environment for you. [laughter] added to sometimes wake up in the middle of let and think to myself there are probably several hundred marines who at that moment are thinking very unkindly of the main. [laughter] as they train in 110-degree heat and 90% humidity. i am probably not on their list of people to be most like. we did take a big step forward in the alliance. at the same time we struck a new deal with china to improve our nation's access to the top decision-making in china are one of the few nations on earth to be able to strike such a compact. it is with that experienced about engaging in foreign policy with optimism and having that sense of optimism realize that i
9:03 am
come to the big strategic shift in our world with a sense of optimism. in this book i talk about my first passion, education, which is still driving me as i work at brookings and for the global partnership for education. how i came to believe as a very young person that acts as education is the key to transforming lives. how it transformed my own life, how my own life has been different by the lies my parents laid simply because of access to good quality schools and. in some ways that was a matter of choice. my parents migrated halfway around the world to get my sister and i a better quality education. there was an element of luck in it. i grew up in the days when you went to the local government school. you didn't have a choice. my hometown, we could not afford a private education. you just went to the local one.
9:04 am
and happily for me the local schools were great schools. if my parents of mike weir to another part, and the local schools would not have been good schools. that element of luck has always worried my mind. you've got that sliding doors mind, where would my life have been if my parents had moved to another part of adelaide. why should we put any child through that kind of perverse lottery? perhaps the financial circumstances of their parents should dictate what can of opportunity they get in life. it's changing that lottery that drove me as prime minister and his continued to drag me now in these international work. and finally and help this book does get received on this particular point and start a
9:05 am
million conversations. i talk about gender and leadership. i found this the hardest chapter to write. i entitled it the curious questions of gender. i was conscious when i was writing it in some ways i was in the best position to write it because i was prime minister the first woman and it happened to me. i was conscious when i was writing it that because it happened to me, in some ways i was in the worst position to write it because it's hard to be dispassionate about things that have happened in your own life. i've tried to unpack as analytically as i can why it is that we received women's models of leadership differently in our very advanced societies, here in the u.s. and in australia. why it calls for sexism and a brand of misogyny which i would've thought to longer existed in the country until i saw it played out in our newspapers come in our politics, and demonstrations where people
9:06 am
were holding up banners saying ditch the witch, meaning me, as the leader of the opposition stood in front of them. a kind of corrosive drip from the shock jocks including one of our shock jocks alan jones who call for me to be put in a bag and dropped out to see. some of this is very serious. i say ditch the which, cutting out at sea, how could this possibly at the? doesn't every note you can't drown a which? [laughter] there were laughs we had along the way but i think there are some serious reflections on women and leadership, how we obsess about appearance, judge on appearance, how we obsess about women's family status. the issues with me, i don't have children.
9:07 am
how can i be in touch with family life if i don't have children of my own? the issue has been she does have children. who is looking after them while she is deputy leader of the labour party? these issues where we don't let women win. i think there is a different issue. there is something in the back of their brains that still whispers to us that we expect to see men acting and commanding. we expect to see women appearing and empathizing but when you see a woman who is acting and commanding, pretty easy to say she's got to be pretty hard boiled, doesn't she? she's got to be pretty ruthless. she's got to be a bit of -- i will let you supply the next were. how many times have we claimed moral virtue? no, times have we had these conversations ourselves about other women in our world? as long as we allow that song
9:08 am
did it take to us images of women in leadership, then we will be holding women back. even as the raise these questions i'm conscious that i live in a greatly privileged place as the women in the united states, and we are not fighting like nigerian schoolgirls for basic rights like the basic right to go to school. we are at a different stage. even at that different stage there's things we need to do about images and acceptance of women as leaders to take the next step in our society. even as our societies do everything we can to reach out to those women like those nigerian schoolgirls who are still struggling for the most basic of rights. so that's the book. i hope you enjoyed it and i'm not going to subject myself to what will probably be the hardest questions based on the book to date. thank you very much. [applause]
9:09 am
>> thank you, julia. it's great to have your. first i want to say thank you to rebecca was one of the most wonderful people at brookings, interceptor does more good and she and her center to more any six of us combined. it was natural that she brought julie here to brookings which is part of a long-term effort that tom ornstein and i have to try to merge australia into the united states. we like elections in new south wales our victoria as must as elections in kansas or wisconsin or new york. i want to acknowledge my friend kim beazley. we met 41 years ago this fall. we were in pre-k off mike he is one of the finest friends of one of the most principled politicians i've ever met. it's great to have you here.
9:10 am
[applause] julia said hers is a relentlessly australian story. i'm going to try relentlessly to turn into an american story so that she can sell books in this country. i think that what is most obviously relevant at this moment given the possible candidacies in the 2016 election is what you write about gender. this is a really extraordinary chapter. some of the same passages, thank you to my intern who really thought these passages jumped out at him. there's another one i want to read but let me read you these. i would like you to elaborate more on the gender question. you write stereotypes whisper to us that a woman there cannot be likable because she must have given up the nurturing and feeling. you write, if you're a woman politician it is impossible to win on the question family. if you do not have children your
9:11 am
characterize as out of touch with mainstream lives. if you do have children then happens, who is looking after them? you write, and this is where the word julia avoided comes in, common sense would tell you that if schoolchildren filed and classroom everyday and instead of saying good morning, ms. smith, the teacher said good morning, fat, ugly dumb, that would impact on their levels of respect for the woman in the front of the class. some about commonsense led the scene while i was prime minister. and lastly you were with anna bligh in queens land during the flood and just to read this passage, this day was portrayed in the media in terms like these. yesterday as the floodwaters threatened her state capital, and the bligh front of the media
9:12 am
come here look like she'd been working all night. beside her, ms. julia gillard sat in a dark suit nodding. what in heck was all that like? [laughter] >> thank you for that very expensive question. on this gender bit, i've tried to unpack it and i tried to get real-world examples because i did actually, some of the silly things about women and appearance. and the bligh, the premier of queensland did a remarkable job during the floods in any political leader, man, woman from any political party standing next to would've come off second base because she was just putting in a miraculous performance leading her state. but the fact that all of that ended up defaulting and what we were wearing i think says something about how women are judged. so i put that in there because a
9:13 am
bit like the incident i put in there of my first overseas trip we visit our troops in afghanistan, i've been with him to secretary-general of nato. literally our troops are fighting and dying in afghanistan and the reporters at a meeting of australia ready, julia gillard wearing a white jacket and black pants is greeted by the secretary-general of nato. no need to mention that mr. rasmussen was wearing a suit and tie. of course, not. so in these key moments when the important things are happening, our nation threat by natural disasters around the country, queens land in particular, our troops engaged in a war which is costing combat fatalities, that the emphasis can be on appearance i think is limiting for women. we've just got to get through it and over it.
9:14 am
if i had one piece of advice should there be a woman for president 2016, if i had one piece of advice it would be that getting with any gendered criticism or focus on appearance or focus on family and parenting, that burden actually isn't hers. i tried to put the burden mr. minister and people can judge a successfully or unsuccessfully, but that burden isn't hers. that burden is all of ours to engage in the debate in a way which calls for the end of gendered criticism. i look back on my time now when it got particularly naddi with ditch the witch and all the rest of it, and think how powerful would it have been if at that moment a male austin businesses that entered the public space wrecks and even if he had said i
9:15 am
didn't vote for julia gillard in 2010, i'm not going to vote for her in 2013. i don't support carbon processing but we do not have our national conversation like this. if it didn't someone prepared to do that it would've been tremendously powerful. if i could give one piece of advice for anyone who ever runs for his presidency, they would be getting about who are those voices actually beyond the terrain of combat of politics who can help steer the national conversations back to what they should be on, which is capacity for leadership, not gender of leaders and policy suites, good, bad or indifferent, and keep the policy and leadership conversations there.
9:16 am
tom, in an interview i had with you got over 2009 when our tea party was rising. in a way it's the flipside of the gender question. we were talking about the anger both -- both in u.s. and anger that existed for example, for hanson, a right wing figure. they were all out of anger and it was working-class anger and often working-class men who have suffered a lot in true globalization. what you said is that we were confronted, i quote you, with the politics of the ordinary guy versus these beliefs, the opera watching latte sipping elites. and you said that the anger was driven by real problems and not simply raw feelings. i'm curious if you talk about how does one talk across that line, and it's a particular problem i think for centerleft parties who are coalition often
9:17 am
unstable between upscale, more liberals in a broad sense and working-class voters. and that certainly the coalition is frayed some in the united states and also afraid in australia. >> the coalition has traded in a straight and i think that's an issue for centerleft and social democratic parties around the world. in my time as prime minister we were hosted the gsc. whilst australian avoiding recession that doesn't mean there was not a ripple of fear about what could've been and what might still be. because it's very hard when this sort of wave goes around the world and you're trying to explain to people in australia what's happening, something do with a subprime mortgage market in the united states. it's like, what? and then trying to find the ongoing ramifications. in our nation, actually in the
9:18 am
teeth of the tsc, people weren't doing it too tough. unemployment rate didn't go up very high. government was engaged in economic stimulus to some of it in cash transfers to families. that didn't feel too bad. but in a messy sort of the recovery us in a messy recovery around the world, people kept getting these economic shocks, the valley of their home. probably have not gone down but it certainly wasn't going up at the rights that is too. the valley of this, savings have taken a big knock that many australians are invested in shares, bought when big government and how the, telecommute haitian, business have been privatized. they got big shocks from their shares all going backwards. so very working-class people would be receiving this bad economic news. when you come at them with a big agenda like carbon pricing, yes,
9:19 am
it's going to come first. i think for social democratic parties there is still the need to diffuse very important change agenda is with a great deal of reassurance about taking jobs and lives. certainly part of the formula for the labour party has been workplace regulation and very good social safety nets. when we get all of that working well together, then you can offer sufficient reassurance to get people to go with you on a change agenda. on this question of women in leadership and what other things that i've really noticed in the more benign days since i've of politics what you take yourself out of the combat public views toward you change for quickly. i get a lot of very, obviously working blue collar men come up to me now who in and immediately bought australian way to say, i
9:20 am
didn't vote for you. thanks, mate, for that. but would you mind signing this for my daughter? no problem. when you actually think about those two things, and there was i suspect something about the days of my immediate leadership that made him feel a bit uncomfortable, not only the issues we're dealing with but the next phase of the gender revolution, now a woman is leading the country, felt uncomfortable. that now it's happened and it's sort of there. i think there is this thing as working men look at their daughters, it would be great, you know? may be my girl could be the next one. i think if we in the progressive side of politics can harness some of that, really all of this discussion that gender is a discussion of opportunity or your daughters, then we can take a lot of people with us on it. >> what a delight to be here
9:21 am
with julia, and cam, and our many friends and colleagues. as e.j. said, there is three strange students of american politics, himself, norman ornstein and myself, that become utterly obsessed with australia, its people, its institutions, including the attendance at the polls which we approve of. its policies and its politics. norm this year as well as e.j. we've had opportunities to travel down to australia to visit with you there. and to meet with you when you're in town when we recently read and learned of the passing of
9:22 am
goss wetland, we come like an australians, immediately turned to refresh ourselves and our memories about his years, decade as labour leader and three-year term ended under the most extraordinary circumstances. but the beginning of a new labour party and hawke and keating and other leaders, including kim who led the party for a number of years. it's about time, don't you think that we finally got, get our point as honorary citizens of australia? we are waiting for it. i just want you all to know. i had read this book with immense pleasure. it's a fascinating read. it's about politics and policy. it's direct, lean in its writing
9:23 am
and clear, frank, and julie is quite prepared to be self-critical come to say when she think she made the wrong call and why. but it's in so many ways, it's connected to american politics. so e.j.'s idea of having a discussion, conversation with you about some of the links really fits with me. i remember well, julia, when you first visit here in opposition you can do a friday lunch that senator ted kennedy was speaking at, and you all had a very interesting exchange. the next time you came as minister of education and lead a seminar at brookings with a whole group of education reformers, which leads to my question.
9:24 am
our past of education reform overlapped a good deal. hours begin in some ways with governors sort of leading up, republican and democratic governors, clinton and bush 43, to some extent even 41 were deeply involved in this national standards testing measures, transparency, accountability. it was really fascinating to see, but not if you look in america, it's become caught up in the same ideological debate. the common core standards which were developed voluntarily by the states are now being disowned by some of its former champions, like the current republican governor of the state of louisiana. so my question to you is, the chief a similar opposition when you were in acting -- you are
9:25 am
enacting your education reforms? and will your reforms survive a change of government? >> it's a different, in some ways a different set of issues for us and in some ways the same set of issues. actually the tools for reform in individual schools i think what we talk about what you talk about, what reformers to hear, what we strive to to illustrate is very much the same. but in terms of the government levers, actually the national government in australia has more levers in its hand to force change in schools than the national government here. i've had the opportunity to have that conversation with secretary duncan, for example, at a think he was going for the kinds of levers we have as a national government. there's a great labor saying, a paul keating say, never get
9:26 am
between a premier, the governor equivalent, and a bucket of money. very dangerous place to be. one of the ways in which we confronted our education reform is if you make money which would flow from the national government to schools contingent on a topping the agenda. around my state colleagues there were some who were enthusiastic about that and some who were more sour faced about it. but at the end of the day after he was going to take the money. so the money talked. because it our system we flow money not only to government schools but to nongovernment schools, we can't impose, negotiate, agree to whatever word you want to use, change agendas on nongovernment schools. so that means for example, we agreed to be a national curriculum, whether you're educated in a government school or in non-government school to
9:27 am
of the fairest reforms enacted as education minister and then kept in acting as prime minister, i think the transparency is here to stay. that's a website where you can see trends apparently the result in national testing of every school in australia in the context of the levels of advantage or disadvantage of the school, the kids in the school in the context of the money supply to the school for the teaching task but you can only compare schools with bash will average in testing, you can compare single schools but you can do a powerful thing of saying you are to schools for teaching quite underprivileged children, how can one is doing better than the other? conceits identify and capture that those practices and float to the other school. i think that will stay. but the incoming minister for education appointed some people who were immediately and in my view rightly viewed as quite
9:28 am
partisan on the topic of education reform. to report on the national curriculum. the fear that that generated actually didn't get realize in their final report which is for a relatively modest set of changes in certain not tracking the curriculum into being and ideological kind of a state to beat children over the head with. the main piece which is in contest is a funding reform where we, reform school funding so funny now close to bash -- match need to we know people for the most disadvantaged homes can get a great education but it costs more to achieve that. we have a system so they get more for educating those children. that's locked in sort of overwhelmingly by intergovernmental agreements.
9:29 am
the current prime minister said he would keep a whole lot. he has resolve from government and help particularly the final two years of his six-year change are at risk. while tenure is in a far better position than me to talk about labor's policy suite for the 2016 election, i would anticipate that school funding reform will be one of the big issues completing and keeping that funding reform will be one of the big issues in 2016. i think it's a great debate to be in because it's quintessentially about whether or not the nation is prepared to make available for the education of every child, the amount of resources necessary to give the child a good education. >> e.j. have a follow-up, and so i was going to do it, too. >> go ahead. >> which really goes to minority government. i remember being at kim's residence the morning, late
9:30 am
morning, afternoon, on election day 2010. it took us what to do, something days as i recall, to put together a minority government. i'm still fascinated about how you did that come and the book helped because you really wrote about some details but i hope you which is that with this. it was especially difficult because of developments and politics within your own party. but tell us how minority government differs from u.s. divided party government and how you can get things done in a minority government that we can't possibly do these days in divided party government spent and any of the people support you get money in swiss bank accounts which they can recover and about 20 of?
9:31 am
>> absolutely no, i can guarantee that. our system is, one that you govern depends on what have majority in the house of representatives. our system is one of very rigorous bloc voting by political parties. so whilst you lots of debates about whether on, for example, waxman-markey climate change, that the democrat would vote for it, while the republican vote for the whilst you have those kinds of debates in australia, labor, opposition and everybody in the labour party will vote for it. whilst our conservative parties maintain a fiction of freedom across the aisle when you want to come in 300 they block out all the time. the only limited examples of
9:32 am
people just individually voting on some conscious questions that are defined as conscious questions things like abortion and same-sex marriage where you get people making individual decisions and do a get mops aches of political party members sitting for one proposition or another. -- ukip mosaics. we didn't have enough labor goes to form a government was to add enough independence to our pile to get the vote. i needed to get for. in the first instance we negotiated with the green political party which sits to our left and is highly focused on protest politics and of i'm at the politics. that required me to be satisfied that they could be welded in a way that would keep them on the straight and narrow for the period of our government. they wanted to enjoy executive
9:33 am
power and i was never going to do that. i needed to secure other boats and the most likely work to country independence, tony windsor and rob -- and a man from tasmania. history is written out if it's inevitable i was going to win through and form this government to going into those 17 days, the independent from tasmania, i have never met in my whole life, anything and about him is he the, politically to as a person in our intelligence community who had objected to the way in which the howard government had used intelligence to justify us in gauging in the iraq war. kind of a familiar story, the
9:34 am
star year and a store in the uk. even the start of the 17 days i didn't know them well. i dealt with them once over a student income support issue when i had a change agenda as deputy prime minister, and that was really it. with all of the weight of can you form a government, in the moment it was really extensive studying of these people in person, what can i get to know about them, all of the things that have ever said public, ever sit in parliament, voting record, what can i get to know about how they saw the world, and could i find some connection points between us and them which would make it viable? and over 17 long days, and they certainly were long days, i
9:35 am
managed to get. it was and it describes in the book made in some ways, is kind of a lonely time. whilst wayne swan was there supporting and a great staff supporting me, including ian davidoff, either i could do it or i couldn't. it wasn't actually a whole lot that even the best of my ministerial colleagues could do because it needed to be this leadership star negotiation. so i recount in the book wringing when my good colleagues who went on to be minister for finance about something i wanted to check with her, it was like 10:30 a.m. and i said what are you doing? she said i'm roasting spices. roasting spices? soul for a mess with a lot of energy in the 17 days of kind of stasis, she's taking her energy out by making the world's most complex meals from scratch,
9:36 am
right to extend of roasting the spices. i don't even know how you do that. apparently it can be done. [laughter] i mean, and he would remember what it was like but it was this waiting, waiting, waiting and working, working, working. finally, we got enough people to say yes. but once everybody stated, there was actually this great growing sense of common endeavor, which meant that people on together even in very difficult days and through some very controversial propositions. we then had the reverse problem for most australian government. most australian governments, including the current government, the numbers and house of representatives so they can bang something through. they get to the senate and they don't have the numbers and if you allow them to around and negotiate.
9:37 am
governments budget is very hostage to the process at the moment. we had the reverse. once we could get the numbers in the house of representatives, basically brea we could get it through the senate which meant the greens were on board the it turned out with all of this odd start and curious dynamic as a minority government to be very productive parliamentary for legislation went through. there are days when i get a bit of a bride smile and think myself we got budget deals through in record time. if i've ever taken at a time the current government is taking to get its budget through, our newspapers would've been screaming crisis in huge fonts on the front. our prime minister has been fond of talking about budget emergencies. and inability to budget legislation through is a bit of a problem and it would be, it
9:38 am
will be interesting to see when the focus is back on the problem and what can be achieved through negotiations by this government. >> i just want to say that the labour party is full of literate people. wayne swan wrote a very good book and i'm thinking -- roasting spices, a sharp and obtain the view of politics. i want to open up to the audience because with so may people here who know a lot about australia but. the book is brilliantly organized for political junkies. i told julia, all the great politics is in the first 130 pages. so political junkie journalists can read the first 130 pages and links substance like education, climate change, economic collapse to somebody else. there is in the beginning, or at
9:39 am
the beginning a chapter called the enemy within. while my first quotation is going to be your view of the press, that's not the enemy within. but it's about what was happening inside the labour party. i'll ask you questions to the media in general and the set of industry is somewhat different than ours, although the are some things in common i think it is a wonderful line waste of good government does not work at the same speed as the media. no journalist is ever going to be happy with a day in which the prime minister quietly and methodically reads at meetings, thinks deeply and makes decisions. i would just love for you to talk about that. for those of us here watching your labour party, especially for those of us of a general sympathy for the centerleft, there was really what are you people doing over there since? first you throw kim out as lead when you expressed some regret about that in the book to you
9:40 am
and kevin throw him out has lead to then you throw kevin out as leader. and then cabinet throws you out as leader. then there's an election finally where the voters, even though labor have the best economic record argument of any government on the face, democratic country in the world, you lose the election. if you could talk about the media, and what is it with your party? the questions, thanks for that. spinning then we will have a softball from the audience last night. >> on the media, i think there's a set of common problems, but if anything we've got an extra problem, and the extra problem is because you are a limited population, only 23 million people. while this age enables the development of alternate media,
9:41 am
our market is pretty thin but it's only going to sponsor so much. were answered because the market is bigger, deeper, more people, more people interested, more money in circulation to media outlets that you end up and you are ending up with more diversity than us. but the thing that's common is in this media age, i've been comparing it in speeches to the advent of all you can eat restaurant. do you remove when we first got all-you-can-eat restaurants and we go into a buffett table groaning with food, and you go a bit mad, wouldn't you? i don't know what it was but you go a bit mad and he would be stuffing as much food as you make good for the time you in the all-you-can-eat restaurant. i think we are at that stage with our media, that it's so much coming out a so quickly that the journalists who are generating it, many of the
9:42 am
journalist were generating are regretful that they can' can spd more time on generating deeper pieces, but they've got editors barking at them to fill the space. it's thinning out our national conversations. and everything emerges to void of context but it's like it puffs out, no looking back, what does this relate to, no looking forward, what could this possibly two, and no doubt. >> otherwise it's perfect. >> otherwise it's perfect. i talked in the book about the experience of launching major policies midmorning which required thought and analysis, and having journalists by midday renew my press office saying to you have a story force? because they tweeted, a blog, but appeared on 24/7 tv were
9:43 am
journalists now take the individual is. they don't need how much anymore. [laughter] they've got each other. and then the cycle moves. i hope that this is a transition time. because the technology enables us to get all this information, we will get used to it and we will move to a newer age where we go from the all-you-can-eat back to the more selective i'd rather the less, have it of better quality and have it more customized to my taste. indie media parallel, i don't mean by the biased. i mean by that a deeper dive into the issues i care about. we are there in australia, and you aren't here in the u.s., and it's been interesting for us having watched president obama's mastery of social media and new media when campaigning that when governing these have the same problem with the speed and
9:44 am
thinness of the media that we've had. on what's wrong with our political party, i feel like i should be differing to kim and others on this. i think if you're trying to draw across all of the fans, and there were different elements in each event and different personalities in each of them, and i speak about human and my sense of regret about the events involving him in the book. i think our political party is in the modern age still trying to get the balance between how much it is a leaders party, how much of it is identity is defined by the leader and how much of it is for popularity is correlated with the leaders except billy to the electorate as mentioned by polls. this is how much the party with
9:45 am
a leader and a sense of purpose that brings together the many elements that go to make up the labour party. and i think over a long period of time and the cost of some very good leaders we've aired on the side of being a leaders party looking for the quick popularity rather than looking for purpose and genuine leadership ability. that has been what has chartered so much of the political fortunes over the last few years. >> the book has a loving and i suppose i'm loving detail the fight, and it's a fascinating account of this period. tom, would you hold -- i want you to get back -- do we have microphones going around? stanley, on the right, that's not a political description, my right, your left, and so that leaves you in the center.
9:46 am
>> stanley roth boeings. good to see you again. welcome to washington. wanted to bring the conversation back to foreign policy. one of the things that happen on your watch was the use pivot or rebalance with the asia-pacific region. not trying to drive into the semantics of what ward would've been best budgets are straightforward question but how do you think we're doing with politics looking at it now and all the things that have happened? >> okay. s., the pivot, rebalance did happen on my watch i do need to pay attributed to former prime minister rudd here. he certainly put to the use click the need for the u.s. to join the east asia summit, it was agreed to in very good advice. the joining of the east asia summit was an element of what became the pivot. i mean, the pivot was given a
9:47 am
lot of image and flash when president obama came to australia, spoke to our parliament, talked about in the u.s. deep engagement in the region. and at the same time secretary clinton was standing on an aircraft carrier just out of the philippines, and so the whole imagery was an american president is here in the region speaking about the u.s. and its future in the region. and yes, the u.s. is a formidable nation, and he is the image of being formidable, you know? aircraft carriers, you would know more about them than ever well but -- so that i think, i mean, it's not obviously us, australia with our long-standing alliance with the u.s., but if you were a nation in the region that was calibrating its future,
9:48 am
u.s., china, where do i stand? how do i navigate this? it was an important moment. what was unfortunately awkward, an awkward moment was when president obama couldn't come to the east asia summit last year because he was tied down in washington with the debt default problem. and if you were one of those nations thinking u.s.-china, u.s.-china, where are we going to be in five, 10 to 15 years time, i think the problem is that people come people don't doubt the word of the u.s., that it seeks to be deeply engaged in the region. but when they look at washington, they get question mark in the mind about the type to sit through. that's not a good place to be. reputation wise, i think there
9:49 am
is a need to very deeply read, it's not like you are gone but it's the physically of engagement in the years to come. >> we are making progress to the former prime minister did not tell us what hillary clinton was wearing on the aircraft. [laughter] if i could, three women here in the back, over here and in right here. right behind you. and then just pass it up to a college. why don't we take three at once so we can get more voices in. >> i'd like to say hello to kim beazley firstly and julia gillard, thank you. thank you for speaking. i just have two questions. the first is on gender and i would just like to know basically how you mentally dealt
9:50 am
with the misogyny and the chauvinism to do with on a daily basis. second at the question on education, which is based on the current sort of problems with the current governments not looking, do not cap the university of what is a, charges so that universities can set their own prices on degrees. what is your opinion on that? because of some of those just finished university two years ago, that scares the hell out of me thinking that the social gap in our study could widen because students who don't have access to the. i was lucky and fortunate i could, but if she's going to worse in my opinion. what's your view on the? >> and for that matter the misogyny inside your own party if i could add to that. please.
9:51 am
spent on a fellow at a lady and. i just wanted let you know and i'm currently based at csis but i am an austrian government employee. i just want you to know that in my household of these ended up more than once i've come home after experiencing some everyday sexism and looked on youtube and washed misogyny. at such an aspiration and reminder that my daily troubles are probably not as bad as yours were. my question is also on the sexism issue. you've experienced the most appalling and vulgar sexism while you're in the nation's highest office. before you are in politics you had a different career, and i just wondered if you had any comments on how sexism manifested in the law firm that you work in, in a sort of more
9:52 am
regular workplace? and we surprised that the changes that you absorbed when he became prime minister? thanks. >> thank you so much. please. then we will go one more round i think and i want tom to ask the last question. >> good morning. thank you so much for being here. my question builds off of the two that were just asked. first of all i'd like to take this opportunity to personally thank you so much for the grace and humility that you displayed as prime minister. as a young professional looking to enter the field of foreign policy and international affairs i look to you as a role. being a young team of professional looking to enter what's typically been a male-dominated field. as a young professional i'm just carries to know what the challenges you experienced early on in your career and how you overcame those challenges.
9:53 am
>> those are all very good questions. i will try to do my best to answer them. on the sexism in different contexts, politics, law firm, my early days in the labour party, i think a difference really is the degree of division you encounter as prime minister and how hot the spotlight is but in the law for more i worked, it could be a pretty rowdy kind of place. that was part of the imagery. it was unashamedly a labor law firm ended up sort of a boys image. but because the division or debates within the partnership in the from generally worked very hot, they might have slightly different views about things but public of osha and
9:54 am
the partnership both partnership meetings there was a great degree of consensus across the firm the is a great degree of consensus but what we're trying to do. you didn't quite see it the way i saw as prime minister and getting have this public spotlight on it either. i think the difference really when i became prime minister, i deliberately thought i won't try to shine the spotlight myself. it's just so obviousl obvious at need to wander around saying did you know i was the first and no prime minister? [laughter] and i thought that any positive reaction to that, any negative reaction to that would be at its greatest immediately after becoming prime minister and it would abate and then i would just be judged on being prime minister, a good or bad i was handling the job. what i experienced into law firm and different from my early days in the labour party is that when
9:55 am
it got hard and divided, sexism became a convenient instrument of criticism. so instead of saying she did that badly, or she's wrong about this, it was framed as a sort of sexist attack. that element of politics i think is the one that people sort of latched onto for good or ill and it's that elements of politics i try to do with in the book are in terms of dealing with it, which was your question, i talk about this in the book, i actually hope, i'm no kind of lifestyle gurus. i don't i to write a self-help book. when you any good at that. but i have tried to talk about what you can do to work resilience of. i think resilience is a muscle that gets stronger as you use
9:56 am
it. i've tried to talk about strategies that work for me because actually in the modern age you don't need to be in policy to fuel your beseiged but a lot of criticism. i actually can't imagine what it's like to grow up as a teenage goal today with all of the normal teenage anxieties, about being too chubby or you're not pretty enough, not popular enough, all of the things the kids go through, and have an instant course of criticism of social media. i can't imagine what that's like, but that's today's reality. whether you're prime minister in the course of criticism in the newspapers and the tv or whether you're that teenage girl in the criticism that appears to be whole world but it's actually the 30 '04 -- 30 or 40 people but, you know. i thin think the strategy i talo in the book is really trying to
9:57 am
nurture itself that isn't pushed around by the critiques of others, and having watched other women in politics i think one of the things that you can easily succumb to is for good a time when the sort of golden girl phenomenon and is she doing well? isn't she good? and you get put on a pedestal. it's a long way to bloody fall. when you fall to go to the other end of the cycle of deliberately made a set of distinctions that i was not going to let my sense be held hostage to a the golden gophers dominant or the crash off the pedestal, that i was the same person on the days the newspapers were running well for me and today's newspapers were running badly. and i think that's an important kind of coping strategy. i'm getting ready for politics, sort of what forms you, in a
9:58 am
wonderful labour party style i got some early lessons in resilience because it took me until my mid '20s to decide that i would like to be in politics, and then it took me 10 years and three failed attempts to get there. i wasn't thinking the labour party and its treatment of time but looking back on it, across a full slate of politics i think it probably did help tough for me up a bit and enabled me to get some sense about how you deal with rejection and how you deal with when it's hard. so i'm not suggesting you go and throw yourself into as many negative experiences as possible, but in the way things, life has a habit of handing it to most people and it's important to learn from them and strengthen the resilience around the comeback. >> thank you so much. the next book is eat, pray,
9:59 am
vote. that was lovely. maybe one more quick round. there's a hand way in the back, and then the lady over there and then the lady in front of her. i'm sorry but i think we are supposed to close down soon, is that correct? >> three minutes ago spent tom will ask of one, i will ask one and you can skip any of them that you want. go ahead. >> thanks for your presentation this morning. you limited in some of your earlier comments about the bipartisanship being lost in the australian parliament on issues such as carbon pricing to ask those new prime minister tony abbott has just called for a mature debate on things like tax reform and signaled that maybe there should be a debate about increasing the gsc. you think that something both sides could engage on, including the labour party?
10:00 am
.. my question is looking back, would you change something, your relation with the press? is there anything you feel you could have done to come out battered bear or up is just hopeless and in that case why this? >> and diplomatically, you did not mention the name murdoch and i am mentioning it.
10:01 am
>> thank you for the presentation he had since he'd been through all kinds of issues, i wonder as the prime minister, very straw you should have been ordered to deal with the public interest. kurt today -- don't agree with the categories in the united states and communism. i wonder if you could come up with some aim that can interest the public interest. the 1% of the 99% problem? >> go ahead. >> just a brief question. you came out of the left faction
10:02 am
of your state. but it was one of the two left factions. get a look at your politics as they develop in seeing people out of the right of the labour party moving to the left. do those factions within the labour party still have any ideological meaning and are there it is numbered or will debut with us but primarily for other purposes? >> of a backlash in. my quick question is something i mentioned last time were talking. we talked a lot about ms. thatcher is obviously a major figure, a woman who served for a long time. you think there's a difference it can be a woman on the left
10:03 am
and a woman of the center-right? and is it harder if you have a centerleft? okay. have you possibly prepared for these? i mean, just picking up your question and actually going to the question about the media, one of the features with one of the most concentrated navy markets in the world. i come from the city in australia that gave rupert murdoch to the world. and when i was growing not, it was impossible to buy a newspaper that wasn't owned by mr. murdoch, the morning paper, the afternoon paper in the evening papers while mr. murdoch. in many parts of australia, the readily available with all apologies been reviewed, the
10:04 am
right of the available newspaper for people is only the murdoch newspaper. said the daily paper is only a murdoch paper. so that does mean there are questions of quality that intersect and ato with that in the book and my hankering for a media market that had more quality in its presentation to the public and certainly one big debate. one of things that got published as facts are just so ridiculously ravish that it distorted the public discussion in a way that is not helpful and it does always amuse me that when you get editorial newspapers facing generations of
10:05 am
politicians and more prepared to tackle the debate while the newspapers make sure that any debate gets distorted and pulled apart often by reporting. i think it actually then links back to the question of chanter the center-right woman. the issues for me were playing out in a market about which was overwhelmingly hostile to the government's agenda. query, if you were pursuing an agenda that got a lot of support, how would gender play out? be written how the media with your agenda using and reflect to because they wouldn't need the
10:06 am
criticism. so i think there is a connection here. on the day-to-day political questions from australia going to disappoint you and say you need to talk straight day a day tenure about that because there debates were the current generation and the one thing i try to be as rigorous about as possible about peeking over the and i hope they do well in the debate you talk about. on the issues about the factions in labor, for a long period of time, while before i was deputy prime minister, well before i was deputy opposition labor, a
10:07 am
long time back in my political career i decided in the modern age most of this is nonsense in a camp where it came from. a difference of opinion around attitude towards communism and soviet union and the whole nine yards. but in the modern age, it really seems to have meaning. the real file lines in labor today, you know, there is a broad consensus on the economic sphere. the power of markets company engagement of market to be properly break elated that make for good social services and they have a strong and productive economy that is a broad consensus on mac, which
10:08 am
takes in left and lots of what people would call the right. you've got a few kind of outliers on either side of economic consensus. and then there's the social policy continuum that runs from the more progressive than through to the more conservative end on questions like abortion, same-sex marriage has some reflection and most of those things the pressure gets taken off. so you know, i got linked into parliament at the same time a very good end of mine. it was a wonderful health minister took over health portfolio and the attorney general. the packaging of cigarettes to
10:09 am
try and persuade young people from smoking and it appears to have some effect. we were always great maze. she was on the right. i was on the left and we ever disagreed on. so it just goes to show. well it into our? i think it probably will for a period of time to come. it is like a habit you can't give out and it does at its best, the fact they are organizing units within the party does help many potential conflicts. so at its best it's got the rule. i think we are on the journey for democratizing the labour party for which it is taken for later after the 2013 election as
10:10 am
labour leader. the more steps we take towards democratization, the less and less the direction won't be because they won't able to guide and i think that is a very healthy development. i've done as much as i could unless questions. >> i am sure now mr. murdoch says they come from the city that gave julia gillard to the world. [laughter] i want to say in closing first we are honored to have julia perkins paid f will be signing books. and third, i want to read a passage that goes back to penny waugh and spices. there's a wonderful passage at the beginning of the book were julie introduces it. she says the taste of politics is bittersweet because the best and worst of things are often inextricably woven together. i endeavored to convey the
10:11 am
complexity of the flavor, but for me and the most difficult of times, ability to do things they so passionately believed that make our nation stronger and fairer was always the most intense. thank you so much. part back
10:12 am
>> am the one hand, multiculturalism certainly respect the boundaries of civility, which is a lot of the stuff we were arguing a student in the 80s that we really are first group of 80s and 90s coming onto campus that were a part in some instances a majority, minority entering class. who knows what majority minority
10:13 am
means. we will, do that. but we at that time were like i don't want to be on campus having to deal with all these racial micro-aggressions is that they collect. but they still racial incidents being called on the street making a skill you don't belong in the classroom. all these things happened during the 80s and it reset the bound of civility so now the language of reactionaries need to use has to be used in multicultural terms. pat buchanan has this amazing piece and has put about will america survive 2025 and he talks about how everybody can enjoy ethnic food. so we all like to go out and have tied food and ethiopian food in that kind of thing. lashinsky 35. that's really interesting.
10:14 am
and so, multicultural has resisted, but we are at a point where we can have conversations about the inequities and inequalities that persistent are actually rising. this is again a huge blind spot. the book was trying to get at that. i'm the one hand you have folks working the culture sensuously to promote these new visions of what the u.s. can look like. but for us to get to that point, we have to deal with these inequalities. there was a poll that came out after ferguson and two questions arise. they're interviewing blacks and their interviewing wife. the first question was to the events raised issues that are to be discussed about around race. the second question was do the events in ferguson draw too much focus and attention to the issue of race? there's a big.
10:15 am
african-americans overwhelming that this is a race issue we had to be talking about. for whites, maybe not a majority, but still this feeling of we're paying too much attention to race right now. once that it focuses invitation to every conversation is another set of folks? to leave the room. >> here's a look at upcoming book fairs and festivals around the country.
10:16 am
>> welcome to not offend on foot tv. with the help of our charter communications partners, but the next 90 minutes will explore the capital city surrounded by water and the university of wisconsin badgers. ♪ >> we will not run. [inaudible]
10:17 am
>> governor scott kerr introduced the budget repair bill and what she was trying to fill a gap in the budget and at the same time he proposed collective bargaining for public employees in the state of wisconsin. >> first, we featured madison native and architect frank lloyd wright as we travel to his studio just inside the city. to learn about his personal and professional life. >> we are sitting in the first studio of frank loyd wright. his home was first built in 1911 and destroyed in 1914, rebuilt in 1915, destroyed in 1925 and rebuilt it misses the third version and each version has a story to tell. the first is an architectural solution to a personal problem and that the one that was how frank lloyd wright and his lover could return from europe in 1911
10:18 am
and live together out of the prying eyes of the chicago press and live unobtrusively and enjoy their life together because they weren't married to each other. they hope to be, but they couldn't be because suburban chicago captain would not give him a divorce and so they came up with the idea while he was in italy overlooking the river value that he knew exactly the spot in wisconsin that would be the perfect place for a hideaway just like one they had in italy. he wrote to his mother on the fourth of july of the fourth of july of that and thinking about finding a spot of land. so she actually conspired with him to buy the land in her own name and secretly this place was built under false pretenses at the cottage for his mother. but it turned out that it was actually to be a hideaway for frank lloyd wright although she
10:19 am
had dropped the name cheney by that time she got a divorce. said this was built in the spring of 1911 and they were both together by christmas and a huge scandal broke out when they were discovered here, the scandal in chicago. there is talk of tar and feathers and other terrible things. most people were unflappable and didn't do anything about it. said their life was like to continue. right was actually born in wisconsin, which is not too far from here. his family took him first in massachusetts and then they return to madison and he grew up in madison, sent his teenage years here and attended some of the very briefly a few years that the university of wisconsin did not finish there, but did get a chance to work on the
10:20 am
building. before he decided to take off the portion, he became and built a lot of buildings in the prairie style. and then returned to wisconsin only after europe. however, before he left madison, his mother during his teenage years, because he pushed his father out of the house, divorce him and he was being raised by the mother with two sisters decided he should calm out today's part of the country, which is where her family was, welsh pioneers and spent his summers here. he spent his teenage summers in this valley and on the sales. that is where he guided love of
10:21 am
nature and understanding of nature and he also got his understanding of the topography. years and years later he could imagine a perfectly where he wanted his own tv. he really, the theme of living and nature writing reinforced itself to have when he was in italy, living in a garden on the hillside. one year later he was living another card and an wisconsin overlooking another river valley, the wisconsin river valley, which he knew and loved. once he came back, this became his permanent home. frank lloyd wright was the originator of organic architecture and he developed it to the highest degree in as many years of work. put our organic architecture with several. the essence of organic
10:22 am
architecture is that form and function are one. that everything in the house should be useful and beautiful. that is one part of it. the other part is the house of nature speak to each other, interact and there's not a hard division between the indoors in the outdoors which are somehow situated in nature of the site is extremely important and one of the things that is truly are again i about this home, which was called shining brow, welsh is that it really was built to look like a of stoned, like the many limestones and cropping cc
10:23 am
in this area of wisconsin. to some degree, he wanted his house to be camouflaged as nature, sort of an event in nature. so this became in the opinion of many architectural critics, the first natural house in the sense that it was conforming to nature around it and welcoming it and be built and also this house really was first built above local materials. it was stone. it is quarried nearby. it was actually handcarried up from the river next to the borders with david outlook survey. september was local. this is kind of a piece of i want to say locally sourced architecture at the time. and it is also green architecture


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on