Skip to main content

tv   Book Discussion  CSPAN  January 18, 2015 4:00pm-5:24pm EST

4:00 pm
t admirer like madison of burke's writings on the american revolution. he was not an mire of burke's writings on the french revolution, jefferson was a fan of the french revolution almost to the end. not quite as adamant as paine but a close and was very much a frank o-phile and he took burke's writings about france to be crazy. ...
4:01 pm
>> it was important to hamilton, for example. jefferson very adamantly disagreed with burke's reading of france. he was a friend of paine's, a close friend during the revolutionary years. he thought that paine's great pamphlet, "common sense," was extreme lu important and ought to be -- extremely important and helped it get distributed. he helped him get a job as the secretary to the committee on foreign relations of the continental congress. and he was a kind of patron of thomas paine's in some ways. when paine came back to america after france jefferson was president. he was wary of being associateed with paine's views on religion so didn't hang out with him very much. but he helped him get established, helped him get a job, and the two knew each other
4:02 pm
very well. they were friends. >> sue finish. well, the most -- superb. well, the most important rule of a bill of rights book fair is that it end on time, so i'm afraid we're going to have to skip the remaining two questions. but, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to reconvene at 1:15. go check out the interactive view one of the 12 original copies. c-span audience, get on a plane, a train, there is still five hours left -- [laughter] and if you can't make it today, it's going to be displayed for the next three years. ladies and gentlemen, for a superb and enlightening discussion please join me in thanking our guest. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> every weekend booktv offers programming focused on nonfiction authors and books. keep watching for more here on
4:03 pm
c-span2. and watch any of our past programs online at booktv.org. >> julia gillard is the first female prime minister of australia. she talked about her life and her experiences in office. speaking at the brookings institution in washington d.c. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> wonderful. good morning everybody. i'm rebecca winthrop, i am the director of the center for universal education here at the brookings institution. it's my great pleasure to welcome all of you to this wonderful panel that we have. i'm just going to be making a personal introduction and very shortly turning it over to my colleagues. we have here tom mann who is a senior fellow in governance studies with us and then, of course, i think needs no introduction to all of you, but
4:04 pm
of course julia gillard, australia's first prime minister and e.j -- [laughter] >> first prime minister -- >> first female prime minister. >> you don't look that old to. [laughter] >> she really looks great, doesn't she? [laughter] fist female prime minister -- first female prime minister indeed. and then e.j. dionne, lest t the laughter covered up your intro, e.j., senior fellow, governance studies. and we are joined, just to note, lots of people in the audience but just to note two people welcome to ambassador kim beasley who is also the former leader of the labour party and tanya -- [inaudible] who is currently the deputy leader of the labour party and also the shadow foreign minister. so many welcomes to all of you. it's my pleasure to introduce this session the life of an australian prime minister -- first female --
4:05 pm
[laughter] prime minister. i'm now going to be haunted by that, julia. [laughter] a conversation by julia gillard on "my story." if you haven't seen her book it's wonderful, i highly recommend are it and you will also get those recommendations from my colleagues. yes, indeed. and i know copies are available afterwards. and julia, you'll be sticking around for a little bit won't you? oh good. for anybody who wants to talk get a book signed, etc. so i'm not going to dive into the subject of the book, i'm going to leave that to the panelists. but i do want to make a personal introduction to julia gillard who i first met a year ago. can you believe it was only a year ago? she joined us as a distinguished fellow here at brookings working primarily on global education issues, and we were very honored to have her, and i thought well, you know, she probably will be very high level, very conceptual, you know, former heads of state are often sort of
4:06 pm
very big, big picture. and, indeed, that's i true. but how wrong i was in terms of how strong her intellect is. so three points. you know, any economist who would like to go toe to toe with julia gillard on different weights of standard deviation is welcome to do so. you may lose. [laughter] as a former minister of education, myself and our entire team was quickly impressed at how well julia knew education and how thoughtful she was, how technical she was. and she certainly has been an amazing asset to us in our work second point, excellent strategist. we spend lots of time here at brookings and in our work in particular briefing global leaders, sharing information on global education, showing data about trends, you know making
4:07 pm
policy recommendations and julia was one of the quickest studies we ever had. i remember we threw probably -- it was three days of, it was probably like two college courses condensed into three days in terms of getting up to speed on the global education agenda, here's all the data here's all the trends. she took a few notes and i thought, well, i wonder if she's not interested maybe she's bored. and then on the third day she had an interview with, i believe, christiane amanpour and she was on it. every single fact every data point, big picture strategy. so is ever since -- so ever since then we've had incredible, high regard, and julia's been very strategic and helpful in thinking through our work in terms of conducting research and analysis and impacting global policy helping shape some of our key our key initiatives. and lastly on a very personal note, she is incredibly warm and
4:08 pm
incredibly generous colleague to work with. of course, at the very beginning we said, well, you know, how should we, you know refer to you, prime minister bill ard? she said please please please, just call me julia. and in short order we were talking about the pool and australia and when we could all come visit -- [laughter] which is still on my, you know, on the list. i'm not sure i can really deduct that as a work expense, but we're working on it. [laughter] but she's been very warm, very generous with her time with me personally, but also with every member of my team talking to our interns, to our research assistants to our sort of senior executive fellows around the world. and so it's a wonderful pleasure and honor to have her in the brookings family. and with that i know that i also wanted to say not only with us at brookings it's a pleasure but it's also a great pleasure for our global education
4:09 pm
community because not too long ago she joined as the chair of the board of the global partnership for education, the ceo, and we didn't -- i didn't get some notes beforehand from you, alice, but i'm sure she would echo all of these things. and i though the entire global education community is very happy to have you in the leadership role in the sector. so with that over to you, julia. >> thank you very much. thank you. [applause] a great thank you to rebecca and to the colleagues here. it's great to have this opportunity to launch "my story" here at brookings, and i do very much value every day that i get to spend here, so thank you very much. i, too wanted to acknowledge kim beasley and tanya who are here and to acknowledge two special friends as well. roland who is here who is ian davidoff's partner ian davidoff was my policy director for much
4:10 pm
of the time i was prime minister, and the achievements in a policy sense in this book are shared by him in a very major way. and i'd also like to acknowledge john possess parker here at -- tess parker here at the front. if you like any of the photos in the book, you probably like them because jtp took them. [laughter] it's great to have alice and the team. thank you for being here. i wanted to start by just reading a few books from my book "my story," and then take the conversation from there. the paragraphs i wanted to read to you are as follows: i first met barack obama at the g20 and apec summits in korea and japan respectively in november 2010. at the g20 meeting, he advised me not to set my expectations too high that big summits like this could lack excitement. i wisecracked, what happened to the audacity of hope? [laughter] by the time of the lisbon nato summit later that year, we had established such a rapport that
4:11 pm
the banter continued. the key photograph of us shows me looking like i am telling him off as he laughs. at an otherwise very serious occasion, it catches a quick, huge rouse discussion about our -- humorous discussion about our question time. when i explained after i'd flown out after one and would fly back into another, president obama said he envied the opportunity question time gave to explain your agenda to the nation. are you mad, i said? [laughter] with accompanying dramatic overacting. once he understood it happened every day and consisted of 20 questions, ten from the opposition mostly directed to me as prime minister, he was inclined to agree his statement was a bit mad. [laughter] so that's diplomacy in this book "my story." thank you. on reflection as i was writing that, i could understand what president obama was reaching for, and i think what he was
4:12 pm
reaching for is the opportunity that unfortunately, leaders, politicians don't get very much which is the opportunity to talk direct to the community not mediated through third parties whether that mediator is a tv news director or someone who edits a newspaper or a journalist or someone who puts a web site together. we don't actually have as many opportunities as we would like or need to have a direct conversation. and the delight in having the opportunity to write a book is you can just have that direct conversation and put it out there for people to look at and to judge. so i hope many of you do read the book, and what you will encounter in this book is in some ways not at all an american story, a very australian story. and that very australian story starts with me coming from a my grant family -- migrant family, migrating from wales when i was 4 years old and ending up being
4:13 pm
prime minister of our nation, a very different system than you have here. and we find that it saves a hell of a lot of time because you don't have to have any of those debates about whether or not president obama was born in the united states -- [laughter] you can just get to the political arguments about policy and the like, so it's a very australian story. i think it's a very australian story in another sense which is it would have been impossible for me -- an unmarried woman, childless, an atheist -- to have succeeded in american politics in the way that i succeeded in australian politics. and i think it says something about the contrast and compare between our two nations that that has been possible for me. but you will encounter in this book debates and issues that are very familiar to people in the u.s. and ones that we face together. the book certainly canvass at some length our engagement in
4:14 pm
the war in afghanistan, our engagement in countering terrorism which, of course, we do alongside you and so many other nations in the world. i as prime minister went to more than 20 funerals for soldiers lost in the conflict in afghanistan. and as we now see conflict spreading throughout the middle east with the so-called islamic state, i think that there are things to reflect on that i learned during the course of leading our nation in that conflict. i deal exespecially tensively -- extensively in the book too with the shared challenge of climate change, with our grand adventure in putting a price on carbon a very fast and furious political argument. a political argument which has seen bipartisanship in our nation lost. when i was first elected to government in 2007, both sides of politics stood for that election on the basis that they would enact an emissions trading scheme. and if you'd stood in the center of that election campaign and
4:15 pm
said i predict that putting a price on carbon and climate change will become the flashpoint partisan issue of this decade people would have looked at you very oddly. in a campaign where people were fighting about so much why pick something people weren't fighting about? and yet it has become the flashpoint partisan issue of our decade and, in many ways of your decade. as a result, particularly of the campaigning of the radicalized right against the science an acceptance of the science. and i canvas that within the book. i always talk about the -- i also talk about the way in which we've worked together with you and other nations around the world to try and kick start the global economy after the global financial crisis and some of the challenges that are still there to make sure that in our nation and in yours -- though our economy has never had some of the dreadful downs and declines that you've had since the gfc -- but in our nation and in yours
4:16 pm
the people can realize the true promise of opportunity and social mobility for the future. the book canvases some of the shifting that making our age, particularly what is happening in our region of the world with the explosive growth economically in asia and the rise of china. its economic rise and consequently its strategic rise its desire for a larger and more modern military force. my conclusions are overwhelmingly optimistic ones, and i come to those optimistic conclusions informed by my experience as prime minister. it was said whilst i was prime minister that it was impossible for our nation for australia to improve its relationship with the u.s. and china at the same time, that this was a zero or sum game, that -- zero sum game that you could only improve the relationship with one at the cost of the relationship with the other. i set out to prove that that wasn't right, you could improve
4:17 pm
both, and during my time as prime minister we took a step forward in our alliance with the u.s. we now train u.s. marines in our northern territory. president obama said he wants a harsh environment for them to train in. i said boy, have i got a harsh environment for you. [laughter] and i do sometimes wake up in the middle of the night and think to myself that there are probably several hundred marines who at that moment are thinking very unkindly of me -- [laughter] as they train in 110 degree heat and 90% humidity. probably not only the least of people to be most -- not only the list of people to be most liked. but we did take that step forward in the alliance at the same time that we struck a new deal with china to improve our nation's access to the top decision making tables in china, one of the few nations on earth to be able to strike such a compact. so it is with that experience about engaging in foreign policy with a sense of optimism and having that sense of optimism
4:18 pm
realized that i come to the big, strategic shifts in our world with a sense of optimism too. in this book i talk about my first passion, education, which is still driving me as i work here at brookings and for the global partnership for education, how i came to believe as a very young person that access to education is the key to transforming lives how it transformed my own life, how my own life has been very different, the lives that my parents led simply because of access to good quality schooling n. some ways that was a matter of choice. my parents literally migrated halfway around the world to get my sister and i a better quality education. but there was a element of luck in it too. i grew up in the days that you went to the local government school when it was zoned. you didn't have a choice. you couldn't canvas all over my hometown of adelaide forth best government -- for the best government school to go to, and
4:19 pm
we could not afford or a private education. you just went to the local one. and happyily for me, the local school z were good schools but if my parents had migrated to another part of adelaide, the local schools wouldn't have been good schools. where could my life have been if my parents had moved to another part of adelaide? and why should we put any child through that kind of perverse lottery, that where they live or perhaps the financial circumstances of their parents should dictate what kind of opportunity they get in life? and it's changing that perverse lottery that drove me as prime minister, and it's continuing to drive me now in this international work. and i certainly talk about that extensively because my whole life story doesn't make any sense without describing that piece to you. and finally and i hope this book does get received on this particular point and start a
4:20 pm
million conversations, i talk about gender and leadership. i found the hardest chapter to write, i entitled it the curious question of gender. i was conscious when writing it that 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 also conscious when i was writing that 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. but i've tried to unpack as analytically as i can why it is that we receive women's models of leadership differently in our very advanced societies here in the u.s. and in australia why it calls forth sexism and a brand of misogyny which i would have thought no longer existed in my country until i saw it played out in our newspapers in
4:21 pm
our politics, in demonstrations on our streets where people 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 drift from the shock jocks including one of our shock jocks alan jones, who called for me to be put in a chaff bag and dropped out to sea. now, some of this is very serious. i managed to use some of it for comedic effect at our annual national press gallery ball where i said ditch the witch, drown me out at sea doesn't everybody know you can't drown a witch? [laughter] so there were laughs to be had along the way, but i think there are some serious reflections on women and leadership how we obsess about appearance, how we judge on appearance, how we obsess about women's family status. if i you know, the issues with
4:22 pm
me, i don't have children, were how could i be in touch with family life if i don't have children of my own? i'm conscious for tanya the issue has been she does have children. well hell who's looking after them while she's being deputy leader of the labour party? these issues where we don't let women win. and i think there is a deeper issue too. there is something in the back of our brain that still whispers to us that we expect to see men acting and commanding we expect to see women appearing and empathizing. so when you see a woman who is acting and commanding, it's pretty easy to slip and say she's got to be pretty hard boiled, doesn't she? she's got to be pretty ruthless doesn't she? she's got to be a bit of -- and i'll let you supply the next word. how many times have we -- i claim no moral virtue in this -- how many times have we had conversations ourselves about the women in our world?
4:23 pm
and as long as we allow that silent song to dictate to us images of women in leadership then we will be are holding women back. and even as i raise these questions, i'm conscious that i live in a greatly privileged place as do 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. but even at that different stage there are 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 ma la la and those my jeer january schoolgirls -- nigerian schoolgirls who are still struggling for those rights. so that's the book i hope you enjoy it and i'm now going to subject myself to what probably will be the hardest questions faced on the book to date. thank you very much.
4:24 pm
[laughter] [applause] >> thank you julia. first, i just want to say thank you to rebecca who really is one of the most wonderful people here at brookings, and she and her center do more good than any six of us combined. or and it was natural that she brought julia here to to brookings, just part of a long-term effort that tom norm ornstein and i have to try to merge australia into the united states. [laughter] we like elections in new south wales or victoria or western australia as much as elections in kansas or wisconsin or new york. and i also want to acknowledge my friend, kim beasley. we met 41 years ago this fall. we were in pre-k. [laughter] and he is one of the finest friends and most principled politicians i've ever met so, kim, great to have you here.
4:25 pm
[laughter] [applause] and julia said that hers is a relentlessly australian story. i am going to try relentlessly to turn it into an american story so that she can sell books in this country. [laughter] and 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. and this is a really extraordinary chapter. and some of the same passages -- thank you to my intern ben, who really thought these passages jumped out at him, ask and there's another one i -- and there's another one i want to read. but let me just read you these. i'd like you to elaborate mar on the gender question. you write: stereotypes whisper to us that a woman leader cannot be likable because she must have given up the nurturing and feeling. you write: if you are a woman politician, it is impossible to
4:26 pm
win on the question of family. if you do not have children, you're characterized as out of touch with mainstream lives. if you do have children -- and, hens, who is -- heavens, who is looking after them? you write, and this is where the word that julia avoided comes in, common sense would tell you that if school children filed into a classroom every day and instead of saying good morning, ms. smith, to the teacher said good morning fat ugly dumb bitch -- [laughter] that would impact on their levels of respect for the woman in the front of the class. somehow that common sense fellowed the scene while i was prime minister. and lastly you were with anna bly in queensland during the floods, and just to read passage, this day was portrayed in the media in terms like these: or yesterday as the flood waters threatened her state capitol, bly fronted the media
4:27 pm
in a utilitarian white shirt hair looking like she had been working all night. beside her ms. gillard stood perfectly coifed in a dark suit nodding. what the heck was all that like? [laughter] >> thank you for that very extendsive question. [laughter] extensive question. on this gender bit, i've tried to, i've tried to unpack it, and i've tried to give real world examples because they did actually happen about some of the silly things about women and appearance. anna bly the premier of queensland, did a remarkable job during the floods in queensland and any political leader -- man, woman from any political party -- standing next to her would have come off second best because she was just putting in a miraculous performance leading her state. but the fact that all of that ended up devolving down to what we were wearing, i think, says something about how women are
4:28 pm
judged. and so i put that incident in there because a bit like the incident i put in there of my first overseas trip i went and visited our troops in afghanistan, i then went and met with the secretary general of nato. literally, our troops were fighting and dying in afghanistan, and the report at that meeting in australia read; julia gillard wearing a white jacket and black pants, is greeted by the secretary-general of nato. [laughter] no need to mention that mr. rasmussen was wearing a suit and tie. of course not. so that, you know in these key moments when important things are happening, you know our nation threatened by natural disasters around the country queensland in particular, our troops actually engaged in war which is causing combat fatalities that the emphasis can be on appearance, i think is limiting for women, and we've
4:29 pm
just got to get through it and get over it. but if i had one piece of advice should there be a woman who runs for president in 2016 -- [laughter] if i had one piece of advice, it would be that dealing with any gendered criticism or focus on appearance or focus on family and parenting that burden actually isn't hers. i tried to pick that burden up when i was prime minister, and people can judge how successfully or unsuccessfully but that burden isn't hers. that burden's actually all of ours to engage in the debate in a way which calls for the end of gendered criticism. and i look back on my time now when it got particularly nutty with "ditch the witch" and all the rest of it and think how powerful would it have been if in that moment a male australian business person had entered the
4:30 pm
public space and even if he had said i didn't vote for julia gillard in 2010, i'm not going to vote for her in 2013, i don't support carbon pricing, but we do not have our national conversation like this. if there had been someone prepared to do that, it would have been rely powerful. and so if i could give one piece of advice for any woman who ever runs for the u.s. presidency, it would be to think about who are those voices actually beyond the terrain of combat of politics who can help steer national conversations back to what they should be on which is capacities for leadership, not gender of leaders and policy slates good, bad or indifferent and keep the policy and leadership conversations there. >> tom could i follow up with one question and then -- >> okay. >> -- let you come in. i went back and looked at an
4:31 pm
interview i had with you in october of 2009 when our tea party was rising. and in a way it's the flipside of the gender question because we were talking about the anger both in the u.s. and anger that had existed, for example support for napoleon hansen, a right-wing figure, and there was a lot of anger. it was working class anger, and it was often working class men who had suffered a lot through globalization. and what you said is that we were confronted -- i quote you were -- we were confronted with the politics of the every working guy and the anger was driven by real problems, not simply raw feelings. how does one talk across that line? it's a particular problem i
4:32 pm
think now for center-left parties and working class voters and that that certainly that coalition has frayed some in the united states and also in australia. >> that coalition has frayed in australia, and i think it's an issue for center-left social democratic parties around the world. on -- in my time as prime minister, we were post the gsc, and whilst australia never went into recession, that didn't mean there wasn't a ripple of fear out there about what could have been and what might still be. because it's very hard, you know when this sort of wave goes around world, and you're trying to explain to people in australia what's happening's got something to do with the subprime mortgage market in the united states. it's like, what? then try and explain the ongoing ramifications.
4:33 pm
and in our nation, actually in the the teeth of the gsc people weren't doing it too tough. our unemployment rate didn't go up very high, government was engaged in economic stimulus some of it in cash transfers to families. so that didn't feel too bad. but in the messy sort of recovery for us and the messy recovery around the world people kept getting these economic shocks, you know? the value of their home. it probably hadn't gone down but it certainly wasn't going up at the rate that it used to. the value of their retirement savings had taken a very big knock. many australians are invested in showers. they bought shares when big government instrumentalities like our telecommunications business had been privateized. they got big shocks from their shares all going backwards. so very, you know working class people would be receiving this bad economic news, and so when
4:34 pm
you come at them with a big agenda like carbon pricing, yes, it's going to discomfort. and i think for social democratic parties, there is still the need to fuse very important change agendas with a great deal of reassurance about people's jobs and lives. and certainly part of that formula for the labour party has been workplace regulation and very good social safety nets. and when we get all of that working well together, then you can offer sufficient reassurance to get people go with you on a change agenda. on this question of women in leadership, one of the things that i've really noticed since i left politics once you take yourself out of the sort of combat, public views towards you change very quickly. and i get a lot of very, you know, obviously working blue collar men come up to me now who
4:35 pm
in an endearingly blunt australian way do say odd and -- oh thanks mate, thanks for that. would you mind signing this for my daughter? no problem. [laughter] and when you actually think about those two things, there was, i suspect, something about the days of my immediate leadership that made him feel a bit uncomfortable not only the issues we were dealing with but, you know, the next phase of the gender revolution, now a woman's leading the country felt a bit uncomfortable. but 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? maybe my girl could be the next one. and so i think if we in the progressive side of politics can harness some of that sense that really all of this discussion about gender is a discussion about opportunity for your
4:36 pm
daughters, then we can take a lot of people with us on it. >> well, what a delight to be here with julia and kim and our many fiends and colleagues. -- friends and colleagues. as e.j. said, there are these three students of american politics himself norm ornstein and myself, that have become utterly obsessed with australia; its people its institutions, including compulsory attendance at the polls which we approve of. [laughter] its policies and its politics. and norm is here 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.
4:37 pm
when we recently read of and learned of the passing of goff whitland we, too immediately returned to refresh ourselves and our memories about his years as labour leader. and his three-year term ended under the most extraordinary circumstances. but the beginning of the new labour party and hawk and keating and other leaders including kim who led the party for a number of years it's really it's about time don't you think, that we finally got our -- get our appointment as honorary citizens of australia? [laughter] we're waiting for it, i just want you all to know. [laughter] i have read this book with immense pleasure. it's a fascinating read. it's about politics and policy.
4:38 pm
it's direct lean in its writing and clear, frank. and julia's quite prepared to be self-critical, to say when she thinks she made the wrong call and why. but it's in so many ways it's connected to american politics. and so e.j.'s idea of having a discussion/conversation with you about some of the links really sits with me. i remember when you came to a friday lunch that senate ted kennedy was -- senator ted kennedy was speaking at, and you all had an interesting exchange. the next time you came as minister of education and led a seminar at brookings with a whole group of education reformers which leads to my question.
4:39 pm
we now our paths respective paths of education reform overlapped a good deal. ours began 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 now if you look at america, it's become caught up in the same ideological debates. 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 did you
4:40 pm
face similar opposition when you were 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 do here, what we strive to do in australia 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. and i've had the opportunity to have that conversation with secretary cup can, for example -- duncan, for example and i think he would pine for the kinds of levers we have as a national government. [laughter] there's a great labour saying, a
4:41 pm
paul keating saying never get between a premier -- the governor equivalent -- and a bucket of money. [laughter] very dangerous place to be. and one of the ways in which we implemented our education reforms is we made money which would flow from the national government to schools contingent on adopting the agenda. now, around my state colleagues there were some who were enthusiastic about that and some who are more sour-faced about it. but at the end of the day, everybody was going to take the money. so the money talked. and because in our system we flow money not only to government cools but to non-- government schools but to nongovernment schools, we can impose negotiate, impose agree, whatever word you want to use, change agendas on nongovernment schools. so that means, for example when we agreed there would be a national curriculum, a national curriculum whether you're educated in a government school
4:42 pm
or a nongovernment school. of the various reforms i enacted as education minister and then kept enacting as prime minister i think the transparency is here to stay. that's a web site where you can see transparently the results in national testing of every school in australia in the context of the levels of advantage or disadvantage of the school -- of the kids in the school in the context of the money supplied to the school for the teaching task. and you cannot only compare schooled in the national -- schools in the national average with testing, you can compare schools. here are two schools that are teaching quite underbringed children -- underprivileged children how come one is doing a lot better than other? i think that will stay. the national curriculum has been on a wit of an adventure -- on a bit of an adventure. the incoming minister for education appointed some people
4:43 pm
who were immediately -- and in my view rightly viewed as quite partisan on the topic of education reform to report on the national curriculum. the fear that that generated actually didn't get realized in their final report which is for a relatively modest set of changes ask certainly not for -- and certainly not for, you know dragging the curriculum into being an ideological kind of stick to beat children over the head with. the main piece which is in contest is the funding reforms where form school funding by i funding their flows to to matched need. we know that children from the most disadvantaged homes can get a great education, but it costs more to achieve that for them. and so we have a system, we had the system so they get more for educating those children. that's locked in sort of overwhelmingly by
4:44 pm
intergovernmental agreements. the current prime minister said he would keep the whole lot. he has resolved from that in government and now particularly the final two years of this six-year change are at risk. and whilst tanya is in a far better position than me to talk about labour's policy sweep 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. and i is certainly 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 get that child a good education. >> e.j. had a follow up, and so i was going to do it too. >> go ahead. >> which really goes to minority
4:45 pm
government. i remember being at kim's residence, the morning -- late morning/afternoon of election day, 2010. and it took us what it took you 17 days as i recall to put together a minority government. i'm still fascinated about how you did that and the book helped because you really wrote about some details. but i hope you'd share that with us. and it was especially difficult because of developments in politics within your own party. but tell us how minority government differs from u.s. divided party government and how you can get thing done in a minority government that we can't possibly do these days in divided party government. >> and did any of people who supported you get money in swiss bank accounts? [laughter] in about 20 years?
4:46 pm
[laughter] >> absolutely no -- [inaudible] [laughter] i can guarantee you that. interestingly, no one asked for a swiss bank account, so that's -- [laughter] our system is, you know the westminster system. so whether or not you govern depends entirely on whether you have a majority in the house of representatives. and our system is one of very rigorous bloc voting by political parties. so whilst here you will have lots of debates about whether, you know, on, for example waxman-markey climate change, whether a democrat would vote for it, whether a republican would vote for it, whilst you will have those kinds of debates in australia a proposition in everybody in the labour party will vote for it. and whilst we maintain a freedom of crossing the aisles in reality they block vote all the
4:47 pm
time too. the only limited examples of people just individually voting are on some conscience questions that are defined as conscience questions, things like abortion and same-sex marriage where you'll get people making individual decisions, and you'll get mosaics of, you know, a political party members sitting for one proposition or another. so, i mean my task in the 17 days given we didn't have enough labour members to form a government was to add enough independents to our pile to get the votes. i needed to get four. in the first instance, we negotiated with the greens political party which sits to our left and is, you know highly focused on protest politics and environmental politics. that required me to be satisfied that they could be with welded in a way -- could be welded in a way that would keep them on the straight and narrow for the period of our government.
4:48 pm
they wanted to, you know enjoy executive power, and i was never going to do that. but we were able to negotiate some policy issues and carbon pricing was one where, you know, we could work through and step through. and then i needed to secure other votes, and the most likely were two country independents tony windsor and rob -- [inaudible] and a man from tasmania. now, history has written now as be it's inevitable i was going to win through and form this government but actually going into those 17 days the independent from tasmania, andrew willkie i had never met in my whole life. anything i knew about him is he had become politically active as a person in our intelligence community who had objected to the way in which the howard government had used intelligence to justify us engaging in the iraq war.
4:49 pm
so a kind of familiar story, story here and a story in the u.k.. and then the two country independents. whilst they became very good friends over the three years, they actually came to the launch of my book in australia which was very general rouse of them even the start -- generous of them, even the start of those 17 days i didn't know them well. i'd 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. and so, i mean, you know 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 they'd ever said publicly, they'd ever said in the parliament their voting records. what could i get to to know about how they saw the world and could i find some connectioning points between us and -- connection points between us and them which would make it
4:50 pm
viable. and over 17 long days -- and they certainly were long days -- i managed to do that. and it was and i describe this in the book. for me in some ways it was kind of a lonely time. whilst wayne swan was sort of there supporting me and i had great staff supporting me including ian davidoff, you know, either i could do it or i couldn't. there wasn't actually a whole lot that even the best of my ministerial colleagues could do because it needed to be this leadership negotiation. so i recount in the book ringing one of my good colleagues penny wong who went on to be miner is of finance -- minister of finance, and it was like 10:30 in the morning and i said, what are you doing? she said i'm roasting spices. i said, you're roasting spices? [laughter] so for a minister with a lot of energy in this 17 days of common stasis, she was making the
4:51 pm
world's most complex meals from scratch -- [laughter] right to the extent of roasting the spices. [laughter] i don't even know how you do that. apparently, it can be done. [laughter] and, i mean, tanya would remember what it was like too, but it was just this sense of, you know, waiting, waiting waiting and working and working, working and then finally we got enough people to say yes. but once everybody said yes it was actually this great growing sense of common endeavor which meant that people hung together even in very difficult days and through some very controversial propositions. and we then had the reverse of the problem for most australian governments. most australian governments -- including the current government -- have finish the numbers in the house of representatives -- have the numbers in the house of representatives sho they can bang something through. they get to the senate and they don't have the numbers and
4:52 pm
they've got to flounder around. our government's budget is very hostage to that process at the moment. we had the reverse. once we could get the numbers in the house of representatives basically, we could get it through the senate because it meant the greens were onboard. they were with us in the senate, we'd get it through. and so it turned out with all of this odd start and curious dynamic as a minority government, to be a very productive parliament in terms of the pieces of legislation that went through. and there are days when i get a bit of awry smile and -- a wry smile and think to myself we got budget bills through in record time. if i'd ever taken the amount of time the current government is taking to get its budget through, our newspapers would have been screaming crisis in huge, you know, fonts on the front. our prime minister has been fond of talking about budget emergencies. actually, you know an inability to get your budget legislation through is a bit of a problem.
4:53 pm
and it would be, it'll be interesting to see when the focus goes back on that problem and what can be achieved through negotiations by this government. >> i just want to say that, you know, the labour party is full of literate people. not only did julia write a book, but wayne swan, and now i'm thigpenny has to write a book call -- thinking penny has to write a book called "roasting spices." laugh i want to open it up to the audience because we've got so many people here who know so much about australia. i'm going to combine two questions. the book is brilliantly organized for political junkies. i told you, this is a good way to sell a book. all of the great politics is in the first 130 pages, so political junkie journalists can read the first 130 pages and leave substance like education climate change -- [laughter] but there is this that, at the
4:54 pm
beginning a chapter called "the enemy within." and while my first quotation is going to be your view of the press, that is not the enemy within. but it's about what was happening inside the labour party. so i'll ask two questions. one is just the media in general, and the setup in australia is somewhat different than ours although there are some things in common, i think. you said good government does not work at the same speed as the media. no journalist is ever or going to be happy with a day in which the prime minister quietly and methodically reads. [laughter] thinks deeply and makes decisions. i just would love you to talk about that. but for those of us hear watching your labour party and especially for -- here watching your labour party, there was really a what are you people doing over there sense. [laughter] i mean, first you throw kim out as leader, and you express some
4:55 pm
regrets about that. you and kevin throw him out as leader then you throw kevin out as lead e and then kevin throws you out as leader and then there's an election finally where the voters -- even the though labour had the best economic record arguably of any government on the face -- democratic country in the world -- you lose the election. so if you could talk about a the media and, b, what is it with your party? [laughter] those are the easy ones. >> all right. two very simple questions. thanks for that, e.j.. [laughter] >> and then we'll a softball from the audience. [laughter] >> on the media, i actually think there's a set of common problems here. but if anything, there's -- we've got an extra problem and the extra problem is because we are a limited population only 23 million people whilst this age enables the development of
4:56 pm
alternate media, our market is pretty thin. so it's only going to sponsor so much alternate media whereas here because the market is thicker, deeper more people more people interested, more money, therefore in potential circulation to media outlets that you'll end up and you are ending up with more diversity than us. but the thing that's common is many this media age i've been comparing it to speeches of the advent of all you can eat restaurants. do you remember when we first got all you can eat restaurants, and you'd go away groaning with food? you'd go a bit mad, wouldn't you? you'd just be stuffing down as much food as you humanly could for the or time you were in the all you can eat restaurant. and i think we are at that stage with our media that it's so much coming at us so quickly that the journalists who are
4:57 pm
generating it -- many of the best journalists who are generating it are regretful that they can't spend more time on generating deeper pieces. but they've got, you know editors barking at them to fill the space, you know? blog, tweet, get on 24-hour tv, get your column in, blog, tweet again that it's thinning out our national conversations. and everything emerges devoid of context. it's like it pops out, no looking back what does this relate to, no looking forward, what could this possibly lead to, and no depth. and so -- >> otherwise it's perfect. >> otherwise it's perfect. [laughter] so i talk in the book about, you know the experience of, you know launching master policies mid-morning which required thought and analysis and having journalists by midday ringing my press office saying have you got a story for us? because, you know, they'd tweeted, they'd blogged they'd appeared on 24/7 tv where
4:58 pm
journalists now take to interviewing journalists. they don't actually need talent anymore, they've got each other. [laughter] and then the cycle moves. so i hope that this is a transition time. and because the technologien ables us to get all of this information, we'll get used to it and we'll move to a newer age where we go from the all you can eat back to the more selective i'd rather eat less, have it of better quality and have it more customized to my tastes. and in the media parallel i don't mean by that biased i mean by that a deeper dive into the issues i care about. but 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
4:59 pm
governing he's had the same problems with the speed and thinness of the media that we've had. on what's wrong with our political party -- [laughter] i feel like i should be deferring to kim and t.a.r.p. ya. tanya on this. i think if you were trying to draw across all of the events -- and there were different elements in each of them and different personalities in each of them and i speak about kevin and my regret about events about him in the book -- if you wanted to draw across all of it, i think our political party is in the modern age still trying to get the balance between how much it is a leader's party, how much of its identity is defined by the leader and how much of its quest for popularity is correlated with the leader's set about to the electorate --
5:00 pm
acceptability to the electorate as measured by polls. ..
5:01 pm
good to see you again. bring the conversation back to one of the things that happened on your watch was the us made every balance. not trying to draw you into semantics, but semantics, but the straightforward question, how you think we are doing with policy looking at it now and all the things that have happened. >> okay. the pivot rebalanced it happen on my watch. i do need to pay a tribute to former prime minister rudd here. he certainly parts of the us clearly a page for the us to join the 8th asia summit, and it was a very good advance. and, you no the joining of
5:02 pm
the east asia summit was an element of what became the pivot. the pivot was given a lot of mhn/when pres. obama came to australia, spoke to our parliament talked about the us deep engagement in the region and at the same time secretary clinton was standing on an aircraft carrier just on the philippines, and so the whole imagery was an american president. the region speaking about the us and its future in the region and, and, yes the us is a formidable nation, and here is the image of being formidable aircraft carrier, you would know more about them than i ever will but, but they are bloody big things. that, i think but obviously
5:03 pm
us, australia with our long-standing alliance, but if you were a nation in the region us china that was an important one. what was fortunately also an important moment was when president obama would not count opec and the east asia summit last year because he was tied down in washington with the debt default problem and if you are one of those nations taking us china, us, china i think the problem with that is people don't doubt the word of the us that it seeks to be deeply engaged in the region trouble and they look at washington they give it
5:04 pm
stuck in her mind about the my mind about the capability to see through which is not a good place to be. and so i think there is a need to very deeply -- it is not like you have gone but the visibility of the engagement is to be lifted in the years to come. >> we're making progress. the former prime minister did not tell us what hillary clinton was wearing on the aircraft. [laughter] >> these three women right here. right behind you. and you. and then just pass it up to your colleague. at stake three at once. >> i would like to say hello for sleep. firstly. and thank you for speaking, prime minister. i just have two questions.
5:05 pm
the 1st is on gender. i would like to no how you mentally dealt with the misogyny and chauvinism meet up with on a daily basis from those in the on the opposite side of the bench of those on the media. secondly a question on education based on the current sort of problems with the current governments looking to not the university charges so that universities can set there own prices on degrees. what is your opinion on that as someone who just finished university two years ago that scares me thinking that that could could wipe. it is just going to get worse. >> thank you.
5:06 pm
if i can ask that corrects i am a fellow. i'm currently basis eis. i just wanted you to know as well that this is happened more than once and a reminder that my daily troubles are probably not as bad as years. the sex is an issue, you obviously experience the most appalling and folder sexism while you were in the nation's highest office obviously before you were in politics you had a different career.
5:07 pm
i was just wondering if you had in the comments how sex is a manifested from that you worked in an assortment of more regular workplace and were you surprised by the changes that you observed when he became prime minister? >> thank you so much. and then we we will go one more round, i think. >> thank you so much for being here. my question off chief of actually builds off of the two that were just that. thank you so much for the grace and humility that you displayed as prime minister. is is he a professional with intent to the field of foreign policy and international affairs are certainly look to you as a role model being a young female professional looking to enter what is typically a male-dominated field. i am just curious to no the challenges that you experienced early on in your career and how you overcame
5:08 pm
those challenges. >> all very good questions. i will try and do my best to answer them. on the sexism in different context my early days of labor party i think the difference really is the degree of division you encounter as prime minister and politics and put the spotlight is. it could be a pretty boise around the kind of place. in fact, that fact, that was part of its imagery. an unashamed labor law firm but because the division debates within the partnership and the firm generally were not very hot
5:09 pm
that might have slightly different views about things there was a great degree of consensus across the farm, fellow who were trying to do prime minister. i think i think the difference really is when i became prime minister i deliberately i deliberately thought, i won't try and shine a spotlight myself. and i thought that any positive reaction to that, any negative reaction to that would be immediately after becoming prime minister and would abate and that would be judged on
5:10 pm
being prime minister. what i actually experienced different from the law firm in my early days is that when it got hard and you know, divided sexism became the convenient instrument of criticism. we thought it was framed as a sort of sexist attack. and that element of politics i think, is the one that people sort of last onto. it is that element i tried to do with in the book. in terms of your question, i talk about this in the book. i have not tried to write a self-help. i would not be any good at that.
5:11 pm
i have tried to talk about resilience and what you can do. i generally think it is much stronger as you use it. i tried to talk about strategies that worked for me because actually in the modern age you don't need to be politics to feel that you are besieged by a lot of criticism. i can't imagine what it's like to grow up as a teenage girl today with all of the normal teenage anxieties you no all of the things the kids go through and have an instant course of criticism on social media. but that today is a reality. whether you are prime minister whether you are that teenage girl i think a strategy for dealing with it
5:12 pm
is really kind of sort of pushed around by the critiques and having watched of the women in politics one of the things that you can easily succumb to is this sort of golden girl phenomenon, isn't she doing well, isn't she good. you get put on a pedestal. a long way to fall. when you fall you through the other end of the cycle deliberately made a set of decisions that i was not going to let my sense of self the hostage to either the golden girl phenomenon or the pressure of the pedestal. i was the same person on the days the newspapers are right well in the days the newspapers are running badly and i think that is an important kind of coping
5:13 pm
strategy. in my mid-20s to decide that i would like to be in politics. the treatment at the time but back across the full sweep of politics. it probably did not help. how you deal with rejection. so for yourself into as many negative experiences as possible but in the way of handing out a few and it's
5:14 pm
important to me you know, learn from them and strengthen resilience. >> thank you so much. the next book is easy, pray, vote. lovely. maybe one more. way in the back there. there. and the lady over there and the lady in front of her. we are supposed to close down soon, three minutes ago. right. so go ahead, sir. >> hello. from the australian financial review. you lamented about the bipartisanship being lost in the australian parliament on issues such as carbon processing. australia's new prime minister is just called from a church debate on things like tax reform and signaled signal that maybe there
5:15 pm
should be debate about increasing the gst. do you think that is something that both sides of parliament could engage on materially? >> i'm sorry to everyone else. >> i have a question, thank you for all you said and did, but i have a question on the press. love or hate people and report while about regardless of their work. to the best. would you change something your relation to wreck it was just hopeless. >> to not mention the name.
5:16 pm
>> you have been through all kinds of issues. prime minister, what is strong position that you should have in order to deal with the public interest for the general public. they don't agree with communism. i just wonder if you can come up with something that can really improve the general public interest and get rid of the 1 percent, 99 percent problem and get rid of the 1 percent, 99 percent problem. >> thank you.
5:17 pm
>> just a brief a brief question. came out of the left faction of your state, but it was one of the two left factions yet i look at your politics as they developed and have seen people out of the right of the labor party a moving to the left. those factions within the labor party still have any ideological meaning? are there days numbered or will they be with us but primarily for other purposes? >> my quick question, do you think -- we think a lot about misses thatcher as an obvious and major figure. do you think there is a
5:18 pm
difference with him being woman of the centerleft and a woman of the center-right? >> and when i was growing up in adelaide it was impossible. morning paper the afternoon paper. all of these years later in many parts of australia readily available the
5:19 pm
readily available newspaper for people is only the murdoch paper. the daily paper only the murdoch paper. so that does mean that their are questions of quality and questions of bias that intersects. and i deal with some of that in the book and my hankering for markets that had more diversity and more quality and presentation to the public. and certainly on carbon pricing. some some of the things that got published as fact were just so ridiculously rubbish. you know a distorted the public discussion and a way that
5:20 pm
was not helpful. as a measly that you get editorials in newspapers being of generations of politicians asking why they are not more prepared to tackle deep debate. debate. the newspapers and making sure that any debate gets distorted. often but quite serious reporting. i think it actually that leads back to this question of gender. but the issues of gender for me for playing out in a medium market which was overwhelmingly hostile to the government's agenda if you were from the center-right, and agenda and i got a lot of support in our media market, how would questions of gender play out? think they would still be their, but you would not
5:21 pm
have the media. so i think there is connection. on the day-to-day political question i am going to disappoint you and say you need to talk to a day-to-day australian politician about that because the debates for the current generation something i try to be as rigorous about is possible as possible not looming over the shoulder of the current generation but they have my complete support and i hope that they do well. i am confident that they will. will. on, you know, the issues about the factions and labor , for a long time, well before i was i was deputy prime minister, even deputy opposition leader for long
5:22 pm
time back i decided in the modern age most of this was nonsense and i get word came from, a difference of difference of opinion around attitudes toward communism and the soviet union in the us and the whole 9 yards but in the modern age without those faultlines it really had -- seems to have meaning. meaning. and i think the real fault lines and labor today you you know there is a broad consensus on the economic sphere, the power of markets, the engagement of markets to be properly regulated the need for good social services, frost have stronger cooperative economy
5:23 pm
in the way of the agenda with people would would call the left of what people would call the right. a few outliers on either side and then there is the social policy continuous and that runs more progressive through to the more conservative and are questions like abortion, same-sex marriage maybe with some reflection to women's role and most of those things the pressure gets taken off. so i got elected into parliament the same time as a very good friend of mine is a wonderful house to the health minister

8 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on