As a minor MUP author it is terrific to be here to help launch the work of a major MUP author.
It is a real honour to be involved with the launch of Paul Kelly's book. Paul and I go back quite a long way. Back in the late 1980s I was a relatively young editorial writer at The Australian. Paul, even then, was the guru in chief of the press gallery and I was often instructed by editor, Frank Devine, not to write our editorial of the day without first discussing it with Paul Kelly.
I was, as I said, relatively young and quite junior. Paul, even then, was the sage of Canberra. He was unfailingly courteous, unfailingly patient with the precocious colleague in Sydney and he kept talking to me even though from time to time I had the temerity not to agree with the Kelly line.
This is the thing about Paul Kelly, you never read a Kelly column, you never have a conversation with Kelly which is not utterly instructive. I have benefited enormously, not just from Paul's friendship but from his wisdom.
I recall as a neophyte political staffer, having moved from The Australian to the office of the then Leader of the Opposition John Hewson, very early on in my time, receiving a special visit from The Australian's political correspondent in chief. It was about 5.30 one Friday afternoon. It was quite an unusual thing for a person of such gallery seniority to pay a special visit to the then Opposition Leader's press office but Paul came in. He sat me down and he said "I have a little test for you. Who is the most successful Opposition Leader of the post war period?" It was an easy question. I said, Gough Whitlam. He said, “Here is a harder question for you – why was Gough Whitlam such a successful Opposition Leader?" And I scratched my head for a few moments and said, “Look, I just don't know.” Paul said, "He was a successful Opposition Leader not just because he won elections but because he set agendas and he set agendas by making considered, powerful, thoughtful speeches from time to time which helped to shape the whole political culture in which he operated and indeed all of us operated".
I am not sure that I have been able to follow Paul's advice but I certainly accept his advice as sage. It is important to set the agenda and if you don't set the agenda, you can't successfully run a government.
The tragedy, if I may say so, and this will be the only party political comment that I will make today. The tragedy, if I may say so, of the former Government, which is chronicled in Paul's book; the tragedy for itself, because I think in the end it was at the heart of its failure, the tragedy for our country, because it is in our national interest for all our governments to succeed, regardless of their political persuasion, the tragedy of the last Government was that it was much better at politics than government. It wasn't able, in the end, to set the agenda even though it was very good, at least early on, at generating headlines.
Over 40 years, Paul Kelly has been perhaps our foremost political commentator but certainly our finest historian of contemporary politics. Triumph and Demise reinforces his standing as our finest historian of contemporary politics.
Everyone who is interested in public life, everyone who is interested in Australian politics, should read this book – not just read the book, they should consume the book, they should assimilate the book, they should learn from the book.
This is the first considered draft of the history of these times.
There’s been an abundance of journalism about the last six years, but, inevitably, daily journalism lacks perspective.
We’ve even seen some books written about the last six years. Inevitably, by partisans – by participants – and I have to say that it’s been advocacy, it’s been partisanship, sometimes it’s been score settling; it hasn’t been history. Paul has given us the first considered draft of the history of these times.
Today, as I said, I wish to leave the judgements of those times – the judgements on the Rudd/Gillard era – to Paul, the author, and to his readers.
Yes, Paul is critical – very critical at times – of the former government. What shines through though, even when he is critical, is his generosity to all of the participants in our parliamentary and public life.
Even when Paul is being critical, he sees the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the participants in our national drama. He sees their qualities as well as their flaws, and it’s this generosity of spirit as well as perceptiveness of judgement which sets Paul part from so many of his fellow contemporary journalists.
Not for Kelly, the sourness which so often contaminates so much commentary. Not for Kelly, the shallowness which is sometimes the subject matter of so much commentary. He is interested in the big picture, in what really matters, not in just the gossip of the day or of the week.
I should say, though, that there is one substantial issue with which I do take issue with Paul. Paul suggests, in a very important final chapter of the book, that our system is in trouble and because our system is in trouble, our country might be in trouble.
Paul suggests that the relentless negativity of our contemporary conversation, the culture of entitlement that he thinks has sprung up over the last decade or so, means that good government has become difficult, perhaps impossible.
There is no doubt that good government today is harder than ever before, in part, because of the 24/7 media cycle, which politicians inevitably need to feed.
It’s difficult to avoid trivialising what shouldn't be trivialised when it has to be spoken about and spoken about differently one hour from the next.
I was watching Sky just the other day, as you do, and at about 5.50 there was David Speers interviewing Stan Grant about the events of the day, and then shortly after 6 o'clock we had Stan Grant interviewing David Speers about the events of the day. Now I have to say, as a political junky it is riveting television! I have to say, as a political tragic, everything that they said to each other was worth listening to. But, it’s easy to lose sight of the fundamentals that shape our nation when we are this immersed in commentary on what’s happened on any particular day.
The system that produced the Rudd/Gillard government is the same system that produced the Hawke government, the same system that produced the Howard government. The Hawke government was undoubtedly the best Labor Government in our history, and along with the Menzies government, the Howard government can lay claim to being the best conservative government in our history.
If this system could produce, in the recent past, two outstanding governments, there is no reason why it can't, in the near future, produce other outstanding governments.
It’s not the system which is the problem; it is the people who, from time to time, inhabit it.
Our challenge, at every level, is to be our best selves. The challenge for all of us and everyone in this room today as part of the system, is to lift ourselves so that we see the system at its best, not the system at its worst.
The mission, if I may say so, of the current Government, is to demonstrate, through its action, ultimately through its record, that the last six years – the six years between 2007 and 2013 – is not the new normal; that it was in fact just a passing phase.
Our challenge – the challenge of the current Government – is to show that the age of reform has not ended, it was merely interrupted.
I believe it is absolutely critical for our country that we succeed in this task, and if we do succeed in this task, I am sure that no one would be happier than Paul Kelly himself.
[ends]