E&OE………………………………………………………………………………………
Well, thank you very much, Mr Chairman, to the State Premier’s, to my several predecessors as Prime Minister of Australia who are here today, your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
To get my priorities right, I should tell you that Pat Rafter won the first set seven – five. And it’s three all in the second. And you know, I may be able to tell you something more by the time I finish.
But ladies and gentlemen, we are coming to the end of what has been a very special week for Australia here in London. A week filled not only with historic observances and contribution but also a week which has enabled me along with my colleagues as Premiers of the Australian states and with the assistance of four former Prime Ministers, two Coalition in John Gorton and Malcolm Fraser and two from the Australian Labor Party in Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke. And I mean that expression its best sense because when we Australians go abroad in a political capacity we should always go abroad not in the name of our political parties but in the name of our country.
And the Federation story has been a story to which all stands of public opinion in Australia at a political level have contributed. I’ve had many remarkable experiences as Prime Minister and no doubt my predecessors would reflect in the same way if they were in my position today. But probably one of the most supremely moving occasions I’ve been involved in as Prime Minister was on last Anzac Day when along with the Prime Minister of New Zealand we went and opened the new memorial on Anzac Cove. And the truly astonishing thing about that occasion was the vast sea of young Australian and New Zealand faces. Something in the order of twelve to fifteen thousand young Australians had made the pilgrimage to be part of that. And what we have witnessed over the last few years, is what I can only describe as an exploding interest in our country’s heritage. A thirst for understanding and knowledge of our past, a desire to try and interpret it for the future. And I think it’s a truly fascinating journey. What accounts for it is hard to fathom. It obviously owes much to the fact that we are on the eve of celebrating one hundred years of the Australian Federation. I think also owes much to the realisation of current Australian generations of the scale of the Australian achievement over the last one hundred years. The impact of Australian culture, the impact of Australian artists, the extraordinary capacity of reborn Australian film industry to communicate the essence of Australianism to the rest of the world. I think it also has something to do with that realisation that eventually comes to all of us in relation to past events, and that is that very soon there will be nobody left alive who actually participated in those events. There are only two people left alive in the world, both of them Australian, who were amongst the allied forces who served on Gallipoli. And I understood in discussion with my Turkish counterparts that there are no Turkish survivors of that campaign.
So, we are at a moment where, I think, the interest of Australians in their history, where they came from, where they want to go and what it means to be an Australian is at a peak and a level of commitment and interest that I have not experienced. There is not amongst the under thirty generation in Australia the cynicism about the past that was sometimes more the norm than the exception in the 1960s and the 1970s. And the reason for those differences itself would repay some kind of special study.
So it’s therefore entirely appropriate, compellingly so, that we should have this Australia week here in London to mark the one hundred years passage of the Acts of the British Parliament that gave birth to the Federation. Much has no doubt been said historically about those events. The truly astonishing thing when one looks back was the relative ease with which the argument was won. As is well known, the real area of debate with Joseph Chamberlain surrounded one narrow issue and that is the circumstances in which appeals might lie in the soon to be formed High Court of Australia to the Privy Council. And of course that situation has been all of a piece with other constitutional negotiations between the then colonial office and the then Australian colonies stretching back to self government for New South Wales and then further on the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, some twelve to thirteen years were to go by until that was ratified by the Cutin, at the instance of the Curtin Government in 1943.
And I think if we look back on those days, it can at least be said that Anglo-Australian relations on the basis of us being an independent nation got off to a good start. Of course although we had our constitutional independence in 1901, I certainly have the view, and it may or may not be shared by all of the historians here that the events of World War I really began to very separately carve out and define the Australian character. Not only in relation to the sacrifices at Gallipoli in the scale and immensity of Australian loss of life in that war, but also the inevitable emergence of a distinctive Australian way of doing things and the inevitable unwillingness as time went by to accept uncritically decisions made which were imposed upon Australia and in which Australia paid a very heavy price.
The Anglo-Australian relationship has had elements of passion, elements of fierce disagreement. There has on occasions people have properly said something of a love hate character about it. And certainly that has been the case in a sporting context. But it has been a relationship which has endured over a one hundred year period, and in many senses is more equal and relaxed and reciprocal now than perhaps at any time during that one hundred year period. There is no longer in the relationship the dominance that cone existed when it was common for people to refer to the mother country and it was common to Australians to refer to a visit to Britain as going home, that of course has all changed. And some of the inevitable differences, even antagonisms that arose in relation to the conduct of aspects of World War II and in particular the disposition of Australian army units when there was a direct threat on the mainland of Australia. All of those things have now passed into history, they are not forgotten. They play a part in the fabric of the relationship. But I think we can find in the contemporary relationship, be it commercial or be it an analysis of our history we can find in the contemporary relationship a sense of continuity and equilibrium that we have not had before.
We share, as I said the other night at the Guildhall, the most precious of all things, and that is a commitment to certain common values. We are amongst that very limited, unique number of countries that have been continuously democratic for the whole of the 20th century. We are amongst that very small group of countries that ultimately stood between the barbarians of World War II and the abyss. We are countries that have a true commitment, painful though it is on occasion for participating politicians to the belief that one of the pillars of a democratic society is a free and open press. We are a society that believes, we are societies that believe very deeply in the rule of law. And we are societies that are very heavily committed to robust Parliamentary institutions. I belong to the school of thought that says that robust institutions are greater guarantors of fundamental human rights that stylishly written bills of rights. If you have a nation that’s got a strong, open, transparent political system, if you have an incorruptible judiciary and if you have a free press you have in those three things greater guarantees of individual liberty than perhaps any stylishly written bill of rights can provide. Now, of course there will be many in that room, there will be many in the room who will disagree with me and that can be subject of some further discourse on another occasion.
If I look back on the last one hundred years, and I acknowledge how much we have in common with the United Kingdom, I acknowledge the debt that we owe to the British, those positive elements of the British inheritance that we chose to keep, it’s a very impressive list. But it is, of course, a reciprocal relationship. And much has already been said about what the British owe to Australia over that period of time. But it is interesting if you reflect on that one hundred years, to see very clearly emerging some distinctive Australian contributions to the generic practice, or the generic working out of the values and principles that we hold in common. There is little doubt that the egalitarian spirit is one of those things that was an early definer of the distinctive Australian character. And it’s not possible to seriously analyse the history of Australia over the last one hundred years without acknowledging how passionately felt by most Australians is a belief in the egalitarian concept. It defines the practice of our military forces in World War I and continue to do so and it’s defined practice in the attitudes of our society. Not always perfectly and distressingly the whole combination of reasons, some of the gaps in Australian society now are wider than we would have wanted them to be or we would want them to be in the future. That is a trend that’s been apparent in our community for some time. There are complex reasons for it, not all of them are economic, some of them are geared to the breaking down of the extended family and the greater incidence of family and relationship breakdown than was the case a generation ago, once again the subject for another conference by this group and the Menzies Centre.
But ladies and gentlemen, that egalitarian attitude has very heavily influence policy in this country, in Australia. And one of the things that I’ve often reflected on as I’ve thought about the moulding of public policy is the way in which in many areas, Australia has been able to have a happy amalgam of what is good in other societies and been careful to discard what is less acceptable in those societies. I think one of the very successful, even clever things, that Australia was able to do in relation to social welfare provision and I speak of the contribution of both sides of Australian politics to this since World War II was to avoid what I still regard as the harshness of some aspects of the American treatment of the social security safety net. But likewise not to embrace the rather too heavy state intervention which has been a feature of many of the European social security systems.
And you can see coming out of that egalitarian spirit, you can see very, very clearly the development of what I could call an Australian way. The way that says that it is the obligation of society never to allow people to be without proper sustenance, but equally it is the obligation of society to ensure that sustenance having been provided at a proper level, if it is reasonable to do so something might be given back. I think we have been rather successful for all the criticism that has been levelled at us over the years from both sides of politics, I think we have been rather successful in relation to those matters.
But I am very conscious Mr Chairman that this is not only a gathering of historians, and although I am not an historian, I have a love of history, something I share very much in common with my premier colleague, Bob Carr who is present today and many others. But I am also very conscious that this is a gathering of business men and women who are interested in the Australian economy, are interested in the character and the dimensions of the economic relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom.
I speak with natural enthusiasm even verve about the current strength of the Australian economy. I bring to those of you who may not be familiar with it a story of an economy that’s been growing at 4% for each of the last five years. An Australian economy that’s seen 712,000 more jobs generated in that period. An economy that was able to stare down the worst of the Asian economic downturn. An economy which has seen the fruits of intelligent reform. And let me say quite openly and genuinely that those reforms have been contributed to by both sides of politics. The deregulation of the Australian financial system, the floating of the dollar which occurred when Mr Hawke was prime minister, strongly supported by the then Opposition. It was a seminal event in opening up the Australian economy. And I’ve always given credit to the former Labor government for that event, and equally the tariff reductions initiated, often in the face of some considerable criticism from the trade union movement in Australia during the period of the former government also played a part in creating a much better economic climate.
In recent years of course the work that my government has undertaken to put the Budget not only in balance, but also in substantial surplus, to change the industrial relations syste – I think on that point Bob and I might begin to part a little bit of company – but nonetheless ladies and gentlemen they have made a very, very strong contribution, all of those things. And most recently of course we have embraced a fundamental change to the Australian taxation system. A change that everybody who’s had any influence on Australian politics in the last twenty-five years has really known at some stage that his or her political existence was a reform that had to be undertaken. And the change that came into operation on the 1st of July is bigger in scope than any other institutional economic change that Australia has seen in the last fifty years or more. Not only embraces the introduction of a broad-based indirect tax, but also significant reductions in personal tax, a virtual halving of the capital gains tax, the company tax rate – all designed to make a contribution to the greater international competitiveness of the Australian economy.
I endeavoured to explain in my address to the nation on the new taxation system, tax reform was but the next crucial step along the path to making the Australian economy not only stronger and more soundly based, but also more capable of surviving international competition. But it is important for all of us, whether we are in business or in politics, all of us who are concerned about the future of our society and the cohesion of our society, whether it be in Australia or here in Britain, to remember that economic policy however you define it and however you pursue it, is never some end in itself. That the purpose of economic policy is to produce a social dividend to achieve social goals. Personal contentment and human fulfilment and the stability and cohesion of society are the ultimate goals of sound economic policy. We can differ and argue about what are the right policies, we surely don’t differ and argue that the goals at the end of the day are goals of social cohesion and of human contentment, and human fulfilment and all economic policy must be measured against that.
Australia is an attractive investment destination for the business men and women of any nation. We have a strong economy. We have importantly an outward looking people, a well educated workforce. We have great cultural diversity, 800,000 Australians speak Asian languages, a very high proportion of Australians speak a language other than English at home. We have clear rules of corporate governance. We have a very transparent legal system. We have great political stability. And we are socially a very harmonious community. We’re not without our faults or our past blemishes. But we do represent to the rest of the world a great success story.
This has been as I said at the beginning of my remarks, this has been a great week for Australia. It has been an opportunity at a political level and at a business level to present to the people of London our view of the modern Australia. Many of them are very well informed about it in any event. But it has been an opportunity, whatever our views may be on other subjects it has been an opportunity for we Australians to reflect on what we have in common with our friends in Britain. It is always possible to honour your history, to understand its contribution to where you are today without in any way diminishing your own sense of identity, your sense of independence and your sense of relating to other parts of the world, or other parts of your existence.
There will always be in the Australian experience and the Australian existence a very significant element that owes its heritance to what the British gave us. They have us much – the rule of law, the parliamentary system and all the other things of which I’ve spoken. It has been a very close relationship. It’s been a relationship that’s had its ups and downs, but because as I say it is so firmly rooted on values that both of us hold in common, universal values, enduring values. It is a relationship that will endure strongly and firmly and soundly into the next century and beyond. Thank you.
Q:
Prime Minister, [inaudible] in this year’s [inaudible] Australia turning, appearing to turn its back on Europe in favour of its relationship with Asia. And your Asian neighbours have become, recently quite more unruly than perhaps you thought they may have been. Can we hope that in the future Australia will be more even handed in its relationship with both Asia and Europe and recognise the sovereign duties which Australian companies are making here and which European companies make to Australia as well?
PM:
Well, I am interested to hear that question because sections of the Australian press back home have criticised me for allegedly showing less enthusiasm for our country’s association with Asia. What I have sought to do is somewhat rebalance our relationship. I have never accepted the view that is often implicit in the kind of question you’ve just asked that we face in Australia some choice between our history and our geography, that’s ridiculous. Our relationship with Asia adds value to our relationship with Europe and North America. And our relationship with Europe and North America ought to add value to our relationship with Asia. I indicated this morning by way of you know, explanation the point I seek to make - Japan’s our best customer everyone knows that, Korea has been amongst our very best customers over the past few years – yet 70% of our outward investment goes either to the United Kingdom or to the United States. 53% of our trade goes to East Asia, but when the Asian economic crisis hit our capacity for a combination of reasons to divert exports to Europe and North America was something that helped saved the bacon as far as we were concerned. So my answer is, I have sought to ensure that we have a completely even-handed outlook in relation to, I mean we need, we need Asia. We’re geographically part of the Asian Pacific region, our destiny is forever linked with what happens there. Particularly our relations with many of the major countries of that region. But we will also need associations and linkages, trade and otherwise, with the people of Europe and the people of North America. Apart from anything else we have many values in common with them. And I guess the final point I would make, it’s always very important to make it when you talk about relations between Australia and Asia, and that is that there are different parts of Asia. Our relationships really have to almost be looked at in relation to that region in terms of a whole series of bi-lateral relationships. They vary, some of them are not easy at the moment. Others are in as good a shape as they’ve been for decades.
Well, seven – five in the first set, but I am afraid four – six the wrong way in the second set, and Rafter is leading two – one in the third. So, you know.
Q:
Prime Minister, I as one of the historians present would like to ask you to develop a theme that you raised – during this week we’ve heard a great deal about Britain’s legacy in Australia, but as you quite properly observed, Britain also owes much to Australia. And I wonder if I might invite you to explore a bit further the ways in which in your experience Britain is learning from Australia.
PM:
Well, I won’t get onto sport. Well, I think the, I think it’s fair to say that although as an Australian I would never think any other country could match our instinct for egalitarianism, I hope to believe that we may have played a part in some of the questioning of some of the structures of society, both here and other parts of Europe that has been underway for some time. I think that when I speak to what Britain owes to Australia I certainly have in mind the scale of Australia’s commitment to military conflict over the last one hundred years. On any objective measure as was observed in a speech I think at the Gallery, at the Royal Gallery yesterday, that contribution was beyond what might have been reasonably expected.
I think as our societies, particularly in the age of information technology, as our societies become closer together rather than further apart, I think we unconsciously through the common culture, particularly of the young, we unconsciously contribute to each other and we influence, influence each other without really knowing. I think the impact of the Australian film industry and Australian entertainers on Britain and on London, the contributions that Australians are making to great institutions like the Royal Ballet, the imprints that Australians have made on opera and the imprint that Australians have made on popular entertainment. I think all of those things have made a disproportionately large impact on British society, that’s part of Australian achievement over this period of time that with a population of only 20 million people we have been able to achieve that.
J:
My name is Mellissa Hardy I’m a partner at [inaudible] one of the city firms. My question for Mr Howard is in relation to your passports. Many of us live and work in Europe, to be politically correct, which entitles us in fact to take out a European passport, but to do so would mean that we would have to surrender our Australian passports and having listened to Mr Howard today you can understand why we are not prepared to do so, we are Australian. This has a couple of consequences. The first is that we miss out on the mobility that we would otherwise have in terms of freedom in Europe in doing Australian business in Europe. It also means that we are treated inconsistency with, for instance, Europeans who move to Australia, take up Australian passports and are still allowed to retain their own European passports. And my question is, can we ask the government to in fact remove this policy and to allow Australians abroad to in fact take up your passports?
PM:
Well, I think you’re really raising a question of dual citizenship. And, I mean, it goes beyond just a question of dual passports. We have a committee on citizenship that was chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor General, very distinguished Governor General of Australia, and he has made some recommendations including one that bears very much on this point, and that is something the government is looking at at the present time. I have to say to you in all candour that the argument is not all on the side you put. There are some people who feel quite strongly that if you are born with Australian nationality and you want to acquire another nationality it’s not unreasonable to say you should have to choose. It’s difficult. I simply want to say to you I understand the convenience argument, and I think it’s a very powerful argument. It’s a very compelling argument, I well remember years ago I had an uncle who was in the air force during the war and like many Australian pilots were trained in Canada and he married a Canadian girl and went back to live in Canada and retained [inaudible] of Australia and he retained his Australian passport for about thirty years and in the end because he travelled frequently to the United States where a Canadian [inaudible] differently [inaudible] as far as in and out is concerned than others. He felt he compelled to make a change which he didn’t like doing. I understand the problem. We are looking at it, but I have got to say as it were say that there are a lot of people who feel very strongly that you in some way diminish Australian nationality by allowing people to opt to acquire another one and [inaudible] Australian nationality. But if others chose, I know it looks as though it operates unfairly in the other direction, I understand that. That also is something that is going to be put into the melting pot in looking at it. But we are considering it, but we haven’t reached a decision and I’ll certainly bear in mind the feelings that are being expressed to me. But this may not be an utterly representative audience and utterly representative sample of Australian opinion on the subject.
J:
Prime Minister, Michael Dodd, Australian journalist living in London, one time resident of Canberra.
PM:
[inaudible]
J:
I’m independent these days. But I was interested to find out if you had a view that the Australian mindset is perhaps a touch adolescent when it comes to the costs of overseas trips by Australian leaders and former leaders as well. Do you have a view on that?
PM:
Well, I don’t think it’s the Australian mindset. It’s the mindset of some people who either write in or influence the media. I think it’s always easy game, I mean I understand that, you understand that. But I, and I know that this will be warmly supported in this room in this place at this time. That’s to be expected. I think that has the reaction of some in the media, and I stress some, there have been some very notable exceptions has been very adolescent indeed.
J:
Prime Minister, as one of the other historians present, I would like to ask you a question. Earlier this year on the departure of Queen Elizabeth from Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald ran an editorial where it was written that one thing which we can all be agreed on Australia is no longer a British country. One thing which we are unable to agree on is when that happened. So I wonder if you would like to reflect on that question, Mr Howard, when in your view did Britain become a foreign country?
PM:
Well, I won’t try and answer than in a constitutional sense. The High Court has properly concluded that Britain is in legal terms a foreign country, whether in the minds of some people that’s emotionally the case is another matter. I think it was much earlier than many people think. I mean really believe very much that the distinctive Australian identity began to emerge in World War I. I have always believed as an amateur historian that was the real beginning of it. And if you, how you look at the stories of the argument, allegedly, between, was it King George the IV and the Scullin Government was it, about the appointment of the first Australian born Governor General and Isaacs and that was in the early 1930s. That was a sign of a country that saw itself, although being close to Britain as having a distinctive identity. Where you find, I guess, the difficult point, where do you cross from being a situation where you think of yourself, as many Australians did for a long time as being simultaneously Australian and British and just thinking of yourself as being Australia, I don’t know when exactly that point occurred. Some would argue that was after World War II, others might argue that was before. I can’t be any more precise than that. I don’t think any Australians now think of themselves as British. Lots of Australians have affection for Britain and British ways or the British inheritance. There are a lot of Australians I know who have an enormous respect for what Britain has given to our country, who would be horrified, of course, to be called British. No in any nasty sense, but just in terms of it being something quite antagonistic to their sense of identity. But when
Tape turnover
Things that it’s got to decide is whether it is going to have some kind of capacity to act in between meetings of heads of government and what it’s going to act about and what sort of directions or goals around which commonwealth action is going to coalesce. I think it is possible to give it a greater sense of purpose in between meetings of heads of government, it would require on the part of governments a willingness to give some freedom of movement to a smaller group, whether the commonwealth is willing to do that, I don’t know. I think support for principles of proper governance and the rule of law are things around which I think the commonwealth should readily be able to coalesce. I along with the British Prime Minister and a number of other commonwealth Prime Ministers a members of a group which is being charged with including President Ambique from South Africa being charged as the chairman of the immediate past commonwealth meeting was in effect drawing up some proposals for giving a greater sense of purpose and direction. I mean, it remains undeniably a marvellous forum and it has been able to deal with issues very successfully. South Africa was one commonwealth action that played a major role in bringing about change. There is no doubt about that. It has been successful in other areas as well, but I think all of us would feel that if we can give some sharper sense of purpose then that ought to be attempted.
J:
Mr Prime Minister, as one of the under thirty, I can’t see behind the banner, as one of the under thirty Australians you talked about, I am perhaps many rumoured to be thousands of Australians living in London and progressing my career further in London and outside of Australia. Do you believe Australia suffers from any form of brain drain from its youth, its perhaps well educated youth, and if so do you think the government or the society in general, the Australian society is trying to bring us back to Australia?
PM:
I don’t quite know how I’m meant to answer that. Look, I think the answer to that is that any society, any of our societies, that is societies that are essentially open and liberal and outward looking in opinion and view are going to from time to time go through periods of introspection and concern about losing our best and brightest. I know that in particular areas, some of the scientific areas, there are some very well articulated arguments that suggest that Australia mightn’t be doing as well as we should be. Some people say that marginal rates of taxation have an influence on people. Others argue that we don’t reward those in the sciences and so forth as well as we should. I think there is some force in that particular argument, although the evidence is not entirely conclusive. I would have to say to you that I’m fairly alive to the possibility that we might be suffering. I know that when we doubled the government support, doubled the government support for health and medical research in the, in last years’ budget quite a number of the medical institutes were able to tell me of people who as a result of that were coming back to Australia to share in the new opportunities that that given, so I think governments can have an influence on that. I can’t sort of say yes or no to your question, but I can certainly say that’s something I follow very closely and where I think it’s happening to an unacceptable degree, I’d like to think I could do something about it.
Q:
I can’t really let you get away with what you said about the dual passport question. May I just add a word? It seems to me there are two really important questions here. There is of course the business implications and globalisation does require you to get around the world and do things, but there is also a principle involved, it’s called equal treatment under the law. We have 5 million people in Australia who are entitled and have dual passports and 13 million like myself also who aren’t. Now I come from one of those families who dug the mines, rattled the chains on the convict boats, and was sent abroad by your predecessor governments in a variety of jobs so that I have children around the world and I have skilled I’ve gained which I can use around the world, but I cannot move freely around without surrendering my Australian passport. And I think frankly to be told in the letter that, which I have received by this Commission that you have set up to study the question, that somehow someone who’d arrived two years ago would appreciate his Australian citizenship and his loyalty to Australia would be greater than mine so he can be trusted to have two passports, but I whose uncle was at Gallipoli and my grandfather died in the Australasian mine disaster in Victoria, and my great-great-grandfather who was on the convict ship, they don’t we don’t have a love for Australia? I really resent that enormously and the strength of feeling from the sophisticated and more mature people of the country I think ought to be weighed more heavily and those people who say, oh well if you want to be an Aussie you can’t go around the world and do things. I don’t believe it. Thank you.
PM:
Well sir, I am one of the 13 million, I am in your situation. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with the depth of passion for Australia, I don’t. I think it’s a question of whether you open up something like that or whether you believe that allowing people as a voluntary act or particular convenience which I understand will acquire the nationality of another country as well as retaining the nationality of Australia I think does raise a difficult issue and there are strongly held views on both sides and you have articulated yours and it will obviously weigh upon us when we consider it but I have got to say that there are some strongly views in the opposite direction.
Q from Agent-General from WA:
Prime Minister I spend my days these days in a group of people who are trying to decide whether they want to belong to European Community as far as their money is concerned. There are a group of people here who want to go in for the Euro, there is a group that don’t want to go in for it and there is a group in the middle that suggests that one of these days maybe they will. Business people from Western Australia are saying to me you know that the devil is happening over there and I am dealing with that. However, I was intrigued quite recently to read an article, albeit three or four weeks, when the news gets over here, that a proposition was submitted …
PM:
I’ll tell Richard to buy you a fax.
Agent-General:
As you know Prime Minister I was a former Liberal member of (inaudible) one of my early lessons was about the necessity to stick to facts but that aside I was intrigued by the suggestion, I believe by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that perhaps consideration ought to be given to a common currency between our country and their’s. My question is (a) do you agree with that and (b) when do you think it will occur?
PM:
Well, I think the current arrangements work just fine.
Q from Rob O’Connor from Perth, WA:
To finish on a positive note, as an expert, how do you rate Steve Waugh as a cricket captain compared with Mark Taylor?
PM:
Well, I think both of them have been incredibly successful. They really have. You have go to remember that the quality of cricket captains is sometimes judged unfairly, given the strength of the competition they have to lead the team against. I think that Waugh’s captaincy in the World Cup was fantastic. I think he really showed steel and skill and determination which was terrific. I think Taylor’s character has been marvellous. I think the way he handled adversity, kept his cool, frankly acknowledged that his head could be on the block both as captain and as a member of the team, and the quality of his leadership in the West Indies was terrific. So I think they are both fantastic blokes. They have both been extremely successful captains and I wouldn’t seek for a moment to choose between them.
Can I just say one other thing. There are no more questions but could I just take this opportunity because so many of them are here today to thank very warmly the Council for the Centenary for Federation, in particular Archbishop Peter Hollingworth, not only for the quality of the sermon you preached this morning but also for the leadership of his Council, so many of whom are here, have given to the celebration of the Centenary of Federation. I think next year is going to be a fantastic commemoration by Australia. I think the way they have set about organising it means that all Australians are going to feel involved and it is going to be a very unifying event. I want to thank Peter and the Minister, Peter McGauran, and Tony Eggleton and Rodney Cavalier, who has brought great skill to the deputy chairmanship and Geoffrey Blainey and others who are here today who have done an absolutely job and I wouldn’t want this opportunity to go by without warmly thanking them.
I am going to call on Mark Grainer, Chairman of the NAB, to propose the vote of thanks, but before Mark comes up, I want to just do one other small duty. As an Australian in London we have come to know Phillip and Carol Flood very well over the last couple of years …..