What would an interview with Tony Abbott look like if he was totally honest in all his answers while also being honest with himself? This is my take on how such an interview might play out.
GW: Tony, I am blown away by you being here and that you have taken the time to do this interview with me. Firstly, thank you.
Tony Abbott (TA): Actually, this is truly my pleasure. I am grateful for this opportunity to answer some of your questions in the hopes that people understand me, as a man, a little better.
GW: I wanted to get things started by asking if there is anything that you really want us to touch on from the outset before I get into my questions?
TA: I can see you haven’t done this before. This is where most journalists would be pouncing on the Liberal leadership spills, asylum seeker policies or my stance on marriage equality.
GW: Don’t worry, I am getting to those.
TA: Good. Look, there is nothing specific I have that I want to talk about, other than to let people know that I might not be in parliament after this upcoming election. My detractors have done an amazing job at turning the marginal and the young voters away from me and the Liberal party, which saddens me.
Many of the voters who haven’t met me don’t realise how much I care about the community we have here on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. And more broadly, about how much I care and cherish this Nation we have. I went into politics because I believe that our values are sound and that we can achieve great things as a Nation. I dedicated my life to the fight of protecting our Australian values. Many people don’t realise that these values and our traditions are under threat and that we are at risk of becoming something that we won’t recognise as Australia. And once it is gone, once we lose our culture and our values we can’t get them back. Even today, the great Australia I knew is fading. You still see it, especially here in the electorate of Warringah, but we aren’t protecting it and if we don’t do something over the next few years we’ll lose it for ever.
GW: Who or what is posing this threat to us? And what is actually under threat as you put it, what values are you referring to?
TA: Our values as Australians. As people who came to this vast and unyielding country and made an amazing life here. The elements of resilience and the ‘never give up’ attitude that created the ANZAC spirit, for instance, is not present in us anymore. Our pride in calling ourselves Australians. Our sense of humour, our links to Britain, our innocence and our belief that we can do great things despite being a small country are all going.
Now I know I am going to be portrayed as being racist for saying this, but I want to say this now, before I go on. I am not a racist. I hold no ill will to any racial group and I do not believe that any racial group is beneath my own. But, an open door policy for people to come to this country from very different cultural backgrounds to our own, who are not willing to adopt our values as Australians poses a real threat to our way of life. We have large communities where the use of English is rare or none existent. English has been our national language since the First Fleet landed and yet, we are letting the language of our people, with its very Australian nuances just be overwritten without pause for consideration. And that’s our language, look at what is happening to Australia Day, ANZAC day – all the holidays that celebrate our Nationality, they are all under attack because they don’t fit the narrative of the people who we have allowed to come here. That is what I am talking about. Once these symbols are gone they can’t be rebuilt into the psyche of our Nation, they will be lost to us.
GW: Australia Day is being questioned due to the associations it has with suffering and, what some call, the genocide of our Aboriginal communities. And they were of this land long before we were, and they spoke some 250 different languages – none of them English. Surely you are glossing over this ?
TA: Not at all. I care deeply about our Aboriginal communities, and this is reflected in the work I have done and still do with Aboriginal leaders each year. My travels to communities in the Northern Territory, Cape York, far north Queensland bear testament to my commitment to help the people who lived on this land centuries before any white man arrived on its shores.
But to respond to your point, we have to also recognise that great men and women came to this country and built a new nation against the backdrop of our harsh landscapes. This needs to also be celebrated. What men who came to this country accomplished is staggering and we need to own and recognise that as a Nation. This is part of what makes us great.
I grant you that there is a tension between the Aboriginal interpretation of Australia Day and that of white Australians, but I believe we can all recognise the good in what happened thanks to the fleet arriving in Botany Bay. And, we need to recongise the people who completed that journey. They came in ships no larger than the Manly Ferry, and they sailed across the globe to arrive here. Just that in itself is worthy of our recognition and celebration. It is that spirit that made us a powerful and serious player on the global stage in all facets, economic, cultural, political – you name it.
GW: You do realise that what you just said could be seen as offensive and derisive of the plight of aboriginals, especially when one considers that the aborigines already had nations established within these, as you call them, harsh landscapes.
TA: I don’t see why. White men were also killed by aboriginals, and we don’t dwell on these facts. Don’t get me wrong, what happened to aborigines in this country should never have happened. That said, it did, we have acknowledged that and have apologised earnestly for everything that happened during the colonial era. I very rarely agreed with Kevin Rudd, but I stand by the apology. We also have to realise that these things happened a very long time ago. I believe, in the spirit of being Australian, that we should join together, put our past behind us and move on to build a tough, resilient and prosperous nation for all Australians.
And that is where our Australian Spirit comes in, that is how we are going to achieve our full potential as a Nation.
GW: OK, this is where I ask you about immigration and asylum seekers. Would you agree that what is happening in Nauru and Manus is unacceptable and that we, Australia, are responsible for the suffering these people are experiencing?
TA: This is a complicated issue. I will start off by answering your ‘responsibility’ question first.
No, we are not responsible. We did what we needed to do in order to secure our borders, which we have a right to do as a sovereign nation. The people who arrived here by boat did so without our government’s consent, in contravention of our laws. We repeatedly warned all people planning to come to Australia illegally that they would not be resettled here – and we followed through on that promise.
Now, in terms of their suffering. They are being processed through our normal processes as asylum applicants and will be resettled when we find an appropriate country which will guarantee that these people won’t try to come to Australia again. That is also the reason we didn’t consider New Zealand’s proposal to take a cohort of these illegal arrivals – there was no guarantee that these people wouldn’t make their way to Australia from New Zealand at a later date.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the measures my government took were to address three issues that were troubling the people we represented. The first is that we had lost control of our borders. We could no longer enforce our mandate to be able to decide who was coming to Australia and who wasn’t.
Secondly, there was a people smuggling trade thriving within our neighbouring countries and Australia was the product they were selling. The trade feeds off of peoples misery. We had to stop vulnerable people being exploited by these heinous criminals.
And finally, people were dying at sea. I don’t have to remind you of the countless lives lost off our shores. Australians, and my government couldn’t continue to witness this senseless loss of life. So we did the right thing and acted.
We put in place agreements with the governments of Naru and Manus to look after these people – and made them their responsibility. We supported and paid these governments handsomely to do right by these people, and I feel we met our obligations. I feel no responsibility for any suffering. In fact, I don’t think there has been any suffering. I think there are a few disgruntled people at these camps who are complaining because they didn’t get what they wanted, and they are the ones taking up all the media space. The stories you aren’t hearing are from the people who are making a life in Nauru and PNG.
GW: Sorry Tony, I am going to call you on that. If you cared so much about the drownings and the evil trade that is people smuggling, then you could just as easily sent ships to go and fetch these people and deliver them to our shores safely. This way you could also control who comes to Australia.
I want to pose to you that you used the ‘boat people’ tactic to scare Australians into believing that we were being inundated by boat people – whom you implied and embedded into the minds of our electorates were unwanted and posed a threat to our safety – and let me call out that you can’t have your cake and eat it. Are these people vulnerable or dangerous? You describe them differently depending on the defense you adopt to justify your policies.
And I think to say that these people are not suffering as they sit in limbo isn’t honest and lacks any sense of humanity on your behalf.
TA: Do you realise if we sent ships to fetch these people that we would just be inviting more to come? They would come to our shores, take jobs and shift our economic and cultural foundations. Australians don’t want that to happen.
And they are dangerous. There are men and women in these groups who have been radicalised and identifying them is very, very difficult. I grant you, there are probably a few genuine asylum seekers amongst them, but there are also a majority of people who are just hoping to come to Australia for economic reasons. Life is better in Australia, and they want to have what we have. These aren’t genuine refugees. We can’t take people just because they want to be in Australia. I think your position on this is a little naive.
And then in terms of the people on Manus and Nauru sitting in limbo. They have the choice to live in PNG or make a life where they are now. They have a choice, and if they choose to stay in limbo, I can’t take responsibility for that. They have been provided good accommodation, healthcare facilities. These people lead good lives. We are treating them well.
GW: OK, I am going to move to something else. What was your relationship with Peta Credlin like? You took a lot of flack for the amount of influence you allowed her to have over your office and for the fact that she was once seen feeding you like a child.
TA: This really upsets me. I hold Peta in very high regard. She is incredibly talented and very disciplined. During my time as Prime Minister I consider myself privileged to have her run my office as my Chief of Staff. I was making important decisions almost every week that impacted millions of Australians, and she helped me stay focused on the task at hand. The thing many people don’t realise about being Prime Minister is that your attention is required in a hundred different places across a myriad of topics. I found Peta to be very good at keeping these distractions at bay.
I do, however, want to make it clear, that as my Chief of Staff she delivered advice, but I ultimately decided on all policy matters within my government. The media commentary on this has been disgraceful. Many claimed that she directly influenced policy. She didn’t. I was Prime Minister, the policies brought forward by my government were my call, she never had the influence that many claimed she had.
And on the point of her feeding me like a child, that is again a massive misconstrual of what happened. We were at a function, it was one of those events where dishes were alternated between seats. She told me her steak was really well cooked and invited me to try a piece. I had it and that just blew up the next day.
GW: You have to admit that is rather intimate.
TA: I don’t think so. I don’t see how it is inappropriate at all.
GW: One topic I do absolutely have to touch on is the knighthood of Prince Philip. What happened there.
TA: People really don’t understand how much that man has done for Australia. He has been an advocate for this country since he first visited our shores in the 1940’s, that’s before he became the Prince of Edinburgh. He was involved with conservation efforts in Tasmania, cared deeply for the plight of our aboriginal people, and his Duke of Edinburgh Awards have influenced the lives of over 700,000 Australians.
I will admit that the knighthood was probably not aligned with the sentiments of the Australian people, and I probably shouldn’t have made the call unilaterally, but when I look back on it, Prince Philip deserves our recognition for the contribution he has made to our nation.
GW: I am aware of time, so I do want to ask you about your legacy. What do you believe is your greatest contribution thus far as a politician?
TA: There are many things that I am proud of. However, the thing that defines my years of service to the Australian people is that I stood by my principles and convictions. The people of Warringah know that I put them first and that I fought for what I believe is best for our country, our communities and our people. I hope that is my legacy.
GW: And what do you make of politics today? You are seen as the person who brought the combative spirit into question time. And many blame you for the degradation of political discourse in our country. And that you have helped polarise our political system. How do you respond to that?
TA: Politics is about the testing and debating of ideas. That is what the parliamentary system is about. Parliament should be where we have the tough conversations. If your arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny then they are not worth supporting.
I attack policy ideas to test them, I am not here to undermine our democracy. In fact, I would do anything to keep our democracy healthy. Our political system is unique and serves our people very, very well. I grant you, question time is more animated than it used to be, but I believe that is a good thing. That shows that we are putting people’s feet to the fire to interrogate their principles and their ideas.
I also won’t deny that I excel at asking the hard questions. But that is something I pride myself on. If you are in politics you don’t get a free ride. I treat everyone the same and I can honestly say that I hold myself to a higher standard than those that serve with me in parliament.
GW: So you don’t think our system is broken and you don’t think people are disillusioned by what is happening in Canberra?
TA: I didn’t say that. I know people are disengaging from our political system. I see it everywhere. This is happening because our leaders aren’t doing enough to explain our policies to everyday Australians. We have lost our way in explaining what we stand for and why we need reform and change. I know that Australians care about their country and about what politicians do to ensure better futures for them and their children.
But we don’t do enough to explain the challenges we are facing and the approaches we have to fix these challenges. And we aren’t the only ones to blame. The media, with its ever shorter cycle kills any opportunity for people to get a full picture. Now, I think my government did a good job in telling people what we were up to. We kept our messages simple and ensured that Australians came with us on that journey. I don’t think since John Howard has a government done more to explain the challenges we face and the reform we need to meet these challenges. My government did a lot right, an awful lot right, and Australia is better off because of that.
GW: So let’s move on to one of those challenges we face as a country and many believe globally, climate change. You are a climate change skeptic and have been heavily criticised for you views on the environment. Despite an overwhelming consensus in the scientific world that climate change is real, you stood your ground on this point. Do you still believe climate change is just hype.
TA: Look, I believe climate change is happening. But the earth’s climate changes over time, it has been changing over millennia and will continue to do so. The scientific advice I receive cannot categorically state what percentage of the change we are seeing is due to natural cycles or through man’s intervention in environmental factors. In fact, a lot of the science doesn’t fully understand which factors contribute most to the changes we are seeing.
So, with the information I had I decided not to jump on the climate change bandwagon. Instead I looked at the arguments and weighed them against Australian’s needs. I then went to first principles. The climate is changing by itself, we are helping the process along, but aren’t sure how much by, or which specific factors are pushing that change the most.
On the other side of the scale, we have people who need to live. We live in a hot country, so we need electricity. We have natural resources and we can generate power efficiently by using our fossil fuels that we as a country have been blessed with. At the same time, people need jobs, and mining has done much for Australia. 25 years ago mining transformed our economy, today it is vilified. It lifted our standard of living and today we want nothing to do with it, all because we think that what is produced from mining influences our environment. We aren’t sure how, or how much, but we think it is bad and that seems to be the only part of the conversation people want to engage in.
So, as I said, my job is to interrogate policy and ideas. And if the only thing you have is ‘it’s bad’ then I have to look at the other side of the equation. And what I have there are people who are desperate for jobs, an electricity network that needs more power to sustain it and an economy that was saved once by a mining boom and which could be impacted by a global downturn in the next few years. I work for the people of Australia, all of them, and I have to do what I believe is right for them. And for me to make rash decisions based on fear mongering, climate change theories would be a violation of my principles and my promise to the Australian people.
GW: For a politician who claims to be working for all Australians, your reluctance to move on marriage equality appears to be in direct contradiction to this position. The referendum also didn’t do your image much good, and your constituency made it very clear you weren’t reflecting their views. Surely you knew this was coming and that you would end up on the wrong side of history.
TA: This is one of those issues were I had to stand with my principles. My fundamental belief is that marriage happens between a man and a woman. That is not to say that people of the same sex can’t form long lasting relationships, but I don’t believe marriage is what you should call these relationships. Perhaps another name would be more befitting for a lasting bond between two men or two women in a committed relationship.
And I still believe that I will come up on the right side of history. I sincerely believe the law will change, maybe not in my lifetime, but at some point same sex couples will want a different name in recognition of their commitment. They will realise that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that what they have is in fact different and deserves a different classification.
I don’t think marriage is better or worse than what committed couples have in same sex marriages. I just believe it’s different.
GW: And finally. Tony, what happened in the leadership spill and what role did you play in the whole thing?
TA: Look, it’s no secret that Malcolm and I never saw eye-to-eye. And the truth is there were those in the Liberal party that didn’t believe he was doing what was best for Australia and Australians. He was exceedingly poor at explaining policy to people. His policies were hurting the party and we realised that if he stayed in the role of PM, that it was inevitable that the Labour party would come into power. And trust me when I say the last thing Australia needs now is Bill Shorten to be its Prime Minister.
So, I was approached by a few within the party to help do the right thing. I helped where I deemed it ethically appropriate, especially considering the promise I made (and kept) to not undermine Malcolm’s leadership position after I was removed from the office of the PM.
We now have Scott Morrison at the helm and I believe he is doing a great job at bringing the party together again.
GW: So did you support Peter Dutton to become the new PM when all this was going down?
TA: I would have preferred him to come into the role, yes. But I never instructed him to make a move on Malcolm or advised him on how or when to put forward a spill motion. Those decisions he made himself. He basically asked me if I would support him, and I said that I thought him a great candidate for the top job until the next election.
GW: Tony Abbott, thank you for your time and your candour.
TA: No, thank you Gerrit, it has been a pleasure. And good luck with your writing.