So refreshing (and nostalgic!) to see two people from opposite sides of the political fence having a cordial, constructive, and informative conversation. We need more of this. Thanks, John. This is a great series of talks, and very much needed in these times. Keep up the good work. From, a Labor voter.
john Anderson for pm. So refreshing to see someone stable and completely unaffected by social media and turmoil. The best leader on the battlefield is one that gets more calm as things get more dangerous. Another antidote piece to inflammatory online division.. Makes me want to genuinely come up with new ideas to tackle this social media problem...
Terrific dialogue from both John and Kim here, absolutely brilliant. Let’s do part 2 in 12-18 months time. Some great insights and predictions in there.
I'm in a position with my work to hear ordinary Australians opinion on politics. And I can assure you that every person that talks to me is against non European immigration. However, they are told that is racist.....it hasn't worked in Europe or Britain and it will not work here.
I don't believe those people are racist but it's a shame so many think this way. Multiculturalism has been pretty successful in Australia on the whole and a blanket ban on non-European immigration seems unnecessary imo. The current problems we have, and we certainly have some, stem from a lack of opportunity (and hence an over reliance on welfare), infrastructure not keeping up with demand (and creating the needed infrastructure would also create jobs), and, most importantly, a severe lack of integration services. If migrants can be successfully integrated, rather than left to form 'ghetto-like' cultures within a culture, there would be no need for a blanket ban. Of course, vetting those moving to the country, and having a sustainable quota are also important factors.
Having lived in Africa for 31 years, both East and South, I found the indigenous people wonderful, and had friends of all ethnic groups, I am color blind when it comes to humans, but as my father had advised me, from very young, to respect their laws and customs. Now returning to Europe, I see the migrants (mostly illegal) arrive uninvited, unchecked and mostly without documents. The human traders promised them, in their country, that they would receive work and house, and these unfortunates had to pay from $4500 to $5000. Many are not christian, and they now expect that we have to change our customs to those of their countries, and want us to remove christian symbols from our schools and public places, not to work Fridays, etc. In other words they want Europe to change to Eurabia to suit them. Putin (even if I do not espouse communism) apparently made a short speech at the Duma, on this problem, and maybe you can still find it on Google search, since it is worth reading (type Putin's shortest speech from "the quint" site). Otherwise "The Strange Death of Europe" by Douglas Murray,
The eternal problem with the equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome debate is that we cannot always neatly delineate between ‘outcome’ and ‘opportunity’. The conditions that we are born into are inherently unequal, not just due to factors such class and family values, but indeed our personalities and interests as dictated by genetic factors. Some want to exclude the conditions of early childhood and genetic factors as distinct from the domain of ‘opportunity’, while others will assert that these conditions are the most crucial factors at play in the domain of ‘opportunity’. The former are engaged in a convenient evasion of a hard problem, while the latter are too easily tempted to endorse policies that demand equal outcomes as a way of correcting for the unequal opportunities presented to individuals at birth. The distinction between outcome and opportunity remains blurry when considering stages of education. At what point is an individual considered capable of embracing opportunities? If at age 5, some children attend better schools than others, is this merely an unequal outcome resultant from equal opportunity? Surely, as far as the individual child is concerned, it is not that. The accountability at this stage is with the parents. Later in life, that child becomes a separate autonomous individual, at which point they have already been shaped by truly ineradicable constraints on freedom: those that we experience as children dependent upon adults. I am always advocating for equal opportunity policies as preferable to equal outcome policies, yet I think the glaring inadequacy in my position is that its proponents often evade the problem presented by children, who are not granted equal opportunities, who are not autonomous/responsible individuals, and whose circumstances nevertheless impose externalities on their future selves. In a principled commitment to absolute equality of opportunity, it seems ironic that we argue against some other ‘assaults on freedom’, such as children being raised by the state rather than by their parents, the abolition of inheritances and the nationalisation of education.
Kim, your profound insights into the history, inner workings and implications of all things pertaining to Defence is both telling and logical given that you once held the portfolio. It seems that you are a firm believer in the notion of Self Reliance and are well-positioned to identify risks to this posture that has been the mainstay of defence white papers since WW2. However, your solution for maintaining and improving Self Reliance lacks any form of creativity or long term reflection: Level of defence expenditure in terms of % GDP too low? Response: throw more money at it. Fuel reserves too low? Response: throw more money at it. Frankly, this philosophy is archaic and will evetually turn out to be futile. The historic mother of all threats to the defence and sovereignty for any given nation is conflict over resources, and more recently conflict over scarce energy resources. We don't need to be sacrificing 50 -100 billion dollars for well-paid and highly-educated people to design missiles and submarines. We should be investing these billions to make as much use as practically possible of the wind, sun and geothermals resources that pervade our great country every day of the year. I do believe in Self Reliance from a defence perspective. But you have to agree we've been paying through the nose for decades to maintain "expeditionary" capabilities that we really shouldn't need. If we're investing here just too keep our best and greatest ally happy, then ok I can see the point. But if we want to be truly self reliant, no matter what the geo-political situation, then energy and agricultural autonomy is primordial.
The gentleman's reference to Trump as being "transactional" seems to have mostly been a way to avoid discussing foreign policy concerns in regard to China. Trump's "transaction" is actually demanding that other nations make clear, on the public stage, where they stand before he declares how much, or little, he will help.
Wow, what an interesting insight into Australia's defence posture and the threat from...Hmm, Hmm; I feel the Royal Navy should be building a 3rd Elizabeth Class (with a steam cat) for any friend who wants, "Off-the-Peg/non-nuclear"!
Beasley needs to drop the word "Russia" and replace it with "Israel" - the fear of doing this, I.e the fear of being called anti-Semitic for a political opinion is gonna bring us to our knees.
Such a privilege to view this interview. Thank you.
So refreshing (and nostalgic!) to see two people from opposite sides of the political fence having a cordial, constructive, and informative conversation. We need more of this. Thanks, John. This is a great series of talks, and very much needed in these times. Keep up the good work. From, a Labor voter.
Thanks John for the wonderful conversations. With a glass of wind scotch the evening starts in a positive and inspirational manner
John Anderson, excellent interviewer. Very much enjoy these podcasts.
I appreciate the spirit in which this conversation was framed.
Thanks Beazley for Telstra.
Thank you so much
Another terrific interview John. Kim has always been a really decent person. The consummate gentleman.
Well framed, filmed, and shot. Dialogue intensely engaging and inspiring. Bipartisanship.
Another good interview-you have found your niche.
Thanks John
john Anderson for pm. So refreshing to see someone stable and completely unaffected by social media and turmoil. The best leader on the battlefield is one that gets more calm as things get more dangerous.
Another antidote piece to inflammatory online division.. Makes me want to genuinely come up with new ideas to tackle this social media problem...
Terrific dialogue from both John and Kim here, absolutely brilliant. Let’s do part 2 in 12-18 months time. Some great insights and predictions in there.
he's a good thinker kim. would have been a very good pm in my books.
Truly great men
Good interview
What a great man
Well said about our allies
This conversation makes me lament that such reasoned, civil conversations from both sides of politics may be a dying practice in later generations
Seems to me that every political decision henceforth should be debated on the basic premise of ‘a fair go’
living legend
👺☠
FIONA BARNETT
I'm in a position with my work to hear ordinary Australians opinion on politics. And I can assure you that every person that talks to me is against non European immigration. However, they are told that is racist.....it hasn't worked in Europe or Britain and it will not work here.
I don't believe those people are racist but it's a shame so many think this way. Multiculturalism has been pretty successful in Australia on the whole and a blanket ban on non-European immigration seems unnecessary imo. The current problems we have, and we certainly have some, stem from a lack of opportunity (and hence an over reliance on welfare), infrastructure not keeping up with demand (and creating the needed infrastructure would also create jobs), and, most importantly, a severe lack of integration services. If migrants can be successfully integrated, rather than left to form 'ghetto-like' cultures within a culture, there would be no need for a blanket ban. Of course, vetting those moving to the country, and having a sustainable quota are also important factors.
Having lived in Africa for 31 years, both East and South, I found the indigenous people wonderful, and had friends of all ethnic groups, I am color blind when it comes to humans, but as my father had advised me, from very young, to respect their laws and customs. Now returning to Europe, I see the migrants (mostly illegal) arrive uninvited, unchecked and mostly without documents. The human traders promised them, in their country, that they would receive work and house, and these unfortunates had to pay from $4500 to $5000.
Many are not christian, and they now expect that we have to change our customs to those of their countries, and want us to remove christian symbols from our schools and public places, not to work Fridays, etc. In other words they want Europe to change to Eurabia to suit them.
Putin (even if I do not espouse communism) apparently made a short speech at the Duma, on this problem, and maybe you can still find it on Google search, since it is worth reading (type Putin's shortest speech from "the quint" site). Otherwise "The Strange Death of Europe" by Douglas Murray,
Good conversation. I find it odd that a republican would accept a Governorship, however.
If you can’t “bet on the US” all the more reason to get #CANZUK done with our real friends.
The eternal problem with the equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome debate is that we cannot always neatly delineate between ‘outcome’ and ‘opportunity’. The conditions that we are born into are inherently unequal, not just due to factors such class and family values, but indeed our personalities and interests as dictated by genetic factors. Some want to exclude the conditions of early childhood and genetic factors as distinct from the domain of ‘opportunity’, while others will assert that these conditions are the most crucial factors at play in the domain of ‘opportunity’. The former are engaged in a convenient evasion of a hard problem, while the latter are too easily tempted to endorse policies that demand equal outcomes as a way of correcting for the unequal opportunities presented to individuals at birth. The distinction between outcome and opportunity remains blurry when considering stages of education. At what point is an individual considered capable of embracing opportunities? If at age 5, some children attend better schools than others, is this merely an unequal outcome resultant from equal opportunity? Surely, as far as the individual child is concerned, it is not that. The accountability at this stage is with the parents. Later in life, that child becomes a separate autonomous individual, at which point they have already been shaped by truly ineradicable constraints on freedom: those that we experience as children dependent upon adults. I am always advocating for equal opportunity policies as preferable to equal outcome policies, yet I think the glaring inadequacy in my position is that its proponents often evade the problem presented by children, who are not granted equal opportunities, who are not autonomous/responsible individuals, and whose circumstances nevertheless impose externalities on their future selves. In a principled commitment to absolute equality of opportunity, it seems ironic that we argue against some other ‘assaults on freedom’, such as children being raised by the state rather than by their parents, the abolition of inheritances and the nationalisation of education.
Kim, your profound insights into the history, inner workings and implications of all things pertaining to Defence is both telling and logical given that you once held the portfolio. It seems that you are a firm believer in the notion of Self Reliance and are well-positioned to identify risks to this posture that has been the mainstay of defence white papers since WW2. However, your solution for maintaining and improving Self Reliance lacks any form of creativity or long term reflection: Level of defence expenditure in terms of % GDP too low? Response: throw more money at it. Fuel reserves too low? Response: throw more money at it. Frankly, this philosophy is archaic and will evetually turn out to be futile. The historic mother of all threats to the defence and sovereignty for any given nation is conflict over resources, and more recently conflict over scarce energy resources. We don't need to be sacrificing 50 -100 billion dollars for well-paid and highly-educated people to design missiles and submarines. We should be investing these billions to make as much use as practically possible of the wind, sun and geothermals resources that pervade our great country every day of the year. I do believe in Self Reliance from a defence perspective. But you have to agree we've been paying through the nose for decades to maintain "expeditionary" capabilities that we really shouldn't need. If we're investing here just too keep our best and greatest ally happy, then ok I can see the point. But if we want to be truly self reliant, no matter what the geo-political situation, then energy and agricultural autonomy is primordial.
7:52 Enemies are behind you - Jesus said: "And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household." Matthew 10:36
Look up Fiona Barnett!
I did and this is one evil man.
The gentleman's reference to Trump as being "transactional" seems to have mostly been a way to avoid discussing foreign policy concerns in regard to China. Trump's "transaction" is actually demanding that other nations make clear, on the public stage, where they stand before he declares how much, or little, he will help.
Downer's actions, and the attitude they reflect...
Does anyone know what the beautiful theme music is please?
ua-cam.com/video/4NE-VAhM284/v-deo.html
How does the Jindalee over the horizon radar compare against the Russian equivalent?
I mean the Serbs did shoot down that F117 in Serbia.
Wow, what an interesting insight into Australia's defence posture and the threat from...Hmm, Hmm; I feel the Royal Navy should be building a 3rd Elizabeth Class (with a steam cat) for any friend who wants, "Off-the-Peg/non-nuclear"!
#CANZUK Type 26 Frigate...
THIS MAN IS A MURDERER AND INVOLVED IN THE CHILD PEDAPHILE RING ,
Read the lucky country and contemplate.
Did somebody say KFC ?
A woman nammed Fiona would like to ask you some questions
First 20 seconds in speaking and talks about people's sacrifices
There is no such thing as compulsory voting in Australia and I’ve never attended a polling booth in my life.
Beasley needs to drop the word "Russia" and replace it with "Israel" - the fear of doing this, I.e the fear of being called anti-Semitic for a political opinion is gonna bring us to our knees.
👺💀👹
feather-dusters who were always feather-dusters, waste of time, no insights outside of the banal
You don't even know basic Australian history yet you think you can speak on our behalf!