Transcript of interview with Peter van Onselen and Paul Kelly

Subjects: Australian Labor Party, Australia-United States Alliance, China, Uranium sales to India, Aid target, Afghanistan and Pakistan, European financial crisis, Domestic politics and family

Transcript E&OE, proof only.

27 November 2011

PETER VAN ONSELEN: We are joined now by Kevin Rudd, the Foreign Minister.

Mr Rudd, thanks for your company.

KEVIN RUDD: Pleasure to be on the program.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: I mentioned off the top that you've been speaking about the idea of party reform ahead of national conference. It's been splashed across the front page of The Sun-Herald today. Let me ask you, the headline there reads …

KEVIN RUDD: [Interrupts] Must have been a quiet day.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: Well, it's a big issue that you raise. The headline says, '”We'll be a minor party”: Rudd's dire warning to Labor' – is the situation really that grim?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, let's just call a spade a spade. You look around Australia at the moment, at the level of opinion-poll support registered over a long period of time for the various state Labor governments.

Look across the Tasman, and you introduce the results there, where Labour's primary vote result there is something in the order of 27 per cent, a collapse of 7 or 8 per cent, as I understand it, on the previous performance.

I was talking to representatives of Swedish Social Democrats recently, and they are down in the 20s themselves.

So there is a structural problem which needs to be dealt with.

All I was talking about over the weekend was – how do you address a core problem?

And that is, how do you take control of the Australian Labor Party back from the factions and deliver it to the 35 000 members of the Australian Labor Party – because those members have been leaving in droves.

In 2007, we had some 50 000 members of the Australian Labor Party – that's now collapsed to 35 000 members.

You can't tell me, therefore, that all is well – therefore we've got to deal with it, and what I put forward are three very simple proposals.

Number one, allow our total branch membership, those 35 000, to directly elect the national executive of our party, rather than that being determined by the factions.

Secondly, for the entire branch membership, all 35 000, to directly elect the delegates to national conference;

And, thirdly, probably the single-most important organisational position – that of National Secretary – for the entire branch membership of 35 000 to elect that person as well.

What does that mean? A net transfer of power away from the factions, to all those folk who go out and do the hard work for us come election time.

PAUL KELLY: How serious is Labor's current plight? I mean, if you look around the country, the Labor primary vote is in the 20s in most states, and at the national level it's just tipping 30 at the moment.

What is your fear about what will happen to Labor unless there are significant changes?

KEVIN RUDD: My overall fear, Paul, is reflected in the speech that I delivered in Brisbane yesterday in launching Troy Bramston's book, Looking for the Light on the Hill.

It is that, unless we undertake some serious organisational surgery, that we end up being a third party in Australian politics, and you don't have to be Einstein to look at how that has happened in various Western democracies around the world where the normal alternative between a main conservative party of the centre right and the Labor Party, or the Social Democratic party of the centre left, being essentially the way in which the governments of countries will resolve.

What we have seen in recent times, including Australia, is a fragmentation of that centre and centre-left vote, for which the main problem in Australia has been the rise of the Green party; and so, my essential argument is that we need to be the party of the reforming centre of Australian politics; the party of working people; the party of small business; the party of nation-building; the party for the future. We have that in our DNA, but I think our organisational structure pulls us away from that.

PAUL KELLY: I mean if you look at your speech, essentially you have gone far beyond the Faulkner-Bracks-Carr reform document. You have called for the rank and file to elect national conference, national executive, the National Secretary; this has got to be tantamount to a fundamental change in party culture. Is that how you see it?

KEVIN RUDD: Very much so, because if you are one of those brave 35 000 who front at ALP branch meetings every month, you have got to ask yourself this question: what actually is my influence over the overall direction of the show?

What would cause me to join, and tell others to join, and to remain active members of the Australian Labor Party and the broader labour movement?

And what I am saying is, on those key questions of personnel – not nominal positions – of the national executive, the National Secretary and national conference, what do we have to fear from the mass membership of our party?

Because I believe they are actually much closer to the Australian people themselves – and many of our members are from small business; they are out there working in a range of professions; they are out there working in blue-collar jobs across the country; they represent the diversity of the nation – the factions do not.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: But why now? Why not three years ago, when you had the authority as one of the most popular Prime Ministers in history? You could have really rammed this through then, now you are going to be opposed by the factional leaders and you are going to be a somewhat lone voice at the upper echelons of the party on this.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I think the core answer to that is, if you look at the events immediately following 2007, one of the most controversial reforms that I introduced into the federal parliamentary Labor Party was the factions not to elect the parliamentary party's executive, that is, the ministry, the cabinet.

Now this was widely debated and widely criticised, but what was that about?

It was saying, the people have elected, through our electoral processes, the person whom they identified to be the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, therefore, is charged under those circumstances with a responsibility to select the best team from the parliamentary party.

For 100 years prior to that it had been in the hands of the parliamentary party itself, which was fine until about 25 years ago, when the factions became rampant – and they have become more rampant.

So your question about, 'Okay, Sunshine, what did you do when you were around? What did you do during the war?’ I think that is fairly significant – the first time in 100 years.

Also in that period, Peter, we had a few things to wrestle with, like the global financial crisis. We had a bit on our hands.

PAUL KELLY: Well, if we just look at what you are talking about here – this is pretty serious stuff. Can we therefore assume that if you ever get the chance to implement this, you will?

KEVIN RUDD: Absolutely. Remember, it's a decision, however, of the national conference of the Australian Labor Party.

PAUL KELLY: Sure.

KEVIN RUDD: What you see also in this speech is that the conference itself can't move in this direction. I've recommended that we consider a full plebiscite of the party's entire membership on this course of action. You see, I go back to my thesis, what have we got to fear from the membership? They come from right across the nation, geographically and all parts of the world, so my recommendation, if elected – if I was, you know, in a position in the future …

PAUL KELLY: You mean if elected Prime Minister again?

KEVIN RUDD: No, no, no – I'm going to your question that – you said, 'If you're ever in a position to do something about this.'

PAUL KELLY: Sure.

KEVIN RUDD: Is that you don't make speeches like this for the fun of it – you know me, Paul, you've known me for 20 years – I rarely do.

PAUL KELLY: Sure. If we can just talk about the leadership …

KEVIN RUDD: Neat segue.

PAUL KELLY: You don't talk about what's going to happen in terms of the leadership position.

We know the arrangements the British Labour Party has got – would you like to see a change of method of election of the parliamentary leader?

KEVIN RUDD: I think there can be a national conversation about that.

It's highly controversial, and I see the secretary, the General Secretary of the New South Wales branch, Mr Dastyari, has made that as a formal proposal in recent weeks.

So my view is, let 100 flowers bloom, let 100 schools of thought contend, this should be part of the national conversation over party, but do I have a defined position on it? No. Do I think we should have a conversation about it? Yes.

PAUL KELLY: How can you have the party rank and file elect the National Secretary and not the leader?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, as I said, I have an open mind on the question and the need to have such a debate – but this should be a very deep conversation of the parliamentary party itself; because what you are then talking about is a person who is elected directly from the parliamentary party as opposed to an organisational matter, which goes to the entire structure of our political machine, that is the executive, the National Secretary, the national president, as well as the national conference.

PAUL KELLY: And of course the caucus might not actually like the idea of a change.

KEVIN RUDD: It will be interesting to see what the attitude of caucus members might be. I don't know. I notice this was put forward by the General Secretary of the New South Wales branch – not always being huge fans of mine in recent times – and therefore, if it has been put out there by the General Secretary, I say again, let's have a national conversation about it within the parliamentary party, within the national organisation, and let's see where it lands.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: It will also be interesting to see what Prime Minister Julia Gillard's reaction to this is, because she has spoken about party reform, but in a sense that's taken a back seat in the context of national conference compared to her issues of a conscience vote on gay marriage, the idea of uranium sales to India – you, however, would like to see party reform clearly as the issue, the central issue next weekend.

KEVIN RUDD: There is a very interesting thing in Troy Bramston's book, and he now writes for the Australian – there you go, that is a plug for you guys. In the 120-year history of our party – and we are one of the oldest continuing democratic parties in the world, let's just be very clear about that, so its future is of some importance, not just to us, but frankly, how the cause of social democracy is seen around the world – he says, you can either look at what's happened over the last several years in our political party as just a cyclical problem which we deal with, and everything is alright in the end, or as a structural problem. I agree with him – it's structural – and the core of the structural problem is the power of the factions.

Therefore the real question is, how do you deal with that in a practical way?

Hence, why yours truly has put forward three very practical proposals, and to take up Paul's point before about the parliamentary leadership – perfectly relaxed there be a national conversation within the entire party, including the parliamentary party, about what happens with that proposal.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: But you don't like the – in a sense, the sleazy appearance of the level of factional control that they have. You are very critical about that. Let me segue that into the sleazy deal with Peter Slipper. Is that something that you look at in a similar light?

KEVIN RUDD: I notice that this term's been used a lot in the last couple of days, but I also note a lot of that criticism is coming from Mr Slipper's former parliamentary colleagues. I also note that Mr Abbott has previously given Mr Slipper an absolutely clean bill of health on all these questions.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: I agree with that. They've spent 20 years allowing him to sit there as one of the their own, and I'm critical of that, but now the Labor Party has brought him in, in – let's face it – a back-room deal not dissimilar to back-room factional deals that go on all the time.

KEVIN RUDD: The first thing about the events of the last week is, I think, Harry sort of knocked us all for six when he decided that it was time to pull up stumps – first thing.

In terms of what happened then, I think, as Anthony Albanese said the other day – the first question put to him by every living journalist in the country was, 'Is it Peter Slipper?' So there was something of an expectation this might have happened, and remember the complex circumstances which the government faces on the floor of the house.

But I go back to your question about his personal qualities. First point is, if the Liberal-National Party are now saying, or inferring, or backgrounding, that there are problems here, well, what have they sat on for such a long period of time, and why hasn't Mr Abbott brought all this forward?

He said on the record, within the last 12 months, that Mr Slipper has a complete clean bill of health on these questions. Now is Mr Abbott saying to us that he has been dishonest in this period of time? Well, I would just like to put that to the test, and see what he's got to say.

But the second thing is this, Mr Slipper's performance as a Speaker of the Parliament will be the critical determinant of how this is seen in the longer term and whether he is a fair, independent and impartial Speaker.

PAUL KELLY: If we could move to foreign affairs now – with some reluctance of course.

KEVIN RUDD: [Laughs]

PETER VAN ONSELEN: [Laughs] we're almost out of time.

PAUL KELLY: We've just seen this very significant intensification of the Alliance relationships with the United States, in terms of military-to-military cooperation, would you like to see this run further?

Is this just the start of a more expansive approach to the Alliance relationship, in terms of more cooperation between the Australian and United States armed forces? Do you think this will continue to expand on this basis?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, my view of the Alliance – and you've known me a long time, I've never shifted my views on the Alliance since Adam was a boy – is that it has always been a process of continuing evolution.

Remember when it was framed, reluctantly, by the Americans – if you've read the history – back in 1951, which is, 'Keep the Australians happy and quiet because of the peace treaty with Japan', given what we'd been through in the '40s. Well, look how it's evolved over the period of time. No-one considered it would become the principal vehicle to underpin our response to terrorist attacks in New York in 2001, or that it is now the principal vehicle for coordinating our response to cyber-security.

My view is that this Alliance, based on common values and common interests, will continue to evolve. In what particular direction, in the decade ahead, well, let's wait and see, but we the Government – the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and myself – strongly support the decision by the United States to re-engage in the Asia-Pacific.

We strongly support their commitment through the Prime Minister's declaration in Canberra, that the net US-military presence in Asia and the Pacific would not be altered by global force reductions by the United States.

And thirdly, we, together with the US's other allies in the region – Korea, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and ourselves – will be in there as strong continuing partners.

PAUL KELLY: If we look at what is happening, isn't it correct to say that the Alliance is evolving, and it is being recast to manage the new balance of power in Asia and the rise of China? That this is now the main task of the Alliance?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, if that was the case, it's pretty interesting, Paul, while this weekend we have Operation Cooperative Spirit being conducted this weekend in Sichuan province, with the People's Liberation Army and the Australian Defence Force. That's what we're doing this weekend.

We have a whole range of military-to-military contact with the Chinese, which in the period that I was Prime Minister – and it continues – is rapidly expanding at the level of chief of defence force, the Chinese equivalents, etcetera; so there is an unfolding fabric of cooperation there.

There are dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region. This is the cockpit of the 21st century. It is also where the world hopes to derive all of its economic growth from. What is the over-riding foreign policy vision of this government? It is to create in this East Asian hemisphere a culture of common security; of security policy cooperation where no-one is taken by surprise by anything, and up until the last week or so we've never had such an institution, which is why you've had me bang on about this for three years; and that vision for an Asia-Pacific community took a massive step forward when President Obama attended the East-Asian Summit for the first time just a weekend or so ago.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: What about in China? I mean next year we're going to see some leadership change positions in China. In Taiwan at the moment the DPP are ahead in the polls in their presidential contest. Are we likely to see on foreign policy in relation to these changes?

KEVIN RUDD: Well Taiwan is always frankly out there, sort of, to be watched carefully.

Everyone thinks that the Taiwan problem is fixed solved gone and done with because you've now got open trade links, open air links and open everything else between Taiwan and the mainland – unthinkable when I was a student in Taipei more years ago than I care to remember, but now a reality. The problem hasn't been fixed because the fundamental question of sovereignty hasn't been fixed.

So if the Taiwanese vote for the Democratic Progress Party, the opposition party, on a pro Taiwan independence platform next year, we're going to have problems again.

Let's just be very frank about it. What we need however is a culture of open engagement with our Chinese friends to do deal with those problems, and the Taiwanese, and the Chinese in their diplomacy towards Taiwan in the last several years, I think have shown an extraordinarily mature and stable and measured approach.

PAUL KELLY: I want to ask you about the arrangements with India. The Prime Minister's indicated that she wants to change the policy of national conference at relation to uranium sales to India. Why is this so urgent? Given that India at the moment has no pressing need for Australian uranium at all, what is the urgency tied into a change of policy now?

KEVIN RUDD: Well as you know this is the Prime Minister's initiative, and she's put it forward after reflection. I think the key question here is that we need to look very carefully at where our future strategic relationship with India goes.

On the question of immediate uranium need and uranium sales, well you've seen my remarks on the record about that, which is there is no crushing need for Australian uranium at this time.

PAUL KELLY: So is there therefore a need to change the policy at this point in time?

KEVIN RUDD: Well the Prime Minister will put this forward. I'm on the record as supporting a change in policy, I do so as the Foreign Minister of Australia because the strategic relationship with India for the decade ahead is of great importance to our national interests.

The second reason is, and you've watched this for many years Paul, how many Australian governments have discovered and rediscovered India since 1947? This government, in 2009 when I visited Delhi we re-birthed the relationship in new language as a new strategic partnership. First time the Indian government has used that to describe it. We're therefore seeking to engage them on security policy, the future of the Indian Ocean, piracy and the north west Indian Ocean areas…

PAUL KELLY: Yeah but on this question, how confident are you that India will be able to meet the Australian requirements for export, even given a change of policy in relation to the NPT? I mean there's still an obligation on you as Foreign Minister to ensure that India meets all the requirements. Are you confident that will happen?

KEVIN RUDD: What I'd say to you on that Paul is I take my non proliferation responsibilities deadly seriously …

PAUL KELLY: Precisely.

KEVIN RUDD: This will not be a lay down misere. This will require fundamental commitments from the Indian government and bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements with Australia of an identical type that we have with the 20 other countries to whom we export uranium at present. And on top of that, comprehensive Indian commitments concerning their arrangements with what's called the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which was a set of policy changes put in place globally in relation to India several years ago.

And so, as the principal negotiator on these questions, as the Foreign Minister of Australia, I would take a hard line, as I would take in any bilateral nuclear safeguards arrangements with any country, but in particular one which lies formally outside the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: Mr Rudd, I want to ask you about foreign aid commitments. The 0.5 per cent target, is that something that Labor is wholly committed to?

KEVIN RUDD: Absolutely. We went to the election in 2007 with me making a direct commitment eyeball to eyeball to the Australian people that we would increase it from where it was – I think 0.27 in those days – to 0.5, by 2015. We are on track to do that.

It's controversial because people always have competing priorities, but I think it's absolutely the right thing to do for Australia.

But I would say this: I get worried when Mr Abbott starts to wobble on these questions. While the Coalition technically came on side with bipartisan support some time in 2008 after the government was elected, and Julie Bishop has from time to time reaffirmed that, Mr Abbott from time to time has decided to break out.

So I think it's absolutely imperative for Mr Abbott to be unequivocal that the Liberal Party stands behind this commitment.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: It is the same on both sides though isn't it? I mean Julie Bishop has talked about it, Tony Abbott avoids it; you've talked about it, Julia Gillard avoids it.

KEVIN RUDD: Absolutely not. The Prime Minister has been clear cut in her commitment to 0.5, it is the policy we took to the 2007 election, and right now, since then, we've now increased to 0.35, and we're on track to meeting our target.

Also, it's a really good thing for Australia to do. It's consistent with our values as a political party and movement, consistent with our national interests. We have huge interests in supporting the strategic stability of the south west Pacific and other countries.

PAUL KELLY: If we just shift to Afghanistan – we've got Australian troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan at the moment, and we know that an important element of Pakistan's government, the ISI, is supporting our enemies. What's your message to Pakistan in this situation? How do you feel about this, and what can we do in relation to this act of betrayal by Pakistan?

KEVIN RUDD: The direct answer to your question Paul, is deeply disturbed, and I've reflected that position obviously directly to the government of Pakistan.

If you're a keen student of Pakistan internal political arrangements, these are complex. You have the ISI, the intelligence apparatus; you have the Pakistan armed forces; you have the civilian side of the Pakistan government; and it's sometimes difficult to trace exactly who is responsible for what piece of policy and what piece of behaviour. But our position is clear cut in Australia, where we have so many of our men and women in uniform on the line in Afghanistan, in Tarin Kowt, where I and others have been on many occasions, being placed in daily jeopardy. If Pakistan is assisting this indirectly, or by whatever means …

PAUL KELLY: But surely it is …

KEVIN RUDD: … we have a real problem on our hands.

PAUL KELLY: Yeah, but just on this point, as Foreign Minister do you have any doubt that Pakistan is assisting the enemy?

KEVIN RUDD: The view that I have is that it's quite clear that there is a line of supply of improvised explosive devices going into Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan from Taliban-controlled parts of western Pakistan. That is my belief.

Therefore the critical foreign policy challenge is how do you stop it, and how do you get the Pakistan government to suppress it?

This was the subject of intense conversation between myself and the Pakistani Foreign Minister when she was here for the Commonwealth Head of Government meeting in Perth just a few weeks ago.

We obtained assurances from the Pakistan government that this would be dealt with. We will not let up on this because there is a direct impact on our folks on the ground. People often ask therefore why are we providing military assistance to Pakistan to train their armed forces.

PAUL KELLY: I was just about to ask that question.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah, sure, it's a legitimate question, because of the nature of Pakistani politics and the division of power between the intelligence services and the armed forces and the rest, we've taken a view, together with the Americans and others, that we should assist wherever possible to train the Pakistan armed forces in counter insurgency techniques. That means dealing with their own Taliban insurgency – in other words dealing with the problem that we've just been talking about.

Whereas the Pakistan armed forces historically have been trained in the tradition of almost Rommel's fifth field army in North Africa, which is waiting for some land based conflict with India to the east, that's not where the primary strategic sphere of action is. For us and for our people on the ground it lies in Afghanistan and dealing with the Taliban insurgency.

PAUL KELLY: I wonder if we could just switch quickly to Europe. There's a titanic economic debate and struggle going on inside Europe about how to handle the crisis.

What I'm interested in is, what's the attitude of the Australian government?

We've got German Chancellor Merkel wants the policy of austerity, she wants a restrictive approach from the European central bank, and this is opposed by many others who are saying these German policies are precisely the wrong approach. What's the view of the Australian government as to what is the right approach to save Europe?

KEVIN RUDD: I think it occurs at two or three levels. Let me just go to them.

The first is, are there sufficient funds in the European stability fund to underpin the sovereign debt positions and bank exposure that we've seen unfold across southern Europe in recent times? And our view is that that needs more financial resources from the governments of Europe. That's the first point.

The second is, what is the structural future of the Euro Zone itself?

And there are two big structural decisions here to be made. If you're going to maintain a political project otherwise known as the European Union or the Euro Zone, then – and if you're going to sustain various economies not being competitive and not having enough financial resources, then – you should have, as we have in Australia, a system of horizontal fiscal equalization, a net transfer of tax revenues from one part of the country to the other to preserve the union. That's what we've had for many years.

There's only one other strategic alternative, ad that is for those countries which are not competitive to leave the Euro Zone.

PAUL KELLY: Well what do we think is best?

KEVIN RUDD: That's a matter for the Europeans, but what I'm saying is it's one or the other. There's no sloshing around in the middle. If you to leave the Euro Zone, adopt our own currency, the currency is then devalued, and as a consequence, competitiveness is restored by the normal means and there's a reduction of living standards in that country.

The third element, going to the heart of your question, is what about real economic growth?

And it's the missing element in so much of the debate about the European and global financial crisis, that if you simply cut and burn everywhere, and are not generating continued economic activity, through excessive fiscal austerity measures, then I'm not certain that is the right ingredient …

PAUL KELLY: So you disagree with Germany?

KEVIN RUDD: Well it depends …

PAUL KELLY: Yeah you do …

KEVIN RUDD: It depends …

PAUL KELLY: You do obviously …

KEVIN RUDD: It depends which statement by which Chancellor at which time and which representative of the German government you're talking about.

All I'm saying is the reason we, as the Australian government, and the Australian people, got out of the global financial crisis with the economy intact, was not just because of our financial sector interventions – that is guaranteeing bank deposits, guaranteeing interbank landing – it's also because we had a parallel fiscal policy to keep growth afloat. And uniquely amongst the OECD, virtually, we avoided recession and mass unemployment. Not a bad achievement.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: Mr Rudd, I know we're almost out of time, you've got a plane to catch, but I can't let you go without asking you a straight up leadership question. Now I'm not interested – you've spoken …

KEVIN RUDD: I'm not commenting on the German Chancellor.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: Even our cameramen are laughing at that. I – my question is not a political one. It's a personal one. How do you do it? How do you continue in the role you're in after what you had done to you?

I don't think I could, honestly.

KEVIN RUDD: Well it depends on the stuff that you're made of. I mean I'm a creature of public policy. That's what animates me. I want to see things that change the nation and equip the nation for the future.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: But it was so raw, it was so raw. You still …

KEVIN RUDD: Of course it was raw.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: … so senior in the government, working so closely, and it was in your first term as Prime Minister.

I don't think in all the discussions you've had, and in all the interviews where this question gets asked, and the answers get avoided, I don't think we've ever had a really honest human answer to how you do it.

KEVIN RUDD: Of course it's raw, let's be blunt about it. I'm a human being. You guys are human beings. You've had ups and downs in your respective careers, and everyone gets knocked around by that. I have been as well enormously blessed by the fact that I've got a hugely supportive family, about to be an extended family, and – in terms of Jessica announcing that she Albert are having a baby – but, that's made it possible.

So your answer is how do you actually get through all of these, you know, knocks? You've got a hugely supportive family, and for me that's real.

Secondly, it's what you're ultimately on about; and what I'm on about is how you carve out a future for Australia in a highly uncertain region in a highly uncertain world.

What position I may occupy to do that is a second point, and therefore as Foreign Minister when I say I'm happy being the Foreign Minister of Australia, guess what? I mean it.

It's a great position to be in. You get to do some useful things for the country's future.

PAUL KELLY: And you're looking forward to becoming a grandfather?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the – when Jessica told us a little while ago this was happening, Therese and I were absolutely delighted. Therese is still on cloud nine, we'll bring her down soon. And being called grandpa is something I'm not actually looking forward to, because I know where that will go.

PETER VAN ONSELEN: All right Mr Rudd, we are going to force you to miss your plane if we keep you any longer. Thank you for joining us on Australian Agenda. Thanks for your company.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks for having me on the program.

ENDS

Media enquiries