Former prime minister John Howard was once derided as "Mr 18 Per Cent". So how did the man who was dumped from the Liberal leadership become Australia's second-longest-serving PM?
Today marks 25 years since Mr Howard's 1996 election win, and he spoke to ABC Radio National about how he sees his successes, his failings, and the nation's future challenges.
Howard on … his 1996 election win Mr Howard was surprised by the extent of his 1996 victory: "I'd become very nervous about even winning."
"Even though we ran a good campaign. The polls were good. The Liberal Party had had so many setbacks and reverses and I'd had a number at a personal level, politically, as well, so that the size of the majority, which grew and grew as the counting progressed ... surprised me."
At the time, Mr Howard had been widely ridiculed by many, including within his own party. Yet his passion for policy change and support from those closest to him kept him going, despite the critics.
"My family was absolutely magnificent. I had some very close friends. But I was also driven by a belief in policy change," he says. "There were certain things I wanted to achieve in politics."
But he says his time as the opposition spokesman on industrial relations during the early 1990s, rather than his 11 years in the top job, were the most rewarding years he had in politics.
"I felt that the debate that took place at that time over industrial relations was very significant," he says now. "I was actually able to shift the debate, and that's the most rewarding thing to do. [I] remember over the years ... if you're interested in a policy issue, it can be very rewarding, even though you're in opposition. That was my experience. And that was one of the things that kept me going."
On how to appeal to voters
Then-prime minister Paul Keating and John Howard before a live debate in 1996.(Archive pool: Reuters)
It was Mr Howard's second time as Liberal leader, and he admits he wasn't sure his peers would think he could be a leader again after losing the federal election to Bob Hawke in 1987.
Appealing to traditional Labor voters in 1996 and thereafter would be a massive challenge for Mr Howard.
So how did he do it?
Mr Howard puts it down to Australian nationalism.
"I think many of the attitudes I took on what I might call Australian nationalism," he says. "The average Australian, if I can use that expression, believed very much in this country, and they wanted a prime minister who asserted traditional Australian values, not only the values of a fair go, but Australia was a distinctive, independent country."
He also said his promise to "re-establish balance in our foreign relations" held appeal.
"It was very important that we be close to the nations of Asia, but we shouldn't achieve that closeness at the expense of our relations with traditional allies," he says. "I think, also my style. I wasn't seen as an ultra-establishment figure."
Mr Howard says he does not believe in class and holds a view that "people are entitled to work hard and make a lot of money, providing they do it honestly, and they pay their fair share of tax."
He believes Scott Morrison has inherited this ideology.
"One of the reasons the Liberal Party did so well under Scott Morrison in 2019, is that their opponents ran, essentially, a class-based campaign, and Australians don't really like that," he says.
Mr Howard's critics in 1996 couldn't come to terms with his victory, he believes.
"I mean, there was a sense through my first term, that [it] was an illegitimate victory. Even though I had a 44-seat majority in a Parliament of 150, which was an extraordinary majority, there was a sense that it was just an aberration, and the public would come to its senses and return to the natural order."
He says traditional Labor supporters "decided that the economy was running better under us."
"They thought we had a more balanced view to our relations with the rest of the world. And now they're happy to support us."
As for his opponent in 1996, Paul Keating, Mr Howard says people were "aggravated" by his "emphasis on things that didn't touch their daily lives".
"There was a sense that the concerns of many people had been ignored."
On the National Apology to the Stolen Generations As prime minister, Mr Howard refused to deliver an apology to the Stolen Generations. That came later, under Kevin Rudd, the man who beat Mr Howard at the polls in 2007.
"I had reasons for that. And I don't retract, it was a very vexed issue," he says. "But I didn't think one generation could apologise for the claimed misdeeds of an earlier generation. When you say you're sorry to somebody about an event, that doesn't mean that you assume responsibility for it."
And Mr Howard questions whether the Apology has done anything to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.
"I don't know the Apology of itself has greatly improved conditions for Indigenous people, although many Indigenous people who had doubts about its value at the time are glad it's occurred, and I respect that."
John Howard waves farewell to his supporters with his wife Janette as he concedes defeat in the 2007 federal election.(Dean Lewins: AAP Image)
On the fight against climate change Mr Howard also refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the predecessor of the current Paris Agreement.
At the time, he says he was concerned about a potential impact on the competitiveness of Australian industries.
"I commissioned a very detailed analysis of the arguments for and against ratification in the months leading up to the 2007 election. And on the basis of that analysis, I concluded that we should stick to our policy," he says. "Now, if it contributed to our defeat, then that's the nature of the democratic process ... I think it probably did."
John Howard on federal election day in 2007.(Paul Miller: AAP)
On the Emissions Trading Scheme, Mr Howard says he supported it and developed a framework for it in consultation with industry.
"It was based on an expectation that there will be worldwide embrace of an emissions trading system.
"But of course, that's all now history, and that history will record that the greatest own goal in the climate change debate in Australia was the decision of the Australian Greens to vote against [Kevin] Rudd's proposal."
On same-sex marriage Mr Howard's views on same-sex marriage were another area that created political tension. He doesn't regret opposing marriage reform, and believes the 2017 plebiscite was imperfect.
"It should have been a proper plebiscite, but a proper plebiscite would not have yielded a different result," he argues.
He says it's important that independent and religious schools "are not in any way impeded from teaching their faith".
Mr Howard also spoke about today's "woke culture" and how it is altering language.
"When you hear examples of people wanting to alter the language and remove references to mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters ... that is just palpable nonsense.
"Every time something like that is proposed ... I'd like to hear a person in authority, both sides of politics, say that defies common sense. It defies nature, and we ought to denounce it."
On Afghanistan and 9/11 
John Howard and US president George W Bush shake hands before their meeting in the Oval Office on September 10, 2001.(Kevin Lamarque: Reuters)
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks.
With US forces still in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr Howard believes the intervention remains justified.
"Oh, certainly, in the case of Afghanistan, the objective was to make sure that a country that had been a haven for the terrorists would never again be a haven for terrorists," he says.
"I think that mission has largely been accomplished, although you can never be certain.
"But when you throw back to September 2001, the clear, overwhelming evidence was that Al Qaeda was given harbour ... from Afghanistan and indeed, in cooperation with elements in Pakistan as well.
"When they decided to go into Afghanistan, it was to take out Al Qaeda. It wasn't to impose democracy, that that came later on." |
