[laughs]

... interestingly, uh, we have in the past shown that we can have politicians who are able to lead Um, and politicians with imagination.

And not only on the Evatt side of politics, but I mean, i- in, in my own interactions with Andrew Peacock, for example, when he was foreign minister, he had plenty of imagination.

He was often constrained by his own cabinet, but that's not my point.

Uh, Fraser had plenty of imagination, and around a big moral issue like apartheid, Fraser demonstrated what Australia could actually do.

Um, uh, Whitlam had amazing imagination.

Maybe the leadership part of Whitlam's character as a politician wasn't as, as high as, as his imagination, but, uh, just a, a, a couple of months ago, I read through the, the five major speeches that Whitlam gave in 1974 in his big tour of the ASEAN capitals, the, the five old ASEAN capitals, and honestly, Mark, they are as fresh today in 2026 as they were in 1974, simply because we never took up the challenge that Whitlam set for us all.

[laughs]

But the way that we're so focused on the securitisation or the security aspect of that relationship, I think we would both agree tends to undermine those other aspects of the relationship, you know, the friendship, the kinship that Howard was kind of alluding to.

Look, I think it does because it distorts the focus.

I mean, the lens through which successive governments look at the United States is the lens of national security, which is curious because we are one of the most secure countries in the world.

Just by virtue of our geography, let's leave aside the fact that we don't...

We don't offend a lot of people.

We're not warlike.

We don't attack them.

What could, I mean, you talked about, you know, walking to the Oval Office and talking to the President, but what more broadly could the Australian government be doing to protect and strengthen, recreate those rules?

But the way that we're so focused on the securitisation or the security aspect of that relationship, I think we would both agree tends to undermine those other aspects of the relationship, you know, the friendship, the kinship that Howard was kind of alluding to.

Look, I think it does because it distorts the focus.

I mean, the lens through which successive governments look at the United States is the lens of national security, which is curious because we are one of the most secure countries in the world.

Just by virtue of our geography, let's leave aside the fact that we don't...

We don't offend a lot of people.

We're not warlike.

We don't attack them.

What could, I mean, you talked about, you know, walking to the Oval Office and talking to the President, but what more broadly could the Australian government be doing to protect and strengthen, recreate those rules?

W- what is the broader context here of how the United States is, is treating Venezuela and the kind of damage that it is doing to that country?

In a way, Emma, the United States seems incapable at the moment of, of recognizing strategic opportunity.

Um, and I think partly it is the reliance on militarism as its principal sort of tool for the management of international relationships, but I think it's a, a little bit deeper than that.

It, it probably goes back historically to the exercise of American exceptionalism, you know, back in the beginning of the 19th century when many of its current problems, uh, in Central and s- and South America actually started up.

Um, you know, the heavy hand of, of US sort of gunboat diplomacy and, uh, suppression of, of opposition.

So Venezuela, I think, particularly after the earthquakes, is not ...

It's both a catastrophe and a tragedy all at once, particularly for the people of Venezuela, and, and that's more or less where I would want to start.

Mm

Alan, what is the broader context here of how the United States is treating Venezuela and the kind of damage that it is doing to that country?

In a way, Emma, the United States seems incapable at the moment of recognising strategic opportunity.

And I think partly it is the reliance on militarism as its principal force sort of tool for the management of international relationships.

But I think it's a little bit deeper than that.

It probably goes back historically to the exercise of American exceptionalism back in the beginning of the 19th century when many of its current problems in Central and South America actually started up.

the heavy hand of US sort of gunboat diplomacy and suppression of opposition.

So Venezuela, I think, particularly after the earthquakes, it's both a catastrophe and a tragedy all at once, particularly for the people of Venezuela.

So I just wanted to ask you about how you see the Albanese government's, I guess, evolving Pacific diplomacy.

But, I mean, is that enough for, you know, Australia and the Pacific to say in a united way, Well, listen, you know, we're here too, and we can fight back if necessary against the Chinese.

Look, nothing is ever enough, Tim, but it's a really important first start.

You know, we've had a whole lot of agreements and things running in the Pacific for the best part of 75 years now.

And what we're seeing is a bit of a concentration on security agreements right at the moment.

because people are put off by China demonstrating its military power.

And it's an interesting thing to me that the initiative for this particular evolution, that is a security pact across the Pacific, actually comes from the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands,

but

I must just say to you, I'm not terribly worried about it because, first of all, the Americans have long-term interests in the Pacific, so they haven't forgotten those.

Yeah

... it's no accident at all.

It's a highly endowed, gifted country.

So of course they can change.

Of course they can do things differently.

The question is, I think more fundamentally, whether or not amongst their politicians there's anybody who wants to lead them out of the quagmire that they've created for themselves, uh, certainly under the, the Trump, and I'd have to say the Biden presidencies, to, uh, a much more disciplined, economically disciplined and foreign policy disciplined presidency.

And if one looks back, uh, America's had those in the past.

Yeah.

Yeah

... it's no accident at all.

It's a highly endowed, gifted country.

So of course they can change.

Of course they can do things differently.

The question is, I think more fundamentally, whether or not amongst their politicians there's anybody who wants to lead them out of the quagmire that they've created for themselves, uh, certainly under the, the Trump, and I'd have to say the Biden presidencies, to, uh, a much more disciplined, economically disciplined, and foreign policy disciplined presidency.

And if one looks back, uh, America's had those in the past.

Yeah.

Yeah, well, aren't we?

Yeah, because it's a face array radar.

It's got some similarities with JAWN, but it's, again, it's the processing of the return signal where the science really is.

And the scientists over at the Defense Science and Technology Organization about 30 years ago developed, as I say, the algorithms for reading the return signals, and that's where the science really sits, and it's what makes it so superior.

Yeah.

But do we spend enough on defence, generally?

Look, personally, I think we do.

OK.

Mm.

Um, you know, good.

Yeah, you can take the whole lot if you'd like.

There'd be a lot of Germans, I think, who'd be quite happy to see Germany, uh-Uh, not hosting anything like the number of American facilities that it does.

Because it's important, Emma, I think, to understand that those facilities are not there for Germany.

They're not there for German security.

They're there for the United States and its ability to project power against Russia.

Mm

I just want to save lives." What do you think he's talking about there?

You'd have to [chuckles] ask Donald Trump what he's talking about there, I think.

It's, it's a curious way of going about it, isn't it? This, uh, man who's much given to bluster and braggadocio, uh, saying, "Aw, shucks, not me.

Uh, I'm just a, a humble servant of the people of the world going about sort of creating peace wherever I go." Uh, that's not his form.

Uh, I think Trump is a person who is an attention seeker and would like nothing better than to get this sort of attention.

H-his actions in just the last couple of days are quite consistent, I think, with that kind of attitude in that he's seeking to create a ceasefire in the Middle East, in Palestine, uh, which can't truly be a peace in current circumstances because evidently Israel has not finished its business yet.

And yet Trump is talking up a ceasefire as though it was the end of three thousand years of constant struggle in Palestine.

So if Donald Trump did get a Nobel Peace Prize, what would that do to the credibility of the award?

Can you explain why you're also concerned about what's happening here in Australia?

Look, accountability, I think, is at the heart of the deal that we all have with our governments.

Um, I mean, managing 26 million people is a pretty big task.

We've all got different wishes and hopes and aspirations.

And if we don't have a set of, of rules, which is the law, then we won't be able really to manage ourselves effectively.

Now, those laws just don't happen through the Parliament.

We've got a system here where we've got an executive which is drawn from the Parliament.

Now they argue that that's about national security risks, but there seems to be a concerted effort in a number of democracies right now to cut at the heart, attack the heart of what makes our nations great.

I just want to save lives." What do you think he's talking about there?

there?You'd have to [chuckles] ask Donald Trump what he's talking about there, I think.

It's, it's a curious way of going about it, isn't it? This, uh, man who's much given to bluster and braggadocio, uh, saying, "Aw, shucks, not me.

Uh, I'm just a, a humble servant of the people of the world going about sort of creating peace wherever I go." Uh, that's not his form.

Uh, I think Trump is a person who is an attention-seeker and would like nothing better than to get this sort of attention.

Uh, his actions in just the last couple of days are quite consistent, I think, with that kind of attitude in that he's seeking to create a ceasefire in the Middle East, in Palestine, uh, which can't truly be at peace in current circumstances because evidently Israel has not finished its business yet.

And yet Trump is talking up a ceasefire as though it was the end of 3,000 years of constant struggle in Palestine.

So if Donald Trump did get a Nobel Peace Prize, what would that do to the credibility of the award?