Perspectives     Click here to close this window

  Jeff Kennett

 Person: Jeff Kennett

Former Liberal Premier of Victoria.
  Q1. I guess our first interest is to look at motives for going into politics. What was it that drew you into political life? What were you hoping to achieve?
 
JK: My thought processes there were probably three reasons. One was public service where I think that, if we are fortunate enough to live in a society that gives us all the benefits that we enjoy today, you've got to make a contribution back. Secondly, at that stage I had two young children and I wanted them at twenty to have the same freedom of choice that I had when I turned twenty. Therefore that meant from my point of view that not only did you have to work from your own endeavours but you had to contribute back to society. Thirdly, it was 1975 when I stood for preselection and it was the middle of the Whitlam years, a period in which a whole lot of decisions by Government impacted very adversely on small business. To me, if my children were going to have the same opportunities I had when I turned twenty, then we had to ensure that we had a creative and a growing private sector base and I was worried at that time that this was being eroded. So those were my three fundamental reasons.
 
Q2. Do you think that many people go into politics with this idea of social service underlying it?
 
JK: I think you'd have to speak to many other people. I think everyone's different, no two individuals are the same. We're all driven by different motives and we seek different forms of satisfaction but I can only speak for myself.
 
Q3: In terms of when you became Premier, it must have been an extraordinary change in terms of the colossal media focus that a person gets when they're the actual leader?
 
JK: No, I don't think so. I'd been in politics for about seventeen years or sixteen years before I became Premier of the State. I'd been a minister in former governments, I'd been Opposition leader for years, I'd conducted my party through two elections and the media were fundamentally part of my life.

You relied on them to get your message out and they relied on you to provide them with stories. At times that relationship was strained but it's part of the profession of politics. You can't divorce yourself from the media, you are a public figure and the relationship is therefore very much a moving feast.
 
Q4: Do you think the way the media reports political events distorts the political process?
 
JK: Well again, I think that's a generalisation. There are a few journalists who I think are exceptionally good. There are others who, as is the case in all walks of life, are less than professional. There are many who are motivated by the story for the day or the story for the week and they don't put things in a context. I think journalists generally speaking, belittle the profession of politics. I know politicians may contribute to that in part but I don't think there's much respect in this country from the media in general for politicians. And I think that's sad.
 
Q5: There's a truism that the public seems to be to some extent lacking in confidence in it's politicians. Do you think the media is responsible for that?
 
JK: I don't think they're lacking in confidence. I don't think they respect their politicians, but I don’t think that's a lack of confidence. I mean politicians get elected, others get de-elected but they don't respect politicians. I think that’s in part due to some of the activities that politicians participate in but generally speaking, the media constantly talk down what politicians do.

For instance, I heard a journalist on radio today absolutely attacking politicians for accepting hospitality up at the Olympic games. I find that extraordinary. These are decision-makers; they should be where things are happening, where they're going to interact with people from overseas who can feed them with new ideas. So it's a combination of factors, but the media is very powerful, there's no doubt about that.
 
Q6: Do we need to take better care of our politicians?
 
JK: I don't know if we need to take better care of them, they've got to be fairly robust individuals and characters for a whole range of reasons. No, I just think the community would be better served if politicians are held to account, both through election and public comment. But we have a very different way of approaching politicians in this country than they do in the United States, where they actually respect their politicians even though the politicians are doing nothing fundamentally different from the politicians here. Here we have become, or allowed, our politicians to be subject to ridicule through the media which then sets the public trend for years.
 
Q7: One of the impressions one gets seeing the politics reported through the media is that question time looks like one unending bunfight. Behind the scenes, do people across the parties actually get on reasonably well or are there bitter enmities?
 
JK: I think there's a generalisation that you're all part of one profession. You might be on different sides of the parliament in terms of your philosophy but you have a common knowledge of what your so-called political opponents go through because you go through it yourself. So there's a natural bonding there. In some cases there are very good friendships formed across the party divide. Given the nature of the adversarial role of politics and the confrontationist style, I think there's less of those today than there used to be but certainly there are some, yes.
 
Q8: It's been said that women politicians across the parties tend to maintain connection in a way that males don't. Do you think that's true?
 
JK: I think that's true in part yes, they tend to club together more closely than males. Certainly that would have been my observation.
 
Q9: If you could, to some extent, change the way the political process was reported, what sort of things would you want the public to be seeing more of, or to be thinking more about?
 
JK: Well, I think we always see the confrontational style blown up, we see a tremendous focus on personalities. We don't see as much reporting on debating policy, we don't see it on positive outcomes and I think that's a pity. I think I 'd like to see a reduction in the belittling of politicians simply because they're a politician. People tend to forget that individuals are private citizens who then elect to go into politics - it doesn't change their persona, they're still the same person. Jeff Kennett was in private life just as he was in public life, but because you're a politician it enables people to say things about you that they wouldn't say if you were a private figure, and I think that's sad, that's disappointing.

If I ever had an opportunity in a position of influence in terms of the media, I would be using it - not to excuse politics and politicians for bad behaviour and not to stop constructively criticising them - but certainly I wouldn't be haranguing and belittling them simply because of the profession they've chosen.
 
Q10: Do you think the public needs to have greater involvement in politics? Is the Australian public too laid back when it comes to involvement in issues?
 
JK: Oh yes, I think that's generally so. Very few of the Australian public are members of the political parties and that's part of the good life we lead here. People just want to go about their own business. We've got this ethos you can criticise whenever you like but you don't have to contribute. It would be desirable, I think, that more people were involved regardless of the political party they supported.
 
Q11: Do you think there's a problem nowadays with the young feeling very removed from politics?
 
JK: Quite the opposite. I think the young are involved, more thinking today than they've ever been. They may not be members of parties, but certainly they are involved, they've got thoughts, they've got views and they're never afraid to express them.
 
Q12: Do you think the parties themselves - the definition of them - causes a problem in terms of young people connecting to a party? Are people looking for a different sort of mix of issues?
 
JK: No, I think a lot of young people follow personalities as much as they follow political parties. It's been said that the young of Australia have followed the Labor party for years. Over the last five or six I would say that the young people followed my side of politics. It’s a bit like a lot of the non-English speaking communities: they may be said to be on one side or the other but traditionally they tend to relate to an individual more than they do to the title given to a political party.
 
Q13: I was wondering if I could specifically move on now to the role of Premier. What do you see as the most important thing that the Premier has to do for the State?
 
JK: Inspire confidence.
 
Q14: That's a very clear, good answer! On a day-to-day basis, what sort of things does a Premier do?
 
JK: Everything. My day would have started at five o'clock and finished at midnight six or seven days a week. You're chairman of the board and you're making sure things are being processed in terms of policy, in terms of detail. You're addressing issues that are going to raise public confidence and you're going to be removing those things that stand in the way of growth, development and individual hardship.

So, one of the most fascinating aspects of a politician’s life, particularly as you get higher up the chain of responsibility, is the variety of things that you do in any one day. I'd arrive at the office and I would think that I had a program planned, which you probably did, but you might find that interrupted because something happened that required your attention. It was and is a very exciting position to be in.
 
Q15: Does a Premier constantly have to watch his or her back for rivalries in their own party or do you generally have support except for moments of crisis?
 
JK: Well again, it would depend on circumstances and individuals, but I can only say I never looked over my back. I was very much focused on the future and created, I hope, an atmosphere in which people could contribute and that would deliver outcomes. Often those outcomes were not as people would have wanted at the time they were made.

But they're all designed to create a new environment for the State, obviously taking them from what was fundamentally a bankrupted position financially and a bankrupted position in terms of public confidence and pride to one we enjoy today - where you see our successors getting access to huge amounts of money that we had saved which they spend, and where public confidence is very high.
 
Q16: How do you actually get to become Premier? What sort of processes do you go through?
 
JK: Well, I think it's like the process of any other organisation, you join an organisation or you get selected to join. You then work hard, you get evaluated by your colleagues and ultimately if you're any good you progress up the chain of responsibility. The only different ingredient between the political process and the private process is that it is subject to public vote. So you might be the very best of your team, but never be Premier because your team as a whole is not voted in by the broader electorate, being the people of Australia or the people of Victoria.

Now, along the way it's not to say that the best person always assumes the top position. But it is the person whom the collective team thinks will best do a number of tasks. It might be communication, it might be human management, it might be physical looks, it might be the ability to talk on television, it might be management or it might be policy development. It won't necessarily be the person who has the best skills in one particular area.
 
Q17: So what do you see as the primary qualities to make an excellent Premier?
 
JK: Common sense, ability to work hard, ability to manage people well, ability to inspire. Ultimately to take people to places where they haven't been before.
 
Q18: As a member of the public, the end game of politics looks particularly brutal. When somebody loses an election, they go as the leader of the party but the fact is, that didn't happen to Robert Menzies and he then went on. He lost an election, won another one, and went on be one of Australia's longest governing people.
 
JK: Yes, but that again was a matter of personal choice. That option is open to those who are not successful. On the other hand, so is the option of leaving and it may be that after a period of time an individual says, "Well I've made a contribution over x number of years in the interests of the organisation that I've been part, they now deserve fresh blood." It may be that the person selfishly or unselfishly says, "I've been involved in this for a number of years, I'm going to change my lifestyle and do something different." So it could be a number of factors. I don't think it's particularly brutal. I mean we all know the system, what it is when we all go into it, you can't complain if you win, you can't complain if you lose. What you hope to do is to be there for a period of time that gives you the ability to make change and to influence change for the better.