John Lyons misrepresented my position re Paul Keating in his article in last week’s Bulletin.
Then, in Crikey on Friday, Charles Richardson interpreted my comments
concerning Paul Keating in that article as constituting an “attack” on
the former prime minister. This is not the case. I wrote to The Bulletin
on Thursday 25 August, stating that my attitude to Paul Keating was
“more positive” than John Lyons implied in his story and I have
attached a copy of my letter to The Bulletin below.

By the way, my point that “80 per cent of voters supported Keating’s
direction” was a comment on the fact that 80 per cent of the Australian
electorate voted for Labor or the Coalition between 1983 and 1996. I
did not suggest that Labor’s economic reform agenda was popular – only
that it was accepted by most Australians on a there-is-no-alternative
(TINA) basis.

Any rate, here is my letter to The Bulletin which I expect will be published next Wednesday:

It was over three months ago that John Lyons phoned me in
Paris for a profile he was writing on Paul Keating. I do not claim to
remember every word that was spoken, but I do recall that I was more
positive about the former prime minister than would be evident to those
who read my comments in The Bulletin’s cover story last week.

Democratic politics is never easy. Successful politicians are those who
can implement necessary reforms and bring the electorate along with
them. Judged in this light, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and John Howard
have been real achievers. As treasurer, Mr Keating played a key role in
the Hawke Government’s economic reform agenda – which included the
currency float, financial deregulation, the scaling back of protection
and national superannuation. When prime minister, Mr Keating presided
over the inaugural freeing-up of Australia’s highly regulated
industrial relations system.

It is true that, as prime minister, Paul Keating declined to moderate
his style and language. I found it amusing – but sensed that voters in
marginal seats, in the suburbs and regional towns, might not be so
entertained by what is termed (in the Australian vernacular) smart-arse
behaviour. By this I meant, simply, irreverent conduct and
language together with an inclination to initiate verbal conflict.

I talk to Paul Keating from time to time. He is invariably amusing,
always lively and sometimes obsessive. However, I would not regard the
former prime minister as in any sense dark or unhinged.