
Cables reveal UK view on Howard's personality, Australia's part in Kyoto ‘awkward squad' and an aborted cricket match
And it was trying to organise a game of cricket against the English.
Just released papers from Britain's National Archives shed light on intergovernmental correspondence between the governments of Australia and the UK before a prime ministerial visit to London in 2000 to mark Australia Week, and the centenary of the Australian constitution.
Correspondence between the governments of the conservative prime minister John Howard and the UK Labour leader Tony Blair reveal a suite of problems still being grappled with in Australia a quarter of a century later.
'Personality notes' written for Blair describe Howard as a leader who had 'started well' as prime minister, particularly on gun control after the Port Arthur massacre, but who 'appeared to lose his way' during his first term.
Importantly for the UK, it saw Howard as an 'instinctive monarchist … well-disposed towards Britain'. The sketch says Howard was a 'strong family man', significantly influenced by his wife, Janette, that he was a 'fanatical follower' of cricket, and a 'great admirer' of Sir Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi.
In a scene-setting cable dated June 2000 prepared for Blair, the UK high commissioner noted: 'Australia is going through one of its periodic bouts of angst over its place in the Asia-Pacific and the wider world'.
It said Australia took 'enormous national pride' in its intervention in Timor-Leste the year before (despite significant damage to its relationship with Indonesia), saying that the Australian-led peacekeeping mission 'raised Australia's stock in Asia'.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
However, 'critics argue that it simply hardened a view widely held in Asia that Australia is ambivalent, even antagonist, towards Asia'.
Timor-Leste, the cable noted, had also strained Canberra's relations with Washington DC.
'The [US's] perceived reluctance to assist Australia is seen as an indication that the US could not be relied on automatically in circumstances that are of little interest to it.
'More broadly, some are doubting that the US will retain interest in the alliance unless Australia increases its commitment, in terms of defence spending.
'The litmus test is Taiwan: having to choose between the US and China is the nightmare scenario on Australia's strategic and diplomatic horizon. Few doubt Australia would choose the US but the calculations are becoming less clearcut.'
In 2025, the US defense secretary has insisted Australia lift defence spending to 3.5% of its GDP, while Trump administration officials have demanded assurances from Australia it would support the US in any conflict over Taiwan.
On climate, Blair was briefed that although Australia had signed the Kyoto protocol to cut emissions, it had not ratified the treaty.
The British government suspected Howard would not raise the matter during the two leaders' meeting.
'If Howard doesn't mention it, you should raise climate change,' Blair's brief states. 'The Australians are in the awkward squad on Kyoto (alongside eg the Russians and the US): you should tell Howard how important we think the issues are, and encourage Australia to do more.'
In the quarter-century since, Australian governments have been consistently criticised internationally for failing to adequately address the climate crisis. A federal court judge last week found previous Australian governments had 'paid scant, if any, regard to the best available science' in setting emissions reductions targets.
Other files reveal concern within Blair's government about an Indigenous delegation that visited the UK in late 1999.
Leading the delegation was Patrick Dodson, a Yawuru elder and later senator, often referred to as the 'father of reconciliation'. During the same trip, he met Queen Elizabeth II as part of a larger effort to foster reconciliation.
However, a memo written by Blair's foreign affairs adviser, John Sawers, reflects angst within the prime minister's office about a proposed meeting with the delegation, referring to an apparent intervention by the then Australian high commissioner, Philip Flood.
'The Australians are pretty wound up about the idea of you seeing the Aborigines at all,' Sawers wrote to Blair. 'Their high commissioner rang me to press you not to see them: they were troublemakers – it would be like [the then Australian prime minister] John Howard seeing people from Northern Ireland who were trying to stir up problems for the UK.'
The memo suggested: 'Can't we plead diary problems?' The word 'yes' is written in answer to this, in handwriting that resembles Blair's.
A quarter-century later, Dodson was a key advocate for an Indigenous voice to parliament, put to Australians in a referendum in 2023. The voice proposal was ultimately defeated.
Also within the National Archives files is a prescient document from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to the UK High Commission in Canberra. It reflects on a visit from a 'rising star in the Australian Labor party and a useful contact for the FCO'.
The 'rising star' had reflected on Australia's place in its region (and was summarised by an FCO official): 'There were two main problems to Australia being part of Asia: a large slice of the region did not accept them, probably because of a common experience of European occupation – and Australia were too white; and Australians saw themselves as Australians rather than Asian, or indeed Europeans or Americans.'
The visitor's name was Kevin Rudd, the man who in 2007 would replace Howard as the next prime minister of Australia.
As the 2000 Australia Week visit from prime minister Howard approached, a flurry of correspondence between the two governments sought to put the finishing touches to the trip. The files contain flight details, hotel bookings, and to-the-minute travel arrangements. There are discussions of trumpet fanfares and processional routes.
One idea ultimately discarded was a cricket match proposed by Howard, to be played between Australian and English XIs at a ground near Chequers, the British prime ministerial country house.
'The teams could, perhaps, consist of one or two current Test players, a recently retired great cricketer or two, with the balance being young players of promise.'
Blair's private secretary, Philip Barton, wrote in a memo to the UK prime minister: 'I suspect the last thing you will want to do is go to a cricket match on the Saturday. But if we just say no, this would no doubt come out and you would look unsporting.'
Barton proposed getting former Tory prime minister John Major, an avowed cricket fan, to raise an XI on Blair's behalf, 'but it may not be enough to stop the prime minister having to go to at least the start of the match'. A third option was to 'turn it into a charity match'.
The match did not go ahead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs urge ministers to introduce long-awaited rules on supply chain deforestation
MPs have called on ministers to introduce long-awaited rules aimed at removing products from UK shelves that have been farmed on land where trees were cut down. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) wrote to Environment Secretary Steve Reed calling for urgent action to tackle the issue in supply chains. Under the previous Government's proposals, businesses will be prohibited from using or selling goods containing palm oil, cocoa, beef, leather and soy linked to deforestation. This due diligence system was part of the 2021 Environment Act but ministers are yet to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation or set a timetable for when they will do so. EAC chairman Toby Perkins asked Mr Reed to set out a specific date for introducing the legislation 'ideally before the New Year' so that the rules can be in place for the new financial year in April. The letter said: 'Delays in bringing forward this legislation makes the Cop15 agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the UK's commitment to ending deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, harder to achieve. 'However, it also leaves businesses with uncertainty and will leave them with less time to prepare and comply with the regime. 'On 2 June, in your response to the Committee, you recognised the urgency of taking action to ensure forest risk commodities are not driving deforestation and stated you would set out the Government approach in due course.' Several British supermarkets recently warned that they are in 'limbo' waiting for the Government to introduce the new rules. In an open letter earlier this month, retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl said deforestation presents an increasing risk to supply chain stability as well as food security. But they also said the UK could suffer millions in export losses to the European Union if Government inaction leaves businesses unprepared to comply with the bloc's own deforestation rules, which are due to come into force at the end of this year. Asked recently whether the Government has a timetable for introducing the legislation, the Environment Secretary told the PA news agency: 'Currently no, but we are working at pace so we can do this as quickly as possible.' On the supermarkets' letter and whether the Government is looking to speed up progress on introducing the rules, Mr Reed said: 'Absolutely.' 'I agree with the supermarkets,' he said. 'The previous Government was just dragging their heels without ever coming to a conclusion about what we do about protecting forests in other countries as well as in our own country. 'And of course forests, trees, woodlands were very important for capturing carbon and cleaning the atmosphere so we don't want to be importing food that has been grown where the forests have been destroyed. 'The Government is working with supermarkets, with food producers and internationally to make sure we get the outcome and we can do that as soon as possible to give everybody certainty about how we move forward on this.'


The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does the overturning of a City trader's fraud conviction mean for deregulation?
Tom Hayes, the former City trader who was jailed in 2015 for his part in rigging inter-bank interest rates, the so-called Libor scandal – was a patsy. The former UBS and Citigroup trader was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison, later reduced to 11. This week, that conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court. I'm all for white collar criminals getting their just desserts, but Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank. However, proportionality never came into this. Hayes' trial was designed to deliver a head on a plate to a public that was justifiably angry about what the City was getting up to after the bankers nearly crashed the economy. There was a widespread feeling that overpaid boys – and they were mostly boys – with massively inflated egos and little sense of morality were thumbing their noses at the rest of Britain, which was just starting to feel the impact of the then-government's austerity policies. But Hayes, who ended up serving five-and-a-half years, had nothing to do with that crisis, and contributed not a whit to austerity. Libor – the interest rate at which key banks were willing to lend unsecured loans to each other – was unregulated at the time, which also wasn't Hayes' fault, but rather an issue for the politicians and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. It did ultimately set the rate for a number of loans, including some mortgages, but the day-to-day activities of Hayes and his peers didn't have much effect on what ordinary borrowers paid. No one was able to convincingly show any, otherwise we would have seen a string of compensation claims. The chief losers were likely other trading desks, which were often playing the same game anyway. That's not to justify what went on. Cheating is still cheating, and the whole business knocked confidence in the City and its markets. But, then, the whole system was a joke. 'Tom Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank' (PA Wire) Libor was set based on what some rube at Bank A estimated would be their cost of borrowing from other banks. These were put together, and a daily rate declared. If a hotshot trader got in touch, suggesting that the Libor guy tweak their Tuesday submission to help their trading position, they tended to comply. This is how the scandal got going. Needless to say, all this was unregulated. Yes, you read that right. Stupid is as stupid does, and this was really stupid. The Financial Services Authority, which was then the City's chief watchdog, ended up using failings in systems and controls and violations of its principles of business to justify the chunky fines it ultimately levied on the banks involved. Back to Hayes: the Supreme Court didn't completely exonerate him. It said there was 'ample evidence' during the trial that could have led to a conviction. But the judges raised issues with the trial judge's summing up, the directions given to the jury, and the impact it had on Hayes' defence. This was deemed to be unfair and the conviction unsafe as a result. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the other seven convicted traders up next. Similar cases have also been quashed in the US. The whole deck of cards is collapsing. The Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek to re-try Hayes or Carlo Palombo, another former trader, at Barclays, who received a four-year sentence for manipulating another benchmarked interest rate, Euribor, but has also won his appeal. They've done their time, and it's unlikely that the taxpayer will be coughing up any compo. Best sweep this one under the carpet because who wants all that stupid aired in public again, right? Here's the problem. The government had promised to deregulate financial services in the hope that reducing its oversight of the financial sector would light a fire under the City of London, boost the UK's stalling economy and bring in the tax revenues that the Treasury is in dire need of. This will likely involve loosening the rules governing the conduct of senior bankers that were ushered in following the 2008 credit crunch and the wave of scandals that followed in its wake, including interest-rate fixing. Can you see the problem with that? I think Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, can. Earlier this week, he advised the Treasury select committee that any big reforms to dramatically loosen City regulation – what the chancellor Rachel Reeves described in her Mansion House speech as a "boot on the neck" of business – and encourage more risk-taking might actually do more harm than good. He hinted that it might even trigger another financial meltdown. If traders can find an edge, an opening, they will jump on it. It was ever thus. They had good reason to think they had with Libor and that they were okay because there weren't any proper rules in place at the time. Their bosses will either turn a blind eye, just as they did then, or quietly encourage it, especially if the numbers come up good. And when this results in another scandal, there will be fines, which banks see as the cost of doing business, and an attempt to find another Tom Hayes to carry the can. The supervising bosses, who do the hiring and set the culture and who are supposed to be on top of what their banks are up to, will ride out the storm and pocket their bonuses as they always have. Justice, of a sort, has been served this time. But as for all that talk we heard about lessons being learned? They never are.


The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK police hold pro-Palestine protester, 80, for almost 27 hours and search house
An 80-year-old woman arrested for holding a placard at a pro-Palestine rally has said she is deeply traumatised after she was held by police for almost 27 hours, during which officers forced their way into her house and searched it. Marianne Sorrell from Wells, Somerset was detained at a rally in Cardiff on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, which earlier this month became the first direct action group to be banned under UK anti-terrorism laws. She said officers removed 19 items from her house, including iPads, a Palestine flag, books on Palestine, material related to Extinction Rebellion and the climate crisis, as well as drumsticks for – and a belt that holds – her samba drum. A friend who went to feed the cats and walked in on the police searching the house said there appeared to be a geiger counter –which measures radiation – on the table. Sorrell, a retired teacher, said: 'At 80, to be treated like a dangerous terrorist is deeply shocking. I've been very traumatised by this. Every morning I wake up feeling sick, nauseous. [I have] had to take anti-sickness pills. 'They've actually not taken anything that could be classed as illegal but it's very confusing that they're beginning to think anything connected to Palestine or support for Palestine is illegal in some way.' She said the arrests at the 12 July Defend Our Juries rally took place five minutes from the scheduled end of the one-hour demonstration, the timetable of which had been communicated to the police in advance. Sorrell was arrested with her friend Trisha Fine, 75, also from Wells and a retired teacher, who was held for the same period of time. The pair said they gave 'no comment' interviews in which they were asked whether they knew that Palestine Action supported violence and whether they were individually prepared to use violence. Eleven other people were arrested at the Cardiff rally. Sorrell said officers broke into her house through the back door before replacing the lock. Neighbours told her that about 10 officers were present for approximately three hours and her friend who went to feed the cats said she saw them poking long cotton buds into Sorrell's jars of dried goods. 'Whenever I open a drawer or cupboard, I can see that they've been searched,' said Sorrell. 'I'm not sure what they were looking for.' The women have been bailed until October. Their bail conditions prohibit contact with each other and spending any nights away from their homes. Fine said: 'This restriction about staying at home is an issue because my husband is recovering from cancer treatment and we planned a couple of treats which we've already booked and paid for: a trip to Madrid in late August, and a trip driving around Europe for September. I can't do those so that is pretty onerous. He's had a tough time and he deserves a break. 'And, well, am I a 75-year-old terrorist? I don't think so. It's completely out of order. You just wonder what the hell is happening with this country and this government.' She said that during her detention officers refused to let her have antibiotics she was taking for a serious gum infection and failed to call her husband to tell him about her arrest, despite having agreed to do so. Under the Terrorism Act the friends face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Sorrell said: 'I just feel if I'm put in prison for this, and even if I die in prison for this, I can't think of a better thing to die for really than for the justice of the people who've been persecuted now for almost my lifetime.' South Wales police did not directly address any of the matters raised. A spokesperson said the investigation led by Welsh counter-terrorism police was continuing.