 Welcome, everyone, to the Lower Institute. It's great to see so many new and familiar faces in the audience. Let me start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which the Institute stands, the Gadigal of the Eora Nation. I pay my respects to their eldest, past, and present. I'm really delighted to see the enthusiasm and interest in today's event and in this topic, the intersection of Australia's foreign policy and multiculturalism. Please allow me to set the context for today's discussion, which I hope will be a discussion with you at the end. At the end of June, Australian's foreign minister, Penny Wong, in Kuala Lumpur said, half of the Australian population was born overseas or has a parent who was born overseas. Australia will be reflecting this rich character back to the world so the world can see itself in Australia because we share common ground. The time has come for Australia's full story to be told, our modern diversity and the rich heritage of First Nations people. That was Penny Wong at the end of June. Now, more than a quarter of Australians was born overseas, including myself, and almost half of Australians have a parent born overseas according to our last census. This demographic reality and diversity ought to be celebrated, but have we moved beyond this demographic reality? Multiculturalism symbolizes a positive vision of an inclusive, pluralistic society that supports minority groups based on equality and social belonging. Australian politicians have sought to frame Australia's multiculturalism around its socioeconomic benefits for Australia. As a migration policy tool, multiculturalism has the ability to manage Australia's growing diversity. Multiculturalism is also used as an anti-racism strategy to ensure social justice. And finally, multiculturalism is used to articulate Australia's national identity through a sense of shared values. In relation to the last point, multiculturalism as a grand strategy or objective, Australia's 2017 foreign policy white paper states that multiculturalism is part of Australia's soft power and a source of influence. Since coming into power in May, the Labour government has sought to invoke Australia's multiculturalism as part of our national identity when engaging with the region. Despite the importance of multiculturalism, it is unclear the extent to which various cultural and ethnic groups have shaped and contributed to Australia's foreign policy. How do we build alignment with Australia's multicultural communities and have these communities inform foreign policymaking? What are the systems and procedures that need to be in place to do and to achieve this goal? To explore these questions, I'm really pleased to introduce and welcome our panelist. Dr. Melissa Phillips is a lecturer in humanitarian and development studies in the School of Social Sciences at Western Sydney University. She has previously worked for the United Nations and international NGOs in South Sudan, the Horn and North of Africa and the Middle East. She recently co-edited Understanding Diaspora Development, Lessons from Australia and the Pacific. Next to her is Jason Chai. He is the Director of Market Access and Government Affairs for Cochlear Asia Pacific. Jason is a former Australian diplomat and has worked for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as well as at other senior government levels, including the Chief of Staff to a Victorian Minister of Trade and Investment. And next to Jason is Alfred Deacon Professor Fetiman Suri. He holds a Research Chair in Migration and Intercultural Studies and the UNESCO Chair for Comparative Research on Cultural Diversity and Social Justice. Fetiman is the Founding Director of the Alfred Deacon Institute for Citizenship and Globalization at Deacon University. He is the Editor of the Journal of Intercultural Studies and since 2010 has served as an expert advisor to the United Nations on Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Relations. What an esteemed panel. Welcome to Melissa, Jason and Fetiman. So in the introduction, I briefly laid out the definition of multiculturalism, how it is understood in the Australian context and what I see as a problem from the lens of policymaking, specifically foreign policy. I'd like us to start broadly first and to touch briefly on the idea of multiculturalism as a policy space. So to you, Fetiman, this idea that multiculturalism as a policy space has been criticized by those working with multicultural communities as a shallow policy space. Why is this a case where multiculturalism was introduced to Australia in the 1970s? Thank you very much, Jennifer, for having me and like you. I would like to acknowledge that all of us are meeting on the unceded land of the Indigenous people of Australia and we pay our respects to all their underspots present and future. I think you've alluded to in your introduction to a definition of multiculturalism. Unfortunately, as a scholar who has been working in this space for a couple of decades now, there is no agreed definition of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has essentially started as an ideological idea which really came immediately post the great movements of the 60s, which were the civil rights movements in Northern America, which really had a strong emphasis on justice along the axis of race, gender, and later on, of course, other issues of emancipation for a number of minoritized groups in the West. What you were also talking about correctly, which is the criticism of multiculturalism as a policy, needs to be put in some kind of context, because, yes, we moved away from the white Australia nation idea, if you like, and which persisted till the end of the 60s, and then we embraced a much more pro-diversity approach to two things, really. Pro-diversity approach to integration of migrants as they come in, so we accepted that as migrants are diversifying in coming to Australia, we as a settler, like emigrant society, would also give them the tools with which they can preserve some elements of cultural identity. And then, more than that, we then faced the issue of how do we affect, if you like, a national policy that is not simply, as you said, a shallow approach to managing diversity, but much more affirming that in allowing migrant communities to have access to some level of retention of their cultural identities, we also do not close the door for them to access political membership of the national community within which they happen to settle. So there's that kind of, I look at it more or less at three levels. There's the cultural recognition, which comes through at a very basic level of affirming identity. There is the socio, if you like, economic justice dimension, which is really about resources. How do we empower communities through allowing them access to, and equitable access to resources, not equality, but equitable. And then through a political representation, at the political representation level, which means every single Australian is able to have a voice in the making of the national story of this nation instead that we have. So in all of those things, the failure or the criticism of multiculturalism has always been at the level of justice and representation. I think we've made huge progress in terms of cultural recognition. There is still some tension within liberalism in general between individual claims and collective claims. And we know that multiculturalism is all about that notion that groups can have collective claims as well. We haven't really resolved that yet. There are some innovations in terms of policies like the Canadian reasonable accommodation doctrine, for instance. But we haven't really resolved it yet, but we made significant progress. We are yet to achieve, in particular at the political representation level, which is probably of relevance to our discussion today. We have not really made significant progress on that front. So I'd like to come to you, Melissa, sort of following on from Fethi's comments. How Australian successive governments have engaged with multicultural communities, they've largely been transactional. So what migrants owe to Australia? Is this the case? And what are the implications of this approach for Australia's foreign policy and our place in the world? Thanks, Jennifer. And thanks for the opportunity to be here today. Absolutely, I think the first thing for us to really question is what are Australia's multicultural communities? When we think about the number of people who were born overseas, have a parent born overseas, a large temporary and permanent migration to Australia, I think that we really need to see multicultural communities as an us. It's not an other. And that's the first important step for us to really see the diversity in Australia on a broad scale. You only look at how long it's taken us to have diversity at federal parliament level, to see it's really taken us a long time to accept that this is the way that Australia is as a nation. And you're right, through multicultural policies, we've remained at a very celebratory and superficial level. The constant criticism that multiculturalism is about food and festivals, but nothing deeper. For me, engagement truly with multicultural communities at all levels, it requires understanding their needs and also understanding the different levels of engagement that they wanna have. For some people, that might be as diaspora groups engaging on foreign policy. For others, it might be much more micro issues that are relevant to them. I think that we, the recent times during the COVID-19 pandemic, the distance between government and multicultural communities has become greater. You only need to see some of the actions that have taken place around border closures, attitudes and public statements towards people on temporary visas, treatment of people in certain high migrant LGAs, particularly in areas like New South Wales, to show that there really hasn't been a true understanding of what multicultural communities are in need. And hopefully that can be bridged in the future. So thanks for sharing those perspectives and sort of drawing upon Jason's work with government across different levels. How has Australia fared so far in drawing upon our diversity and diasporas as sources of self-power and engagement? It's a great question, Jennifer. And look, I don't wanna be too glib about, but aside from Masterchef, I don't think any Australian institution has really took representation, seriously. But I am very optimistic about where the future holds. We've just elected a Prime Minister who's raised in Camedown, Blacks, with an Italian name, with an Italian father and Australian mother. We've just seen those images of Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, visiting her hometown in Kota Ginabalu in Sabah, incidentally, the place of my father's birth as well. And we can see very clearly that there is a genuine interest in engaging and talking about the multicultural story. As you alluded to in your opening, there is a population and voices and stories which haven't been told externally. And as a result, going back to what you were talking about, whether you're about the white Australia policy, that policy still kind of resonates over six. But when you have a Foreign Minister going to Malaysia, talking about, this is our multicultural Australia, just think about a few years ago when we had a Prime Minister labeling us as the white trash of Asia. With the Foreign Minister being who she is, born in Malaysia, visiting, representing Australia, I don't think those kind of claims can be labeled for Australia anymore. But everyone knows about the story about Penny Wong and her commitment to multiculturalism. I wanted to actually shine a light also to the Assistant Minister for the Foreign Affairs, Tim Watts, who lives in Footscray, one of the most diverse multicultural places in Australia and has been talking about these issues for many, many years. In fact, he wrote a book about it and the book's called The Golden Country. And it's a contrast to Donald Horn's The Lucky Country, and it talks about how Australia is changing. And The Golden Country is about the changing demographics and how this changing demographics can lead to a new promise, a new future. He talks about, ironically, John Howard's policies for immigration has led to this change. The greatest change of cultural diversity since the bringing down the white Australia policy. So I think he's very positive about it. And I think we should be positive about it as well. As you alluded to before, this 47th Parliament is the most diverse, both from a gender perspective, which obviously has played through and that has been very public in the newspapers, obviously with respect to the events that have happened over the last two years. But it's also the most culturally diverse Parliament. We have people from Laos, from Sri Lanka, from India, from China, from India, all represented from Singapore, all represented within this Parliament. And I think that's the, I guess that's the, to answer your point, Petty, that's the political engagement piece that is now happening within the major political parties. They now, and from Vietnam, they now recognize that pre-selecting people from that represented community is a plus, because Australia is different. So I think it's only a matter of time that when those numbers then get reflected in the representation. You should get a share of those royalties. So it's a two-way process here. So first there's a, what migrants owe to Australia, but also what Australia needs to do. So focusing on sort of the function of multicultural communities, this is a question for all three of you. What function do multicultural communities and their respective organizations serve in Australia's regional or international role as advocates of rules, norms, and democratic values? Anyone want to take a step? Look, I probably won't try to give you a straight answer to that question, but I like the way you've described Penny Wong's vision for linking multiculturalism to foreign affairs or foreign policymaking, and then that will perhaps bring in multicultural communities and the role they might do. My, I was sharing with you before this panel discussion that I was doing a bit of research on this particular topic and nothing really, not much has been written about connecting multiculturalism to foreign policymaking. There's Penny Wong's speech and there is 1995 Garth Evans speech. Garth Evans speech. Melissa's. That's more in the context of diaspora and humanitarian action. I'm talking about foreign policymaking in general. It's much more broader area. In between there's nothing and I can very cautiously characterize Garth Evans approach as much more instrumentalist. Penny Wong's a much more kind of a macro scale, grand narrative about how to project Australia's identity. But I'm also very optimist, Jason, but I'm also a realist. And what I mean by that is I do not believe for a moment that simply because we have the most diverse parliament that all of a sudden the nature of diversity governance will change. The nature of intercultural relations will change. The nature of feeling a sense of belonging to Australia will change among communities. I don't buy into that kind of argument. If anything, all the data that we have and we have all sorts of data, we have data that surveyed big corporations, ASX listed companies. We have data that surveyed everyday experiences of racism and that's a lot of scholarly research. We have data that looked into historically the changing face and the changing intensity of discrimination in Australia. And I say, yes, that's a good sign. It's only a sign, but really structurally it doesn't do anything as yet. It will only do something about political representation when we project an image of Australia going back to Penny Wong's speech, when we project an image of Australia which is truly, truly reflective of who we are as a multicultural society and state. It's not the same thing. And multicultural society is a very descriptive label. We are here diverse, ethnically, racially, religiously, whatever. But a multicultural state is a state that functions in a way that reflects the ethos of diversity. That is inclusion, respect, equitable, equitable respect which means respectful diversity in a way that allows people the space to operate as a different individual, so retaining certain elements of what they feel as part of their identity. But at the same time, do not utilize that as an exclusionary kind of label. Many people do not like to be characterized in terms of the color of skin or racial identity, whatever. But nevertheless, they still want and hold dear to their own self notion of identity, their own cultural heritage. I don't think we are there yet because it is seriously a societal project. It is not a political leader project, even though leadership is extremely important and I applaud this government for making all the right noses. But it's not simply a rhetorical question that we can say, hey, this is what we want to happen. And all of a sudden it happens. To give you an example, and I'm sorry if I'm, to give you an example, we introduced in 2012 intercultural curriculum ideas that is introducing intercultural understanding in curriculum for schools. Because we, everyone understood that to start this process, you need to start education as an institution. Since 2012, not a single budget allocation from both sides of politics, by the way, has been made to enable the introduction of intercultural understanding as a cross cutting pedagogical teaching objective in schools. If we don't, and we are not teaching our kids how to operate interculturally, and we're not training teachers to teach effectively in highly diverse classrooms, as Jason was saying, then all of this other thing really will not deliver, and we will not project an image of Australia externally, which is truly reflective of that notion of diversity and pluralism that we exhibit internally. So yes, we are making very, very slow progress in terms of the demographic face of our parliament, but no, the road is long and arduous, and I would add, requires very courageous leadership. Any follow up comments from our panelists? Very small one. And it goes to your point about enfranchisement, being included, being part of the conversation. And I'm brought back to my days when I was posted in Tokyo, and it was around 2012, around the time before Prime Minister Abe came back as the Prime Minister, and around that time, the context of Japan was that it was a shrinking population, it was a aging population, and as a result, the topic of immigration was very topical. And we, the Ambassador of the time, Ambassador Bruce Miller, who many of you would know, was hosting a lunch with a very senior minister, who was responsible for a portfolio area that I was involved in. And while they're having this conversation, this minister turned to our ambassador, said, look, what does immigration look like? What is the impact of that in Australia? And without skipping a beat, Ambassador Miller said, on my left, I have the daughter of a former Foreign Minister who advises me on political issues. And on my right, you have Jason, born in Singapore, migrated to Australia with his family when he was very young, and now he advises me on environmental issues. I take advice from both of them. I don't discriminate. I take advice from both of them, because they represent Australia's interest services. And that, I think, is the point about in franchise, but I think it has to be a, it has to be brought in from every level, that every level, that at every level, that there has to be some inclusion and acceptance that this is what diversity means. It means better, more, different, and enhancement of, I guess, Australia's national interests. And I think we ignore it at our peril, right? We know that we've seen through recent Senate inquiries that diaspora communities, not all of them, but many of them are keen to engage on foreign policy issues and are doing amazing work. Our recent research has highlighted groups like Myanmar diaspora involved in homeland activism, Pacific Islander groups who are involved in remittances. Now, instead of a penny-wong jetting around the South Pacific trying to get information and intelligence, here we go. We've got diaspora communities that are sitting there actively engaged, and they're an incredible source of information, advice, advocacy that we can tap into. So for me, it's there, it's happening. We are often slow to recognize the realities of our multicultural communities, as the others have been saying. And, but it is something that a lot of multicultural nations do very well, that they see their migrant communities in all their different elements of diversity as assets. And this is a huge asset of diasporas that we continue to just overlook. And as I said, we do so at our peril. So can we articulate what type of impact Australia's foreign policy might have if we were to acknowledge and incorporate these multicultural voices as key assets in policy formulation? Are there any illustrative examples that you might, that come to mind? Well, I think Penny Wong's carbon footprint will drop. She won't have to jet around. You know, there would be an opportunity to brief with those communities that, as I said, Pacific, from the Pacific, from different groups that we're seeking to engage with on a political level, there would be information that we could gather from communities. We would be able to have a kind of relationship and liaison on emerging kind of concerns because diaspora groups have deep connections locally at social, economic, political and cultural levels in a way that no government department ever will. So I think that it would make their job easier. And there is evidence of groups in other countries. As I said, most countries of heavy or high migration have managed to do this. Whether that's through groups, for example, there's Africa, Europe, diaspora platforms. There's specific aid bodies like the Swiss Development Corporation that funds a CSO network that looks at diaspora groups aligned with the 2030 SDGs. We also have the Global Forum for Migration and Development. There are many networks out there. I think one really illustrative example is in the United States where there are communities there of people from Darfur that has been in conflict in Sudan. And through groups like the United States Institute for Peace, they've been able to develop a kind of liaison and coordination that can facilitate relationships with government, as well as providing them with information about what's going on in a way often that they would not be able to get from an embassy on the ground. So I think there are examples. There are other countries that we can learn from through platforms, coordination groups. There's a whole plethora of examples that are available. Freddie, Jason? Yeah. So I think there's two things to really trying to disentangle here, right? There is the issue of migrant communities, whether they're diaspora or not, whether they see themselves as diaspora communities or simply transnational communities engaging in affairs of their homelands. And we, as Melissa would know, we're just starting a large project that is looking at diaspora communities' intervention in humanitarian crises. We have nine case studies from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. But that is not actually happening within the contours of government policy. That is happening more or less civil society to civil society level. And I just want to distinguish, please, between those two. It's not the same. In terms of government policy dealing with or incorporating multicultural perspectives in its own views on foreign policy, it is a completely different challenge, I think. And my starting position is this. If you can't do nothing, do no harm. And I say this specifically in the context of what's happening right now. You all know the tension in the region, in particular with China. I think if we're not able to really reflect the nuanced understanding of the situation that Chinese Australians can add to the governments, really even thinking about how to approach arising China, then do no harm in the sense that do not ostracize Chinese Australians. Do not conflate Chinese Australians with China arising Chinese power. And unfortunately, we have seen recently both in media and political discourse that that conflation is taking place. So if you talk to me about multiculturalism and foreign policy, my starting position is if you can't do it properly, do no harm in that space. And that harm would happen if we in Australia, our largest community, more or less the Chinese in terms of migrant to Australia, if we treat them in a way that we think of them essentially as all we do is just, you know, oh, we have the skepticism about China. There's an anti-Chinese kind of sentiment that is really circulating in public discourse. And we've seen that there's a number of my colleagues who have done research on this, they've documented it. Your own polls have, the Lowy Institute, a lot of opinion polls have shown that. It's out there, we know it's happening. And that's where leadership, I think we've spoken earlier about leadership. I think that's where leadership is absolutely critical. First, let's not problematize diversity in Australia. Let's not divide Australians of Chinese descent or exclude them simply because we right now have a very challenging, of course, in terms of foreign policy, very, very challenging dossier in our hands, which is how to handle China and of course Russia for in different circumstances. And then beyond that, a very, very cool-headed conversation needs to be heard in terms of what can we, and I don't like to instrumentalize communities too much, even in terms of information gathering. But what I would like to know is if foreign policy is about projecting our identity as a cosmopolitan, progressive, diverse, you know, middle power, then where are the voices of multicultural communities in Australia in that articulation of foreign policy? For me, it doesn't, it's not there really. There is no story that has been told that Australia is indeed a very diverse. If you look at foreign policy in terms of those three axes that you've got multilateralism, you've got engagement with, sorry, strategic alliances, and then you have nation-to-nation relationship building, that nation-to-nation relationship building can happen and can be facilitated through multiculturalism. Forget the other two because they are driven by other political and ideological kind of things, but the third one, dimension, which is nation-to-nation, strengthening of relationships, that's where we need multicultural communities because they're the best vehicle for enabling that. So I want to bring you in here, Jason, aside from your master's chef anecdote. How, someone who's worked in DFAT, so how would you foresee a foreign policy, Australia's foreign policy, having incorporated, seriously incorporated multicultural communities and voices? What would that look like aside from projecting it on master chef via TV screens? Look, I think there's several things that come to mind. The projection of foreign policy should not just be about externalizing what we think Australia should be or what we think we can sell to the rest of the world. It should be reflective in all our behaviors. And I think there's two areas of foreign, well, domestic policy, which if we were to tap into would have a tremendous impact on our foreign policy. The first is our international students. We receive so many international students into Australia via our very good tertiary institutions that we have a source of people that come to Australia who want to engage with us or who are interested in Australia. And previously, we talked about how successful the Colombo Plan was. And yes, the Colombo Plan was fantastic. It started the engagement of people from overseas into Australia and showed them a different world of Australia. And when they went back overseas, they would end up being bureaucrats, senior bureaucrats, and eventually in some instances in some countries, ministers and prime ministers of countries. Now, that was a really great program back then. We have international students coming here every day and while it is very hard to engage with it, I think we should do, we should put more effort into it and reflect this diversity and this inclusive and engaging kind of behavior with them. We don't need to read out lines to them about what Australia is. They live it, they live it every single day. And when they go back to their countries, they can be great ambassadors, great advocates for Australia when they go back to their own countries. I think that's kind of one area. Do you question about DFAT about, I guess, what is happening in DFAT at the moment? I think that there has been a marked shift in terms of appointing ambassadors who have the skill sets in terms of language and there's some very high profile senior diplomats who have the language and can engage with their countries, including my own former boss, Bruce Miller. But then there's also people of cultural backgrounds which are now being represented overseas. I guess the case and example, Harinder Sidhu in India, Peter Varghese in India, James Che, who went to South Korea, the very first South Korean descent ambassador to represent in South Korea. And then there are many more, there are many more people of cultural and linguistic backgrounds which are within DFAT. But as someone, when I guess the email for this particular event went out and some people from within DFAT pinged me, they said the pool and depth of talent within DFAT is deep. But the ladder up is very, very narrow, which goes to, I guess, the point about resources. In the Lowe Institute, we can talk about resources for many, many years about how if you are serious about a foreign policy that is gonna be engaging and take on some of these very big issues overseas, then you need to resource DFAT appropriately to actually do that and give more people opportunity to step up. So that's, I guess, the key message I wanna leave everyone with that this is a big, big thing and it can have a big, big impact. So let's resource appropriately. So I'd like us now to move towards thinking practically. So I'll quote the foreign minister again, last year at the National Security College. She said, the world is multicultural, so is Australia. It's a natural asset for building alignment that we are not deploying. And there are many other examples where she invokes Australia's multiculturalism. But what does this mean in practical terms? So we'll get to resources. But how do we build alignment and have multiculturalism informed foreign policymaking? Melissa, you've recently wrote about this. Perhaps you can start us off by walking through a potential model of institutionalising multicultural voices in foreign policymaking. Sure. And I think I wanted just to add, as I was reflecting, as my fellow panellists were talking, that absolutely not every multicultural community or not every migrant necessarily sees themselves as part of a diaspora or wants to belong to a diaspora or be put in that box. However, I think that the Senate inquiry that looked at Australia's relationship on this issue and the diaspora organisations received so many submissions from local community groups who were desperate to engage on this issue. It was important for them. They wanted to be heard. They may not have absolutely understood exactly what that meant to be a diaspora group and what was being asked of them. But there was a hand up. And I think the first thing to do is recognise that there is a hand up, that there are communities that want to engage on this issue. We need to have an enabling policy environment, which we do in many levels. However, one of the things that we identified in our research is that a national diaspora policy is lacking. There's been white papers that we sort of look through to find out what does this mean about diaspora and what does this reference? But absolutely, something that clearly articulates a policy level I think is going to be critical. And within that, giving people signals about where diaspora sits in federal government arrangements. So again, some of the inquiries and some of the submissions to the inquiries noted that diaspora kind of has this uneasy place between DFAT, a little bit of home affairs, a little bit of ASEO now and then, and people kind of don't quite understand where is my diaspora focal point. There were in the past, I know diaspora desks at DFAT level, but I think having that clearly stated so that groups know who they could go to, similarly a need for coordination groups and bodies at CSO level, at civil society level. Unfortunately, we had until recently diaspora action Australia, which was a network and a coordination group that recently folded due to lack of funds. And I think again, that's a sad testimony of where diaspora has been heading in the CSO space. The other thing related to funding is dedicated funds. Refugee Council of Australia noted in its submission to the inquiry that a lot of funding for multicultural communities sits in the kind of home affairs pot and is about local events, local activities, one-off kind of again, celebratory kind of moments, but actually to be a diaspora organisation and to engage on the level that we're talking about, you might need investment in governance, capacity building, something more sustainable. And there's nowhere to go for those funds. They kind of don't exist. You have to maybe tweak your project to fit the title of the proposal. So that I think is also critical. And finally, those networks, those coordination networks. So being able to have ongoing relationships interface between government CSOs that can represent these issues because as Fethi said, we have a lot of longitudinal data in the multicultural space and the migration space. I think the diaspora space, again, we really don't know what's out there. Groups like Diaspora Action Australia did try to have directories and repositories of information of who's out there, what they want to do, but that's very ad hoc and it hasn't been systematic. So having that kind of coordination network as well will be critical. And I think actually not a big investment for a lot of quick wins is my sense. So Fethi, you've written sort of about the possibility of reinvigorating Australian multiculturalism. Could be best pursuit of conditions are created that guarantees strong political leadership, clear communication with the public and sustainable resourcing across state and federal levels. So put this in a foreign policy context for us please. So strong leadership, communication with the public and resourcing. You're right, because those conditions were actually being discussed in the context of other institutions, be it education in particular, but also media, local governance, et cetera, but not necessarily foreign policymaking. But there's no reason why we can't think of bringing multicultural perspectives or multicultural inputs into foreign policymaking through those three conditions which are absolutely interconnected and critical. Leadership of course, as I said, I gave the example earlier, it is an absolutely essential key indicator and signal, both internally but also externally as to where we stand in relation to our own kind of national identity. I think the more we are comfortable with who we are, the easier it is to convince others about who we are. And therefore the easier it is, we can really have meaningful conversation about all sorts of sensitive issues. And I'm not even here thinking in terms of geopolitical issues, I'm even thinking in terms of things to do with human rights and there are all sorts of discussions where I strongly believe an awareness of where we stand, so to speak, is absolutely essential for us to have a credible voice. Many times, especially with my association with the UN in UNESCO, many times when I go overseas and I speak overseas and I speak positively about diversity and multiculturalism in Australia, many, many times people stop being say, hang on, what about indigenous Australians? What are you guys doing there? How come you still don't have anything like recognition in the constitution, not to mention treaty, that's even that. So I think people externally are aware of our own shortcomings. So this is leadership, putting our own house in order is absolutely essential. And this is why we all very hopeful that this government might actually do something about constitutional recognition and giving voice to indigenous communities because that will be an absolutely positive signal we send the world externally. So that's leadership, but again, I mentioned Australians of Chinese descent is the same. Leadership here is absolutely essential to say, no, no, they are Australians, Australian citizens and we will treat them as any other Australian citizens when it comes to some of these difficult times we are seeing in the region. So that's leadership is really, it sets the tone if you like for these conversations. And if you have, we see it internationally too, you see Trump in the US and how really driven a particular agenda in terms of foreign policymaking, which is isolationism and an extremely narrowed version of nationalism, populism, et cetera. So I think that's all very dangerous of course in terms of building meaningful interactions with other societies. The other two which are equally important and I think resourcing, I mean, my colleagues have just spoken about resourcing, there's nothing can be achieved in any sector. And I gave the example of ICU intercultural understanding in schools, nothing can be achieved if it's only just a slogan, if it's manifesto. We've been arguing, we've been lobbying for a federal multicultural act. We still don't have one. We do not have in Australia a federal multicultural act, Canada had it since 1988. And we said, what is stopping us from getting federal multicultural act? Because I strongly believe having a federal multicultural act will really enshrine resource allocation for this kind of agenda. So we don't see a network as important as Australian diaspora network basically folding, shutting door because of lack of funding. So that is extremely important. And then training, I can sympathize with Jason because having diplomats, for instance, or having senior bureaucrats who are competent, competent not just linguistically, but cross-culturally competent who can see things from a different cultural point of view. Because you look, let's face it. We don't live in a single monolithic world when it comes to values, when it comes to how cultures perceive certain issues. I mean, there are a lot of cultural concepts, cross-cultural concepts, which typologize communities along the lines of a number of key concepts. For instance, individualism, collectivism, the extent to which certain communities want to approach problems from a collective kind of thinking point of view, whereas some other cultures value individual standing out and coming up with the solutions. We need to pay attention to that. The 1956 tripartite war in the Middle East was triggered amongst many other reasons by a big failure of cross-cultural communication, not understanding the signals that President Nasser at that time was sending. So having people who read and are literate cross-culturally is extremely important for decision-making at that level. So yes, leadership, as I said, allocating proper resources so we don't see critical organizations not having the enabling tools to do what they want to do and ensuring that those who speak on our behalf, and I say this and I mean it, diplomats speak on our behalf whenever they open their mouths internationally, those individuals need to be nuanced in understanding the context within which they speak when they are overseas, when they post it overseas or engage with multilateral institutions. And I think I've seen foreign diplomats internationally in the UN system when I took residency there and I've seen very, very below-par speeches, I must say, and yeah, that wasn't a moment of glory for me. So I want to come to you last, Jason, before I open the floor to our audience here. So having heard from Melissa and Jason as possible systems and procedures to put in place to incorporate the voices of multicultural communities in shaping foreign policy, is it all too far-fetched given the security and geopolitical realities that Australia finds itself in today? Look, as I started my speech, I guess I'm an optimist. I don't think it's too far-fetched. I think it's not beyond Australia's skills and abilities to incorporate everyone inside the conversation. I think there are, as being pointed out by Fete and Melissa, there are obviously some challenges in respect to, I guess, institutional kind of changes in incorporating their voice within the broader politic that we're seeing shifting sands on that and that's a good thing. And there are all the words coming out of this new government and a reflective of our parliament suggests that there is genuine goodwill on that front. Then there's also, I guess, the next piece about trust. It's one thing for us to be projecting what we think the rest of the world wants to hear about Australia. It's another thing to show them what Australia is. And when you look outside, when you walk up and down the streets of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, you see Australia is different. This is what Tim Watts is talking about. Australia is a different country. And because of that, we need to be able to tap into that because to use, I guess, a recent example, the Australian government invests a lot in its soft diplomacy, including some very great programs, including the special visits program of senior politicians who come to Australia, but also the international media visits. Post-in in South Korea wanted to show South Korean journalists and Australia that was excelling and health and life sciences. They contacted Cochlear and said, would you mind showing them the Cochlear implant? This company that I work for. A cutting-edge, world-leading medical device that helps young children hear when they're born profoundly deaf with a congenital hearing loss and through this implant, they can hear again. Now, when this traveling band of journalists came out to New South Wales, we showed them, we showed them the manufacturing facility at Macquarie University. We showed them how the implants put together. But we also brought in Erin, a recipient of our Cochlear implant, who's nine years old, implanted at the age of three and now leads a life in mainstream school in North Rhine. Now, this story would be just any other story about Australia being Australia. But what made it really special was that Erin was a South, was an Australian-born girl to two South Korean international students who lived in Australia. They talked about Erin's mum, talked to these journalists, and talked to them about how incredible the surrounding health system has been for Erin, that because of the support that they've received through the Australian Government programs, that Erin's life is very different had she been born in South Korea. Her father relayed the fact that had she been born in South Korea, and had we settled in South Korean had Erin, they'd probably be out of pocket about $200,000. Now, this is the kind of burden that, you know, that is very, very difficult. But they were able to convey to South Korean journals in Korea how their lives are different, tangibly different because they were born in Australia. Now, I think that's a really powerful point that Australia is different and is inclusive and gives these people a new opportunity in life. And when these journals went back to South Korea, they wrote stories about Erin. They wrote stories about Erin because in a very subtle way, they were able to convey what Australia actually represents, a fair go that we don't leave anyone behind that no matter where you're from, you'll be taken care of if you're born, unluckily born with a congenital disease like this. But I think that's the bit where there is a level of truth that we have to engage with internationally. And it's not just about us telling stories, it's about actually living it. Well, thank you. So we have just a little under 10 minutes for Q&A. Maybe I'll take two questions at a time for the sake of efficiency. So if you could just say who you are and wait for the mic to come to you. There's two now. Yeah. Here and the gentleman in the middle there. Hi, my name is Coon. I'm an executive coach. And I just want to commend the panel here that Louie put together because it wasn't that long ago that Robert Menzies hosted an event on foreign policy dialogue and Asia Ling was included in that. However, from a representation point of view, it is rather disappointing when they're talking about the comparison of Australia international policy and how much it has changed from the 1950s. And yet the photo is incredibly disappointing to see. So well done to the three panel here. And to the... Thank you. And as a very small question is, even that we kind of don't use the benefits and get that done with the foreign policy, what then do we get from the way among those political issues and other effects? Yeah. And I'll just take one more question. This gentleman in the middle here. Hi, my name is Teck Lim, I'm retired, yeah. Okay. When you talk about the diaspora, who do you take into account? Take the Chinese community where I'm from and Jason is also, it is so diverse. People come from last century to the gold mines, to the 70s, Colombo plan, people who stayed back and later on a lot of mass migration, especially from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. Now, our interests are so diverse from the mainlanders. Nothing in common. I know more about Britain than I know about China, even though I'm Chinese. So, and it is so monolithic. Who do you consult? And I know so many of the organizers, a lot of them hated each other, honestly. And a lot of it are ruled by old men. Like you have old white men, but they have old Chinese men. And it is hard for the younger people to get into. To get into. So when you do your consultation, do you go there? And a lot of them are very not represented by female, very, very, very few. Where are their voices? So that's why we also talk, sorry, I'll finish, the Morrison government lost the election because of, as Jason said, the extreme anti-China philic. Not because all of us are pro-Chinese, but we cannot send that racist implication of what the coalition government was doing. Thanks. Thank you. So maybe quick fire responses. Yeah, sure. So thank you for your point. I think what you're drawing us to the gentleman who just asked a question is that these communities are not homogeneous. They're incredibly diverse. And we are incorrect if we talk about the Chinese community, it's Chinese communities. I think the point about where are the new generation and the next generation also highlights the need for resourcing around building capacity, looking for talent, making sure that everyone has space to be heard and representative groups or groups that can support that are key. Now, I had so many thoughts about your question. I absolutely think that there's political will as we've talked about, what's holding it back. But I think there's also just an inability to recognize the diverse nature of Australia's community. I live in Canterbury-Bankstown. I love it, but that is what my Australia looks like. And I wish everybody understood the same as me. I think that there is a lag in a way at Canberra. We've talked about the Canberra bubble. And I think that that reflects a visioning of what Australia is. That's my quick-fire answer. Just quick, again, just answering your question. In terms of the diaspora, you were absolutely right. It is a term that's a little bit fuzzy and imprecise. And I personally am very critical of the term. I prefer to distinguish it from migrant communities in general so that you don't end up, as Melissa said, homogenizing communities. But more importantly, why if it's incorporating multicultural perspectives is so good, why aren't we doing it? My take on that is, I go back to what I said earlier, it's because we have not really elevated our engagement with diversity to the level where we are generally operating as a multicultural state. We are only a multicultural society operating at a very shallow level. And though I'm very optimistic, of course, Jason. But I don't think we've allowed multiculturalism to really penetrate key institutions. So to give you an example, I earlier mentioned ASX companies which have been surveyed by the Australian Human Rights Commission and also University Senior Exec. On both occasions, the senior leadership of ASX companies is almost 90 something percent white, Anglo-Saxon white dominated. University Senior Exec, that's why it's transless, et cetera. I think 98% or 97% are essentially come from a particular background which excludes the 50% Australians who the latest ABS censors has told us come from different. So we really, we are talking the talk, but I'm sorry, we are not welcome to walk yet. Jason, any quick fire responses? So quick fire response to your, to Coon's question. I think it is a, to what Middle East, there is a time lag and time will catch up. I think the world is changing. I think it will eventually happen. That was a reflection of 50 years ago, 50 years ago Australia is very different. Now we're in a completely different space. In respect to your question, in respect about multicultural communities and diversity of views, completely agree. But there is definitely a diversity of view out there in terms of these various kind of organizations and they don't agree on things. And quite often it's a very hard piece to actually engage with that thing. But there are some communities which have a very solitary view and I guess one community particularly is the Jewish community. They come through with a very clear voice, very united voice, very unified voice in respect to how some subjects are dealt with and both parties in respect to how they I guess engage with this particular community can hear their voice very, very clearly. So I guess it's not just a one-way street, it's an income on everyone to actually say, all right, if we wanna affect change, how do we actually bring some common ground on how we come forward with a view that will actually have an impact and do that internal coalition building and caucusing to figure out exactly what views are common and then come forward with a view because the very best of intentions in terms of engagement will fall on rocks if there is no clarity about the message that's coming through. I know we're coming up to time but I do wanna hear two quick questions so keep it short and question format please. Anyone? This gentleman and the lady here at the front please. Hi, I'm a retired naval officer from Bangladesh Navy. I'm trying to actually understand the main message of this seminar or discussion from the panels. So yes, it is accepted. Australia has become a multicultural society. It's no doubt. So what's next? The professor very rightly pointed out how far we have penetrated inside the society. So this is a pocket, so this society here, here, here but are they all integrated? So here lies the problem. It will be very difficult for me to be integrated with this society but for my next generation, possibly it's a little bit easy, not a little very easy what I have observed so far. The low, that's why I am trying to understand the actually of what we are gonna achieve from this multicultural society until and unless it's being integrated. Now coming to your today's discussion from the multiculturalism perspective, a lawy institute carried out a survey where the Australian people, the dislike towards Chinese people has come to 80% or higher, I think. They will, is much, much higher than before. At least during the pandemic it has increased. So if I take the Chinese perspective to identify a foreign policy, it will not be liked by the Australian society. It will be quite contradictory. Hopefully, I guess so. So that's what I am trying to understand and your panel's your views, please. Thank you very much. And last question here. Hi, Johanna Pittman, I run ADVANCE. This is the Organisation of Australian Diaspora. So the Australians who are living overseas and it's an interesting interconnection between Diaspora that have moved here and Australians who have moved overseas. During on Jason's point around the soft diplomacy of Australians when we go overseas, we're seeing a much increased proportion of our global Australian award winners who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. So these are mostly next generation Australians who have gone overseas. And also in the new Colombo plan of Australians going overseas, enormous number of people from migrant backgrounds. And so I'm wondering about how we, in a way, do we just have to wait to see this multicultural perception of Australia spread across the world? Or can we do some more, and where we're seeing the opportunity, particularly for going overseas, is, and building your career overseas, is that for those that have been in Australia many years. So the first generation, very underrepresented is Australian expats overseas. And so there's an opportunity there to say not only the younger generation, but also those who may be approaching retirement, there might be opportunities there. And what a face for Australia that would present to the world. Any five-word answers? I was going to applaud you for one thing, but you disappointed me towards the end, that you're not going to use expats, the term, but you did use it, I think, yeah. So which is really for me quite the way we think about outbound inbound. So everyone who comes here as a migrant, Australians go work overseas, they're expats. I think that in itself is very problematic for me. Mobility is the same. People move for the same reasons. Inbound, outbound. So I think even the language sends very strong messages about how we view these things. But just to go back to your question, I think which is really, I mean, what is the takeaway message from today's panel and where do we want really to take this whole thing? Again, my view is while I remain very optimist, I'm not really someone who doesn't want to look at the positive side of things, but truly for us to make inroads so that your second, your kids and the generation after them will not be having the same discussion. We do need institutional change, not just rhetoric, not just sporadic allocation of money here and there. We need to look at, because diversity is an ethical orientation, right? And so once we embrace that through education, governance, media, et cetera, then it becomes part and parcel of what we do. And we will not need to look at communities as the other gentlemen said, as specific communities that we need to talk with them. It becomes part of how we operate. And I don't think we are there yet. I think I will leave it on that very fine point, Fethi, and thank you all to our audience and to our panelists, if you can join me in thanking them. Thank you.