 Thank you everybody and welcome to the Lowe Institute in Sydney for what is I think our third in-person event for 2021 and a very welcome change for them from most of 2020 when we were all online For those of you who don't know me. My name is Alex Oliver. I'm the director of research at the Lowe Institute I'd like to begin by acknowledging the first Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and pay respects to their elders past and present and emerging I Would also like to welcome our distinguished guest today members of the Sydney Consular Corps Including the Consul's General of Japan France and Switzerland Senior diplomats from the United Kingdom Island and Fiji and especially to our wonderful supporter circle members who supported us So bravely throughout a very difficult 2020. It's really great to see you back here again today We're very pleased to have been able to extend the capacity of our In-person events here at the Institute and it's still a little bit distanced and very healthy But for those of you who weren't able to join us today in person for what has proved to be a very hot ticket event almost as hot as a Ticket for Hamilton, but a little less pricey Welcome to you all who are watching online or listening by podcast as well Tickets did actually sell out almost immediately for this event and for that all credit goes To our guests on the stage today. We originally scheduled this event for March last year And of course we had to cancel it and we're now very pleased today to finally be hosting the two of you And please welcome to the stage these highly credentialed rising stars in Australian politics Peter Khalil the member for Wills and Victoria and Dave Sharma member for Wentworth in here in Sydney Now on paper although they found themselves on different sides of politics There are many similarities to their backgrounds both have distinguished themselves in careers before coming to Parliament They've both worked in government Peter and David both at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter at Defence and Dave at Prime Minister and Cabinet Peter's worked at the SPS and been a Victoria Multicultural Commissioner Both have worked for the Australian government abroad Peter has served in Iraq In defence and with DFAT Dave has been a career diplomat posted to Papua New Guinea for several years Worked in Washington DC after 9-11 and was appointed ambassador to Israel by Prime Minister for a Minister Bob Carr in 2013 Both have worked as ministerial and prime ministerial advisors Peter for Kevin Rudd and Joel Fitzgibbon and Dave for Alexander Downer and Julia Gillard So nicely bipartisan stage here and both have law degrees Which makes three refugees from the law here on stage on the stage today as my former boss Alan Ginger would like to stay to say Now there are shrinking violets. So the gloves are coming off today Peter has made public interventions on matters as diverse as racism at Collingwood Amnesties for Myanmar students in Australia government funding for the arts and poor Keating's sartorial style Dave Sharma has made interventions on Netanyahu's election prospects gender targets and representation in Parliament Talking with Alan Jones on Sky News about Myanmar and describing himself as a modern liberal in the 2019 election perhaps to the surprise of his own party Just a brief disclosure. I'm proud to call Lydia Khalil my colleague at the Low Institute She's a senior research fellow here. She happens to be married to Peter Khalil making them one of Australia's policy power couples Now I know you feel we've been looking forward to this conversation as much as we have so let's let the battle begin take the gloves off And just before we do that boys We will devote about 20 minutes at the end of this session to questions and answers So please get your questions ready because that's often the most interesting part of the proceedings So this this battle was billed as Australia's place in the world Not necessarily a battle, but it is a big strategic question and I want to ask both of you first What is Australia's place in the world now? We are no doubt in challenging international times volatile geopolitics and geostrategics What sort of foreign policy should Australia have for the next decade as we emerge out of COVID one of the biggest disruptions in a century Start with you Peter. Thank you, Alex and thank you, Loewe for inviting us here today It's fantastic to be having a debate about foreign policy And I want to thank Michael full of and Alex and everyone at the Low Institute for making this happen It's great that you've all come out to for a foreign affairs discussion We don't say fight Dave and I are friends, but when we cross that white line so to speak in the foreign policy Game the gloves are off and I think that's an important part of our system where we can actually debate issues disagree and reason On our on our policy objectives in our vision and this is the question that that Alex is asking What is our place in the world? You know for so long? historically You know Australia's been seen as suffering from the tyranny of distance or to put it more pungently Paul Keating once called us, but you know us being at the arse end of the world That is no longer the case We are squarely in the center of what is probably the most volatile and important Strategic region for the 21st century and with that comes a degree of a number of great challenges and a number of opportunities as well, and I think Navigating those challenges the relationship with China our economic partnership with China our Relate our strategic and security alliance with the US being able to maximize both relationships to get the most for Australia Maximize our benefit and our national interest is a huge challenge. It's very difficult and that it's a devilish problem in many respects But we also have an opportunity as a middle power to no longer I hate the phrase punch above your weight because we always hear that about Australia I think it's time for us to recognize Australia's weight as a middle power with the 12th largest economy in the world depending on the on the stats Culturally economically Strategically we are an important country and there is a legacy of achievement in foreign policy, you know going back to doc Everton and in our our role in multilateral building up the United Nations and other multilateral architecture and the world that we now live in as a result of that Through to Whitlam and the time with China through to the the Hawkeet in governments and Gareth Evans's efforts the Canberra Commission and And other things like the Cambodia peace plan We have a legacy of an history of achievement, which I would like to see rise again I want to see ambition in our foreign affairs not just reacting to events Not just sitting back and waiting for things to happen, but actually taking a step forward and being a participant now That that it sounds like it's easier said than done it is, but there is a history there. It's in our DNA We can do it so as far as our place in the world We need to step up to the challenge now and be able to help be part of the solution around making sure that we Continue the stability and prosperity that we've enjoyed that that means being able to walk and chew gum at the same time with respect to our major relationships with both China and the US but also Being a participant as a middle power and working with other middle powers to help prop up I call it a middle power fulcrum to prop up The international rules-based order which has served us so well And those things are starting to happen in different ways There's the quiet and other things But I think we should be doing a hell of a lot more and my problem my criticism of the current government is that We are not ambitious enough In taking those steps forward and actually being a participant in that respect to secure Our place in the world to make sure that Australia continues to have a stable Prosperous secure environment that benefits us We need to play a much much more active role a much more active role as a middle power Dave does Australia lack ambition? No, I don't think so. I guess I'll I'll go back to the Australia's place in the world first of all you mentioned Alan Gingel before and former director here And I think he's his book which is sort of a history of the Australian foreign policy that came out a few years ago Described Australia as an audacious national project and I think when you live here and you spend time here You take everything we've got for granted But when you just look at how Australia came about it is quite an audacious national project here We are a nation of 24 million people Occupying the whole continent Most people Here other than our indigenous people or everyone here other than our indigenous people has come from one other corner of the world Traditionally in our early history It was from countries far afield predominantly from Europe And to establish what was first a colonial outpost and a penal colony then to turn it into a You know one of the largest and 12th largest economy in the world With one of the highest living standards in the world that's secure prosperous and harmonious Within really about six generations of people Is a pretty remarkable effort, but it's none of it was sort of pre-ordained. It's taken taken some difficult decisions And some national leadership and force on the way to get there When I think about Australia now and our place in the world I sort of think of three things that have really underpinned where we are today in our national history. The first has been For Australia an alliance with the major naval power of the day In the years after federation from colonial settlement to really the second world war That was the United Kingdom the royal navy and then the years after that that was the United States The second element if you like has been Rules-based international order Australia has thrived and prospered under the certainty and stability and predictability that that that gives us And the third element really has been our What Peter described as the tyranny of distance which the corollary that is a huge measure of security by being Far from sort of competing theaters of the world and each of those three Tenants if you like is under some stress the rules-based international order because we've got rising powers that no longer accept the legitimacy of it and wish to change it in one way or another The predominance or the margin of superiority of the United States Particularly in our region as a leading maritime power of the day The United States no longer enjoys the sort of margin of absolute supremacy that it has in the world And then the last part the tyranny of distance. Well, that's being overcome with sort of new methods of state competition and warfare like cyber and social media and The contestability and narratives and the fact that we all tend to live now in a single global community rather than in Separate theaters and I think that's really the challenge for Australia is to to help to shore up each of these elements to the extent that we can but also To rely a little more upon ourselves in in doing so We've been had the luxury for at least since the end of the Cold War of largely being able to rely on the United States to sort of set the running and we've dealt with issues in our neighborhood But we haven't had to necessarily act very independently in the pursuit of our foreign policy aims I think that is changing now and we're seeing that in defense I think we're increasingly listening and in our foreign affairs and foreign diplomacy strategy as well Speaking of difficult decisions and being far from competing theaters One difficult decision that's been taken just in the past couple weeks has been to withdraw from from the forever war in Afghanistan and maybe that's time to reflect briefly on And looking back on that 20 years long engagement and the huge investment that Australia made in that engagement Was that How do you see that Peter looking back on that? Was it the right decision at the time and have we taken the right decision since? Well a lot of criticism around our engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq The main criticism I guess is that Australian governments did so because and added our expeditionary forces if you like really for alliance management I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that's a bit Sort of one-dimensional that criticism And I think this goes back to the point I made about our lack of ambition there are a lot of Australians diplomats and others Who can make a positive contribution in world affairs, whether it's in the Middle East or elsewhere I mean Dave has experienced in the Middle East so do I I think so it's not just a matter of us following the u.s. And and doing that I think if we had a different mindset We could actually have a much more positive contribution and look the evidence is there that despite the strategic problems with and the mistakes, I guess but with both Iraq and afghanistan and one can make a very strong argument that they were strategically problematic for the west There was a lot of good work done, you know the and you can't take away from the fact that Australian forces Australian personnel Did much good work in afghanistan and tarant out building schools and and hospitals and doing all the different things that they did To make a better life for the people in afghanistan and the the real fear now is particularly for women in afghanistan is that the withdrawal of Coalition forces will mean a return to the Taliban and there's no particular Agreement based on conditions with the Taliban because trump basically Made a a unilateral decision Maybe biden and the other Partners come to some sort of agreement on conditions for the withdrawal by september 11th, although i'm uncertain about that There is a broader strategic Issue and that for biden and that is and for us to a certain extent is where are our big Issues and challenges and obviously with russian troops You know forming up at the border with ukraine with the issues around taiwan the south china sea And china with the wiggers and and hong kong with miamma Obviously the biden administration is looking to to refocus its attention on the areas where It can actually Make a real difference and afghanistan has a domestic element as well and the withdrawal troops Is quite i think popular domestically politically in the u.s So for us i think the work that we did in afghanistan iraq is of great value You can debate the strategic Errors that that were that motivated our engagement But you can never debate the fact that we actually made a real contribution to people's lives And i know that i was in iraq for a year as far as just very quickly Sorry, i know i've got to be brief and let david talk about this but The the the transition to afghan national forces is really going to be The success of that is going to be dependent really on whether they have actually trained up those forces To a stage where they can actually keep afghanistan together or will the taliban pretty much roll over them It didn't quite happen in iraq iraqi security forces have sort of maintained Some level of a state if you like and a government that's been democratically elected I'm not so confident about afghanistan What's our legacy there david now? I think it's it's a positive legacy i mean Firstly and the main reason we went in there afghanistan is no longer a net exporter of insecurity and no longer a safe haven for Terrorist groups and the way it was and that was the that was the the cause of your life if the united states Had its allies going in after september the 11th. So it's no longer an exporter of security problems to the world A civil society exists now in afghanistan where it didn't before Women and young girls have access to education There's um, you know a degree of freedom that didn't exist before and readily this is more concentrated in the major towns and urban centers Much less so in the rural areas So I think though that we can look back and think we've left afghanistan in a much better place than we came in The big question though is how much of this will be enduring or cannot endure and and will be afghan security forces and institutions be robust enough to hob up And look, we're just going to have to um to wait and see i mean, uh, i'm hopeful that they will um If there are significant setbacks, I don't think we would want to rule out the possibility of of going back in there I mean people peter mentioned iraq iraq we've been sort of Setting people back in and pulling them out now for for several years But the iraqi state has by and large held up quite well from a number of challenges We you know we've surged people in there to combat isis when it emerged But it's now back standing on its feeding in and I think in afghanistan will be in a similar situation probably over 10 or 15 years depending on how The talaman goes and how strong afghan institutions are but I think um We've been there look 20 years. This is a pretty long campaign in australian history We've had about 39 000 Australians who've been through afghanistan and served in afghanistan military and civilians And of course we've lost 41 lives there. So I think um with all that in mind. I think we can be proud of what we've achieved You have both talked about The transition to the biden administration and that's this is one of One of the biden's first sort of the biden administration's first very significant moves The other one has been on climate change And it's going to be a very big year for global responses to climate change with the appointment of john carrey As a climate envoy was a pretty important signal that the united states was going to change course and take it seriously It's an important year for everybody november cop coming up Lots of announcements on net zero by 2050 The european union china by 2060 Japan and south korea everybody every member of the Paris agreement is obliged to update those pledges prior to that meeting Most of those have been on reaching net zero by 2050 And china's commitment has been Ambitious and probably took many members by surprise australia now has matthias corman in the position of secretary general Of the oacd and in the lead up to that vote. He pledged to help countries around the world Reach global net zero emissions by 2050 and i'm peter i'm wondering what you read into that Commitment what does that mean for australia? Given that this has been such an incredibly Toxic debate toxic politically toxic for the for the australian Australian government and the australian people really where does that leave australia in the lead up to November well again, it leaves australia behind the apel and you know scott morrison Won't even commit to a hard target of net zero emissions by 2050. He says oh look we'll we'll we hope to get there by 2050 Which is very wishy washy We're doing things to get there to by 2050 You noted china's commitment. I wouldn't call it ambitious. They've said that get to net zero emissions by 2060, but there's no real evidence Really on the ground of what they're doing remember china is responsible for some 28 percent of global emissions The u.s. Is about 15 percent australia is only 1.5 percent But of course if you include thermal coal exports into that it goes up to about five or six percent So we are a major emitter if you include that kind of statistic We need to be doing more and working with other middle powers as I said earlier To get an agreement at cop 26 if you do believe that climate change is an existential threat If you do accept the scientific evidence And I know there's a lot of debate about that or not debate a lot of conspiracy theories About that and the breakdown and disruption of our public debate if you like you noted the toxicity of this It has been successive Australian governments including Labor governments that have failed on this issue over the last 10 15 years we have failed as a nation to get this right It shouldn't have been this way And then I mean I dave can speak to some of the the people on the sort of fringes of his party and his coalition who Climate change deniers effectively and and throwing about conspiracy theories on their facebook pages and so on But the serious business of actually getting to an agreement at cop 26. It's encouraging that Biden's envoy John Kerry Has got some sort of agreement with china. In fact, this is a kind of a bright spot amongst a very rancorous tense situation with china now that the u.s. Has whether it's on the Uighurs on to bet on Hong Kong on the south china sea on interference in our democratic Process on cyber attacks all of these things are causing great tension between us the u.s. And china as well as us and china and we are Caught in that too because of the the economic Interdependence that we have with china to an extent the majority of our exports or the important Our economic relationship we have how do we navigate that? So I I am very very pleased to see that Kerry's achieved a breakthrough there At least in a rhetorical sense to get some sort of statement and agreement with his counterpart g I think I pronounced that correctly But does that is that going to translate into actual emissions reductions at cop 26 now? We should be actually playing a role in this and this is another failure of the morrisan government. There's a lot of You know Reacting to events and I've just got to say that we we're going to throw the gloves off and I'll make this quick Because now Dave you got to get ready because I'm going to throw this you scott morrisan scott morrisan It's amateur hour on foreign policy your prime minister You know he when he started off he announced a move of jerusalem our embassy to jerusalem to try and win Get you over the line in a by-election Well, no, it is i'll get to the climate change general stuff to get to To get you over the line it didn't work because most jewish-australian voters and went where it saw right through it Minister scott morrisan you should call donald trump and kill him just to decide you want to do that Donald Trump the other big foreign policy the other big mistake that your prime minister made was to sit stand up on an election Rally with donald trump breaking down what has been a long-standing tradition and convention between australian Labor and liberal prime ministers and republican democrat presidents not to intervene in in our relative domestic politics and then there was the inquiry On on covet 19 now i supported an inquiry dave i support an inquiry actually a couple weeks before morrisan said it We should have a scientific inquiry But the way morrisan executed that he sort of ran out of the trenches into no man's land saying inquiry inquiry inquiry Looked over his shoulder and there was no one following him. He didn't do the hard yards diplomatically He didn't do the work with partners and with china to get a functional Inquiry up which was necessary globally for us to deal with the pandemic So my charge on this whether it's cop 26 and the lack of ambition on climate change Whether it's these kind of amateur mistakes that are made in foreign policy is that the the morrisan government the liberal government for eight years You know i was critical of malcolm tumble for being the basal faulty of foreign affairs You know he's all over china one minute the next moment He's like you know talking tough and beating his chest But morrisan is making mistake after mistake on foreign policy Why because the sugar on the table the domestic hit on a foreign policy issue is too irresistible For mr. Morrison. He's got to grab it. It was to get him up over the by-election. Thank god You won the next one well done But your your your foreign policy your government's foreign policy is actually doing us damage because it's not thinking strategically It's not thinking about the long term and our place in the world Go Go this is um We're back to climate by I empathize with oppositions right because you need to you don't actually have your hands on the levers of government You need to make a criticism that peter has just given the classic example of an opposition saying you throw Empty phrases like the government doesn't think strategically they need to act more diplomatically We need to be more ambitious But tell me what would you like to do differently peter says he supported an independent inquiry Into the COVID-19 outbreak but now and peter also argued that Australia should have a more ambitious and labor always talks about a more independent and creative middle power diplomacy Well, here we are taking a lead on an issue and labor says it's wrong to have done that peter says that we should be more ambitious on climate change We're yet to get a 2030 target from labor would labor like a different 2030 target. I'm all ears. Let's hear about it I'm happy to answer those questions on the first Rhetorical question And now I'm going to get to the actual substance of the issue which is which is the question about climate change. Look, I think Australia and I think this is Matias Corman's election to the OECD was interestingly Um, I think a good illustration of this fact Australia has actually got a good record of achievement in this area And if one of the complaints we have as a government and I certainly do is that this debate has been taken over far too much By symbolism and tokenism and rhetorical commitments that don't actually lead to any change in things It amongst OECD countries The average reduction in emissions from 2005 2005 is the baseline target for the Paris commitment average reduction in emissions across OECD countries is nine percent from 2005 to 2020 in Australia The emissions reduction in that same period is 19 percent in countries like Canada and New Zealand Who are often held up as exemplars including by Peter and his colleagues of what Australia should be doing on climate change Do you know how much their emissions have reduced since 2005 by less than one percent? So this is the record we're talking about. We're actually achieving things in Australia now I would like to see us be more ambitious. I would like to see us get to net zero emissions by 2050 At the latest I'd like to see it preferably done earlier, but us just saying it isn't going to well it into existence We don't live in a fairytale land. We actually have to figure out. How do we decarbonize sectors of the economy? How do we offset carbon intensive sectors of the economy like industrial processes like agriculture? What are the technical solutions we're going to be able to develop and implement and commercialize at scale to allow this to happen? This is where the debate's going and I think Matthias' election to the OECD We were told by everyone on the center left here in Australia Including people in Peter's own party that there's no way Matthias will be elected because he's a climate change The OECD wants someone to embrace this Well, I think Matthias went around the European capitals and told each of them as did the Prime Minister what we've actually achieved on climate What we're preparing to do what we're planning to do and how we believe that Technology is actually going to provide a solution to a lot of these problems and that's where we're investing our efforts And they bought it on me Matthias a non-European running the OECD is a pretty unusual thing The fact that he was elected I think is testament to how the rest of the world actually sees us to the contra to In contra distinction to how Peter and his colleagues would like to think that people look at Australia I love the the fight up Dave not the diplomatic Dave. So I'm I'm engaged. This is engaging So most of what I heard there was Matthias common Matthias common Matthias common Are we going to hide behind the wizard of the OECD who's hiding behind a curtain? Look, where is your ambition about what your government has done? Well, I'd say not done over the last eight years. Maurice is MIA pain We don't see her at all. Um, you're up here on the stage. Good on you Dave You're engaged in foreign affairs and policy issues, but to answer some of your your sort of counter charges to me Yes, we would do things very very differently. First. We've already made a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 Which your government has not made there. Where is the commitment to the 2030 commitment though? Because that's a valid question Dave. It is a valid question because we're not in government and we're actually doing the calculations on On mid on mid term commitments You need to actually run the numbers mate Look, we are it's now by the time that we get to the next election 2022 We are 20. What are we 2021 2022 by the time we get to the next election? Maybe there'll be an election at the end of this year And then the party can actually come out with It's calculations around any mid term targets But the commitment is there for net zero emissions And the commitment is also there if you want to talk substance around investment in renewable energy infrastructure Whereas the people in your party are still trying to dig out money For more coal-fired power plants The current commitment period though is to 2030. There is no there is no binding international agreement to 2050 We're not talking about a mid-term target So that's your excuse not to have a commitment to net zero emissions We've got one to Paris and the Paris Commissions Reduction Target to 2030 Yeah, and you're accounting the Kyoto Protocol the credits which was a bit dodgy by the way you're accounting But anyway, I know you've knocked that back now We're not accounting for that I get that Okay, okay, start While we're waiting to hear though is a 2030 target from you Ring the bell Deaning back to your corners We have got a lot of kettester and I really think we need to get to China So this is an area where your two parties may may be more aligned Australia's been in the freezer you've both talked about The international investigation to the origins of coronavirus you can have disagreements on how that started Who supported it or didn't But the result of that was China imposing a series of trade embargoes on Australian exports Collectively worth roughly 25 billion Or about 1.3% of GDP so it's very significant an influential piece of commentary published Last week actually by our lead economist Roland Roger Looking in depth at the actual impact of those in a macro sense on Australia's economy Been quite a lot less in fact than had been originally predicted The the result of the the year or so came at the end of a period of difficulty with China foreign interference laws in 2018 The ban on Huawei on the same year based on national security risk other foreign investment decisions The question then is to both of you does it matter that we're in the freezer? What what would you do differently? It does it should we you know reset relations with China? How could you do that? Should we should we be doing it at all? Or do we just stay where we are? confident that our economy is going to Stand up that we're going to be able to to Diversify and divert our exports elsewhere and that the sky is not going to fall in So i'm going to start with you peanut. Well, look, I mean this There's a lot of agreement between Dave and I just you know take note of the the previous five minutes That's a bit of theater But there are certain things in foreign policy where where there is some alignment and and bipartisanship around the sort of Core values are core issues We may disagree on execution on a lot of things and on the china relationship I mean our main criticism has been the way that this government has stuffed it up I I kind of called out the basal faulty of foreign affairs Malcolm Turnbull Who's you know one minute trying to buy satellites off china to be friendly and appeasement initially? I think he was he was okay with some of the 5g stuff and then change his mind and then At other times he was pounding his chest trying to look tough and might and Morrison to to an extent on this When you when you try and look tough for domestic political purposes that has I have a real problem with that because you sort of you're kind of polluting What a really important foreign policy objectives national security objectives by by appealing to to a certain demographic if you like for domestic reasons And with the china relationship. This is our our biggest challenge and and look I I mean I as an mp. I have spoken very very openly and in a Critical of china with respect to the Uighurs. I know Dave has on human rights as well On Hong Kong. I was out there very very early about what was happening there and in support of the democracy activists On the south china sea on the interference and the cyber Elements of what they're doing to interfere in our system Very very forcefully and very strongly. We need to stand up on this and I think We we can maintain a very Beneficial economic relationship with china But we have a huge challenge Going into the next decade on how we balance this out and with america And some people might argue that they're not in decline. Biden's trying to arrest that at the moment our main strategic and security partner Having its major difficulties if you like geostrategic difficulties. We're in a much more volatile world world But any government whether it's liberal or labor The success of australia our ability to maintain our prosperity Our security and the stability that we've all enjoyed as a trading nation Is going to be almost wholly or entirely dependent upon how well We managed the relationship with both china and the us now my argument is And I think uh, Dave alluded to this a little bit earlier as a middle power We should be I call it a fulcrum because a fulcrum is the you know Latin for the leg of a chair it props up You know middle powers need to be working much more effectively together not just in the one dimensional quad by the way I think in a much more dynamic way to prop up the the parts of the rules based order that has served us so well Especially as a trading nation as a as a liberal democracy and other nations in southeast asia in the region We need to be working much more effectively together with japan and south korea and many other nations in the nation and so on to prop that up because Both china and the us certainly under trump were were pulling away from that rules based order in different ways Whether it was on trade or security or in other areas So it's up to us now to look after our interests going forward and when we talk about independent foreign policy Well, we're on a bit more on our own now We really have to stump up and step up to the plate and that requires a degree of vision imagination creativity Ambition which I don't think this government has if if you know scott morrisons making basic amateur mistakes like he has been He may learn john howard did I hope he does for our national interest But that is the challenge with china We need to actually be able to work with the other countries in the region to stand up and draw some of those lines And that's going to be very very difficult for us But and I don't see it right now happening with this government because there's too much focus on domestic point scoring Are we stepping up in relation to china? Peter's talked about the court and that's it's not just an empty gesture No, look, I think there's a number of initiatives we've got underway and expanded What a leaders level quad meeting is is part of part of the mechanisms we're like using if you like to shore up the rules based order and Promote stability and security in the asia pacific We've got increasingly a sort of a g7 plus three grouping that's underway, which is the g7 countries plus Australia career in india that are convening Which is sort of like almost a western democracies type forum We've got five eyes interactions happening not just at the intelligence level but now the foreign defense and treasury ministers These are all designed to basically to Maintain the open rules based order In our region. I think on on china. I mean there's a couple of points to note here. I think You talked about a reset alex. I don't think there's a simple reset on offer. I know that's that's You know intuitively attractive to people that we just need to push a button and You know Forgive the el temper and the bad words and things like that, but there are more structural things going on here This isn't just about some harsh words exchanged On an evening, you know or a kind of a discussion that went off the rails or something like that and I think when you saw The china's embassy in canberra Provide to fairfax and other media commentaries this sort of list of 14 demands if you like about what Australia needed to do To get the relationship back on track. Well, these aren't these aren't sort of cosmetic things These go to the heart of australia's system of governments our parliamentary democracy our freedom of expression and any number of things these are non negotiable Sovereign values and interests that they go to the heart of how australia runs the works and they aren't going to be negotiated or traded away I think though that Ultimately, I mean I have some faith that the relationship will find a new equally bring me if you like Firstly china's not going anywhere The the ccp the rulers of china aren't going anywhere and australia is not going anywhere We're going to live in the same neighborhood It's inevitable that we are going to interact and trade australia's got a huge chinese community and chinese australian diaspora here Which strengthens those links, but it's natural that we will we will try and interact and ultimately the reason that nations interact is because it's in their mutual Interests to do so. I mean there's not much sentimentality in foreign affairs and foreign relations There's a degree of it. We talk about shared history and shared values, but generally speaking I'm a bit of a realist like this and the reason that australia and china have had such a successful economic relationship over Three decades now is because we've got hugely complimentary economies They've we've got things that they wish to buy and we've got they've got things that we wish to buy We've got a country they like to visit We've got it. They've got a country we'd like to do business with and these sort of Realies are going to research themselves and you pointed to the research that the loa institute has done I mean the mainstays of the trade which are really in the resources end of things. It's Iron or coal and gold by and large. I mean the macro level of the trade is is holding up remarkably well We saw a bigger loss in trade volumes to the rest of the world last year through the pandemic than we did To china and I think that that's because we want to interact My view is that with a bit of patience and Consistency in this relationship things will resume in a normal I mean we're already seeing china turn its fire on the united kingdom that's become the public enemy of the day You know for what they've that the things they're seemed to have done and the way that china has tended to work diplomatically is it tends to Tends to try and focus on countries bilaterally where it can bring its full weight of its diplomatic and economic muscle to bear And to cow them sometimes it succeeds sometimes it doesn't and it moves on to the next country and where groupings like the quad And the g7 plus 3 and and other groupings are so important is they provide some solidarity between these countries and they They try to ensure that countries aren't getting picked off against one another And I think that's why these sorts of newer novel groupings which may or may not be institutionalized in a big way Are so important to navigating the period ahead Can I just make two points about that? I mean I agree with much of what Dave said But the the real question and I sort of alluded to it earlier is that where do you Where will Australia draw that line whether it comes to human rights or those core values that Dave mentioned? You know freedom of expression rule of law Um and all of the things that we hold dear and think are fundamentally important to us as a democracy That's a really important question. That's a tough one because It will come up against that realism that that Dave's talking about I don't know. I'm all for realism, but at a certain point strategic realism becomes somewhat of strategic cowardice because we're not prepared to stand up And and and really defend those things that that Dave those principles that Dave Articulated and for us. We don't know where that line is now Dave and I are on on the treaties committee He's the chair on the deputy chair. We look at fta's, you know, whether it was with Hong Kong We look at, you know free trade agreements with all sorts of different treaties You know and the human rights issues remember the Hong Kong protests were happening right when we were looking at that sort of Hong Kong fta Australia Hong Hong Kong fta and I came out and I think Dave did as well But I said Australia should reconsider this it's symbolic But they should reconsider this in the in the context of what is happening to those democracies, you know The protesters in the streets of Hong Kong At what point are we going to draw the line? And obviously there's a price to pay, you know our economic Interests will take a pounding they already have in a sense with I know Dave's right There has been some increase in exports and so on despite the kind of freezer Narrative that that's certainly true And Lowy's done a lot of good research on that which we can draw from but but it's also true that they have tried to bully us on Trade issues to try as Dave said to try and get countries to cower now. We haven't kind of buckled under that but there is this Obvious question about where we draw the line on some of these really critical issues, whether it's interference cyber security human rights And all the values that we think are important within that and I say liberal rules based order because not just a rule You can have any rules based order China can have its own rules based order that we all got to follow It's arbitrary But we believe in a liberal rules based order So there's certain principles to that like the rule of law the normative Framework for international law there's got to be some sort of framework That that is part of that liberal rules based order and we need to be able to defend that and we need to do it With our partners in the region I'm going to say very quickly Dave and I'm sure we'll get to talk more about this in Q and A because I do want to go to the audience But did you want to say something about drawing some lines because Australia has certainly drawn some lines in the past couple of years Yeah, look, I guess I draw a distinction between our own system and values in Australia Which are non-negotiable So this is in our parliamentary democracy freedom of expression obviously those things are not things we're going to trade away with China I think what Peter's touching on here though is things in China human rights situation in Amongst the Uighurs and in Hong Kong and whatnot. I'm always in favor of us speaking out on those things But generally speaking I'm resistant to sort of tie formal diplomatic and trade relations to those things I generally think that how another country runs itself Is certainly a matter for legitimate public interest in Australia but ultimately it's their decision And that is at the heart of the you know Sovereign equality of nations if you like and respect for different systems of government And I think if if we think that we're going to change China's behavior towards its own people through castigation or ostracization or criticism I think we're deeply mistaken. I mean this is coming up in the context of the Beijing Winter Olympics Where some people are saying we should boycott The Winter Olympics to To make a point about our criticism of China's human rights Treatment of its own minorities. I think we should absolutely be critical of that treatment But I think boycotting the Winter Olympics would actually have the opposite effect to that Could I just ask you well, you wouldn't maintain that restraint when it comes to the creation of artificial islands in the South China Sea Because now we're seeing a breach of international norms International law so I assume you are drawing a line when it comes to international law with respect to China digging up some sand and pretending their islands are double the size that they are Look, I think I mean, I think it's a different This is sort of not a China internal matter now this is a matter that goes to the heart of the global common So yes, I would take a position but look on that issue. I mean look, that's a We've we've failed to combat that we collectively, you know, the western alliance system because we allowed it to happen piece by piece Um, we took assurances At face value, you know President g assured President Obama that there was no intent to militarize the South China Sea We let them get on with the land reclamation activities. Um, and lo and behold, you know, they've constructed aircraft hangars and missile solvers on there So it's on the ground. Yeah, very difficult thing to deal with. Um, now we do have almost 20 minutes for question Sessions, so please raise your hand. Don't forget to identify yourself If you've got a question and I'll try and take as many questions as I can in the next 15 20 minutes Gentlemen up here at the front. There's a microphone that'll come to you I'm an I'm in Hicks. I'd just like to go to one specific international rule and that would be r2p Um, is this a global norm or is this parrot now dead and we should just abandon it? I don't think it should be dead. Um, and in fact in the context of Myanmar Very early in february. I call for a number of things to occur the suspension of the military agreement visa amnesty as alex mentioned for students in Myanmar and australia a companies to cease doing business in Myanmar and also A recognition of the crph a legitimate Representative body for the elected leaders and then r2p has to come into this Like what point and this goes to what we're talking about earlier What point will western democracies say hold on the rise of authoritarian military regimes needs to be checked Now I get what they're saying about Sovereignty and the westphalian system and all this kind of orthodoxy great But we are in a world now where rising military authoritarian and autocratic states are winning and they're beating us up And and Myanmar was an example of a nascent democracy just emerging and the coup that occurred What is the west doing about this? What is I mean? Biden's first statements were encouraging Australia was pathetic like we actually had our number two Our vcdf actually called their number two, which was a huge propaganda win for for the jun the junta And we've been very slow. Maurice pain did eventually cancel or the defense did cancel the military cooperation agreement But what is the west going to do? Are we going to be assisting some of the the armed resistance groups? And I'm talking about the you know the the different ethnic groups who are now Rising up against the junta or are you just going to say, you know what these guys are going to win Let's just just just sit sit back and watch them shoot people in the head in the street It's a big question Is that what you're doing? No, no, no, but I think it's look it's very easy to say what are we doing and these military regimes are winning But the obvious right post there's well, what do you propose to do about it? I just gave you four things. No, I mean is that actually the government's done one of them That's that's not going to change that's not going to change the trajectory of my I mean It's very easy to engage in these gesture politics where you say we're going to condemn these people And we're going to suspend this sorry if you actually think that's ultimately if you're saying you're going to stand By the responsibility to protect ultimately where that leads to do you think diplomacy is gesture politics is armed intervention Either you you stick by the principle and say we're going all the way Here's where we disagree. Here's where we disagree. Peter. Please. Let me finish. I gave you a good shot of this I think with the responsibility to protect I think it marked the high water mark if you like of a kind of an idealistic strain in international affairs It is never going never had at the time and will never have subsequently the international muscle You need to enforce it and I think doctrines like this are dangerous if you're never prepared to back them up There was one sort of rather futile attempt in libya, which probably discredited the doctrine for all time Didn't leave libya in a great situation it stopped the immediate threat that gadafi opposed to Some of his fellow countrymen but once gadafi was gone the west got up because no one was interested in engaging in this sort of Patient nation building exercise now This isn't an argument for doing nothing as as peter is seeping to characterise my position But it does mean that let's not throw up principles there and expectations and say that we're going to be with you to the end And we're going to fight to the last person in australian the last dollar to do this when clearly we're not and public support Wouldn't be there and taxpayers wouldn't be there. Let's be modest in our aims and let's be effective in what we're seeking to do That's what i'm arguing for. Can I just 20 seconds alex? This is where we disagree 20 seconds Set aside r2p for the moment. I'm only talking about modest aims of Recognition what the united nations has of the crph A visa amnesty things that support the legitimise not legitimising rather at least do nothing Don't legitimise the military junta, which is basically what your government did at least don't do that if we are Hold on Let me finish the 10 seconds i've got left We can actually do some 30 or we can do things collectively with Multiple countries to put pressure on the junta to let them know that they are not the legitimate government of miyamma And that is important in my view for liberal democracies to be participating in the countries in the region But more broadly all democracies need to be standing up Collectively and putting pressure on this junta and saying you are not the legitimate government of miyamma We don't accept that and we've done the opposite to that Oh, so i mean i'm gonna have to exercise a run of play I don't disagree with some of peter's prescriptions on miyamma Um, but in fact the government has spent a defence cooperation We've got five of the tatmadaw sanctioned marie's pains had 20 phone calls with her counterparts The prime minister's raises the quad level meeting. I'm saying let's be Realistic about what we can achieve peter's response to your initial question was about r2p and military regimes on the rise around the world And what is the west going to do about this and i'm saying let's not Overreach here and about what we're going to be able to do to stop that a lot of these countries They're going to end up determining their own fate much as we might wish it to be otherwise All right, richard mcgregor at the back there richard mcgregor's our senior fellow in china Is that on yeah, so both of you have worked in national security here and abroad Why do i ask you a question about how we got to where we are on china? If you listen to people like paul keating some of your former colleagues like the former ambassador to china They say the intelligence agencies Have taken over policy and our leading policy And i guess the inference to be drawn from that that it's sort of manipulation of information and covertly doing The bidding of the united states What's your response to that sort of narrative that the intelligence agencies are really running china policy? I'm winning a huge difference. Yeah, i mean i've i've heard that criticism and i'm always um, you know i'm always Alive to alternative theories if you like or you know i think these things should be scrutinized And it's a legitimate point for them to make if i look at what's changed in our relationship with china over 20 years say Um, it's fundamentally china has changed It's gone from being firstly an economy that was about four percent of global gdp in the year 2000 to about 18 percent today It's a much bigger country. Um, it's a much more Ambitious country for itself as you'd expect a country gets to be that size it starts to demand a bigger say In the affairs of the world. Um, and it's a much more centralized political system now Under g than it was when you had prior to g you had a sort of a loose collective leadership model operating Now you've got power much more centralized under one figure Who doesn't seem to have much in the way of internal scrutiny and checks and balances And doesn't seem to have term limits and all that has led to A china that is behaving in a way that is is is more ambitious more aggressive and more sort of Mindful of its own sovereign interest and that's really why this relationship is becoming harder to manage Not because the intelligence agencies have seized control of the narrative It's because china is challenging us or the State of china is challenging us in a whole range of areas where it simply didn't do it 20 years ago cyber Our political system any number of things internationally And i agree with a lot of what davis saying richard you've written about this obviously in your book the rise of jesu pink So you know about that centralization more than anyone in this room. I think and Clearly the changes have been significant All I can say all I can add to what davis said is that this has changed a huge way over the last 10 years i remember 12 years ago when i was working for right how different the relationship was and You know i remember going to the embassy to talk to The ambassador about us meeting with the dalai lama because they were upset about it and the foreign ministry the ambassador got up Read a telegram from beijing in his hand I noticed after all his hands were shaking as he's reading this and going on about the dalai lama being a splitter and How could you meet with him in our sovereignty? And he's shaking and I looked over and there was and i'm sure it was the intelligence Official the chinese intelligence official in the embassy staring at him You know so this guy's probably not meeting his kpi's and might be sent to re-education camps When he gets back to beijing and then I tried to engage him and talk about it and he got up and started reading the same note again and so We know who's running who was running the show in the embassy then I just tell you that little anecdote because the the foreign ministry's probably improved in their people That they've got here now, although that press conference the other day was probably not a good example of that point but The the Our engagement with the china has changed significantly Over 10 years and it is largely to to do with the points that dav has raised about the centralization Of power and g's concentration of power with g and the way they're operating and how much more aggressive they are Now i've got too many questions John connor on the back asked a question early and I might take two or three if that's all right with you And we'll see if we can in the last seven minutes and address them all Thank you very much Just one quick question really just sitting here I sort of wondered whether I was perhaps in tahiti or samoa And the reason I felt that was because there wasn't a single mention of indonesia We have a country to our north with roughly the population of the us approaching that of western europe Which is going to be one of the top seven economies in the world in the next 10 years or whatever probably less And yet we can have a discussion on foreign policy not a single reference even though coincidentally It entered into an agreement a little off a week or so ago with japan for defense equipment and technology Which as far as I saw got one reference in australian press Which was two little bits at the bottom of page nine of the australian It's hard to comment on that Well, can I just say? Yes, I will actually At the front andre So we've got indonesia now to be fair 40 minutes of discussion isn't a long a long time to to get right around the world But I agree with you obviously indonesia as our nearest largest like neighbor exceptionally important Yes, sir Thank you. I'm akiyama saikawa. I'm consortia of japan in simi I appreciate the australia's policy and collaboration with japan including the quad framework Simulized by recent cotton summit meeting My question is about the the rule-based international order the in the indopacific region I think I think that the both of you really pointed out the importance of Australia's leadership and contribution in in this area But what are your risk what you are thinking about the priority agenda including indonesia or some other issues? How to how how will australia? Uh promote rule-based international order Thank you Okay, and that's one more question of the back here I I'd just like to hear some comments about the australia asian relationship. I mean there was you know, obviously during the turnbull era there was uh So it was a summit You know strikes me that whether whether you're talking about China or you're talking about really making a difference to what happens in Myanmar Those asian countries are really the crucial Swing vote indonesia obviously being a particularly Important player, but only one of the players in asian and again, it's not something we hear a lot about But I'd be interested in you know, what more we we should be doing with asian Okay, so we've got indonesia indonesia and asian asian generally and What is the priority for the for the court and the rules-based international order? So just You could divide and conquer Or you could try and cover it all in the remaining four minutes work together In a bipartisan fashion or for that end of this Look, I'll be very quick on indonesia. Absolutely, right? We didn't get a chance to talk about it But actually david and I again on the treaties committee. We had the indonesian free trade agreement we had very much a long Inquiry and submissions into our relationship with indonesia and it's just so stark how Australian business and the and the focus of our sort of foreign policy national security community Just just sort of skipped over indonesia Everyone just a leapfrogged and went straight to china because they thought the pot of gold You know was there at the end of the rainbow and they're starting to see that it's not quite the case anymore And ignored indonesia to a certain extent. What is it two percent? Two-way trade or something makes up about two percent. There was a stark statistic I mean, there's a real failure again of us and this is not just any sort of both sides of politics to really imagine Better relationship with our northern neighbour who are the largest democracy in the region in the world 280 million people On a sian and indonesia. Yes There is a meeting apparently an emergency meeting of a sian on the 24th of april. I understand that the military The leader of the military junta Is going to be addressing sian. I know it's kind of split now and two so the democratic countries Are pushing for more action indonesia. Malaysia philippines for more action against miamma Whereas the sort of more autocratic country regimes if you like resisting So its effectiveness or its efficacy is is kind of questionable Although and and i'll segue very quickly into the international rules-based order how to go about that Yes, a sian is a part of that all that multilateral architecture I've written about this sorry Michael and alex at aspy but Another think tank about the need for us to actually not only build on the multilateral architecture That that exists to make it more dynamic But actually to that fulcrum idea of the middle power to actually work at a number of levels With partners like japan and south korea and indonesia You could have trilaterals other quads with different countries on different issues All in the sense of trying to promote and prop up Elements of that liberal rules-based order. It doesn't have to be static It can't just be one quad and in fact you could include china and the us and some of them In different ways depending on what the issues are that you're all the challenges that you're trying to meet There needs to be more dynamism Regionally and we need to show more leadership in that space to to actually protect that liberal rules-based order Um, look, I think you're right to raise indonesia I mean, you know, we I don't think it was any neglect on our part that it didn't come up It just hadn't come up in questions But and I know particularly like Ranking of relationships, but there's no doubt that indonesia is one of australia's most important Relationships has been for a number of decades and will be into the future and it's a relationship of you know Still in my mind are kind of under Um, that's that's delivering less than its potential We've got a few relationships like that around the region india is another one Where we'd sort of have have a need to work more And work more closely together. I think on ASEAN and indonesia. I mean look We have gone through a lot of steps in recent years to upgrade our relations with ASEAN started first with our admission to the east asia summit or signing the asian treaty of amity and cooperation In 2004 I think and then joining the east asia summit in 2005 and then It was under a labor government to their credit where the east asia summit was expanded to include the united states and became this You know regional bigger regional grouping I think asian countries bilaterally and its regional institution are key and You're quite right to point out. I mean on me and mar Ultimately asian Will have to be in the lead role in resolving this asian and the immediate neighbors india Bangladesh china and the asian states because they're the countries with the most influence over me and mar australia much as we might think of ourselves The generals don't sit awake at night thinking what's australian going to do about me and mar But they're very worried about the countries on their borders on the rules based international order. Look, I think We are working more closely with countries often of quite different political systems of share interest I mean vietnam is a classic case Vietnam doesn't particularly share our views on me and mar and what should happen there because they're an authoritarian political system themselves But on things like freedom of navigation on the high seas The settlement of territorial disputes by recourse to recognized judicial mechanisms countries like indonesia Vietnam, malaysia and singapore within asian a real key and the philippines a real keys to that Last point and I think this is an important one. I mean We talk about and I think this is correct. The u.s. china relationship is really the driving dynamic in the global order today And the rest of us including in australia We have a role to play but really the global weather is set by that relationship Ultimately where that relationship is going to is really where the sort of gears hit the road if you like is in southeast asia this is the region where The countries are more sort of open diplomatically to both countries where the competition is likely to be the most intense where china is most keen to kind of establish a hinterland strategically and economically to control its You know, it's security of supply routes and everything else So southeast asia in the 10 countries of asian are going to be Really where a lot of this competition plays out just as in the cold war And i'm not saying we're in another cold war, but just as in the cold war It was east in europe where the competition between the western alliance block and the southern union played out by a large, you know, germany and Germany, poland Yugoslavia those countries down the down the iron curtain line southeast asia is really going to be the sort of The the theater that's most in play and that's why our relations and our influence there will be so important I really the fact that i haven't been able to get to everybody's questions I apologize and also that this has been a rapid rapid fire Fifty five 59 minutes with one left to go There were lots of questions. I didn't get to ask which i'm annoyed about so we didn't talk much about covid We didn't talk about border closures of vaccines or about diplomatic deficit and how australian should be funding diplomacy defense and aid And we didn't get to politics in camber, which i think is an important topic and you too All in good spirit But i hope that the two of you will come back and join us and i'd like to have a discussion with you About that or whether it's on one of our podcasts or another event. I hope you'll come back It we've fulfilled our expectations of a battle. It was a showdown the gloves were off You didn't pull any punches, but you were remarkably gentlemanly towards each other very good sports. So thank you very much Thank you to the audience for your good questions And for your patience. We've got some events coming up next week Executive director who's here and the front row is interviewing michelle flaw-noy Who is the former under secretary of defense and the president of obama A deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy in the clinton administration and and the founder of the center for new marriage and security And she will be talking with dr. Fulllove on our director's chair podcast later this week One of our research fellows alex dan is interviewing david malpass the president of the world bank in a podcast for next week So please tune in to those We look forward to seeing much more review here at the low end student in blire street Throughout the rest of 2021. Thank you again and thank you to our guests