 So, one of the really interesting things, I think, coming up to an election is how different the international and domestic environments are since the last time we had an election. The foreign policy white paper that the current government has brought out is a really interesting document. What do you think about that and how do you think that will land on any new government? I like the way you put it because I think if we cast our minds back to 2016, it's only a few years ago and so much has changed. I mean, no Trump. Trump was still a nightmare, an imaginary nightmare rather than a reality for a lot of people. The strategic environment has changed a lot, I think, in the region since then. And I mean, your work, you know, issues like terrorism and countering violent extremism, I think that landscape has shifted pretty awfully as well. So we've come a long way. How is it going to land? I think the strategic environment has changed. I actually think that a lot of our security and foreign policy agencies have done quite a good job behind the scenes in the last few years of trying to anticipate and get a grip on change. So I think as a nation we're a bit more prepared than perhaps a lot of observers assume. So I'll go for the foreign policy white paper, for example. I think that has anticipated change and uncertainty. We're not sure where the United States is headed. We know that China is powerful, but it's in a region where many other countries are rising as well. Australia's got to do more to get its act together in this strategic environment. I think the next government of whichever political complexion they may be is actually going to be pretty well prepared and well briefed. That doesn't mean, of course, that they'll be ready. What do you think, Jacinta? I really like the foreign policy white paper and it does present as a good strategic statement of intent that I think is above politics, above partisan politics, and it does hold as well. One of the really interesting things for me in that was having looked primarily at counterterrorism and national security issues and how do we position Australia in a global environment of ideological battles is that this statement grounded us in values. The starting point was this is who we are, a liberal democratic country, honouring rule of law, and it was sort of bookended with soft power. How do we do that? That's a really nice way to think about things. I suppose my concern with it is because it didn't have a particular program of activities associated with it. Or money. Or money. Yeah. It remains to be seen how we're going to do that, but it is a really good way to posture things and I think one thing that will set Australia up very well in terms of anything we do in the international or domestic environment and in our region is to ground things in those values quite clearly and openly. Sometimes when we talk about policy or we're engaged in a particular activity internationally, particularly in terms of conflict, talking about that issue becomes the issue rather than why we're doing it and what it stands for. And we've got a very informed public, we've got a very well aware public that can understand complexity. We probably just need to talk about that a bit more. Maybe you have a bit more faith in the public than I have, but I agree there are, I think there is a debate that needs to be engaged with and there's growing pockets of awareness. I still worry a bit, and maybe this is an interesting point to dig into, whether the public has been fully brought along on the journey. I think the bureaucracy is ready. I think the strategic elite actually has probably a better sense of the challenges that lie ahead than some commentators, including perhaps a few of my own colleagues at ANU would suggest, but I'm not sure we've brought the public with us. And I think whether it's on the issues I deal with, I mean, looking at strategic issues, looking at China, for example, whether it's looking at the CT space, counter-terrorism and the whole social cohesion debate, is the public ready? For, I guess, strategic shocks, and we've seen some awful shocks lately, for a government that basically has to tell them that, really, there are no easy, there are no easy options. What do you think? Yeah, look, it's interesting. I mean, talking about this just a few days after the Christchurch attack has shown that there is a hunger to discuss these things. There are a whole range of ways that we discuss them. Some of them are more polite than others. Now, particularly thinking of the difference between how mainstream media and leaders dealt with the aftershock of Christchurch, very self-regulating, very reflective, not speculating too much, not talking in extremes, but the social media world was a light with yelling, of course, in that. So are we prepared enough to deal with strategic shocks? I think that we could do better in providing some of that nuance and some of that information more generally in an easily accessible way. It won't stop people from yelling, but a really simple one. I've been talking a lot to a range of people about what the terrorism environment is in Australia and the aftermath of Christchurch. And it's very clear on the public record that intelligence agencies and police have not only been talking about right-wing extremism, a small but dangerous issue in Australia have talked about an uptick in that base in trying to recruit people and do things, and have actually stopped a major mass casualty plot in 2016. The joint counter-terrorism team in Victoria arrested and charged a right-wing extremist who was going to undertake an attack. And yet a lot of us haven't heard of this. And the information isn't easily available, partly because that individual is going through the court process, but when I was trying to show mainstream journalists and others where to find information about this, it doesn't exist. So governments can do much better in providing easily accessible information available online. It's where people go to. If you Google right-wing extremism in Australia, it's very hard to find data and stats. We can extrapolate this to a whole range of issues. But one thing that really interests me in terms of how do we model good behavior and practice in informing the public is this quite extraordinary change, this sea change really in the public's understanding of foreign interference. And one thing that stands out to me as an observer is what we saw with the Four Corners and Fairfax investigations two years ago and the impact that had. How do you think that the the public's responded to that? And and how do you think that places us to deal with this? That's another I mean, that's another of the big issues that if you like if you look at the nexus of politics and national security in foreign policy, it's right up there. And I think the foreign interference issue, whether it's China or whether it's some other country, some other actor, as they say, is going to be, I think, behind the headlines, the whole lot of other issues. I don't think it'll be front and center of the political debate. And I don't think it should be just as I think that anything that I guess sensible people can do to take the politics out of the terrorism and social cohesion issues is a good thing. But the issues will be there. So I think one of the things that I worry about going into the election is that disconnect, if you like, between public awareness, business awareness, and what I think the, if you like the national security and foreign policy elite are pretty well informed about now, both from unclassified sources. And I believe from classified sources too. And this is not just Australia, it's globally. So the Chinese influence and interference issue, and of course emphasizing this as the Chinese Communist Party, it's not Chinese people per se, is going to be there in the background, I think, in this election, other elections to come. One of the challenges a new government, whether it's Liberal or Labor in the months ahead, will have is to find continuity, I think, with some of the achievements that we saw under the Turnbull government, which were bipartisan achievements, to build a new raft of laws, to manage foreign influence and interference, to do it in a way that I believe does respect the rights of Australians from across this diverse society, and also to do it in a way that sees to China we want to continue to have a mutually respectful, mutually beneficial relationship with you, but we have to do it on terms of our own sovereignty. And I guess what I worry about is that if politics comes into this particular issue come election time, and it can happen, I don't think it will, but it can happen, that's going to have all sorts of distorting effects. And so in a way, although foreign interference and terrorism are very different issues, and we shouldn't assume that there's a solution that somehow addresses both of them, the same risk is there of politicisation. And so I think anything that good analysts and scholars can do to bring public attention to the good work that has actually been done in the policy community and the nonpartisan nature of that work and how that work can help inform any potential future government is going to help really build, I guess, national solidarity on those issues. And then let's see the election fort I would like to imagine on other issues.