 Your Excellency Mark Rootter, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Sir Frank Lowey, Chairman of the Lowey Institute and Board Members of the Institute, the Honourable David Coleman, Minister for Immigration, Ambassador Nick Burns, the 2019 Rothschild Fellow at the Institute, Ambassadors and Consuls General, Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning and welcome to 31 Bly Street. I'm Michael Fully Love, the Executive Director of the Institute and we are delighted to be hosting today's event with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr Rootter. PM, the Lowey Institute was established in 2003 to project Australian voices to the world and to bring the world to Australia. And in the past few years, we've hosted many world leaders, including your European counterparts, Angela Merkel and Boris Johnson. And we're honoured now to include you on that list. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Rootter is one of the most influential politicians in Europe and one of the continent's most prominent Liberal voices. When he first formed government in 2010, he became the first Liberal Dutch Prime Minister since 1918 and the second youngest Dutch PM ever. He's currently in his third term as Prime Minister of the Netherlands. He has been described as the North's quiet rebel, which sounds like something from Game of Thrones. As one of the EU's eldest statesmen, he led the backlash against European populism while also opposing further European integration. He's one of the leading European voices on Brexit. Those are many reasons that we're happy to have you here, PM, but there are two other reasons that you're welcome in this country and welcome at this institute. The first reason is that Dutch and Australian soldiers fought beside each other bravely for many years in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. And the second reason is that you were such a good friend to Australia in the aftermath of the shooting down of MH17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014. In that dreadful incident, the Netherlands lost nearly 200 souls and Australia lost 38 souls. And one of our board members, Serangus Houston, who's here today, was appointed the Prime Minister's special envoy to help lead Australia's efforts to identify and repatriate the Australians killed in that disaster. And he has told me what a powerful ally you were for our country as we sought justice on behalf of our countrymen and countrywomen. So thank you for that. Ladies and gentlemen, in a moment, I will invite the Prime Minister to address us. After his remarks, he has kindly agreed to join me for a Q&A session and at the end of the event, my Chairman, Sir Frank Loewy will deliver the vote of thanks. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte. Sir Frank Loewy, the Honourable David Coleman, Minister for Immigration. Of course, Professor Fulia Love, but I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston. We became close allies during those days in 2014. And that was really a very special time. And I'm so happy that you are here today. So thank you for coming. And of course, ambassadors, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I already must say felt honored to be invited to speak to you today as a guest of this distinguished Loewy Institute. But when I learned that this event coincided with the opening of the Institute's renovated headquarters, I even felt more privileged. Your architects and builders, I believe, have done an amazing job. This is an Italian palazzo here in Australia. So thank you for having me on this very special occasion. I've been looking forward to visiting Australia again and to speaking with you about the international rule of law and the multilateral world order. But I'd like to begin, if I may, on the other sides of the world. I'd like to begin in my own country. Because a few weeks ago, the Netherlands began a series of commemorations marking our liberation from Nazi occupation 75 years ago. It was a hard fought battle. And the Dutch endured a long cold winter and a deadly famine before the whole country was finally free on the 5th of May 1945. And for many generations since then, the rule of law has been a given. But when you meet the allied veterans that liberated our country or talk to people that lived through the horrors of the war, you instantly realize we should never, never, ever take freedom, justice, and international stability for granted. And in this respect, the post-war generations could learn a valuable lesson from the life story of the Institute's founder, Sir Frank Lowy. Mr. Lowy, it's an honor to meet you today. You are someone who inspires an enormous admiration and respect. As a young man, you survived the Budapest Kettle and you lost your father in Auschwitz. You have lived a bold and enterprising life. You have had exceptional success, and yet you have said it took you seven decades to summon the strength to take part in the march of the living from Auschwitz to Bigenau. I was afraid of one major thing you once said, that maybe I would not be able to emotionally grasp what happened to him, your father, and all the other people there. So ladies and gentlemen, it's so great to remember that what happened to Mr. Lowy happened less than a lifetime ago, a world in which might makes right is never far away. And of course, visiting Australia also makes me reflect on the 298 innocent people who lost their lives in the downing of Flight MH17 on the 17th of July, 2014. So many families in the Netherlands, in Australia and elsewhere, who lost their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives. Victims of an armed conflict they had nothing to do with. MH17 was a tragedy that struck both our countries to the core. And what happened to those 298 people and their families happened only five years ago. And the truth is, when we speak of the international rules based order, it may sound abstract. But when that order breaks down, the effects can be felt in the most direct and tragic ways. And that's why the importance of the international system that was built after 1945 cannot be overstated. Over the past seven decades, international rules determined how we trade, how our citizens travel, how we fight poverty and climate change, and how we resolve disputes and manage conflict. And it is not a perfect system, far from it. But it has made countries like Australia and the Netherlands more prosperous and secure than at any other time in our history. And it's simply in our own interest, not to mention the common interest, to build on that. And perhaps the most important lesson I've learned in my years as prime minister or one of the world's most outward-looking trading nations is this. National interests are often best served by international cooperation. Today, the multilateral system is under heavy pressure and can no longer be taken for granted. Some international actors are trying to change the rules, and others are breaking them or ignoring them. The traditional leader of the free world, the United States, is now choosing a less prominent yet more critical role. China is taking a far more proactive role on the world stage, with its own perspectives on human rights, democracy, free trade, and intellectual property. A rivalry is building between the US and China, one that's affecting the world economy and our national economies. And finally, we have a Europe that's more divided and less decisive than it should be in today's uncertain world. In the last few months, I've had the opportunity to speak about this topic in several fora, including in the United States. And my key message, which I want to repeat wholeheartedly today, is that we must modernize and improve the international system to make it fit for purpose once again. The fact is that our international institutions, UN, the IMF, the World Trade System, as well as NATO, the European Union, all originated in a bipolar world where international relations were defined by the divisions between East and West and rich and poor. That world has ceased to exist. And the challenges of today's multipolar world don't always fit into our existing structures. Our reality has changed. But our underlying system has not evolved with it. And that's causing friction at the moment. Take decision making in UN, and especially in the Security Council, which basically still operates as if nothing has changed since 1945. Or take the World Trade Organization, which still gives China the status of a developing country with all the financial benefits that entails. Take the Human Rights Council, where condemnation of Israel is high on the agenda, while grave human rights violators like Syria, Eritrea, and North Korea are often given a free pass. The criticism expressed by President Trump, but not only by him, has been fierce, yes. I acknowledge that, it's true. But at its core, much of that criticism is valid. So I think we should see President Trump's actions as a chance to move forward, to improve the international system, and bring it up to date. Not by withdrawing from bodies and treaties, not by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but by pressing hard together for modernization and improvement. That's what I'm calling here for here today. And here I believe that Australia and the Netherlands should work closely together in pursuing exactly, and especially, that goal. And I believe that for many reasons. Firstly, because we share a long history, going all the way back to the 17th century, when the Dutch ship, Duifken, the little pigeon, landed in Northern Australia. It was a wonderful experience yesterday at the State Library of New South Wales to see the maps and journals documenting these first encounters between Australia and Europe. Secondly, we should work together, because both of us, we are countries that believe in the rule of law, democracy, and free trade. Thirdly, there is a strong bond we've forged in recent years, working to bring peace and stability to US-gun province in Afghanistan, and justice to the victims of MH17 and their families. And fourthly, we complement each other perfectly, with Australia strongly represented in the Indo-Pacific region and the Netherlands at the heart of the European Union and the transatlantic world. If you look at the world map and see that Australia is almost 230 times larger than the Netherlands, you might think that our nations are incredibly different. But the opposite is true. For middle powers like Australia and the Netherlands, working together is the best way, it's the only way to influence and shape international debate. Yesterday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and I discussed the many ways in which we already cooperate to bolster the international rules-based order and the opportunities that lie ahead. And of course, the MH17 case and the work of the joint investigation team remain a key priority, for both of us. A topical example is our growing cooperation on combating foreign interference and enhancing cybersecurity. We are both open economies. We are both free societies. And of course, that's our source of strength, but it makes us also vulnerable to malicious state actors trying to undermine our economic security or to influence our democratic processes. So it's important that we share information, that we share intelligence and experience in this field in order to protect our way of life. Another example is our shared interests in maintaining and strengthening maritime law. For trading nations like ours, it's essential to have international mechanisms that guarantee free passage, peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, and an effective approach against piracy. And these are just a few examples of how bilateral cooperation can help maintain the multilateral world order. And to me, the bottom line is simple. We have to respond to the shifting global balance of power. As middle powers, we must act in concert if you want to make sure our voices are heard. And I believe the current crisis in multilateralism and the tone of some of its fiercest critics may act as a catalyst for much needed reform. Ladies and gentlemen, last year, the American historian Robert Kagan published The Jungle Grows Back, his latest book, on the imminent fragmentation of the post-war liberal world order. In it, he argues that jungle-like chaos is the natural state of international affairs, as world history has shown. In the 19th century, uncompromising nationalistic diplomacy led to the First World War, which in turn led only two decades later to a second global conflict. Only after these two devastating wars did the nations of the world acknowledge that they needed to agree a set of common rules of conduct. Kagan argues that the multilateral liberal world order created after 1945 is a man-made garden, a place of order where we could afford the chaos of another world war, and where prosperity came within the reach of more people than ever before. But a garden needs maintenance, or it will be reclaimed by the jungle. Australia and the Netherlands both know how foolish it will be to let the jungle grow back. Thank you. Well, thank you, PM, for those very interesting and powerful remarks. And let me start with the final phrase, which is that countries like the Netherlands and Australia must work together to make sure the jungle does not grow back. And if I were to try to summarize your argument, I think you were saying the multilateral system needs to be reformed, but it needs to be supported as well. And you said the most important lesson you have learned as Prime Minister is that national interests are often best served by international cooperation. Absolutely. So can you talk a little bit more about that dilemma between national interests and international cooperation? Because some people would say that those two things are at odds. So as Prime Minister, can you talk to us? How have you projected Dutch values and prosecuted Dutch interests via international cooperation? Well, I think it was Scott Morrison who delivered the lobby speech a couple of weeks ago. And we discussed it at length yesterday. There is a risk with these multilateral organizations, ASEAN, that they try to take sovereignty from the members and bring the sovereignty at a level of the organization, of ASEAN and the European Union. And that is wrong. These multilateral organizations will never have a soul. The soul is in the country, is in the city, your pride is in where you're from. You were born, or if you were born in Ellens, you go to Australia, you can be proud of your new country. But there is your soul. Your soul will never be in an acronym, it will never be an abbreviation. The European Union is never a destiny. So this whole crazy idea of the ever-closer union, which is still in the European Union Charter, is an absolutely crazy sentence. And it should not be taken seriously. So there, I agree. At the same time, we also agree that you need to be embedded as countries in strong international cooperative structures, where you cooperate with each other. Take the Netherlands. We are a country with 17 million people. The size of the country is basically the bigger Sydney area. We are 200 by 300 kilometers. 17 million people. We are now the best performing European economy. We're the most competitive economy in Europe. But so small in size with so many people with so many interests, how could we ever survive in the world alone, where you have Putin projecting his position on the world states, the situation in the Middle East, what is happening in North Africa, the unpredictability of what is coming out of Washington. You need to be embedded in strong international structures like NATO, the European Union, or for Australia to be active, as Scott and his team are doing, to build a cooperation with other countries in the region, reach out to ASEAN, being almost as Australian honorary member of NATO. That's what it should be like. That's how you work together, not to export your sovereignty to these organizations, but because it is in your interest to, as politicians, we have two tasks. One is to make sure the economy is doing well, so that it provides for the jobs. And secondly, to keep the country safe. I cannot keep the Netherlands safe if we would withdraw from NATO, if we would withdraw from the European Union because some right-wing politicians or left-wing politicians, things that it is pulling sovereignty away from the Netherlands. Because then I will not fulfill on my most important pledge, and that is to keep the country safe. I can't do that if we are not working together with others and being embedded in these international structures and to provide our contribution to them. And that is including trans-criticism on the 2% in NATO. You have to spend 2% of GDP on NATO. We are not doing that. We are spending much more than a couple of years ago. But it's completely right. It includes that you have to fulfill your obligations. And therefore, I believe it is in the national interest to be connected, but not to hand over sovereignty. Let's leave that as for the globalists, that sort of people who are travelling the world and think that we will all be one big nation as a world community. That will never, ever happen. It's a crazy thought. Forget it. We have to be practical and pragmatic. Let me probe a bit further on that if I can. Here in Australia, we have a periodic debate about whether we should engage with the United Nations, for example. And a few years ago, some Conservatives were very opposed to the Australian campaign for a seat on the Security Council. But we won that campaign. And of course, we happened to be on the Security Council when MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. And suddenly, everybody was happy we were on the Security Council because we didn't have to go cap in hand to the Brits or the Americans and the French in the Security Council chamber. We held the pen. We could represent our own interests. We could fight for justice on behalf of Australians. So from a sort of a Dutch perspective, do you want countries like Australia actively involved in these institutions, trying to write the rules, trying to make the institutions work? I don't only like it. It's crucial. We cannot survive if you're not doing that. What kind of... You are 24 million people? 25. It's nothing. I mean, the country is big, but 25 million people, you have a 1.1 trillion economy, it's nothing on the world scale. You'll be gone if you are on your own feet. It will not work. You have to be connected to others to work together. And I'm so happy that the President of the Australian government acknowledges that, not by handing out your sovereignty, but by pragmatically working together with others. And that's exactly what we are doing. If Australia would withdraw, if the Netherlands would withdraw from the world stage or Australia, we are the, let's say, the middle powers. We are the economies, you're in place 14, we are in place 18 in terms of overall GDP. So we are not small countries in terms of economic power, but we are not one of the big ones either. We are not the U.S. or Germany or Japan or China. But we do share our absolute conviction that this world should be based not on the power of, on the principle of power, but on the power of principles, that it should be based on human rights, that it should be based on open access, that it should be based on world trade where everyone can benefit on a open economy which is open to anyone who wants to take a shot at it and wants to be successful and that that's how we create jobs and future wealth. And therefore we are so strongly connected in all those values. I mean, when I'm here, I feel at home. I mean, you are so far away. It's almost, we're not unbelieved. It's almost impolite to be that far away from the Netherlands, but at the same time, it feels like I'm here in a neighboring country. So it will be absolutely unacceptable. We will never accept Australia doing that. And again, I don't see anyone in senior political positions contemplating that. You know, Netherlands is quite a long way away from Australia at 2 p.m. Can I ask you, you talk about countries breaking the rules and a lot of people would say that the two most important countries in the world are challenging the rules at the moment, that in Washington we have a president who doesn't, is a skeptic, it seems, of alliances, is not, doesn't like rules binding the United States. And also in China, we have a country that feels that the rules were drafted for a different set of circumstances and they're challenging the rules too. Do you think, is that a fair characterization? Do you think that the two most powerful countries in the world are unhappy with the set of rules at the moment? How do we adapt the rules to accommodate them or how do we protect the rules to stop them from breaking them? I would tend to say yes to the question, but saying yes to the question means that I put China and the U.S. in the same box. And that is unacceptable. The United States is the leader of the free world. It's a full democracy. Acknowledging human rights has freed Europe. It's playing a crucial role in the world stage. And China is a different thing. So to say yes to the question, I think as you post the question, the answer can only be yes. Let not assume that that means that they're in the same box. I mean, in the European Union, everybody likes to criticize Trump. Oh, if Obama was still president and et cetera, et cetera. He isn't. Guys, wake up, he's gone. There's a two-term limit in the U.S. He's not any longer there. He's writing his biography or he already has, I don't know, whatever, but he is somewhere else. He's earning a lot of money giving speeches. He is not any longer president. They, in a democratic process, chose Trump. So now we have to dance with him. And now we have a president who is, of course, also reined into a certain extent. The foreign policy community in the United States, the senior senators from both parties will never accept the U.S. retreating from NATO or from international organizations. They know that for their survival it's crucial to stay involved. But Trump has a few strong points. When he says, why is China's developing country status, allowing them in the Postal Union, for example, to benefit from certain things because, oh, they are developing country. And that is not helpful for American or European businesses. He is right. When he challenges the NATO countries not spending 2%, he's right. When he says, the WTO is a chaotic organization not delivering for years, he's right. We all sang the hymn of internationalism and multilateral organizations whilst we were not really attending to the maintenance and the necessary repairs to the system. In the UN, the Security Council, not having had any fundamental debate on that structure since 1945, the UN itself. I mean, Kuterres is trying and we support him. It's almost impossible for a secretary general to really change that organization. But I really admire what he is doing. But he can only do that with our support. So let's make use of Trump's criticism of internationalism and not electoralism to change these organizations to make them stronger. And therefore, he is not a threat, he is an opportunity. And we should look at it in that way. And again, in the US, Trump himself, but also the foreign policy community, they know for their long-time survival how important that embeddedness in the international structures is for their survival. Let me ask you then about China. You spoke quite a bit there about the United States. Here, we have to take a three-dimensional view of China. China is both our leading trading partner, one of our leading economic partners. It's essential to our growth and development. It's also a peer competitor to our great strategic ally, the United States. And it's also a huge, an Asian giant run by a Leninist political party. And every day, there are China stories on the front pages of the Australian newspapers, whether it's what's happening in Hong Kong or Xinjiang, whether it's allegations of political interference or political donations or cyber hacks. China is the big story for us. In Europe, it seemed to us, I think, for a long time that many Europeans have taken a one-dimensional view of China. They've seen China as a market. They've seen China as a place where their companies can make money, but not as a strategic actor that we need to take very seriously. Is that an accurate criticism and are European views of China developing, do you think? What you're basically saying is we have been naive about China for too long. That's true. The European countries have been naive about China for too long. That doesn't mean that we should stop dealing with China, both commercially and politically. But we should not be naive. It is not a Western country with a full democracy, a full recognition of human rights, the rule of law, et cetera. It is a different system. And there is a risk that a different system tries to impose its system on other parts of the world. And in the case of Australia, I do acknowledge, for us, our main commercial partner is Germany. And Germany is a copy of the Netherlands in every sense. So that's easy to deal with them. I like, of course, every quarter, every three months to send out the growth figures of the Netherlands to Angela Merkel, because she is not doing that good at the moment, financially and commercially. So there is that competition. But at the end it is a democracy, a rule of law, everything. And that's different here. So for your security, you are very much dependent on the US looking at us from Australia. But commercially and financially and for your economy, you have a strong relationship. You need a strong relationship with China. And that means that we discussed it at length yesterday and today I will have further talks on that. How that should develop. As a Netherlands, we have brought out our own China strategy, which is that we should fully engage with that country. I try to visit them every year and have talks with Xi Jinping and Roliki Zhang, the president, party leader slash prime minister, and discuss all the various bilateral and multilateral issues. But we have to be very clear about what is happening there. We have a human rights dialogue with China. We know what is happening with the Uyghurs at the moment. And we have to discuss all those issues open and frank. I like very much what Scott Morrison said about that, that you have to be straight with China. I think he's right there. You have to be very clear with them. They respect that. And he even made that point, I think sitting in the White House next to Trump, who is a bit more in two places when China is involved. And I think Scott is right here. You need to be very clear with them. Not naive. You talked earlier about, you said we have to dance with President Trump now. But you also have to dance with President Xi Jinping. And you mentioned that you try to get to China every year, you try to meet with Xi Jinping and Roliki Zhang and others. How do you find Xi Jinping? I mean, you said, for example, Donald Trump is a threat, but he's also an opportunity. Is Xi Jinping an opportunity or a threat? What are your impressions of him when you interact with him? It's, of course, much more difficult to influence affairs in China than to dialogue with a democratically electric president of the United States. Because at heart, you work and think and breathe from the same system. And then Trump can be a different type of politician than Bush senior or Clinton or Obama. But at the end, he has been growing up. He is a product of the United States. And therefore, you have many similarities when you start to dialogue. That's totally different, of course, when you have your dialogues with the senior Chinese leadership. That is a totally different system. And I am not thinking for a second that I can fundamentally influence the state of affairs in China. But what I do know is that they are, at the end, also rational politicians taking a long-term view. For example, take the whole Belt and Road Initiative. They are now encountering some of the impact of what they are doing. Some of these investments are not that successful. If you would have invested in Venezuela, for example, and then thinking by doing that, I can influence affairs in that country. Well, good luck at the moment. And the same is true for some other countries where they have invested so heavily that it created a lot of debt back to China. And that has not always been beneficial, I think, for China itself. And my understanding is that that debate is at the moment taking place within China. We have a discussion in the European Union about the meetings between 17 European countries and the senior Chinese leadership, 17 members of the European Union who do not have that regular access to senior Chinese leadership. And then we are all very critical from Paris and Berlin and the Hague. Why are you doing that? But I do understand that they also want to have a certain type of dialogue with China. So we should structure that in a way that they still have that access without that impeding on some of our strategic interests as a collective European Union. We can do that. So we are not defenseless here. We are not without options. But it is different dialoguing with Trump or dialoguing with the Kichang or Xi Jinping. It is a different country with a different history. Let me ask you a couple of questions about Europe, if I can. Europe has seen as much of the West has this rise of populism over the last five years or so. What caused that? How can democratic leaders address the root causes of that populism? And are you confident? Is that populism ebbing a little bit? Are we coming out the other end? Or is it as real a challenge as it has been for some years? Well, let's start by saying that that populism originated by me and my colleagues. It didn't originate with the voters. It didn't originate with the populist parties. It originated with me, the center-right, center-left politicians. We made mistakes because we thought that the European Union was an ever-closer union. We thought that migration was great and we should be a safe haven for everyone in the world who is fighting, who is trying to get away from a dictatorship. And it doesn't work. I've seen it myself in 2015, 2016, when the Syrian refugee crisis was hitting Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands. We had buses hoovering around the country to keep people warm because we didn't have the shelter capacity to host the Syrian refugees. And at that moment, the opinion polls for some of these populist parties had a spike and went up in the sky. In Germany, in the Netherlands, in Sweden, because people felt we were out of control. So I think on these issues, not having taken care of a genuine worth living in certain parts of our cities and thinking it's great for others to experience the inflow of refugees and what that will do to multiculturalism and the country and they should accept that, and then yourself living in the neighborhoods where you do not experience these issues and problems with integration of people coming from outside the Netherlands, that was simply wrong. So what we did, at least what I tried to do in the Netherlands, is to limit migration. Yes, we are still open for refugees who try to get away from dictatorships and oppression, but we have to limit the numbers. We can only handle so much. We cannot have everyone. That's why we closed that deal, that agreement with Erdogan in 2016. Merkel, myself, we were then chairing the EU. We tried to get the deal done. It is an ugly deal, it is not perfect. There are many aspects of it which are not really working, but at least it helped to bring down considerably the number of Syrian refugees. Secondly, on Europe, we stopped that debate of, oh, it's great to all have a sort of big pow wow in the European Union and Brussels will be the next capital for everyone. It's crazy, it doesn't work like that. And I don't feel that myself, so for me it was not that difficult. But I think not having expressed this clearly enough as Central Right and Central Left parties, then people start to, if you don't provide water, people will bring sand. So we had to provide water again, and that was the problem. So I've never, and the last thing you should do is then preach to the population, you should not vote for Geert Wilders. It's crazy, don't do that. People will decide themselves for whom they will vote. But if you don't provide an alternative in the reasonable Central Left, Central Right political spectrum, it doesn't work. At the moment it's not too bad. In Europe, in my country, in the opinion polls, the parties to the more extreme left or extreme right are about 20, 25%, that's almost stable. So still 75 to 80% of the population votes for parties in the political center. We have seen it now in Austria, where Sebastian Kurz was a very tough agenda. I mean, I like the guy, he's 33 years old, and he has a very strong focus, and he got out with 38%. A center, right, Christian Democratic Traditional Party in Europe on 38%, and the FPÖ, the party to the extreme right, was on only 19 or 20%. So he is dealing with that. We see the AfD in Germany at the moment, consistently about 13 or 14%, but not growing. They're big in Eastern parts, because there are many economic issues, not that big at the moment in the Western part. So that's what we have to do. Not by telling people you should not vote for them, no, what did we do wrong, for the reason of which, you then decided to take that direction. So how did we desert you, not you deserting us? We deserted them, we didn't deliver. And I think that's the only way to solve that problem. Let me ask you about Brexit, which is a phenomenon that's often associated with this populist rise. I don't want to ask you about the ins and outs and the tactics and whether a deal will be achieved. I'd like to ask you how you feel about Brexit, because here in Australia as an Anglophone country, we often look at Europe through British eyes. And it's... Stop doing this. LAUGHTER Well, that's why you're being here is so useful, PM. As a liberal conservative and an Anglophile yourself, and someone who believes in a more liberal version of Europe, Britain-Brexiting Europe can only affect that and can only affect Europe's strategic weight in the world. So how do you feel about Brexit? And what difference do you think, if we assume that Brexit will happen, what difference will it make to Europe's role in the world? It will be big. I said to Laura Kunstberg, the famous political senior editor at the BBC, I hate Brexit from every angle. I think it's a wrong decision. It is not sensible politics to... When you have an internal party problem within the Conservative Party, the Tory Party, for David Cameron to then organise a referendum. But, OK, that has all happened, and we can critique that, and I make my mistakes. I think this was a mistake made in 2015 in the election campaign, and then in 2016 delivered on this referendum promise, and that went horribly wrong. First of all, for the OK, it will neither be America nor European Union, so you have a diminished country, somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, with less influence. It still has a strong military, it will still be an important NATO ally, but not being part of the European Union, influencing things in Europe will have an impact on the UK. So I think it is for them, it is the wrong decision, but they took it democratically to deal with this. Now, what I can influence is Europe. I'm absolutely unhappy with them leaving because I am a certified Anglo-file, yes, and I'm open about that. And why am I a certified Anglo-file? Because you need, in a European Union, with a strong France, which is still at core very golystic, very state-oriented, Germany, which has a strong industry base, but at the heart still has a tradition built up under the post-war chancellor, the powerful chancellor in the post-war German period, Brandt and Schmid, Kohl-Alenhauer. It's still a country where people still think that the state will do a lot to make them happy. And I'm a liberal politician, so I believe the state needs to be there to provide the basics, education, safety, and security, and healthcare, et cetera. But at the end, your personal well-being will be influenced by your own decisions. And international trade, outlook to the rest of the world, being connected to the rest of the world, that is the British influence in the European Union. That will go away. That's why we are now building within the EU, a coalition with more smaller countries, the Baltics, the Scandex, Austria, Slovenia, Ireland, who, I hope, collectively, will try to maintain that outlook on the world, not opposed to Germany and France, but at least to have next to Germany and France other countries working together in that group. The Dutch economy is the biggest. It is not an official group of countries, but we try to assess issues and coordinate policies as much as possible between these countries within the EU to, by doing that, create some sort of alternative for the UK leaving the European Union. But it will leave, I'm afraid, and I have to wake up to reality in that sense, accept reality, but that means that I have to try with my colleagues in the Netherlands, with other countries, to at least keep that outlook and that view of the world alive in the EU and not a European Union, which is too atatistic, too much state-oriented, because that will not help the competitiveness, for example, of my country. We've got a few minutes to take a couple of questions from the audience, so let me ask you now, if you're interested in asking the PM to raise your hand. Let me say that I'd like you to wait till the microphone comes to you and please keep the question brief, because I want to try to fit in a couple of questions for the PM. I've seen Peter Harcher raise his hand in the front row, so we'll take Peter's question first. Thank you, Prime Minister. You acknowledge that Donald Trump's main criticism of the European Union, which is its failure to spend the required 2% of GDP on its military, was a valid criticism. The last figure I saw for your country was that military spending on GDP was 1.2. In case you didn't hear that, 1.2%. Is that correct and what is the plan? Well, you're completely right. This government is spending billions extra. In the latest budget, we have again pledged extra money for NATO. One of the problems we have, except from finding the money is to allocating the money is the absorption capacity of our military to hire speedily enough the new recruits within our armed service and forces. But also to buy the necessary equipment, the planes and everything, because there are many countries at the moment buying, of course, military aircraft and other important investments. So that takes time. We will now get to, I believe, a little over 1.4% by 2024, which is not close to 2% we pledged by 2024. In 2014, when that pledge was made in will, so that will mean that we will have to do more. My party is clearly stating we have to move to 2%, and that will be a main issue, I think, in the next coalition talks in 2021. And before that, this present government will, has committed that in conjunction with money spent on development aid, so there has to be a balance between the two. There's a center-left-center-right coalition, so the balance is there, and I'm not against that. In balance with development aid, if you want, when the room is there and the opportunity is there to spend more in the military spending before 21, and then again in 21 there will be a new coalition, and then that has to take the next leap forward. In the meantime, we have to make sure that the absorption capacity is there, that we can find the people and spend the money wisely. But you're totally right. We have to step up our game. All right, the gentleman in the back. I think it's Jamie Smart from the Financial Times. Good morning. Just a question on the very complicated Brexit negotiations. At the heart of the EU's negotiating position of Brexit, is this refusal to accept a customs border on the island of Ireland? A very laudable goal from my position as an Irishman and due to the history of the nation. But also a huge gamble, because if there's a no-deal Brexit, inevitably you get a hard border on Ireland anyway. So does this suggest that the EU is confident that Boris Johnson won't win a subsequent election and impose a no-deal Brexit anyway? Do you think there's a chance that there could be another referendum in the UK and there could be a reversal of the decision on Brexit? And just lastly, what are the future implications for UK-EU relations if there is this no-deal Brexit? Will this sense of bitterness linger for many years and could it lead to a breakdown in security cooperation? Well, your first question, I stopped dreaming on this issue. I still dream a lot about a better world. But on this particular issue of the UK staying in the European Union, I stopped dreaming some time ago. So we have to face reality. But this is a difficult issue. As I tweeted about... I sent out a Twitter report on Saturday on my phone call with Boris Johnson. Theresa May, as you know, she did not accept for Northern Ireland to be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. So that meant that the whole of the United Kingdom, 65 million people in the present deal, the present political agreement, sorry, the present resolve agreement, the whole of the United Kingdom would stay as part of, well, basically the Customs Union internal market till you would really have found the technology to deal with that border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. But Boris Johnson, it seems he is doing, to move that more to Ireland itself. That could be helpful if that would give him the support in the UK Parliament for an alternative. But then, if you would control most of the goods at the Great Britain part, so you would have a hard border in the Irish Sea, you still have the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which has to be dealt with. And the only way I can see how you could do that is by Northern Ireland staying for somewhat longer, not entirety, but for somewhat longer till you have found the technology without border controls, control that border in the Customs Union. That is something clearly Boris Johnson doesn't want. So what the talks are about now is the proposals he put forward, what the details would look, how that would play out, what could be adapted maybe. I'm not myself negotiating, that's done by the Michel Bernier team who has our food as confidence of all 27. And that is playing out at the moment. And the second issue, of course, is this wish he has that Stormont, the regional assembly in Northern Ireland, would have a sort of position that every four years they could withdraw from such an arrangement, as I understand it. And I think there has to be parallelity with the rest of the EU on that. But that's something separate from this main issue now of the border. On your second question, if there is a hard Brexit, yes, right. That means that you have to put up border controls. So you'll have them anyway. But you cannot play games with this issue. You cannot think, OK, but then there's anyway necessary. So let's now negotiate beyond our negotiating position on this. Because at the end, what you don't want is a hard border on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and the Republic because of all the Good Friday agreement. What you don't want is a situation in which that border is not fully controlled because that will still mean that there is a backdoor of 65 million people, potentially, into the internal market. And the fact that the EU is willing to explore what Boris Johnson put on the table. But with many questions, we are far from a deal yet, that the European Union is in itself a huge step because we have done this with nobody. We are negotiating a free trade agreement with Australia. But here we are thinking about alternative customs arrangements. That's big. But then it has to be absolutely secure that there is not a backdoor into the EU, that there is no form of a hard border whatsoever at that spot. And the present proposal Johnson put forward are raising too many questions. Not only France, myself, but also Barnier, everyone is saying, and therefore we need to get to the details. And maybe you could cook something out of this, or maybe not, or maybe he has to move further. I don't know what that has done to be decided in those negotiations. On the second question, I think in NATO we will always stick together. There is an urgency of that corporation. But even if you have a hard Brexit, you will have to negotiate something later on to meet a free trade agreement with the EU. You will never close a free trade agreement if these issues around money, citizen rights are not solved and border issues. So they will come back in three months, in six months, in nine months. But I think we will all be able to separate that from our corporation in NATO, because that is in this uncertain world crucial. And the UK has such a military power. It is such a military power that we cannot afford getting those two issues getting blurred. Prime Minister, before I call on my chairman to move the vote of thanks, I'm going to ask you the last question if I can. You've been PM for nearly a decade. I think you're on your third cabinet, if I'm right, with very different coalition partners every time. You're still the most popular candidate for Prime Minister after nine or 10 years in the office. Can I have a written assurance about that? Yeah. You're more popular than your party. You're well-liked by Mr. Trump and Mr. Macron and Mrs. Merkel alike. This is quite a different governance experience from Australia's over the last decade, if I can put it that way. What's your secret PM? Oh, others should judge. I can only look at all the mistakes I'm making. I'm everyday making mistakes. I love what I'm doing. It gives me lots of energy. I'm extremely proud to be in this position, to try to influence one or two things in the right direction. But whilst doing that, I'm making mistakes every minute, every hour, every day and I hate myself for that. I try to improve. I like the resume you just gave me. I would like to have it on paper and maybe also on video, but it is completely untrue. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've had a lot of world leaders at the Lowy Institute, but I don't think we've had anyone who is more impressive and interesting and humble, indeed, than Mark Rutter. And to formally thank the Prime Minister, I'm going to invite my Chairman, Sir Frank Lowy, to come to the lectern and say a few words. Mr. Rutter, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to say the word of thanks to Mr. Rutter for his address and for answering those questions. And first of all, I'd like to thank you not for making the audience aware of my past, but you saw the importance of what has happened to me and millions of other people of all race and religion to put it in front of us here, right in front of us and talk about it. And I think if many other leaders of the world would do the same, this thing would not happen again. But it's unfortunately it is not quite like that and you're putting it on the agenda. In this far beautiful Australia, from that part of Europe to us, it shows us what kind of guy you are. Maybe I shouldn't call you guy and being a prime minister. But I do know Holland a little bit. I spent quite a lot of my time in Holland because we've been doing business with the Dutch system and I must tell you I enjoyed every minute of it. Bargaining is not the simplest thing in the world but you knew that when you talk to a Dutchman and he tells you it's a deal and you shake hand, it is a deal and not all parts of the world like that. Now we live some 10,000 miles away from where you are. Yet listening to you and listening to Scott Morrison we could be neighbors in effect we could be in one country because the fairness of Holland and the fairness of Australia is unique. I wish it would be much more than what the world there is. Your description of the world as a garden is to be watered and nurtured. I haven't heard that before but it's really so true and and right and true and everything that's possible. Our policy at the Love Institute is to bring the world closer to Australia and Australia closer to the world. And you sitting here giving us this address really shows us what value there is in a visit like yours to Australia and I must tell you I really love every word that you have uttered here. Thank you for coming very much.