 Meg, all of a sudden, the Pacific's become a lot more important. This government's given us the Pacific Step Up. What is that, and what should the next government do with it? Well, I think the region's always been important to Australia. I don't think that's particularly new. Many other players are coming into the region, and that's attracted by its political votes in UN, it's attracted by resources, and a number of other activities, rich fisheries, etc. So our step up is looking around and seeing there's lots of more people in the region and responding to that by enhancing our own presence. And we're doing that across three areas, one in security and improving our engagement with security forces and security analysis institutions, and then there's a step up on people-to-people relationships through sport, churches, NGOs, education, and finally a step up on economic engagement, which we'll, no doubt, talk about a little bit later. So you can see it's a huge agenda, and it's added to what we already do in the Pacific. So when we're looking to the future of what the next government's got to do, slow it down, probably, is what they've got to do, not add to that agenda, but to demonstrate quality delivery and respond to the cry from the Pacific to say they want genuine partnerships. So if you want genuine partnerships, you've got to talk to people, you've got to make sure that the priorities in these programs fit the priorities in the region, and it's tailored to the very different and very diverse region that we're trying to operate in. So you mentioned one of the aspects of the step up relates to security. Pacific Island Forum, which is the peak body for the Pacific, talks about an extended security agenda. So what do they mean by that, and what are the implications for Australia? I think it's actually a bit of a pushback by the Pacific saying, yes, Australia, we hear your concerns about traditional security issues in the Pacific, transnational crime, border security, drugs trafficking, et cetera. But in the Pacific, what's important to us is that nexus between development and security, and we can't just pull them apart. So they're saying the primary concern for us is climate change, actually, mitigation and adaptation, and we need joint attention to that and a continued dialogue on how we're going to respond to it. Beyond that, we're worried about resource security, our food, our water, our energy security. Then we have human security issues that are quite pressing in the Pacific, the huge incidents of non-communical diseases, obesity, diabetes, heart disease. That has to be dealt with to give our youth a good future, livelihoods. And then comes all your national security stuff. So put it together and talk to us about this extended security agenda. And they take that a step further when they look at geopolitics. So they're saying, we hear you about China and the Pacific and why you're concerned about it, and we understand risks of small players playing with big players. But it isn't just a security concern, it's a development opportunity. So we want that access to finances, aid, trade, work with us to bring security and development together and to help us take advantage of these new opportunities coming into the region. Don't narrowly define security in a way that may constrain our development. So that's the extended security agenda. And we have to be able to listen and respond to that and make sure our development interventions do that. And I guess, Stephen, when we're thinking about responding to priorities in the region, the one that comes up again and again is labor mobility. Now Australia has made some steps on that. So where do we go? Is it going to be consistently important to the region? And if so, what should that next government be doing to respond to it? Yeah. If you look back over the last 10 years, or we will look back over the last 10 years and we'll see labor mobility is a really fundamental change in the way we relate to the Pacific. 10 years ago or a bit more than 10 years ago under John Howard, Australia refused to introduce a seasonal worker program. He took a labor government to introduce that scheme on a pilot and it took the current conservative government to scale up that scheme. And it is now really growing rapidly and getting quite large. It's up to 10,000 workers a year from the Pacific and team all the rest who come to Australia to pick fruit and vegetables. And the government's gone further to introduce the Pacific Labor Scheme, currently it's very small but that gives Pacific workers the right not just to come for a few months but to come for three years and not just to work on farms but really take any job where an employer wants to hire them outside of the capital cities. And for the Pacific countries where economic opportunities are pretty limited, where they're not really that competitive in conventional sectors, this is really a terrific opportunity for them and it's become very important. The amounts of money that workers are sending home through these schemes is now starting to get towards the amount of aid that governments get. But the great thing about this is that it doesn't cost Australia any money. In fact, this benefits Australia. So it really plays to that agenda of finding things that are in our common interest rather than us being the big brother, helping out the Pacific. And the other advantage is this is a private sector activity. So the money goes straight from employers to workers to their families. So it's a fundamental change. I think it's great it's now a bipartisan approach but I think if we think about the next government and we think there's at least a likelihood that Labor's going to be the next government, migration is a sensitive issue for both parties but especially with Labor and the trade unions, they could easily develop a narrative, these people are taking Australian jobs and the brakes could be put on these schemes. So I think the real test for a Labor government is, is it going to continue with the scale up or what has been the biggest step up so far I think in the area of Labor mobility. And then for both parties, whoever's returned, the agenda is not finished by any means. I think we've started a journey on Labor mobility but there's a long way to go and we need to look at the permanent migration scheme as well, making it easier for Pacific Islanders not just to come on temporary work assignments but to come permanently to build up that diaspora, to represent the Pacific in Australia and to provide that base that will support the islands back home. Because we know with climate change and with a lot of environmental pressure, you know some of these countries are simply not viable and it's not going to be a mass evacuation but a place like Kiribati in particular does need to be able to diversify its economy and the only way to do that is to build up the diaspora in Australia and New Zealand. So another area where we are just beginning the step up as opposed to having a track record on is this new initiative to get into development banking and we've recently announced that we're going to launch this $2 billion infrastructure development bank. That's a pretty new area for Australia and there are quite a few players already in this business. In your view is this a good step and should the next government continue down this way maybe even expanding it? Yeah, I think it's interesting to compare labour mobility and infrastructure because labour mobility is something we can provide the Pacific that China can't, you know Pacific Islanders don't want to, they don't have the opportunity to go to China to work, they do want to come to Australia and now they have the opportunity. So that really builds on one of our strengths. And infrastructure as you say that's really a strength of China and so moving in the infrastructure space we're really trying to compete in an area where China is strong and I'm sceptical about how well we're going to do. That said both parties have come out strongly and said they're committed to this and there certainly is demand in the Pacific I think especially with China providing infrastructure Pacific countries are looking to Australia and say well look can't you do some of that. I think they feel our help is rather abstract and advisory that they want to be able to see tangible projects. So for good or for bad we're heading down this route as you said there's been this two billion dollar announcement that's not going to be reversed by labour. I think one thing you said really applies to this which is just slow it down you know let's okay we're going to go into this space but let's do it carefully. I think there are a number of issues that really haven't been thought through you know in particular around debt sustainability you know we're providing this two billion dollars mainly in loans and in non-concessional loans and the Pacific has very limited ability to absorb those loans and pay them back and you know we don't want to be part of the next debt crisis so we need to rethink the financing terms and we need to think through more carefully issues around the policy framework to make sure the infrastructure is going to be going to be well used. That's right so we can see that this is a big agenda this is going to continue and we'll have to be sustained and a demonstration of our commitment to the region sustained in the long term and where the capacity is not as strong to help us implement this huge agenda we're going to have to think about how we're building it how we're twinning how we're exchanging.