 Good afternoon. My name is Richard McGregor. I'm the senior fellow for East Asia at the Lowey Institute. Well, some have branded it a khaki election, but the May 21 poll might look much like that after recent news on inflation and interest rates and the focus on cost of living issues. But still the election is being held at a time of tremendous ferment in foreign and defense policy. The debate is largely driven by the rise of China, a putative superpower to rival the United States, and the virtual collapse of Sino-Australian relations. Now the contents of that debate are by now pretty familiar. Years of tense diplomatic exchanges with Beijing, followed by a series of punitive trade measures taken by China against a range of Australian exports. In this campaign, the coalition government has questioned the ability of the Labor Party to manage relations with China and its commitment to higher defense spending. Labor and turn has returned fire over the recent China-Solomon's island deal on national security in the Pacific. But for all the noise, do national security issues sway votes in Australia and in what circumstances? And how do voters see the relative strengths of the party on defense and foreign policy? To discuss these issues, I'm joined by Estella Pannell, Brian Lochnain, former federal director of the Liberal Party for 13 years from 2003. He's one of Australia's most experienced political campaigners. He's also deputy chairman of the International Democrat Union and Alliance of Centre Right Political Parties. Tony Mitchell Moore is the founder of Visibility, a leading strategic communications firm and a veteran of 12 state and federal elections. He's advised both sides of the House on research and communications. Dr Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia's foremost researchers on social trends. She led research at a central media and Vox Populi and was a director at Ipsos Australia. She's also on the board of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. Brian, let's start with you. You've run four federal election campaigns for the Liberal Party. In your experience, do national security issues rate consistently in voters' minds, or do they vary depending on the circumstances? And is it true, as is often asserted, that conservatives, the coalition, have a natural advantage on this issue? Well, it's great to be part of this panel, Richard, and hello to everyone. Well, each election is different in the settings that drive each election is different. There's no doubt at all that in the 2001 election, which occurred not long after 9-11, that national security absolutely helped to frame the whole context of the election and added a seriousness to the election. Other elections have been different, different issues have dominated at different times depending on what's happened. In my view, and the current election, clearly cost of living is the major issue. I think also an underappreciated issue at the moment is still COVID, the lag of COVID. A lot of people have been impacted on by COVID over the last month or so. Staff shortages, things shut down and whatnot. In my view, national security isn't driving this election as a major issue. But I do think it's very important in the impact it's having on the context of the election. It's clear that we're in serious times, events in Ukraine, events in our part of the world, helping, I think, to add an element of seriousness to the context of the election. That's different to, as you were saying, to driving the vote. So if you look at it in a straight, bottom-line political sense, in my experience is national security usually one of the key drivers of the vote. I don't think it's usually 9-11 put to one side, a key driver of the vote. But it's very, very important or can be very important in helping set the context of the election. I think, clearly, I think for time immemorial, polling has suggested that the coalition is respected on economic management and national security. The Labor Party has other areas on which it has strengths. So I think national security over time has been a strength for the coalition. What national security is, changes election to election. On some occasions, it's border security. Other cases, other times it could be more strictly defence-related or foreign affairs-related. But on balance, I think, has been an advantage for the coalition. In this current election, Brian, sticking with you for a second, you see if there were any big issues about national security, obviously China has loomed large in the debate in recent years. Lots of polling has shown that Australia's view of China has diminished. We see them more as a threat and less as an economic partner. That is not a sort of, to use a pollster's word, salient issue comparable to cost of living in COVID in your observation so far. I think it shouldn't be underestimated as an issue. And it's got the potential to emerge very quickly as an issue. One of the things about national security is the Brits say events, D-Boy, events, the proverbial something could occur tomorrow and completely change the last two weeks of this campaign. Now assuming that doesn't happen, then it's less of an issue than compared to say cost of living. Okay, Tony, let me go to you. As I mentioned at the start, a number of people have called this a khaki election, in other words, one that turns on defence and diplomatic issues. And when the Ukraine-Russia conflict broke out, or I should say when Russia invaded Ukraine more accurately, this was going to be another thing that was perhaps going to transform the electoral landscape to a significant extent. According to the feedback that you're getting from your focus groups and the like, has that been the case? No, not at all. It's not a khaki election at all. It's really interesting. People have definitely picked up on Ukraine. And when that first happened, people were expressing concern to us. They thought it's a terrible thing. Similarly, in the last couple of weeks, they've picked up on China. So the awareness of it is okay. But in terms of it framing the election or being an issue that is going to sway their vote one way or another, it's just not rating. The economy cost of living is huge. If you want to bring a focus group to life, bring up cost of living at the moment. The leaders, there's a degree to which this is a presidential sort of campaign and they're thinking very much about the leaders. COVID, I grew with Brian on that and performance on COVID, being rated on that. Even things like childcare and aged care come up much more strongly than national security. There is a natural advantage, a natural kind of brand advantage for the coalition on that issue, but it's just not rating. It's just not capturing the imagination of swinging voters at the moment. Very much their concerns at the moment are kind of inside the bubble of their own lives. And so directly, it's not affecting the way they're thinking about voting. Now, indirectly, you could argue that it is in a smaller way. Certainly that narrative that the coalition are trying to run for reelection has some saliency. So the idea that we've been through really tough times, unprecedented times, that the future is really uncertain. And so stick with what you know and stick with the stronger option, and rather than taking a leap of faith to an unknown proposition. Well, certainly Ukraine and Solomon's help feed into that story about future uncertainty. So at a lower level, yes, you could argue that it's helping that narrative and that narrative has some currency with swinging voters. But directly no, and certainly I wouldn't characterize it as a car key election. So Tony, to sum up what you said, it certainly frames and seeds the uncertainty that many people are feeling, but it's not decisive in the ballot box. Exactly. I mean, the future is uncertain in lots of different ways, you know, COVID, the economy. And this is just one of the Ukraine and Solomon's being the latest issues. Just feed into that into that in a in a similar way, but perhaps even a lesser way than some of those other issues. Rebecca, I'm going to ask you later, I think about all, you know, broader issues of national security like climate change. But when we were speaking before you were talking about a similar phenomenon about people's having sort of withdrawing into themselves in many respects rather than looking out into the world. And sort of thinking about their vote in that respect. So how do you view in that frame the national security issues in the current election? Yeah, I mean, it's been fascinating over the kind of two years of COVID. And in some ways, also intensified by fire and flood is that people have been turning much more to their local communities and their state government for the usual kind of sense of safety. And security and way forward. And so in a sense, while there's been some real frustration at the federal government, they've been saying the federal government is less and less active or less and less relevant to making their lives better. And I think that there's something about when you lock people down to five kilometers or 15 kilometers, suddenly the local becomes very, very important. And obviously, we've seen that play itself out politically in state premiers becoming, you know, national figures in so many ways. And in most elections, except for the last election in South Australia, returned with with majorities, you know, regardless of their approach to COVID. So I think that we've had a turning inward in many ways. And one of the implications of that has been issues like immigration, which come up consistently in focus groups as as a kind of issue that that feeds their, let's say, economic anxiety is something that's kind of moved away. And it's flipped a bit when you can't you can't talk to somebody working in the service industry or small business who don't say the fact that they can't get staff being, you know, a huge problem. Multiply by the fact that their staff have to kind of socially isolate because COVID is still around. So we've had a bit of a turning inward. That doesn't mean that national security doesn't provide a really significant backdrop to what both Tony and Brian were talking about, which is a general I would, you know, vibe of an election, which is that which is that for most Australian voters, this idea that we'll return to some kind of normal life where there isn't where there aren't kind of plagues and flood and fire and we haven't got America struggling in so many ways and we haven't got the ascendancy of China. So this kind and where you can actually have a war in Europe, that kind of sense that we were we're not going to return to normal that there's a kind of new. There are new parameters both domestically and globally we have to come to terms with really do freak people out. What they do with those levels of anxiety or concern or what is the future, what they actually do with that when they've got an opportunity to express that at a federal level is yet to be seen. On China, I think, look, I've been a researcher now for nearly 20 years, and I've been listening to growing anxieties about China as an economic power but increasingly as a political power and for most Australians, not necessarily as a ideal alternative to the United States as a global leader. And that kind of exists, it kind of gets raised, it kind of gets talked about, it can occasionally be weaponized by groups like the United Australia Party or One Nation. Again, I haven't really worked out from the quality of research I do whether voters think that a conservative government is necessarily better positioned to deal with China than a Labor government. They just think that any Australian government is going to be a very pretty much a weak voice against China, given its power, given its trajectory. Brian, to continue on that theme, certainly my impression as an amateur observer of the election is that the Labor Party hasn't really wanted to talk about China and maybe broadly foreign policy. In fact, they've stayed in alignment with the government of course that change when the Solomon's deal happened and they use that to attack the government. But I'm kind of wondering why something as dramatic as the rise of China at the moment has not been able to puncture, you know, or cut through as a major issue. I mean, Peter Dutton, whether you like him or not, is an effective political communicator and has been talking about this issue a lot in the media and on talkback radio. So why do you think it is not cutting through? Well, I think I disagree a bit with that. There's a difference between cutting through and being in something of concern and something that is in this election moving votes. So I think there's, I think the other two speakers have also touched on, I think there's no doubt at all that we're seeing in recent years, increasing concern, and I think that concern is there. If the proverbial something did happen in our region in the next two weeks, it could, you know, very, very quickly become a dominant issue. But is it what people themselves are concerned about going into the ballot box at the moment? As both Tony and Rebecca have touched on, it's not as much as cost of living and some other issues. But that shouldn't take away from the fact that it is a matter of concern to people. But it's just not the vote motivator that some other issues are. So Tony, then over time, some people have been talking for a while about the new normal in Australian life. It might even apply across many countries globally, particularly democracies, certainly in relations with China. There's a new normal, which is a more fractious and difficult relationship with China. In what sense do you see that pervading beyond the cost of living and the like, pervading discussion in your focus groups? And has it become changed or become much more intense in the last four or five years? Yeah. Our work would mirror what Rebecca said, that the threat is there. There's an underlying sense of threat about that, that politically, it's an authoritarian state. People talk in focus groups about how there's no freedom of press and websites are blocked, all of that kind of stuff. They're aware of all of that. And there's just also a sense that China is big and growing and it is a challenge to the US. So at that underlying level, that threat is there and people can talk about that in focus groups. Just at the moment, that threat doesn't feel imminent. It doesn't feel like it's immediate. So it's not a 9-11 sort of situation or you could even talk about borders and tampons and people felt that very directly. People aren't feeling the China threat directly, even though they are aware of it. So unpack that a little bit for me. There's many parts of the China issue there. There's the issue of their political system. There's the issue of their sheer size. There's the issue of their rivalry with the United States, a long-time ally and partner of Australia. Are they all sort of thrown in together or is there any particular part of that which is more important? Well, I think that it's a moving part sort of thing. They're all happening at the same time. China is rising where and they can see it as a credible threat now to the US economically. And as a power, as a world power. Whereas in the past, that wasn't the way the world worked. That's not the world that they grew up with. And China represents something different to them. It represents an authoritarian state where there's lack of freedom, those sorts of things. A few people in groups can talk about Hong Kong and what's happened there. So there's that fear of aggression. So there's a whole lot of moving parts to it that they can probably talk to all of those sorts of things. Rebecca, you had something to say on that point. Yeah, I mean, I'm always interested when my fascination is when people raise issues organically without you kind of probing. And I would say on China, the two issues that have come up that often come up organically other than its economic size and China buying farmland is the Darwin port. There's always like we sold the Darwin port to the Chinese that seems to exercise the anxiety of a particular kind of voter. But interestingly to the whole issue of cyber security and the idea of Australia's data somehow being compromised by both Russian but also the Chinese state. I mean, they tend to think that for Russia, it might not necessarily be. It might be kind of rogue actors in Russia, but they have a genuine anxiety. And by they, I don't mean all Australians, but I mean the kinds of people that Tony and I have to spend a lot of time with in focus groups who are swinging voters who get their information from various places. So there are those two anxieties. And, you know, in a sense, over time, I've always felt that for many Australians, we're in a kind of forced in bargain with China, which is that there is a recognition that our economic wellbeing is an unneed to have a good relationship with them. Nobody really wants to poke the bear or actually confront them directly. But there are these anxieties about what are we going to get out of this exchange and how is our relationship going to be about them over time. And interestingly, just to intersect with my particular interest, which is around climate change, one of the and renewables, one of the great benefits for certain kinds of Australians around renewables is energy independence. And this idea that we will create energy and will potentially manufacture it more in Australia and become less reliant on China for recycling for for kind of our energy future. And that is a kind of interesting twist on on these anxieties that are there about China. I think what's happening in the US is important in this whole thing and the unease that people people feel again at it. I don't want to overstate it, you know, it's not factoring into this election when you probe and talk about it. And it, I think there's always been a complacency that, you know, Australia will be okay because the US if there was some imminent threat, the US would take care of it. But people's faith in the in the US at the moment over the last few years. You know, it's diminished and there's uncertainty about that so that feeling of security because of the US alliance that they've had in the past is not necessarily there as strongly as it once was. I think that's an important point Brian do you would you like to make a comment on that. Well, I think I think that's in my view. I agree. I agree with them with that comment I think that the US was seen as the safe pair of hands that fall back the ally that would come to a defense. I think that probably going back 10 years now, maybe a bit longer. The pivot to Asia that was talked about didn't really manifest itself particularly strongly. And you know there's a growing sense I think that perhaps the United States is not quite as strongly committed to the region. As was the case in the past. What is interesting though is I think in recent times recent times being the last six months or so, I think that has begun to change a bit. There's sufficient evidence from comments from Joe Biden about Taiwan, and just the senior visits to the region. And now the Solomon Islands I think that a sense of renewed engagement and the development of the quad, for example, is leading to people to think well, perhaps the United States is committed and fully reengaged and committed to the region. I think that's an important point certainly I would think that you might be right Brian about that changing but until recently I think China was a very predictable power when you what they wanted. Yes, as much as people didn't like it the US was becoming more unpredictable. And that's a sea change from a decade ago. Now, just back to China or Chinese Australians, it's often asserted. And a lot of things that are asserted by amateur election watches must drive professionals like your crazy at times. But you know if you look at a couple of seats for example which are important in this election read and chism to take to which have large Chinese Australian communities. And people are often asking me is there you know how did the Chinese vote and the Chinese community is actually very diverse rich poor recently arrived, you know been here for a long time, many of them are Christians and the like. So, you know, do Chinese vote in a certain way or according to certain issues or patterns that Brian you've actually been in the engine room numerous times. Is there such a thing. I say very little evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as an organized block of a vote by the Chinese community in fact there's. Unfortunately, there's very few organized blocks if they were to make life a lot more, but simple for the campaign directors. And what there is evidence is that the Chinese community, not to similar to the general community, for example, they're diverse, they have different interests. Ultimately, now people tend to vote for their own own future their families future and whatnot. But the previous election 2019. I think there is some evidence for example that in this, for example the seats that you mentioned that not just the Chinese community but other ethnic communities disproportionately voted against negative gearing and dividend compensation. And the reason for that was not because of their ethnic background, but because they were business people small business people franchise operators, you know running 711 stores whatever petrol stations. That's the idea of whom either had or aspired to have a negatively geared investment property. So, you know, logically I guess you'd say they voted for their for their interests. Now, that's because made them very similar to lots of other Australians that didn't they didn't do that because of their, their particular ethnic background. So they voted on the economy like most Australians I think if there were averted tax on a particular community that has the force of of uniting the community. So, quite often groups that really have little real unity only come together when you know when they feel that they're, they're being attacked by somebody. That's an example of that. Unfortunately in Australia not directly know, but you know, I think we're lucky like that occasionally there's attempts by people to say well you know, such and such a candidate or whatever is anti a particular group. And maybe once in a while that's correct but there's fortunately very little evidence of that sort of behavior occurring. I'm just going to ask Brian one more question about this and you may or may not recall this but you're very familiar with Canada. In the recent Canadian election. There was a Canadian Chinese Canadian parliamentarian who lost his seat and blamed it on pro mainland agitators in his electorate. And with the case, and it wasn't just there was a number of seats and it's happened, or allegedly happened in a number of other democratic societies. And I think it's a deeply deeply concerning and a deeply deeply worrying development. It's something I know is concerned to senior security officials across a number of nations. And it is something that's been monitored I think pretty carefully. And I don't think there's any evidence of it here or having happened here. I have no doubt at all that at some level, there are attempts for it to happen here. Whether it's enough to move large blocks. I just don't think fortunately I don't think we're at that point. Okay, Rebecca, sorry you've given this issue some thought over to you. I was involved in ABC's Australia talk survey both waves of it and the survey was a large enough for us to actually pull out a sample of Chinese Australians. So people who were first, second or third generation Chinese Australians. And of course we asked many questions that would normally be asked in a poll around things like cost of living, education, climate change. And really there were not significant differences between what you would describe as the Chinese Australians and non Chinese Australians, even on issues like climate change. So the statistical difference if there was there was either within the margin of error or around it. And so actually there was no story to tell about kind of around that issue. I mean certainly in things like for example the data coming out at the same sex marriage survey showed there was a triangulation between occasionally between ethnicity rate of arrival. So your recent arrival and religion. But that's quite particular and it played itself out in particular on a particular issue in particular electorates. Now whether that can be something that gets activated within a general election where people are thinking about larger issues. I think that's really debatable. But what I would say is as somebody who's been involved in campaigns of all kinds, I do think that we're not great at tapping into local or national ethnic media, particularly social media and finding a way to actually have these conversations in not in English but with first generation migrants around issues. And when that is done well, when that communication can is done well in certain in contexts, then actually you can get you can you can you have a larger share of voice and perhaps potentially more persuasive because it's not often done very well. I mean obviously we translate things and there's obviously been attempts to you know engage with ethnic communities in in electorates where they where they might have a larger representation. But we're just not really good at campaigning in in in not in English in this country. And this is a country where lots of people speak a language other than English. Yes I'll just give a quick plug to Lowy's work on this we've actually been funded by the Home Affairs Department we've done extensive polling at the Chinese Australia and certainly the polling picked up a greater anxiety in the Chinese community complaints about greater sort of racial abuse. If you like a sense of being surprising in the current circumstances but we didn't at all look at voting intentions so I wouldn't have anything much to say on that. So I'm going to move on and Tony I'll try you first on this and this will just have to be I guess and unless you've looked at it in a polling group recently but I'll get everybody's opinion on this. As you say there's you know for meant uncertainty it's overwhelmed right now by economic uncertainty and sort of a long tail of covert and the like. But over time both parties are committed to very publicly higher sustained higher defense spending. And this is going to take place at a time when the budget is going to be under immense pressure. What's your sense of how the community will respond to that we can look beyond the current election because this is going to be a long running story. What's your sense about that. In the United States there's always this battle between the Democrats preserve social security and they give the Republicans the Pentagon budget to put it very crudely. We don't have the similar budgetary process here but what happens if you know there's demand for greater welfare out lays education health but also defense. How do you see the community playing into that. Look I think most swing voters would feel reassured to a degree that would understand there needs to be defense spending and it needs to to be there to you know a decent degree. But would it swing votes or lose votes it's almost neutral. I think you know I think if either side got totally carried away. One way or the other then then yes that would become an issue, but I don't see it as a massive. I don't see it as gaining massive support and similarly you know I don't see it as as as an issue that would lose tons of support it's something that people just think has to be there and accept has to be there. Certainly the quality of spending would matter. The submarines comes up in our groups a little bit and it just because that comes along with your spending your misspending on all sorts of car parks and all sorts of different, different things so if it's not spent well I think that would that would worry people and that would go to the you know the competence of the government but as an issue in its own right. Given the present situation and situation can can change. It's almost neutral if the threat was to become more imminent and people became more worried, then you know I'm sure they would support, you know, great greater spending but we don't get. I would don't think I would get people in groups crying out for greater spending at this point in time. Brian let me ask you about that now you worked in the past for a liberal Defense Minister john Moore. As you say and have said before you know national security issues can ramp up quickly but of course defense spending decisions are made over decades effectively. You know and if you look at something like the submarines project nuclear power submarines this is something that almost requires, you know war time levels of mobilization of expertise and funds and manufacturing capability and the like to really ramp this up quickly that's what we have decided and we have, we need. So how does, how does the, how do politicians handle this particularly with, you know, limited money to spend. Well, I think Tony touched on this, there are certain things that the community expect their leaders to do. One is manage the economy, and the other is, you know, manage national security, particularly the defense force so I think defense is in the fortunate position of having a fairly broad consensus of support for an increase in the budget. Excuse me. I don't think it's a particularly controversial issue or a politicized issue. The administration of defense contracts of course has a very long history of becoming controversial. But that's a separate thing to whether or not the money in principle should be being spent. I think that I think we're in very interesting stage of evolution of the discussion about nuclear power and in particular nuclear submarines I think that the sort of Cold War elements of the debate that motivated the anti nuclear movement and whatnot have dissipated. And I think certainly in the last 10 years or so I think more and more the issues have been considered on their merits as opposed to polemically, which of course is a good thing. We're not quite at the point yet I think of having a strong consensus on nuclear but I think we're moving in that direction very much so. But do you think that you don't see a sort of a budgetary tussle certainly the right Gila government has come under criticism I think for putting off some spending and when things were tied. Well look I think irrespective of who wins the election. There are certain common challenges that are going to remain common for the next government. And one of those is the management of the budget. The budget is projected to have deficits a long time into the future. And we have aged care NDIS and of course submarines and other defense spending to be factored in. So it's inevitable that there's going to be a bit of a tussle I guess about who gets what share of the cake and how big the cake is should should there be increased taxation of some sort increased revenue. Additional growth so on and so forth. So defense is, I think in a stronger position, going into that tussle that debate that it has been for quite a long time. Okay that's a good see Rebecca to an issue I was going to ask you about at the top and that's nukes to nuclear power to climate change. Certainly climate change is now considered, you know by many around the world as part of you know a national security issue the Pentagon certainly speaks about this quite openly. A Labor government if elected as said they would immediately ask the peak intelligence body in Australia the Office of National Assessments to prepare an assessment of the national security implications of climate change. So bearing that in mind you think voters see climate change in that context. No they don't it with one with one caveat which I'll come to in a minute on I think there's a couple of reasons why they perhaps don't see that if you if you extend the national security frame to talk about borders. Some of the projections around the impact of climate change on on not only conflict but on on the increase of refugees and people seeking asylum is quite shocking. So there's absolutely no doubt that once borders do open and once those flows happen that we will be getting people in Australia seeking asylum based on climate. And so there are challenges there and that's well understood by policy and academics looking at that. I mean there's lots of predictions and then there have been some, you know, effective, not not so much serving now but previous serving members of the armed forces that have spoken about the need to address climate change in terms of national security but that hasn't permeated groups. So when it is beginning to start as a conversation is in the work in the focus groups I do in areas that have been affected directly and and impacted really quite badly by floods and fires in which that in which the army and and we saw certainly in the fires some sorry in the floods perhaps some kind of unfair criticism of their actions on the ground. And of course the army, the armed forces need to be trained to deploy the work and need to be well equipped to deploy the work that they need to do if they're actually addressing internal security and safety and and extreme weather. You know, addressing those questions internally it requires a new perhaps new equipment new forms of training and there's an understanding of that in those communities when they've actually saying what the army can and can't do particularly with the armed forces can and can't do. It was interesting to me in the previous budget that was handed down lots of discussion around funding of defense that there wasn't any funding of that particular increasing and no doubt no doubt increasing demand on our defense force to actually deal with what's happening here and actually and with and you know if you're to believe climate scientists which I imagine most of us do these are not things that aren't going to not happen in the future. So those conversations in those areas talk about and how that how manifests itself is well nuclear powered submarines are all very well and good but how we equipping our armed forces to deal with these kinds of you know effectively to deal with the kinds of things that we're dealing with today. Okay, well on that point that this is not something that you may have all covered in in recent research but I think it's an issue which is related to that one of the big issues related to the national security discussion at the moment is the Pacific. Obviously climate change is part of that China is part of that the US is part of that. And also immigration is part of that we have a Pacific worker scheme here. And if Labor is elected they've copied the New Zealand policy of giving a certain quota each year for Pacific Islanders to actually migrate here a green card type lottery. Mr Morrison often talked about the Pacific family and the like. I'll start with you I mean do you have a sense you know your immigration comes up a lot in your focus groups or did until it sort of dropped off during COVID. Australia is going to have to forge a much closer more intimate. I know that word nuances out of fashion these days but more nuanced relationship with the Pacific countries and that means a greater not just security involvement but a greater two way flow of people and perhaps many more than that if the waters do in fact rise. What's your sense of Australia's view of the Pacific are we welcoming of that. I think in theory if it's raised and prompted but it comes out very rarely in focus groups. And I think part of that might be a general reticence about the idea that Australia can whether we've got the ability to lead in the area people would want us to but they don't quite know what that looks like. I think the understanding that perhaps where the increasing ambition of China in the area in that area and our role played there and our relationship there is also not particularly well understood. It doesn't really in all the things that make people anxious about China's global reach it doesn't always come up except in highly educated highly engaged groups. There is I think increasing understanding about the impact of climate change in the Pacific and perhaps potentially a kind of glib response to that. But I think again the idea that we might actually have people seeking refugee status as climate refugees as a consequence of that is also not particularly well understood. And I think we've only got an emerging understanding that parts of Australia in the Torres Strait threatened by climate change we might have to have climate refugees who are in their own country. So I don't think it's a I would like to think it's an emerging conversation that's being have but it really isn't it if it's ever brought up it tends to be somebody who reads the Guardian a lot. Not necessarily somebody I always have as a swinging voter in a marginal seat. But I might only be I might be getting a particular tiny do you get people that talk. I was thinking more more about the immigration thing and look I think immigration is interesting at the moment because and Rebecca touched on this before we people are aware that there are shortages. And it's particularly in service industries and the awareness of that it's huge so where it's needed I think people are going to welcome immigration particularly at the moment, but it's interesting I think it'll always be at least in the short term, certainly a fraught issue and you can just tell in the language of both sides when they talk about immigration. They both talk about skilled immigration. They never just talk about immigration we need more skilled immigration or immigration a particular certain area where we've got a shortage here. So they're aware that it is a it is a fraught issue and the Labor Party, you know just today goes even further on that says you know not at the expense of apprentices and and we need to also put money into apprentices so it remains a fraught issue. Brian what about just from you finally on the issue of the Pacific and closer relationships across the board. Have you given that issue any thought. Well I think the community understands that you know this is our patch. We have legitimate interest in legitimate responsibilities in this area. The sort of thing that's top of mind with people no no it's not but I think that there is plenty of scope for you know national leadership in this area because to go back to where we started the conversation. There is increasing concern about developments in the region. And a realisation that if the rise of China is going to be or the changed approach of China is going to be matched, Australia will have to play its part, play its role. And I think there's a strong legacy from in many families in the community from the Second World War with many many people served in the area. So I think that there's a there's a strong residual. I think goodwill, but also a sense and a recognition that given the times we're in that Australia does have a role to play and really has a responsibility. And on that slightly more positive note will bring to a close this event on national security and the federal election I'd like to thank Rebecca Huntley, Tony Mitchell Moore and Brian Locknain for their time. And while we're talking about the Pacific later on this afternoon my Pacific Island program director colleague Jonathan Pike will be hosting an event on the Solomon Islands also hosted on YouTube. Thank you very much.