Q&A, Lowy Institute
7 March 2022
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Let me start with Ukraine. I'm sure Mr Putin thought that this war would strengthen his position at home. But instead, as you said, Russia has been subjected to unprecedented sanctions - the freezing of its currency reserves, the devaluation of the ruble. We've seen protests in Moscow along with security crackdowns. In light of all this, do you think a regime change is more likely in Kyiv or in Moscow?
Prime Minister: Well, I probably wouldn't speculate on either of those, at this point. But what I would say is this, there is no doubt that Mr Putin is not getting what he was seeking, and each and every day the resistance by Ukraine, I think, has been extraordinary, and the cost is piling up day on day on day. I think he's overestimated the capacity of how he might be able to prosecute this illegal war and the sheer callous disregard, not only for innocent civilians in Ukraine, but frankly, for the way that he has just sent young conscripts into the flames. I don't see how that would be resonating well back in Russia. There is a clear, I think, gap emerging between his ambition and what would be the reasonable nationalistic sentiment of Russians more broadly. And I really do applaud those in Russia who have been standing up. I applaud those Australians of Russian descent here who have been standing with with their Ukrainian fellow Australians. That, I think, is one of the, one of the most positive messages that can be sent out of a multicultural country like Australia. So I don't think it's playing out for Mr Putin as he thought. And it's certainly playing out far better than anyone would have anticipated for President Zelenskyy. And he has showed a forthrightness and a determination which has been inspiring, and that's why we lit up the Opera House. I mean, that's why so many countries have done similar things. Yes, we have to continue to encourage them to go forward with their efforts and continue to provide them with everything we can to support them.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: You mentioned that you had a call with President Zelenskyy at the weekend. Tell me, tell us a bit about his demeanour on that call and talk a bit more about your impressions of his leadership in the last couple of weeks.
Prime Minister: Well, he's very focused. He's very determined. He has a clear plan. It obviously depends heavily on continuing to rally international support, both in a practical way when it comes to lethal defence support, as well as maintaining the pressure. And I think all Western countries, all those participating in these sanctions, need to hold fast and endure over the long-term. You know, some break in the, in the fighting that may occur should not enable the pressure or the vice to be, to be eased when it comes to Russia. And that's what they need. They need that continued international momentum. I talked about Russia having to pay an economic price, but they have to also pay a reputational price for this, a diplomatic price for this, and they are indeed paying that price. So he is just very focused on that element of his plan. He's very appreciative of the support, particularly from Australia, a long way away from Ukraine. I think when he first heard of our support, this was over over a week ago, we've been trying to get in touch with each other. But when he, I get a message saying, can't do the call tonight because we're I, you can fill in the rest of what he was up to. Probably the most reasonable excuse I've heard for not being able to complete a call on a particular night, and we’ve given him full support. But I'm pleased we could speak on Saturday night and I could just encourage him in what he's doing, and he needs that encouragement. We obviously talked about things like the no-fly zone and things of that nature, and additional support, air support. These are complex issues. I sense that he understands that, and he understands the delicate balance that has to be maintained by those who are supporting him. But, equally, the resistance and the fight in President Zelenskyy is something to behold.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: PM, you said Ukraine has been a major wake up call, and I would say that the West has woken up. How confident are you that we’ll remain awake and that this solidarity will continue?
Prime Minister: Well, I’m maybe not as confident as you, Michael, about how big the wake up is. I certainly hope that's true. And that's why I made the remarks about, this was not the product of President Putin seeking leverage to try and gain some marginal advantage in some negotiations and the usual European dance of diplomacy that goes around here. That’s not what this was. He planned this a long time ago, and he was absolutely determined to follow it through, and he went and told China he was going to do it, by the reports that we see, very clearly. And this is quite chilling. And so now we hear the theory’s, oh, it's just he’s all gone mad. No, he hasn’t. He's an autocrat and he's following through on his plans. And for all of us in the West and more broadly, I think we need to understand that autocrats don't play by the same rules as the rest of us. Their mindset is very different. And I found it quite chilling when I spoke to other leaders about conversations that they've had with President Putin about these issues, and they're subjected to a rather lengthy lecture on on nationalistic aspirations of Russia and what is rightly theirs. That has a chilling reverberation with similar lectures that I have been on the receiving end of about situations in the Indo-Pacific and what people claim to be theirs. So I think we have to be eternally vigilant on this, and this is very important for Australia. You know, we can't step back from this. I know it comes at a cost. I know it means that we have been targeted. But we must look clear eyed about the threats in our own region and what's occurring in Europe. And it was a very good discussion at the Quad the other night. Of course, all Quad members are concerned about what's happening in Europe. But the Quad wasn't set up to focus on Europe. The Quad was set up to focus on strategic issues, on humanitarian issues, economic development issues in the Indo-Pacific. And so President Biden and Narendra, Prime Minister Modi, and Prime Minister Kishida and I had a very lengthy conversation about why it's so important that a price is paid for this aggression. And that we understand fully the nature of the work and planning and determination of autocrats.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Alright, let me go to Russia and China. Today you referred to an arc of autocracy, which I presume includes both Beijing and Moscow. Yesterday, the Defence Minister Peter Dutton called this relationship an unholy alliance. Tell us a bit about this relationship. How tight is the relationship? Could the invasion of Ukraine create a problem for the relationship? What can countries such as Australia do to weaken that relationship?
Prime Minister: Well, I think the second last point you've made about the events - I assume what you’re saying about the events in the Ukraine and what that means for that relationship - I I would describe it more of an instinctive relationship, an opportunistic relationship, rather than a strategic one. China and Russia have got a fairly interesting history in terms of their engagement. I don’t think anything’s changed about that. But there does seem to be some alignment in the sort of world order that they would prefer, to the one that has been in place since the end of the Second World War. And we've seen that play out over a long time. So there has been a convenient fellow travelling, I think, and that's how I would describe it. I wouldn't for a moment seek to draw any parallels between the situation in the Taiwan Strait and Ukraine. I think these situations are entirely different, and the responses that would be expected in in the Taiwan Strait would be completely different to what has occurred in Ukraine. So I wouldn't want to alert or concern Australians simply because of what's occurring in the Ukraine then then a will, b will follow a, on on these things. I don't believe that. I think those circumstances and that situation is as it was before - tense, deserving of concern and attention, but not necessarily at all impacted by the events in Ukraine. What can Australia do? Keep calling this out. While most of the world was focused on what the actions of Russia was, I was quite adamant in speaking up on the fact was I was listening for the voice of the Chinese Government when it came to condemning the actions of Russia. And there was a chilling silence. And when I learned the other day that they were easing wheat trade restrictions for Russia, and throwing Russia an economic lifeline while the rest of the world was seeking to impose a heavy price, this, for me, just jars completely with what the broader international interest is here. Now, China has long claimed to a role as a, as one of the major powers in the world, and to be a contributor to global peace and stability. This is why I reinforce this point - that no country will have a bigger impact on concluding this terrible war in Ukraine than China. But so long as they have a bet each way on this, then I fear the bloodshed will continue.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: PM, let me ask you about institutions. You said today in your remarks, the well-motivated, altruistic ambitions of our international institutions has opened the door to this threat. And it reminded me of your 2019 Lowy lecture or, as it became known, the negative globalism speech, in which you voiced concerns about international institutions becoming overly powerful and demanding conformity. But let me ask you, wouldn't you say that international institutions have been very useful in the past two weeks? For example, hasn't the European Union stepped up? Ukraine has applied to join the UN, the EU, I should say. The UN and other institutions have condemned Mr Putin's aggression. Don't we want to see international institutions behaving just like this in relation to threats from countries like Russia and China?
Prime Minister: Of course, and I would call that positive globalism. I mean, my remarks several years ago, was it, was simply to draw attention to what I think are the less helpful elements of how international institutions operate. We are a great supporter of international institutions. And what I also said in that speech, as you may recall, is we then set out and have had some success. Think, of course, to the elevation, the election of Mathias Cormann, the Secretary-General of the OECD. We set out on a very clear path of seeking to have greater influence in these institutions to ensure they were focused on what we believe were the most pressing issues. And we have been working hand in glove with many other like-minded countries to ensure that international institutions are not being hollowed out and hollowed out in plain sight by some who would seek to take them in different directions. So we've worked on many candidacies of many countries to support them in a lot of these institutions, to ensure that they focus on a positive agenda. The point I was also making today, though, Michael, was that it is, it is right and good - so it's not so much a criticism as an observation - it is right and good that we would want international institutions to work with member states to try and deal with the big economic and environmental challenges that we face. This is a good thing. But by the very open nature of that process, we have become exposed to interference, to subversion, to a range of other things which can take that agenda off track. And, you know, there are a lot of concessions that have been given, whether it's been in trade or so many other things. In our own democracies, I mean, we are open democracies that are open to foreign investment and all of these things. This is a good thing. But at the same time, it comes with a double-edge risk, double-edged sword risk, of a vulnerability, and that has been taken advantage of. And I think that is clear. So what has been our response domestically? Foreign interference legislation, a raft of other measures, which have sought to improve the resilience of liberal democracies to these sorts of threats. And I think international institutions need to be just as wary of of these things, just as countries like Australia have. And Australia has led the way in this area. I mean, when I tabled those 14 points at the G7+, they were surprising. They were surprising to many around that table. And it's important that we continue to do that, because I said, if it's not us, then who is it?
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Let me come to AUKUS and Australian defence capabilities. How does the invasion of Ukraine affect the argument for nuclear-propelled submarines for Australia?
Prime Minister: Well, I don't think it changes it at all. I mean, it was already compelling and overwhelming. So I think, yeah, sure, I think it highlights the the work of autocracies, as I've outlined, and I think it highlights the the higher threat environment in which we need to operate and why we need greater capabilities. But I think all of those points were the driving forces of AUKUS before these events took place, and it continues to carry it.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Yesterday, the Defence Minister Peter Dutton said that the discussions with the Americans and the Brits since the AUKUS announcement had been incredibly productive and the Government would make an announcement in the next couple of months about which boat we're going with and what we can do in the interim. Let me put a question to you from Ben Packham at The Australian. Will this announcement be made before the election? And if it is, will there be consultation with Labor, given the long timeframe of the program?
Prime Minister: No, we don't anticipate that that decision will be made before the election. We don't, and and no one should expect it to. It won't be done in that timeframe. And as Ben rightly points out, that would involve a whole another process, particularly during a caretaker period leading up to the election. But I can confirm what Peter has said, that we have made a lot of progress. I mean, we haven't let the grass grow under our feet. Admiral Mead’s has been out here most recently. He’s been down in South Australia. We've been, there's been an enormous amount of work that has been going on in that 18-month process that we set out. But the 18-month process isn't just about deciding the technology option and the boat option we go forward with. It's, you've got to make that decision, and then there's a whole series of things that have to take place after that. But I stress this, as the Minister for Defence did - this is a trilateral partnership. This is not a procurement contest. This is a partnership where the decisions are being made together, which separates it from any other procurement arrangement that the Government has been involved with. The United States has proprietorship over the technology, not just over any technology that we would seek to use, but also over the UK use of such technology. So that is the nature of this partnership, and the partners are working incredibly well together. The speed at which what was effectively the treaty level arrangements that needed to be put in place and the how that was able to be secured was very encouraging. And when I was in the United States last year and we took the effort, as we should have, to go up onto the Hill and be briefing every Committee we could, the bipartisan leadership of both the House, there was massive support throughout the US system in the Executive and the Legislature and, of course, within the defence institutions themselves. Same is true in the UK.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: PM, I have a question from Andrew Kaldor, and Andrew asks as follows - the invasion of Ukraine has triggered a massive wave of people fleeing to Australia, fleeing to safety, I should say. Will Australia increase its quota of refugees to allow a larger number of these desperate people to resettle here?
Prime Minister: Well, just like with Afghanistan, if we need to, we will. And, as I said, the first thing we did is we immediately put to the top of the pile all Ukrainian visa applications. Now, at that time, there was, this was two weeks ago, there was about 430 outstanding. They were quickly resolved, and over that two-week period we’ve now processed and granted some 1,700 visas already. Now they’re 1,700 visas in the normal migration program. And this is, I think, one of the points of difference with a Ukrainian migration. And that is, we are more likely to see them use many more points of our migration program - the family program, the skilled program, the student program, and so on. And there'll be a mixture of both temporary and permanent visas, because particularly in my discussion with the Polish Prime Minister the other night and other members of the European Union, their expectation is that one and a half people, million people have left Ukraine. But the overwhelming almost entirety of those will want to return to Ukraine if they can. And so that's why I I highlighted the potential role of an arrangement like the Kosovars arrangement, which was highly successful. We provided a temporary safe haven, and they were then able to return to their homeland, which is what they wanted to do. Now I expect we’ll see the same thing here with Ukraine. But, you know, we are preparing those options, but we are also not stepping back on on the commitments to our Afghan humanitarian program, which continues [inaudible].
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: PM just finally, PM just for the final question, let me go back to where we started with Ukraine. How do you think this dreadful event will end, and how confident are you that at the end of it, Ukraine will be sovereign, independent and whole?
Prime Minister: Well I’m not confident of that outcome at this point. But nor can Mr Putin be confident of the outcome he thought would come so easily. And I think this is a very important point. I think there has been an overestimation of Russia's capability. And that has been made more broadly. And I think that has been made in Russia. And I think that forces a recalibration of what some people think they can do. It might look all good on paper, it might look like what can be achieved from what the Generals and others tell you, but few strategies survive contact with the enemy, as our Defence Force Generals will tell you. And I think that has been lived out in a, in a very candid way in Ukraine. And what we will certainly see in Ukraine is a prolonged resurgence. I think what we'll see is a resistance in the Ukraine, which will only grow over time. I think any gains that will, that are potentially made will be very hard to hold. And this all goes to our view about what our response should be. And that is impose the heaviest possible price for as long as possible to deter any other autocrat from thinking they can go down a similar path, and it can be done easily or quickly.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Well, that's all we have time for this afternoon. Prime Minister, thank you again for joining us today. We know you have many commitments. These are very important issues and we're grateful to hear your thoughts on them.
Prime Minister: Well, thank you, Michael, for the opportunity again, and thank everybody for their patience. There was a lot to get through today and I appreciate your attention.
Dr Michael Fullilove AM, Executive Director, Lowy Institute: Thanks again.
