Opening Statement, Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, House of Representatives, US Congress

23 July 2025
Washington, D.C., USA

---

Good morning Chairman Moolenaar, Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your invitation to join you here today and for the important bipartisan work you do as part of this committee, not just for the United States, but for all US allies and partners. 

Australia and the United States are the closest of allies and the best of friends. For over a century we have stood together in every conflict, making Australia unique amongst US allies across the world. 

As longstanding, resilient and modern democracies with market based economies we believe in a world order that favours freedom, based on fundamental values of universal human rights that respect human dignity, the rule of law, open and fair trade, freedom of religion, speech, association and thought, and transparent representative governance. While sincerely holding such beliefs, we are also conscious of our imperfections and capable of self correction through our democratic processes and the safeguards of transparent and accountable institutions.

While our histories differ, Australia and the US see the world through a similar lens.

It is through that lens that we have both been able to identify the rising threat from authoritarian states who, not content with absolute control over their own populations to preserve their regimes, also seek hegemonic control over their own regions and to recast the world order to accommodate their illiberal objectives. Most significantly this involves the subordination of a rule of law based on universal human rights to one arbitrarily defined by the state and to draw an equivalence between their regimes and freedom-based societies. 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is such a regime. This will not change. Nor can it be negotiated away.

Rather than opening up their society, during post-Cold War globalisation, the CCP used China’s newly granted access to global trade, capital markets and legitimacy in international forums to build the economic, diplomatic, technological, and military capacity to one day challenge the global order in an attempt to make it more favourable to their regime security. That day is now.

I appear here today in a private capacity, having previously served as the 30th Prime Minister of Australia from August 2018 to May 2022. During that time and my earlier Cabinet roles commencing in 2013, I witnessed and experienced firsthand the dramatic escalation in the CCP regime’s assertive and aggressive behaviour towards countries in the Indo-Pacific region to achieve their goals. In Australia, this included targeted illegal trade bans and diplomatic estrangement.  

In November 2020, the PRC Embassy in Canberra helpfully released to media a list of 14 points of grievance with Australia that set out the grounds for the CCP’s coercive and bullying actions. I table a copy of those points for the Committee’s information. 

These grievances included Australia:

• Exercising our sovereignty over foreign investment on national security grounds, 

• Making and enforcing laws to curb foreign influence and espionage,  

• Allowing freedom of speech in relation to criticisms of China in our national parliament and media, and

• Making and supporting national statements in international fora critical of China’s aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea and towards Taiwan and against their own population in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, as well as calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.

I have no doubt that the primary objective of the PRC’s targeting of Australia during this time was to make an example of Australia as a key US ally in the region. To punish Australia as a warning to others. I am pleased our Government provided the example of resistance and resilience, by standing firm, rather than acquiescence and appeasement.

Throughout this period, we moved to work with our allies and partners in the region to deepen our ties and strengthen our cooperation. This included the initiation of AUKUS and, together with India, Japan and the United States, the establishment of the Quad Leaders dialogue. Both of these measures began under the First Trump Administration and were realised by the Biden Administration. They also became further points of grievance with the CCP.

After the failure of the CCP’s coercive efforts to break our resolve, the PRC took advantage of the change in Government following the 2022 Federal Election to affect a reset and adopt different tactics. This included abandoning their economic and diplomatic bullying and coercion for more inductive engagement, laced with charm and flattery. That said the PRC still continues to engage in intimidatory behaviour by their military against Australia when it suits them without remorse. While the CCP’s tactics may have substantively changed, their objectives remain the same, namely:

• To neutralise public support for Australian Government actions to counter the potential security threat posed by CCP actions - such as increased defence spending or restricting investment in critical technologies or sensitive supply chains, 

• To normalise and establish an equivalence between the CCP’s authoritarian regime with free societies to provide license for their activities,

• To weaken the network of US alliances and partners within the Indo-Pacific that provides an effective deterrent to CCP behaviour injurious to a free and open Indo-Pacific, including non-peaceful absorption of Taiwan, and 

• To isolate US influence in the region. 

There are many lessons from our experience.  Above all, I would highlight the need to never become casual about the potential threat, but to remain vigilant and in the same way that the CCP seeks to target our alliances and partnerships, these same relationships must form the core of our shared response. 

Strengthening and deepening the networks of US alliances and partners is critical to resilience and deterrence. This is as true in the economic sphere as it is in the security sphere. In this new era of post-globalisation strategic rivalry, it is critical that these tracks of national policy are aligned and integrated. It is also true that US allies and partners must understand that in this new environment more will be required of them in these relationships, both individually and collectively, including Australia, in the years ahead.

I look forward to your questions and discussing these issues with you further. 

---

Address, Australian Space Summit

“Australia’s Role in an Allied Global Space Network”

27 May 2025
Sydney, Australia

---

In September 2019, I stood on the South Lawn of the White House with President Trump and spoke of the enduring relationship between the United States and Australia. I recalled more than a century of mateship, where our nations had worked together to achieve the better world we believed in, whether on the battlefield or other theatres.

In that spirit, the following day at NASA Headquarters in Washington DC, I announced that this partnership would once again take us into space, with Australia investing AU$150 million over five years (2020–2025) to support Australian businesses and researchers to participate in NASA's Artemis programme. This included:

• $50 million for the Trailblazer Programme to develop an Australian-made lunar rover.

• More than $40 million for demonstrator space projects, including robotics, automation, satellite communications, remote medicine applications, and propulsion technologies for international missions and supply chains.

• Over $25 million in grains to strengthen the capability of Australian companies to be part of the Artemis supply chain.

These programmes were part of a broader commitment by my Government to grow Australia’s space industry. As many of you here would know this included:

• Creation and funding of the Australian Space Agency in Adelaide,

• Establishment of the SmartSat CRC with $55 million over seven years, focusing on telecommunications, intelligent satellite systems, and next-generation Earth observation, and becoming Australia’s largest space research collaboration, involving over 100 partners from industry, government, and academia, and has attracted a further $190 million in co-investment,

• $225 million over four years to Geoscience Australia for the National Positioning Infrastructure Capability (NPIC) to modernise and expand the Australian Regional GNSS Network (ARGN), integrating over 700 continuously operating reference stations (CORS) from 11 operators to provide centimetre-level positioning accuracy across mobile coverage areas, supporting agriculture, mining, construction, and surveying,

• $1.2 billion in March 2022 to the National Space Mission for Earth Observation (NSMEO) to develop four Earth observation satellites, enhancing Australia’s sovereign ability to collect critical environmental data, that would have supported applications in weather forecasting, disaster response, environmental management, and agricultural planning, and

• Over $300 million to build out our astronomy research infrastructure, by developing the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) in Western Australia for deep space observation.

Our investments were not limited to the civil and scientific spheres. The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and Force Posture Review marked a strategic shift, formally recognising for the first time space as a warfighting domain. This acknowledged the increasing role of space in military operations and repositioned the ADF from a passive consumer to an active, sovereign space contributor. We committed $7 billion over a decade to develop sovereign space capabilities, including:

• Satellite communications through JP9102, establishing sovereign-controlled constellations and ground stations for secure ADF communications,

• Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) through JP9360 to enhance space-based imagery capabilities,

• Space Domain Awareness (SDA), including hosting US assets like the C-band radar and Space Surveillance Telescope in WA,

• Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services to ensure the ADF's operational effectiveness in contested environments where global navigation satellite systems may be compromised, and

• Space control and electronic warfare capabilities, that can counter emerging space threats, ensuring the ADF's freedom of operation in space, including the JP9358 programme to explore non-kinetic electronic warfare options to protect Australia's space interests.

This was supported by the establishment in 2022 of Defence Space Command under the RAAF to coordinate operations and integration across each of the services. Partnerships with allies, industry, and academia were also critical, leveraging Australia’s geography, especially for SDA operations.

After the 2022 election, some of these programmes were discontinued by the new government, including NSMEO and several supply chain and infrastructure initiatives, citing new budget priorities. JP9102 was also cancelled in favour of seeking a more resilient multi-orbit architecture, still to be defined, while JP9360 and JP9358 have reportedly been merged.

Newly elected Governments have the right to set new priorities, especially where they have access to new information.

However, other initiatives were continued and built upon. Notably, the AUKUS-style trilateral MoU for the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC), agreed in September 2023, utilising the US radar installations at Exmouth. The DARC system, capable of detecting and characterising objects in geosynchronous orbit (GEO), is critical to protecting space assets. The first site in Exmouth was completed in December 2024 and will be operational by 2026. Additional DARC sites will follow in the UK and US by decade’s end.

Despite some setbacks we must appreciate what has been achieved. Our task now, as the new parliamentary term begins, is to reset, move forward and make the strategic case for a bipartisan commitment to space, driven by our national interests, just like intelligence, security and defence.

And the case is stronger and more compelling than ever, especially from an economic and national security perspective.

McKinsey estimates the global space economy is now worth US$630 billion and will grow 9% annually to US$1.8 trillion by 2035, double the growth rate of the global economy and faster than semiconductors. The expected growth in the global satellite population bears this out.

There are currently 12,000 active satellites. This is projected to reach 17,000–27,000 by 2030, 40,000 by 2035, and over 60,000 by 2040. Key drivers include SpaceX (targeting 42,000 satellites), Amazon's Project Kuiper (3,236), and China’s Guowang (13,000+).

In security terms, the urgency is more compelling. Space is now a frontline in the US-China strategic rivalry that now dominates our post globalisation world. The blurred lines between civil and military domains created by the dual use space technologies makes this even more challenging to contest.

To obtain control and even dominance in the space domain, major powers are developing both offensive and defensive capabilities. Offensive systems include kinetic ASATs, electronic jamming, lasers, and cyberattacks. Defensive measures involve SSA networks, encrypted SatCom, constellations, and reconstitution strategies.

The US leads with the most mature infrastructure, advanced SSA capabilities, hardened satellite networks, and early warning systems. The "golden dome" initiative will elevate these capabilities further.

The US also dominates the civil space sector — via SpaceX’s Starlink (three-quarters of all active satellites) as well as reusable rockets, and sovereign launch capabilities, including ground infrastructure that was predominantly developed by Government. But China is advancing, especially in satellite manoeuvrability, launch, and spaceplane tech.

The recent 2025 Space Threat Assessment report prepared by the CSIS Aerospace Project noted the following advances in Chinese capabilities in the past few years:

• A Chinese satellite was tracked during the last year maneuvering at 44 metres per second, unusually high and using significantly more fuel than the more standard range for repositioning satellites in GEO.

• The PRC has already fielded ground-based laser weapons capable of blinding or damaging satellites and conducted research on mobile high-powered microwave weapons for general military applications.

• China’s Shenlong space plane has released, manoeuvred with, and possibly captured an object before returning to Earth.

• Three tech demonstrator satellites conducted cork-screw maneuvers around another satellite with potential signals collection capability, and

• Chinese satellites conducted RPO (rendezvous and proximity operations) with the closest approach distance less than 1 km, which is essentially face-to-face for satellites traveling at around 17,000 mph, akin to “dogfighting” in space

Meanwhile Russia engages in jamming and spoofing GPS signals on Earth, has proven space and terrestrial ASAT capabilities and is reportedly developing a space-based nuclear anti-satellite weapon.

In March this year General Stephen Whiting, Commander, United States Space Command testified before the Senate Armed Services Sub-Committee on Strategic Forces that “today, we face concurrent and accelerating threats … they span terrestrial, on-orbit, and cyber capabilities holding space systems in all orbital regimes at risk, capable of restricting Joint Force freedom of action in all domains and attacking the homeland with little warning”.

He said “the increasing lethality and proliferation of space-enabled and cyber threats … demonstrate that winning the space fight is foundational to defending the nation, the readiness of the nation’s forces, and reestablishing deterrence”.

As space becomes ever more enmeshed in geopolitical rivalry, the allied network must function as a cohesive whole, just as it has in all other domains for decades. Each member brings strengths: the US — raw scale, capacity and technology, Europe and the UK — sophisticated systems and strategic culture, Japan — regional expertise and technical prowess, and Australia — a unique geography that has also created bespoke innovation capabilities.

While China and Russia pose serious challenges with their counterspace arsenals, the combined resources and unity of the US and its allies provide a strong counterweight. Australia’s emergence in this domain, in concert with Japan and Europe/UK, enhances that counterweight by increasing redundancy and coverage.

Australia can and must stand out as a rising actor with the potential to plug important holes in allied capabilities. By 2030, with deliberate development, Australia can offer unique contributions: southern-hemisphere sensors watching the skies, a strategic location for space operations, and additional resilient satellites and launch options that complement US, Japanese, and European/UK systems.

Australia’s strongest path is through alignment and integration, building on Five Eyes trust, AUKUS innovation, and QUAD cooperation, to ensure its new capabilities add value to the collective deterrence and defence in space and position Australia as a critical lynchpin of a resilient allied space architecture.

The emerging consensus of where Australia should focus its efforts reflects the priorities we pursued in Government:

• Enhance SSA Infrastructure, by continuing to build world-class SSA sensors in Australia — radars, telescopes, and possibly space-based sensors — and fully integrate these with US and allied networks (e.g. through the AUKUS DARC initiative) to provide unique southern hemisphere coverage and high-fidelity tracking of potential threats.

• Develop Sovereign SatCom by bringing on, as an urgent priority, the replacement for JP9102 military satcoms to field at least one hardened, high-throughput communications satellite, ensuring interoperability with US and UK systems so that allied forces can cross-connect if needed.

• Support development of sovereign launch infrastructure that takes advantage of Australia’s unique geography for equatorial and polar launch, to aid responsive launch and satellite reconstitution and expand available capacity for heavy launch in secure jurisdictions and serve as a backup launch site for rapid replacement of critical satellites during a crisis – enhancing overall allied resilience.

• Develop collaborative Satellite Projects, by pursuing joint development of small satellite constellations with allies. For example, an AUS-JPN microsatellite constellation for maritime surveillance, or an AUS-UK telecom smallsat project, sharing costs and tech. Such collaboration yields interoperable systems and demonstrates alliance solidarity in space investment.

• Strengthen Space Resilience and Defence by firming cyber protection of all space-related assets (satellites, ground stations, communication links) and work with Five Eyes partners to share threat intelligence on cyber and EMP/laser threats. There must also be contingency plans for when allied satellites are attacked, to enable Australian assets fill gaps.

By executing these steps, Australia will evolve from a supportive “receiver” of allied space support to a net contributor of space security. It will fill critical gaps – geographical and technological – in the alliance architecture. In practical terms, an allied operation in the Indo-Pacific in 2030 could count on Australian satellites for communications and surveillance, Australian sensors to warn of enemy ASAT moves, and even Australian launch pads to rapidly deploy new assets. All of this augments the strengths of the US, Japan, and Europe/UK, creating a more robust collective space posture that deters aggression.

A strong argument can also be made that such initiatives could form the basis of Australia’s contribution to a new pillar 3 for AUKUS which, as its founder, I would strongly support.

A Pillar 3 for AUKUS to develop combined space capabilities would:

• Recognise and elevate the strategic importance of the space domain to address the shared security objectives of AUKUS partners,

• Enhance the deterrent effect of the AUKUS partnership,

• Recognise and harness the important role played by the private sector in the space domain in AUKUS jurisdictions to deliver strategic advantage over potential adversaries, that is central to the AUKUS philosophy,

• Support the creation of a more integrated regulatory and commercial ecosystem for space capability development and operations,

• Provide a new platform to engage with Non-AUKUS partners through QUAD and NATO in the space domain building on existing initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness and the Multi national force; Operation Olympic Defender.

In Australia it would also foster a more whole of Government approach to the development of our space sector, by recognising its broader strategic importance, and weaving together policy and programmes across portfolios.

At Space Centre Australia we are working to play our part in such a programme. James Palmer’s vision for SCA is infectious and inspiring. I am pleased to be working with him on this truly nation building project.

Our plans to develop a multi user private space port near Weipa in Cape York, takes advantage of our unique 12 degree south location and remote geography. This will enable the development of a comprehensive space port facility that can support the full spectrum of launch requirements and missions. It will be Kennedy 2.0 or Cape Canaveral at Cape York. It will be an extraordinary asset not just for Australia, but our broader network of allies and partners. There is no other space port in a secure jurisdiction planned or existing, at this scale, closer to the equator. Together with the supporting infrastructure, including manufacturing facilities, radars, ground stations, data centres, innovation labs and mission control it will provide a central point of gravity for Australia’s future space ecosystem.

We are also securing important partnerships needed to make this vision a reality, including our Space Act agreement with NASA, our first launch partner H-Star or most importantly our indigenous partners the Mokwiri.

Above all of this, at SCA we are particularly excited about the role we can play in guaranteeing an economic future for the Cape communities and far north Queensland more broadly, especially our local indigenous communities.

More than infrastructure, this is a catalyst for prosperity in Far North Queensland. Indigenous communities will be at the heart of the project’s long-term economic and social impact.

Having left politics, I’m proud to continue pursuing what I’ve long believed to be a national priority — the development of Australia’s space capability. It was never about politics — it was about securing Australia’s economic, scientific and strategic future.

I still believe in that future — and I’m committed to helping realise it.

---

Address, London Defence Conference

“Countering CRINK”

9 May 2025
London, United Kingdom

---

A new arc of autocracy

An arc of autocracy has emerged among China, Russia, Iran and North Korea (CRINK), exhibiting increased collaboration in the diplomatic, economic and military spheres. It presents a real threat to global stability and security, especially in key regional theatres, such as the Indo-Pacific.

CRINK’s collaboration is primarily transactional in nature and not held together by any underlying ideology or even shared history. It is fundamentally about resisting global influences and pressures that seek to constrain what they wish to do and how they wish to do it, especially within their own sovereign jurisdictions and regions.

CRINK collaboration is driven by advancing a set of shared interests that seek to:

1. Ensure security and perpetuity of their autocratic regimes to act with impunity.

2. Establish regional hegemony as a buffer to regime security.

3. Weaken and neutralise the ability of global systems, institutions and norms to place constraints on their exercise of power and economic activity, especially domestically and regionally, and

4. Push back against the influence of US allies and partners at regional and global levels.

CRINK nations work together in three principal ways:

• Military Cooperation enhances their collective military capabilities, complicating Western defence strategies (exercises, interoperability).

• Economic Collaboration undermines the effectiveness of sanctions and creates alternative economic networks (sanction busting, supply chain creation and manipulation, economic lifelines, financial system resilience).

• Diplomatic alignment presents a united front in international forums, challenging Western influence, norms, diplomatic and global institutional narratives.

CRINK collaboration has most obviously and significantly been demonstrated in response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but also more recently through tacit support for Iran’s proxy conflicts in the Middle East.

Also, most recently:

• In June 2024, Russia and North Korea signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, including a mutual defence clause,

• In March 2025, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu chaired a meeting with Russian and Iranian counterparts to strengthen trilateral cooperation,

• Also this year, Iran, China and Russia conducted joint naval exercises, “Security Belt-2025,” in the Gulf of Oman, demonstrating military cooperation.

And this week, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made  his 11th trip since 2013 to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. According to an official statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the goal is to “deepen political mutual trust” and “promote practical cooperation in various fields.” It is reported this will possibly include an agreement to build the Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline, channelling Russian natural gas to China.

Are other countries likely to join the CRINK network?

Other nations with authoritarian regimes or anti-Western sentiments are at risk of gravitating toward this bloc, seeking similar support and solidarity, in the form of military aid, economic partnerships such as BRI, and diplomatic backing.

Others, who feel excluded or constrained by the global financial and economic system, or ignored when it comes to addressing their human development and environmental challenges, are also at risk of being incentivised by CRINK through similar inducements.

Then there are those who will effectively be neutralised for the purpose of supporting the actions of US allies and partners to counter the influence of the CRINK arc of autocracy, because they simply don’t wish to be placed in a position where they have to choose.

Each of these trends is exacerbated by increasing Global South indifference and agnosticism regarding the principles and values that have underpinned and motivated Western civilisation and the post-WWII global framework, which is effectively now under attack from within.

What military threat do CRINK nations collectively present to global security?

CRINK nations increasingly complement each other, no less significantly than in their combined military capabilities that are changing the global security calculus, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

In Ukraine we have witnessed this through:

• China: Providing economic support and dual-use technologies, bolstering Russia’s war economy.

• Iran: Supplying drones and missiles, enhancing Russia’s strike capabilities.

• North Korea: Reportedly sending over 15,000 troops and substantial munitions, directly aiding Russian forces.

This collaboration is occurring as we see CRINK nations, especially China, rapidly closing the gap and achieving superiority in several domains compared to the US and its allies. For China, this is particularly the case in terms of naval shipbuilding, naval forces (largest navy in the world by hull count, 370+, including three aircraft carriers, SSNs and SSBNs), hypersonics, missile saturation, combat drone deployment, swarming tactics for A2/AD zones, space launch and ASAT capability, electronic warfare and cyber—where integration of civilian tech, AI, and doctrinal speed is also a cause for concern.

Locally, China can also rapidly deploy 300,000 troops (out of a wider active and reserve force of 2.5 million), compared to around 80,000 available to INDOPACOM. Within the Indo-Pacific, China can also deny air and naval access more effectively than any other peer adversary, out-ranging many US and allied legacy platforms.

Russia’s strength lies in its nuclear deterrent with the world’s largest stockpile, large conventional forces and hypersonics. Russia’s undersea nuclear deterrent remains potent, but their surface fleet is ageing and suffering losses. Russia is also a leading space force with tested ASAT weapons; space surveillance and counter-space operations. Russia also has proven cyber sabotage and disinformation operations (e.g. Ukraine, NotPetya).

Iran and North Korea focus on asymmetric, cyber and missile-based disruptions, but increasingly embolden larger powers. They are also intentional.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei continues to emphasise the need to further develop Iran’s military capabilities to deter threats from the US and Israel. Iran is technically near breakout capability on nuclear weapons—with over 60% enrichment—but lacks a tested device.

Leader Kim Jong Un has urged increased artillery shell production to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, aligning with Moscow’s military objectives and reportedly deployed 15,000 troops to assist their cause.

Despite the advances in CRINK military capabilities, the US together with its allies still maintain overall advanced technological and strategic superiority in nearly all critical areas. This includes fifth-generation fighters, nuclear deterrent, deep-sea and carrier operations, high-end autonomous systems, depth and integration of cyber defences, orbital space operations and space launch capacity.

Also, after defending freedom and fighting tyranny and authoritarianism together for more than a century, the US and its allies have the clear superiority in experienced interoperability, integration and institutional trust across their combined forces, as well as between civil, scientific, diplomatic and military spheres. Western allies and partners have simply been to war together more often, more recently, and have engaged in more integrated defence planning and operations longer than their CRINK adversaries.

The bottom line is that the US and its allies maintain a qualitative edge in nearly all advanced defence technologies. However, China is closing the gap in several domains—particularly naval, hypersonic and UAV—and is being complemented by the absolute and asymmetric capabilities of their autocratic partners.

How should US allies and partners respond to CRINK?

Essential elements for an effective response to push back against the assertions, ambition and aggression of the CRINK network must include:

• An integrated deterrence focus on denial: increasing the military, economic and diplomatic cost calculus upon adversaries contemplating hostile, violent and aggressive actions against peaceful states and undermining a rules-based order that favours freedom globally and regionally.

• Utilise economic leverage as the lead active offensive measure to deter the negative actions of CRINK adversaries. This requires enhancing the effectiveness and restoring the legitimacy of global sanctions frameworks.

• Value, deepen, strengthen, focus, purpose and operationalise the multiple webs of US allies and partners in all spheres—military, diplomatic, economic—AUKUS, QUAD, NATO—to expose, resist, push back and disrupt the influence, aggression and assertions of autocratic states.

• Maintain and build advanced global tech superiority and enhance projection capability to counter local regional superiority of autocratic states, especially the PRC.

• Strengthen and harden forward deployment, enhance early warning and strike capabilities to address priority threats—especially posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, particularly Taiwan and the South China Sea. This includes ISR capabilities to detect mobilisation; boosting stockpiles and support for rapid operational deployment, F-35 basing and rapid rearmament infrastructure, and sustainment lines (fuel, munitions, and spare parts).

• Build and support regional asymmetric deterrence capabilities of allies within the region—especially Taiwan and the Philippines.

• Embrace and foster the development of an integrated allied defence industrial base and logistics capability with a particular focus on

  • Shipbuilding

  • Rare earths and critical minerals processing,

  • Missile production to rebuild stockpiles,

  • Design and manufacture of advanced chip making technologies, and

  • Manufacture of low-grade autonomous offensive weapons and systems — especially swarming capabilities, and at scale.

• Enhance and harden Space presence to increase domain awareness, deny and deter adversarial activity through counter-offensive capabilities, and ensure guaranteed access to space through expanded, diversified and accessible allied multi-user launch facilities.

• Do not forget nor forsake other continuing threats to global and regional security — namely hostile non-state actors, including terrorism and extremism, as well as economic and environmental impacts in developing economies that can exacerbate vulnerability to autocratic influence.

What about Taiwan more specifically?

In the Indo-Pacific theatre China possesses a strong local regional advantage in denial and deterrence, especially in naval and hypersonic capabilities, and industrial base sustainment, enabling them to increasing power projection.

Xi has been clear about his intent to have the capability to retake Taiwan by 2027, but has not indicated a clear intent to exercise that capability. This is driven by China’s preference to avoid the significant cost of a hot conflict and unite Taiwan by draining Taiwanese and US-led global resistance and patience through unrelenting tactics of coercion and intimidation.

As recently as March 2025, China conducted large-scale military drills around Taiwan, simulating blockades and amphibious assaults.

To deter a proactive invasion or even military blockade requires retaining a prohibitive calculus for China on initiating a hot conflict, as is often said, for Xi to wake up each morning and continue to say “not today.”

This requires the US and its Indo-Pacific allies — especially Australia, Japan, ROK and the Philippines — to sustain and enhance their coordinated military deterrent, as well as fortifying their political resilience to upholding the status quo as provided for under the One China policies affirmed by the US and other allies like Australia.

Taiwan cannot become a tradable commodity. Unification of Taiwan without formal and willing consent must remain a red line issue for US allies and partners.

From a deterrent perspective, as Ukraine has taught us, this must start with Taiwan itself.

This means supporting Taiwan to focus on mobile, asymmetric denial; survivability; and mobilisation readiness — not traditional force-on-force parity.

This especially requires enough stocks to inflict crippling losses on amphibious forces within the first 72 hours, neutralising or disrupting landings before a beachhead is established.

Urgent and significantly increased defence spending — from Taiwan’s current 2.4% of GDP to levels more akin to those of Israel (4.2% in 2022) will be necessary to establish a credible deterrent and maintain the committed support of US allies and partners.

That said, Taiwan is making progress in enhancing its defence capabilities through procurement and collaboration with the US. This includes:

• Completed deliveries of 400 Javelin anti-tank missiles;

• Delivery of Stinger missiles with additional orders placed, and development and deployment of Taiwan’s indigenous Sky Sword II missiles;

• Receipt of 29 HIMARS launchers and 84 ATACMS missiles between 2024 and 2027;

• Mass production of HF-III anti-ship missiles;

• Plans to field 700 military UAVs and 7,000 dual-use drones by 2028, with US support;

• Deliveries of mobile Harpoon coastal defence systems;

• Deployment, with US assistance, of modern naval mines and minelaying vessels to deter amphibious assaults;

• Collaboration with the US on development of unmanned surface and undersea drones, inspired by Ukraine’s usage;

• Investment in hardened mobile command centres and expansion of fibre optic infrastructure;

• Procurement of advanced radar systems, including L-band and non-L-band mobile radars;

• US approval for:

  • Up to 400 land-launched Harpoon missiles (first batch delivered late 2024);

  • 720 Switchblade 300 loitering munitions in 2024 and 291 ALTIUS 600M-Vs to enhance asymmetric capabilities;

  • A $75 million upgrade of Taiwan’s tactical datalink systems to improve interoperability with US and Japanese forces;

• Real-time intelligence sharing with the Five Eyes alliance, including satellite and aerial ISR data;

• A contract to acquire three NASAMS units, with implementation expected by 2034;

• Plans to deploy 100 Hsiung Sheng land-attack cruise missiles (1,200 km range), capable of striking deep into mainland China.

Taiwan also benefits from real-time ISR data shared by the US, Japan and Australia, enhancing its early warning and situational awareness capabilities.

Despite this progress, there remains a need to demonstrate greater urgency in removing barriers to investment and accelerating capabilities focused on mobile, asymmetric denial—missiles, drones, and coastal defences—over legacy platforms.

More needs to be done on reserve training, mobilisation, and hardening of C4ISR systems, along with boosting stockpiles of precision munitions, naval mines, and loitering drones

Closing

The rise of CRINK is certainly testing the limits of the post-WWII international system. Despite this, the West retains decisive advantages. Our response must be clear-eyed and unapologetically strategic. It means imposing costs on aggression through integrated deterrence, restoring the credibility of sanctions, reinforcing forward defences—especially in the Indo-Pacific—and ensuring Taiwan is equipped to make invasion too costly to contemplate. It means investing in industrial capacity, critical technologies, and alliance resilience, while preventing the Global South from slipping into neutrality or alignment with autocratic inducements.

This is not a competition over geography. It is a contest over the future of global order. One arc stands for coercion, intimidation, and impunity. The other must stan decisively for sovereignty, liberty, and rules-based peace.

The CRINK arc may be strengthening, but the free world is still stronger if it acts rejects transactional indifference and acts together, with resolve, urgency and strategic clarity.

---

Address, Dallas Committee on Foreign Relations

“In it to Win it”

12 December 2024
Dallas, United States of America

---

In a recent interview with Foreign Affairs, the distinguished author of the End of History, Professor Francis Fukuyama, made an important observation about the nature of representative liberal democracies. He said, "liberal democracy is a political system with two separate parts".

He explained that "democracy really has to do with accountability to populations through elections, hopefully free and fair elections". He then pointed out that "the liberal part has to do with constraints on the power of the state imposed by checks and balances in a constitution and fundamentally by a rule of law that limits what the state can do to its own citizens as it tries to exercise power".

Fair enough, an important distinction. Professor Fukuyama then turned his attention to what he considered to be the real threat of populism. He said, "and in the case of these populists, the real threat is not to democracy, because they are for the most part legitimately elected.

"What they threaten … is much more the liberal part of liberal democracy, that is to say the rule of law. And so they want to skirt the kinds of checks that exist on their power by packing courts, by intimidating journalists, by trying to revamp the bureaucracy so that it will carry out their wishes more fully.

And I think that this is something that is true in every one of these cases where an illiberal populist has been elected. And I expect that's going to happen in the United States."

In less developed liberal democracies, where constitutional settings and liberal institutions have are less mature he can have a point. But to extend his analysis to the United States and the election of President Trump, and imply an equivalency between the institutional and constitutional settings of the US with more nascent liberal democracies, is quite adventurous.

Implicit in his commentary, and common amongst progressives, is the deemed inerrancy of the institutions he charges with providing the guardrails for constitutional liberal democracy. To question the actions of such institutions and those who occupy them, is to apparently question liberal democracy itself. Such institutions are sanctified as untouchable.

However, in free, open and mature liberal democracies, scrutiny and accountability is not reserved for elected politicians. Our courts, journalists and bureaucrats are also accountable, as are our public corporations, their boards and senior executives as well as our religious and charitable institutions. To various degrees they all operate under some form of social license, and are thankfully all subject to the rule of law.

We can no more have blind confidence in the inerrancy of courts, journalists and bureaucrats, than we can in our elected officials. To place our courts, journalists and public servants beyond scrutiny, challenge and reform, especially by elected representatives when they have an electoral mandate to do so, would seem to violate the very principles Professor Fukuyama is seeking to espouse.

Professor Fukuyama's thinly veiled attack on President Trump suggests that his actions, as an elected President, to appoint qualified persons to the US Supreme Court in accordance with the constitutional requirement of congressional oversight through the Senate confirmation process, was somehow an assault on the rule of law and the constitution. This is puzzling. Furthermore, he asserts that when President Trump, as an elected representative, challenges anti-pathetic and even hostile journalistic narratives or seeks to reform the public bureaucracy in order to keep his promises to voters, he is undermining liberalism. To suggest that such actions equate to authoritarian intimidation when legitimately undertaken in a society where there is a proven rule of law, with robust checks and balances, not equally available in other less developed jurisdictions, really does defy credibility, even for someone as esteemed as Professor Fukuyama.

What these comments betray is a blindness to the disconnect that has been occurring between progressive elites who control much of our liberal democratic institutions, whether in the US or Australia - such as media, corporations, academia, bureaucracies - and mainstream society. It also falsely equates the virtue of the institutions themselves with the self appointed custodians of these institutions who presently control them. This in turn is eroding public trust and the moral authority of these institutions.

The dismissal by the citizenry of President Trump's conviction by the courts, intended to delegitimise his candidacy for the Presidency, proved only to demonstrate how perceived abuse of those institutions by political elites in pursuing President Trump, had delegitimised those very institutions. It is ironic that their target was then labelled as the threat to liberalism.

However what Professor Fukuyama describes as populist 'assaults' are not actually challenging liberal institutions themselves, but the unaccountability of elites who presume to determine the orthodoxy within these institutions, and our broader society, and to challenge that orthodoxy.

The elites who now control many of our liberal institutions, have accumulated significant cultural, corporate and political power over the past fifty years. Their authority is the product of their own progressive long march through our liberal democratic institutions, imposing their own values and priorities. Recent political events, at least in the United States, have demonstrated such values and priorities are not synched with those of the broader citizenry.

This is occurring domestically as well as internationally.

Domestically, it is serving to sterilise the dynamism of western market based economies and decommission the little Bourkean platoons fundamental to a flourishing society.

It is also serving to diminish the intrinsic worth of the individual citizen in favour of identity politics driven collectives. In a true representative liberal democracy institutions respect the primacy, integrity and worth of the individual citizen. They understand what Theodore Roosevelt argued was the true measure of national greatness, namely the character of the average citizen.

The visceral and hysterical reaction to Trump 47, both before and after, by the elite class is an acknowledgment of the genuine threat posed to their authority and the potential for the norms they have enshrined being reset. This is not a threat to democracy, as they would protest, or the institutions they occupy. It is in fact the opposite. It is actually a triumph of liberal democracy in action.

So what is this rebalancing in aid of -

● private property rights,
● personal responsibility,
● law and order and the right to personal safety,
● an entrepreneurial economy and market based economics,
● affordable and reliable energy to aid economic opportunity,
● respect for Judaeo Christian moral values and norms,
● equality of opportunity over equality of outcomes,
● sovereignty in all its forms - borders, security, industrial, trade, fiscal;
● fundamental notions of liberty - especially freedom of thought and speech, and
● push back against the encroachment of the state into the lives of citizens.

In the great state of Texas, you may be struggling to appreciate what I am referring to, as you are already benefitting from such a balance. Cherish it.

In this paradigm the state is no longer the answer to all our modern problems. Citizens are, communities are, businesses are. In this paradigm the agency of the state is not used to constrain or disadvantage its citizens to advantage others, but to create a society where the individual, their family and their community can flourish. Fundamental to this proposition is the notion of free choice - to have choices, to be able to exercise them and to be responsible for them.

The same is true of nation states when acting responsibly as part of an international community. Failure to do so only creates opportunities for our shared adversaries and the enemies of freedom, who are on the march.

A new arc of autocracy extending from Beijing and Pyongyang to Tehran and Moscow is now challenging the prevailing rules based international order and to rebalance it in their favour. At stake is the primacy of universal human rights over those determined relatively by autocratic regimes, the rule of law over arbitrary law; the $US as the world's reserve currency and the disciplines of our global financial system embedded in platforms and institutions such as SWIFT, in favour of an alternative, unaccountable and opaque economic system, untouchable by global sanctions, and a haven for criminals and terrorists.

In a speech to the Yomiuri Economic Security Institute in Tokyo earlier this year I noted that a popular misconception is that authoritarian regimes, such as in China, wish to rule the world and become the apex power of the international system. I disagree. They don't necessarily want to rule the world, they just don't want to be ruled by it. Rather than rule the world, they principally just want to rule their part of it, forever and unchallenged. The purpose of autocracies is simple - protect and perpetuate their regime - to hold onto and increase their power at all costs. 1,200 Russian casualties per day in Ukraine proves that point.

The Chinese regime and fellow autocracies have learned they do not need to tear down global institutions such as the United Nations or other international bodies, to undermine global rules and norms, they just need to infiltrate, distract and dilute them. Global institutions with Chinese characteristics. To this end they are having success. They also have witting and non-witting accomplices acting across the international system, supposedly in the name of inclusion, diversity, the climate and championing the global south.

The progressive drift of our global institutions has served to weaken the western liberal democratic values base of our international order, replacing it with economic, political and moral relativism, that is giving license to autocrats. But there is hope.

In October this year, now Treasury Secretary Designate Scott Bessent made the following observation in a fireside chat in relation to what should be a new approach by the US to international organisations. He said "a newly energized muscular Trump 2.0 attitude towards the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade organization, the OECD and others is critical to advance the aim of Americans rather than accept the gradual encroachment of US interest, in service of an unelected international community. If we are going to be in these organisations, we need to be in it to win it".

In 2019 I made a similar observation as Prime Minister of Australia, pushing back against what I described as the negative globalism and infection of global institutions with political and moral relativism, which I believed was contrary to Australia's national interests and the interests of western liberal democratic sovereign states.

Like Secretary Designate Bessent, I believe like minded liberal democracies need to be in it to win it. There is a strategic rivalry underway and we must contest it, and we must contest it together. The greatest asset the US has together with its allies and partners is our ability to band together to resist the illiberal and oppressive forces of authoritarianism that are the enemies of freedom. This is what our rivals fear most.

So before I close I want to highlight three areas where we must do this.

Firstly, like minded allies and partners must work in concert to ensure the effectiveness of global institutions to act in accordance with their foundational values and to frustrate the long march already underway through these institutions by our rivals. We cannot walk away. We cannot allow those who seek to invert these organisations in favour of their agendas to prevail as a result of our yielding to frustration, impatience and disillusionment. Their intent is to wait us out. We need to get back in the game. We must contest the global standards bodies, we must take back the universal human rights agenda, we must call out the masquerade of income redistribution and statism that has hijacked the climate action agenda, in favour of actually finding technological solutions to affordable, reliable energy that is essential for human wellbeing while also caring for our environment.

We must protect the institutions themselves, whether it be the WHO, the WTO, the IMF or the World Bank, while also holding them to account. As Prime Minister I called for a full and comprehensive inquiry into the origins of COVID 19 and felt the full fury of the Chinese regime in response. No such inquiry has ever been properly undertaken, despite a resolution of the World Health Assembly to do so. The impotence of the WHO to act decisively at the time, to properly investigate, to demand information from China, a member state, cost the lives and livelihoods of millions, and could do so again! There has never been any accountability, let alone an apology or even acknowledgement by the Chinese Government for their likely misadventure in the Wuhan laboratory that led to the devastation of the global pandemic. The WHO is no better able today to stand up to the coercion and control that it was clearly subjected to back in December 2019 and January 2020, when China worked to cover its tracks.

I highlight this because the effectiveness of such international institutions matters. They do important work. Similarly the dysfunction of the WTO and its inability to enforce trade rules, of which western nations are complicit, enables nations to disregard such rules. In Australia's case, the China's actions to impose illegal trade sanctions against Australia, when we challenged them over COVID 19, foreign interference, and their incursions in the South China Sea, showed a contempt for global trade rules and the WTO. Even more galling was the suggestion upon removal of these illegal sanctions, that it was an act of benevolence to the relationship, only secured after Australia dropped the actions we instigated against China in the WTO. You should never thank an adversary for ceasing to strike you in the face. They learn from your behaviour.

Now the US may argue that they can protect their interests through retaliatory trade sanctions. That is true. But for US allies and partners confronting the coercion and bullying of autocratic states, such protections strengthen our capacity, and enable us to be more effective partners. To this end there is a shared interest in making the WTO effective.

Secondly, we must continue to act together in smaller partnerships and groups to address our shared economic and security interests. AUKUS, the Quad and Five Eyes are all good examples of practical partnerships designed to achieve shared goals. Mini-laterals and an integrated network of bilateral trade, economic, technological and security arrangements all accomplish the same ends. As like-mindeds, we need to be more connected, not less.

In a post globalisation age of strategic rivalry, like minded supply chains are as essential to economic security as they are national security. Fundamental in this network, is gaining clarity on interoperability. How does it all work when the pressure comes on? This is as important as working out the command, control and coordination of allies and partners assets in the event of a conflict, as it is resisting the temptation to take up market opportunities created by the coercion of an ally.

These relationships must also be more dynamic, agile and responsive. They must not get bogged down in diplomatic activity and protocol. They should be leader led and flexible enough to shift course and address new and emerging challenges. Space, critical minerals, AI, quantum, new energy technologies, control of strategic infrastructure all require collaborative effort, just to name a few, to ensure that advantage is not yielded to those who oppose freedom and promote autocracy as the better way. Similarly, vulnerabilities in places like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Laos, require more concerted effort to ensure we are contesting for economic and security influence, and not yield such places to our rivals by default. This requires engagement of our private sector and private investment institutions to align with these efforts. These mini-forums and networks are ideally framed to work up coordinated and timely responses in these areas.

Thirdly and finally, it will be important for the US to be clear and consistent about their expectations of allies and partners going forward. This will in turn create certainty, provide a more durable platform for engagement and avoid the recurrence of past disappointments and misunderstandings. These must be fashioned collaboratively and integrate the many different strands of relationship. It is important also for the US to appreciate the role allies and partners can play in strengthening the US. These should not be one sided relationships. The same rationale the US employs to engage allies and partners to pursue security objectives, is also applicable to addressing US economic goals, such as restoring the US industrial base.

The practical demonstration of this is the need for the US to increase the tempo of their production of nuclear powered submarines. This is the only real threat to the US fulfilling their undertakings under the AUKUS agreement. While I'm confident this will be achieved, it is in Australia's interest that we support the US to achieve this task. The success of AUKUS is critical to our collective deterrent in the Indo-Pacific. Any failure of AUKUS would be disastrous and a dream come true for the Chinese regime. We therefore must do the heavy lifting to make it work. That is why we have invested USD 2 billion to boost US submarine production capability. I am not aware of any other US defence partner that is investing in the capability of the US defense industrial base. AUKUS is not a one way street.

This is what I meant when I stood on the south lawn of the White House with President Trump back in 2019 and said that Australia may look to the US, but we do not leave it to the US. This is why I believe Australia's alliance with the US strikes the right balance and serves as a model for other such relationships.

Long may this continue.

---

Address, Yomiuri International Economic Society Symposium

26 September 2024
Tokyo, Japan

---

The era of post cold war economic globalisation we have known for the past thirty years is over and is not coming back anytime soon.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absence of a peer or near peer competitor to the US ushered in a period of unprecedented economic growth, accelerated by an economic policy orthodoxy of liberalised trade and investment and open access to science and technology.

This is no longer the case. This requires us to adjust.

We have entered a new era of globalised strategic rivalry. This is recasting the way the global economy works, while threatening the foundational principles upon which our post WWII global order is based. This includes the primacy of universal human rights, the rule of law, the $US as the world's reserve currency and the disciplines of our global financial system embedded in platforms and institutions such as SWIFT, the IMF, the FSB and the World Bank.

The rivalry is being played out globally across many theatres - geographic, political, ideological, military and economic - just like a Cold War.

So how did we get here?

During the post cold war period, the US and its allies laboured under the assumption that the growing prosperity afforded by economic globalisation, particularly in authoritarian regimes such as China and post communist regimes in Russia, would lead to increased liberalisation and even democracy. This proved to be false. In China's case, the PRC always saw such goals as a direct threat.

Last year, Michael Beckley recounted in Foreign Affairs that after President Clinton granted most favoured nation status to China, Jiang Zemin reportedly warned his foreign policy officials that this 'so called engagement policy' was just another way to 'try with ulterior motives to change the country's socialist system', to 'westernise and divide our country' and 'put pressure on us in an attempt to overwhelm us and put us down'. Xi Jinping is no different. If anything, having personalised the PRC regime to himself more than any leader since Mao and restored the centrality of communist ideology, empowering the CCP over the Chinese state and economy, he is more brazen.

During post cold war globalisation, rather than transforming into liberal democracies, regimes like China translated their newfound access to global trade and capital markets as well as legitimacy in international forums, to build the economic, diplomatic, technological, and military capacity to one day challenge the prevailing status quo. That day is now upon us.

Unlike the Cold War rivalry between the Americans and Soviets, this new era of strategic rivalry is not confined to binary competition between two apex powers. This rivalry is far broader. It's not just about the PRC. They have fellow travellers - Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, just to name a few.

It is a rivalry between what I described as Prime Minister back in 2021 as an arc of autocracy seeking to render the prevailing rules based order impotent to their authority and ambitions, and an alignment of nations who know their freedom, sovereignty and prosperity depends on the maintenance of such global universal standards, rules and norms.

The work of this autocratic "arc' has been most notably on display in Ukraine, where illegal Russian aggression has been supported by Chinese banks, trade and dual use tech as well as Iranian drones and North Korean missiles. Russia became China's fifth-biggest single-country trading partner last year, up from ninth in 2020, while Chinese exports to Russia rose 46.9 per cent in 2023 year on year.

If we were in any doubt about the broader implications of Russa's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Anne Applbaum cites Sergie Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, in Autocracy Inc, remarking soon after the war began saying, "this is not about Ukraine at all, but the world order… the current crisis is a fateful, epoch-making moment in modern history. It reflects the battle over what the world order will look like."

We see similar collaboration in the relationships the PRC has with developing countries, especially in Africa. This includes sharing access to security technology to control their populations, obligation free and opaque financing arrangements that enable corruption, and diplomatic quid pro quos that provide reciprocal cover for their respective behaviours. Of particular concern is the opening up of alternative trade and financial channels that blunt the force of global financial sanctions and facilitate the movement of funds and weapons, such as to Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah to engage in terrorism.

A popular misconception is that the PRC wishes to rule the world and become the apex power within the international system. To the contrary, the PRC, or Russia for that matter, doesn't want to rule the world, they just don't want to be ruled by it. Their goal is not the rule of law but, as Applebaum argues, to rule by their own law. Rather than rule the world, they just want to rule their part of it, forever and unchallenged. The purpose of autocracies is simple - protect and perpetuate their regime - to hold onto and increase their power.

The PRC and fellow autocracies have learned they do not need to tear down global institutions such as the United Nations or other international bodies, to undermine global rules and norms, they just need to infiltrate, distract and dilute them, so they can continue on their merry way. Global institutions with Chinese characteristics. To this end they are having success.

It's also important to appreciate that relationships between autocracies are transactional, not values based. They do not necessarily need to buy into each other's specific causes, because they share a broader one - reduced US presence in each of their regions.

A further geopolitical force rising in the world today, is the large band of developing nations, referred to as the 'Global South'. These nations account for the majority of the world's population and are no longer prepared to take their cue and settle for what is handed out to them from the apex powers (be they the US or China) and the broader developed world.

In our own Indo-Pacific region this includes nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia or Vietnam, who do not wish to be forced to choose between rival spheres, yet at the same time, retain the flexibility to choose either, and engage with any nation they believe can advance their national interest. Unsurprisingly, while benefiting from global rules and norms, they are more focussed on their own economic development, security and welfare.

So what's to be done?

If we wish to avoid conflict, and preserve the peace and stability afforded by our global rules based order, the arc of autocracy must be deterred. An effective counterbalance must be present.

There must be an intentional, comprehensive, credible, persistent and integrated policy of deterrence pursued by like minded capable nations to resist the aggressive and coercive behaviours of autocratic regimes. Such deterrence must work across the military, diplomatic and economic spheres. We also must appreciate that this period of rivalry may persist for decades, as it did during the Cold War.

Cold wars tend to end badly in one of two ways for the unsuccessful rival - by defeat in a hot war, or by their demise through gradual decline from within, as their political, social and economic systems collapse under the prolonged weight of the contest. Neither of these outcomes is likely in the near term, and only a credible military deterrent will prevent a hot conflict from becoming a reality any time soon.

In recent years, like minded nations have been attempting to build a credible deterrent. Japan has been a leader in this regard, inspired by the leadership and vision of the Late Shinzo Abe, and ably supported by his successors. It was my privilege as Prime Minister of Australia to partner and work directly with all of these leaders.

While such efforts have been undertaken within established global institutions, it has importantly been pursued through smaller multilateral forums, such as the G7, and the Quad Leader's Dialogue and through the formation of new multilateral partnerships such as our AUKUS defense agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, which I was pleased to have founded, as well as upgraded bilateral security ties such as Japan's first ever defense forces reciprocal access agreement concluded with Australia in 2022, after several years of discussion between myself and PMs Abe, Suga and Kishida.

The restoration of the Quad leaders dialogue in 2021 is a shared legacy of those present at the time, who I had the privilege to join. As Quad leaders came together for the first time, Quad nations were already active in security partnerships, and were well advanced in restoring joint military cooperation such as the Malabar Naval exercises, amongst many other initiatives. While recognising the primacy of defence and security cooperation as the Quad's strategic priority, as Quad leaders we also knew the new dialogue had to go further.

As a consequence, a key focus of our dialogue was to address cooperation in the economic sphere. Initially this focussed on supply chain integrity, critical minerals access and critical technology cooperation. We also stressed the need for outreach to developing nations in the Indo-Pacific, to build their resilience, prosperity, health and well being. ASEAN were seen as a key partner in this effort. At the time the most pressing need in the non-military security sphere was access to COVID vaccines.

Observing the forum today, I would caution Quad leaders to take care to ensure it does not allow its focus and agenda to become diluted and distracted. It must remain intentional by focussing on a short list of high priorities that fundamentally contribute to strengthening regional stability and security, including economic security.

Ongoing policy workshops and coordination of ODA programmes that populate Quad communiques are fine, but too often just represent diplomatic BAU. Such initiatives do not require leaders to meet together for these things to be done. That is not what the Quad Leader's dialogue should be expected to deliver. If anything, the mere fact that the Quad Leader's dialogue provides the opportunity for regular unscripted engagement and real time collective assessment by leaders on regional security and economic challenges has a value all to itself. The most valuable comment to emerge from the recent meeting in Delaware was President Biden's candid 'hot mic' admission about the PRC and Xi Jinping seeking to test rivals. This sends a clear signal about what is really at stake. It has the ability to galvanise action.

When the Quad Leader's dialogue was reconstituted it was attacked by the PRC as they knew the deterrent power of such regular high level collaboration between like minded countries focussed on Indo-Pacific security in all its forms. Consequently, the Quad must not feel the need to overpopulate its agenda to fill out communiques and validate its existence. It does not need announceables. It needs to exist and meet regularly to ensure that their collective actions and responses to foster a free and open Indo-Pacific are aligned and on point - and where they are not - to change course. In many ways, less would be more, and would keep autocracies guessing.

In approaching its economic task, the Quad must also better appreciate and leverage its greatest strength. Quad nations are all market based economies. That is their true super power. What sets us apart from the autocracies offering opaque grants and punitive debt, is the deep capital pool we offer from our private sector, together with the commercial expertise, technology and technical knowledge of potential investors and business partners that can transform their economies. Trade and investment liberalisation have played an important role in paving the way for this offering, as have overseas development finance and assistance programmes. However, the main line of economic effort by Quad nations within the Indo Pacific has been delivered by the private sector.

To date, the Quad is yet to truly enlist, align, and leverage the support of private, corporate and institutional capital, at scale and with single minded purpose, to advance their economic security objectives. The lack of focus on this task is leaving the Quad's most potent tool in the shed.

Much is often made of the economic outreach undertaken by the PRC's Belt and Road Initiative, to underpin economic development in South East Asia. According to the Lowy Institute's 2024 South East Asia Aid Map report 'China has projects worth some $70 billion still under implementation and is involved in 24 out of 34 infrastructure megaprojects in Southeast Asia'.

While obviously important and highly visible, the scale of these investments is actually relatively modest in comparison to the flow of private foreign direct investment from the United States and Japan, together with other allies and partners.

According to ASEANSTATS, in the five years to the end of 2023, the flow, not stock, of Chinese FDI into ASEAN nations totalled $65.2 billion. This is a significant sum, however it is less than a third of the flow of $204.3 billion invested by the US over the same period. The flow of Japanese and European FDI was also greater than China, at $97.5 billion and $91.9 billion respectively. The ROK came in at $50.9 billion. When considering trade, China is by far ASEAN's single largest two way trading partner, however the majority of this trade is in the form of imports from China, rather than exports to China. This is becoming worse as China seeks to dump its subsidised over-production in the region. In the 12 months to the end of March 2024, China enjoyed a $132.8 billion trade surplus with ASEAN, compared with ASEAN's $149.1 billion trade surplus with the United States. In total ASEAN exported $275.5 billion in goods to the US, only $10 billion less than ASEAN exports to China. ASEAN also has a trade surplus with Japan and the EU, where its exports reached $118.5 billion and $155.7 billion respectively over the same time period.

The lesson of these statistics is that private, corporate and institutional capital, especially from the USA and Japan, is heavily invested in South East Asian economies. This presents a significant opportunity for the Quad.

I suggest there are three ways the Quad can ensure they better utilise the significant impact of private investment within the Indo-Pacific, as part of their economic security agenda.

The first is to make sure that their policies do no harm. In this new era of strategic rivalry, the US, together with allies and partners, risk excluding strategically important Indo-Pacific partners as they move to de-risk and re-align supply chains, reverse trade imbalances, restore sovereign industrial capabilities, withdraw investment from rival jurisdictions, prevent sensitive tech leakage and IP transfer, and ensure energy and resource security in the global transition to a low emissions economy.

The subsidies and incentives provided by the CHIPS Act and the IRA are good examples of these types of initiatives. The same is true of increased tariffs, especially those directed at China, that begun during the Trump years and have been continued by the Biden administration. While appreciating the intent of these measures, especially regarding sensitive and critical sectors, it is important to be discerning in their application. Indiscriminate application carries the risk of significant unintended consequences for existing and potential allies and partners. This would be counterproductive to regional security objectives especially in the IndoPacific, where US economic outreach is so vital to relationships.

For example, it is understandable that the US would wish to interrogate the true source of a particular supply or investment, when China is clearly engaged in a deliberate strategy to outsource their production to intermediaries as a way to access US markets and bypass new restrictions. However, such interrogation must be careful not to falsely penalise genuine partners. There is legitimate concern amongst partners in south east Asia, even allies, about these measures.

Similarly, it is a positive initiative for the US to incentivise firms such as rare earths provider Lynas to establish processing operations in Texas. But it would be counterproductive to dis-incentivise Lynas to walk away from the significant capabilities they have successfully established in Malaysia. Let's not forget those same processing capabilities were established in partnership with Japan, when the PRC unilaterally turned off Japan's access to China's rare earths almost 15 years ago, when they took exception to Japan's foreign policy.

In the security sphere, allies and partners have proved to be the most successful way to build an effective military deterrent. The same will be true when it comes to economic security. The US will not rebuild its industrial base as quickly and effectively as it needs to if it does not draw on the network of its allies and partners, including more neutral actors who can also add value. This will be as true for allies like Japan, Australia, Korea, the Philippines and Singapore as it is for India, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and even Vietnam.

Obviously, each engagement must be calibrated, but in all cases we must ensure that in boosting the economic resilience of core partners and allies we do not needlessly isolate others and create opportunities for our rivals.

The second is to work with the investment community to better understand what Governments can do to de-risk private investments in strategic sectors within emerging economies in the Indo-Pacific. This includes transport infrastructure, energy generation and transmission lines, resource processing and extraction, communication networks, including undersea cables and satellites, and agriculture. Government's can be very effective using their balance sheets to achieve the security outcomes they seek if they just listen and partner with investors and the private sector. In Australia we achieved this by ensuring that Digicel, the dominant telco in the Pacific Islands, was acquired by Telstra, rather than falling into the hands of rival interests. Our Government was hands on and proactive in securing this result. However, key to our success was not imposing on Telstra, but to ensure the deal could be structured in such a way that it could be legitimately supported on commercial terms and was in the best interests of shareholders.

Institutional capital in the form of pension funds, large trading companies, multinationals, private equity and sovereign wealth funds must all act in the interests of their members, investors and shareholders. If there is an impediment to these funds finding their way into the types of investments within the Indo-Pacific that would boost regional security, then an answer must be found. I appreciate this is not straight forward. For many years efforts have been made to align institutional capital with infrastructure projects without success. Such projects simply didn't always measure up to the legitimate standards of such investors.

However, the response cannot be to shrug our shoulders. Such a response will only confirm to developing countries that Quad countries can't make things happen and turn to rival capital sources, that will only worsen their strategic dependence.

This is exactly where the Quad must go to work. If the project is important enough, then the policy case can and must be made to structure a package that can make sure the investment get's over the line. Doing this across four jurisdictions would be incredibly powerful. Gaining access to more reliable data and benchmarks (price indices), securing a more favourable regulatory environment, loan guarantees, supplementing project management expertise, removing bureaucratic road blocks, recalibrating ODA programmes or ensuring ODF loans become part of an overall capital package, are just some of the practical tools that can be employed. It requires being proactive. Existing Quad efforts in this area, while well intentioned, could not be described in these terms. The recent launch of the Minerals Security Partnership Finance Network will hopefully prove more effective. Either way, we need far more.

That brings me to the third and final point. We need a clear plan within the Quad that understands where our most urgent strategic vulnerabilities and opportunities are and the capability and intent of Quad nations to act in concert to address them. A great example of this is Sri Lanka. Some years ago, the PRC gained a majority interest in the Hambantota Port, by snaring a corrupt Sri Lankan Government into a debt trap. Sri Lanka entered into sovereign default, and is now seeking to claw its way back from complete economic collapse.

Last Saturday Sri Lanka elected a new President and will elect a new Parliament later this year. The newly elected President is likely to have a far more embracing position towards the PRC than his predecessor and has already signalled his intention to revisit the deals done with the IMF and other multilateral and bilateral debt partners. If Quad nations and Quad capital remains on the side-line, the Hambantota port episode will be repeated many times over and India will have their own version of Cuba off their southern coast.

The good news is that Quad nations are already active and present, but it is not clear they are acting together. India's national security advisor made a rather public visit to Sri Lanka in the lead up to the recent elections. Japanese investors are developing the new second terminal at the main airport in Colombo. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation announced a $553 million investment to build a new deep-water shipping container terminal in Colombo. The principal shareholder in this development project is Indian conglomerate, Adani. An even larger development project is mooted for a northern terminal, while Chinese investors are building a logistics hub in the centre of the port precinct with a rail link to the airport. These proposed expansion works will put the Port of Colombo comfortably in the top twenty and even the top ten ports in the world.

Given what is at stake, I hope that developments in Sri Lanka were a topic of discussion amongst Quad Leaders, when behind closed doors in Delaware last Saturday. If not, they should have been. If not, I would be concerned that the Quad is failing to appreciate its important agency to influence exactly these types of situations, as part of a broader strategic effort. At the very least they should be satisfying themselves that existing individual efforts are sufficient to address the risks that are present.

A similar case can be made for a clear Quad investment strategy in relation to Cambodia. The west may bemoan PRC access to the Ream Naval Base or the PRC's significant financial support for the Sihanoukville port expansion, but where is the alternative? Quad members can either get involved and contest economically in these strategic locations or surrender the ground to our rivals.

When in office I was often criticised for the strident position I adopted towards the PRC. I believed this was necessary to counter the PRC's deliberate strategy to test Australia's will and to split us off from our allies and partners. I believed that pretending to share values and interests with an autocracy seeking to bully and coerce us, while they undermined the very rules and norms that afforded us our freedom, got us where we are today. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. This does not mean we do not engage diplomatically with China or even trade and seek cooperation on global challenges like climate change, human trafficking and organised crime. We can peacefully co-exist, but only with the right safeguards in place. We must do so with our eyes wide open and with the good sense to put a sufficient deterrent in place to counterbalance the growing power and influence of autocracies. The objective of such a deterrent is simple, to ensure that when President Xi wakes up every morning and thinks about Taiwan, he concludes 'not today'.

---

Scott Morrison’s Valedictory Speech

Scott Morrison, the former Prime Minister (2018-22), has delivered his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:01): Thank you to all those who have joined us here in the chamber today. I am going to commence my final contribution to this place in the same way I began my first one, in acknowledging the Gweagal people of the Dharawal nation of southern Sydney—a very special people, because they were the first to engage with Lieutenant James Cook on 29 April 1770. That place in Kurnell is a very special place. We speak a lot about reconciliation in this place, as we should, and my experience of that place as each and every year we gather in a ceremony of reconciliation, I think, speaks to the best spirit of that. I also spoke about that place in my maiden speech in this place. I said that it was important that we recognise this site, and I am so pleased that over the time that I have been here, we were able to achieve that.

On that site now, there is—artists call it an installation, others would call it a monument, and some might call it a statue—call it whatever you like, but I know what it means. There is the totem of the Dharawal people, the whale, and it's beautiful. There are many other installations around the shore, but the one which is most striking, as the tide comes in, laps on it and recedes, is the skeleton of a whale, but it is also the skeleton of a ship like the Endeavour. On each of the rings of that skeleton is inscribed the journals of Lieutenant James Cook. If you haven't been there, go there. It is a wonderful place to reflect on how two stories become one. For me that's what reconciliation with Indigenous people has always been about. We weave together the individual strands of individual Australians of so many different backgrounds and experiences, from our Indigenous peoples to the most recent citizens. Each strand unique, but together weaved as one. For me that site will always mean that, and it's wonderful to acknowledge it here today, as well as the artists and the so many who made that possible.

As was my practice as Prime Minister, always, when acknowledging Indigenous Australians, I would also in the same breath acknowledge those men and women who served Australia in our defence forces, both those who served in the past and those who serve now, for the simple reason that they are the providers of our freedom. Everything we have in this country we owe to them. In one of my early days—the member for Blaxland is here—we trekked Kokoda together in the spirit of bipartisanship. He was a little quicker than me and still is. We trekked Sandakan, we trekked the Black Cat Track up there in northern Papua New Guinea and we also went on to Gallipoli. At the end of those treks we would stand together with the young people who were with us—whether it was at the Bomana cemetery or in Lae or Sandakan or elsewhere—and we would hold hands, look at those tombstones, thank them and commit ourselves to living lives that would be worthy of their sacrifice. It was incredibly moving. And we would say, 'They gave their tomorrows for our today.' So it is easy for us all in that spirit to acknowledge our defence forces, those who serve in them—and serve in them today, far from here and nearby—and simply say thank you for your service.

Today is not an opportunity to run through a bullet point list of things. It is, importantly, an opportunity for me to simply express my thanks and appreciation and admiration for those who have made my service here in this place possible and to pass on what I hope are some helpful reflections from my time here that may assist those who continue to serve. Let me begin with my thankyous.

Firstly and importantly, to my constituents in Cook: it has been my great privilege to have served you as your local member in this parliament for these past more than 16 years, where you have been kind enough to elect me on six separate—six successive—occasions. I thank you for the tremendous and steadfast support you've provided to me and my family, who join me here today, during this time. Whatever was going on at the time, whether it be success, failure and everything in between, when I returned to the electorate—and those who know the area will know what I'm talking about—and particularly as I went up the rise of the Captain Cook Bridge and descended into God's country itself, the shire, I would feel a great sense of belonging. I would feel a great sense of reassurance and peace. All of us who live there know this. This is as much, though, about the people as it is the place. It is home and always will be.

Mine is a community that is unashamedly proud of our country, that deeply values family life and what it takes to live a life that keeps families together, that works hard. They take responsibility for themselves. They appreciate and respect both their own and others' good fortune, and they are generous to those around them, celebrating their successes or providing a hand up whenever and wherever it is needed. It is also a community that enthusiastically shares and supports and maintains the important community and social infrastructure that preserves our way of life. It is a community that does not leave it to others, including the government. Mine is a community that does not look for what it is owed but what it can contribute, for how it can make a contribution, not take one, both nationally and locally. They are a community of patriots, and I am pleased to describe them as such in this place.

In both my local and my national roles, including as Prime Minister, I have always been guided by the strong local values of my community—family, community, small business—and what I describe as the fair go for those who have a go. This is what makes the shire and southern Sydney such a great place to live and raise a family. And there are plenty of quiet Australians who understand that as well. Ever since I was first elected, I have always seen it as my job to try and keep it that way, and I believe I have honoured that commitment.

I particularly thank the myriad of community organisations, sporting clubs, school communities, volunteers, small businesses, church and charitable groups that make our local community, as they do all of our communities, so great and so resilient, including my beloved Sharks. These groups and organisations are the heart of our community, and I've always enjoyed the role I have played to support and enable them in their efforts, and I'm proud of what we have been able to achieve altogether in our community over this time.

I also want to thank my many local Liberal Party supporters and members, in particular Mike Douglas; Louise De Domenico, who was also on my staff; and my conference chairman and great friend, Scott Briggs, for always keeping the local show on the road. A special thank you also to our neighbours and friends in Lilli Pilli, Port Hacking and Dolans Bay. You had to put up with more than most—cameras, security, traffic, the odd protest and home invader. To Jamie and Anna and to Joe, Chrissie and Stan, I look forward to continuing return the favour of mowing your lawns for years to come. It will be quite some time before I settle that debt! A big thank you also—I'm sure Jenny would agree—to Rob and everyone up at D'lish.

As politicians we know that we are the tip end of the spear. Yet, behind us, there are so many people who we are supported by. They are incredible, dedicated, professional, intelligent, loyal, good humoured, sacrificial and amazing people who, for reasons that I suspect will never cease to amaze all of us—and it certainly humbles us—choose to commit themselves to the causes that we have identified and we seek to champion as members of this place and, when we have the opportunity, in government. They become a family. They support one another. They form close and lasting relationships, together embarking on one of the great seasons of our lives.

I have been blessed in this area more than I could ever deserve. From my local office team in the shire, especially to Julie Adams; to the incredible professionals who headed up and worked in my prime ministerial and ministerial offices, especially Dr John Kunkel, Phil Gaetjens and Anne Duffield; and to my longstanding original staff Latisha Wenlock and Julian Leembruggen, who is here today: the journey would simply have been impossible without you all, all of those you ably led and all who worked together in these causes, so many of whom are here today—and I thank them for being here. There are too many of you to mention all by name, and nor do I wish to injure your reputations by doing so! But I hope you all feel the full partnership of our service together and what we were able to achieve and contribute. Thank you.

I also wish to thank all those who cared for me and my family over the years when I was Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister now would know. To our household staff at the Lodge and at Kirribilli, led by the beautiful Trina Barrie and the incomparable Adam Thomas: you provided a space for Jen, Abbey, Lily, Buddy, Charlie and I to be a family. Thank you.

To the members of my close protection team at the AFP over the years, who continue to look after us even on the odd occasion these days: thank you. I want to specially mention Travis Ford and Jen McRae, who were terribly injured in the line of duty, protecting me in a terrible car accident in Tasmania. I will always be grateful for your sacrifice. When their colleagues rushed to them at the scene, their first words—not knowing what had occurred—were: 'Is the boss okay?' Thank you. To Mick: I'll be in touch about that fishing trip we talked about, as we promised each other on the road on so many occasions.

To my parliamentary, ministerial and cabinet colleagues with whom I served over the years, some gone from this place now and many still here: I want to thank you for your support and your dedication. As your leader, you gave me your best in some of Australia's most difficult times. I asked you to follow and you did, and together we achieved an election victory that none thought possible, and we kept steady hands on the tiller during the greatest set of challenges that have confronted our nation since the Second World War. Thank you for your service.

For the opportunities afforded to me by my party leaders over this time—to Brendon Nelson, to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: thank you.

To my now party leader, Peter Dutton, with whom I served in cabinet through all the years of the coalition government: thank you for your respect, your loyalty, your support and your consideration, especially that which you've shown me as a ministerial colleague, as Prime Minister and as an ex-PM in your party room. Jen and I both appreciate the kindness and generosity you and Kirilly have shown to both of us and our family.

For the great friendship and encouragement afforded to me by some very special friends as colleagues, to Big Mac, my Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack; and Catherine: thank you. To Josh Frydenberg, who I was speaking with this morning, and my deputy leader and Treasurer: thank you, Josh. To Marise Payne, to Greg Hunt, to Michaelia Cash, to good old Benny Morton and to Alex Hawke, who sits with me here today and who keeps me entertained each question time still—there's plenty to entertain us: thank you. And to those who've gone from here—to Steve Irons and Stuart Robert, who I flatted with for many years; to Lucy Wicks and the incomparable Bill Heffernan, who I flatted with for the first six years and survived; and Louise Markus—thank you. To the broader Liberal Party members and our supporters led by Andrew Hirst, John Olsen and Nick Greiner, thank you.

To those who supported me from the Public Service as a minister, Treasurer and Prime Minister, thank you, especially for your service during the pandemic, which I extend to everyone in the Public Service, who showed the true spirit of what public service was with sacrifice and dedication. Thank you to Phil Gaetjens, who was the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but, particularly, thank you also to Professor Brendan Murphy and Professor Paul Kelly, who became well-known figures. To General JJ Frewen, thank you. To General Angus Campbell and Greg Moriarty, thank you for all you did to help me secure AUKUS. When I left the job after the last election, when we lost, I remember saying to them, 'Now, please don't stuff it up,' which they are not, together with the Minister for Defence.

To the Prime Minister, to the Deputy Prime Minister, to the members of your government and to Bill Shorten, we have contested fiercely in this place. I've had my wins and I've had my losses, but I wish you all well in your service of the national interest. Too often in this place we confuse differences of policy with judgements about peoples' intent and motives. This is not good for our polity. We may disagree but we need to honour the good intentions of all of us. I wish you well in your service, as I've said, and I especially want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the special kindness and respect that you've shown to me in this place since the last election and here again today.

To the Prime Minister and your now new fiancee, Jodie, congratulations on your engagement. Jen and I wish you all the very best for your life together. At some point, this all ends and, while there are no hard feelings, I'll obviously be supporting my colleagues and Peter Dutton to ensure that that day hastens sooner rather than later. But, when it does, you will look around and Jodie will be there, and I can assure you—as Jen has been to me—it makes a world of difference.

When I first entered politics, the former member for Parramatta, Julie Owens, who many of us remember well, gave new members some good advice at our orientation about making sure you do not neglect the friendships you had before you came. I took this advice very seriously. I'm even more pleased that my friends and family did. Thank you to our wonderful friends that are here today—to Karen and Adrian Harrington; to David Gazard, the 'Gaza man'; to Arthur and Ingrid Ilias; to Bill and Anne Knock; to Peter Verwer; to Scott Briggs, who couldn't be here today; and to Lynelle Stewart—we love you very much and appreciate you.

To my Christian pastors, Brad and Alison Bonhomme, to Mike and Val Murphy, to Joel and Julia A'bell, to Jock Cameron and to my brothers in Christ, Andrew Scipione, John Anderson and Lloyd Thomas, who's here with his wife Fi today, thank you for your prayers, your counsel and your encouragement. I also especially want to thank Bishop Antoine Tarabay and all of our Maronite brothers and sisters—I've become an honorary Maronite, I think, in the years past—and especially our dear friends Danny and Leila Abdallah, Bridget Sakr and Craig McKenzie, who have taught us all what faith is really all about.

As most people know, subject only to God, my family is the centre of my life, and at the very centre of our family is Jen. I cannot imagine life without her. I love you, Jen, and always will—that is the cross you have to bear. Your love has been my stay and strength. You are the other half of our joined soul, who, by the grace of God, brought Abbey and Lily—our miracle girls—into our lives, who we celebrate and love. I thank Abbey and Lily for their own sacrifices as they have grown, necessitated by having a father in public life. They are beautiful girls in every way, as you can see, and I could not be more proud of them as a father. They are our joy and our delight, and I am so pleased that we can now have the time that was necessarily denied us for so long.

In preparing for this day, Abbey and Lily suggested that I should play a type of Taylor Swift bingo, and I'm wearing the bracelet, by the way—it has 'ScoMo' on it. They said to try to work the names of every single Taylor Swift album into my remarks. Well, what's a dad to do? Here I go!

It is true that my political opponents have often made me see red. When subjected to the tortured poets who would rise to attack my reputation, in response I have always thought it important to be fearless and speak now or forever hold my silence and allow those attacks to become folklore. Ever since leaving university—in 1989!—this has always been my approach. My great consolation has always been my lover Jen, who has always been there for me whenever I need her, from dawn and beyond the many midnights we have shared together. See, I'm actually a true new romantic after all. I can assure you there is no bad blood, as I've always been someone who's been able to shake it off!

Anything for my daughters.

I also want to thank, of course, Jen's mum, Beth, who is looking after the cat and the dog today, and Jen's late father, Roy, an amazing human being, for always being on my side; as well as Jen's siblings, Gary and Cecily, and all their families.

Finally, I thank my mum, Marion, who is here with my late father, John, today together. I also want to thank my brother, Alan, of whom I am extremely proud. My family, growing up, were the dominant example for my life. They taught me that life is about what you contribute, not what you accumulate. They taught me about the duty and dignity of public service, but, beyond this, I would never have known God and my saviour, Jesus Christ, if it was not for them. I can think of no greater gift.

Okay, that's the emotional stuff done! You're not used to seeing that side of me. Having said my thankyous and expressed my appreciation, I would now like to reflect on just three things I have learned along the way that may help those dealing with the challenges of the future who continue in this place. The first of these is that, without a strong economy, you cannot achieve your goals as a nation. All good government must start with nurturing a strong, innovative, dynamic, entrepreneurial, market based economy. In the 1980s we threw off the shackles of the federation institutions that Paul Kelly, who is here today, wrote about in The End of Certainty as holding our economy back. This led my generation into 30 years of economic change that, despite some missteps along the way, including a recession we had to have, produced the longest period of continuing economic growth that any nation in the modern world has known. There have been strong contributions made to this achievement by both sides of politics, which I acknowledge—always, though, with Liberal and National support.

As we entered the pandemic, I was pleased that, after almost six years of painstaking fiscal effort, we had restored our budget to balance and maintained our AAA credit rating. This was achieved by focusing on economic growth and containing growth in public spending. At the time, our government had the lowest rate of growth in public spending of any Australian government for decades. This would prove vital in the years that followed. Having saved for a rainy day, it was now raining. It was pouring, and we had to respond. Australia would emerge with one of the lowest fatality rates from COVID in the developed world. When compared to the average fatality rates of OECD countries, Australia's response saved more than 30,000 lives. We were described as the gold standard of COVID responses by Bill Gates at the Munich security conference and the second-most COVID prepared nation by the Johns Hopkins Institute. This will always be to Greg Hunt's great credit and that of all those he worked with—his eternal credit.

It is also true that, during the pandemic, the rate of death by suicide actually fell and remained down in 2021. This was nothing short of an answer to prayer and the extraordinary efforts of our mental health workers, professionals and services, and I want to acknowledge Professor Pat McGorry and Christine Morgan, who were incredible supports to me during that time.

Our plan was not just about saving lives but about saving livelihoods as well. This was achieved with Australia emerging with one of the strongest economies through COVID. Our historic economic response kept 700,000 businesses in business, it kept more than a million Australians in work and, despite these unpredicted outlays, Australia was one of just nine countries to retain a AAA credit rating. Our response was timely, it was targeted and it was temporary. We responsibly retired measures as soon as it was prudent to do so, leading to a historic reduction in the actual budget deficit, with the budget even moving into structural surplus during COVID. As Josh asked me to remind everyone this morning, the unemployment rate had a '3' in front of it when we left. JobKeeper and the myriad of economic supports—designed by Josh and me, with Mathias Cormann and later Simon Birmingham and the whole team at Treasury and the ATO—would have been fanciful had we not entered into this crisis with a tank that was full.

We cannot take our economy for granted. Employers and businesses creating jobs is how you run a strong economy and put a budget into structural balance and keep it there. During my time in this place I observed that many of the old partisan differences on economic policy have, regrettably, re-emerged. In 2019 we fought an election on this and we prevailed in our miracle election win. Looking forward, we must be careful not to reinstitutionalise our economy. Such an approach will only negate the capacity we have as a nation to deliver on the essentials that Australians rely on; it will crush entrepreneurial spirit and that wonderful spirit of small business, and leave us vulnerable in the face of new threats to our sovereignty. 

That brings me to my second point. Those threats are there and they're real. During my time in this place, and especially as Prime Minister, we have seen an end to the post-Cold War period of globalisation and the emergence of a new era of strategic competition, where our global rules based order is being challenged by a new arc of autocracy. This arc of autocracy, which I referred to as Prime Minister, ranges from Pyongyang to Beijing to Tehran and Moscow—a chord of would-be regional hegemons who would prefer power to freedom and care little for the price their own citizens pay to achieve their ends. For this reason our government stood firm against the bullying and coercion of an aggressive Chinese Communist Party government in Beijing who thought we would shrink when pressed. Indeed, we not only stood firm but worked with our allies, our partners and those in our region who wished to protect their own sovereignty to counter this threat to regional peace, prosperity and stability. AUKUS, the Quad, new trading and defence relationships, the first ever comprehensive strategic partnership of any nation with ASEAN and others including PNG, and the Pacific Step-up—all designed to protect our sovereignty and stand up for a global rules based order that favours freedom, especially here in our own region in the Indo-Pacific. In this respect, I pay tribute to the work of Marise Payne and Dan Tehan, as well as Simon Birmingham. I thank the Trump and Biden administrations, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, my good friends Boris Johnson, James Marape, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo and Robert O'Brien. I pay tribute to late and great Shinzo Abe and his successors, prime ministers Yoshi Suga and Fumio Kishida. 

The 2022 election may have provided an opportunity for Beijing to step back from their failed attempts at coercion, but we must not be deluded: tactics change but their strategy remains the same. We are not alone in waking up to this threat. Investors are now, rightly, pricing the risk of their investments in an authoritative communist China, while consumer advocates are waking up to human rights abuses and the environmental degradation that infects these supply chains. This requires continued vigilance and the connection between all spheres of policy to create and protect supply chains and integrate and align our strategic and military capabilities so we can protect our sovereignty and counter the threat that is real and building.

In Tehran, we find the funders, trainers and apologists for terrorists, seeking to acquire the most deadly defence technology imaginable: nuclear weapons. Their green light for the Hamas terrorist attacks on innocents in Israel, on 7 October, is unforgiveable. In response to such overt attacks there can be no equivocation on where we stand as a representative democracy when another, who has been such a great friend of Australia, is under attack. There also can be no equivocation in calling out the anti-Semitism that has now occurred in this country, to our shame, and in other places across the Western Hemisphere in the wake of 7 October. To that end I am pleased to acknowledge the presence today of the Israeli ambassador, Amir Maimon, in the chamber today. Am Yisrael Chai. In Ukraine, fighting continues to rage two years after Russia's illegal invasion. I'm proud of our swift response to support Ukraine. This must continue and is utilising every resource and capability we can reasonably provide. Ukraine may be a long way from Australia, but the implications of a Russian victory will reverberate just as quickly in our own hemisphere, emboldening again those who seek to challenge our region.

My third point is: how do we stand and on what ground? We stand on the very same ground that established our western civilisation and that inspired and enabled the modern, pluralist representative democracy we now enjoy. We stand on the values that build a successful, free society, like individual liberty, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, responsible citizenship, morality and liberty of speech, thought, religion and association. All of these stem from the core principle of respect for individual human dignity. So do representative democracy and even market based capitalism. This is a unique Judaeo-Christian principle. It is about respecting each other's human dignity through our creation by God's hand, in God's image, for God's glory, where each human life is eternally valued, unique, worthy, loved and capable. This is the very basis for our modern understanding of human rights.

With the advance of secularism in western society, we may wish to overlook these connections or even denounce them. But the truth remains. Human rights abuses were once called crimes against God, not just against humanity. They are, and they remain so. These truths are not self-evident, as some claim, as history and nature tells a very different story, though divinely inspired. You don't need to share my Christian faith to appreciate the virtue of human rights. I'm not suggesting you do. But, equally, we should be careful about diminishing the influence and the voice of Judaeo-Christian faith in our western society, as doing so risks our society drifting into a valueless void. In that world, there is nothing to stand on, there is nothing to hold on to, and the authoritarians and autocrats win. In the increasing western embrace of secularism, let us be careful not to disconnect ourselves from what I would argue is our greatest gift and the most effective protector of our freedoms—the Judaeo-Christian values upon which our liberty in society was founded. Even if you may not believe, it would be wise to continue to understand, respect and appreciate this important link and foundation.

To conclude, you'll be pleased to note a warning about politics, where I've spent most of my professional life, as most of us here have. I know that all political philosophies and ideologies, including my own, are imperfect and regularly confounded by events outside our control. I experienced this firsthand leading Australia through the global pandemic. In my experience, the practice of politics is largely about contesting which approaches are less imperfect than others—in my view, those are the approaches of the Liberal Party—and then trying to humbly appreciate and compensate for their imperfections. It's like Winston Churchill's famous line, and I paraphrase: 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.'

While a noble calling, politics can only take you so far, and government can only do so much. You can say the same thing about the market. You won't find all the answers there, either, and you won't find it in unrestricted libertarianism and more-command-and-control communism. In the Liberal Party, we have always believed in how great Australians rather than governments can be, with the true test being how we can enable Australians to realise their own aspirations. I suspect that much of our disillusion with politics and our institutions today is that we have put too much faith in them. At the end of the day, the state and the market are just run by imperfect people like all of us. While politics may be an important and necessary place for service, I would also warn against it being a surrogate for finding identity, ultimate meaning and purpose in life. There are far better options than politics. In The Dignity of Difference, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote that the great tragedies of the 20th century came when politics was turned into a religion and when the nation, in the case of fascism, or the system in communism, was made absolute and turned into a god.

I leave this place not as one of those timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. I leave having given all in that arena, and there are plenty of scars to show for it. While I left nothing of my contributions on that field, I do leave behind in that arena, where it will always remain, any bitterness, disappointments or offences that have occurred along the way. I leave this place appreciative and thankful, unburdened by offences and released of any of the bitterness that can so often haunt post-political lives. This is due to my faith in Jesus Christ, which gives me the faith to both forgive and be honest about my own failings and shortcomings. During my time as Prime Minister, the power and necessity of forgiveness was demonstrated to me most profoundly by the Abdallah and Sakr families, whose children were taken from them, and they found the strength in their faith to forgive.

For those who perhaps may feel a bit uncomfortable with my Christian references and scripture references here or at other times, I can't apologise for that. It says in Romans 1:16: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.' It says in 2 Timothy 1:17: 'I am not ashamed for I know what I believe and in whom and I am convinced that He is able to protect what I have entrusted to Him until that day.' In that vein, let me quote one last scripture in this place as an encouragement to all who continue to serve. 2 Thessalonians 2:16 says: 'Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God and our father, who has loved and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and deed.'

Thank you all those who join me here today or are listening elsewhere for your kind attention. As always, up, up Cronulla!

Speech to Parliament on Israel

16 October 2023
Canberra, Australia

---

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:55):
After a week that saw the greatest loss of Jewish lives since the Holocaust, Jews gathered at the Central Synagogue in Bondi Junction for Shabbat services, just as Jews have gathered for Shabbat services for centuries. On this particular evening, though, there was a special poignancy to their gathering, as they came together to console, support and encourage others. As the women lit their candles in hope and we gathered for the Shabbat service, which Jenny and I were pleased to attend along with the current member for Wentworth and the former member for Wentworth Dave Sharma, Rabbi Levi said, 'Am Yisrael Chai.' The people of Israel live on. It was a statement of resilience. It was a statement of faith. It was a statement of hope. If there's one thing I have learnt in my long association with the Jewish community, it is that they are a people of endurance, resilience and hope, even in the most awful circumstances, which they have experienced this past week.

I'm pleased to stand in support of this bipartisan motion and to stand here in support of the people of Israel and the state of Israel. I stand here and condemn the barbaric, violent and unprovoked terrorist attack by Hamas on the people of Israel on 7 October and the murder, the beheading, the rape and the hostage-taking of innocent civilians, including babies, children, women and the elderly. We express our deepest sympathy and deep condolences to members of this place, to people all around our country, to the state of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and all of his people and to the Jewish community here in Australia through Ambassador Amir Maimon, who I spoke to, as we denounce these terrible acts.

These terrorist acts have been rightly identified as terrorist acts. To speak of this as a war is to somehow risk legitimising the other combatant for which there can be no legitimacy whatsoever. They are terrorists. As Prime Minister I was pleased that we listed in full Hamas as a terrorist organisation as well as Hezbollah and many others, because that is indeed what they are. As we gather in this place and rightly denounce and condemn these acts, I hope it will not fade from our memory quickly or ever, because that is too often the case.

I remember, as the member for Berowra will remember, back in December 2018, the UN General Assembly considered a resolution condemning Hamas for repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk, and for its use of resources in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas. It specified that further engagement by the UN Secretary-General and the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, in efforts to de-escalate the situation in Gaza, was also needed. I instructed that we would support that motion in condemning Hamas.

A procedural vote was held before that main vote on the resolution, calling for the main resolution to be decided on a two-thirds majority. It was passed in that chamber, narrowing the odds of the resolution passing successfully. Although 87 voted in favour, including Australia, a majority either voted against or abstained, meaning that the resolution failed under the ruling. Before the vote, the US permanent representative to the UN said that, despite more than 500 General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel at the United Nations, not one had condemned Hamas—not one.

As we stand in this place, appalled, aggrieved and with our hearts breaking, we should not be surprised by this barbarous violence from such a group. They should never have been given the leave pass of legitimacy that they experienced for so long from the international community. They should have always been condemned, and may they forever be condemned. So we stand here and say we will support the State of Israel's right to self-defence—as we should in this motion—in taking action to respond to these terror acts, but let us know that this should and must include all efforts to eradicate Hamas from Gaza and dismantling the capability of Hamas to conduct terrorist attacks on the people and State of Israel in the future. In the weeks and the months ahead, let our resolve not diminish. Let our eyes not turn away from what we say today, as we continue to support the State of Israel's legitimate right to defend itself and remove that ever-present threat that has stood there each and every day, threatening their citizens as they go about their peaceful lives.

I join the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in saying that we as Australia should call on the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease its funding, training and arming of terrorist organisations that include Hamas. We cannot look away from the support that Hamas has received from Iran. It is an abomination. They are the funders of this terrible violence. If they approved it, we will not know. Hamas, of its own accord, is capable of engaging in such violent barbarism all of its own making, but its ability to do so could not have occurred without the training, funding and assistance provided by Iran.

As we say in the motion, we must also support the work of humanitarian assistance and the humanitarian corridors to call for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages, to enable safe passage and to prevent innocent civilians being further caught in what will be an ensuing conflict, which I fear will be quite awful.

I particularly commend the consular work being undertaken by DFAT officials and the bravery they've shown on so many occasions. I recall the bravery they showed as they went into Wuhan at the outset of the COVID crisis, and here they are again, assisting Australians. I thank Qantas for their work, once again, coming to Australians' aid.

We should also be looking ahead and working to support other international organisations in dialogue so that, once order is restored to Gaza, there be the transfer of administrative authority over the Gaza Strip to a credible and competent Palestinian led authority. We must acknowledge and continue to encourage and support the progress being made towards peace in the Middle East through the establishment of the Abraham Accords, whose work should not be frustrated or delayed by these actions. Of course, we reaffirm our support for the establishment of a viable and sustainable two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories, behind recognised international borders.

On this day, as we stand in this place, let us be clear. Let us say, with Rabbi Levi and all the people of the Jewish community here in Australia and around the world, 'Am Yisrael chai.'

---

Access Hansard record here.

Address, Yushan Forum

“One China 2.0”

11 October 2023
Taipei, Taiwan

---

I am pleased to be able to join you this evening to participate in this year's Yushan Forum. It is a privilege to have been invited and I am especially pleased to have been able to join with the Taiwanese people in their national day celebrations. You have much to be proud of.

Taiwan is like almost no other place on the planet. No place could be more central to the cause of liberty and democracy, at this time, than Taiwan, including even in Ukraine and the Middle East, where war rages. Taiwan is a unique case, and we must be careful in drawing parallels between potential conflicts in Taiwan and those occurring elsewhere, especially regarding their global implications. I believe Taiwan stands above them all. To put this in some context, when my Government took the decision for Australia to swiftly provide lethal support to assist Ukraine, following the illegal invasion by Russia, this was as much a decision to support Ukraine, as it was to demonstrate our alignment with a global western resolve to resist the aggression of authoritarianism, especially given the tacit endorsement of the invasion by Beijing, that continues to this day. I was considering Beijing as much as I was Moscow.

PRC's claims over Taiwan are a threat to the entire region, as they are not isolated to Taiwan. There are also the PRC's claims in the South China Sea, the Senkaku Islands, Natano Island and so on. Legitimately, in the region, one can reasonably ask, if Taiwan, then what and who is next.

The threat is not just true for those of us who live here in the Indo-Pacific, but globally. At the very least, there is consensus that conflict in Taiwan would cause a severe global economic depression. Strategically, the PRC forcefully occupying Taiwan, would enable the PRC to project well beyond the first island chain, radically altering the security environment within the Indo-Pacific, through which the bulk of the world's trade passes. When combined with Russia's aggression in Ukraine, it would also significantly reset the balance of the international order in favour of autocracy and authoritarianism.

There is therefore no country too far away from Taiwan not to be impacted by Taiwan's future. The future of Taiwan is inextricably linked to all our futures and the peace, security and freedom of the world we live in.

It has now been fifty years since Australia established diplomatic relations with the Peoples' Republic of China. At that time we adopted what is known as the One China policy. There is often confusion and differing interpretations of what this policy means. So let me be clear about what it is, and what it isn't.

In recognising the Peoples' Republic of China in 1972, Australia's One China policy acknowledged that the PRC had claims over Taiwan, however it did not recognise the legitimacy of those claims, either way, on behalf of any party. Taiwan's ultimate status was to be resolved peacefully. In the US, a similar stance was adopted and added to by Congress through the Taiwan Relations Act and then by the Reagan Administration's Six Assurances, attaching the notion of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan's defence. The status of Taiwan is therefore deliberately ambiguous, and remains so.

A lot has changed in these last fifty years. Taiwan has been transformed into a modern, free, and vibrant representative democracy, with an advanced developed economy, producing the world's most critical and sophisticated technology. We could not have said that about Taiwan fifty years ago. It was a very different place from today. It is an incredible success story, achieved under extraordinary duress.

Across the Strait, the PRC has become the world's second largest economy, lifting more people out of poverty than any other nation in history. This is truly an extraordinary and highly commendable achievement. It is the single greatest economic miracle in human history.

Professor Yasheng Huang from MIT recently highlighted in Foreign Affairs^1 the irony that this success was not achieved by adherence to the communist policies of statism, but orthodox market economics. He concluded, 'China's economic miracle happened because the Government retreated from the commanding heights of central planning and left room for the market economy'. He argued 'the Chinese economy took off because the state let go, not because it intervened'. He described Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms as 'utterly conventional', opening China to the world, allowing greater entrepreneurship, reducing government price controls and even privatising state owned industries. These reforms had more in common with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, than Mao Zedong and Karl Marx.

But sadly, that's where the similarities between China and the west ended. Over those same years, and before and after, the Communist regime in Beijing expanded and reinforced the apparatus of a highly authoritarian and autocratic one party state, responsible for the oppression and deaths of millions, from the cultural revolution, to the Tiananmen Square massacre and the most recent and ongoing oppression in Xinjiang.

At the same time the PRC has used its growing economic power to build its capacity to assert its ambition within the region and globally - militarily, diplomatically and economically - using grey zone tactics where necessary to coerce and intimidate. The PRC has made it very clear that they wish to rebalance the global rules based order, established following the end of the second world war, in a way that better advantages their interests, and autocracies like them, such as Russia, Iran and North Korea. This has been on show most recently with the PRC allowing their banking system to continue to support Russia, as they wage their illegal war against Ukraine.

As Prime Minister of Australia, I experienced the PRC's coercive tactics first hand. But I haven't been the only one. Of course Taiwan, but also South Korea, Japan, Lithuania, Norway and many more have all felt the frost of Beijing's displeasure when they haven't gone along with Beijing's script. Pleasingly, most, if not all, have stood their ground. Australia certainly did, boosting our economic and strategic resilience through various initiatives, including AUKUS, and encouraging many more nations to do likewise. I will be forever grateful for the resolve of the Australian people in supporting our strong stand, especially those agricultural and resources producers who were targeted by Beijing's illegal trade sanctions. I welcome the fact that Australia and the PRC are talking once again. This is always important. However, I note Beijing has not walked back any of their stated grievances with Australia, which included our commitment to freedom of speech and the sovereign right to make and enforce laws about foreign investment and national security. And while their removal of some illegal trade sanctions is welcome, this is something that should be expected, not commended, and certainly not haggled for. To do so, demeans the sacrifice Australians have made to stand up for our own freedom and sovereignty.

Most relevant to Taiwan, China's economic rise has been deliberately used to establish a capability to forcibly bring Taiwan under Beijing's control. This capability will soon be achieved, potentially within the next few years, with a target date set by President Xi for 2027. Whether the PRC chooses to exercise this capability or not is another matter. This is the subject of a more extensive calculus, which we must work constantly to ensure can never add up. This is achievable. As the Ukraine experience demonstrates, but also Iraq and Afghanistan, wars can be started, but they cannot be easily concluded, nor their purposes durably accomplished. Our goal should be to achieve this without a single shot needing to be fired.

The combination of the increasing assertiveness and authoritarianism of the Communist Regime in China, especially under President Xi, and the incessant threatening of Taiwan, combined with the success of Taiwan's democratisation and market based economy, places great pressure on One China policy settings in the west, which were established to protect a status quo. From the west's perspective, this status quo is anchored in preventing conflict, ensuring respect for the autonomy of the people of Taiwan and the maintenance of a strategic balance within the Indo Pacific region that favours peace, stability and prosperity. I would go further to say, a strategic balance that favours a free and open Indo-Pacific. Any violation and/or subjugation of Taiwan would obliterate this balance. This status quo is worth protecting. Our challenge is how we now protect this balance in a vastly altered geo-political environment to the one in which our One China policy settings were first established fifty years ago.

This requires a critical appraisal of our diplomatic, economic and security policy settings, within the context of preserving the status quo, regarding Taiwan, to acknowledge, absorb and make policy space for the changes that have taken place over that time.

This appraisal should challenge the justice of denying the people of Taiwan, who have expressed a clear preference for freedom through the success of their representative democracy, greater certainty over their autonomy and the opportunity to participate more fully in global and regional affairs, where they have so much to offer. This means positively broadening the scope and nature of our unofficial relations with Taiwan, both bilaterally and multilaterally in non political, humanitarian, scientific and trade arenas, within a modernised One China framework.

Admission of Taiwan into the CP-TPP, Interpol, ICAO the WHO and other UN forums, would be a great start, and overdue. Other options include adjunct non member engagement in economic, environmental, technological, and humanitarian dialogues with multilateral fora, including the Quad. Under such One China policy settings, Taiwan's practical autonomy could be enhanced, without crossing the threshold of national statehood.

Failure to modernise our One China policy settings will render them a true diplomatic fiction in this new environment, and incapable of providing any effective deterrent to conflict or to safeguard autonomy for the people of Taiwan, which is what they are supposed to achieve. Better to make these settings relevant to the reality of today's environment than abolish them as an outdated diplomatic relic. This would also not be advisable for the maintenance of peace, prosperity and stability in the Indo-Pacific.

We also need to be clear eyed and insistent about our objectives. We should not lower the bar. Our One China policy settings require competing claims over Taiwan's sovereignty to be resolved peacefully. No self respecting representative democracy could ever credibly reconcile this objective with an outcome obtained by a 'resistance is futile' approach that seeks to exhaust Taiwan's political will and/or international diplomatic resolve and is fueled by a manufactured spectre of inevitability. Such an approach needs to be called out. Such a coercive approach could never be considered peaceful. Peace is not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of freedom.

Some claim the door should be left open to such an outcome in the name of self determination for Taiwan, however, the notion that the free people of today's Taiwan would ever willingly put themselves under the rule of an authoritarian communist regime is simply not credible.

Some will also argue that updating our understanding of the status quo regarding Taiwan and our One China policy settings risks provoking the PRC and injuring the fragile stability that has been achieved over the past fifty years. Perhaps. But such criticism confesses to the PRC being an aggressor that needs to be appeased through One China policy settings, rather than actively deterred. I am in the deterrence camp.

And for those who think deterrent is a provocation, this view indulges the fantasy that China plays by the same rules and share a similar perspective. They do not. It was not active deterrence by the west that forced the PRC to turn island atolls into airports and harass their neighbours in the South China Sea and ignore the findings of UNCLOS tribunal on their territorial incursions, it was their nationalistic ambition. The passive response of the Obama's administration's to PRC incursions in the South China Sea, only encouraged the PRC to go further. These airports are now effectively stationary air-craft carriers and military installations, which is completely contrary to the assurances given at the time of their construction by the PRC. The PRC's further attempts to now lock the rest of the world out of the South China Sea, is a further example that the PRC will continue to push the boundaries until someone is prepared to say no. I was pleased my Government was prepared to say no.

Acts of aggression by the PRC towards Taiwan, not limited to physical conflict, but including acts of intimidation and coercion, could credibly be argued to have already released the US from their adherence to their One China policy, under the US Taiwan Relations Act. The US and its allies, including Australia, have wisely kept these controls in place. A recent Council on Foreign Relations Independent Taskforce report on US-Taiwan relations^2 wisely recommended, it is better to 'avoid symbolic and diplomatic gestures that provoke a Chinese response but', and this is the important bit, 'do not meaningfully improve Taiwan's defensive capabilities, resilience or economic competitiveness'. That is where our focus must be. The same report also concluded that 'abandoning a long time partner and vibrant democracy of twenty three million people located at a critical position in the world's most economically important region .. would be an act of strategic malpractice and moral bankruptcy'. I agree.

The PRC's enhanced assertiveness and aggressive capability in the region has fundamentally changed the environment in which all of these issues now have to be understood. To deny this new reality, or to prefer to imagine it away in the vain hope we can all go back to how we thought things were before President Xi, when Deng pursued a Thatcher-Reagan type economic vision - is fanciful and dangerous. It also assumes, as Pottinger and Kanapathy rejected in their dissenting report on the recent Council on Foreign Relations Task force report, that Beijing can and is seeking to be reassured. They are not. As always, they are testing resolve and likely responses, to assist their assessment of the Straits calculus.

For the past thirty years and, arguably, back to Nixon's historic visit to China, and that of Prime Minister Whitlam, the west has opened up to China, providing the capital, technology, international market access, finance, diplomatic engagement and political recognition that has enabled China's economic miracle. During the past thirty years China's economy has grown by a factor of fifty. This compares to a factor of ten in India and five in Australia, and we all started in roughly the same place. Most in the west believed that engaging the PRC in this way would lead to a softening of the Communist regime's authoritarian tendencies, reinforcement of the rules based international order and greater freedoms for the people of the PRC - like those experienced today in Taiwan. This has not been the experience. In fact, the PRC saw such goals as a direct threat.

Michael Beckley observed in this month's Foreign Affairs that, despite President George H W Bush moving quickly to thaw relations with China following the Tiananmen massacre of 1989, Deng considered the US was, quote, 'waging a world war without gun smoke'. After President Clinton granted China most favoured nation status, Jiang Zemin reportedly warned his foreign policy officials that this 'so called engagement policy', was just another way to 'try with ulterior motives to change the country's socialist system', to 'westernise and divide our country' and 'put pressure on us to in an attempt to overwhelm us and put us down'. Xi sees the assertive bipartisan stance of the Trump and Biden administrations towards China in the same terms.

The PRC has never fallen for the West's engagement as being anything other than an attempt to see change, but Beijing is not for changing. This must surely be clear to us by now. This requires dealing with the situation in the Indo-Pacific as it is, not as we would prefer it to be. There are deeply irreconcilable issues between the PRC and western democracies, including Australia. This must now be taken as a given, and cause us to adjust our approach accordingly, and define a pathway for engagement that more clearly recognises the guardrails and boundaries.

These events must lead like minded nations, whether it is those who are particularly motivated to protect liberty and democracy like Australia and Japan, or many in ASEAN who simply want a more stable region where their own sovereignty is protected, to take greater precautions to protect against PRC assertions in the Indo-Pacific, for which Taiwan should serve as the canary in the mine. Such a deterrent should not be confined to the military sphere, but also building economic and diplomatic resilience to coercion, through offensive and defensive measures. Strengthening Taiwan's resilience - diplomatically, intentionally, economically and militarily - is becoming increasingly urgent. This includes not only to ward off an invasion, but to survive a blockade. Such urgency must also be demonstrated by Taiwan itself. Measures must be put in place to enhance the resilience of both Taiwan and the region to increasing coercion and intimidation, and deny the calculus of aggression and, worse, invasion.

We must continue our resolve to preserve the status quo in Taiwan. This is important both to prevent conflict and to safeguard the freedom of the people of Taiwan, but also to keep alive and on display the better model of a free society here in Taiwan.

Much has changed in the past fifty years. For those Chinese fortunate enough to have spent those years here in Taiwan, they now experience a freedom and prosperity previously unknown to them and their forbears, and which you are right to celebrate and value. For those Chinese who have lived under communism and authoritarianism during this time, where political, religious and economic freedom are absent, their experience has been less fortunate.

I hope and pray that one day, they will know the liberty that we, who are able to share in it, must never take for granted.^3

---

1. Huang, Yasheng, 2023, ‘China’s Economic Slowdown Was Inevitable’, Foreign Affairs, September 25, 2023. https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2023/09/25/chinas-economic-turmoil-was-inevitable/content.html

2. Gordon, S.M. Mullen M.G, 2023, ‘US Taiwan Relations in a New Era’, Independent Taskforce Report 81, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 2023

3. Beckley, Michael, 2023, ‘Delusions of Detente, Why America and China will be enduring rivals’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2023. https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2023/08/22/delusions-of-detente/content.html

Speech to Parliament on the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme

31 July 2023
Canberra, Australia

---

(Mr MORRISON (Cook) (16:10): The recent report of the Holmes royal commission highlights the many unintended consequences of the robodebt scheme and the regrettable impact the operations of the scheme had on individuals and their families, and I once again acknowledge and express my deep regret for the impacts of these unintended consequences on these individuals and their families. I do, however, completely reject the commission's adverse findings in the published report regarding my own role as Minister for Social Services between December 2014 and September 2015 as disproportionate, wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear evidence presented to the commission. As Minister for Social Services I played no role and had no responsibility in the operation or administration of the robodebt scheme. The scheme had not commenced operations when I served in the portfolio, let alone in December 2016 and January 2017, when the commission reported the unintended impacts of the scheme first became apparent. This was more than 12 months after I had left the portfolio.

Media reporting and commentary following the release of the commission's report, especially by government ministers, have falsely and disproportionately assigned an overwhelming responsibility for the conduct and operations of the robodebt scheme to my role as Minister for Social Services. This was simply not the case. In that context I particularly note the commission made no adverse findings in their published report in relation to my subsequent roles as Treasurer and Prime Minister, where I closed the scheme down during the operational phases of the scheme when the issues and unintended consequences first arose. Specifically I reject commission's findings regarding allowing cabinet to be misled, at page 106; providing untrue evidence to the commission, at page 102; and pressuring departmental officials, at page 107.

My obligation was to discharge my duties as a minister under section 64 of the Constitution. To this end a rigorous cabinet process was followed and satisfied for this measure, and as the Minister for Social Services I was constitutionally and legally entitled to assume the officers of the department had complied with their obligations under the Public Service Act to advise their respective ministers. As a result my obligations were fully and properly discharged. The contention by the commission that ministers should not be able to rely on the advice of their department and should therefore be required to relitigate the details of every submission their department prepares for their submission to cabinet not only is wrong but would make executive government unworkable, especially on technical matters that require legal and subject matter expertise. That is the point of having a department.

During the development phase of the robodebt scheme initiated by the Department of Human Services prior to my arrival as minister and then proposed to me in an executive minute I had instructed my department and the Department of Human Services to work together to resolve any outstanding issues identified in the brief, including outstanding legal issues, before finalising and bringing it forward as a new policy proposal for consideration by cabinet in the department's forthcoming portfolio budget submission. The final proposal contained in the NPP developed by the department provided clear and explicit advice from the department that legislation was not required to implement the scheme and the scheme was therefore lawful, conveyed in the due diligence checklist completed and authorised by the secretary of the Department of Social Services in accordance with their responsibilities under the Public Service Act. Such advice superseded all prior advice, including the earlier executive minute upon which the commission relied. The commission failed to understand the significance of this government process.

The Department of Social Services continued to maintain the scheme was lawful and did not require any legislation until the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice in 2019, five years after the cabinet submission was first considered. This was evidenced in three subsequent tranches of submissions to cabinet by subsequent ministers in relation to the scheme following my departure from the portfolio and the department's interaction with the Ombudsman's inquiry into the scheme in 2017. In a submission to cabinet in May 2020 the department advised cabinet that at no time prior to the provision of the Solicitor-General's advice to ministers had the department advised any ministers responsible for the scheme that the scheme was unlawful. Also, at no time did the department advise me as minister of the existence of formal internal legal advice prepared prior to my arrival in the portfolio regarding the scheme. I only became aware of the existence of this advice during the discovery phase of preparing my submission to the commission in 2022.

During the sworn evidence to the commission, the former deputy secretary of the Department of Social Services informed the commission that the existence and content of that information had been withheld from me as minister. As minister I had no reason to doubt the integrity, professionalism, subject knowledge, experience and legal expertise of the department secretaries and other senior officials who were involved in preparing the new policy proposal and the completion of the due-diligence checklist required under the cabinet process. I also note that the new policy proposal was one of 51 such separate new policy proposals in that portfolio budget submission and that in more than 30 of these cases the department had indicated the need for some type of legislation, including changes to the Social Services Act and other acts under the administration of the department. Given that the department had clearly indicated when legislation was required in relation to other new policy proposals in the portfolio budget submission, it is entirely reasonable for me to have formed the view that where they had explicitly noted that legislation was not required, including the robodebt scheme, this had been thoroughly interrogated by the department and earlier issues had been properly resolved as I had requested.

The commission's suggestion that it is reasonable that I would have or should have formed a contrary view to this at the time is not credible or reasonable. Such views were not being expressed by senior and experienced officials. In fact, they were advising the opposite. Such views were also not being expressed by others at the time who later became critical of the scheme. Following the announcement of the scheme in the budget, the opposition did not raise or express any concerns regarding the lawfulness of the scheme in 2015 and would later commit to continuing the scheme at both the 2016 and 2019 general elections, as evidenced in the detailed policy costings they submitted prior to both elections when the now Minister for Government Services was Leader of the Opposition. For the government to now condemn me for holding a view that they shared and sustained for more than three years after I left the portfolio is rank hypocrisy. Similarly, concerns were also not expressed at that time by social service advocates such as ACOSS. The commission's finding unfairly and retroactively applies a consensus on the understanding of the lawful status of the scheme that simply was not present or communicated at the time. This is clearly an unreasonable, untenable and false basis on which to make the serious allegation of allowing cabinet to be misled.

In relation to the commission's finding regarding untrue evidence, I also reject this as unsubstantiated, speculative, and wrong. In making their finding the commission has sought to reverse the onus of proof to establish their claim. I had stated in evidence what I understood to be true. The commission failed to disprove this and simply asserted it unilaterally as fact. In my evidence I stated that to my knowledge the use of income averaging to raise debts was an established practice of the Department of Human Services. This was a truthful statement on my part and was not a controversial position at the time. I was therefore not surprised when the department had included, in the final draft of the new policy proposal for submission to cabinet, the text 'There would be no change to the way PAYG income is assessed and debts calculated for income support purposes.' I accepted this as a true statement by the department and relied upon it.

In evidence supplied to the commission, I noted that the April 2017 report of the Ombudsman's inquiry contained the observation that 'the DHS has always had the process for averaging ATO data to calculate debts'. I also noted the sworn evidence provided by the former DHS secretary Mr Jackson, who noted his interactions with DHS colleagues, including 'Ms Golightly, Ms Harfield, Craig Storen and others who were principally involved in the program', that in relation to income averaging they said: 'This is how we've have done it always. It's been done this way for 30 years.' There was therefore a reasonable likelihood that such views would have been conveyed to me at the time.

I also noted in evidence departmental statistics on the sole use of income averaging to raise debts under Labor ministers Plibersek and Bowen and form and actual letters used by the department going back as far as 1994 that highlighted this practice. The evidence I provided to the commission was entirely truthful.

Finally, the commission's allegation that pressure was applied to department officials that prevented their giving frank advice is wrong, unsubstantiated and absurd. The uncontested fact that senior department executives withheld key information regarding the legality of the scheme from their ministers is inexcusable. As the commission itself notes, the department had already initiated the proposal before my arrival as minister. How could I have pressured officials into developing such proposals while serving in another portfolio? This highlights the absurdity of the commission's finding. The department had already taken the initiative and were the proponents of the scheme.

Also, the commission's suggestion that an orthodox policy setting of seeking to ensure integrity in welfare payments would be seen as intimidating to the department and its senior executive is both surprising and concerning. That is their job.

It was also the department who, of their own volition, advised ministers that more than $1.2 billion in preventable overpayments were being made each year. I was responding to departmental advice that highlighted significant integrity issues within the payment system. A minister would be derelict if they did not seek to act on such advice and consider proposals from the department, which I did.

The failure to advise ministers can also not be credibly blamed on the standard request to all departments, as the commissioner sought to do, before budget rounds to identify savings. The suggestion that senior department executives with decades of experience in the public sector were unable to exercise their obligations because they felt pressured by such a standard request is an insult to their competency and professionalism which I do not accept. As I noted in my evidence to the commission, had this information—that is, the internal legal advice—been shared with me when I was minister, it is highly unlikely this scheme would ever have been advanced.

Throughout my service in numerous portfolios over almost nine years I enjoyed positive, respectful and professional relationships with Public Service officials at all times, and there is no evidence before the commission to the contrary. While acknowledging the regrettable—again, the regrettable—unintended consequences and impacts of the scheme on individuals and families, I do however completely reject each of the adverse findings against me in the commission's report as unfounded and wrong.

The latest attacks on my character by the government in relation to this report is just a further attempt by the government following my departure from office to discredit me and my service to our country during one of the most difficult periods our country has faced since the Second World War. This campaign of political lynching has once again included the weaponisation of a quasi-legal process to launder the government's political vindictiveness. They need to move on. I say to the government: instead of trying to distract attention from their own failings by relentlessly pursuing these transparently partisan campaigns against me that they get on with the job they promised to do and are failing to do. At the last election, Labor claimed they could do a better job, yet Australians are now worse off, paying more for everything and earning less—the exact opposite of what Labor proposed. For my part, I will continue to defend my service and our government's record with dignity and an appreciation of the strong support I continue to receive from my colleagues, from so many Australians since the election and especially in my local electorate of Cook, of which I am pleased to continue to serve.

---

Access Hansard record here.

Address, Oxford Union Society

“A Free World Worth Keeping”

15 June 2023
Oxford, United Kingdom

---

In an age of digital echo chambers and cancel culture, the Oxford Union stands apart, refreshingly upholding freedom of speech and the contest of ideas. I was therefore pleased to receive your kind invitation to address you, as so many of my antipodean Prime Ministerial predecessors have done before me. It is an honour for which I'm grateful.

This evening I want to discuss our global rules based order that favours freedom, why it matters, how it is being threatened and what we must do to keep it.

Russia's invasion and war against Ukraine is a crime, not only against the people and legitimate government of Ukraine, but against our global rules based order that favours freedom. The signals sent by the free world's collective response to Russia's invasion will have a significant impact on the calculus of other autocracies that aspire to challenge their status quo.

As Prime Minister of Australia at the time of Russia's invasion, I ensured our response was swift, significant, meaningful and instinctive. It must remain so, as must our embassy be reopened in Kyiv as soon as possible. It is true that Ukraine is a long way from the Indo-Pacific and the shores of Australia, but we are not so naive to think our geography will shield us from the far reaching impacts, should Ukraine fall.

If Russia withdraws, the war is over. If Ukraine falls, then not only is Ukraine over, but autocracy has gained a further foothold in its bid to change the rules of our global order, in their favour. Russia is not alone in this objective.

That is why it is essential we all continue to stand with Ukraine. I therefore want to especially commend the UK Government today who have been a mainstay of the free world's response.

Two years ago, as Prime Minister of Australia, I accepted Prime Minister Johnson's invitation to participate in the G7+ dialogue at Carbis Bay. It was my third such invitation to attend the G7. The G7 remains an important grouping of the world's leading democracies with market based capitalist economies.

For several years prior to this meeting Australia took a series of decisions to stare down the coercion of the Chinese Government. In response, the Chinese Government doubled down, cutting off diplomatic engagement, applying illegal trade sanctions and engaging in a concerted public and diplomatic campaign to denounce and undermine Australia. In November 2020, the Chinese Government's embassy in Canberra released a list of 14 points, summarising their grievances with Australia.

They included denying foreign investment in critical assets and infrastructure under our foreign investment laws, preventing Huwai and ZTE from involvement in our 5G network (Australia was the first country to do this), establishing laws to protect against foreign interference in Australia's domestic politics and institutions, enforcing our espionage laws against Chinese nationals, calling out state sponsored cyber attacks, making statements critical of China's actions in the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan, supporting freedom of speech in our parliament, think tanks and media and calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.

We resisted. Beijing calculated we would succumb, trading our sovereignty and breaking with our allies, in return for continuing our economic and diplomatic relations with China. They failed. Had Australia relented, the Chinese Government would have had a successful game plan to split the west and their like-minded partners in the region. We called it out and weathered the blows that then came our way for standing up for our sovereignty.

At Carbis Bay I put it to the leaders assembled that Australia lived on the front line of the grey zone conflict in the Indo-Pacific, where the plates of freedom and autocracy were colliding. I paraphrased Benjamin Franklin, saying we had a global rules based order that favours freedom, if we can keep it.

I distributed to each of the leaders the 14 Points from the Chinese embassy and asked them which of these would they be prepared to concede or compromise. I argued that like minded countries that favoured freedom and their own sovereignty had to further reinforce their ties and boost their resilience against the growing assertiveness of autocracies.

I said this resilience required increasing defence and security cooperation; reinforcing and protecting trade, supply chain and financial linkages; coordinating diplomatic efforts to protect the integrity of global institutions and demonstrating domestically the effectiveness of liberal democracy and market based economies in action.

These were not just words from Australia. We had already stood our ground and worked closely with India, Japan and the US to establish the Quad Leaders dialogue. I was a founding member. We were advancing bilateral defence, security and economic partnerships with our Indo-Pacific neighbours, including Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, India and South Korea. Ours would be the first Government of any nation to achieve a comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN, the Association of South East Asian Nations. We had also significantly lifted our investment and engagement in the South West Pacific.

All of this was positive, however, our actions were not confined to the diplomatic sphere. We required a transformational lift in our own defence posture and capability.

Our Government restored defence spending as a share of our economy to over 2%. We embarked on an ambitious programme to expand and deepen our defence capability, particularly in the maritime domain. This included, in 2016, the decision to build 12 new conventionally powered attack class submarines. As Prime Minister it became clear to me, in late 2019, that these assets would likely become obsolete before they even got wet, such was the pace of Chinese militarisation, the development of their anti-submarine war fighting capabilities and the deterioration of the strategic environment in the South China Sea.

Australia needed the nuclear powered option. While this would mean ultimately cancelling our contract with Naval Group and disappointing France, our national security interests demanded it. That is why they call them hard decisions. Over the next eighteen months we worked with the United States and the United Kingdom to convince both that we could take on building and operating nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines.

This led to AUKUS, bringing together the US, UK and Australia, in the most significant defence agreement Australia had secured since our formal alliance with the US through ANZUS more than seventy years before.

At Carbis Bay in late June 2021, Prime Minister Johnson, President Biden and I met quietly to pull together the arrangement. AUKUS was then finalised and announced in September. This was the first time the US had agreed to share their nuclear submarine technology since 1958, with the UK. A second pillar of AUKUS was established to focus on the trilateral development of frontier defence technologies in areas such as quantum and AI, and to integrate our defence industrial bases to support them.

In a demonstration of the bipartisanship so essential for the success of AUKUS in each jurisdiction, in March this year the new Labor Government in Australia followed through on our AUKUS initiative, announcing with the US and UK the outcomes of the 18 month optimal pathway project for nuclear powered submarines we had initiated in Government.

The AUKUS agreement and the Quad leaders dialogue have been the most significant checks to China's assertiveness in decades. This followed a period where the west had wrongly believed that China's economic success would lead them to embrace freedom, liberal democracy and a market based economy.

As a consequence, we watched the Chinese Government turn disputed island atolls in the South China Sea into stationary aircraft carriers, build a substantial nuclear arsenal, establish a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and a soon to be commissioned second aircraft carrier. China has spread their financial net, signing up almost 70 nations worldwide to their Global Development Initiative, they have dominated critical supply chains for new energy technologies, especially in critical minerals processing, and steadfastly expanding their portfolio of global institutional bodies they chair or influence, especially standard setting bodies, through the United Nations.

In 2022, the Chinese Government launched their China Global security initiative, which effectively argues for hegemonic franchises. This would grant large powers, such as China and Russia, a veto over security arrangements in their regional neighbourhoods.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that the Chinese Government is not interested in maintaining their status quo. The Chinese Government seeks to exert itself not just in the Indo-Pacific region, but well beyond, especially in the developing world.

The Chinese Government seeks to alter the world order into one that better favours their interests, one that favours power over freedom. These aspirations are shared with like minded autocracies, such as Russia, Iran and North Korea who together with China, as Prime Minister, I referred to as the arc of autocracy. While these countries may have a history of antipathy towards each other, on this issue their interests are aligned.

We must not underestimate the appeal that China's alternative presents to leaders and Governments in the non liberal world. The alternative being offered by the Chinese Government is a transactional one, devoid of common values, where finance, economic and security guarantees come without transparency or accountability, but for which there is a clear quid pro quo.

This constitutes a real threat to the global rules based order that favours freedom as we know it. This threat must be taken seriously and addressed.

Henry Kissinger recently argued in his 100th birthday interview with The Economist in May that preventing the catastrophe of a global conflict required preventing aggressors from imposing their will early enough, so that they could not achieve military dominance. He argued that deterrent and detente had been greatly underrated in their effectiveness to avoid war and sustain peace, noting it had prevented nuclear war for seventy five years.

Failure to provide a clear and credible deterrent can become an invitation for conflict. This was the tragedy of the 1930s, which Churchill warned against. We cannot repeat that mistake. It will require the biggest shift in investment and cooperation of like minded countries since the second world war.

The good news is that this has begun. AUKUS and the Quad Leader's Dialogue are prime examples. There are many others, but there is much more to do.

Reunification of Taiwan is on China's critical path to assert itself beyond the second island chain and establish hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. This is the most likely flash point for conflict. I have no doubt that China does not wish to invade Taiwan, but it will do so if a) it becomes necessary due to the inability to achieve this goal by other means and b) the military calculus adds up.

There is time to prevent conflict. A successful invasion of Taiwan is beyond the PLA's abilities at this point. This assessment will only have been reinforced by Russia's experience in Ukraine, but time could be on their side. The calculus against an invasion will be directly assisted by a determined and coordinated effort to further enhance and maintain our credible military deterrent. In Australia I believe this will require a further lift in our defence investment to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, at the latest.

However, Beijing's calculus on Taiwan will not just be determined by relative assessments of military capabilities and posture. It will be determined by Beijing's assessment of what the response of nations might actually be. It will be determined by their perceived assessment of the west's resolve. While forced reunification of Taiwan may be rejected as a matter of policy by western and other like minded powers, passive acquiescence could deliver China the same result. If Taiwan is judged as too far away to risk transactional interests with China, there is great danger here.

The Chinese Government is counting on such a calculus, including from Europe and even the UK. A new Acheson style line that excludes the Indo-Pacific from Europe's sphere of interest would be welcome news in Beijing. Thankfully, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell's statement in April was a welcome reassurance about Europe's position, as was the statement by the UK's own Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, last month, reinforcing the UKs cooperate, challenge and compete strategy towards China.

One further factor that will be central to how autocracies assess the free world's resolve is the question of our conviction and belief. If we are to prevail, the West needs more true believers, and I'm not talking about religion, although I do think that helps.

Henry Kissinger observed in his discussion with the Economist that "no society can remain great if it loses faith in itself or if it systematically impugns its self-perception."

In his book, America in the World, Bob Zoellick summarised how Ronald Reagan set about addressing the existential challenges the US and the world faced in the early 1980s. The world was on the brink. The US was, once again, being written off as a once great power in terminal decline. A global energy crisis was wreaking havoc on the global economy. The Cold War threatened nuclear armageddon.

Reagan's response was to reclaim America's advantage. This meant rebuilding America's economic and military strength. But it also meant re-energising America's confidence in their own exceptionalism.

In Reagan's mind, there could be no settling for less with the Soviet Union. Reagan understood that peace and freedom were a package deal that could not be compromised.

Zoellick recounts how in Westminster, at the invitation of Prime Minister Thatcher, President Reagan laid out his moral manifesto for winning the Cold War, warning that state dictatorship, armed with the most dangerous weapons, threatened human freedom, internally and externally. While acknowledging that Soviet Russia did not desire war, he did note that it desired 'the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of [Soviet] power and doctrines'. It all sounds familiar. Reagan said the mission of the west was 'to preserve freedom as well as peace'.

Reagan chose to believe in America and it's foundational values when others were giving up and surrendering their faith. Zoellick reminds us that in Reagan's Westminster speech he praised Great Britain's 'great civilised ideas: individual liberty, representative government and the rule of law under God'. Reagan was a true believer.

Zoellick shows us how Reagan acted to directly delegitimize Soviet Communism as a system and rejected the idea that superpowers were morally equivalent, equally at fault. Reagan was unrelenting in his approach with Gorbachev, and he prevailed.

What was built by our post second world war architects was not a series of transactional and bureaucratic rules cast in a moral vacuum. Rather it was a new and aspirational architecture where power is constrained and even sacrificed for peace, freedom, reason and respect for human dignity. Some suggest these values are universal. I don't fully agree. While the application, desirability and utility of these values are certainly universal, their origin is not. The values that underpin and preserve our global rules based order that favours freedom were derived from the western powers that raised a new world from the ashes of WWII.

My concern is that we have entered an age of self loathing and western guilt. The post war global order produced the greatest lift in public health, human living standards and technological advancement in human history. This is not to deny our faults or the many egregious injustices they produced. But it is possible to acknowledge our faults without condemning our society.

In our enthusiasm to disown our transgressions we are failing to also appreciate the reasons for our success. We are surrendering our optimism, frightening our children and forfeiting confidence in our western model of freedom, representative democracy and a market based entrepreneurial economy to overcome the many challenges we face, including climate change.

The enemies of freedom welcome such an appetite for self loathing with open arms.

We must assess our past with humility and grace. When we rightly denounce abhorrent practices of the past, let us also be careful how we judge those now in their graves.

It is highly arrogant to think our generation would have easily translated our present-day morality to earlier times had we been there. Our current generation is the beneficiary of centuries of Judeo-Christian moral influence that has thankfully fine-tuned our society's sensibilities. We like to pretend this modern morality is self-evident, intrinsic to our humanity. This is nonsense. Human history tells a very different story. Our society has become better, we are the moral beneficiaries of this improvement, an advantage our forebears did not have.

Take slavery for example. Slavery and it's industrialisation was most certainly an abhorrent western practice, but it was not unique to western society, nor did we invent it. Slavery is a human invention as old as human history itself. What is remarkable is not that slavery was practised in the west, but that the west recognised it was morally repugnant and abolished it right here in the mother of all Parliaments, at Westminster. That's what the west does.

Western society is fundamentally reformist, guided by our core values. This is a virtue. Western society does not pretend to perfection, but nor is it static. We are just not perfect yet. However, we also recognise in humility that the finish line for perfection will always recede, nonetheless we press on.

Our Western society's reformist nature can be traced to our Judeo-Christian values of repentance, grace and redemption. The realisation that slavery was an evil did not come from enlightened secular humanism, but the transformative impact of the Christian faith on a group of societal reformers known as the Clapham Sect here in the UK, most notably William Wilberforce. Their wild evangelical activism impacted British society and western society in numerous other areas, including reforms to child labour laws, public education, healthcare, prison reform, support for the unemployed and even protection against cruelty to animals, to name just a few.

The Late Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks credits such Judeo-Christian influences as the foundation of western morality and liberty, by acknowledging the dignity of every human being as being created in God's likeness. Judeo-Christianity strives for an objective truth and standard beyond self, tribe, nation or even culture. Sacks argued in his final published work:

"Remove the moral matrix of civil society and eventually you get the death of freedom .. this is the wrong road to take."

For this reason, Sacks warned against the trend to moral relativism increasingly evident in western society, as a likely source of its undoing.

Our global rules based order that favours freedom is a modern miracle that bucks the trend of human history. Peace, security and respect for human dignity is not our natural state as human beings. We must work together to hold it and sustain it.

Our ambition must not simply be to live in a world without fighting, but to live in a world that is worth fighting for, to protect and defend it.

President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher knew that the west was right and was prepared to stand up for it and not compromise it. The west must put away the sackcloth and ashes, and get back to confidently championing the freedom, peace and stability that was gained through the sacrifice of a generation during WWII. By all means be candid about our failures, and reconcile with our past, but not at the expense of yielding advantage to those who would seize our liberty through our weakness or self doubt.

Let us be at least as diligent, courageous, moral, innovative and compassionate as those who gifted us a world based order that favours freedom, so that we may keep it, and pass it on in good repair.

---

Speech to Parliament on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

24 May 2023
Canberra, Australia

---

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:28): Later this year, we will be asked to vote in a referendum to make a significant, binding and permanent change to our Constitution. Everyone voting has the same say. No-one's view is more important than anyone else's. Celebrities and politicians just get one vote, like everybody else. It is important that our discussions are conducted in good faith and with mutual respect.

This referendum is not a decision for companies or unions or sporting codes or any other group. These groups have no standing under our Constitution, but, as Australians, you do. Such groups can represent whatever views they like. They're entitled to do that. It's a free country, and we celebrate that. However, while keenly interested in the NRL's opinion on hip-drop tackles and the six-again rule, I don't think I'll be referring to them for constitutional advice in making my decisions on this matter.

So I offer these few thoughts and observations as one Australian to another—one who has the privilege to make such contributions as a member of this place—recognising that my views may not fully accord with others in this place or elsewhere, but to make clear my views and the reasons for them, especially to my constituents of Cook. The government is seeking to establish a new, permanent constitutional body called the Voice, through which exclusive consultation rights will be granted to Indigenous Australians, not afforded to any other group of Australians. While not sharing the same powers, the new body will be established alongside other significant constitutional bodies—namely, our parliament, our executive government and our courts. Once established, the Voice cannot be removed by the parliament, as proved necessary when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission became dysfunctional and was rightly and successfully abolished by this parliament. As a constitutional body, the Voice will also have constitutional powers that have not been tested before and can never be constrained. This is a big deal. It constitutes a major change to our Constitution, with far-reaching implications, many of which are not yet known and, importantly, will not be known at the time Australians are asked to vote.

The government's proposal for a constitutional Voice is fundamentally different to the many successful remedial initiatives in the past that have sought to affirm recognition, rightly, of Indigenous Australians and address the many injustices and inequalities faced by Indigenous Australians. In 1967, the Holt Liberal government initiated an important and successful referendum to change our Constitution to honour the principles of Indigenous recognition and national unity. The Holt referendum gave long-overdue recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as citizens of our nation and ensured they were counted in our official census. Up until this time, they had been treated as lesser Australians under the Constitution. This was wrong, and it needed to be corrected. The successful referendum remediated a deficiency in our Constitution that was causing unequal treatment of fellow Australians. It was an important and necessary change that enjoyed widespread community and bipartisan support. The 1967 Holt Liberal Government referendum brought Australians together.

In 1992, the High Court handed down its famous Mabo decision on native title. This corrected the long-held historical application in Australia of the principle of terra nullius, which had denied native title rights to Indigenous Australians. In 1993, the Keating Labor government passed the Native Title Act to create a framework for the management of native title. This act was then amended by the Howard Liberal government in 1998 to address issues arising from the Wik decision of the High Court on these matters. These actions of the High Court and the parliament were remedial. They addressed defects in our understanding and the application of our laws and rectified the denial of rights to Indigenous people. It demonstrated the effectiveness of our existing Constitution at work.

In 2008, the Rudd Labor government initiated the national apology to Indigenous Australians and established the Closing the Gap program. I was pleased to stand in support of the apology in our national parliament as one of my very first acts as the member for Cook in this place. The apology recognised the injustices experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and subsequently committed tens of billions of dollars in programs, on a bipartisan basis, to address Indigenous disadvantage. I was pleased to serve in and, as Prime Minister, lead a government that honoured and built upon this work.

In March of 2020, as Prime Minister, I entered into the first ever Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap. For the first time, all Australian governments, federal, state and local, entered into a genuine partnership with the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations to work together to deliver essential services to Indigenous Australians on the ground to close the gap, with all of us taking responsibility. This was backed up by our implementation plan, which committed an additional $1 billion for specific new measures in Indigenous health, education, justice and employment. We also took practical action on reconciliation, committing $316.5 million to build the new Ngurra Cultural Precinct in the Parliamentary Triangle here in Canberra, which will include a national resting place to care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains. This will rectify a longstanding omission and represent an important addition and contribution to the physical and cultural institutions of our national capital.

We also delivered $378.6 million for the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme for survivors in the Northern Territory and the ACT, including the Jervis Bay territory. We also progressed our plans for a legislated voice to parliament, commissioning Professors Marcia Langton and Tom Calma to prepare a detailed report on the establishment of local, state and national voices.

In January 2021 as Prime Minister I initiated a simple but important change to our national anthem that recognised an important truth about our country. No longer would we sing about being young and free. Rather, as Australians we would now sing that we are one and free. This meant we understood and celebrated Australia as an ancient land that was home to the oldest living culture on our planet. Importantly, it also acknowledged that as Australians we were one and all equal under our Constitution.

All of these remedial actions were designed to address Indigenous disadvantage and amplify the voice of Indigenous Australians within our democracy while observing the important constitutional principle that no one group should ever have any greater rights than any other in our country. The government's proposed changes to our Constitution will change this, permanently creating different rights for one group of Australians over others based solely on race. That is the opposite of what has previously occurred, especially in relation to the 1967 referendum where our Constitution was changed to give Indigenous Australians the same rights as all other Australians. What is proposed here is not the same thing.

The impact of the Voice on the operations of executive government and the parliament are also not known, presenting significant and unknown risks that cannot be easily remedied, if at all. It is ill-defined, creating significant constitutional risk. Ultimately the High Court will be left to decipher the unknown and decide what this all means, long after Australians have cast their vote with no further say. This will inevitably lead to confusion and uncertainty over everything from our national defence to the operations of Centrelink, which all fall within the ambit of the Voice. There are no limits. Once our Constitution is permanently changed, the scope and role of the Voice will appropriately be open to interpretation by the High Court, who will then also be able to overrule both our elected parliament and our elected executive government in the future in relation to the role and conduct of the Voice.

The Leader of the Opposition has noted that the government has refused to define these issues or follow the past practice of convening a constitutional convention to ensure that they are better understood and that any unintentional consequences can be remedied before Australians are asked to vote. The government also refuses to consider any changes to its proposal that would genuinely minimise these risks. This not only reflects a failure of process but imposes the government model on the Australian people rather than listening, responding and uniting all Australians.

Finally, there are two additional important points to note about the government's proposal. Firstly, it is not necessary to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution to deliver constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians that enjoys broad support. It is wrong to conflate the issues of the Voice with constitutional recognition and treat them as inseparable. They are entirely separable.

Furthermore, seeking to achieve constitutional recognition by the government's method creates numerous and needless risks. Constitutional recognition enjoys bipartisan support and can be achieved through minor amendments to our Constitution that do not compromise the efficient conduct of government and the parliament or needlessly divide Australians.

As Prime Minister I was supportive of constitutional recognition and wished to achieve this in a way that would bring Australians together. The Labor Party made it clear from the outset that it was the Voice or nothing, leaving no room for compromise. I chose not to divide the country over the issue, especially as it would have had no material impact on the welfare of Indigenous peoples, which was my principal concern and that of all Australians.

Secondly, there is no impediment to establishing a body such as the Voice under national legislation through our parliament. We do not need to change the Constitution to achieve this and therefore can avoid realising the risks that come with such a significant and permanent change to our Constitution. Such a process would enable any such body to be properly defined and road-tested through the parliament. This was my government's policy.

Our priority was to first see such bodies created at a local and regional level, to help provide direct input from local Indigenous communities into local and regional programs to close the gap and improve the lives of Indigenous people on the ground, where it mattered most. Once established, such local and regional bodies would also make the creation of a nationally legislated voice more possible and would be more truly representative of local Indigenous communities. Ours was not a top-down approach from Canberra.

This referendum is not a vote about whether Australians wish to support and do everything they can to recognise and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. We all agree on this, and we can all say yes to this, but that is not the question the government is proposing. It is true that governments of all political persuasions have failed Indigenous Australians over multiple generations. However, it is also true that much progress has been made based on a shared and deep commitment that transcends political boundaries. In my time in this parliament, there have been strong, positive bipartisan steps taken to try and solve extremely complex and often intractable problems. Indigenous Australians need the programs we invest in to be more effective, and we all remain committed to this goal.

Permanently changing the Constitution in the way the government proposes will, sadly, not change the desperate circumstances being experienced in so many Indigenous communities across Australia. I understand that that is the hope of the proposal, and hope is a good thing, but hope disappointed will be crushing to the soul, and such disappointment can be reasonably foreseen upon proceeding with the government's proposal. In my experience, we will make better progress on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians by focusing on what we can agree to get done on the ground, rather than gambling with our Constitution.

For these reasons, I consider that the government's proposal to permanently change the Constitution, while positively motivated, is poorly constructed. It presents serious and unnecessary risks both known and unknown to the operations of the executive government and our parliament, upon which all Australians depend. Such deficiencies cannot be overcome or mitigated by the good intentions and sentiment of their creation. It also fundamentally breaks one of our nation's most important principles: that as Australians we are all equal and none of us are any more Australian than any other. As Australians, we are one and free. I believe we need to keep it that way and therefore cannot support the government's proposal at this referendum. That said, I remain committed to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and to all Australians being treated equally under our Constitution, and I look forward to the day when such a proposal is brought forward in a way that unites rather than divides our country. That proposal will have my enthusiastic support.

---

Access Hansard record here.

Press Conference - Victoria Park, WA

17 March 2022

---

PRIME MINISTER: Well, good morning, everyone. It's tremendous to be here in Perth on such an absolutely gorgeous day. It's great to be here with Premier McGowan as well together, and particularly to welcome him back after part of his iso. I know plenty about that, having gone through it probably more than any other Prime Minister almost anywhere around the world. And we were just chatting about that.

But it's great to be here with our ministers as well. And Michaelia Cash as well, who's the most senior member of our Government here in Western Australia, and Ben Morton.

Why, what we're acknowledging here today is what I think has been a very practical, strong partnership to deliver for Western Australia. The Premier and I have both got significant responsibilities when it comes to delivering for the people of Western Australia. And it's always been our approach to just focus on the things that need to get done. And the City Deal, and together with the projects we're talking about here, with the bridge project here on the Swan River. These are projects that we're committed to, and we're so committed to them that when we hit challenges with these projects, and particularly when we're dealing with rising costs caused by the pandemic and other issues, then we stick to our commitments to deliver on these projects.

And today we're committing further funds as part of both the the City Deal and for the Swan River Bridge here today, to ensure that these projects get done and they get delivered. I mean, these are transformational projects. The City Deal with the Western Australian State Government is a, just a $1.7 billion deal between our governments to deliver and have transforming projects for the city of Perth. Perth is a world-class city, and what this does is further add to Perth as a world-class city, providing amenity, connecting different parts of the city in a really exciting way. The cultural precincts, the recognition of Indigenous culture, which is such an important part of the life of this city, and it's told, I think, so beautifully with the design of the Swan River Bridge.

So it's about delivering through effective partnerships, and whether it's been working together through COVID, whether it's been working together through many infrastructure projects, working to to ensure that particularly the resources industry here in Western Australia, which we both share a great passion for, gets the support it needs.

And I particularly want to thank the Premier for his work working together with us on trying to crash through a lot of the regulation reform that is necessary, and we've greatly appreciated that support from the West Australian Premier and the Western Australian Government. We both know that to get big investment in big projects you've got to clear away that regulation at both a state and federal level. And there's been no state government in the country where we've had a more productive partnership in trying to deal with the regulation that can stymie investment. And so we are complete fellow travellers when it comes to ensuring we have those projects, and whether it's out at Henderson, where we announced the $4.3 billion for investment in that project, which is going to transform the shipbuilding capability of Western Australia. And, indeed, the announcements we made yesterday about critical minerals. I mean, critical minerals here in the West and rare earths, that sits at the heart of our Critical Minerals and Rare Earths Strategy. And I know the Western Australian Government strongly supports those initiatives, and in the same way they're leading when it comes to the development of our resources sector here in Western Australia. So today is about our partnership. Our day is about celebrating a partnership that’s delivering for the people of Western Australia.

But one other thing we're both passionate about is jobs, and these projects deliver jobs. And we've just had the news this morning that the unemployment rate has fallen to four per cent nationally. There are around 325,000 more jobs now than they were before the pandemic. The unemployment rate at four per cent is the lowest rate that we've seen in almost 50 years. I was five years old when we last had an unemployment rate this low, and I think that says something, and we've got the women's unemployment rate down below four per cent. That's the lowest level since 1973, and the participation rate continues to be at record levels for women. We've got more people in work today of working age than at any other time of records for jobs in this country.

So we are creating jobs and one of the way we're doing that is the partnerships that we have with our state governments, delivering important infrastructure and delivering on the deals that we make. We honour our deals together, the Premier and I, and we're honouring this deal by following through, by giving it the resources that’s needed to get the job done. And I'll hand you over to the Premier. Great to see you, Mark.

THE HON. MARK MCGOWAN MLA, PREMIER OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Thanks very much, Prime Minister and welcome to, to Western Australia. Can I firstly say, great to see you all again. It's great to experience some vitamin D in my system, in my system once again. I haven't had vitamin D for a week or so. And, and as I said, welcome to the Prime Minister. I can't help but be, I can't help but feel partially responsible for his absence for the last two or three hundred, two or three hundred days.

Look, today's announcement is a Budget announcement by the State and Commonwealth Governments. This is about ensuring we can deliver the new Edith Cowan University campus in the city, which will bring WAAPA into the city. And we've got Steve Chapman here from ECU, and we've worked very cooperatively with ECU, the Commonwealth Government, the State Government to bring that amazing development into the heart of the city.

What that will mean is thousands of jobs in construction, around 7,500 jobs in construction and thousands of ongoing jobs, and then around 10,000 students in the heart of the city every day. So that'll be an amazing development for Perth. But it's obviously an expensive development. It’s around $850 million and with construction costs and those sorts of things, the price of steel is, you know, going up significantly. There has been an escalation in costs, which we are meeting here today in conjunction with the Commonwealth. So that's just a fact of life in the very, very strong labour market and very strong economy that we have here in Western Australia.

So the ECU WAAPA development in the heart of the city will be something in decades to come that will just provide new life, new opportunities for Western Australia, attract students from both here, interstate and around the world into the heart of the city.

The second thing is the bridge here, across the river from Victoria Park to the city. So, as you know, when you walk across the Causeway Bridge or you cycle across there, it's not the most pleasant of experiences. So what we're going to do is put in place a new bridge from here on Victoria Park to the city, for pedestrians and cyclists. It will be a beautiful looking structure, a beautiful structure, and it'll look significantly different to the Causeway Bridge, which is not, in my opinion, architecturally stunning, although I’ll probably now have a bunch of architects now say how dare I say that. But, in any event, I am not, I'm just, I think my tastes are very ordinary on these things. So, look, the new bridge will be stunning. It will mean pedestrians and cyclists can more easily get to the city in a safer way. It'll encourage walking and encourage cycling. It will remove traffic from our roads. It's just a amazing development.

But again, the costs of that have gone up, simply because of the heated labour and construction markets and the price of steel, which is obviously a double edged sword for Western Australia. Because the price of steel obviously means the price of iron ore is up, and we like the price of iron ore going up. But that has a knock on effect, which is the price of steel. So that will mean that this, we're injecting more money, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, as part of this Budget announcement into that important project.

The great thing about that project, it's going to be built here in Western Australia with West Australian workers, with Australian steel, right here in Henderson. It'll create many jobs and further develop our manufacturing capacity, which we put a lot of effort into. So this will be a great development for Western Australia, and we're very excited to release the plans today, and you'll see what it will look like in a couple of years from now.

So thank you very much. Thanks to the Prime Minister, thanks to the Commonwealth for their Budget commitment to these important projects. We’ve appreciated working well together on these projects. Thank you.

THE HON. PAUL FLETCHER MP, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE, CITIES AND THE ARTS: Well, as Commonwealth Urban Infrastructure and Cities Minister, I’m very pleased to be here with the Prime Minister, with the Premier, with other federal and state colleagues, including Michaelia Cash, and, of course, Rita Saffioti, the Minister for Transport and Planning here in WA, with whom I work very, very closely as Commonwealth Minister for Urban Infrastructure. I think this is my third occasion with Rita in the last three days. We were at the Stephenson Avenue extension, the Midland Station relocation.

These are all projects where the Commonwealth is working with the WA Government to deliver outcomes for the people of WA and the people of Perth. And certainly when it comes to the City Deal, that's very much what we are focused on. And as the Premier said, as it became obvious that what we needed to do was look at how we continue to support some of these projects. As the planning went on, the Commonwealth worked very closely with the State Government, with Edith Cowan University to identify the additional funding. That's why we're putting an additional $49 million for ECU, matched by the State, ECU themselves putting an additional $60 million. And, of course, on this extraordinary bridge, which is going to be such a fantastic active transport asset, bicycling and walking. It's going to increase the liveability and urban amenity of Perth, which is already an extraordinary, extraordinarily liveable city.

So, look, I'm delighted to be here and to be working closely with my counterpart, Minister Saffioti. The Commonwealth Government, the Morrison Government backing WA, backing Perth, to deliver the outcomes to make this great city even more liveable and well-known around Australia and around the world.

THE HON. RITA SAFFIOTI MLA, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT, PLANNING AND PORTS: Thank you. Can I thank the Prime Minister, Thank you, Prime Minister. Thank you Premier. And thank you, Minister Fletcher. It is a great announcement today, the new gateway into the city. This new pedestrian bridge will be an absolute icon for WA and it's being made here in WA. So the same builders of the Matagarup Bridge will be building this new pedestrian and cycling bridge. Civmec are the successful contractors who have, who will be awarded the contract. And, as you can see, it is absolutely brilliant.

We've been working with the Matagarup Elder Group in relation to the design to make sure that we recognise the Aboriginal history in this area, and will be very much a tribute or an honour to the Aboriginal people of this area, but also a new pedestrian and cycling bridge. It'll be higher than the existing causeway as well, and we know where, that's caused some issues in the past. So it’ll be a higher bridge. So currently, for example, the existing Causeway Bridge is about 2.8 metres above the water level on this side, and now it's going to be five metres, this new bridge. As I said, there's over 3,000 cyclists and pedestrian who, pedestrians who use the existing bridge every day. It is narrow and it is not getting safe because of the volume of use. So this will be very, very much catered to all those people who cycle, e-scooter, pedestrians, and making a new connection into the city. I think it's going to create more opportunities in the eastern end of the city as well. So it really is a brilliant, brilliant project. And as I said, from the same constructors, the same group that built the Matagarup Bridge will be building this bridge.

Of course, also, very pleased to work with the Federal Government, and again acknowledge their contribution to both this bridge and also the new campus into the city. The ECU campus will bring a lot of people into the city every day, whether it be students, whether it be people in on, on staff, and there'll be visitors as well. So it's going to bring thousands of people into the city. It’s going to really, really change the face of the city through that City Link project, well connected by rail and buses. And so it really is another great initiative, and we're very keen to see that project go forward. Again, working with another well-known Western Australian builder in making that happen. Any questions on the bridge? Oh sorry.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, thank you, and Mark’s going to join me for questions on this project. And of course, the minister's. Can I think Paul and Rita for the great way they’ve worked together in bringing this to fruition. Paul has been working with the, his ministerial counterparts all around the country, whether it's on the Darwin Deal or the Queensland Deal or the one here in Western Australia. But there really his has, I think, between Rita and Paul been a very productive working relationship.

So any questions on those matters. I'm sure you’ll want to ask me about other things and that's fine and we can do that, and happy to do that specifically. But let's just deal with the projects here first.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you talk about a 50-50 partnership on this project. Also on COVID. But you have previously accused WA of hiding in a cave. Mark McGowan's just out of isolation this morning. Was that an overreaction to the COVID threat, and do you still think WA has overreacted?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I was never referring to Western Australia on that, on that occasion.

JOURNALIST: You called them Croods.

PRIME MINISTER: No, I didn't, actually. I wasn't referring to Western Australia at all, at all. So I can only disagree with the presumption of your question.

JOURNALIST: Do you think WA has overreacted to the COVID threat?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't. I think Western Australia has has travelled its own path, and rightly, and the results speak for themselves. And as Mark knows, all throughout the discussions at National Cabinet, as recently as just the other week, Western Australia, because of its unique geography and its economy, has been able to travel a different path. And particularly as time went on from the initial phases of COVID, where there was very much a national view and similar measures being put in place all over the country, it became apparent that our states would have a different COVID experience. And as the Premier knows, I've been very supportive of the measures taken in Western Australia to go down that path. And I think that has been wise, and I think the results speak for themselves.

But, nationally, we've saved, we’ve saved 40,000 lives right across the country, and those lives were saved here in Western Australia as well. And now, as Western Australia is going through its peak of the Omicron variant, the challenge has been the same, minimise the impact on your hospital system, that's been achieved. Minimise the severe health impacts of COVID, that's being achieved, just as it has been achieved in other states and territories, who’ve had an even more severe experience of COVID. And, so as a country, we've come through together.

But it hasn't just been the saving of lives, it's been the strength of our economy. And what we've seen in today's unemployment figures is an exact proof of that. Unemployment is at four per cent. There are more people in work today and we've had greater employment growth in this country through the pandemic than any of the G7 countries, the most advanced economies in the world. And that is a testament to the way we have worked together as a team, around the National Cabinet table, to save lives and strengthen our economy.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you mentioned the unemployment figures. WA’s unemployment figure has actually gone up four points to 4.1 per cent today. So are you doing enough for jobs in WA? And what do you take from the fact that the Premier has done a public event with you today? He didn't do a public event with Anthony Albanese when he was in town. Does he think that you're going to win the election, rather than Anthony Albanese?

PRIME MINISTER: I don’t draw any of those conclusions whatsoever. What I draw from us being here today is on the many occasions we have been. We're meeting later today as we, as we often do when I'm in town to work through the usual issues as part of our partnership. I think you can simply say that we work together cooperatively in the public interest, in the national interest, and in the interest of Western Australians. We are both leaders of governments that have much to do, and for a long time now have worked out the best way to do that is to work together. And I mean, in Western Australia, I think we have a lot of commonality on the importance of having a strong economy, which supports everything else.

Just this week, $4.3 billion for the Henderson dry dock. It's a massive important commitment for the future of the Western Australian economy. More than $400 million directly coming into Western Australia in relation to the development of the critical minerals sector. And on top of that, probably the biggest partnership was working together to ensure that WA got their fair share of the GST. Now, that is something I know the Premier felt very strongly about and and it's something I feel very strongly about, Michaelia Cash, my entire Western Australian team. We took up the argument at a national interest level, and we just didn't talk about it here in Western Australia. You're not going to find anyone who disagrees with you in Western Australia, the GST deal was necessary for Western Australia. You had to be prepared to take on that argument and take on the case in the rest of the country. And I note even today that those in other states, other commentators are saying this isn't a fair deal. I disagree with them, and I know that because I constructed it, I delivered it, I legislated it. And what it means right now, as the Premier knows, is that it's $2.6 billion on average each year in additional GST for the next six years. That's $13 billion. And since we put the deal in place, it has meant $4.9 billion extra for the WA Budget. Now, that means more hospitals, it means more schools, it means health preparedness, it means all of those things. And on top of that, we put $14 billion directly in economic supports into the WA economy to support COVID. And just over $800 million to support the health response here. So that is a big investment in a big partnership, and a partnership which I think has been working well for the people of Western Australia.

JOURNALIST: Do you think our Premier's popularity over the past months damages your chances, though, here in Western Australia, come this election?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, one thing I know is after the next election, whoever you vote for, Premier McGowan’s still going to be the Premier. So this is about who's going to lead the country, and it's about federal Labor. It's not about state Labor. And there's quite a bit in common I've found working with the WA State Government when it comes to how we manage the economy, particularly on issues like deregulation and support for the resources industry and major projects, which we work well together on. And I think we've got, we’ve demonstrated that despite being from different political parties, that as professional leaders of governments, we get stuff done together for Western Australia.

JOURNALIST: What about the State Opposition? Why aren't you meeting with the State Opposition Leader? Have you spoken to her?

PRIME MINISTER: I did, I saw, yeah I have, I saw Dr Honey yesterday.

JOURNALIST: Dr Honey’s not the Opposition Leader.

PRIME MINISTER: Sorry?

JOURNALIST: Mia Davies is the State Opposition Leader.

PRIME MINISTER: I was just talking about the Liberal Leader. I meet with the Liberal Leader when I’m in, when I’m in town.

JOURNALIST: This project was actually first announced by Anthony Albanese in 2019. The Premier did not appear with Anthony Albanese when he was in Perth a couple of weeks ago, so you must be really chuffed that you're now appearing publicly alongside him, when he's so obviously snubbed the ALP Leader earlier this month?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I'm not sort of buying in, nor is Mark, I think, to any of that commentary. You can make your own commentary. What I'm telling you is as a Prime Minister and as a Premier, we work together and we do things. And we do these things, we do lots of things together, and we have done lots of things together, and that's been to the great benefit of the people of Western Australia. But one thing I have to particularly thank Mark for and, Mark has always been a keen supporter of the National Cabinet. And I remember Mark, I think you were one of the first premiers to say, look we should get rid of this COVID thing, and we should just make this thing permanent. And we did, because it is a far more effective way, I think, for premiers, chief ministers and the Prime Minister to work together. The old system was bureaucrats and agendas being driven up from the bottom. And I, seriously, if you wanted something, some policy issue to just, you know, fade away, send it to COAG. It was certainly never going to come out of there. But with the National Cabinet, whether it's deregulation initiatives, whether it's additional investment into skills and training, whether it's the major changes we've made during COVID, sometimes in the matter of days. The reason that's worked is because premiers, the chief minister[s] and I have just sent the leaders’ level decision down into our governments and they've got the message and they've gone on with it. Now, that doesn't mean you agree with everything. Of course, that's never going to happen. I said the other day, I mean, how many of you, when you turn up to a family event means every single time you agree with everything everybody says around the table, particularly at Christmas? I mean, the federation, frankly, is not different to that. But what we have in common as Australians is far more important than the things that we have differences about. And I do thank the collaborative relationship we've had, particularly as we've dealt with the challenges of COVID and understanding the quite specific circumstances of Western Australia.

JOURNALIST: On Yuendumu, why should police be able.

PRIME MINISTER: I couldn't hear you, sorry.

JOURNALIST: Why should police be able to bring firearms into remote Aboriginal communities?

PRIME MINISTER: Look, I'm going to leave those matters to the Home Affairs Minister to address. I mean, the terrible incidents that we've seen and the scenes there I know are deeply shocking and disturbing to the whole community. We have a justice system and that justice system has worked its way through, and I respect that, and I would encourage everybody to do the same. But as we sensitively handle these issues, Ken Wyatt has, I think, done an extraordinary job in managing the relations between Indigenous communities and law enforcement authorities in relation to these matters. And he will continue to.

When this incident first happened, I was spoken to Ken, he was already on a plane and he was already on his way up there to talk to leaders and to sit down and discuss these issues about how they were going to manage it through. So it's a very sensitive issue, including the matters that you raise. But ensuring that we have proper law enforcement and that people can be safe in communities, whether they're Indigenous or otherwise, is something that our Government is very committed to.

JOURNALIST: India's relatively silent on the issue of Ukraine and Russia. What do you make of that?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, we work closely with all of our Quad partners. I’ve already held meetings with the Quad leaders and, and India has its issues that it's addressing. But we also appreciate their calls to ensure a peaceful resolution to what's happening in Ukraine. And I note the strong feelings right across the country when it comes to Ukraine. I spoke to the Ukrainian Prime Minister yesterday. I'll be having a bit more to say in the next few days about additional support the Australian Government will be providing in this effort. The people of Ukraine have shown and their Government and their leadership, President Zelenskyy, have shown enormous grit and courage, and they're an inspiration.

And this is the second conversation I've had with the Prime Minister and also spoken to the President, and they are deeply grateful, deeply grateful for the support being provided by the Australian Government and by the Australian people, and in my own engagement with the Ukrainian organisations, including here in Western Australia just the other day, there is a deep sense of appreciation for the role that we're playing. This is, this is an, just a, an awful and illegal, unprovoked invasion by Russia into the Ukraine. And we must ensure that Russia pays the dearest price for doing this, not just to ensure justice for the Ukrainian people, but to ward off any others who want to go down that autocratic path and seek to threaten and coerce their neighbours. I can’t hear you, sorry.

JOURNALIST: Was the flood relief postponed because of your campaigning here in WA?

PRIME MINISTER: Not at all. It was late last, not last night but the night before, and over the course of that evening, that the request had come through from the New South Wales Government. The National Security Committee of Cabinet met for several hours yesterday. I was here in Perth and was at that meeting, as was the Attorney-General, and in working through the proposal that came forward. We've been able to finalise some arrangements today and the Minister for Emergency Management and Disaster Resilience will be making announcements further on those issues later today. That is the normal process. As I indicated to the Premier, we’ll be turning that around as quickly as possible.

The investments we've already made in New South Wales total over $1 billion, and most of that has already been directly paid. Let's not forget, I mean, today, with the Disaster Recovery Payment, we will have made payments to over a million people in response to the floods in Queensland and New South Wales, and those, those payments are heading towards a billion dollars alone. And that response has come swiftly with those payments to people who are affected, far more swiftly than we've seen before, as the Minister for Human Services will be making statements about later today when she's touring the flood-affected areas.

So we work closely with state governments, but when you're talking about the investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, and indeed billions now, then I think people would expect us to go through the proper assessment of the proposals, which we did yesterday at the National Security Committee of Cabinet. I'd advised the Premier that that's what we'd be doing, and, and then getting back to him as,as soon as possible.

But to him and Helen, I’d also, I’m sure the Premier will join me in wishing them all the best for the arrival of Celeste Grace. And that's a blessing for their seventh.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on Russia, on the sanctions, there’s reports that there were oligarchs with links to a Queensland Alumina refinery who weren't included in the initial round of sanctions. Were those.

PRIME MINISTER: We, we add the name, we add further names to the list every single day of of those with whom we're applying sanctions to, and there's a proper process for doing that. And Australia, which is a long way away from the Ukraine, but I can tell you, our support and our action has been on the leading edge of the world when it comes to standing up for Ukraine, applying those sanctions heavily.

Remember, though, the Autonomous Sanctions Act, which is effectively the Magnitsky Act, that was something we introduced as a Government to give effect and put us in a strong position to be able to respond so quickly. And so we will continue to take action on all of those to whom sanctions should be applied.

JOURNALIST: On the unemployment rate, WA’s was the lowest in the country that is up today, to 4.1 per cent. Do you attribute any of that to reputational damage as a result of the border, that at one point you did oppose in the High Court? And do you think there should be an end date to workplace vaccine mandates in WA that are the toughest in the country?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I’ll leave those matters to the Premier because they’re entirely for his judgement. Because, at the end of the day, the WA Government runs the hospital system and they will assess what's best, in the best interests of protecting that hospital system. The Commonwealth provided over $800 million both on hospitals and other COVID support to the health system here in Western Australia. In terms of the economy, we saw in other states and territories when they went through their waves that that would have a short term impact on the economy. We saw it in the other states. And so that doesn't surprise me that that would have occurred in the short term here in WA. And I have no doubt that that will actually rebound quite quickly here in Western Australia. And why is that? Because we've continued to invest together in the very fabric of the Western Australian state economy, and it is very resilient. So I would consider what has occurred here in just, in that month as a very short-term impact. And I would certainly see the confidence and strength of the Western Australian state economy being able to push through and pass the Omicron wave that they’ve seen. I mean, that is just what we've seen every time around the country.

JOURNALIST: You did oppose the border at one point, though?

PRIME MINISTER: I was going to come to that. And you're right, at the start, in the early phases of the pandemic, one of the things that we learnt over the course of the pandemic is states all ended up having different experiences. And our decision, which was taken right at the start of the pandemic, followed the normal convention for engaging in any High Court action of that nature. The Premier raised his concerns with me about that and, and we ultimately agreed with him, and that's why we withdrew. And that was one of the lessons of the pandemic, that the normal things, that the normal rules that would apply, say on dealing with constitutional challenges, well, the pandemic changed all of that. And so that was an early lesson for me and my Government. And, and that's why we reversed our earlier position. And. and that was out of recognition for the very specific and appropriate pathway that Western Australia was on. So I stand absolutely. You're right to say, did the Premier convince me to change my mind? Yes, he did.

JOURNALIST: Do you plan on making any major announcements alongside Annastacia Palaszczuk or Dan Andrews ahead of the election?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, let's see how, we've got, we’re doing a lot, as Paul, as Paul knows in particular. We’ll be, we'll be quite busy between now certainly and the election. We've got the Budget coming up in just just under a fortnight and, you know, I work closely with all the premiers and chief ministers. I've chaired 67 meetings of the National Cabinet. And you don't spend that much time together without, and we're not talking about, you know, 15 minute meetings, we're talking two, three hours, and in the early, it was about four hours on some occasions early on, Mark. We've spent a lot of time together, the premiers, the chief ministers and I, and we've got to know each other extremely well. And, and the overwhelming experience of that time has been one of trying to focus on, on the challenges in the national interest. And, you know, we deal with a lot of issues.

I mean, last Friday, a week, it was last Friday wasn’t it, I mean, we were dealing with, of course, the winter preparedness plan. We were dealing with the moving through the opening up of cruise shipping and all of those issues. Then we were dealing with Japanese encephalitis, and then we were dealing with lumpy skin disease in cattle in the Northern Territory. And that's just the start of it. So we work on many issues together, and I want to thank the Premier for his partnership. It's been a good partnership. It's been an honest partnership. It's been a candid partnership. Haven’t agreed on everything, but we've always been prepared to listen to each other and where, you know, I think I've had to change my view based on the Premier's representations, I certainly have. And we share one thing above all, and that is our commitment to Australia and our commitment to the people of Western Australia.

JOURNALIST: Do voters deserve to know who Labor’s Defence Minister would be after the election?

PRIME MINISTER: Of course they do. I can tell you who my Defence Minister’s going to be. It’s Peter Dutton. I can tell you who my Home Affairs Minister is going to be. It's Karen Andrews. These are two of the most important, these are the most important national security portfolios there are. And and if, you know, it's bad enough that the Australian people are not being told who the Leader of the Opposition is. But to not even know who their Defence Minister and their Home Affairs Minister is going to be, well, that's cause for pause, absolute cause for pause. But I’ll, I might leave it there because I'll leave it to the Premier, and I want to thank him again for being here today for this great announcement. Thanks a lot, Mark.

---

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-43864

Address, Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China Tokyo Symposium

17 February 2023
Tokyo, Japan

---

In 2014, Prime Minister Abe met with President Xi on the margins of APEC in Beijing. Former US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage said "they looked like they were smelling each other's socks." This was a pretty honest and unsettling assessment. It is also a good metaphor for how we should continue to conduct international relations in the Indo-Pacific in response to an increasingly assertive China.

The rise of China has defined the post Cold War era and will continue to do so for generations to come. There have been many benefits. Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms brought more people out of poverty than at any other time in human history. This is an extraordinary achievement, worthy of celebration. It is also true that the rest of the world has benefited from China's economic rise, including Australia. Australia has never sought to contain China's growth. From Nixon to Reagan, the courting of China provided a strategic counter balance to the Soviet Union for the US, its allies and partners. China had its own differences with the Soviets. Our interests aligned. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the motivations and objectives for the US-Sino relationship changed. From, at least, the Clinton administration a growing Chinese economy was an end in its own right. It was seen as good for the world economy. Everyone benefits. There was also the view that a more affluent China, with an expanding middle class, would ultimately lead to a more liberalised and possibly even democratic China. Those living under the brutality of successive CCP regimes lived a very different experience.

The benign and accommodating view of China has proved to be, arguably, the most misplaced assumption in international relations since Neville Chamberlain proclaimed 'peace in our time' on his return from Munich in 1938. It has led the west to appease China's ambitions, including the conversion of island atolls into military installations in the South China Sea, and partitioning global concerns about China's human rights record from the main track of strategic dialogue with and about China.

Xi Jinping's elevation to General Secretary of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China at the 18th People's Congress in 2012 was a turning point for China and the world. At the time, the prevailing view was that the new President would further modernise and grow China's economy, while conducting important domestic reforms, including dealing with entrenched corruption. There was also hope for increased international engagement, including cooperation on global issues like climate change, maybe even human rights and religious freedoms. President Xi came across as a savvy, modern and internationally engaged political leader, with a positive agenda.

President Xi has certainly ushered in a new era in China, but not the one many hoped for. In her 2018 work, Elizabeth C Economy from the Council on Foreign Relations described the new Xi era as China's third revolution, after Mao and Deng.

President Xi has pursued a new 'Chinese Dream' grounded in an unapologetic nationalist Marxist narrative of historical grievance for China's century of humiliation from 1849 to 1949, at the hands of imperial powers including the British, the Americans and the Japanese. This dream is to restore China to its 'rightful place' as the hegemon of Asia and the Indo-Pacific and to reset the world's rules based order in China's favour, to reflect their global ascension. This nationalist vision also requires the reunification of Taiwan within China, by force if necessary, fully reincorporating Hong Kong and further centralising control and power in Beijing.

We should not underestimate the appeal this ambitious narrative has with the Chinese population. Xi knows this. It could even be strong enough to endure a downturn in China's economic fortunes resulting from the home grown impact of COVID and Xi's repudiation of Deng's economic reforms that were so critical to China's economic success.

China's militarist surge gives expression to President Xi's nationalist aspirations. President Xi's stated aim is to be able to fight and win wars and project force. With a budget of more than $260 billion a year he is doing just that.

The most recent report to Congress by the US Department of Defence in December 2022 notes the PLA is already one of the largest militaries in the world with around 2.2 million military service members on active duty. China also has, numerically, the largest navy in the world with a battle force of 340 ships and submarines, including 15 nuclear submarines and more on the way. By 2024, China's second aircraft carrier will be commissioned for service. China is also improving its capability to counter submarine activity in the region, through its surface ships and aircraft. China has the largest air fleet in the region and the third largest in the world, with around 2,250 combat aircraft including fighters and bombers. At the end of 2022 China had 400 operational nuclear warheads and is likely to have 1400 by 2035. This is backed up by a growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 5,500 kms and the world's leading technology in hypersonic missiles. Together with Russia and Iran, the PRC also leads the world in state sponsored cyber attacks. The first shots fired in any war will not be bullets, but Bits and Bytes, disabling your military systems and civil infrastructure.

The authoritarianism of the Xi's regime has also been on display through China's continued abuse of human rights, especially in Xinjiang. A New York Times investigation in 2019 cited internal speeches by President Xi in 2014 referencing the "struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separatism" in Xinjiang and the need to use the "organs of dictatorship," and to show "absolutely no mercy."

In August last year the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights reported on their assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).

They concluded that serious human rights violations had been committed against the Uyghur people that may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity, between at least 2017 and 2019. They found allegations of patterns of torture or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, were credible, as were allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence. The reported cited far-reaching, arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including on religious identity and expression. There were also serious indications of violations of reproductive rights through the coercive and discriminatory enforcement of family planning and birth control policies.

Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) have identified and mapped more than 380 suspected detention facilities in the XUAR highlighting 're-education' camps, detention centres and prisons that have been newly built or expanded since 2017. ASPI's 2020 report "Documenting Xinjiang's detention system" stated that by late 2019 the available evidence suggested that many extrajudicial detainees in Xinjiang's vast "re-education" network were being formally charged and locked up in higher security facilities, including newly built or expanded prisons, or sent to walled factory compounds for coerced labour assignments. At least 61 detention sites had seen new construction and expansion work between July 2019 and July 2020. This includes at least 14 facilities still under construction in 2020, according to the latest satellite imagery available. ASPI notes that 'about 50% are higher security facilities, which may suggest a shift in usage from the lower-security, 're-education centres' toward higher-security prison-style facilities'.

On September 26, 2020, Chris Buckley from the New York Times reported on President Xi's assessment of the situation in Xinjiang at a two day conference to set policy direction for China. The Times reported the President saying 'viewed overall, Xinjiang is enjoying a favourable setting of social stability with the people living in peace and contentment," and went onto say that "the facts have abundantly demonstrated that our national minority work has been a success."

China is also not limiting their activities to their own country. APSI's most recent report notes their actions to intimidate and influence the Chinese diaspora in Australia in relation to Xinjiang.

Like Japan, Australia's economy has strong linkages with China, especially in our resources sector, and we are also an Indo-Pacific nation. We live here. Like Japan, Australia's national interest guides our decisions. And like Japan we are a modern democracy that shares a strong commitment to the global rules based order, rightly described by Secretary Condoleezza Rice as the 'world order that favours freedom'.

Japan understands the need for engagement with China, but they also understand the need to build resilience in order to stand up to co-ercion. Key to Japan's approach has been drawing like minded countries together around the notion of a free and open Indo-Pacific. This is Shinzo Abe's great legacy. Australia passionately shares this goal as essential to achieving an enduring strategic balance in the region and we have worked closely with Japan to achieve these outcomes. As Prime Minister I was proud to share this journey with three Japanese Prime Ministers Abe san, Suga san and Kishida san, who became trusted friends.

The approach followed by Australia and Japan was to be clear eyed and resolute about China's threats and behaviour, but pragmatic about our shared opportunities and interests. China has not yet adjusted to this approach. Together with Japan, as well as the United States and India, we pushed back against China's assertiveness. We have not been intimidated.

Prime Minister Kishida's new national security strategy describes China's posture as "unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge in ensuring the peace and security of Japan and the peace and stability of the international community, as well as in strengthening the international order based on the rule of law, to which Japan should respond with its comprehensive national power and in cooperation with [the United States], like-minded countries and others."

His new defence strategy notes 'we live in the world of a historical inflection point and in the face of the most severe and complex security environment since the end of WWII.'

In July 2020, I offered the same reflection when I updated Australia's national defence strategy, noting we were witnessing the same dangerous combination of destabilising forces in the Indo-Pacific that we had seen in the 1930s and outlined a significant reorientation of Australia's defence posture, that continues under the new Australian Government.

I said we could not be complacent or blind to the threat. Nor could we continue to indulge in passive appeasement of China's assertiveness, as this would only serve as an invitation. We were already on track to meet our goal of lifting defence spending to 2% of GDP. Our defence strategic update in 2020 refocussed and reorientated our defence force posture to ensure we could keep potential adversaries further away from Australia, including the enhancement of our long range defensive strike capability, expanding our cyber warfare capabilities and placing a priority focus on our immediate region.

Our new objectives outlined were to shape Australia's strategic environment; deter actions against Australia's interests; and respond with credible military force, when required. These goals are broadly shared with Japan.

This led to our enthusiastic advocacy and participation in the QUAD leaders dialogue, where I served with Prime Minister Suga as a founding member and rejoining the Malabar defence exercises; the AUKUS agreement we formed with the United States and the United Kingdom that is now a cornerstone of Australia's national security architecture along with ANZUS, and the completion of essential bilateral defence, intelligence and security arrangements with our partners in the region including India and Japan, and being the first nation to complete a Reciprocal Access Agreement for our respective defence forces with Japan.

My reason for highlighting these broader initiatives is to highlight that any attempts to address human rights violations in China will never be achieved in a region where China enjoys strategic hegemony. It is only from the platform of a free and open Indo Pacific, that such worthy and important objectives can be practically pursued in a region that upholds and respects the global rules based order. This is an outlook we also share with Japan.

In late 2021, my Government moved to introduce a Magnitsky style sanctions regime with bi-partisan support, to modernise our autonomous sanctions regime. The followed the adoption of key recommendations of a bi partisan joint parliamentary committee report in December 2020. When introducing the legislation into the Parliament we noted that Australia had a proud history of promoting and protecting human rights globally, supporting the international rules-based order, and acting for the peace and security of the international community and using our existing country-specific autonomous sanctions regimes to those ends.

Historically, there were two sanctions regimes operating in Australia; those imposed through the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 (Cth) to implement decisions of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC); and through our Autonomous Sanctions Act and regulations from 2011 that could impose sanctions without reference to any United Nations decision. There are also other measures available under our banking and customs regulations.

The Autonomous Sanctions Regime (Magnitsky-style and other thematic Sanctions) Amendment Act became law in Australia in December 2021. The Bill established three new thematic sanctions regimes: serious violations or serious abuses of human rights; activities undermining good governance and the rule of law, including serious corruption; and malicious cyber activity.

The inclusion of a new thematic cyber regime, in addition to the Magnitsky-style sanctions, provided an additional tool of statecraft, to serve alongside other law enforcement and operational mechanisms, to enhance Australia's response to instances of egregious malicious cyber activity that impact our interests.

Under the new laws the Foreign Minister was given the authority to impose sanctions with the agreement of the Attorney General, where they were satisfied a person or entity had engaged in, has been responsible for, or has been complicit in an act that constitutes a serious violation or serious abuse of a person's right to life; or right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or a right not to be held in slavery or servitude, or right not to be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Since the enactment of Magnitsky style laws, Australia has imposed sanctions on 68 individuals and 3 entities involved in egregious human rights violations and abuses.

This began on 29 March 2022, when my Government imposed our first set of Magnitsky sanctions, starting with the 14 Russian individuals responsible for the serious corruption that Sergei Magnitsky exposed and a further 25 Russian perpetrators and accomplices of his abuse and death. Since then 'Magnitsky' sanctions have been applied against senior law enforcement, political and military figures in Iran, Myanmar and most recently Russian individuals involved in the attempted assassination of former opposition leader Alexei Navalny. All of these were done with bipartisan support.

The question naturally arises whether our new sanctions regime should be applied to any Chinese nationals for human rights abuses, especially in Xinjiang. There is certainly credible and actionable evidence that has been gathered against such individuals. It is now a matter for the new Government to consider. While it would be naive to believe that targeted sanctions of Chinese officials in Xinjiang or higher up would lead to the elimination of such abuses, this argument alone does not negate the merit of such sanctions.

Like Japan and countries like Lithuania, Australia has paid a price for standing up to China. We tightened our foreign investment rules, especially for strategic investments in our transport, energy, telecommunications and data infrastructure. We denied Chinese companies any role in building our 5G telecommunications network. My predecessor Malcolm Turnbull bravely created new laws to prevent Chinese interference in our universities and political system. We supported our south east Asian neighbours when they pushed back against China's incursions and claims in the South China Sea. We called for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID and successfully pursued this call through the World Health Assembly.

Going forward I am pleased the new Australian Government can take advantage of China's change in tactics, but they must be careful not to change our posture or resolve, or give the impression of such a change.

President's Xi may have changed his tactics, but his intent is still the same. You can be sure that President Xi is keeping his 'Chinese Dream' alive. Going forward Australia must continue to be prepared to 'smell China's socks'.

---

Speech to Parliament on Censure

30 November 2022
Canberra, Australia

---

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (09:21): I thank the Australian people for the privilege to serve as their Prime Minister. I thank the people of Cook for the privilege they have given me to serve in this House as their member. I thank my colleagues, here in this place and in previous parliaments, who have asked me in the past to lead and for the faith they have placed in me. I am proud of my achievements in this place and I am proud of my government. I am proud that at a time of extreme trial my government stood up and faced the abyss of uncertainty that our country looked into and the coercion of a regional bully and saw Australia through the storm. Australia emerged stronger under my government.

I have no intention now, Mr Speaker, of submitting to the political intimidation of this government using its numbers in this place to impose its retribution on a political opponent. In addressing the matters that are the subject of the motion, I repeat that I have welcomed and supported the recommendations of the Bell inquiry, and I note the following facts for the House.

The authorities to administer departments were established as a dormant redundancy only to be activated in extraordinary circumstances, evidenced by the fact that no powers were exercised under these authorities, except in the case of the PEP-11 decision, as such circumstances were not realised and, therefore, none of these authorities were misused.

The Solicitor-General found that the authorities established to administer departments in this way were valid and were not unlawful. Other than in the case of the PEP-11 decision, ministers exercised their portfolio authorities fully, without intervention or the threat of intervention, and departments supported their ministers in that capacity without uncertainty regarding their ministerial authorities.

As Prime Minister I did not act as minister or engage in any co-minister arrangements, as suggested, including requiring the receipt of any parallel briefing or co-authorising arrangements, except in the very specific case of the PEP-11 decision and not otherwise for that department. On the PEP-11 matter, this was done lawfully from first principles and I consider my decision was the correct one. My intent to exercise these powers was also advised to the minister in advance of exercising those powers.

The ministry list tabled in parliament referenced, as it does, that ministers may be sworn to administer additional departments. The requirements requiring notice purported to constitute convention in the motion were not identified or recognised by officials advising on these matters from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and cannot therefore be clearly regarded as established convention. The Solicitor-General found there is no consistent practice for a publication in the Gazette of appointments to administer particular departments of state. The Bell inquiry noted there was a different understanding of the process of publication between myself and the department and that no instruction was given by me as Prime Minister or my office not to publish those arrangements in the Gazette. In relation to communication with my ministerial colleagues on these matters I note that I've addressed these issues privately with my colleagues and publicly in my statement of 16 August 2022.

I also note, as is particularly relevant to this House and this motion, that I was present each and every day at that dispatch box to answer any and all questions in this House regularly directed to me as Prime Minister on all matters involving all portfolios that were the subject of the Bell inquiry and, indeed, all other portfolios. The suggestion that, as Prime Minister, I was not available to do so in this House or that the opposition failed to ask such questions in those portfolios is absurd and completely false.

I also note that, in my earlier portfolio responsibilities where I was sworn to hold the office of Treasurer, Minister for Social Services and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, my appointments as minister of state specifically made reference in the documents authorised by the Governor-General that I was sworn to hold the office as minister in each of these portfolios. In my appointment as a minister of state to administer the departments that were the subject of the Bell inquiry this was not the case. The documentation authorised by the Governor-General carefully does not include any reference to being sworn to hold the office of minister for any of the portfolios that were the subject of the Bell inquiry, simply to administer the department. This can be seen in appendix A, at pages 107 to 110 of the Bell inquiry report. This is a very important distinction. Just because a minister is sworn to administer a department does not mean they hold the office of minister in that portfolio.

I should say, the contention that the public would also be popularly under the impression that the Prime Minister did not have authority over government departments is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the proposition that the public would not hold the Prime Minister accountable for the actions of the government is also not credible and counter to the argument that was put forward by the opposition when I was Prime Minister each and every day that I sat in this House.

Returning to the issue of being sworn, I was not sworn to hold the office of any of those ministerial portfolios, and, as a result, any contention that I served as minister of those portfolios in that office is false.

On the substantive matters—I return to those now—in each of the decisions taken during my time as Prime Minister to administer departments I note again that our nation faced the greatest challenges we had experienced since the Second World War: a drought, natural disasters, a global pandemic, the global and domestic recession, the pandemic cause, and a rising and coercive China seeking to coerce Australia into submission. These were extremely challenging times.

To put the economic challenge in context, according to the IMF, during the first year of the pandemic the global economy shrank by 3.1 per cent. This is more than 30 times the magnitude of the economic decline during the global financial crisis of 2009. That was a crisis. During this period, we were fighting for our very survival from a public health, economic and national security perspective.

As Prime Minister I sought to exercise my responsibilities during this extremely difficult period in a manner that would best advance and protect Australia's national interests and the welfare of the Australian people. That is what I had pledged to do, and I am pleased that, through these efforts and the efforts of so many others I worked with closely, Australia was able to emerge from this period of significant crisis in a safer and more prosperous position than almost any other country in the world. That was the objective of my government and, together with my colleagues here and those who formerly sat with us, that was achieved.

In February this year Bill Gates was asked at the Munich Security Conference whether it was possible to prevent the next pandemic. He answered by citing Australia's response to the pandemic, referring to it as 'the gold standard', and that standard was one we met. He said, 'If every country did what Australia did then we wouldn't be calling it a pandemic.' That is something any government could be proud of. The New York Times calculated in May this year that, if the United States had the same death rate as Australia, about 900,000 lives would have been saved. Johns Hopkins University ranked Australia second in the world in pandemic preparedness. Bloomberg ranked Australia the world's fifth most COVID-resilient nation.

Shortly after I left office after the last election, Australia had the third-lowest mortality rate in the OECD from COVID at 401 deaths per million population. This can be compared with Canada at 1,106 per million, the United Kingdom at 2,688 per million and the United States at over 3,000 per million. During the pandemic it was estimated that, when compared to the average fatality rates of OECD countries, Australia's response saved more than 30,000 lives. More than 95 per cent of Australia's adult population had been administered two vaccine doses and we had commenced fourth doses. Unlike in so many other countries—advanced, developed countries—our hospital system had not been overrun by the pandemic. And since December 2019, when the pandemic first struck, Australia's economy had grown by 4½ per cent. This compares to growth of 3.9 per cent in Korea, 2.7 per cent in the US, less than one per cent in the UK, Canada, and France, and the Japanese and German economies remained in negative territory.

Australia's success was also achieved by limiting the scale of the economic decline during COVID. In Australia the economic decline caused by COVID was 2.2 per cent. This compares to 3.4 per cent in the US, 4½ per cent in Japan, 4.6 per cent in Germany, eight per cent in France and 9.3 per cent in the United Kingdom. At the same time, Australia's unemployment rate fell to below four per cent, the lowest in almost half a century, with almost 600,000 more jobs than we had before the pandemic began. During this time the government made unprecedented investments in our health and economic response. JobKeeper kept 700,000 businesses in business. It kept more than one million Australians in work. And despite these unpredicted outlays, Australia, through the pandemic and the crisis, was one of only nine countries in the world to retain our AAA credit rating.

Our response was timely, it was targeted, and it was temporary. We responsibly retired measures as soon as it was prudent. This led to an historic reduction in the budget deficit in our final year of more than $100 billion. During this time, I and the government made many decisions, from closing our international borders to making our own vaccines and directly manufacturing PPE. We tried many things. We were dealing with extreme uncertainty and unpredictability. The Australian people were rightly fearful for their own health and economic security. The mindset at this time was to seek to prepare as best as possible for as many contingencies as possible. This was not always successful, as was the experience of all countries around the world at the time. No leader and no nation had a perfect record, but Australia can be proud that we had one of the very best.

At the same time, significant powers were activated by the government, including under the Biosecurity Act and in financial delegations to the Minister for Finance, that were beyond the oversight of cabinet. I elected to put in place a redundancy to those powers and an oversight on those powers in the departments of Health and Finance. I do not resile from these decisions and believe them entirely necessary, mirroring many arrangements similarly being implemented in the private sector at the time. My omission was not having personally informed the Minister for Finance, who I believed had been informed through my office. I was mistaken about that, which was only brought to my attention when I made these matters public. I've addressed this issue directly with the then Minister for Finance. Had I been asked about these matters at the time at the numerous press conferences I held, I would've responded truthfully about the arrangements I had put in place. The recommendations of the Bell inquiry will appropriately remedy this deficiency in the future, and I support them.

The decision to take on authority to administer the departments of Treasury and Home Affairs in 2021 as a dormant redundancy for decisions that were not subject to cabinet oversight was to be able to take swift action, if necessary, in the national interest at a time when Australians' interests were under constant threat. I now consider that these decisions, in hindsight, were unnecessary and that insufficient consideration was given to these decisions at the time, including nondisclosure. I therefore accept the recommendations put forward by the Bell inquiry as an appropriate remedy to these shortcomings. I note again that these authorities were never exercised and, as a result, had no impact on the functions or actions of the government. It is strange to describe such actions as a power grab, as they were never exercised or even used to exercise influence over the relevant ministers. They were simply a dormant redundancy.

In relation to the decision to take authority to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources for the purpose of being able to consider PEP 11, I do not resile from that action. The authority was lawfully sought and exercised on a specific matter solely. I considered it unnecessary to dismiss the minister to deal with this matter, as he was doing a fine job, and unlawful to inappropriately pressure him in relation to this decision. I therefore lawfully took the decision from first principles in his place. I believe the decision I made on PEP 11 was the correct one.

I note the criticisms made of my decisions to be authorised to administer a series of departments have been made from the safety and relative calm of hindsight. I also note that as Prime Minister my awareness of issues regarding national security at this time and the national interest was broader than known to individual ministers and any third party. This limits the ability for third parties to draw definitive conclusions on such matters and sit in judgement. During the course of my prime ministership I made many decisions. These decisions were taken during an extremely challenging period where there was a need for considerable urgency and there was great stress on the system and individuals. None of us can claim to be infallible in such circumstances, and I do not. There are always lessons to be learned from such times and events.

I acknowledge that the nondisclosure of arrangements has caused unintentional offence and extend an apology to those who were offended, but I do not apologise for taking action, especially prudent redundancy action, in a national crisis in order to save lives and to save livelihoods. I also agree with and thank the many who have expressed their support that any perceived deficiencies in the handling of these matters must be reasonably and fairly weighed against the overarching success of the numerous other decisions taken and efforts made under extreme pressure to save lives and livelihoods. This motion fails to do this and, sadly, therefore betrays its true motive that is entirely partisan. The government's response to censure and prosecute this motion is to engage in the politics of retribution and nothing less. These are the behaviours of an opposition, not a government who understands that grace in victory is a virtue. I recommend that their response as a government should simply be to implement the recommendations of the Bell inquiry, which I support, and focus their attention on their current and urgent responsibilities to address the many challenges Australians are now facing on their watch, especially the cost of living.

How we respond to these events is up to each and every one of us. For mine, I will take the instruction of my faith and turn the other cheek. Since the election, I have refrained from public comment, despite provocation, other than on local issues and to note the actions and achievements of my government. I accepted the result—as I should, willingly and happily—of the last election and wished the new government every success, and I have sought to move on with my life with my family and to continue to serve the people of my local electorate in Cook. I voluntarily stepped down from the leadership of my party and gave my full support to the new leadership, whom I commend. I thank them for their support, especially the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I thank all of my colleagues, both former and current, both now and over a long period of time, for the same. In that, I particularly acknowledge the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, the former Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, and the member for Riverina, who together, the four of us, dealt with so much of that crisis each and every day together.

I have seen bitterness destroy people who have come to this place, and it continues to gnaw away at them each and every day of their lives for even decades after they leave this place. I am not one of those, nor will I ever be. I am proud of the many achievements that I have been able to accomplish in this place, especially as Prime Minister, and I am very grateful for the opportunities and to all of those I worked with to achieve them. We saw Australia through one of our most difficult times. We stood up to a bullying Chinese regime which sought to coerce and impose itself on our democracy through threats, sanctions and intimidation. I was pleased to establish the AUKUS agreement and tighten our partnerships with all our key partners, especially the United States, Japan, India, the United Kingdom, across our region in ASEAN—we were the first country to establish a comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN—and, of course, our dear Pacific family. I was pleased to have strengthened our economy through the pandemic and to have seen electricity prices fall by 10 per cent on my watch as PM; for individual and small business taxes to be cut and more than 300,000 Australians directly assisted into homeownership. And, by strengthening our economy, I was pleased we were able to guarantee the essential services that Australians relied on during times of great uncertainty, with record Medicare bulk-billing rates, PBS listings at record levels and record funds for aged care, disability care and mental health.

For those who now wish to add their judgement today on my actions, in supporting this censure motion, I simply suggest that they stop and consider the following: Have you ever had to deal with a crisis where the outlook was completely unknown? In such circumstances, were you able to get all the decisions perfectly right? Where you may have made errors, were you fortunate enough for them to have had no material impact on the result, and for the result itself to prove to be world-leading? Once you have considered your own experience, or perhaps when you have had more in government, then you may wish to cast the first stone in this place.

Perhaps the response to these difficult times and events is not to go down that path but down the path of thankfulness that Australia's performance through the pandemic was one of the strongest in the developed world; to appreciate in humility, not in retribution, that no country and no leader got all the decisions right, and gracefully take up the lessons that have been learned and equip us to do even better in the future.

It is an honour to serve in this House, and I have done that for these past 15 years. I am grateful again to the people of Cook for their strong support during this time, including most recently. I thank them for their encouragement, their many messages of support, as I and my family have returned to our dear home in the shire. I also thank my local Liberal Party members for their constant support, my local church community at Horizon Church for their prayers, and people of faith from all around the country who have extended the same. I have been humbled by your messages of support and encouragement.

I also thank again my colleagues here in this place, and formerly, for their support. It is indeed an honour to serve alongside you. I especially thank my wife, Jen, our daughters, Abbey and Lily, and my family and friends for their love and support, as well as my former staff for their great loyalty. You must always be proud of what you accomplished during our time working together. I conclude by thanking the Australian people for the privilege of being able to serve my country in so many roles, but especially as Prime Minister. I gave it everything I had. I did it to the best of my ability and in the best of faith each and every day I had the privilege to serve the Australian people.

---

Access Hansard record here.

Speech to Parliament on the Death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Accession of His Majesty King Charles III

23 September 2022
Canberra, Australia

---

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (10:33): This has been a time of mourning across our country, with waves of sorrow and grief from coast to coast. But it has also been a time of rich and fond remembrance. It has been a time of thanksgiving and gratitude for a remarkable life of service in Her Majesty. I acknowledge the many fine contributions of those in this House that have preceded mine and will follow mine. With duty, dignity, dedication, service, strength, courage, compassion, grace, humility and love, Her Majesty was one who served, when so many others might have sought to be served in such a role. She was a rock. She was a constant for the Commonwealth as Queen of Australia. But I think, more than that, she was a rock and a constant in so many people's lives. She was something that didn't change in a world that changed every minute of every day. From that, people found the strength and the fortitude to carry on in the worst of times and to celebrate in the best.

What, do we ask, enables someone, in Her Majesty, to live such a life? What sustained her in this service and sacrifice? This is what I want to reflect on today. Many have told stories, and I welcome those; I could tell them also. But what I want to focus on is what I believe sustained Her Majesty in all of this. She answered the question herself in her many Christmas messages, which I've taken the time to go back over and read. By her own confession, it was her deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ that she so often referenced in those messages. Most recently, in 2014 she said:

For me, the life of Jesus Christ … is an inspiration and an anchor in my own life.

In 2002—and the Leader of the Opposition made reference to this—in what was one of her most difficult years, having lost her mother and her sister, she must have felt, apart from having Philip with her, so alone. She said this in her Christmas message:

I know just how much I rely on my own faith to guide me through the good times and the bad … and put my trust in God.

It says in 2 Samuel what I think is the best description of Her Majesty's reign:

… who rules righteously, who rules in the fear of God, is like the light of the morning as the sun rises. A morning without clouds, when the fresh grass springs out of the earth from sunshine after rain.

That was a testimony to Her Majesty's reign.

So, as a grateful nation, we do give thanks, and so many from all of our constituencies right across the country have done that, as have mine in the electorate of Cook in the Sutherland shire and St George area. Margaret Crowley says, 'Thank you. Thank you for being an irreplaceable constant in our lives.' Janice Dent from Gymea says, 'The world is a better place because of her reign.' Jillian Won from Carss Park says, 'The world has lost a wonderful woman, and I feel I've lost a family member. Rest in peace, Ma'am. You have earned it.' Margaret Tattersall of Sylvania said this: 'Forever loved but never forgotten.' Angela Holmes, a registered nurse—she signs herself off as from Burraneer—says: 'Thank you, Ma'am, from the bottom of our hearts.'

But it is this one that I really appreciate, and it's from Susan Hitchen in Dolans Bay, not far from where I live. It says: 'To my Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: it has been an honour and a privilege to have you as my Queen. You have been an outstanding role model of displaying strength and wisdom through grace and humility. Well done, thou good and faithful servant. You endured in this strength until the end. You are now in the joy of the Lord at your forever home. Bless you.'

---

Access the Hansard record here.

Address, Global Opinion Leaders Summit

”The Quad: How this new partnership can preserve peace for Japan and strengthen democracy in our region”

28 July 2022
Tokyo, Japan

---

The assassination of the late Prime Minister Abe Shinzo was a truly devastating loss.

Shinzo's humility and grace combined with his strength and insight to chart a clear course for those who believe in a world order that favours freedom, in a sea of great disruption and uncertainty.

His vision of a 'free and open Indo-Pacific' has been embraced by like minded nations and provides the clear marker for bilateral, regional and global efforts.

His innate grasp of politics, economics and security issues enabled him to web together a coherent and integrated agenda, that pushed forward what Michael Green referred to in his latest work, as Japan's 'Line of Advantage'.

But I would argue he did more than this, pushing forward the line of advantage for liberal market based democracies and economies more broadly in our region.

The strong alignment of Australia and Japan's interest ensured that we have walked a very similar path.

It is therefore not surprising that we were both keen initiators and advocates for the elevation of the Quad to a leader level dialogue. I want to especially acknowledge the great contribution of Prime Ministers Abe, Suga and most recently Kishida to this end.

Australia, India, Japan and the United States are not the only liberal democracies in our region. Nor are we the only liberal democracies who have significant interests in our region. And we do not always have the same lens on our region.

However we do share in the vision of sovereign independent nations being able to engage, free of coercion and hegemonic influences, to transparently pursue their legitimate state interests, consistent with the international rules based order, to improve the quality of life for all our peoples.

By sharing our unique perspectives on the region, consistent with our shared values, we gain a greater understanding of the broader picture and the responses we can make usefully together and individually.

This was my experience of the Quad as a founding member of the Leaders dialogue, joining President Biden, Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Suga.

And it is an initiative, combined with AUKUS, that has had the most profound impact on the strategic balance within the Indo-Pacific since the PRC started turning atolls into airports in the South China Sea.

Over the last decade the PRC has increasingly attempted to reshape our region, and the world, in a way more conducive to autocracies than liberal democracies.

As Prime Minister I referred to China, with Russia, as a new arc of autocracy of which the world must be wary.

This was recognised by NATO at their recent Summit declaring China a security challenge, calling out their assertive behavior as presenting 'systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to alliance security."

Secretary General Stoltenberg stated "China was substantially building up its military forces, including nuclear weapons, bullying its neighbours, threatening Taiwan ... monitoring and controlling its own citizens through advanced technology, and spreading Russian lies and disinformation'.

This is not in Australia's interests, nor any other nation in the Indo-Pacific that values its sovereignty.

It was Alexander Hamilton who rightly said "the nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."

I was pleased to be part of and lead a Government in Australia that took a strong stand in response to the PRC's assertiveness.

At one point the PRC's frustrations with Australia were laid bare in a statement issued to an Australian journalist by their Embassy in Canberra.

The 'fourteen points' of the PRC's grievances with Australia, can be summarised as follows:

1. Applying Australian foreign investment laws to disallow PRC sourced investment in critical Australian assets and infrastructure

2. Taking lawful decisions to prevent Huawei Technologies and ZTE from participating in the build of Australia's 5G network on security grounds

3. Passing laws that protected Australia from foreign interference in our domestic institutions, such as universities, and political affairs

4. Exercising control over the conduct of research and scientific partnerships on projects sensitive to Australia's national security interests

5. Calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19

6. Providing national statements to the UN on Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan

7. Proving national statements on the application of UNCLOS in the South China Sea

8. Supporting statements of our allies on issues relating to PRC

9. Preventing sub-national Governments from entering into agreements with other nations that are inconsistent with national foreign policy settings

10. Funding well respected national foreign policy think tanks that had been critical of the PRC

11. Using search and seizure powers to enforce our foreign interference and espionage laws

12. Calling out cyber attacks from highly sophisticated state based actors

13. Permitting freedom of speech by Members of Parliament on issues relating to the PRC

14. Allowing a free media in Australia to independently report on issues relating to the PRC.

No self respecting liberal democracy would concede any of these points to any other national Government, especially the PRC. A point I made to the G7+ dialogue in June last year, which also included Korea, India and South Africa, to awake other like mindeds to the reality of the grey zone tactics and front line that countries like Australia, Japan and India were now on.

We chose to resist, not provoke the PRC.

We have always recognised the economic achievements of the PRC and indeed played a significant role in the PRC's economic success, especially through our resources sector.

However the tone of PRC engagement during the past five to seven years within our region has changed. Of course nations will wish to engage with the PRC. As many note, the PRC is not going anywhere.

But it is the nature and terms of this engagement with China that matters. This must mean engagement that respects, reinforces and is bound by our rules based order, not one that seeks to or allows China to redefine these rules to suit the relativist agenda of autocracies.

Our region must not embrace the path of acquiescence in the face of coercion. Rather we must practically insist on engagement within the clear and established rules, with accountability and transparency.

For our rules based order to prevail in the Indo-Pacific we must continue to work together to shape our region in a way that supports such an outcome.

This is where the Quad and Australia's relationship with Japan and other allies and partners is designed to make a positive contribution.

As Prime Minister, I believed our response must be to reinforce and boost our sovereign resilience.

Firstly, by ensuring a strong economy and restoring strong security, intelligence and defence capabilities.

We must be able to carry our own weight, pay our own way and bring something to the table. We have been achieving this with Australia experiencing one of the strongest economic records through the COVID Pandemic of any developed nation in the world. We were also successful in boosting our defence spending to 2% of GDP, restoring our defence capability.

Secondly, by expanding our international agency through engagement, alliances and alignments with like minded nations.

This has rightly included major defence and security initiatives such as our defence Reciprocal Access Agreement with Japan and the landmark AUKUS agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom. It has also most recently included new trade agreements with Indonesia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and India, following earlier agreements with Japan and Korea.

Thirdly, by engaging with like minded nations to protect the integrity of the international rules based order.

This means countering the campaigns and influence of autocracies in multilateral fora and institutions with a view to rewriting the rules - one based on relativist principles - in their favour. Our rules based order and institutions were founded following the Second World War on substantially liberal principles that led to the most durable period of peace and prosperity arguably in human history.

Fourthly, supporting a robust and resilient regional architecture that fosters cooperation, collaboration and respect.

To this end I was very pleased that, while as Prime Minister, Australia became the first nation to secure a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with ASEAN, while upgrading the status of our bilateral ties with several ASEAN nations. Like Japan, Australia has always seen ASEAN centrality as fundamental to our Indo-Pacific vision and outlook.

We also initiated our Pacific Step Up with Pacific Island nations,

• significantly increasing our funding and engagement on climate resilience, infrastructure, energy and telecommunications projects, as well as,

• Reinforcing security, defence, cultural, trade and diplomatic links, expanding our presence across the region to unprecedented levels.

The Quad leaders dialogue enables us to pursue all of these objectives simultaneously with our closest like minded and scaled partners in the region.

It is not just about regional security settings. The Quad is not an Indo-Pacific NATO. However, security cooperation is extremely important and as Prime Minister I was pleased to see Australia return to participation in the Malabar defence exercises.

Most significantly it is about the Quad nations demonstrating to the region our positive intent and actions to increase the independent agency and resilience of sovereign states within the Indo-Pacific. As Abe-San said, a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.

A key part of the Quad's efforts is for key liberal democracies to demonstrate to the region that liberal democracies can deal with the world's and the region's biggest problems and challenges. That liberal democracies work.

Whether it is practical solutions to tackle climate change and build resilience to the impacts of climate change, how to deliver energy security during a global energy transition while preserving and improving economic living standards, creating jobs and economic opportunities through free and open market economic policies, providing prompt and effective humanitarian support to natural disasters and responding to global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Autocracies falsely believe that only they can effectively deal with these issues - to grow the economy, to develop infrastructure, to protect public health, to foster innovation, to provide security. Their pitch is to offer a false compact to their populations and other nations to deliver on these issues in return for acquiescence.

Liberal democracies in our regions must provide the alternative and the Quad is at the forefront of these efforts.

The Quad now has many lines of effort, including cooperation to provide and deliver vaccines to developing nations across the region, improve health security and boost infrastructure standards in the region.

However as Prime Minister and founding member I was especially keen to ensure that we worked together on critical and emerging technologies, supply chains and supporting a successful energy transition, including:

• establishing a Clean-Hydrogen Partnership to strengthen and reduce costs across all elements of the clean-hydrogen value chain,

• establishing clear principles on the design, development and use of critical technologies and harmonising technology standards,

• launching a semiconductor supply chain initiative, and

• supporting 5G deployment and diversification

I was also keen to promote the role of Australia's critical minerals and rare earth resources sector to ensure broader supply chain competitiveness and security for manufacturing of new technologies critical to our modern economies.

For the Quad to continue to be successful it must jealously guard its agenda and focus.

It must remain focussed on the practical. It must focus on delivering tangible outcomes in the short and longer term.

It must remain focussed on the region. There are other fora for member states to address issues and events outside the region, even where Quad nations are of one mind on such issues. This does not mean that the Quad should not discuss issues such as the invasion of Ukraine, but rather the Quad's discussion (as it was) should be on the implications of this conflict for the Indo-Pacific region. The Quad must remain focussed on the Indo-pacific and not get distracted.

The Quad must engage in outreach with other like minded democracies around the world who have a direct interest in the Indo-Pacific and those nations in our region who share our interests. This can be achieved through dialogue partners and Quad + fora.

The Quad must provide a framework to guide private sector engagement so as to align the activities of private capital to reinforce the effectiveness of Quad initiatives.

As liberal democracies we favour a market led approach. We favour the engagement of the private sector. We support a business led economy. This will be particularly important in the recovery from COVID-19.

For those who talk about 'building back better', as liberal democracies let this be about restoring market economies, reopening markets, re-engaging in scientific and technological collaboration to enable commercialisation, restoring liberties to societies, returning Governments to a more supporting role than a lead role in our economies.

By embracing a multidimensional and focussed agenda that addresses the economic, security, environmental and political objectives necessary to achieve a free and open Indo-Pacific, the Quad will contribute to the sustained peace and stability of our region, that is always the prerequisite for prosperity and increased well being.

Such peace and stability must not be purchased through acquiescence and appeasement. This is a false peace and offers no genuine security. Our peace and stability must be secured by standing firm on the principles that underpin our great liberal democracies. To achieve as President Ronald Reagan urged, 'peace through strength'.

*An initiative of the Worldwide Support for Development in association with the International Democratic Union and the Japan Forum for International Relations.

---

Photo source - Associated Press

Address, Asian Leadership Conference

”COVID Leadership Lessons - The Australian Experience”

14 July 2022
Seoul, Republic of Korea

---

It is an honour to join you here in Seoul for the Asian Leadership Conference. I thank Chosun Ilbo for their kind invitation to share my contribution.

At a conference of Asian Leaders, I am also honoured to join the many tributes to the Late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and express mine and my wife Jenny's sincere condolences to his wife Akie.

Shinzo was a great friend of Australia, a great friend of democracy and freedom and a wise friend of mine. Shinzo was a man of grace and strength.

I will never forget the humility he displayed when he visited me in Australia to lay a wreath at the site of the Japanese bombing of Darwin. He combined a gentle nature with a giant political stature.

Shinzo Abe will be terribly missed.

When confronted with a genuine crisis there is a temptation to believe your situation is unique - unprecedented even!

We are now in our third year of COVID. The pathogen has officially claimed around 6.5 million lives, and crumbled economies all over the world.

According to the IMF, during the first year of the pandemic the global economy shrank by 3.1% - more than 30 times the magnitude of the economic decline during the Global Financial Crisis of 2009.

The World Economic Forum's 2022 Global Risks Report summarised the knock on effects well:

"The economic fallout from the pandemic is compounding with labour market imbalances, protectionism, and widening digital, education and skills gaps that risk splitting the world into divergent trajectories".

Niall Ferguson's Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe is not a cheery read. In this work, Ferguson recounts the history of plagues, pathogens and conflicts that have tested humanity over centuries.

Interestingly, Ferguson summarises five policies designed to limit recurrent outbreaks of plague contagion in the 18th century1. They sound familiar:

1. Firstly, controllable borders with quarantine

2. Secondly, bans on gatherings

3. Third, burying of the dead in special pits, and destruction of the personal belongings

4. Fourth, lockdowns

5. Fifth, health status tracking in the form of bills of health

He also notes some experimented with free food and medical care to those whose livelihoods had been disrupted.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

But no matter how hard you try there are no guarantees.

To illustrates this, Ferguson recounts the unfortunate experience of Habsburg Emperor, Joseph the first who In 1710:

'decided to block the spread of diseases from the Balkans by creating a continuous "sanitary cordon" along his realm's southern frontier with the Ottoman Empire. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the border was policed by two thousand fortified watchtowers, positioned a half mile apart.

The restriction to just nineteen border crossings ensured that anyone arriving on Habsburg territory was registered, housed, and isolated for at least twenty-one days. Their quarters were disinfected daily with sulfur (sic) or vinegar.'

Notwithstanding his efforts the Emperor succumbed to smallpox in 1712 having caught it from none less than his own prime minister, whose daughter was infected.

So what to do?

There will of course be more pandemics. Science and medicine will help, but not always prevent them.

The usual suspects of the human condition will also make things worse - poverty, poor sanitation, arrogance, fear, apathy, ignorance, ideology, fanaticism and many more.

But there is no need to be defeatist.

A key learning from the many pathogens of history is that we do overcome. We can learn and we do adapt. And that is our opportunity and responsibility now, especially as leaders.

During my almost four years as Prime Minister in Australia, we not only had to contend with COVID, but severe drought, wildfires, floods, cyclones and even a mice plague.

During one of the many meetings I chaired of our National Security Committee early on in the pandemic, I chose to break the tension by recalling the Biblical story of Moses and the plagues on Egypt, when Moses demanded that Pharaoh release the children of Israel from slavery.

I turned to our Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, a dear friend and a proud member of our Jewish community, and said "Josh, I think it is time we let your people go."

These have been extraordinary times, and they have demanded much from our peoples, our Governments, our scientists, our health workers, our economies and all those tasked with leadership.

I said at the start of the pandemic Australians had always rightly thought ourselves to be a strong people, but we were about to find out once again just how strong we really were.

And I was not disappointed.

In February this year Bill Gates was asked at the Munich Security Conference whether it was possible to prevent the next pandemic. He answered by citing Australia's response to the pandemic, referring to it as the "gold standard", stating "if every country did what Australia did, then we wouldn't be calling it a pandemic."

The New York Times did the math in May this year claiming that if the United States had the same death rate as Australia, about 900,000 lives would have been saved.

John Hopkins University has ranked Australia second in the world in pandemic preparedness. Bloomberg ranked Australia the world's fifth most COVID resilient nation.

Now, as Prime Minister during that time, I certainly do not believe our response was perfect, far from it. We had our good days and bad days.

And nor would I claim that Australia's success was the singular achievement of Government. This was a national achievement. And we had help.

Australia received great support from our many friends, with direct support as well as sharing our experiences and information, and learning from each other, notably Singapore, Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

And in Australia we also returned the favour. Throughout the pandemic Australia continued to support global efforts, especially throughout our Quad partnership with the US, India and Japan, to fight COVID delivering vaccines, PPE, ventilators, AUSMAT medical teams and other medical support to the Indo Pacific and globally through COVAX and GAVI, especially to the Island nations of the South Pacific and our friends in ASEAN.

But Australia's results do tell a proud story. One of the lowest fatality rates, highest vaccination rates and strongest economic performances of any developed country in the world.

Australia has the third lowest mortality rate in the OECD at 401 deaths per million population. This can be compared with Canada at 1,106 per million, the United Kingdom at 2,688 per million and the United States at over 3,000 per million. During the pandemic we estimate that, when compared to the average fatality rates of OECD countries, Australia's response saved an estimated 40,000 lives.

More than 95% of Australia's adult population have had two vaccine doses and we have already commenced fourth doses.

Likewise, since December 2019, when the pandemic first struck, Australia's economy has grown by 4.5 per cent. This compares to 3.9 per cent in Korea, 2.7 per cent in the US, less than one per cent in the UK, Canada and France, while the Japanese and German economies have remained in negative territory.

Australia's success was partly achieved by limiting the scale of our economic decline during COVID. In Australia our economic decline caused by COVID was 2.2 per cent. This compares to 3.4 per cent in the US, 4.5 per cent in Japan, 4.6 percent in Germany, 8 per cent in France and 9.3 per cent in the UK.

Australia also now has the lowest unemployment rate at 3.5% in half a century, with almost 600,000 more jobs than we had before the pandemic.

The results we were able to achieve were no accident - 'no fluke' as we like to say.

In mid January 2020, I first received the news from my Chief Medical Officer, that there was a serious outbreak of a novel Coronavirus in Wuhan, China.

We were already in the midst of severe bushfires, so my National Security Committee was already meeting daily, and often several times a day.

There were very little details at this stage, but following the deadly experiences of SARS and MERS in our region in the early 2000s, we were not treating these reports casually.

I immediately moved to include a Coronavirus update on our NSC agenda and we monitored the situation closely.

While domestically the media and political focus remained on the bushfires and other issues, inside the Government, COVID was moving rapidly to the top of the agenda, as the news just kept getting worse.

It was clear that whatever people thought 2020 was going to be about, everything was about to change.

As I look back on those times now, there are many take outs, especially from a leadership perspective.

One of the most important is that in a crisis leaders must be across the detail.

You quickly become the central point of all information, communication and decision making. You set the pace, tone and direction of the national response.

Process is an important detail.

Sound process provides the guardrails to get things as right as you can, and the mechanisms to fix them quickly when you don't.

The flow and source of your information and advice, the decision making process, your accountability and follow up mechanisms, implementation plans. It all matters.

This should not be confused with wanting to be personally hands on in implementing all aspects of your response. That is a recipe for disaster.

You must be able to trust and delegate. And you must reconcile yourself to the fact that when it does go wrong (which it certainly will at some point) and events conspire against your best laid plans and advice, as the Leader you will just have to cop it.

So control what you can and don't get overwhelmed, bitter or frustrated by what you can't. Just suck it up, as we say in Australia.

It was fortunate that as a Government we had been together for a considerable time. My Ministers were experienced and well established in their portfolios.

Our third victory at the election during the previous year added additional authority, which is essential in managing any crisis.

Together we knew how Government worked and we knew how it didn't.

As a Government we had established a solid operating rhythm through our Cabinet processes. We had strong relationships with and respect for our senior bureaucratic leadership. This was certainly no time for any Government to be learning the basics on the job.

We also had the benefit of standing administrative and statutory frameworks to guide and govern our pandemic response.

In 2014, the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was established and had been recently updated in just August 2019.

In 2016, The National Communicable Diseases Plan was established and updated in 2018, which established a National Medical Expert Panel comprising the Chief Health Officers of all state and territory administrations, and chaired by the National Chief Medical Officer (CMO).

At a national level The Biosecurity Act 2015 and The National Health Security Act of 2007 provided important authorities to support national management of the pandemic.

So with these foundations in place we set about our response.

On January 19, we established the National Incident Room in Canberra. The following day we listed 'Human coronavirus with pandemic potential' under our Biosecurity Act - the same day the first Coronavirus case was confirmed here in South Korea.

In the days and weeks that followed we enhanced biosecurity measures at international air and sea ports, we began shutting the borders, starting with China on February 1, flights were dispatched to rescue trapped Australians in Wuhan, and initial quarantine facilities were set up on one of our remote islands for inward flights from high risk countries.

We then bolstered our national medical stockpile, placed restrictions on public gatherings and formally declared COVID 19 a pandemic a full two weeks before the WHO, demonstrating just how seriously we were taking COVID 19.

From a health perspective, our focus was to slow the spread of the virus, to 'flatten the curve', and to resource and manage scaled-up demand on our health system.

There was also the task of finding a vaccine. As early as March 2020, our Government began funding research into vaccine development and to ensure that when one was available we could make it in Australia to avoid any supply chain risks or likely vaccine protectionism. This job would ultimately be done by an Australian company, CSL, manufacturing the Astra Zeneca vaccine in Melbourne.

Like many other nation-states, Australia is a federation, comprising eight provinces, all of which have their own elected Governments and possess their own primary powers and authorities, especially in relation to public health.

This means any national response to a public health crisis in Australia requires considerable cooperation to harmonise the efforts of the provinces to a common national purpose and plan.

This has never been easy.

When my Chief Medical Officer advised that the escalating number of cases meant our COVID response would need to step up a gear and start introducing broad based restrictions on public movement and gatherings, all controlled by State and Territory Governments I knew we needed to quickly change how we were doing things.

Eight different governments, with the Federal Government, would need to operate together in real time.

I convinced the Premiers to abandon our previous bi annual and overly bureaucratic Leader's forum, and set up a National Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, comprising each of the leaders and the heads of their respective public service administrations. This was necessary to ensure that the officials were aware first hand of all decisions made so they could be translated into action immediately. I didn't want anything lost in translation.

There were no substitutes permitted, no political staff in the room and no other Ministers. The meeting operated under our Cabinet protocols and met frequently, advised by our national Chief Medical officer, Treasury Secretary, Central Bank Governor and Defence and Security officials.

As Prime Minister I chaired 57 meetings of the National Cabinet over a two year period. At no time in our history had State and Federal leaders met as often, as extensively and with such candour.

But we didn't always agree, especially when it came to issues where the medical advice was not consistent such as state borders, school closures or vaccine mandates.

As the pandemic evolved it became more difficult to keep uniformity in the various restrictions employed by each state as the experience of the virus was no longer uniform.

When we inevitably disagreed this caused great frustration amongst the public. Australians found it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister could not just make the decisions. Some even mistakenly believed that the establishment of the National Cabinet had devolved federal powers to the States. This was untrue. The states always had these powers.

Frustration with the National Cabinet was actually frustration with our constitution and the federation. But in a crisis this was no time to engage in a political debate about our federation, nor as the national leader to pick fights with provincial leaders.

Leadership often requires you to take the hit for the mission you are engaged in. This was certainly the case when it came to managing our federation during the pandemic.

A crisis demanded that you curb your natural defensive domestic political instincts to focus on the bigger job and bigger picture. It could not be politics as usual.

That said, for all it's critics, the National Cabinet proved its worth in the outcomes we were able to achieve together. And I am yet to hear of a better alternative.

This was also demonstrated in the establishment of our temporary national hotel quarantine network. While national quarantine facilities had already been established, they would never be enough to cope with the massive surge in demand created by Australians returning from overseas. State and Territory Governments agreed to create this surge capacity with a network of hotel based quarantine for all arrivals.

Again, it was not perfect, but with a 99% success rate in preventing transmission of the virus from inbound arrivals, it played a key role in limiting the impact of the virus in Australia.

And again, for the critics, I am yet to hear of a more sensible, practical and cost effective alternative that could have been stood up with the same results in the same timeframe.

Another key element of our response was to ensure that it was information and evidence led.

We were determined to be guided by the medical evidence and we were determined to stay up to date. We were constantly looking, learning and listening to what was occurring around the world.

All of this had to be channelled into a single source of truth to guide our discussions and decision making. We needed to be reading off the same set of credible facts, not speculation or opinion.

This extended from the standard format of daily data updates to the detailed epidemiological modelling studies commissioned to inform our response.

But while the medical evidence and advice certainly guided our response, at a federal level I was determined that decisions be made by those who were elected to carry that responsibility. To do otherwise was also unfair to officials and advisers, whose narrow responsibilities were not designed to exercise such decision making functions. They needed to provide their advice without trying to second guess the response of their political leaders, or make decisions for them.

In a crisis, everyone needs to know what their job is and what they are accountable for.

Our job as leaders was to decide, the job of the medical, economic and other expert advisers was to advise and the job of the public service officials was to implement.

I have no doubt that our early responses, while not without fault, saved tens of thousands of lives.

But it was only just beginning. Having activated the initial steps and taking additional precautionary measures to buy us time while we followed the epidemiology closely, we were also thinking ahead.

It would not just be lives that would be threatened by this pandemic. It would be livelihoods and our very way of life. All of which would come under threat.

Prior to the pandemic striking, Australia was experiencing a record economic run. Almost twenty nine years of consecutive economic growth without a recession. By some accounts a world record. After six grinding years of disciplined financial management, our Government had restored our federal budget to balance. We were now looking forward to our first budget surplus in 12 years and paying down what was a modest debt by international standards at 19% of GDP.

We believed that COVID would not just threaten the lives of millions of Australians but their livelihoods also. Australia is an open trading economy and the world was shutting down.

COVID was going to be an economic meteor, not just a health one.

When managing a crisis you need to be clear about what your goals are. Such goals provide discipline to decision making in Government, guide your bureaucracy and provide much needed certainty, calming financial markets and bolstering public confidence.

As a result we made it very clear that Australia would have twin goals in managing the pandemic - to save lives and save livelihoods. And it was important we do this consistent with our principles as a liberal democracy.

This included our broader values of respect for the dignity and sanctity of human life. It was not OK to just let some people die.

At the first virtual meeting of G20 Leaders to discuss the global pandemic response I set out saving lives and saving livelihoods as Australia's twin goals for managing our pandemic response. Australia was one of the few countries to deliberately adopt this twin approach from the very outset.

In March, 2020 I summarised the principles that would guide our economic response.

Economically, our objective was to keep people in jobs, keep businesses in business, and ensure we bounced back stronger on the other side.

I did not want Australia just to survive COVID. I wanted us to emerge stronger.

This meant supporting community confidence, employment and business continuity.

It meant boosting domestic consumption, reducing cash flow pressures for the most vulnerable businesses, and supporting new investments to lift productivity.

We resolved that our response must be proportionate, timely, scalable, temporary, targeted, aligned with other policy measures - especially monetary policy - use existing delivery mechanisms, favour measures that would also boost productivity and have a clear exit strategy.

These principles guided the decisions that lead to our Government investing $314 billion (more than 16% of GDP) in direct economic support, including income support, business cash flow assistance, training and education.

The most significant was what we called Jobkeeper. While presenting as a wage subsidy, it was actually a social security payment delivered by nationalising private payrolls.

It was a unique partnership between the government, employers and the banks to deliver timely and reliable income support at a time of almost unprecedented demand that Government systems alone could never have accommodated.

The failure of such systems would have led to serious social collapse, the destruction of public confidence, deep and devastating economic scarring and the real possibility of civil unrest.

Employers decided who to keep on their payroll, where necessary they borrowed the $1500 per fortnight for each employee from their banks, who were best placed to assess their financial situation, and we then settled up with payments to employers using established processes in the tax system.

Jobkeeper was deployed nationally in April and phased out by the end of March 2021.

Jobkeeper directly saved 800,000 jobs and hundreds of thousands of businesses. The way we delivered Jobkeeper also preserved an important feature of Australian society.

Many other countries gave wage subsidy payments as a proportion of previous wages. My Government rejected this approach, leading some to claim that by doing so we had rejected providing wage subsidies. This was false.

Australia is a strongly egalitarian society. I was adamant that no Australian would be eligible for any greater taxpayer supporter than any other. We were all in this together. This was another way of ensuring that we were dealing with the crisis in a way that preserved our national values and character. We were making our Australian Way through the pandemic.

Jobkeeper also showed the importance of enlisting the non Government sector in our response.

One of the most important rules in managing a crisis as a leader is recognising that you are not always, if ever, the smartest person in the room and that Government does not have all the answers. You can't manage a national crisis from an ivory tower.

To ensure further collaboration and engagement we also established a National COVID Commission, bringing together experienced business leaders to workshop, stress test and align our actions with those of the private sector and make sure that important issues like supply chain pressures were being addressed effectively.

It was also important to keep communicating to support community confidence. On more than one occasion I announced ambitious reopening plans, developed with provincial leaders, only to be thwarted by the next permutation of the virus.

I do not regret such actions as it showed what we were trying to achieve - living with the virus, not pretending we could eradicate it.

So when the next wave hit, we regrouped, reset and came up with a new plan.

We also worked to strike the right balance in our response measures and not get too far ahead of where the public was at. Like in most western countries there were many who loudly proclaimed their ideological and religious opposition to pandemic measures. As Ferguson recounts in Doom, such responses also have a long history, from seeing pandemics as divine judgement to global conspiracies.

My experience of the pandemic is that the virus does not care about your ideology. It is real, it has threatened lives and livelihoods and has to be taken seriously. Most Australians had a similarly practical view. Sure, none of us liked the restrictions any more than those of us who had the responsibility for imposing them, but I can assure you that none of it came as a direction from any conference of the Global Illuminati.

We just collected and evaluated the science and made the most sensible decisions we could, with the information we had, to help as many people through the crisis as possible as we could.

And on this score Australia has a really good story to tell.

In conclusion, as we emerge from the pandemic we must now address ourselves to the forces shaping our post pandemic world.

1. The acceleration of the digital economy – the need to align the rules and behaviour between digital and physical worlds, and the centrality of digital to economic growth.

2. Heightened demand for skills and research talent in our economy - the need for world class skills and training, more adaptable workplaces and closer collaboration between business and the research community.

3. Sharper geo-political competition - playing out in multiple realms and regions, but with its epi-centre in our region, the Indo Pacific.

4. New pressures on global supply chains and open trade - with governments and companies having to reassess assumptions from what some have called the era of 'hyper-globalisation', and

5. The drive to decarbonise the global economy - with technological innovation and the push for a deep transition in the global energy system, alongside the need to maintain affordable, reliable energy for consumers.

We face these challenges in tandem with navigating a strong, sustainable recovery.

The world needs a fast recovery - not the prolonged sluggish recovery that followed the GFC in the 2010s.

This is vital because we know COVID has accentuated new divides...

....between those bearing the brunt of pandemic and those able to insulate.

....between countries that have strong health and vaccination infrastructure and those without

...and between the sectors that are growing - such as logistics, health, and IT, and the sectors that have suffered - tourism and travel, business events, and the like.

A business led recovery that creates jobs and prosperity, that reactivates markets, free trade and entrepreneurialism, that inspires innovation and that narrows the divides - because shared prosperity is always the foundation for democracy and security.

As an Australian I am incurably optimistic, hopeful and confident that all of these challenges are not beyond us, and that, once again, humanity will overcome.

---

1. Ferguson, Niall. Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe (pp. 150-151). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Press Conference - Canberra, ACT

10 April 2022

---

PRIME MINISTER: Well good morning, everyone. Earlier today, I visited His Excellency the Governor-General and advised him to call an election for the House of Representatives and half of the Senate on May 21. And he accepted my advice. I love this country and I love Australians. And I know Australians have been through a very tough time. I also know that Australia continues to face very tough challenges in the years ahead. But more than ever, I know that we live in the best country in the world. And more than ever, I am optimistic about our future and what I know Australians can achieve. Because despite the very real difficulties that we face, and the setbacks we indeed have had, Australia and Australians have shown that we can overcome. By working together, we've avoided the nightmare scenarios that so many other countries have faced in recent years. Unemployment was predicted to reach 15 per cent, but now it is just 4 per cent and falling - the equal lowest level in some 48 years. Our economic recovery measures, especially JobKeeper, saved some 700,000 jobs. And our health response working together, has saved, compared to other countries, tens of thousands of lives. On almost any measure, on fatality rates from COVID, vaccine rates, economic growth, jobs growth or debt levels, Australia's recovery is leading the world. But we're not out of the woods yet and Australians know it. There's still a lot of uncertainty ahead. And I get it, that people are tired of politics as we go into this election, but this election and this campaign is incredibly important. Because there is so much at stake for Australia and our future. This election is about you, no one else. It's about our country and it's about its future. And above all, this election, as all elections are, this election is a choice. It's a choice between a strong economy, and a Labor Opposition that would weaken it. It's a choice between an economic recovery that is leading the world, and a Labor Opposition that would weaken it, and risk it. It's a choice between responsible financial management that has seen Australia maintain its AAA credit rating in the most extreme of circumstances and has seen the largest Budget turnaround in the last 12 months that we have seen in 70 years. And a Labor Opposition that, you know, can't manage money. It's a choice between an economic plan that will deliver the lowest unemployment rate we have seen in 50 years, and a Labor Opposition that has a track record in government of higher unemployment, higher interest rates and higher electricity prices. And it's a choice between a Government that believes and has delivered lower taxes, because we believe you should keep more of what you earn, as we promised to do. And a Labor Opposition that you know, would always increase your taxes if given the opportunity. It's a choice between a strong and tested Government team that has demonstrated our ability to make difficult and tough choices in tough times and a Labor Opposition who has been so focussed on politics over these past few years that they still can't tell you what they do, who they are or what they believe in, and what they stand for. It's a choice between a strong future and an uncertain one. It's a choice between a Government you know and a Labor Opposition that you don't. Our Government is not perfect. We've never claimed to be, but we are upfront, and you may see some flaws. But you can also see what we have achieved for Australia in incredibly difficult times. And you can see our plan. Our plan will deliver more and better jobs and the lowest unemployment seen in some 50 years. Our plan does deliver tax relief, and it does deliver that for workers and for small businesses - to help you get ahead and ensure that you can deal with the cost of living pressures right here, right now. It's a plan that invests in roads and rail and renewable energy technology that helps us build for the future. It's a plan that invests in unlocking the wealth of our country further with investments in road and rail and dams, and particularly in regional Australia. With a strong economy, our plan invests at record levels in the health and essential services that you rely on because only a strong economy can guarantee the essential services that you rely on. It's a plan that keeps Australians safe by ensuring we continue the biggest rebuilding of our defence and security forces since World War II. We are dealing with a world that is less stable than at any other time since the Second World War. Our economy has many, many moving parts. And there are many great risks, but I believe there are many, many opportunities there to be seized from the strong position we've put ourselves in as a country, as we emerge strongly from this pandemic. Now is not the time to risk that. Only by voting for the Liberals and Nationals at this election on May 21 can you ensure a strong economy for a stronger future. Now I'm happy to take a few quick questions. Phil.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you, this time compared to three years ago, you go into this campaign with a much higher personal disapproval rating. What do you say to voters who voted for you last time but are intending not to do so this time, because of those personal reasons?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I come back, Phil, to exactly what I've just said. This election, others will seek to make it about me. It's actually about the people who are watching this right now. It's about them. And what we've demonstrated over these past three years is the ability to make those decisions that has ensured that Australia's recovery is leading the world. We have delivered those lower taxes. We have delivered those lower electricity prices. We have delivered the guaranteed investment in essential services, from medicines to disability to aged care. We have delivered on the essential services that Australians rely on, and we've done that because we've always understood that it is a strong economy that produces a stronger future, and our economic track record demonstrates the plans that we have put forward in this most recent Budget and indeed the plans that we will further put forward in the course of this election. People can have confidence in those plans because they're backed up by an economic plan that underwrites them, and they're being implemented by a tried and tested and proven team. Not just me as Prime Minister, but my Treasurer, my Defence Minister, my Home Affairs Minister, my Foreign Minister, my Health Minister who has served us so well. Our team can deliver on this plan because it is our team that has been able to deliver what has been one of the strongest recoveries we've seen anywhere in the world. Clare, Clare, Clare.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Prime Minister, on the issue of health, the pandemic is still going. Australians deserve to know maybe who their Health Minister might be if your Government is re-elected. Will they know that before they go to the polls?

PRIME MINISTER: Absolutely, and they'll know that fairly soon over the course of about the next week or so.

JOURNALIST: If you are re-elected, if you're re-elected, do you commit to staying as Prime Minister for the full three years? Or will you look to hand over some way at some stage in the town?

PRIME MINISTER: Of course I do, because there's a lot to do. There's a lot to do, and I'm pleased that I'm standing here again before you today, after coming and standing before you three years ago. And here I am today, after three years where we've delivered an unemployment rate of 4 per cent. Electricity prices are down by 8 per cent over the last two years. Taxes have been lowered for Australian businesses and Australian families. We've invested in the strength and security of our defence forces and security agencies. We have delivered some of the biggest agreements to protect Australia's future, whether our allies like the United States, our Quad partners in defence and most recently with India – our economic free trade agreement – we have been laying the strong foundation to ensure that Australia can prosper in the years ahead, but it cannot be taken for granted. This election is a choice between a Government that you know, and that has been delivering and a Labor Opposition that you don't.

JOURNALIST: Can you confirm – you've attacked Labor about who their ministers are going to be – can you confirm that you're not going to change any current Minister that has their job should you win the election?

PRIME MINISTER: I'm taking my team forward to this election. They're a proven team.

JOURNALIST: Will Alan Tudge be in your Cabinet, if your Government is returned then?

PRIME MINISTER: Alan Tudge is still in my Cabinet.

JOURNALIST: What do you say to the rank and file members of your own Party who say your delay on preselections has hobbled their chance of getting their candidate up and hobbled your own chances of re-election?

PRIME MINISTER: My strong and united team that I've led for these past three years sitting around that Cabinet table just in there, which has seen Australia through the worst economic crisis and health crisis we have seen in 70 years on the economy and 100 years on health - has seen Australia lead the world with its recovery. That's what we've delivered. That's what my team has delivered, and our plan will ensure that we can continue to take that forward into the years ahead in one of the most uncertain environments Australia has faced, and that's what we're focussed on. That's what we'll deliver, and I look forward to making that case out there each and every day. Thank you very much.

---

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-43954

Press Conference - Avalon, VIC

8 April 2022

---

Stephanie Asher, Liberal Candidate for Corangamite: Hello. Welcome everybody on what is a very exciting day for this region. This project is going to have very broad benefits for both small businesses and large businesses in this region, so it's a really, really exciting day for everybody. I'm delighted to welcome with us today, the Prime Minister Scott Morrison, of course, and also acknowledge my colleague, the Corio candidate, Manish Patel. I introduce now, the Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Welcome.

Prime Minister: Thank you. Thank you very much. It's great to be here with you, Steph, and to you, Manish, and it's great to have you both on our team and joined by Sarah Henderson as well, who's with us here and David Van is also in attendance at this event today. What we're announcing today, I think, is very significant. And I think it highlights our plan and the contrasting plan of the Labor Party. What we've done today is turn the sod on a billion dollar project to develop these Howitzers right here in Australia, in Victoria. Now this was a project that was first delayed by Labor and then cancelled by Labor as they were cutting spending on our defence forces to the lowest level that we had seen since 1938. And what we have done as a government has turned that around. And that over these years that we've been in government, we've restored that support for our defence forces up to now, 2 per cent of the size of our economy. And the reason we've been able to do that is because we've been running a strong economy.

When Labor was in power, they weren't able to do that and they had to cut the defence forces. They lost control of our borders. Their costs skyrocketed. Unemployment went from 4.2 per cent to 5.7 per cent. Important medicines were cut from the program because they couldn't manage the finances. They couldn't run a strong economy. Now our government has now faced an economic crisis globally, 30 times worse than the Global Financial Crisis that was faced when Labor was last in power. But our employment outcomes have been 50 per cent better, and because we can manage a strong economy, it means that we can keep defence, investing in our defence forces, which we are doing here. A billion dollar project making these Howitzers right here in Australia, and also in, in Victoria, but also drawing supplies out of northern Tasmania. Developing skills, building workforce, establishing capability in our defence industries, but most importantly, ensuring that our defence forces have the capability that they need to do the job. 100 jobs here in the specific task of constructing this facility, but then 300 ongoing jobs here with Hanwha to deliver this important project.

The fact that we have got a strong defence force means that we can also come to the support of those around the world. Our Pacific family know that only too well. Whenever there is trouble, whenever there is a problem, we're able to turn out and support our Pacific family. We're also able to do that with our family in, in ASEAN and in south-east Asia, as we've turned out with humanitarian crises, other natural disasters. We're there to help keep the peace and help countries get back on their feet.

Now in the Ukraine, facing the dreadful and unlawful invasion by Russia, and with the war crimes being committed there, particularly what we've seen in Bucha, Australia is resolute in standing with the people of Ukraine and the government of Ukraine and ensuring we give them every possible support to resist and to defend their country and their territorial integrity. We might be half a world away, but we are very close with the Ukrainian people, as we've supported them each and every step of the way. This morning, you would have seen the C-17 taking the first shipment of Australian Bushmasters, built right here, and going to Ukraine to help them defend their country. Already with that commitment, we have taken our commitment to supporting the Ukrainian defence effort to $160 million. Today, though, I'm announcing further investments that will see us spend $26.5 million in a package focussing on anti-armour weapons and ammunition and capabilities that have proven critical on the battlefield so far. While I can't disclose specific details of the package or delivery arrangements, and that's at the direct request of Ukrainian officials and partners. What it demonstrates is that our support continues and will continue. I said they have our prayers, but they've also got our guns and our ammunition. We've been able to redirect some of our supplies to ensure they can go to the front lines in Ukraine to ensure they can continue the fight. So it will be our Bushmasters over there. They'll be our weapons, our armour, our ammunition, there supporting the people of Ukraine. And then on top of that, there's the humanitarian assistance that we've been able to deliver. And overnight, I want to commend particularly Foreign Minister Payne and our ambassador to the United Nations, Mitch Fifield, on the great work they've done in joining with other countries in sanctioning and kicking Russia out of the United Nation Human Rights Council. This was an important thing to do.

Russia must pay a terrible and awful price for what they have done to Ukraine, violating the rules of law, violating the territorial sovereignty and integrity of their neighbour, and to send a very strong message that any others that would want to contemplate that sort of action, any others that would want to act in this autocratic, authoritarian way on their neighbours, including right here in this region, that Australia will always stand up and countries that love peace and freedom will always stand up. So this brings our military support to almost $200 million now with this additional support that we're providing today and we will continue, we will continue to look for opportunities to ensure we can deliver that support. Happy to take some questions.

Journalist: This is a big announcement in a very marginal seat. Is it enough to get Steph over the line?

Prime Minister: Well, you’ll need to talk to the deputy leader of the Labor Party because we're actually in Corio …

Journalist: Sorry …

Prime Minister: … but I welcome the encouragement. And so does Manish, I'm sure, welcomes that encouragement. But this is an important part of the Victorian economy. That's where we are. These projects benefit the Victorian and the national economy. I said in my remarks that just over there it was our government supported the development of the international terminal and facilitated that capacity right here in regional Victoria. That was our promise. And you can see it delivered over there. This is our promise. And you can see it being delivered right here. This is great for jobs in Victoria. It's great for jobs in Australia because it builds capability. It's also supporting jobs, as I said down in northern Tasmania and through Elphinstone. So this is an exciting project that builds our defence capability and actually makes our economy stronger.

Journalist: We've had a $150 million put into Corangamite by Labor. What can you and will you promise the people of Corangamite? And can you win the election if you don't win Corangamite?

Prime Minister: Well, I might ask Steph Asher, she might make a few comments about that, and she can talk very specifically about her local plan here in Corangamite. But what I can say, this election is a choice between Liberal and Nationals, and what we've been able to do to keep our economy strong through this pandemic and emerge stronger than almost any other advanced country in the world with a strong plan for the future. You know our economic plans. You've seen them work. You know who my economic team is. You know what the Treasurer's achieved and the Finance Minister. You know what my defence team is. You know what Peter Dutton has been able to do in the defence portfolio. You know what Josh Frydenberg has been able to do as Treasurer. You know what Marise Payne has been able to do as Foreign Minister. You know me, you know my team, you know our policies, you know our results and you know our plans for the future.

You don't know anything about the Labor Party. They haven't told you anything. They can't even confirm who their defence minister will be and who their Home Affairs minister will be if they were selected by the Australian people at the next election. So this election will be an opportunity. They're currently a complete blank page that had three years to tell you what their economic plan would be after they were rejected at the last election. And they still haven't told you. And they're not going to skate to an election without the proper scrutiny that should come, and this election campaign is very important. It'll give Australians the opportunity to have a good look. They know who we are. They know what we've achieved. They know what our plans are. They don't know anything about Labor because Labor haven't told them the truth.

Stephanie Asher, Liberal Candidate for Corangamite: There will be more information on the local plan in the coming weeks, but it's a very strong local plan focused on jobs and the economy. Managing growth, that's a big issue in our region, making sure that the community has the facilities that they require and also a big investment in health - in physical and mental health. So we will have more details coming in the next couple of weeks. I look forward to sharing those with you.

Journalist: Katy Higgins [sic] this morning said basically, the PM wasn't exactly helping in her voting effort in inner Melbourne. Is the PM being here today going to help in your effort in Corangamite?

Stephanie Asher, Liberal Candidate for Corangamite: I think these sorts of announcements are actually really positive and I'm very, very, very grateful to have the Prime Minister here showing his support and making these sorts of announcement, and showing that we are delivering on this.

Journalist: Stephanie, you've got a lot of runs on the board, obviously, with your political work as a local councillor here in Geelong. How do you see that translating into this seat though? Do you do you really? Are you going to be campaigning on that or will you be hitting full stop on that and starting afresh in a federal sphere for a very important area?

Stephanie Asher, Liberal Candidate for Corangamite: I think wherever you're working as a candidate, and wherever you're working as a representative it's about the community, and I understand my community very well. I'm a very active member of my local community in Corangamite, and I know what their concerns are. I know what they celebrate and when you see my local plan, I think you'll understand that we actually match ...

Journalist: What's in the local plan?

Stephanie Asher, Liberal Candidate for Corangamite: As I've just said, it's a very strong focus on the economy, very strong focus on local jobs, investment in health and community structure, community facilities ...

Journalist: Any specific local announcements?

Stephanie Asher, Liberal Candidate for Corangamite: The specifics will be announced in the next couple of weeks, you'll have to wait and see.

Journalist: Well, you have the Prime Minister here to announce them with you, you're hoping that he'll be back, throughout the campaign?

Prime Minister: I'll be back many times. You'll see me many, many times here and right across the country because I'm looking forward to this election campaign, because election campaigns are an opportunity for Australians to make a choice. You know, the days of, you know, people expressing sentiments and opinions... Look at an election, you go into a booth and you make a choice about who you're going to vote for. And that choice has a consequence. It determines the economy you will live in for the next decade. It determines how strong Australia can be in one of our most uncertain times. And Australians know our record and they know our plans, but they don't know what the alternative is. At a time of great uncertainty, I'd say vote for what you know and what you know from us is a government that can deliver on the economy and has a strong economic plan for the future, that delivers on national security and has a strong plan to keep delivering on national security. Labor is an unknown in uncertain times. They've left it too late, they've had three years to tell you what they're going to do, and they are a blank page, and that means uncertainty in uncertain times.

Journalist: This morning, actually, Albanese was talking about support for aged care workers. What would you think is a fair increase to the wages of aged care workers?

Prime Minister: What the Fair Work Commission determines.

Journalist: The four big banks have all indicated that there will be several interest rate rises over the next couple of months, with the first to be from June 7. You've obviously announced cost of living measures, but what do you propose to help with families who are going to be facing increased mortgage rates?

Prime Minister: Well, you're right to highlight the pressures that are on globally and in the global economy, and of course, that impacts in Australia. And that's why the cost of living measures were put in this budget are dealing with some very significant things that are happening right now, and that is fuel prices. Fuel prices are going up because of the war in Ukraine, and the Treasury estimates that over the next six months, that we’ll see those oil price per barrel returned to normal levels. And that's why we put this measure in place a very responsible measure over the next six months, in New Zealand I believe they did it for three months, we've done it for six months. That's the estimate we've made based on where we see oil prices going in the future. And so it's targeted, it's responsible. Just like JobKeeper was, JobKeeper wasn't going to go forever, but it did save 700,000 jobs. It did keep businesses as businesses. And they're here now being able to tool up and go again with the economy that's rebounding. The reason we've been able to provide that support right now in this Budget is because we've had the biggest economic turnaround we've seen in this country in 70 years, with the Budget improving by over 100 billion dollars, as the Treasurer announced last week. And so that puts us in a strong position to support for pensioners and others receiving those types of payments will be coming out in the next few weeks. On top of that, when you put your tax return in on the 1st of July, if you're earning up to $126,000, you'll be getting an extra $420 tax back. That's your money - we think we should be able to keep it to get through these difficult times. But the reduction in taxes we put in place over a long time continue to benefit. You know, if you were on $90,000 today, if we still had the same tax rates that we inherited from the Labor Party and we've changed by cutting taxes, you would be paying $50 a week and more every single week on Labor's old tax rates. So we're already ensuring through lower taxes that you're keeping more of what you earn. But the other point I'd make is here in Australia, inflation is running at under half of what it is in the United States, well below what it is in the UK and most of Europe. And we're in a position to have a strong economy because while we've had to lean heavily into the pandemic and our economic response to get the Australian economy through, we've been targeted about it. We've been sensible about it, we've been balanced. And that has enabled us to keep our AAA credit rating, one of only nine countries in the world to do so as we've come through this pandemic. Now, Labor's plan during the pandemic would have seen us spend an extra $81 billion on top of what was spent, on things like paying out $6 billion for people to have the vaccine that they already had. Now, we thought that was a reckless plan and a foolish plan. And by not engaging in that sort of foolish and reckless spending, we've been able to maintain our AAA credit rating, which puts downward pressure on the pressures to rise interest rates, which are all around the world and puts downward pressure on inflationary pressures which are rising all around the world. So you're right, in times when cost of living is coming under a lot of pressure, how you manage the nation's finances, how do you manage a strong economy - that is the best way to keep mortgage rates as low as we possibly can. And it's the best way to keep downward pressure on prices that families face, such as electricity. We've got electricity prices down by eight per cent in the last two years. You remember at the last election, that was a major issue - the cost, rising cost of electricity. Well, we've delivered.

Journalist: Prime Minister, you said you're not too concerned about slings and arrows. There's a tweet that's came out of your member for, or, your candidate for Corangamite, who was scoffing at your thoughts on women, saying that 51 or 50 per cent is not a minority. What are your thoughts on that?

Prime Minister: Well, I haven't seen that, but what I do know is more than 50 per cent, more than 50 per cent of the board appointments we've made to Government boards are women now. What I do know is that we've delivered the single largest package of support for women facing domestic violence and family violence in this country. That's been done over two Budgets in delivering important services, whether it's on housing, accommodation support, support through the justice system to get protection. These are very important measures for women. We've got more than a million women in work today than we had when we first came to government. More than two million Australians are now in work today. More than a million of those have been women. What I do know is the female unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest level since 1974. And what I do know is our Paid Parental Leave scheme that we announced in the Budget is actually giving families real choices. We're not telling them how to manage their family arrangements. We're saying there's 20 weeks and you can work that out for what best suits you and your family. See the Liberal Party and the Nationals, we're all about giving families more choices. We're all about giving women more choices, choices about their economic security, protecting them from the violence that they often confront. No government has ever invested more in the national plans that we have to protect women from violence than our Government. We have stepped up well beyond, I think, many of our critics ever expected, and we're going to keep doing it because we believe passionately that the only way you can keep doing it, is if you have a strong economy. And a strong economy is what enables our Government to guarantee the essential services Australians rely on.

Journalist: Prime Minister, is your hope that by not calling the election at this time right now to draw greater attention to what you say is a lack of policy from Anthony Albanese? And if so, how long do you really need before driving up to see the Governor-General?

Prime Minister: Well, electoral terms go for three years. The last election was on the 18th of May and the next election will be held at about the same time.

Journalist: On which date?

Prime Minister: So that's, that's three years and that's what the electoral term is.

Journalist: Which date?

Prime Minister: We will know very soon. 

Journalist: How soon?

Prime Minister: Very soon.

Journalist: Sunday?

Journalist: By the end of the weekend?

Prime Minister: You'll know when I'm announcing it.

Journalist: Will we know by the end of the weekend?

Journalist: Will you announce it on Sunday, Prime Minister? 

Prime Minister: I do know this, and that is the date of the next election and the campaign that runs up to it is extremely important. Anthony Albanese has ducked and weaved, he's pretended to be everybody under the sun except himself. And that's a real risk because what I know, having gone through what has been one of the most challenging times that any government has faced since the Second World War, that what matters is what you believe. What matters is the strength and resilience you can bring to the job. Now, I know not all decisions that I've taken, everyone's agreed with. I know that not every government is perfect, particularly in times like this. But what I also know, is people, I know who I am. And I know what I'm about. I know what our policies are. I know who my teams are, my team is. I'm not pretending to be anyone else. I'm standing by my record and the plans that I have for the future. And this election campaign is a choice. It's a choice between the strong economy that delivers a stronger future, and a weaker economy under the weaker economic management of the Labor Party. And so Australians have a very real choice. And on that note, I thank you all for being here today.

---

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-43952

Remarks, Ground Breaking For Hanwha Armoured Vehicle Centre Of Excellence Avalon, VIC

8 April 2022

---

Prime Minister: Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. Can I join with everyone who's welcomed, of course, the Minister here to be with us today. Can I also welcome the Korean Ambassador who is here with us today; Jae-il Son, the Hanwha Defense President and Chief Executive Officer; and of course, Richard Cho, the Hanwha Defense Australia Managing Director. It's good to be here with you all today.

And of course, my colleagues who are here with me today, Senator Henderson and Senator Van. It's great to be with my colleagues. Can I also acknowledge that Stephanie Asher the Liberal candidate for Corangamite and Manish Patel, who's the Liberal candidate for Corio, who joined with us here today. Can I also welcome Major General Bottrell and those of the Defence Forces who are joining us, joining with us here today.

As always, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land in which we meet today, their elders past and present, and of course, emerging. And as I always do want to acknowledge any members of the Defence Forces I have, who here with us today, veterans who are with us in our defence industries, our veterans are invaluable in ensuring the capability that we are seeking to achieve and are achieving with our Defence Forces in this country.

Today brings together a series of the Government's economic strategies. Of course, it's about realising the strengthening of our Defence Forces in a very uncertain world. What we have done over these years is to restore the capability of our Defence Forces, lifting our investment in our Defence Forces from the lowest level we had seen since prior to the Second World War, when we came to government to now just over two per cent of the size of our economy and growing. It also ensures a key element of our strong economic plan that has seen Australia come through this pandemic stronger than any of the G7 nations and similar, I must say, to the great and strong performance of the Korean Government, who have had a very similar experience during the pandemic, both saving lives and livelihoods. And with President Moon, I've discussed on many occasions and shared stories about how we have been managing the pandemic and indeed how they have and with President elect Yoon, I've also had these discussions. And the third element, is the partnerships, alliances and alignments that we've been pulling together over these last three and a half years in particular. This is about achieving a more stable and secure Indo-Pacific, and our partnership with Korea is central to those alignments and partnerships that we have in our region in the Indo-Pacific. And I'm looking forward to that only strengthening from here.

And I think today's announcement as we turn the sod on this important site puts proof to that relationship that we have developed. This has not happened overnight. There are decisions that have had to be made both in Korea and here in Australia in an uncertain time. You do business with countries that you trust and you do business with businesses that you know you can trust; that are aligned to how you see the world; that are aligned to ensuring a secure and free and open Indo-Pacific. And so the development of our defence capability here in Australia, we do with partners, you know, of course, of the historic agreement that we've been able to reach with the United States and the United Kingdom in AUKUS. This is a partnership, a defence agreement that is the most significant defence agreement Australia has entered into since, indeed, ANZUS 70 years ago. Our partnerships with our Quad countries with India and Japan, and of course, the United States - the first nation to have developed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the ASEAN nations. This has all been part of Australia's strategy to ensure we are forming the alliances and alignments and partnerships that together makes Australia stronger. And we are stronger together and we are stronger together because of this partnership. What is in fact, a commercial partnership when it comes to delivery of this important defence capability, but as we signed these agreements and the President and I observed and watched over those documents being executed when he was here last year, it spoke to a much bigger and more important partnership.

But here on the ground, and I love coming here, as Sarah knows in particular, because this is a field where I can look out on promises already delivered, whether it's the Avalon International Airport, which we said we would do. And there it stands, and you can see it. And I commend the Fox family for the great investment they've made in this part of Victoria, and we have stood with them to do that. And here we are standing today, delivering on yet another promise in moving forward with the Howitzer program, a program that delivers important jobs for this region. Jobs that are high-skilled jobs. Jobs that will create more jobs because of the capability that has learnt through the workforce that will work on this very site. The research, the technology, the digital skills, the technical skills, the collaboration that will be formed here will ensure that we're in a position to create even more jobs off the back of what they achieve here. As our defence industries continue to grow and continue to strengthen, giving us that sovereign capability that is also important to our security as a nation. So the ability to generate jobs through our defence industries - this is not something that has happened overnight. This is something that we've worked hard on as a Government, year after year, after year. As we've continued to demonstrate our commitment both to our Defence Forces and our sovereign capability to meet the needs of our Defence Forces in an increasingly uncertain and unstable world. And we're, of course, reminded of just how unstable and how uncertain it is with the dreadful and terrible events that are occurring in the Ukraine. And today, the six, C-17 leaves Australia, on its way to Europe to deliver those Australian Bushmaster that President Zelenskyy asked us for in Australian Parliament. And as soon as he asked, we said yes. And those C-17 takes the first of those to Europe today. 

Approximately a hundred jobs will be created during the construction phase of this $170 million facility, with work planned to start in the second half of this year - so not too far away - and be completed in 2024. This will be undertaken by an Australian owned, Victorian based construction company. And once completed, a further 300 jobs will be created by the Howitzer Project through to the late 2040s. And this will provide a significant boost, economic boost to the Geelong region, which I know Steph Asher will be very pleased about, as will Manish. I'm pleased that companies around Australia will be part of the Howitzer supply chain, including Elphinstone down in northern Tasmania, where I was just a few days ago. And about a week or two ago, I was there visiting the very plant where they'll be providing supplies into what's being done here. So creating jobs in regional Australia, as well as where we stand just today. Elphinstone, who under enhanced industry package agreed with Hanwha, will manufacture the holes and turrets, creating an additional 55 jobs there in Tasmania. 

But the third element of all of this is I've talked about our partnerships is what these increased weapons will be able to do for Australia. This decision will fill the capability gap, and frankly, a gap that was left by the previous Labor Government who cancelled this project. This new facility will produce Australian self-propelled Howitzers and armoured ammunition resupply vehicles that will constitute the ADF's protected mobile fires capability. So investing in our capability, investing in jobs and investing in the strength and security of our nation, as we continue to energise and build our Defence Forces in a very uncertain time. But, you know, I'm also pleased to be here because this is the fulfilment of a promise. We said we would get this done, when others walked away, and we are getting it done. And as we turn the soil here today, that is a further demonstration that the strong economy that we've been able to manage through one of the most difficult times that Australia has known since the Second World War - we've been able to keep up the momentum of keeping Australians safe and keeping Australia strong and keeping our economy strong. Because if you don't have a strong economy, you can't build these things, you can't do it, you can't do any of it. And it's the strong economy that we've been able to maintain through this pandemic, which enables us to keep Australia safe. 

So, thank you to our Korean partners who are here with us today - I appreciate you making the effort to be with us here today. And thank you to all of those who've been part of this important project getting us to this day, and who will be important to us as we move forward, as the jobs get created and the capability is established. And I want to thank everyone for joining us on this very special day in our partnership and for Australia. Thank you very much for your time.

---

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-43951