Question: Melissa Conley Tyler from the Asia Pacific Development, Diplomacy and Defence Dialogue. So, Shadow Minister, you talked about the need to prevent the Global South being led in directions that I think are against Australia’s interests. I’m interested in your view of Australia’s development program and the way that it engages with the developing countries in our region and more broadly.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks so much, Melissa and our development program is clearly one of the most important tools that we have, and it is one where standing on the strength and credibility of that development program over many, many years is crucial. And I acknowledge there are people in this room that have worked on that development program over a long period of time and built up that credibility. And the credibility that we bring is one of seeking to invest and support capability building within country and the priorities of those countries, and to do so in ways that respect the sovereignty and structure the program in ways that deliver for those nations. And it is crucial that we emphasise at all opportunities the very ethical and focused way in which our development program is delivered, and that we seek to partner with equally ethical nations to build out the sense of support that recipient countries have in terms of that program.
It is challenged, now as we see welcome, additional funding go into development from other countries. But it’s also challenged by the type of elite capture models that run concurrent with that funding and by the fact that others are not always as equitable and not always as focused in providing funding for programs and projects that are for the benefit of the people of recipient nations, but instead perhaps serve the political interests of those who have been targeted as part of that elite capture regime program. So, that is one of the real challenges we face. We’re not alone in the provision of development assistance anymore. It is a contested space, and some of those contesting that space don’t play by the same rules that we do. And so we need to put even more effort into ensuring rejection of the standards we apply, and also capacity building across foreign governments to ensure that identification of corruption, identification of other problems within how aid moneys are transferred or handled is given greater frequency and attention in those nations.
Question: Hello, Senator. My name is Eleanor Hughes. I’m an American delegate with the AIIA and the Japan Foundation in the Pacific Cooperation Network. I live in Washington, DC at a think tank that works on national security defence issues. First of all, I really want to commend you and thank you for saying about the state of our elections and how we should not so easily catastrophize, because I think at least in Washington, DC, it’s a very difficult thing to say. And I really appreciate that you said that with real sincerity is how I think of it. My question. You laid out a lot. You talked a lot about the AUKUS and the Quad alliance and Australia’s vulnerable. When we as Americans vote on the ballot, I don’t think foreign policy is something we think about in terms of what is our number one issue. My question is, what can Australia do to make it so that perhaps Americans have a better understanding of why AUKUS is a value add for our defence, why we should be more involved in the Quad, why we should have a greater presence across the spectrum, economic whatever in the Indo-Pacific environment. I think that Australia could play a role in that. I think Americans, there is no singular understanding about what we do in the world. I think we do think about what our kitchen table issues like economics or immigration. So that’s I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you very much.
Simon Birmingham: Well, thank you. And thank you for being here and for your acknowledgement. I think, I gave Kevin a positive shout out in the speech. I think Ambassador Rudd equally was right to, way back at the Republican National Convention, when he got asked about engagement with his European counterparts in Washington, and he said that he’d been telling some of them to chill out about the prospect of President Trump. Now, it’s not flippant. Obviously we have to take all of the issues seriously, but we cannot talk the world into problems that will then become self-fulfilling and even greater problems. We’ve got to get on positively in pursuit and engagement and solution where possible. Look, all politics is local, and all politics comes back to the hip pocket in democracies. So, whether it’s the US or Australia, foreign policy will usually only play a role in elections if something is going horribly wrong. And that’s, of course, why it’s important that where and how we engage in advancing understanding and knowledge is really important. And for example, in AUKUS, the strong bipartisanship across both the House and the Senate is what gives us confidence that there is a depth of understanding. There aren’t many things in Washington that enjoy the type of bipartisan support that AUKUS has had through the last couple of Congresses, and the fact that it does have that bipartisan support should give us a real confidence that the messages are are cutting through. I also have confidence that even though people may not prioritise as voters foreign policy in their thinking instinctively, they generally get it. If you look at things such as the Lowy Institute’s annual research into the attitudes of Australians and see how they have shifted over time, you can see when people are quizzed about perceptions of China as an economic partner versus security risk, or when they are quizzed about views on different world leaders. Instinctively they move and they move with the type of discussions and school of thought that will often be had in rooms like this, so I think it does actually cut through it with an understanding that sometimes we don’t always appreciate. It doesn’t mean that it drives voter intent necessarily. And we’ve got to be realistic about that. But it is why good foreign policy experts, like many in this room and those with an interest in space, just have to work twice as hard in ensuring the legislators and leaders of the day are focused on the issues.
Question: Thank you. Given the new Trump administration is demonstrably less committed to the multilateralism and is demonstrably less committed to climate change. The question is, how do we deal with those issues in a new presidency? Is there not a scope for us to put a lot more resources in working with the EU and like-minded European countries to try and bring the Americans around to a more particularly on climate change, where we can work with them. They are the leaders in pushing the multilateral efforts in climate change. And is that- I mean, we talk a lot about mixing with our Asian neighbours, but I do feel perhaps there’s a lot more scope for the EU for us to work with the EU on this.
Simon Birmingham: Thank you. And I am positive about the pursuit of greater cooperation with the EU. I think the security challenges the EU have faced have indeed brought us closer together in cooperation in those types of domains. Perhaps, if there is, you know, a way to reignite discussions around the Australia EU free trade agreement. One of the hooks we might be able to do that is actually as a symbol of continued commitment to trade and openness even against the type of tariff approaches that are going to be taken in relation to the Trump administration. Perhaps there’s a hook there that we could use in the EU to move them. On climate change. Again, I think cooperation with the EU is very important. But equally, how we project the messaging and the ambition back into the Trump administration, I think will also be very important. I have no doubt that President Trump and the majority of his administration will want the US to be technological leaders in lower emissions technologies. And he’s got Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, standing by his side. So, whilst he may not pursue the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden in the original concept. Is he going to tear up all of those things that are that are successfully attracting investment and industries in new technologies and new areas of low emissions technology into the US? I suspect that there will be plenty of people pushing to say, you’ve got to keep those fundamentals and that actually that desire for the US, who pride themselves on their innovation and leadership in technology, will still be wanting to pursue essentially, the Bill Gates model of what he’s argued is required for emissions reduction to be successful globally. And that is, of course, to drive new technologies to cost points that are actually practical for their adoption, not just in countries like ours, but in an Indonesia or a Vietnam, or across countries who can less afford to pursue higher cost means of adaptation. So I absolutely concur. We should be working with the Europeans and others, but we shouldn’t look at climate change discussion as one where we give up on the US. I think if we simply browbeat President Trump and his administration over threats to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, that will likely not get us very far at all. But if we look at what is American self-interest aligned with concepts of American exceptionalism, but how that can also help the world in terms of driving forward those new technologies and lower emissions. Then there is an opportunity for us to chart a pathway that can be good.