to read aloud Frederick Douglass 1852 speech, the meaning of 4th of July to the Negro. It incorporated in Massachusetts. It expanded across Massachusetts with a collaboration of mass humanities and was brought to Vermont in 2012 by Paul Marcus with the help and coordination of the Vermont Humanities Council. So this program expanded across Massachusetts with a collaboration of mass humanities and was brought to Vermont in 2012 by Paul Marcus with the help and coordination of the Vermont Humanities Council. This year in Vermont alone it will be read at 30 events. Among his numerous accomplishments, Frederick Douglass was a celebrated and controversial abolitionist, author, newspaper publisher, orator, and supporter of women's rights. He was criticized by some of his supporters for being too open to having a dialogue with people whose viewpoints opposed his. He notably said, I would unite with anybody to do right and nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglass was 34 when he delivered his speech to the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society. He delivered it on July 5th because he would not celebrate the 4th until emancipation became a reality. We read this speech aloud not only because it's the way it was originally delivered but because it marks an important distinction between reading something silently to yourself and stating something publicly, identifiably to a crowd. We read it because we acknowledge our disappointment that 167 years later the themes and denunciations of this speech still resonate. Friends and fellow citizens, the task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly nor with greater distrust of my ability than I do this day. The papers and placards say that I am to deliver a 4th of July oration. The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation from which I escaped is considerable and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former are by no means slight. That I am here today is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the first day of your national independence and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day and to the act of your great deliverance.  I am glad, fellow citizens, that your nation is so young. You are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career. Still, lingering in the period of childhood, I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought and hope as much needed under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. Fellow citizens, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your sovereign people, in which you now glory, was not then born. You were under the British crown. Your fathers esteemed the English government as the home government. England as the fatherland, although a considerable distance from your home, imposed in the exercise of its parental prerogatives upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens, and limitations as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right, and proper. Your fathers who had not adopted the idea of the infallibility of government and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need to say, fellow citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated. They did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness, and scorn. Yet they persevered. Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men, there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born. It was a startling idea, much more so than we at this distance of time regarded. The timid and prudent of that day were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it. Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful. But amid all their terror and affrightened vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on and the country with it. The second of July 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution. We seldom hit upon resolutions drawn up in our day whose transparency is at all equal. It resolved that these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown. Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded. And today you reap the fruit of their success. The freedom gained is yours, and you therefore may properly celebrate this anniversary. The Fourth of July is the first great fact in your nation's history. The very ring bolt in a chain of your yet undeveloped destiny. Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny. So indeed I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. Fellow citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes. And for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memories. They love their country better than their own private interests. We concede that it is a rare virtue that ought to command respect. He who will intelligently lay down his life for his country is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers stake their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. They were peacemen, but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet then, but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance, but they knew its limits. They believed in order, but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was settled that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were final, not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times. How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements. How unlike the politicians of an hour, their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment and stretched away into the strength or passed away in strength into the distant future. Mark them, fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them. Your fathers, the fathers of this Republic, laid the cornerstone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you. Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a ton. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides unfolded from your pulpits and thundered from your legislative halls and are as familiar to you as household words. They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence. I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to others. My business, if I have any here today, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever living now. We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. Now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died and have done their work and have done much of it.  You have no right to enjoy a child share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blessed by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Fellow citizens, pardon me. Allow me to ask why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice embodied in that declaration of independence extended to us? And am I therefore called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions? Then would my task be light and my burden easy and delightful, but such is not the state of the case? I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary. Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice. I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean citizens to mock me by asking me to speak today? Fellow citizens, above your national tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions whose chains heavy and grievous yesterday are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reached them to forget them to pass lightly over their wrongs. And to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking. It would make me a reproach before God in the world. My subject then fellow citizens is American slavery. I shall see this day from the slaves point of view. Standing here identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this fourth of July. Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present and solemnly vines herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call into question and to denounce with all the emphasis I can command everything that serves to perpetuate slavery. The great sin and shame of America. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will use the severe as language I can command and yet not one word shall escape me that any man whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice or who is not at heart a slaveholder shall not confess to be right and just. I fancy I hear one of my some of my audience say it is just in the circumstance that you and your brother abolitionist fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. I fancy I hear someone of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionist failed to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less? Would you persuade more and rebuke less? Your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But I submit we're always playing. There is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti slavery creed would you have me argue and what branch of the subject to the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are 72 crimes in the state of Virginia, which if committed by a black man subject him to the punishment of death. Well only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral intellectual and responsible being? Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding under severe fines and penalties to teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets when the fouls of the air when the cattle on your hills when the fish of the sea and the reptiles that crawl shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute. Then I'll argue with you that the slave is a man. Is it not astonishing that while we are plowing, planting and reaping using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold, that while we are reading, writing and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers, that while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children. And above all, confessing and worshiping the Christian's God and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men. Would you have me, would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery isn't to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation as a matter beset with great difficulty involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look today in the presence of Americans to show that men have a natural right to freedom?  There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him. Am I to argue that is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks to play their flesh with the lash to load their limbs with irons to hunt them with dogs to sell them at auction to sender their families to knock out their teeth to burn their flesh to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? I will not. Employments for my time and strength, not any such arguments would apply. To be argued, is it that slavery is not divine that God did not establish it, that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There's blasphemy in the thought that which is in human cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? I cannot. The time for such argument is passed. The time like this scorching irony, not convincing argument is needed. Oh, had I the ability and could reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of fighting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm and stern review. What is not the light that is needed, but the fire, it is not the gentle shower, but the thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened. The conscience of the nation must be roused. The propriety of the nation must be startled. The hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed. And it is crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced. What to the American slave is your fourth of July? I answer a day that reveals to him more than all the days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is a constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham.  There is not a nation on earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour. Go where you may search where you will keys and despotisms of the old world. Search out every abuse. And when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation. And you will say with me that for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without arrival in slave trade, which we are told by the papers is especially prosperous just now as the price of men was never higher, and which is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one half of this confederacy. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called the internal slave trade. In order to divert from it, the horror with which the slave trade, the foreign slave trade is contemplated. The foreign slave trade has long since been denounced by this government as piracy, as an exeperable traffic. To arrest it, this nation keeps a squadron at immense cost on the coast of Africa. Everywhere in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave trade as a most inhuman traffic opposed to like to the laws of God and of man. It is however a notable fact that while so much execution is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave trade, the men engaged in the slave trade between the states passed without condemnation and their business is deemed honorable. Behold the practical operation of this internal slave trade, the American slave trade sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market.  I will show you a man drover. They inhibited all our southern states. They permeate the country and crowd the highways of the nation with droves of human stock. You will see one of these flesh human flesh jobbers armed with pistols, whips and bowie knives drive driving a company of hundreds of men, women and children from the Potomac to the South market and New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singularly or in lots to purchase to suited purchasers. They are the food for cotton fields and the deadly sugar mill. Mark the sad procession as it moves weirdly along and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Here his savage yells and his blood chilling oats as he hurries on his affrighted captives. There see the old man with locks tinned and gray. Cast one glance if you please upon that young mother whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun. Her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See to that girl of 13 weeping. Yes weeping as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn. The drove moves thoroughly. Pete and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength. Suddenly, you hear a quick snack like the discharge of a rifle. The fetters clank and the chain rattles simultaneously. Your ears are saluted with a scream that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul. The crack you heard was the sound of the slave with the scream you heard was from the woman you saw with the bay. Her speed faltered under the weight of her child. That gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Pull the strobe to New Orleans. Attend the auction. See men examined like horses. See the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave buyers. See the strobes sold and separated forever and never forget the deep sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens where under the sun can you witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking? Yet this is but a glance at the American slave trade as it exists at this moment in the ruling part of the United States. I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me, the American slave trade is a terrible reality. The flesh mongers gather up their victims by dozens and drive them chained to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number has been collected here, the ship is chartered for the purpose of conveying the for long crew to Mobile or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night. In the deep, still darkness of midnight, I have often been aroused by the dead heavy footsteps and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. Fellow citizens, this murderous traffic is today an active operation in this post in the Republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the south. I see the bleeding footsteps. I hear the doleful whale of fettered humanity on the way to the slave markets where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight. But still, but a still more inhuman, disgraceful and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. Mason and Dixon's line has been obliterated. New York has become as Virginia and the power to hold, hunt and sell men, women and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner and American Christianity where these go may also go the merciless slave hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He's a bird for the sportsman's gun. By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad Republican domain is hunting ground for men. Your lawmakers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your president, your secretary of state and force as a duty to you that you owe to your free and glorious country and to your God that you do this accursed thing. Not fewer than 40 Americans have within the past two years been hunted down and without a moment's warning hurried away and chains consigned to slavery and excruciating torture. Some of these have had wives and children dependent on them for bread, but of this no account was made. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage and to the rights, all the rights in this Republic, the rights of God included. Then there is neither law nor justice, humanity nor religion. The fugitive slave law makes mercy to them a crime and bribes the judge who tries them. An American judge gets ten dollars for every victim he consigns to slavery and five when he fails to do so.  His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witness for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side and that side is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world that in tyrant killing, king hating, people loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with just judges who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe and are bound and deciding in the case of a man's liberty to hear only his accusers. Violation of justice in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenseless and in diabolical intent this fugitive slave law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation.  You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization and your pure Christianity. While the whole political power of the nation is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three million of your countrymen.  You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad honor them with banquets greet them with ovations cheer them toast them salute them protect them and pour out your money to them like water but the fugitives from your own land you advertise hunt arrest shoot and kill in your refinement and your universal education yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as it ever stained the character of a nation a system begun in avarice supported in pride and perpetuated in cruelty. You shed tears over fallen Hungary and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets statesmen and orators till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against the oppressor but in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave you would enforce the strictest silence and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make those wrongs the subject of public discourse you are all on the fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland or as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America.  You profess to believe that of one blood God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth and hath commanded all men everywhere to love one another yet you notoriously hate and glory in your hatred all men whose skins are not colored like your own. You declare before the world and are understood by the world to declare that you hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yet you hold securely in a bondage which according to your own Thomas Jefferson is worse than ages of that which your father's rose in rebellion to oppose a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.   It is an antagonistic force in your government the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your union it feathers your progress it is the enemy of improvement the deadly foe of education it fosters pride it breeds insulin it provokes promotes vice and it shelters crime it is the curse to the earth that supports it and yet you cling to it as if it were the sheet armor of all your hopes be warned a terrible reptile is coiled up in your nation's bosom the venerous creature is nurturing at a tender breast of your youthful republic for the love of god tear away flinging from you the hideous monster and let the weight of 20 million crush and destroy it forever but it is answered but it is answered in reply to all this that precisely what i have now denounced is in fact guaranteed and sanctioned by the constitution of the united states that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that constitution framed by the illustrious fathers of this republic then i dare to affirm notwithstanding all i have said before your fathers instead of being the honest men i have before to clear them to be were the various imposters that ever practiced on mankind this is the inevitable conclusion and from it there is no escape but i differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the constitution of the united states it is a slander upon their memory at least so i believe and others have as i think fully and clearly vindicated the constitution from any design to support slainly slavery for an hour allow me to say in conclusion notwithstanding this dark picture i have this day presented of the state of the nation i do not despair for this country there are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery i therefore leave off where i began with hope while drawing encouragement from the declaration of independence the great principles it contains and the genius of american institutions my spirit is cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago no nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old fat path of its fathers without interference the time was when such could be done but a change has now come over the affairs of mankind wall cities and empires have become unfashionable the arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe wind steam and lightning are its chartered agents oceans no longer divide but link nations together from boston to london is now a holiday excursion space is comparatively annihilated thoughts expressed on one side of the atlantic are distinctly heard on the other in the fervent aspirations of william Lloyd garrison i say let every heart join in saying it all godspeed the year of jubilee the wide world over when from their galling chains were set the obsessed shall wildly bend the knee yoke of tyranny like brutes no more that year will come and freedoms reign to man his plundered rights again restore godspeed the day when human blood shall cease to flow in every climb be understood the claims of human brotherhood and each return for evil good not low for blow that day will come all feuds to end and change into a faithful friend each foe so be it


Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much for being here. In a moment, we will commence proceedings. You've already heard the reminder to keep your phones on silent. I'm Rory Medcalf, the head of the National Security College. And at today's event, we'll hear in a moment from our special distinguished visitor from Senator Wong. But just to remind that not only will the event be live streamed, there will be opportunity for a question and answer session towards the end of the event. So please have questions for the senator. And I'm looking in particular at some of the ANU students in the audience. We will invite the senator in a moment to speak from the podium here. And then we'll conduct the Q&A from the chairs over there. So at this point, I'm going to welcome the vice-chancellor of ANU, Professor Brian Schmidt, to begin proceedings. Please, Brian. Thank you, Rory, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming out today. Before we start, I'd like to acknowledge and celebrate the first Australians on whose traditional lands we're meeting today. Pay my respects to elders past and president of the Ngunnawal Nambri people. Welcome again, everyone, to a timely speech on expanding Australia's power and influence delivered by Senator the Honorable Penny Wong. And Senator Wong, thank you for making time to join us across the lake. I would also like to welcome our distinguished guests this morning, including colleagues from throughout the Commonwealth Government, ambassadors, high commissioners, members of the diplomatic corps, fellow academics, and of course some of our students as well. The issues we are going to hear about are plainly important. Australia's interest, foreign policy, and national security in a very difficult international environment. Providing a platform for speeches like this is at the very heart of our university's national mission to serve society underscored in our strategic plan and our compact, as indicated in the ANU Act as Australia's only Commonwealth University. The university is proud of its commitment, evidence-based, nonpartisan, to enhancing the quality of Australia's policy debate across the key issues for the nation's future. And this is very much at the core of work of the National Security College. The college led by Rory Metcalfe is entrusted by the Commonwealth Government as a strategic joint initiative with ANU to lift capabilities and contest ideas across the national security and policy workforce. Despite the challenges of operating under COVID-19 restrictions, the National Security College has quietly gone on with its core business. It has won on its redesigned master of national security policy degree. And its constant program of executive education courses are building the skills and knowledge that government agencies tell us that they need and want. The college has done much to support the national conversation on security challenges of these difficult times. Last year, we hosted Foreign Minister Senator Maurice Payne for a major speech and our national security podcast series provides in-depth perspectives from parliamentarians, policymakers, and experts. Meanwhile, in its research, the National Security College's QuadTech Network series did much to frame the agenda for the Quad Summit at the White House in September. It hardly needs saying that Australia, the Indo-Pacific, and the world face a new landscape of risk from threats to a rules-based order to social cohesion to a great power rivalry, economic pressure, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overarching impacts of climate change. We live in new times. Wherever you stand on these issues, the need for a national conversation is clear. So we look forward to the insights of our guest speaker, Senator the Honorable Penny Wong. Senator Wong is Senator for South Australia, leader of the opposition in the Senate and shadow minister for foreign affairs. Penny was born in Malaysia, and as an eight-year-old, she moved to Australia with her family, graduated in law and arts from the University of Adelaide, and before entering politics, she worked for a union as ministerial advisor in the New South Wales labor government and as a lawyer. Penny was elected to the Senate in 2001. She was minister for climate change and water from 2007 to 2010, then minister for finance and deregulation in 2013. I'm very much looking to your speech, Penny, and please all join me in welcoming Senator Penny Wong to take the floor. Thank you very much for that introduction, Brian, and thank you for all that you do. You really are an extraordinary Australian, and we appreciate your contribution. Can I also acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunnawal and Nambri peoples? Can I acknowledge Rory and his colleagues and acknowledge and recognise the contribution to not just national security, but the broader discussion and debate about how we chart the course in the times that Brian has outlined that Rory and the college make?  That's very, your courtesy is noted. So the purpose of Australian foreign policy is where I wish to start. The purpose of Australian foreign policy is to advance Australian interests and values, to ensure our security, our economic strength, and to shape the world for the better. We must build the region and the world we want, one that is prosperous, peaceful, and in which sovereignty is respected. We must expand the choices and options available to us to enable management of differences without escalation to conflict. And we should act to generate and preserve global public goods that give form to our values and which benefit all nations, including our own. And to succeed in this, we must expand Australia's power and influence. This has seldom mattered more. We live in a time of great uncertainty. Many of Australia's challenges are without precedent. We haven't known such a vexing convergence of circumstances since the end of the Second World War. Rising nationalism, fraying multilateralism, great power competition, emerging COVID strains, an ever-warming planet, and a more assertive China. We must face this reality. Our region is being reshaped. And this generation of political leaders has a responsibility in this reshaping to protect Australian interests today and in the decades ahead, to assure opportunities for the next generation as good as those created for us by the last. Our interests won't be advanced simply by a series of individual deals and transactions. Rather, the features, the architecture, and the attributes of our region and of the international system itself are being contested. We're in a contest, a race, you might say, for influence. Maximising our influence means we need to use all the tools we have. Military capability matters. And when I say military capability, I mean actual real capability, not announcements. But we need more than that. We need to deploy all aspects of state power, strategic, diplomatic, social, economic. The expansion of Australia's power and influence is grounded in a growing resilient economy. So much of our wealth comes from the markets to which we export. But increasing resilience is not just about more diverse markets as important as that is. The world's demands are changing and what we offer will need to change with it in order to maintain our economic strength. This is why it is in Australia's interests that we reinforce our economy's resilience by becoming a renewable energy superpower. And it's why we must have a future made in Australia, shoring up our resilience to supply chain failures and other economic shocks. But my focus today is how we need to better understand and better give effect to the role of foreign policy. Foreign policy must work with other elements of state power to succeed. In this, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, has observed that the ADF as an instrument of hard power is best at shaping our environment and deterring behavior that is countered to our interests. When it partners with all the other elements of national power and in particular with our diplomatic service, our presence on an enduring basis out in the world. It is not a question of separating hard power to deter conflict and soft power to do nice things. Because most of the challenges that our region faces for short of kinetic military conflict, many of them fall in the gray zone. The example most resonant for Australians will be trade, increasingly a vector for geostrategic competition. Economic coercion and cyber intrusions are being deployed to pursue strategic outcomes and undermine agreed rules. And not far from us, the flouting of norms for exploitation of natural resources including energy, water and fish stocks risks livelihoods and regional stability. These are threats that can't be deterred by military might alone. Indeed, as the CDF says, the best way to confound, to respond or to undermine those kind of behaviors is to be a force and an influence for cooperation of capacity building and of common interest in the region. So foreign policy is not merely a stage for photo ops but a critical tool in delivering our national security. I would also say that it is a disturbingly underutilized tool if we are seeking to promote and protect our interests and values. There are three drivers for expanding our power and influence that will be central to Labor's foreign policy that I want to discuss with you today. The first is projecting modern Australia to the region and the world. The second is fostering genuine partnerships grounded in trust. And the third is enhancing our capability in navigating international relations including in the gray zone. Foreign policy starts with who we are. And we should understand what we project to the world about who we are is an element of national power. For generations Australians have been advantaged across all of our international endeavors by reputation for being straight shooters who pull our weight. That reputation has taken a hit thanks to recent behavior by the Prime Minister that hit the Australian people do not deserve. But beyond that traditional reputation we should also consider what is the broader story that we are telling the world about today's Australia. How we articulate modern Australia can constrain or amplify our influence from a business seeking new markets to the promotion of our national interests in a time of geo-strategic competition. There is vast untapped power in modern Australia. The world is multicultural so is Australia. Home to the world's oldest continuing cultures. 270 ancestries represented. One quarter of Australians born overseas and half of Australians having a parent born overseas. This gives us the capacity to reach into every corner of the world and say we share common ground. It is a natural asset for building alignment that we are not deploying. Conversely, expressing who we are in narrow and exclusionary terms can inhibit the potential for alignment and it can diminish the cohesion of the Australian community. Recall Tony Abbott's championing of the Anglosphere. Consider how that was received in the region and heard at home. Recall Eric Abbott's demanding Chinese Australians denounce the CPC in a Senate hearing not a demand made of any witness who wasn't Asian. And recall that our foreign minister was invited to rebuke Senator Abbott's but despite her responsibility to portray Australia to the region she declined to show any such leadership. Narratives matter as do perceptions. As we strive for maximum influence we need to understand this and we need to understand how our past attitudes and policy on race can provide others with the opportunity to promote narratives that limit our influence. We can counter that in part by articulating who we are place and our shared stake in the region. And that includes placing the experiences of First Nations peoples. This lands first diplomats at the heart of our diplomacy. Drawing on our vibrant multiculturalism we can ground a narrative which enables the possibilities of greater alignment with others and we can also strengthen our social cohesion which is in itself the foundation of our sovereignty. We can express our values and demonstrate our interests. And we need to seize this advantage to tap into the power of modern Australia to create common ground and to give us greater space to engage and to build alignment. Alignment matters because it is the basis of partnership and partnerships are the second way we will drive an expansion of national influence. As a substantial power but not a superpower it has always been critical for Australia to work with others to achieve our aims. And given the proliferation of challenges we face and the dynamics of great power competition that need just keeps growing. Creative middle power diplomacy is what Australia used to be known for because partnerships multiply our influence. But a partnership isn't just a vehicle for a grip and grin photo op stage before a stockade of flags nor is it simply a transaction. Durable and effective partnerships demand an alignment of interests. The more aligned the more powerful. But a few key things about alignment it isn't a static concept. It needs work to generate, to sustain and to develop. Australia needs stronger partnerships in the region if we are to shape it in our interests. And these should be based on alignment enabled by first a deep and detailed understanding of others perspectives and interests. Second a compelling articulation of what is or what can be shared. Third identifying and creating opportunities for collaboration. And fourth demonstrating authenticity and trustworthiness. It is now beyond doubt that authenticity and trustworthiness are not qualities that are possessed by Mr Morrison. But notwithstanding that it's clear the partnerships that need the most work are in our region. Much more effort is needed to address our shared challenges in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. And we need to treat Southeast Asia as the priority it is. Starting with more support for the pandemic recovery and boosting the vaccine rollout. The Prime Minister's announcements of 60 million vaccines by the end of 2022 is a start. But clearly won't be enough to ensure full coverage and boosters for those who need it or to strengthen frontline health systems in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. The government needs to ensure sufficient domestic manufacturing capability to deliver for ongoing vaccine needs in the region. Mr Morrison's short-term focus on temporary and targeted assistance is easily interpreted as piecemeal and uncommitted, especially given the government short-sighted decision to cut health assistance to Indonesia by 80% prior to the pandemic. And we must also address the emerging pandemic that is climate change. Calls over years from Pacific leaders for Australia to do the right thing on climate have been stubbornly ignored. Pacific leaders and Australians have come to the same conclusion. We are led by a government that isn't serious about climate change and never will be. And for proof, if more is needed, just look to the fact that before the ambassador for the environment's ink was dry on the communique, calling for greater ambition in 2030 targets, Senator Payne had disavowed it. As Julie Bishop said on Friday, this unreliable behaviour gives rise to a lack of trust in our diplomatic efforts and she went on to say our reputation is absolutely vital for the broader national interest. It's clear that a credible Pacific step up will only happen under an Albanese Labor government, a government that recognises the existential national security and economic threat climate change presents to all, particularly our Pacific friends. And Labor understands this is essential to being a trusted partner of choice, to match our strategic ambitions and to build the region we want. One that is prosperous, stable and in which sovereignty is respected. And we will have more to say on these priorities in the coming months. Finally, the third driver is capability. Australia's ability to influence the reshaping of our region is highly dependent on the capability of our foreign service. And this capability goes to both comprehending the scale and features of the external environment and the ability to identify how and where alignment can be initiated, fostered and strengthened. And it goes to our diplomatic capability as the key means by which we put foreign policy into operation. Our foreign service has many talented and skilled people but they have been hampered by lack of leadership, degraded resources and a lack of clarity as to how they are expected to deliver for Australia in these changing times. DFAT needs clearer political leadership and a sharper understanding of its role responsibilities and its potential in these times. And it needs the tools to deliver this including every building of our development assistance program. But there has been too much unnecessary collateral damage to Australia's national interests. We know that the short-term plays were a reflection of Mr Morrison's character and the obsession with announcements at the expense of doing the whole job. But it seems to me that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the national security community more widely should take the opportunity to review their advice to government and in general and also with particular reference as to the handling and implementation of the submarine announcement. An Albanese Labor government will provide the leadership and direction our foreign service needs. We would ensure a more central role for foreign policy in the content and implementation of strategy. And we would be focused on the key task of maximizing our influence in the reshaping of the region. These three elements of Australian foreign policy projecting the reality of modern Australia, partnerships and capability are also how we can shape the world for the better. Because it is in our national interests that we work to generate and preserve global public goods. Shaping the world for the better includes promoting issues and principles which we believe are of common benefit to all nations and all peoples. This is at the heart of Labor's foreign policy tradition. It requires not only effective multilateral capability and DFAT, but a clean mandate based on domestic priorities to prosecute these interests aboard. It is why we should have a more robust domestic framework to eliminate modern slavery. It's why we should inquire that our development assistance program has effective targets and oversight not only to alleviate suffering, but also to address the structural barriers that are holding women and girls back. It is why we should have Magnitsky sanctions and formalised engagement with NGOs to target those responsible for human rights abuses around the world. And why we must ensure compliance with our nuclear non-proliferation commitments and redouble our efforts towards nuclear disarmament. This should be made an urgent priority for Australia and a starting point should be for the government to appoint a standalone ambassador for arms control and counter-proliferation. The drivers of our expanded influence will work across all three core spheres of Labor's foreign policy, multilateralism, the region and our alliance with the United States. One of the most central multilateral groupings for our engagement is ASEAN. Not just because of the centrality of ASEAN as entity, but also because of our geographic reality. Labor understands this and we believe Australia can and should do more to demonstrate our ability to build trust and alignment with ASEAN leaders. As we made clear in our support for the AUKUS partnership, such engagement with our traditional partners must be in addition to more regional engagement, which is why, if elected, we will appoint an ASEAN special envoy, a roving high-level representative respected in the region to complement our diplomatic network and forge closer relationships with capitals. The countries of Southeast Asia have made clear they don't want to choose between the great powers, but they do want to exercise their own agency in how the region is being reshaped. And it's why I and many others have advocated for a settling point in the escalating strategic competition between the US and China, one that is favorable to the region and that upholds the rules of the road. President Biden has recognized the importance of managing this competition responsibly and the need to impose common-sense guardrails to ensure competition does not veer into conflict. So we welcome reports that the US and China have agreed on the need to engage on nuclear and strategic stability issues in addition to their collaboration on climate change. Clear and consistent communication and guardrails between the two powers will be vital in managing the growing number of potential flashpoints in our neighborhood. The greatest risk to peace, stability, and prosperity in our region is the risk of conflict in Taiwan. That said, it is not a risk contained to our region. The consequences of a kinetic conflict over Taiwan with the potential for escalation would be catastrophic for humanity. And that is why successive Australian, American, and regional governments have taken a careful and sober approach to cross-strait relations. It is not because everyone who has gone before us has been weak or afraid. It's because of a dispassionate clear-eyed assessment of interests and because of the need to support the people of Taiwan and maintain regional stability. In Australia, this approach has involved the bipartisan adoption of a one China policy and advocacy to deter any lateral changes to the status quo. It's not just the bipartisan Australian position, but the approach taken by successive US administrations since President Carter and reaffirmed recently by President Biden. Republic and Democratic administrations have also taken a deliberate position of strategic ambiguity in relation to Taiwan. In maintaining this position of strategic ambiguity, the US declines to declare a definitive position on military conflict, including whether to join a war if one was started by others. And as a US ally, Australia has taken a position consistent with theirs. And this strategy has rightly been adopted as the path most capable of a verting conflict and enabling the region to live in peace and prosperity. So when Peter Dutton talks about it being inconceivable that Australia would not join a war over Taiwan is wildly out of step with the strategy long adopted by Australia and our principal ally. Surely the real question is not as he suggests whether we declare our intentions, but why the defence minister is amping up war rather than working to maintain longstanding policy to preserve the status quo as advocated by the Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen. Mr. Dutton knows exactly what he is doing by using words like inconceivable in the same conflict, in the same, Mr. Dutton knows exactly what he is doing by using words like inconceivable in the same context as the threat of conflict. And after his former secretary declared the drums of war were beating. And it is notable that Mr. Morrison has not used the same febrile language sticking more closely to Australia's traditional position. This is the same duplicitous game we see from the Morrison-Joyce government in a range of areas as with climate change. When Mr. Morrison makes empty promises to sound like he cares while Barnaby-Joyce tells you what they really think. And here we have the same dynamic between Mr. Morrison and Mr. Dutton. But in this case, they play political games on something so grave as whether they commit Australia to war against the superpower. It has been widely reported that the Morrison government want to make national security a focus of the coming election. Amping up the prospect of war against a superpower is the most dangerous election tactic in Australian history. It is a tactic employed by irresponsible politicians who are desperate to hang on to power at any cost. And as the Lowy Institute's Natasha Kasam has pointed out, the PRC's narrative has long been that the only options available to Taiwan are unification or war. So Mr. Dutton does Australians and Taiwanese, no favours, by amplifying Beijing's fatalism. This is the worst in a litany of cases of the Morrison-Joyce government seeking to use foreign policy and national security for political advantage.  And he proved the point by telling a new lie, fabricating that the Labour leader, I'm gonna quote this, the Labour leader backed in the Chinese government and a number of others by having a crack at me as well. It is true China has changed and our relationship has become harder to manage. But desperately playing politics on China, whenever he is in trouble, does nothing to strengthen Mr. Morrison's authority with Australians or with Beijing. The underlying point though is that there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to show that Mr. Morrison's base instinct is always to lie and blame others. He lies about being at the front of the queue, about being in Hawaii during bushfires, about electric vehicles and about vaccine mandates. He lies about the mistakes he makes like describing Australia's position on Taiwan as one country, two systems. He lies about others like Anthony Albanese and even the French president. And then he tells new lies to deny his old lies. He has rendered his own word worthless and Australians can no longer believe a word he says. And neither can world leaders who will never trust him again after he leaked private text messages, which in fact proved that President Macron did not know what was coming, exposing another lie. Mr. Morrison does not have the character to be the custodian of Australian interests in the world. And when he lies, Australia loses. Australia's leaders should take the world as it is and seek to shape it for the better. It's what we need now as much as we have ever needed it. And to expand Australia's power and influence, we need to set political interests aside from our national interests. We need to look beyond the news of the day. We need to focus on more than announcements. We need to do the whole job. We need foresight. We need to bring all the aspects of our statecraft together to protect and to advance our interests. We need to improve our performance across the whole range of capabilities required to shape outcomes in the world, including our effectiveness in navigating the gray zone. We need genuine partnerships grounded in trust. And we need to reach into the vast untapped power of our people and project a confident, unified modern Australia to the modern world. Thank you very much. Just making sure I get the right water, Rory. Could be embarrassing. So thank you very much, Senator. That was wide-ranging. It was substantial. It was compelling. It will attract even more of media interest perhaps it already has. I've made Rory nervous. I pointed out to him that it's okay. My words are not his. Not at all. I think the contest of ideas is what the university is about, as you know. So it's a real privilege to be a platform for that. I do want to open to questions from our audience and not only do we have friends from the press here, but we also have A&U colleagues, including students. So I hope you're sharpening your questions as we speak. I might begin if that's okay to draw you out, particularly on the Taiwan issue because at one level, as you know, and I'm not alone in this, I've been a strong advocate of bipartisanship across the foreign and security policy spectrum. At another level, there's no question that the Taiwan issue is of increasing concern and silence in our and everyone's debate in the region. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the message I draw from you is something along the lines that Labor would support if you like the people or the society of Taiwan and regional stability. At the same time, you draw a distinction about some of the messages that we've been hearing from some in the government. One would argue that when it comes to regional stability, deterrence has a role to play. You've spoken about gray zone coercion, which I take to mean, I guess, a lot of the intimidation and the interference that we've seen from Beijing towards Taiwan, and they're my words. If the government is essentially expressing support for a democracy of our size in our region against that kind of intimidation, what's wrong with that and what would Labor do differently? Well, obviously the issue of Taiwan is just very resonant, is a finely balanced and complex issue, and you're correct to assess that the threat of conflict is rising. I think the question is, what is it that Australia can do most to preserve the status quo? You use the word deterrence, which is a word that focuses very much on military deterrence. The point I'm making is that if you look at the history of a finely balanced position that different parties associated with the issue and the Taiwan Straits has taken, whether it's US administrations, Australia, or the Taiwanese, and Beijing, my point is that our job is really to ensure that we create the disincentive collectively for conflict and continue to create as many incentives as possible for peace. And I accept that this is historically and now an issue where there is, governments have recognized the downside of the sort of binary way Mr. Dutton is construing it. I'm making a point that I do not believe, particularly given the US position, that that is the way in which we most, are most likely to create that incentive for the status quo. And that is what we have to do. And I'll make a point about the region, actually. I mean, a thing we need to recall that countries in the region may have different views about aspects of US China competition. But the countries in the region do not want conflict. The countries in the region, our near region, want the preservation of the status quo as the best way of maintaining peace and stability. Can I draw you out on one other, pardon me, can I draw you out on one other point and then I'll go to the room. Projecting modern Australia, which was a theme that you came back to a few times and that idea of, I think in your words, amplifying Australia's influence through projecting modern Australia. At one level, that's a very fine aspiration. And in terms of national identity or national values, I can see that. But in a practical sense, do you have any examples of where you would see that as being effective? Well, I think in part it is how the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of the day speak about who we are and how they speak about our place and our stake in the region. And how you draw on aspects of who we are in your engagement with the region. And at times, Australia and the current government, I think has, and I'll try to show, give you a couple of examples, but there's a bit of tone deafness around how this might be heard in other parts of Australia. I'll tell you where this comes from. I mean, there's lots of people who have spoken about productive diversity and multiculturalism, I think, as a diplomatic kind of strength. But something happened years ago. Can I tell a quick anecdote? So my father, who, when we left Malaysia, he stayed there until he was 17-5. And the first iteration of Pauline Hansen. So when she first called for, which first said, what was it? We were swamping Australia. Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians. And I remember calling him. So dad is an educator man. He was a Colombo Plan Scholar to Adelaide University, did architecture here in the 60s. So he understands, has that understanding of Australian politics and Australian society. And he said to me, do you want to come home? And I thought, this is really interesting. It shows the extent now, he and my mother married just at the end of the wide Australia policy. But this was in what, 90s, was it? I think so. Yeah, well, thank you. It shows, doesn't it? The extent to which even someone like him, as soon as that was said, what that evoked in him. And that stayed with me actually, because it reminds us when engaging with the region. And diplomacy isn't just about being nice, it's about being persuasive. How we engage with them and what we speak to people about, including talking about parts of the diaspora or engaging the diaspora with the country in which you're dealing, these are very powerful narratives and powerful initiatives, I think. Thank you. We're going to open it up. And so if anyone has a question or a comment. I haven't seen my glasses. But a question, squarely. I'm not filming. And a brief question in the room, I will come to you and I'm going to particularly keep an eye out for any of the ANU students or some of my younger colleagues. And we'll work it from there. So please, the floor is yours. It's your opportunity. If you don't ask now, you never will. I'm kind of nice. I'll begin. Yeah, all right. And it is very hard to see in this room. So I'll actually begin at the front here and then I'll go to my colleague Will Stolz next. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Please. Thanks very much for your comments, Senator Wong. I wanted to ask about Australia's experience of economic coercion by China in the last 18 months or so. What would you do differently? Well, on this, there is clear bipartisanship. I mean, I have described China's behavior across a range of contexts as not being the behavior of a responsible global power. And I think that is the reason I said that was I was seeking to frame this as recognizing these are not behaviors that those with power in an international system can engage with and have others believe that, you know, there is with capacity for cooperation. So, and China's behaviors in the trade area are inconsistent with its commitments. This is the Australian position, its commitments in the WTO and CHAFTA. You know, I think we have to be very clearly and collectively from across the political spectrum. And I think from, you know, people like those represented here push back on. It is an example of where we are in the China relationship. And the China relationship, China has changed. Our nature of the relationship has changed. And there will be enduring differences that need to be managed and dealt with by whomever is in government. And that will not change. And I think of it as these other structural aspects of the relationship. It doesn't. However, we know that we have to continue to engage. And the question for governments over the coming years is how, what does that, how to do that? And how do we do that in a way that recognizes these and manages these differences which are going to ensure? Thank you. And we'll take a question over in the far room. I'll start with my colleague from the National Security College, Will Stoltz. And then I'll move around. Thank you. Thank you, Rory. And thank you, Senator, on a very engaging speech this morning. You mentioned that if elected, your government would be bringing more credibility to the Pacific step up. I'd like to tease you out to kind of bring some more detail to that.  I also know that there's a degree of unresolved business in relation to the status of West Papua and Bogenville that may arise in the next decade or so. I'd be interested to kind of tease out your thoughts on those thorny issues as well. And from here on, one question for... Yeah, yeah. Can I just do with West Papua and Bogenville? I might just leave those for another time if I may, but I will do with the first one. The Pacific is the point I was trying to make in the contribution on that, actually, was, and in part, I draw on my experience when I was climate minister, and we worked quite closely with Pacific Island nations in different form, you know, they had different... Was it small island developing states and as well as the PIF in the context of the Congress of the Parties of Climate? And we worked quite closely with them. And my observation then, and then I was... I did a bipartisan trip to the Pacific twice with Julie Bishop. And those experiences really reinforced for me the extent which climate change for these nations is not the same identity, contested identity issue that it is here in Australia, all right? So the point about climate in Australia and why we've been unable to progress the issue is it has become an identity issue. So actually the policy, we know what we need to do, but we've been unable to do it because we've been locked into a very bitter, unproductive identity argument. What is fascinating when you visit the Pacific is it isn't that for them. So you have quite conservative people of faith, leading countries, who will talk to you about, this is the critical issue for them. So when we throw a lot of money at them, and I could point to some of, you know, Vanya Marama's comments or Anote Tongue's comments, et cetera, but when we just say, here's all this money and we're gonna work with you, but we fundamentally don't listen and understand that for them, this is a present existential economic national security risk that they are managing and seeking to manage and how difficult that is for them. I don't see how you build credible, durable partnerships if their fundamentally is not that recognition of that experience. Now, we will have all to say about this, and I'm very privileged to have Pat Conroy working with me, who is very, very good policy person on the Pacific, and will say more about specifically Pacific and ODA, but I do think it is, if you do not have a government that actually is prepared to act on climate in its domestic policy, I don't see how you can actually deal with the Pacific on the basis of what they identify as their priorities. Thank you. We're gonna take three more questions in quick succession, because I know if I do that, then you won't dare dodge the hard ones. You'll take them all, but it also gives more of our colleagues, it'll give more of our colleagues, it'll give more of our colleagues, it'll give more of our colleagues to say. So I'm actually gonna go to... We're gonna take a time... ...who I saw earlier, and then Ingrid in the far corner. Genevieve, please. Thank you so much for that, Senator Wong. I guess in reflecting on that notion of the three pieces that you were talking about, an idea of narrative, the idea of collaboration, and the idea of capability building, I'm interested in where you think technology flows through all of that. And Ingrid, my name. Thank you, Rory, and thank you, Senator Wong, for today's presentation. I had a question about the art of state craft. In particular, a lot of the challenges that Australia faces are much more than foreign policy challenges. A lot of it relates to what you spoke on diversifying not only our trading partners, but what we offer championing the diversity of modern Australia as well as adopting renewable energy sources. But at the same time, by virtue of our democracy, our leaders are beholden to short-term priorities, bureaucratic and political forces. So how would a Labor government practice the art of state craft and achieve and address some of the domestic social economic reforms that underpin foreign policy challenges? Thank you. Thank you. And then final question. I think John Blacksland down the front was waiting a while, so we'll give you the last question, John.  Yeah, thanks very much, Rory, and Senator Wong. You didn't touch at all on the Quad or Indonesia? Or the Indo-Pacific, I realise, partway through the speech. I would usually make sure I actually say it, because Rory's here.  So I'm just wondering how they weigh in your mind, how did India... Well, sorry, the Quad and what was the last one? Indonesia. So India, Japan, Indonesia. So there's three very good questions, if I may say. The first one was the role of technology. And I'm glad you actually heard what I said about the three bits or something. Thank you for hearing that. Hello? Yep, OK. I see technology as particularly... OK, I'm cutting out, speaking of technology. We're back, we're back. I see technology as we're not back. There's a very ironic... There you go. We scripted that. I see technology as relevant, particularly to the second two, so the nature of partnerships and also capability. Obviously... So, for example, obviously, in terms of cyber, we could do more there, in terms of collaboration, I think the authors is a good example of, great deeper, formalising the deep technological and technological cooperation we have with the UK and the US. So I see technology as a domain in which all three of those, but particularly the second two, can be expanded. Are we getting... Do I have to keep shouting? No. Secondly, Statecraft, I actually was trying to talk about Statecraft. Maybe I should have made that clear. I think I only used the word a couple of times because other than people who study, you know, international relations, it's not a term that most people understand. But what I was actually trying to lay out was essentially a proposition around competent and effective Statecraft, which is how do you utilise all aspects of national power? And I think there's a paragraph where I talk about economic, military economic, strategic economic, social, something else, can't remember. Because my point is that sometimes the discussion becomes very narrow. And when we are... And that, you know, human beings like that, we like clarity, we like to make things simple. And so it's much easier to deal with a narrow, simple concept than to try and deal with a multiplicity. But my point is we're in a reshaping of our region. And so the complex task for leaders is to actually think about how it is that you utilise all these aspects of national power. And that's why engaging minds for a secure Australia. The work that you do here is so important because that is precisely the debate or the discussion that you're engaged in. John, there was nothing... You know, I've given speeches and written op-eds about the Coordination. I've talked a lot about Indonesia really. It was just that I wanted in this speech... So there were lots of things I could have spoken about, and I will. But I wanted in this speech to really try and get a stronger sense of the place of foreign policy in the operation of Statecraft because I think it is important for us to think a little more laterally about how we engage in the reshaping of our region, how we amplify our power and influence to that end. So I promise you I will speak more about, particularly Indonesia before the election. Did I cover everything? I think you dodged none. So I think the ASEAN envoy is another theme that I think we'd love to tease out if we had more time. So we'll have to pause that now. We're getting close to the end of our time here and I'm going to, in a moment, invite my colleague, Professor Helen Sullivan, to give the vote of thanks. But just on a personal note from me, Senator, thank you for bringing us into the context of ideas today. Professor Sullivan. Yes, as Rory says, my name's Helen Sullivan, and I have the great privilege to be the Dean of College of Asia and the Pacific. Thank you, Senator Wong, for those very substantial remarks outlining your perspective on the challenges faced by Australia, our region, and the world in achieving a secure, stable, and sustainable future. And importantly, sharing your framework for understanding foreign policy, including in terms of national security and Australia's national interests and the potential policy directions that result. Your articulation of foreign policy is necessarily engaged with issues and ideas that cross government portfolios, including economic policy, climate policy, and social cohesion, is ambitious. And your assessment of the corresponding need for the appropriate Australian capability and collaboration with others in our region reminds us of the significant challenges inherent in addressing complex contemporary issues. These are challenges that we too at the Australian National University are committed to addressing. Part of our mission is to increase knowledge and understanding about the complex nature of our region and Australia's place in the world, which is so central to the work of the College of Asia and the Pacific. The Vice Chancellor has already noted the role that ANU, and in particular the National Security College, plays as a platform for a quality national conversation on security issues and other big policy challenges of our time. I would also emphasize the role of our research and teaching in ensuring that the next generation of policymakers, some of whom are in this room, and citizens in general, bring an informed awareness to problems that defy single academic disciplines or the short span of our electoral cycles. In the College of Asia and the Pacific, we aim to do this by supporting serious scholarship and its translation into impact. This rigorous scholarship takes time, sometimes more time than policymakers have, and is the product of robust and critical debate, a combination that means that its impact is enduring over time and across governments. Our education offerings bring students together from across the region and indeed the world and equip them with the knowledge and skills to navigate pathways to a better future for all of us. Our research and teaching helps us understand how the past shapes the present and the future, but also how we might use the agency we have in the present to shape viable policy options. And I'd just like to reference here how proud I am of the remarkable work of the ANU in general and CAP in particular in supporting the discussions at COP26. We sent to COP26 to Glasgow, one of our finest Indigenous scholars, a Pacific scholar and a legal scholar, two of whom were involved in the negotiations of loss and damage, and their ability to both represent the ANU, but also to represent Pacific Islands, I think speaks incredibly highly of the scholarship and the focus on impact that we have here. But in all of this, the point is not to speak with one voice, but to make the patient evidence-based contributions that universities are designed for, to ensure that the national and international response to risk and uncertainty is genuinely strategic and long-term. Threats to security, prosperity, social cohesion and environmental sustainability cannot be addressed in isolation. And what we have heard today reinforces that foundation for policy. So please join me in thanking Senator Penny Wong.


Diagrammatically, it looks a little bit like this, so you can see from the diagram that the concentrations of both the acid and the conjugate base are equal. And so therefore, just to reiterate that, when we look at the Ka value, if I simplify that just down to the protons, the hydrogen ions rather than writing them as hydroniums because we know that the water is going to disappear anyway, then you can see maybe a little clearer on this slide than on the previous slide that the concentration of this and this are the same. So whatever those values are, they'll cancel out. So we have a direct relationship between the Ka value and the H plus value, and so therefore the pKa is a nice relevant one for us to talk about when we're looking at buffer solutions. But what's the purpose? What's the point of this? The point of this is if we add an acid, so if we add a source of H plus ions, what we're going to do is we're going to increase the concentration of the H plus ions, and Le Chatelier's principle says that the system will shift to counter that to try and push us back in the opposite direction, and so therefore we will have a shift in the equilibrium in this case to the left to increase the concentration of the reactants. Likewise, if we were to add a base, add a source of hydroxide ions, what these are going to do is they're going to neutralize the protons, neutralize the hydronium ions, drop the concentration of those, therefore what we're going to need to do is we're going to need to, by Le Chatelier's principle, shift that equilibrium, which is actually going to shift it this time to the right. Decrease the acid concentration and increase the concentration of the products, the H plus and the H3C00-. Now this type of situation, buffers work for small changes in pH over a reasonable range, but not too much. If you start pouring too much sulfuric acid into your swimming pool, you will badly affect the pH and you won't be able to recover it just with the use of a buffer. So buffer solutions allow us to have some resistance to changes in pH over a small range, and they're a very useful thing in a number of important natural systems, and we'll look at those natural systems in the final video. Thank you for watching.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com coming at you with 2020 Leaf Best of Multisport Premium Edition. So a few notches above the the regular best of Multisport, which is already solid. This is even premium. Big thanks to, and this is what you can pull out of here, four hits. Big thanks to these folks right here for getting into the action. We're gonna open up the case, type in the hits, randomize your names, randomize the hits, and see who gets what. There you go, and I think I didn't see any more case of this in the back, so I don't think we'll have any more of this for the time being. So thanks everyone. We had a few and they sold out quite quickly, so thank you very much for getting into this. All right, first one's graded. I think I saw nine five ten. Yeah, nine five ten. I think I see baseball. It's Andrew Vaughn. Nice. Isn't he, hasn't he been getting some games in recently? Nine five ten on that 2019 Bowman Chrome draft autograph, Andrew Vaughn. Centering, corner, surface, all a nine five.  It's pretty nice. So we'll type these in in the order that they are pulled, so that's the first one I'm gonna type in. I see another grade, PSA 10. I think I see baseball again, and if you can kind of tell by the the card design here, you can tell that sort of, is that mid-80s baseball? It's 1986, Tops Traded, Tops Baseballed, a traded card, Barry Bonds. Bucco's, Gemmint 10. Nice. You go rookie Barry Bonds. Old cards that are graded this nice are always are always really nice to find. Pirates version, Barry Bonds. All right, a couple more. I see a nine five, and I see a basketball player. Can you tell by that design and the pose? Ladies and gentlemen, on the on the top cam over here, that camera, the one that I'm pointing at, kind of hard to see. You know who it is. It's Zion. Yep, Zion Pink Camo. Good eye, Ollie. Centering, edges, corner, all a nine five, surface and nine, 2019, 2020, Panini, Mosaic, basketball, Pink Camo, Zion. That is sharp. And what's the final one? Also graded PSA 10. Oh, oh, oh. This is nice as well. Boom, Kobe. 1996, finest basketball, Kobe Bean Bryant, Gemmint 10. How young he looks there. That's awesome. All right. There you go. We'll try to dig up more. I doubt that they made very many of these cases, but we were able to get a few more. We'll try to dig up some more whenever we whenever we can. All right, so let's keep the let's keep the video running. There's only four hits I need to type in. So there there was the Andrew Vaughn in 2019. Bowman, Chrome, Baseball, graded a nine five, 10. That was pretty nice autograph as well. The Berry Bonds 1986, Tops, PSA 10. Here's another nice one. He's a one-namer now, right? Zion 19, 20. We don't have to say Williamson anymore. BGS nine five. This is the Mosaic Pink Camo, by the way. We all know it's basketball and Kobe Bryant, RIP, rest in peace, Kobe. 1996, finest. Also PSA 10. Wow. I'll show these cards one more time after the randomizer. OK, so there are the four hits right there. The Andrew Vaughn, the Berry Bonds, the Zion, the Kobe, baseball, baseball, basketball, basketball. Dave, Danny, Ryan, Ken, good luck. Thank you for getting in. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it. Six and a four, 10 times for each list. Your names first. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10th and final time. We got Dave, Kenny, Ryan, Danny. All right, six and a four, 10 times for the hits. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10th and final time. 10, boom. Andrew, Kobe, Berry, Zion. And that's how it shakes out, boys and girls. It shakes out real nice, I think. Dave, there you go. The Andrew Vaughn, 9, 5, 10. Big prospect for the White Sox. Kenny, legend, Kobe, with the spot that he won. Look at that. PSA 10 on that 1996 finest basketball card. Ryan S, the Berry Bonds, 86 tops, PSA 10. Danny with the Zion, 1920 Mosaic, Pink Camo, BGS 10. Some nice stuff, Dave. There you go, that one's going to you. Congrats. Berry Bonds, Ryan S, that's for you. Nice. The Zion, Danny, Zion's for you. And last but not least, Kenny, with the Kobe. And there you go, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us. I'll see you next time. Bye-bye.