Dr Michael Green, United States Studies Centre CEO: Thank you all very much for coming. I know every time we do this there's an incredible energy in the room. It's an interesting cohort from different sectors, people from government, from industry. I know our colleagues from DFAT, Defecen, they say they like to get out of the Canberra bubble. Sorry, we brought a very distinguished part of the Canberra bubble to follow you, and we're really honoured and excited to have Foreign Minister Penny Wong join us.
I'm going to ask a few questions, and we've actually done this before in Washington and other places. But the times have changed, so I'll be very interested in the Foreign Minister's views on the challenges that we face and advice for our cohorts.
Let me begin, if I could, I'm going to ask about foreign policy strategy. And indulge me, because when I was in the White House, I wrote strategy and grand strategy, so I like to think it matters. But just as a sort of framing first question, these are consequential times. Do you ever think about how this period in Australian foreign policy will look in the overall history of Australian foreign policy? Is there a doctrine, is there a way you think about this moment and what has to be done? I'm sure you think about it quite a bit, but I'd be interested in hearing, in a historical context, what this moment means for Australia's role in Asia, the Indo-Pacific, the world.
Penny Wong, Foreign Minister: That's a very good question. Oh I like that microphone.
Green: Olympus-like.
Foreign Minister: Yeah, it is. I have thought a lot about this, actually, and I thought a lot about it in opposition - and I remember writing an article where I kind of crystallised it - because I genuinely do believe that this is a new era in Australian foreign policy and in international relations and foreign policy globally. I remember saying at the time - we had a long time in opposition to think, you see - that this will be the most difficult period since the end of World War II, and I genuinely believe that. And I know every generation probably says this is the most difficult time, but I genuinely believe it because of the reshaping of the order, and the question you have to ask yourself is: in that reshaping, how do you maximise the options of Australia? How do you maximise Australian power - not because we can determine things, but because we can influence that shaping and we need to make sure we can navigate what is happening.
Really, the four Rs that I talk about - region, relationships, rules and resilience - are very much about thinking how do you utilise all arms of Australian power to enable you as a nation to have more options in a time when things are so disrupted. That's what we've done. And if you look at the last four years, whether it's the work we've done in the region particularly, but also beyond, to find common ground, to build stronger relationships, which is about maximising Australia's position, it's been very much with this, what I suppose you would describe as a grand doctrine, in mind.
Green: Yeah. And one foundation of that remains, of course, the alliance with the United States. In our surveys - public opinion surveys - support for the alliance is pretty steady. It hasn't really changed much despite all of the sort of dismay about what's happening in American politics, which comes out very clearly in our surveys and Lowy's, where trust in the US is basically at historic lows for modern polling. We have a program called NEFA - we like acronyms, it's a Washington thing - National Engagement on the Future of the Alliance, Ava and several of our colleagues who've gone to every state and territory and done town halls and focus groups about the alliance. And I'm pleased to report that South Australians, once again, are the most sensible.
Foreign Minister: We're a very sensible people.
Green: And support for the alliance remains strong, but there's a lot of - choose your adjective - dismay, concern about US politics. That may have changed with the midterm elections, but it does raise questions about social licence for the alliance. We Americans are lucky that the Labor Party claims John Curtin invented the alliance, and the Coalition claims it was Menzies, and it's nice to be fought over, so that gives a little bit of confidence. But there's a lot of churn, a lot of debate. I even hear foreign policy experts say this has to be an alliance based on interests, not values. And, of course, every alliance is based on interests. But I would argue this one is special because of the values. But there's a lot of churn, a lot of uncertainty. How do you think about the alliance? What do you say to a group that cares about the alliance? There's no house view, they care about the alliance. What's your advice for people on how to think about the alliance, how to talk about the alliance and Australia's interests in the alliance?
Foreign Minister: There's a lot in that question.
Green: Sorry, sorry.
Foreign Minister: Well, first, thank you for the work you do. Thank you for the work Women in The Alliance do, because the alliance is sustained and strengthened not only by relationships between governments of the day or institutions, but also by people. So I do think the relevance and contemporary character of the alliance is strengthened greatly by the engagement of people. So thank you for your work, but also thank you for the work of Women in the Alliance.
Second, as I said before, the second R is relationships, and you've seen how much work we have done building common ground across many relationships, both in the region and beyond. That is ambitious middle power diplomacy. And the alliance remains - the US is our principal strategic partner, our principal ally, and it is central to Australian security.
I think that Australians - and I think this is what your question really referenced - Australians see the fact that the US remains the world's principal economic and military power. It has influence on daily events that are of consequence to Australia, and it is central to strategic balance in our region, which is central to Australian sovereignty. So for all of those reasons it is, remains important, I think, to Australians. And you see that in the surveys, don't you - that people, whatever the government of the day, whatever the issues, people understand. Australians are pretty sensible, and they understand its relevance to our national security, and our national interest and stability in the region.
Green: Thank you for that. This is a particularly important group to be thinking about that. In our surveys, for at least five years now, we have seen a 20-point gender gap on support for the alliance, women are less likely to think the alliance is important. So there's some important discourse and consideration and debate in the context of Australian sovereignty, and we hope this group will take that on board and think about it.
Foreign Minister: That's interesting.
Green: The other thing the ANU survey showed is that when asked, "Do you know much about foreign policy?" - my staff told me this - women are 20 points more likely to say they don't know about foreign policy than men. But if you know about these surveys, men always say they know about it.
Foreign Minister: There's so many things I could say about that, including the data around what women are prepared to apply for and what men prepared to apply for. So two - anyway, you all know that.
Green: Yeah, well documented.
Foreign Minister: Very well documented. "I couldn't do that. I'm not qualified." "I absolutely could do that."
Green: Japan, because you know -
Foreign Minister: We've moved off the US! That was quick.
Green: Yeah, I want to get to the questions.
Foreign Minister: Oh okay, okay, Japan.
Green: So Japan - a strong interest of mine. My wife and I have lived there, and it's a really amazing partnership for Australia right now. I noted in the May statement between the Prime Ministers, a commitment to elevate and institutionalise relations with Japan. I wonder if you could tell us what that means and how you see the Japan relationship. Our surveys and the Lowy surveys show incredible support for that relationship among Australians, by the way, so you have almost a free hand, in a way, in terms of social licence, I think. But what are you thinking about Japan?
Foreign Minister: Well, I mean Japan is such an important partner for Australia. And I think both parties of government have continued to strengthen our cooperation with Japan, deepen our cooperation with Japan - previous governments, but certainly this government has done that as well. As you would know, this is the 50 year anniversary of the NARA Treaty, so it's an important time to think about what more we can do together.
We do a lot with Japan, and we are increasingly looking to increase the practical cooperation. We do a lot in the Quad context. We want to increase what we do together and better coordinate what we do together in Southeast Asia and in the Pacific region. And I think that if you think about what does strategic balance in our region require, a strong Japan, a capable Japan is part of that. And we continue to engage very closely. I see Minister Motegi regularly, and Prime Minister Takaichi's visit was very important to Australia.
Green: It's a remarkable opportunity. I was just in Tokyo. The current Defence Minister worked for me at CSIS. Be good to your interns and RAs everyone.
Foreign Minister: You never know where they might end up.
Green: And there's sort of a boundless appetite for doing things with Australia. It's remarkable. It's good for the entire region. You mentioned the Quad. I often hear from casual observers that the Quad is done, it's dead. I don't think that's true, but what's happening with the Quad?
Foreign Minister: Yeah. It's interesting, commentators, the way they - the disjunct between what commentators observe and what practitioners observe. I think the Quad has actually been one of the principal ways in which the US, the current administration, has engaged with the region. It has occurred much more through the Foreign Ministers' track. We've had three Quad meetings this year, including the first Quad meeting in the margins of the East Asia Summit. Now, that matters. We are working to deliver public goods to the region, practical cooperation together on a very, very important grouping. And Marco Rubio, Secretary Rubio's first meeting after being sworn in as Secretary of State was a Quad meeting. So I don't agree with that commentary.
I think it's a very useful configuration for many reasons. And one of them - the central one from Australia's perspective, and I think from all parties' perspective - is that it is four critical countries in the Indo-Pacific, which is where the future of the global order is being shaped.
Green: It's a pretty good deal for Australia, 27 million people able to harness the first, third and fourth largest economies in the world.
Foreign Minister: Well, engage with.
Green: Yes, engage with, but there's opportunity there.
Foreign Minister: Yeah, we are the smallest economy and the smallest power at the table. We bring a perspective. I think being active in shaping the alliance and being active in shaping the work of the Quad, from Australia's perspective matters a lot, and we bring a particular perspective because we are where we are - we're a continent, the Pacific just here, Southeast Asia just there - we bring a particular perspective about the reshaping which is occurring in the Indo-Pacific. And I think that has value.
Green: I asked earlier about this moment in history for Australian foreign policy and the history as it will be written. I've written a history of US strategy, Japanese strategy and so on, so I'm taking notes and I'm thinking about it. But I think when the history is written, the Pacific and the return of geopolitics to the Pacific will be central to the story of Australia's role in the region, and you've been very active in the treaties. I won't list them all with Vanuatu and Naoero and so forth. I guess my question is: is it working? With all of the effort and engagement in treaties, are we - Australia, and also the US and Japan and other like-minded states - achieving what we need to in the Pacific?
Foreign Minister: First, I think there was a lot of wisdom in how you introduced that. You said the return of geopolitics to the Pacific. And people are often a bit ahistorical, and I often remind people - look at the history of World War II - to recall why the Pacific matters to Australian security and stability and regional stability. But we were very conscious, I think on day one I said we want to be a better partner. We want to listen respectfully, and we want to respond and act in accordance with Pacific priorities. And we have sought to hold true to that in all the work that we've done, including in the agreements, whether they're alliances or a different level of agreement that we've reached.
I have said, it's one of the few things that I've managed to get into some of the journalists' lexicon, I've talked about a permanent contest, and that is a recognition of the very different world in which we live. And we are not going to go back to a different period. We are living in this period, and that means we have to stay engaged. We have to ensure we deliver on our commitments, we have to operate respectfully, and we have to be led by Pacific priorities.
I think regionalism is one of the few ways in which smaller powers can deal with the asymmetry of their relationships with great powers. So Pacific regionalism has to be at the core of Pacific security. And that's the approach we've taken. That's how the agreements and treaties that we've engaged in operate, but we have also sought to really institutionalise and resource architecture which is Pacific-led and Australia-backed, which is about making sure security comes from within the Pacific, because therein lies the stability of the region.
Green: I want to ask our cohort to ask questions. We have a few people who have gotten to the top of the list. Maybe a last question from me: what broad advice do you have for everyone out there?
Foreign Minister: Generally or?
Green: About careers, It's a diverse group, we have people as you've heard from industry, from DFAT and at our centre, we do work on AI and on economic security, and part of what we try to do - part of what this cohort does - is bring together people from different sectors, because problems don't respect traditional bureaucratic lines, the differences between government and business, between universities and business. You get the right people - you create your fantasy football team - in the room who know different angles. And I imagine at DFAT that's an issue as well. I know it is at the State Department - how do you get people around the table who have those diverse experiences and so forth? So I expect that's important. But just in general, what should people be thinking about as they prepare themselves to be Foreign Minister some day or, even better, CEO of the US Studies Centre? You must think about this at the DFAT office.
Foreign Minister: I have. Well, first, you mentioned AI, and I know that the Centre has some stuff on this. I think artificial intelligence is transforming the foundations and dimensions of national power, and it is disrupting more quickly, more rapidly and more comprehensively than probably any previous technology. So that's the first point. There are many things we talk about, but I think starting with that recognition - and recognising that we therefore have to work out how to deal with it, how we utilise it and engage with it in a way that enhances Australia's sovereignty is central to Australian security and prosperity in the near future. That is the broader point.
But on a more personal point, I don't really think it's for me to give people - you can work out your own careers, I reckon. I think you'll be fine. I guess the story I always tell the story, it seems a bit odd now - is that I actually did maths, physics and chemistry in order to get into medicine, because that's what smart Asian girls did in my time. And then I got into medicine and I went, "I don't want to do this, it's a really bad idea." So you don't always know, do you? And so I think early on my view was - and I don't know how it works in today's world - that you focus on skills development, skills acquisition, rather than on a career path, because the latter kind of works itself out.
Green: Exactly right. And that's part of what we try to do with this initiative.
Foreign Minister: Yeah.
Green: Let's hear from some of the cohort. I think we have microphones. So [indistinct] from the Department of Defence.
Audience member: [Indistinct].
Foreign Minister: I think it's not on.
Audience member: [Indistinct].
Foreign Minister: Just ask it and I'll repeat it, if you want.
Audience member: Where does Australia have the greatest scope to shape US strategy and [indistinct]? And what [indistinct]?
Foreign Minister: Okay, so where does Australia have the greatest scope to influence US strategy, and what would Australian influence look like in practice? Well, I hope the latter part of the question is what we're doing, right? But the first thing here I think is really a function of geography. I think we have a different understanding of, insight into and relationships with the Pacific and also Southeast Asia, and we certainly bring that to the alliance. Shaping how the United States engages with those regions, or seeking to influence that, is very important from Australia's perspective. It's our near region, and that's where our stability and future prosperity lie.
Now, you seek to influence; you seek to shape, you don't determine. But I think we speak with a different understanding of those two parts of the Indo-Pacific in particular, in an alliance context and also in the Quad context.
Green: I like that question. America is very influenceable. We'll hear from government, from the private sector - [indistinct] from Tesla. Hopefully our microphone -
Audience member: So building on your earlier comment on AI and the [indistinct] - in the 2026 Allan Gyngell Lecture you elevated resilience to be a fourth priority for foreign policy.
Foreign Minister: Thank you for reading it! We do all this work on these speeches and I ask, does anyone actually read them or just read articles about them?
Audience member: Yeah, so particularly with regard to AI as an era-defining technology.
Foreign Minister: Yeah, yeah.
Audience member: Today, AI and AI infrastructure policy sits within a complex web of interests across basically half of Cabinet. So what role do you see specifically for your department in defining what AI sovereignty and resilience mean for Australia in practice?
Foreign Minister: Well, can I first go to why I made resilience one of the four Rs of the doctrine. I guess, as Foreign Minister, what you observe is you're in a world where it's about relationships, but you are also in a national security job, and there's a lot of intelligence and other things that you observe. And what is really clear to me is that for an open democratic country like Australia, we have to strengthen the resilience of our democracy, but also our capability and our institutions, because that is one of our strengths. But the flipside is, if that's diminished, our capacity to navigate diificult times is much less able. And that resilience really is about the polity; it's about the democracy, it's about our media, but it's also about our economy.
And if you think about resilience in that broad way, you can see every aspect of government is relevant. And so when I talk about all arms of national power, it's kind of the flipside of that, isn't it - one is an active concept, whereas resilience is about how you withstand the things the world is throwing at you.
There are a lot of things in government which go across many portfolios, and artificial intelligence is one of them. We have been engaged, obviously, primarily in the international context, but I have also been engaged with other ministers on some of the other issues - how do you maintain social licence, given this is critical technology. We've seen what the Prime Minister has had to say about standards there in terms of location, energy use, water use, and, second, copyright. We already have a situation where the status quo is that artists' creative content is being used already without people being appropriately compensated. So we need to resolve that.
So Foreign Affairs is engaged particularly internationally, and I think we all have to be more engaged, because there is a desire around the world - amongst many countries - for there to be appropriate protections. In the absence of the time, because we don't have the time to create a big treaty, so I think what we will see is more articulation of international laws and standards that may not be part of a treaty but that we seek to have adopted in various other countries. So we are engaged in that, but there's a lot of work to do.
Green: If you haven't met [indistinct] behind you, she is pulling together groups from industry -
Foreign Minister: Yes, you're going to sort it out.
Green: She's going to have it all sorted out for you, Minister, by next -
Foreign Minister: Give me the template and I'll go and argue for it.
Green: [Indistinct] from Austrade.
Audience member: In this ever-changing world, how do you manage all the competing priorities facing you as Foreign Minister?
Foreign Minister: Like, I cooked a dinner in three parts last night because I had to duck off to do work. One of the things I talked a lot about to DFAT when I was sworn in as Foreign Minister, because I had thought about this, was that we have to be very clear about our purpose and be very teleological, very purposive - what are you trying to achieve and how are you going to go about it. So I try to think like that. Sometimes you get it wrong - "I should have focused on that more" - but I do try to keep very clear what's the key purpose that I'm seeking to achieve or work towards, and then which tasks are most critical to that at this point in time. I also have very, very good staff. I'm not just saying that because they're here, but they are pretty outstanding. So they make sure I don't drop too many balls.
Green: Let me ask Olivia [indistinct], who is from the South Australian Electoral Commission - I don't know if she has information about your last race -
Audience member: That would be the federal commission. Yes, another sensible South Australian here. Minister, you've invested in building relationships across our region, and again today you highlighted the importance of finding common ground. You've had a particular focus on travelling to Pacific Islands Forum member nations and ASEAN countries, which has meant that even when Australia isn't the most powerful country at the table, the relationships you've built in the region give us influence. I think many emerging women in government, tech and policy, like myself, might similarly find themselves in rooms and at tables where they're not the most powerful or the most senior person. So what have you learned about earning influence in those rooms and at those tables to advocate for Australia?
Foreign Minister: That's an interesting question, so many things I can talk about. Let's do the region first, then come back to the room. Yes, I prioritise the region first because that's where we have the most on the line, and we have the most capacity to influence right? Secondly, this somewhat crazy, when you're elected you go, "Oh, this is great, I'm going to go to all of the Pacific and all of ASEAN in the first year." That was probably a bit OTT, to be honest, because I was a new Foreign Minister and I hadn't factored in all of the must-do things on top of that, like the Japan 2+2, AUSMIN, AUKMIN, the East Asia Summit. When you add that on, it was a very difficult first year. But it was very important because it was a signal of intent. It was saying, actually, we really are of the region, and we really understand that our stability and our security and our prosperity start here. So that's the first point.
The second point I want to make is about common ground, which you talked about. I want to emphasise that common ground doesn't just appear. It's not like a passive Venn diagram where you go, "Oh, there's a bit of shaded there." Good diplomats understand you have to build common ground. You have to identify your interests and their interests in a way that your counterpart understands or believes that, actually, we do share common ground. Katrina's here; she can tell you all about that, from DFAT.
But for the third point, I want to make a different point, which is about being in the room. I've often talked about this when I'm asked about leadership. I'm of a different generation, where I was often the first, or the only, or one of very few. And I remember saying to a group of young women once, you know, I made a decision to go down the political path because I could see that it's not perfect, but that decisions were better for having good people in the room, and I wanted to be in the room. I think your generation wants to change the room, and that's great, but there weren't so many in the room at the time.
If you are that person in the room, there's also a judgement that has to be made that requires courage, clarity, but also judgement - when do you have the big argument and when don't you, and which argument do you have. And I think those of us who are often the only one, or one of the few, in the room make those judgements all the time. I hope that the next generation has to make them less. I hope that they don't have to be as careful. And I hope that in some small way we might have made some space for that.
