Tonight, from our national
vaccine bungle to calls for an apology from the PM and our complicated relationship
with China. Welcome to Q+A. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) Hi there, and welcome to the program. Joining me on the panel tonight,
journalist and researcher Vicky Xu, the new chair of parliament's powerful intelligence and security
committee, James Paterson, president of the Australia China
Business Council, David Olsson, the Shadow Minister for Finance,
Katy Gallagher, and Coronacast host, Dr Norman Swan. Please make all of them feel welcome. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) Now, you can stream us live
on iview and all the socials. As always, you can
join the conversation on Instagram and Twitter. #QandA is the hashtag.
Please do keep it respectful. Our first question tonight
comes from Helen Graham. With the information
that tens of millions of dollars were paid in bonuses
to Australian public servants during the same period the Australia Post team
received their watches, why can't Scott Morrison just man up
and apologise to Christine Holgate? He would gain more respect
if he did. Senator Paterson? I've got a lot of empathy
for Christine Holgate because going through
what she went through, being in the eye of a media storm,
is a horrible thing to experience. And I have a bit of a different
perspective to you, though, on the Prime Minister's involvement, because four years ago, I was
the parliamentary committee chair that revealed her predecessor
as Australia Post's CEO, Ahmed Fahour's, salary. It was a pretty horrible time
for him too, and I did so because I thought it was an important principle
of transparency - that taxpayers are entitled to know what the senior executives
at a public entity are paid. He was on the front page
of newspapers, and it ultimately led to his
early retirement from that role. Now, at the time, no-one said
it was a gendered criticism because he was a man. And I don't remember anyone saying
it was bullying either. They just thought
it was appropriate scrutiny for a public servant, effectively. And I think the same is the case
for Christine Holgate. I think it was
inappropriate expenditure of taxpayers' money to hand out luxury watches
to already very well-paid people. And I was also concerned
to hear Christine Holgate say, before the Senate committee, that she wasn't spending
taxpayers' money. Australia Post
was established by taxpayers, it has been legislated by taxpayers,
it is owned by taxpayers, and every dollar of profit that
it earns is remitted to taxpayers. So, if they're spending it
on luxury watches, that's money
that doesn't go to taxpayers. And four years
into her reign as CEO, that she didn't understand what comes with running
a public entity was of concern to me. But let's just be clear - she's not asking for an apology
because of the scrutiny. She's asking for an apology because of the way
the Prime Minister treated her on the floor of the parliament. That's a very different thing. Well, I don't actually think
it is that different, Hamish. I think the Prime Minister
was reflecting the frustration that a lot of Australians would hear
when they heard that already very highly paid
public servants were further awarding themselves
with taxpayers' money, with expensive watches
that most Australian taxpayers would never be able
to afford to buy themselves. If you make decisions like that... So, it's OK, in that circumstance, to stand up in the parliament
and do what he did? Well, what he did was stand up
in the parliament and say there will be an investigation, and that if Ms Holgate
didn't want to stand aside while that investigation took place,
she should go. Now, she did stand aside. That was
the appropriate thing to do. It was pretty aggressive -
you acknowledge that? It was very strong, and I think it reflected
the sentiment at the time. It reflected
the tone of the questions asked by Labor senators in estimates
which revealed this expenditure. It reflected
the tone of the question that Anthony Albanese asked
as Opposition Leader to the Prime Minister
in Question Time, and indeed Mr Albanese's statement that Christine Holgate's position
was untenable before she decided to resign. So, no need for an apology,
Katy Gallagher? Well, I think there is a need
for an apology. And I think the difference
with what James has just said is - in relation to the previous
chief executive of Australia Post - he wasn't summarily sacked
on the floor of parliament in broad daylight on national TV without the benefit
of any investigation. The investigation came later. The investigation
essentially cleared Ms Holgate. And I think what we saw
from the Prime Minister that day is what happens -
and we've seen it a few times now - when he gets challenged. When he gets under pressure,
he gets angry, he overshoots, and I think Ms Holgate
deserves an apology. And I say that having said,
and Labor has acknowledged, that we didn't think
it was appropriate that Cartier watches
be given as bonuses to those executives, and that was uncovered
at Senate estimates. But the treatment of her since then
has been appalling, and the fact that it ended up with her in front
of a Senate committee having to kind of give
her side of the story goes to show just how broken-down
the relationship became between the government
and a senior official of a GBE managed by shareholders
of government ministers. So, you're saying
the Prime Minister should apologise. What did he do
that Anthony Albanese didn't do? Well, the Prime Minister... No-one forced the Prime Minister
to say, "She has to go... "She should leave,
she should stand aside, "and if she doesn't, she should go," in an angry, aggressive manner
in Question Time. Now, Anthony Albanese said, "There should be consequences
for the Cartier watches," and we're not
walking away from that. We think they should. We don't think
they should have been given. And he said her position
has become untenable, and it has become untenable when you've got
the chief shareholder - the Prime Minister -
on the floor of the parliament saying, "She's gotta go." I don't know how you would
come back from that. I don't think there is a world where someone in that position
could come back once the confidence of the
Prime Minister's clearly been lost. Vicky Xu, does it look
like bullying to you when the Prime Minister stands up
on the floor of the parliament and does that? Well, it certainly does. And I agree with Katy
that I think an apology is owed. And I think...
Why? Why? Well, the Prime Minister says... The Prime Minister
has half-said it - you know, he regrets that, you know, Christine was treated
in such a way. But from what I can see,
it's a half-apology. And from what I can see,
you know, the way she's fi... ..she's essentially fired
on the parliament floor, it is... It is not fair treatment.
Due process wasn't given to her. And, you know, from my perspective
as some kind of an outsider, I think this country prides itself in, you know, having due process,
in treating people fairly, and I think, because of that, yes. It's true, isn't it,
Senator Paterson? There was no due process
for Christine Holgate in that circumstance. I don't agree. There was an independent inquiry and I disagree with Katy's
characterisation of it - it didn't exonerate
Christine Holgate. It found that her expenditure
on these watches was inappropriate use
of taxpayers' money. It didn't find that she was guilty
of fraud or anything like that. But she wasn't accused of fraud.
But what was the due process when the PM stood up
and said what he said? Well, I think he was reflecting how a lot of Australians feel,
and I think it's appropriate... But that's a different thing
to due process, isn't it? Well, I think it's appropriate that the Prime Minister reflect
the way Australians feel. They look to him as their leader to demonstrate he understands
how they feel about these issues. I think he was right to do so.
There was an independent inquiry. It did find issues with
her management of Australia Post, and particularly expenditure
of the executive team. It wasn't just watches,
but there were other instances, publicly reported,
of inappropriate spending. NORMAN SWAN: But isn't that
the problem with politics today, is that leaders
reflect the population rather than lead it
and actually create an example? (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) Undoubtedly,
you want politicians to lead, but you also don't want
politicians to be out of touch and to be cold to the sentiment
of the Australian people. We're democratically elected
and we have to understand and represent the people
that send us there. And I think it's dangerous
if we turn ourselves... (APPLAUSE DROWNS OUT SPEECH) David Olsson,
as a business executive, did it look like due process to you? Well, I thought the whole process
was very disappointing. You know, we're living
in a world at the moment where there are so many tensions,
problems and issues. And to look at
our national parliament and see this sort of behaviour
taking place is extremely disappointing. It's not setting an example
for us in the world and we need to do better, frankly. You know, I hesitated
to say this before, but I think this is a case
of workplace bullying. You know, there's a lot of issues
that are being addressed here. There are gender issues,
there are governance issues, there are political issues. It's a cauldron and... Are you talking about
the Prime Minister? I'm talking about the issue around
Christine Holgate broadly - the way it came up,
the way it was dealt with, and the process around
the whole thing. And I think none of us would expect
our senior political leaders to treat an issue like this
in the way in which it was done. You know, where's the civility? I think there could have been
a far better process to take this outside the scope
of the floor of the House and deal with it more appropriately. Would it be acceptable
in a corporate environment? No, absolutely not. You know... (CHUCKLES) But, you know, the public... The private sector has nailed this. You know, we understand what a workplace environment
should look like. We have rules and processes. And most businesses now,
if they're not compliant, they have a process to rectify it. I don't see that process, you know, being implemented right now
in the houses of parliament. Alright, our next question
comes from Ross Kroger. (APPLAUSE) Ross Kroger. Christine Holgate says
she offered to resign, but that offer was not
formally accepted by the board. Ms Holgate,
in using feminist reasons, undermines the feminist mantra. Made-in-hindsight claims
are only effective in court cases. Did she claim feminist privilege
or recognition when she earned the appointment
from the same board? Norman Swan? VICKY XU: What? I just think that's, you know, with all due respect,
a spurious question, that the... You know, you're litigating sort of relatively minor details,
in my view, of the issue. The issue is a much bigger one
than that. I mean, I think that the... It shows, with due respect
to both parties, ignorance of how
corporate Australia works. If these people
had got bonuses in cash to the same effect
for the work that they'd done to getting external funding,
you know, investment into Australia Post,
saving 5,000 jobs, there would be no fuss. But it happens that
the money was, you know... ..it was put into watches. And I think relitigating the details of the ins and outs
of what she said and what he said doesn't help that much. At the core of this is an injustice and also, I think,
ignorance of how corporate... ..the corporate world works. Was there a gender dimension
to this, though? Yes, I think so. Katy Gallagher?
KATY GALLAGHER: Yes, I think so. What was it? Well, I think we've seen
the Prime Minister protect a lot of male ministers
when they've become under pressure, when they've had scandals,
when there's been problems. He's, you know, gone right out
on the line to protect them, and I think Christine Holgate was
thrown under a bus pretty quickly. And I think you've got to remember
the context when this all happened. It was happening in the same week
that we had the Leppington Triangle, $30 million land rort scandal
uncovered at estimates as well. So, there was already pressure
on the Prime Minister on a number of fronts, and
I think he took the opportunity - and he saw her
as a disposable kind of item - to go out and say, "Well, you know,
I'm standing up on this one "while I'm not doing anything
about all these things." But are you saying the Prime Minister
takes a different approach to defending male individuals... Well, I think that's...
..versus females? I think that's what we've seen
in recent months. I don't think there's
any question about that. I don't think there's any question that the Prime Minister
has a problem with how he deals with women or understands issues
as they relate to women. I think that's been
clearly established in the last couple of months, and Christine Holgate
certainly feels that, as someone who's been
on the receiving end of the Prime Minister's wrath, and that happened
in a very public way and she's clearly been
quite traumatised by it. James Paterson? One of the people
who's advanced the argument that this is bullying
and that it's gendered is the former Prime Minister,
Malcolm Turnbull. But I remember his reaction when
Ahmed Fahour's salary was revealed, and it was very similar
to Scott Morrison's reaction. He went out very hard and said it was a totally inappropriate
amount of money and it was a disgrace that taxpayers' money
was being given to a senior public servant
in this quantum. So, I don't accept the argument
that this is gendered. And I also don't agree with Norman
that there's no difference between giving someone
a $5,000 bonus and giving them a $5,000 watch. The difference is that,
if you gave most Australians $5,000, they wouldn't wander down to Cartier
and buy themselves a watch. They'd pay off their mortgage
or they'd give it to their kids. (APPLAUSE) There is something inherent about giving a luxury item
of jewellery to someone as a reward for people who are already
very highly paid public servants. And what about Katy Gallagher's point
that this is a Prime Minister that approaches defending males
differently to females? Well, I don't think that's the case. There have been female ministers
in his cabinet who've been under great criticism
and scrutiny who have been... ..he has stood by just as
he has stood by male ministers. I don't think there's a difference. Katy?
I don't agree. I mean, Bridget McKenzie
was sacked, effectively. She's the only minister that's been sacked
in this government, and she was sacked
over sports rorts, which the Prime Minister
had his hands all over. So, you know,
I think he has found... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) ..opportunity to get rid of,
you know... ..for political convenience. I think he has. And again, you know, history... The last couple of months when we've had all this focus
on women, we've had a Prime Minister
telling us, you know, we attend a rally,
we're lucky we didn't get shot. We've got him, you know, saying
he can only understand things in terms of seeing it
through the eyes of his daughters. He's saying
he didn't understand the issues around sexual violence
and sexual assault and how pervasive it was
in our community. I mean, this is a Prime Minister
who's got a problem with women, and I think Christine Holgate
is another example of that. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) Right, let's take
our next question tonight. It's on a topic you've shown a huge amount of interest in
this week. The first question on it
comes from Jessica Patti. I'm a healthcare worker and have been offered
the AstraZeneca vaccine. On paper, I am all for vaccines and have advocated
for the COVID vaccine in conversations amongst friends. However, I find myself
feeling hesitant about receiving it. I'm especially concerned about
potential effects on fertility, as I hope to have more children. The recent incidence
of blood clots in younger people has strengthened
these feelings of hesitation. What's to say that there won't be more long-term side effects
revealed over time? Can I afford
to wait a little bit longer to watch what happens
in other countries, especially given Australia's
relatively low prevalence of the virus? Norman Swan. So, vaccine hesitancy, as opposed to being an anti-vaxxer,
is entirely understandable, and your concerns are rational,
so they're not irrational at all. So, let's pick it off one by one. There... It was put about for a while that there was a problem, likely
with fertility, with these vaccines, because, at some point, there was
a theoretical cross-reaction with a placental antibody,
or something like that. And there's no evidence of that. If that had been the case, there would have been more problems
early on with miscarriages, for example,
and there haven't been those cases, even though there hasn't been
a trial on pregnant women. It's true that, as time goes on, you can find out long-term...
long-term effects. The reality with these vaccines is that they've actually
been approved at round about
the same point of study as most other vaccines
have been in the past. It's just that this
all happened quickly because there have been
so many people able to be recruited to trials. The clots... About 780 million people
have been immunised now, so it's a lot of vaccines out there,
albeit in a short space of time. So, the problem that has emerged is
this clotting problem with Astra. And I think that if you're under 50, you've got to give it
some serious consideration. And potentially today
there's a third...a third case. And... And then... And I think people don't understand why they came to the conclusion
they did. And there's two moving parts here. One is we're in a country...
Three moving parts. We're in a country that doesn't
have any COVID, effectively, apart from if it's coming in. We've... As you get younger, your risk of dying of COVID
diminishes quite rapidly, but also the risk
from the vaccine seems to go up, and where the balance seems to lie
is round about the age of 50. So, you are well under 50. So, for you, in a country where
there's not much COVID around, if you're uncomfortable
about that risk, which is probably around about
one in 200,000, you should wait, and wait until you can get
the Pfizer vaccine or the Nova vaccine,
or one of the others. There's no rush
for somebody like you. I get a lot of questions from people
who are healthcare workers who are in their 30s, and say, "Well, why can't I have
the Astra vaccine? "I know the risks
and I'm prepared to take it." And that's a rational position too, because the risks
are incredibly low, and if you want to... ..you want to get protected
and feel comfortable, go ahead and have it. My gripe is that there should be
Pfizer available for you now, as a young healthcare worker. (APPLAUSE) I just want to bring
Senator Paterson in on that. Why isn't there Pfizer available
for a young healthcare worker now? Well, there will be very soon, but, like everyone else
in the world, we're scrambling to get
as much vaccines as we can. There's only about
10 countries in the world that have sovereign manufacturing
capability for vaccines. We're one of them, and so far, we've been producing
AstraZeneca domestically. We haven't been producing
Pfizer domestically, although that's a possibility
down the track. So, every other country
in the world, the 180 other countries
in the world, are just trying to get
as much vaccine as they can, and they're reliant on imports. Can I just pick up on that? Are you saying that
we should be manufacturing the mRNA vaccines here? I'm saying it should be looked at,
and it will be looked at. And if it's possible,
I'm sure we'll do it. At the moment,
the capacity that we've got... But why isn't it already
being looked at? Well, these things
are being examined on a daily, hourly basis, Hamish. At the moment, the capacity
we've got with CSL in Melbourne is to produce AstraZeneca vaccine.
Sure. But CSL has publicly said, in fact, before the COVID committee
that Katy and I sit on, that they're open
to seeing if they can manufacture other vaccines. There's different technologies
involved, different capabilities involved. It's not a straightforward thing
to do. We can't just flick a switch,
but it is possible. It takes about a year, doesn't it?
The facts are... ..that Pfizer knocked on the door
of the government last June, saying, "What do you want?
When do you want it?" There was a meeting - and I'm not sure what happened
at it - on 10 July, and a deal wasn't done
until the end of November. What happened in those
four or five months when Britain was doing deals
with Pfizer, America was doing deals with Pfizer,
and other countries were too? We didn't. And so we came to the party late when Pfizer had already
committed its doses. So, we could have had Pfizer,
but we chose clearly not to. Just in response to that,
we already have some doses of Pfizer that have already been administered
to Australians. So, it's inaccurate to say
we don't have it. But we're still giving it
to aged care, who don't need it. They could have Astra safely
and be very effectively covered, and we're still giving it
to aged care. And young healthcare workers... We're not saving every Pfizer dose for young healthcare workers
at the moment. We have secured 40 million doses
of Pfizer, which will be available
throughout this year. But it is understandable
why other countries who have suffered
much more widespread community transmission than us are prioritising vaccinating
their own populations with... ..with vaccines like Pfizer, rather than allowing them
to be exported. I'm disappointed
that the European Union has blocked exports of AstraZeneca,
but as it turned out, it's the Pfizer vaccine
which would be more useful for younger Australians, and they will be tended
to be vaccinated much later
than older Australians anyway. But why are we not...?
So, by the time Pfizer arrives... Why are we not prioritising
the Pfizer that we have here now for people like Jessica? The people most at risk of dying
from COVID are older Australians, and Pfizer...
And Astra protects them really well. If you'll let me finish, Norman. The Pfizer vaccine can be given
to people 21 days apart - the first and second dose. The AstraZeneca vaccine has to be
given to people 12 weeks apart. And so, if you're an elderly person
in a nursing home, we want to get you protected
as soon as possible. So, it is quicker
to protect you with Pfizer than it is AstraZeneca, and that's the reason why
it's still being deployed there. OK. I just want to bring in another person
from our audience, Jared. You're an aged care worker,
is that right? Yes, I am.
And how old are you? I'm 20. And how has it been
getting information and access to the vaccine? The information I've got has
pretty much been nonexistent, and it's...I know
it's really hard for me and some of my colleagues who... We watch...we watch
press conferences all the time with the Prime Minister
and the Chief Medical Officer who are constantly saying, "We're getting vaccines out
to everybody who needs them." But I know myself and many people
who are in Phase 1a, and six weeks later, I still had no notification
of when I would be eligible to get a vaccine. So, you've, I think,
had now one dose of Astra. Yes. So, I... After I was notified by my manager
that they had been told... ..that they still don't know when
they're getting the vaccines, it was suggested to us,
everybody who worked in my home, that we go out
and book an appointment with our GP or at a vaccination hub,
so that's what I did. OK. And do you know when
you're getting your second one? Well, I've got...
I've got it booked in for, I think, in about 10 weeks now. But do you want to get it, given the advice on AstraZeneca
for people under 50? I don't know. I'm still undecided. This is very confusing, Norman Swan. Yeah. So, the problem here is - and this is independent
of party politics - the Commonwealth government
never runs anything in health. So, you can't press a button
and stuff happens. It's the states where
you can press a button. They don't control
general practitioners or independent practitioners. And... And you... So, what they did was they commissioned
private organisations to go into aged care homes. And, bizarrely,
they go into aged care homes and they don't immunise
the aged care workers - they're told to go and see their GP. You know... ..my view is you need
20 Israelis in here to run, you know, vaccination...
(LAUGHTER) ..and you'll turn on a sixpence. (APPLAUSE) Just for context, for those watching, Israel has done
a pretty phenomenal job at the rollout of the vaccine, right? Yeah. I mean,
it's a facetious comment, but nonetheless, the problem is
we haven't been flexible, we haven't been agile, and the Commonwealth -
and I do believe this is political - the Commonwealth has been running...
telling states what to do, organising the vaccines,
procuring... The Commonwealth, again, independent of party politics,
is not good at procurement, and states are. If the Commonwealth procured drugs at the same price
as states managed to get it, we'd save about $1.3 billion a year. Same for medical devices. So, we're... You know, procurement has been
a failure here, really, apart from the Astra vaccine,
where we're producing it locally. Vicky, you're clearly under 50. How would you feel about getting
the AstraZeneca vaccine? Well, for me, because
I'm not a healthcare worker, and I'm mostly
just writing my book at home... ..so I'm happy to wait.
Yeah. And do you find the way
this is all unfolding, the information,
the communication around this... ..do you find it confusing
or do you find it clear? Um... ..from my perspective, you know, it's clear our government committed
to bet on the wrong vaccine, put most of the eggs
in one basket, and we are slower than most,
you know, developed countries. But, given that Australia has done
a pretty good job with lockdowns and there are not a lot
of community cases going around the community anymore, I think I feel relatively safe... OK.
..to wait a little bit longer. So, Katy Gallagher, Labor has...is making a lot of noise
about the vaccine rollout. Mm-hm. What would you be doing differently
if you were doing this? It's a phenomenally difficult task. Well, I think
there's a couple of things. So, from, I think, early last year
when negotiations started, Labor was urging the government
to have...get as many deals as they could in place, back
in the early days of the vaccine. So, have a diversified
vaccination strategy to begin with. Don't put all your eggs in the
AstraZeneca basket, which is... ..aside from
the relatively small deal they had with Pfizer,
which they've now doubled, was where all the effort went. And we'd been certainly
urging them that. Before the committee,
we'd been told many times there was no need for that,
our vaccine strategy was fine, it was going to meet the needs
of the community. It's turned out
that's not the case, clearly. Look, and I think
the other issue we've got is how the government... And I agree a lot
with what Norman said. I was a former health minister
in a state jurisdiction, or a territory jurisdiction, so I get the fact that
the Commonwealth does not tend to be very good at delivering
services on the ground. And they have taken a decision
very early on that they would assume
responsibility for aged care, disability services,
and run the program through GPs and, with a bit of assistance
from the states, that would be enough. Clearly, that has failed. They set themselves targets
of 4 million by the end of March, everyone vaccinated
by the end of October. Then it got wound back to one shot
by the end of October. Then it was get our aged care
done in six weeks. Clearly, that's not the case. We have no idea what's happening
in disability services. So, I think confidence
in the program from the public has been challenged 'cause every promise
the government's made has not been delivered,
and that is a problem as well. Now, we've had the Prime Minister
come out and blame the states, that they're stockpiling vaccine
and not distributing it fast enough. So, we've seen this before, where the blame tries
to get shifted. And now we're going to have
two National Cabinets a week, and that's going
to solve everything. Well, clearly...
(LAUGHTER) ..the Commonwealth has failed,
and we need a lot better effort, because if the vaccine
rollout fails, then the economic recovery fails on top of putting
vulnerable populations and the health
of our population at risk. And that's not good enough. And the Prime Minister
has promised things, and he's not delivered. Hamish, Katy admitted some... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) Hamish, Katy has admitted
some other advice that the Labor Party has offered
the government on vaccines, which we didn't take up, and it's a good thing
we didn't follow their advice. In a radio interview last week
and another one this week, Anthony Albanese said
the Australian government should have bought
the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and it was a disgrace
that we hadn't done so. Well, actually, the expert medical
advice we received at the time was that we shouldn't get it
because it was very similar to the AstraZeneca vaccine, and not less than 24 hours after Anthony Albanese
did that second interview, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine
in America was paused in its rollout
because of blood clots. There is a real danger
in following politicians' advice and commentators' advice and ignoring
the expert medical advice. I think that's you, Norman. What we did about a year ago
when we didn't even know whether vaccines would be able
to be produced successfully, let alone three or four of them, was bet on a range
of different vaccines with a range
of different technologies. Mm.
Traditional technologies... Sure.
..like AstraZeneca, new technologies like Pfizer,
protein-based vaccines... But can we just be clear
and honest about this - it's not going well,
currently, is it? No, it's not. Hamish, we're in
a global pandemic, right? (LAUGHTER) So we're gonna encounter
some challenges. Sure.
And, actually, I think, if you look at the
health outcomes in Australia, or the economic outcomes
that Katy's mentioned, we are leading the world. We've had some of
the fewest infections, the fewest deaths,
the best economic recovery. NORMAN: That's incontrovertible.
Thank you. However, another good example
of poor procurement is this extra 20 million doses
of Pfizer. Pfizer is going to be
only too happy to give us whatever we want
towards the end of this year because they're not going to be
immunising in the United States, and they've got no deal
with Moderna. The issue at the end of this year are going to be
the South African variant and the Brazilian variant. And what we need to be buying is vaccine that's designed
for the new variants. And the leading vaccine
for that is Moderna. So, what the Prime Minister
should have stood up and said last week was, "We're negotiating to buy
50 million doses of Moderna," and...so that we've got
a variant vaccine. And the Commonwealth is not
focusing on the variants. Well, I don't think that's fair. And there are ongoing conversations
with Moderna, as you would expect, and there should be. But the Novavax vaccine, which is in its trial still,
but looking promising, is a similar-style vaccine to the Moderna vaccine...
No, it's not. ..and may offer
some similar benefits. It's not. I'm sorry to correct you. It's a protein-based vaccine, whereas the Moderna is mRNA,
similar to Pfizer. So, the Novavax is a novel vaccine,
very different, and it will be a very good vaccine, but it's not designed
for the variant yet. David Olsson,
the argument is being put that Australia has been ahead
of the rest of the world in its handling of COVID, but we'll fall behind, won't we, if we don't get the rollout right
of the vaccine? Well, I think we... ..we've been very fortunate that
we've not had to push this forward, you know, because
we've closed the borders, and we've had the luxury of time to be able to assess
what are the best options. And obviously, there's a debate
about what are those options. But, you know, it's often said
there's not a race to get this done
and get vaccinated. But the reality is, in a global
environment, it is a race. There are nations
around the world now that are getting
towards herd immunity. We've got, what,
32 million vaccinated in the UK, 100 million in the United States. And guess what -
people are jumping on planes again, and they're getting out
and they're doing business. They're talking to people
around the world. And we mustn't forget
that part of our economic recovery is not only having a good,
healthy economy here, but also our ability to be able
to connect to the important markets that are going to sustain
our growth in the future. So, you know, I think we need,
from a business perspective, a degree of certainty
around when these vaccinations are going to come into effect, and then the corridors that will
allow us to travel more freely, and certainly around that.
Right. Let's take our next question.
It's a video from Mark Horrocks. If people under 50 have a choice
of what vaccination they get, why can't people over 50
also have a choice? Dr Cheng from ATAGI has said
that they respect patient autonomy and patient choice. I have a genetic predisposition
to blood clotting and a history of clotting, and I'm very worried about taking
the AstraZeneca vaccination. Norman Swan, that's fair enough,
isn't it? So, patient autonomy is appropriate
but...appropriate here, but the problem is
that I don't think there's any country in the world where you've got a choice
at this moment. You're taking what you're offered. My son in Washington got
the Johnson vaccine, and so there isn't any choice
at the moment. Now, you can always choose
not to have it. What I will say
that's mildly reassuring is that the...none of the people
who have...to my knowledge, have been reported with this
very unusual clotting syndrome have had a predisposition
to clotting, unless you've had a very
unusual syndrome called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia...
thrombocytopenia. So... And you do have to take advice
from your own doctor. But at the bottom line is,
if you really wanted to, you could wait till
towards the end of the year, and maybe you'll be able
to get the Pfizer vaccine. But there's no guarantee
of that at the moment because there's going
to be a lot of people. There's over 12 million Australians who are going to need
the Pfizer vaccine. And, you know, if you're older
and you've got medical problems, get the Astra vaccine,
is my strong advice. I'll get it,
and I'll be happy to get it because the risk is incredibly low.
Alright. Let's take our next question
on a different topic. It's a video from Drew Pavlou. David, you first became
the president of the Australia China
Business Council in November 2019. You accepted that role
knowing the Chinese government was building concentration camps for Uighurs and other Muslim
ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang. Scholarly estimates put
the number detained based on their Muslim faith
at more than 1 million. The BBC has shown that rape
and torture are systematic within these camps. The AP has shown the Chinese regime
is suppressing the Uighur birth rate with forced abortions
and forced sterilisations. This all meets the definition
of genocide under international law. So, my question to you is simple -
how, in good conscience, can you continue to advocate
business with China while this terrible genocide
takes place? David Olsson.
Thanks, Drew. Well, look, it's really
a very difficult question to be able to answer that clearly. You know, the issues that we're
seeing in Xinjiang are shocking. And, you know, the problem
we have at the moment is we don't have journalists
on the ground. We have very little
direct information about what's happening there. Now, I think most of us would
genuinely...genuinely believe that there are serious issues
that need to be addressed. Our government has looked at this. It's not used the same language
of genocide that other governments have used around the world
in recent times. The UK, Canada parliaments
have recently passed specific legislation
using that term - 'genocide'. Australian government has decided
not to use that language, but have condemned
in very clear terms what's going on in those nations. Do you believe it's genocide?
I don't... I haven't... Genocide is a technical term that
needs to be defined under very... It is a technical term, but the US Secretary of State,
Antony Blinken, says it's exactly the right description. Right. It is a term that,
you know, is clearly something that, you know, we need
to be really concerned about in terms of what is actually
going on there. You know, I'm...
What I'm more concerned about is the fact that we just need to get...verify the information
first of all, and I don't believe there's much
that we need to prove, but we do need
to get people in there. The United Nations have said that
they are in close discussions now with the Chinese government
to allow free and unfettered access to the Xinjiang province
to review that. I think that's a really
helpful sign. In the meantime, I think the most
important thing we can be doing is to continue to advocate
the principles that we believe in around human rights...
(SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY) I'm not sure if I'm clear
on your answer to that. Vicky Xu, is it genocide
in Xinjiang? The US government, the government in the Netherlands
and Canada have all recognised the Uighur crisis to be genocide. Now, Australia is in
the unfortunate company of Turkey. Australia and Turkey are the only
two countries in the world that have had a vote to decide
if this is genocide and decided no. And so, my personal belief is
Australia has decided not to call this genocide, not because the crimes
are not severe enough, but because economic considerations. So, I think the question, really,
is how much do we Australians want to stand up for our beliefs? How much do we want to stand up
for our values? And... (APPLAUSE) And at what cost? Because, as some of the audience
here would know, that I have been enduring
this smear campaign for a month. The Chinese state has called me
a female demon for writing about forced labour
in Xinjiang, and generally in China. So, for business,
the problem is, right, the Chinese state is facilitating
arranging a forced labour scheme, targeting Uighurs. And as a result,
businesses have been implicated, supply chains have been implicated. And when businesses are trying
to move out of China, or trying to steer clear
of forced labour, when they make promises
to the world, to their consumers, that they will be ethical,
they face backlash in China. So, businesses,
if they want to respect, if they want to adhere to...
adhere to international law, modern slavery law
in their own countries, they could not operate in China. So, that...that's the situation
we're in now. Just on the personal story
you mentioned, what has happened to you
over the last month or so? I was lynched in the Chinese media, along with a lot of my peers
who study Xinjiang. Your name was, like, top-trending on the Chinese version
of Twitter for a while. Yeah. So, last year, a year ago,
last March, me and my colleagues at the Australian
Strategic Policy Institute and our colleagues from the
Washington Post Beijing bureau, we did a collaboration. We wrote about forced labour and went to a Nike factory and identified
forced labour...clues. And we wrote a report,
and named 83 brands that have been implicated with forced labour
in their supply chains. And a year later,
because there has been legislations, there has been companies
pulling out of China... So, now, the Chinese government, in an attempt to rescue
its reputation, to defend its actions
regarding Xinjiang, has decided to go on the offensive. And they've done two things. The first is encouraging
and partially facilitating popular protests in China
to endorse Xinjiang cotton, which has now become a symbol
of Uighur forced labour. And two, a smear campaign,
targeting people like myself. My other colleagues
who do work on Xinjiang have been accused of rape. And I have been called
so many names. And last night,
when, you know, I was eating at a Chinese restaurant
with a friend, I felt uneasy,
and I was being stared at. And, you know... ..it's a difficult time. You're being followed here? Um...
Or monitored? In the past eight months, people close to me
who still live in China have been targeted
by Chinese intelligence operatives. People close to me have been
interrogated, repeatedly detained. They're paying a price for me
to tell the truth here. OK. So, if the truth
is that it's genocide, James Paterson,
why don't we call it that? Well, Hamish, I was banned
from visiting China, in part because I've been outspoken
about these issues. So, do you call it genocide? I think it's very hard
to look at Vicky's research and the research
of her former colleagues at ASPI or Human Rights Watch,
or any of these other groups that have done it,
and conclude anything else. The reason why the Australian
government hasn't declared it is not because of some judgement
about trade or economics. It's because the Australian
government has a longstanding policy that a genocide declaration
is a legal declaration, and a court should do that,
not governments and not politicians. But I'm happy to say
it sure looks like it to me. (APPLAUSE) Why is it hard for our
Foreign Minister to say that, though? Well, to be fair,
our Foreign Minister has been one of the most outspoken
foreign ministers internationally on these issues, and she's called for the UN Special Rapporteur
on human rights to have access to Xinjiang, so that they can collect evidence
to help make this determination. And the Chinese government's
unwillingness to allow them in speaks volumes, as does, frankly,
the campaign of harassment they've launched against Vicky
and her colleagues internationally. Why on earth would you do that if
you didn't have something to hide? David Olsson,
how do you respond to this? Well, I think it's shocking in terms of what's happened
to Vicky and her colleagues. You know, it's disgraceful. One of the problems we've got is
I think China is undertaking a propaganda campaign around
the world that, you know, completely misjudged global
sentiment around these issues. The exercise the other day
with the Chinese Ambassador, who's a very bright chap
and, you know... You're referring
to a press conference that was held, where they Zoomed in people
from Xinjiang. That's right. He was clearly on instructions to
represent the Chinese case for that, but it completely misread the mood
of the Australian public and the broader community. And I think it's done nothing but,
you know, further polarise views around the issue. And I don't... And, unfortunately,
that's made it very hard to have a sensible conversation
about this. And I think the issue is fairly
clear-cut as to how we need to act. So, I want to bring in a question
from Ali Ramezani, who's in the studio audience. It always seems to be about
how China is a big bully, putting Uighurs in detention camps,
how China is undemocratic and how China wants money. But it's never about how China is
leading the world in climate action, how China has achieved one of
the greatest economic miracles, how China has one
of the greatest cultures of all, and how China is helping its people. No country is perfect. Australia has many bad qualities
itself, sometimes worse than China. But while we are beating China up
over their bad qualities, much of the world
doesn't recognise ours. My question is
that can Australia ever create an authentic relationship with China if we only judge them
based on their bad qualities and Western propaganda? Judging them on Western propaganda,
was it? And bad qualities.
OK. Vicky. Australia and the rest of the world
have tried to engage with China for the last two decades, and much of that
has been successful. We have overlooked
the plight of Tibetans. We have overlooked the plight
of Falun Gong practitioners. This is not China's first rodeo
to...for, you know, mass detention and mass surveillance programs. This is not the first time. Um, we... The China-Australia relationship
is at this...at the place, at this state right now...right now, not because Australia
has been hypocritical, not because Australia
has been overly critical, but because, domestically,
China has sunken into a place that's, I would argue,
at its worst since the '80s, when China opened up
to the rest of the world. So, one clue is, 2018, our
president, the Chinese president, made himself...
changed the Constitution - made himself president for life. 2019, in the article
he wrote himself, he openly opposed the idea
of judicial independence, and all of that, plus
re-education camps and genocide. I really don't think
we're being overly critical. I think the world has had enough. (APPLAUSE) David Olsson, do you think
it's all China's fault? I'm sorry, Hamish, I missed... Do you believe
it's all China's fault? No, it's not all China's fault. China's done some extraordinary
things that we...you know, that Ali's talked about there, that
we need to congratulate China for. It's brought people out of poverty. It's created new ways of thinking
about the world, the future. It's created new development models
that it's trying to promote as a better way of engaging
global...the global economy. I think we need to give full credit
for all of that. The issue, though, is... So is there some China-bashing that's
going on in Australia right now? Oh, there's a huge amount
of China-bashing. And it's... You know, unfortunately,
a lot of that, as I said before, I think is partly delivered by
poor tactics on the part of China. You know, they've misread
how to engage with the global community
on these issues. I think the degree
of self-confidence that China has, its ambitions,
are now of such a level that they're creating concern
around the world, both from a security perspective, but also in terms of, you know,
the values, and our own values as to whether we feel comfortable
about managing all of that. Katy Gallagher, some parts
of the Labor Party find it difficult to be critical of China.
Why is that? Well, I don't know
what you're referring to there, Hamish, specifically.
On the left of the party, there's some caution about
taking on China over human rights. Well, we've certainly
condemned China where there is evidence
of human rights abuses. Penny Wong has been
very strong on that. I think, in relation
to the Uighurs, you know, and the shocking images
that we've seen through the media, certainly we have said repeatedly that we don't think
that that's the act of a responsible global power. I think...
Do you think it's genocide? Well, I think
the opposition would be helped if the government was clear
about the assessment that they have and the information they have. I mean, from opposition,
we have credible media reports and other commentary,
but we aren't necessarily privy to all of the information
that the government would have through their intelligence
and other diplomatic services. So I think...from our point of view,
we think the government should be up-front
with the Australian people about the information they have
and the assessment they have of what's occurring in China. And we would urge them to...
you know, to be clear about that. But certainly I think... So Labor just can't take
its own clear position on genocide? Well, I think... Well...
(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) No, to be fair... To be fair, I mean,
the opposition doesn't have access to the information
that the government has. We don't. We have credible media reports
of abuse of human rights, violations of human rights,
and we have condemned that. We think Australia's position
on this would be assisted by the government being clear
about what information they have, what assessment they have made,
and sharing that more openly. We don't have access to that. I think a responsible opposition
needs that information. We can't just operate
on media reports. Norman Swan, we've been
in this situation now with the relationship with China
deteriorating for some years, but very clearly, much more so
over the last 12 months. How does this get solved?
How does it get fixed? By united action amongst countries. I think we made a mistake going out
alone, asking for the investigation into COVID-19
and focusing solely on China. That should have been a cooperative
arrangement diplomatically with other countries,
and would have had more force. Now we've got adults
in the State Department, in the United States... Tony Blinken's family grew up
under the shadow of the Holocaust. It is so...when you hear
these stories of the Uighurs and you hear, you know, territory being created
in the South China Sea, you just can't help thinking
about the 1930s and appeasement. And, yes, China is
this great cultural nation going back thousands of years. But Germany was the home
of Goethe and Bach and, you know, great culture. And you...
(APPLAUSE) ..and it doesn't mean
that you hate... I mean, I agree there's been
a lot of, I think, quite racist commentary
going on about China. But it's not to do
with the Chinese people, it's to do with the Chinese regime. And I just don't think
we can afford to appease. We need...but we need
a united front, so that little Australia
doesn't get victimised in this. And it's a moral position,
because today it's the Uighurs, who is it tomorrow? There's a lot of people in Australia,
though, impacted by this. And I want to introduce you
to businessman Tony Tan. You're an entrepreneur, I think. What do you do? What do you make? We're in sustainability products
with silicone. And what are you working on
at the moment? So, my company, Silfresh,
has a very exciting partnership with the CSIRO. And basically we've created
a technology-based paint that is anti-pathogenic and kills viruses like COVID-19. But we've really struggled, I guess, to, you know, get it out there. And so, in terms of funding
and what you get offered here, how does that compare
with what you are offered to go and do all of this in China? Yeah, absolutely. I think we're a great example
of how Australia has really failed in bringing up innovative companies
like myself. You know, if we look
at the Chinese government... In the West, we always talk about
how China is stealing our jobs, how China is stealing our IP,
stealing our technology. But you know what? No-one is talking about how China
is genuinely and honestly encouraging the transfer of IP
from places like Australia to China. So, how are they doing that? How are they inducing you
to take your IP to China? Yeah, yeah. So they're actually doing it
through R&D grant programs as well as through, you know,
investors that they support. And the example of us really is
them... You know, we've gotten offers from, you know,
the Chinese city government to...of over $100,000 to take our, you know,
National Science Agency technology over to China
and commercialise it, whilst I can't even get $10,000
from the ATO cash flow boost here. So, you can see how there is
complete, you know, discord between what China is offering
companies like mine and what the Australian government
and the Australian ecosystem is. Senator Paterson? Well, the reason why we talk about
the Chinese government stealing our intellectual property
is because they do. They do it through a range
of different means... (SCATTERED APPLAUSE) ..but they do it
through cyber-espionage, they do it through cultivating
researchers individually, they do it through
literally registering patents of intellectual property that was
funded by Australian taxpayers through
the Australian Research Council, and the conditions of the grant
of the ARC are that you can't register your
intellectual property anywhere else. So they do steal
our intellectual property. They've been doing it for decades. But you're not saying
they are in this instance? Well, I don't know
about that instance. Yeah.
I can't comment on that. But to your broader point -
yes, we absolutely have to do more to encourage self-reliance
and self-sufficiency in Australia. That's one of the lessons
of the pandemic and it's one of the lessons
of the campaign of economic coercion that China is waging against us
right now. Before this... Let's just be straight, because I just want to deal
with Tony's point here - is this an example
of economic coercion? I mean, what's wrong
with what's going on? Oh, I've got no idea about... I don't have anywhere near
sufficient information to make that judgement, not on the face of it
of what you've told me. No, I'm not suggesting that. And you don't have a problem
with what's happening? I mean, presumably you would prefer
this to be staying in Australia? An entrepreneur
who receives an attractive offer from somewhere else in the world is
absolutely entitled to take that up. I'll be the last person
to tell you not to take that up. But as a country
we have to do better to make sure that we can produce
more of these technologies here in Australia. What I was going to say the campaign
of economic coercion has taught us is that before this all hit when I went to talk
to business leaders about this and I said maybe diversification
is a bit of a good idea, they thought that was
a very strange proposition. Now they come to me and say, "We need to do a bit more
to diversify our trade," and that's
a really positive development. But there is a double standard here
that we don't get anxious about Australian companies, and they go by the legion... We spend government money,
taxpayer money, developing Australian companies,
high technology companies, and they end up on the Nasdaq
in Los Angeles or New York. So we're losing our IP
to the United States every day of the week because of an inadequate
investment environment here. And so I think... I mean, putting aside the issue
of intellectual property theft, which I think is
a clear issue here, is, what China is doing
is what America does - is it provides gold to companies
that need it to survive, and they go offshore
and we lose them to America and we lose them to China. We may lose secrets too -
not disputing that - but I do think
there's a double standard here. You know, we only gave
the University of Queensland five million bucks to start off,
you know, the initial grant, where they were
the most promising vaccine out of... ..out of five vaccines
internationally, vaccine technologies, and our government only gave
$5 million to them to start developing. They relied on money from BHP
to actually get going before they got
a more substantial grant. We are not good, as a nation,
at trusting our companies and investing in them
and taking risks. Germany bought a third
of a vaccine company and injected tens of millions
of dollars...of euros to actually help CureVac get going. We didn't. OK, let's take our next question.
It comes from Ghian Tjandaputra. Thank you, Hamish. I came to Australia
over a decade ago as an international student, and I've settled here permanently
ever since. Now, international education
as a sector is our fourth largest export and it supports around 250,000 jobs. Now, given that around 30%
of enrolments come from China, the sector can also act
as a potential ballast to our reliance on exporting
iron ore to the country. Now, the trouble is...the sector is
facing right now, obviously, with vaccination delays, that will have...
that will jeopardise the easing
of our border restrictions. So my question is, what is our plan
to bring international students back without taking away spots
in hotel quarantine from returning Australians? Katy Gallagher. Well, this is an issue we've been
looking at in the COVID committee over the past year or so, and I think the first issue is
the Commonwealth has failed to outline
a national quarantine plan. They had a review done
by Jane Halton and it had
a number of recommendations. I think everyone openly acknowledges that the Commonwealth, again,
has responsibility for quarantine. They've devolved
a lot of that to the states. But certainly, we think the
Commonwealth could have done more and should be looking at how
they are going to manage quarantine in the event that we have
our international borders closed for some time. And there's a difference of opinion about how long those borders
may be shut. You know, certainly
Deloitte Access Economics, they said 2024. Airlines are having
a more optimistic approach to that and thinking later this year. Minister Hunt said
just because you get vaccinated doesn't mean
the international borders open. So, there's a bit of confusion
about what will happen on...with our international
borders being shut. But I think, certainly,
the universities are under pressure. You know, through
their funding arrangements, they have supplemented their income
through international students. That has been removed. And I've met with a few unis that
are really struggling around that. We've had international students
stuck here, often with no support, because they weren't eligible
for any of the COVID support. We've had people return home
halfway through their studies who can't come back. So there's a big issue here, Hamish. But how would you fix it?
How would you get them back in? Well, again, it's one
for the government to manage and they have to come back
with a plan. Like, this is part of the issue with the Commonwealth's
response to COVID, is the lack of transparency
and the lack of information is leading to confusion, and that is bad for the economy but it's also bad
for the thousands of students and the universities
that rely on those students to come and support their university
and the work they do. So, again, this is something
the Commonwealth has... ..has failed at again. When we look at things -
the COVIDSafe app... David Olsson,
has Australia failed at this? ..aged care, universities... You know, the list goes on. Well, the international
education sector is one of the most significant
export earners for us, and I think we have underestimated
just how important that is to our economy. It's not just the students coming in
and the travel and everything that goes with it, but it's also the capacity
to be able to work, study, use these students to be
our international ambassadors as they go back to their
home countries in due course. But we do need to reopen the economy
as soon as we can to get as many
of these students back. The international education sector,
I think, is going to change quite dramatically. What do you mean by
"as soon as we can"? Well, it's all going to be... It's going to be limited by our capacity
from a health perspective to be able to get people
in through the ground and our capacity to be able
to put them through hotel quarantine or whatever, having regard to
the various other competing needs for other people to come back
through that system, including not just
the returning travellers or people who are stuck overseas,
but also businesspeople who need to be able to get on planes
and travel more frequently. Vicky Xu, do you think we'll ever see
the same number of students, for example, coming from China
that we did pre-pandemic? Well, I doubt it, but I think it is a really great
opportunity for Australia also to rethink, you know,
what are we doing with international students? And, I mean, as a former
international student, you know, there is
this common sentiment that we're here to study but we are also paying
really high prices and treated like cash cows. And during the pandemic,
the students felt like they had been failed
by the Australian government. And they're caught in the middle when China and Australia
are having all these disputes. You know, I don't think
the numbers will recover and I think we do... There are so many questions
around that that have been put on pause - for example, again, IP theft, for example, influence operations
from the student communities - and when international students
do come back, we need to reassess all of that. Alright. Well, that is
all we've got time for tonight. A huge thanks
to our wonderful panel - Vicky Xu, James Paterson,
David Olsson, Katy Gallagher, and Dr Norman Swan. Please thank all of them. (APPLAUSE) And thanks to those of you
here in the studio. Great to see so many of you
back in the studio and thank you also
for wearing your masks. Hopefully...hopefully,
that won't be forever. Next week we're in Sydney, talking
about all the big issues of the week, including Australia's climate policy
on the global stage. We'll be joined by the former
prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull - he'll be here on the panel. We'll see you then. Goodnight. Captions by Red Bee Media Copyright Australian
Broadcasting Corporation
