Listen to the audio on Spotify
*The transcript has been edited for readability
Hosted by Samuel Lee and Declan Browne.
Special thanks to Rosanne Costin and Raphael Dillon.
This interview is conducted between members of the Political Pulse and Former Second Secretary Rosanne Costin of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This interview is about her time as a diplomat in Japan when negotiations commenced between Australia and Japan as part of the now signed trade deal known as JAEPA (Japan-Australia Economic Partnership agreement).
Transcript:
Samuel Lee:
Hi, Would you like to just go ahead and introduce yourself?
Rosanne:
Sure, my name is Rosanne Costin.
I’m currently working in the New South Wales State Government on gender equality policy. And my very first role was in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia in Canberra.
Samuel Lee:
Hmm. What was your official job title and can you expand on your role at DFAT then?
Rosanne:
Sure. So I had a couple of different role titles.It depended on the time. I first joined and I was working in historical documents, I was a historical documents officer. I then moved into the ASEAN and regional issues area, so I was an ASEAN and regional issues officer. I had a posting to Japan, so the title there was Second Secretary and my last role was as a business relations officer in the NSW State Office.
Samuel Lee:
Could you tell us what did you work on while you were in the ASEAN Regional Issues Department.
Rosanne:
Yeah, sure. So it was on ASEAN and regional issues like the title says. I was working with ASEAN countries at that time. We are talking sort of the mid 1990s Australia’s relations with Asia were and still are very important. However, I guess they were blossoming at that time. Previously, Australia had been very reliant on relationships with the US and the UK. And I think there was a realization that we needed to develop relationships with our near neighbours in Asia and ASEAN was one of the ways that we were developing that through that grouping, if you like. So it was, you know, all of the issues for that grouping. And I guess a bit like APEC. ASEAN Is one where everything is done by consensus. It's not a confrontational type of grouping, It's one where the final statement every year is one that everybody agrees to.
Samuel Lee:
If I'm not mistaken, you also did work on the trade agreement between Australia and Japan [JAEPA], is that correct?
Rosanne:
That's right. So that was the main role that I had when I was Second Secretary in Japan, was to work on trade issues. And again at that time, Australia had signed a couple of trade agreements. We already signed one with New Zealand in 1983 and the US in 1993 and Australia was optimistic that we could achieve similar success with Japan, If anything, I think, the fact that that trade agreement it was signed in 2015 just shows you that it actually takes decades of work before some of these trade agreements actually make it to being signed.
So the work I did was very much laying the groundwork speaking to people in The Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of Trade and Industry over in Japan and getting them to consider the idea of entering into a trade agreement with Australia and there were a lot of barriers because Japan is very sensitive about a couple of issues in trade.
One of which is rice, Rice has an oversized meaning in Japan. It's something that's not just an agricultural good. It's almost like a cultural heritage. It's something that, you know, Japanese rice is seen as sort of the foundation, there’s a lot more meaning to it. You have to understand that you know they didn't want their rice industry to be overwhelmed by cheap Australian rice and then to be completely wiped out because not only would it mean they wouldn't be growing their own rice, but this whole fundamental connection with rice could disappear, so that was very sensitive.
Another product was meat. Again, Australia was pushing beef. But Australian beef at that time was sort of lean beef. Whereas Japanese beef, you know, is a marbled sort of beef, and while they [the Japanese] didn't mind Australian beef or cheap sort of take away food, wagyu, again has this sort of mythical status, something to be protected and developed. And I think partly it was as much a learning if you like, for the Australian side to understand. The nature of some of these goods to be able to get a trade agreement signed because Australia started moving to growing wagyu beef. And I I don't know. I have a feeling that rice is probably cut out. It must have been.I haven't looked closely at the final trade agreement that was signed in 2015, but it's probably. Carved out and not even included, and that I imagine would be the only way that they actually managed to get it signed off.
Samuel Lee:
I see.
Declan Browne:
So what kind of responsibilities would you say you had during your time as Second Secretary?
Rosanne:
So it was mainly trade. As Second Secretary, I see the role of diplomats really as a form of journalism. If you like, you're reporting back, but you're not reporting openly to a newspaper. You're reporting back for the government and you're consulting experts in the country to get a sense of the views, obviously mainly people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or their trade ministry to see what their positions would be on certain things. So it's that kind of reporting, but if you like, the reporting is not for everybody else to see, it's just for the government to see. There were some other tasks as well. The very first thing I did once language training finished. My role was to organize the logistics for the visit to Japan of the then Prime Minister Howard, and that was actually a huge task because the official visit was for longer than a week, it was with his wife. It was a big delegation and it was also [a lot of] travelling. Flying in from Haneda, going from Tokyo to Kyoto as well. So a huge logistics exercise. And my counterpart was working on the contents of the sorts of things that would actually be discussed in meetings, and I was looking at logistics and it was just all consuming. Towards the end, I was working crazy hours. So working till 3:00 or 4:00 AM.
Samuel Lee:
Oh God.
Rosanne:
And then yeah, getting up and starting again at 9:00 AM and working like that for a couple of weeks. So it was just horrific.
Samuel Lee:
What did you do as a Second Secretary? What was the most challenging aspect of your job? Any anecdotes that you know you're willing to throw in From your time working in Japan?
Rosanne:
I think that as I said, the official visit to Japan of Prime Minister Howard was definitely the most challenging. Nothing else in my time came close to that amount of work.
Samuel Lee:
Sorry, could I just contextualize for the people that might read this?This is John Howard, right? Prime Minister from the Liberal Party.
Rosanne:
Correct. Yes, that's right.
Samuel Lee:
OK.
Rosanne:
So yeah, the Liberal Party was in power when I was in Japan. Working on those logistics is also, as I say, I just come off language training and all of the meetings that we had with our counterparts were generally held in Japanese. It was just more efficient.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Samuel Lee:
No translators or anything?
Rosanne:
No, it was just work in Japanese. We did the discussions in Japanese because it was much faster than if you had a translator and so on. And that was just to organise logistics and so on. As I say, I was green. I just finished the language training, but it was thrown into the deep end and you used it. But it was a great experience. But you know, it's not like you get language training and you never use it. You really used it in anger. And yes, not that they were unforgiving. We would be the same Australia with other diplomats when we're going to hold the meetings in English in Australia. It was a bit of sink or swim.
That was the main challenge, I guess another thing was I saw the time in Japan as trying to get to know the people and the country as much as possible. So I had this idea that I would never knock back an invitation So we agreed to go to all sorts of things that were actually quite boring or naff (Naff: uncool, unfashionable, etc), you know, to try to meet people and break, break into circles. So you know, we did these really awful tennis lessons and dancing classes and so on.
Samuel Lee:
Dancing classes?
Rosanne:
Yeah. Yep. Some of them were terrible. But we were trying to meet people, use the language and get to know people. So yeah.
Samuel Lee:
I see.
Declan Browne:
So what things would you say that you can't do as a diplomat that you could do as a private citizen?
Rosanne:
Yeah, there are some. Definitely. When you're overseas as a diplomat, you know that everything you do is representing and representative of an Australian diplomat. So I think you feel constantly like you can't do anything stupid in public because you will be judged.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Rosanne:
You know, I don't know if you've heard recently. There was an Australian diplomat's partner in New Zealand who got into a fight. And that's really embarrassing. You can't do that, so you have to, if you like, take the view that no matter where you are or what you're doing, somebody is probably viewing you or could be viewing you. So you can't be rude or violent because it's a reflection not just on you, but on your government. Not that we use them that much, but nowadays your social media posts have to be circumspect. If you even use them.
Conversely, though, there are some benefits as well. When you're a diplomat, you know you get diplomatic immunity, and it does mean that some people act with impunity because they know that the laws of the host country won't apply. And another example that comes to mind is actually in the UK. I don't know if you remember the story of Anne Sacoolas who killed Harry Dunn by driving on the wrong side of the road and she then fled the country claiming diplomatic immunity. That's an extreme example.
Samuel Lee:
Yeah. Hmm.
Rosanne:
And one that's obviously not well regarded.I wouldn't recommend anybody do that.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Rosanne:
But clearly it does happen.
Samuel Lee:
I See. Apologies if this is a question you might not or might be able to answer. So you know, you talk a lot about the differences between the responsibilities as a private citizen and as a diplomat. Let's just say you work for the Liberal government, assuming, and that you didn’t support the liberal government, Let's just say you're a Labor supporter in Australia and you end up working for the government, How do you disconnect with your own personal politics and the government's objectives as a civil servant?
Rosanne:
This is something that you always get as a civil servant. You're not there to serve the government of the day. Well, I suppose in a sense you are. You're really there to serve the people no matter which government is in power. So I guess you have to detach somewhat and that's very difficult. And I think in Japan at the time there was one policy that I found very difficult to swallow and it was our approach to the Kyoto Protocol.
At the time, it was a huge first real move to do something about climate change and the position that Australia took seemed to not to be in good faith, really. I will put in. Is there a chance? An article that I would recommend you look at if I bring it up which talks about the Australia clause as well. (https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WP13_8.pdf) I don't know if you've heard of it but as I said, we didn't go in there with good faith, it was almost. Like we were undermining the whole thing to some extent, and that was that was difficult. And the thing is that position and the fact that we got that agreed to was celebrated. It was in terms of negotiations, it was very clever. We managed to, you know, win our position, but it's a hollow victory. When you think that what our position actually seemed to be taking, any steps towards climate change back rather than forward.
Anyway, The fact that we said rather than a reduction of emissions, an increase of 8% / 1990 levels. And also. The Australian Space Year emissions were inflated by 30% because we included net emissions from land clearing and that was that became known as the Australian clause. As I say, it was sort of tricky and nasty. You could say it was very clever international negotiations, but in terms of actually achieving the aim of the Kyoto Protocol and climate change negotiations. Australia has since changed its position, clearly, but you know that was something that I found difficult to to deal with. But Just you don't comment on those sorts of things all the time.
You know, there were some other things that the Howard government was doing at the time. I was in Japan. There was this. There was a move to the right in terms of racist immigration policy. We had a politician, Pauline Hanson, who is still in parliament. And she was suggesting that our levels of Asian immigration were too high. And how John Howard at the time seemed to kind of condone her view. He wasn't saying that it was outrageous. So it was difficult and awkward when you're overseas in an Asian country and it appears like your country is saying, oh, you know, Asian immigrants out.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Samuel Lee:
Yeah, not great, not great.Yeah.
Rosanne:
This happens all the time. You know in the UK you could say the same thing about the war in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and so on.Australia joined it too. Don't get me wrong, but there's always things where people were protesting at the time, but in the end, you've got a job to do if, if that's your role, That's what you carry it out. I mean, there's only so much that you can influence. You have to know what is within your area of influence.
Declan Browne Yeah.So taking it back to like the trade agreements, would you say that the Australian state achieved its foreign policy goals with JAEPA?
Rosanne:
Yes, but it's never ending if you like. And also there was, it took a long time, as I say that that groundwork started in the late 1990s and culminated in JAEPA in 2015. And JAEPA does give Australian exporters significantly improved market access in goods and services. Substantially improved investment protections, and JAEPA is actually one of Australia's most utilized bilateral free trade agreements, but there is also a discussion about a tradeoff if you like, between bilateral trade agreements and multilateral trade agreements.
Bilateral trade agreements are all clearly between two countries and they exclude other countries. Whereas multilateral trade agreements, you know, it means that even developing countries, everybody gets the same benefits if you like.And if you go down the bilateral trade agreement path, in a sense, you're not assisting a multilateral trade agreement. So in this for Australia, yes, it's good. But on the world stage, would it be better to ensure that the kinds of provisions that are put into JAEPA are done from the world in the World Trade Organization. There is that argument but the problem obviously is you then got 190 organizations to agree to that and that's not realistic and that's clearly why a lot of nations decide to go down bilateral trade agreement routes rather than wait for the WTO to come up with the same agreements.
Samuel Lee:
I know you aren’t at DFAT anymore and if I’m not mistaken, you haven’t been there for a while?
Rosanne:
Yep.
Samuel Lee:
So, you might not be able to answer this, but what do you think has changed most about Australian foreign policy then from your time and now?
Rosanne:
Yeah. I guess I think the main change is in the 1990s, we were thinking progress was linear.Things seem to be liberalizing. Protectionism seemed to be dying off, everyone realised that that wasn't the best option you know to protect industries and add tariffs and so on.And we, oh, I perhaps assumed that that's how things would continue, that liberalization would continue and countries would become more familiar with each other if you like.
Samuel Lee:
Like “The End of History” , Francis Fukuyama sort of thing?
Rosanne:
Yes, exactly. And instead what I see now partly also as a result of COVID, but also, you know, Trump in America is a return to protectionism and insularity.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Rosanne:
So I guess I was naive to think that things would just continue to get better and more global, more equal.It's not necessarily the case. I think we're at a time now where things are a bit more insular.It's a little bit more of a fight for yourself if you like, rather than more global. There was definitely more of a global feel I felt in the 1990s then now.
Samuel Lee:
Mm hmm.
Declan Browne:
So in regards, back to like your aspirations, What would you say inspired you to pursue a career in diplomacy in the first place?
Rosanne:
Yeah, I wanted to work in international relations. I was idealistic. I wanted to, you know, change the world and work for good and I thought working on an international level would affect the most change. Obviously, when I got into foreign affairs, I realized that that was perhaps a bit naive. I also enjoyed learning foreign languages and living in different countries and learning about other cultures and history. So, you know, diplomacy seemed like a way I could continue that sort of work. As I say, a bit naive.
Samuel Lee:
I mean, I guess like cause a lot of us, I think a lot of students and the people who would be reading this article, what do you think is? And again, sorry if this is a bit hard to answer, but what do you think is like something that a lot of people expect from a career diplomacy versus the realities of it? Because from what I can hear, it seems like there's a huge gap, I guess in that sort of expectation versus reality sort of thing.
Rosanne:
Yeah, definitely. It seems so glorious from the outside. It's just another job. It is a job that can take you overseas, but you also spend a lot of time at home base if you like. So, in between postings, you might spend a lot of time in Canberra. It's very rare you go from posting back-to-back and just, you know, live your time overseas. And you also don't necessarily get postings to the fantastic countries. You might get postings to little known, little interest countries. You have to be prepared to go wherever the opportunity presents itself and make the most of that so you know, for some people, perhaps postings in the Pacific to Pacific Island nations aren't as glamorous, but there's still good work to be done there. Or, you know, other smaller areas postings too. I don't know, Vatican City or other things. You gotta find something interesting. No matter where you're posted, you have to be willing to accept not just New York, London, whatever.
Declan Browne:
I see. So how would you say in that case, how would you balance your professional and personal life as a diplomat? Like in between all these postings, and like returning back to home base and like those off periods that you experience?
Rosanne:
Yeah, well, you know, when I told you about how I worked with John Howard's visit, you can see that when I was in Japan, I didn't balance work.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Rosanne:
Very well. That was very unbalanced. And I think the time back in Australia is when you can return to a more balanced lifestyle, all of the Australian Public Service, if you like, has reasonably flexible work to accommodate people with families and other needs. It's more difficult overseas, obviously. And I think that's how you kind of balance it by sort of when your needs are greatest in terms of families or whatever, you're less likely to be overseas. So a lot of people with young kids, depending again, it depends on the country. If you go to a country where you get allowed to have home help, then you can manage with the young kids. But the hours can be challenging when you're overseas because it's not just the work, it's also events in the evening and so on. There's a lot of representation, so you are out a lot of nights and on weekends. Travelling within the country as well, so that is difficult to balance. Alternatively, you need a very understanding partner with you who can look after family. It's a juggle, but it's a juggle. No matter where you're working, that's life.
Samuel Lee:
There seems to be a lot of confusion I guess, around how people get into diplomacy, that sort of thing. So I was just hoping to ask about your journey to becoming a diplomat. How did that come about?
Rosanne:
Yeah, in Australia, it's at the time. I must've been. I haven't checked recently. They have a graduate recruitment round, so it starts off I think with an application you want to apply for. You then get to do a general knowledge test. So they run this test and everyone sits the test and once you get the results from your test. You get various points. They had a point system, so the points were based on your marks from the general knowledge test. Your degree. I can't remember exactly. It might include languages, and if you then get enough points, you get to the next round, which is like a whole day interview both in groups and individually. So it's all these stages and you just have to sort of keep getting through every stage. I can't speak for any other countries' recruitment methods. That's all I know.
Declan Browne:
So what would you say in that case where, like some of the most important qualities that you would need in order to pursue a career in diplomacy?
Rosanne:
Well, based on my answers, I think you would guess that I would say I don't think you should be too principled. If you're too passionate about certain things, you'll suffer cognitive dissonance because your work may well contradict those views.
Samuel Lee:
Hmm.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Rosanne:
I think you need to be pragmatic and a little bit distanced or even detached about some policies. You do need to be open to other people, cultures, ideas, languages and I think the most important thing is you need to be a good listener because that is the crux of your work. You're listening to the people in that country and gathering intelligence. You're gathering information from them. But you've got to really listen to what they're saying and not put your own spin on it. You know, you've got to accept if you like the Japanese view of rice or Wagyu or whatever it is, and report that back. Honestly, whether the government wants to hear it or not.
Samuel Lee:
Hmm.
Rosanne:
I mean, at the time we were reporting back saying, you know? Japan is not ready for a trade agreement with Australia, these things. Are these obstacles too big? It's not going to happen yet, so. You know that's not what the government wanted to hear, but that was the case. Luckily, that changed after a decade.
Declan Browne:
Yeah.
Samuel Lee:
I guess you did bring up recently. Like, you know, having to accept other people's viewpoints when you are working in diplomacy. So I guess my question in this case would be, when you were there, you know, just working with other diplomats, were there major points of contention culturally that was a struggle to accept or like it was something that you had to work through and how did it play a part in negotiations?
Rosanne:
Unless I say I, I guess you know the main ones I banged on about are sort of rice and beef and so on. You can try to say to Japanese people we can export rice that is 1/10 of the price that your rice costs and this will be good for Japanese people. And in some sense, that's true. Today. But maybe Japanese people don't want that rice at that price for other reasons.
Samuel Lee:
Hmm.
Rosanne:
It's a point of contention.You're not working from the same standpoint if, as an Australian, you're saying our rice is much cheaper, but that's not what's most important to the other person, then you don't understand the issues. So yeah, that's a major cultural point of contention.
Declan Browne:
Mm hmm.
Rosanne:
The other things I guess are just in terms of the way we operate, I don't know if you've looked at Hofstetter's cultural dimensions, but Australians are very direct, speak explicitly, and very individualistic. Japanese people tend to be collectivistic and speak in an implicit manner, Both those things are a major cultural point of contention.
Samuel Lee:
Yeah.
Declan Browne:
That's true.
Rosanne:
So you have to learn how to, you know, come at least halfway, if not get onto their side for any deals to be made. If you want to make your point, you got to make it in a way that is acceptable to the other side.I did find this also. Even just organising the logistics of that official visit. Getting information was so difficult and that's why I was working till 3:00 or 4:00 AM. Simple things that seemed like you know. Would person X sit here on the plane beside Y? Well, we'll let you know. And I think it's a yes, no question. But there were other things, perhaps probably protocols and seniority and other things that I wouldn't know and that person that I was speaking to would have to double check with other people. So they couldn't give a direct answer and I would just get so frustrated. But again, as I say, that's my issue, not understanding some of the complexities that they had to deal with.
Samuel Lee:
So quite literally, you would be like who sits next to who? And they would just basically tell you “This is not a good idea”, but reword it in a way so that they would say “I'm not sure”, and you would have to figure it out.
Rosanne:
You'd have to wait and I wouldn't figure it out. You would eventually hear, but they would have to double check with, you know, layers upon layers upon layers. You know of approvals to say, can X sit beside Y here? Yes or no. And oh, that'll cause these problems, and it would, as I say, it seemed like something that somebody more junior could decide or Agree, but not necessarily.
Declan Browne:
You did mention before that like you underwent foreign language training that you used as part of those meetings that were held in Japanese. So if I could ask, what were those training lessons like and what were some of the strategies that you used to, you know, study these like kind of difficult foreign languages?
Rosanne:
I am very pleased that DFAT gives. Two full years. Two years of full time language training for certain languages. Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Arabic, I think. They're sort of considered to be the most difficult, so you get 2 years of full time language training and what that consisted of was the first year was in Canberra daily classes with a Japanese teacher, Normal sorts of things that you would do anywhere learning a language, the second year was in country and that switched to one-on-one classes. So just you with the teacher the first year was in a class with some other students, second year was one-on-one, five hours with at least that amount of homework as well, and it was much more intensive. There was a lot of reading. And a lot of translating work and it was full on. It was the hardest I've worked, but it also felt very gratifying every hour that I spent in language training, I felt like I was getting something directly. I was learning. So it was. It felt like something, you know, selfish for me. But I did end up using it quite a lot in work.
That also does depend on the country. I had a friend who had a posting to India and he had studied Hindi at Sydney University and he was really disappointed that in his three years in India he barely got to use any Hindi because anybody of any seniority wanted to speak in English they didn't want to be seen as needing to use Hindi so at most when he went to the markets he could use a bit of Hindi, but never in a work context. So it does, yeah, it does depend.
Declan Browne:
So would you say that in your case, the Japanese you got a lot more out of it compared to your friend that was posted to India?
Rosanne:
Yeah, definitely. And I think as I say, it depends on the countries and that's partly why they give so much language training in Japan, Korea and China, because they know that the diplomats will use that language for work. Presumably Arabic too. Whereas European languages, you get a little bit of language training, but we also know that most of the people that you deal with can speak English fairly competently, so you don't get to use it for work that much.
Declan Browne:
I see. Yeah, Sam, if you wanna go ahead.
Samuel Lee:
Yeah, sure. So I guess now I would like to because we talked a lot about your time in Japan and you know the result of the trade deal especially for Japan. But I guess a lot of I think a lot of missing literature on things like foreign policy and trade deals is: What is it like for the host country? Did JAEPA also help improve lives for Australia Farmers or any Australian industries?
Rosanne:
For Australian industries, yeah, definitely. And I would say for Japan too, I really do think that both countries have benefited. As I say, it does mean you know that certain goods that in Japan are very expensive can now come in and are much cheaper for consumers. So that's a great thing. Both sides and in Australia in terms of investment from Japan. And that has really improved as a result of JAEPA. So generally they are win-wins, most free trade agreements, but there are sometimes clauses which make it difficult.
I know with Australia and the US there was a carve out for sugar. So they wouldn't allow Australia to export sugar to the US. And that disappointed sugar farmers, obviously, and that was protecting their own sugar industry. And I think Australia, if it had got a toehold in, would have made big inroads because Australian farmers can produce the sugar far more cheaply.
But as I said, that was carved out and there were some other clauses that didn't benefit, I'm thinking copyright authors, that sort of thing. I can't remember the details exactly, but there are some clauses that you know make it difficult as well.
Declan Browne:
So you did mention that Japan was, like, very protective around its rice and like wagyu beef and those sort of agricultural products. So how did you navigate dealing with these more taboo products or services during your negotiation deal liberalizing trade?
Rosanne:
Well, I think the aim is to see how much push, how much give there is and you're identifying all of the areas that you want to negotiate in a free trade agreement and say where will the other country give a little and where is an absolute, you know? Block no. So you identify that and you're constantly working out to see whether anything changes over time or under certain circumstances.
For Japan, I guess the other one is energy. Japan is a big importer of energy from Australia so in that sense they are very willing to import various forms of energy and that's another aspect of JAEPA. But I guess when you realize that there is an area or an item that is non negotiable. There's no point pushing that. Pushing past that. It’s Better off working on identifying other areas. Until you come up with your agreement and if it means certain parts are just never included, then that's the way it happens.
Samuel Lee I'm not too sure if I again if this is a relevant question for you, but you know did the changes in government between the Liberals and Labour impact these negotiations, were there big changes to the approach or was it like a continuity sort of thing?
Rosanne:
Yeah. No, that's interesting. The final agreement was signed by the Liberals, but as I say, it took decades of work, during which time there was also a Labour government and I think they, in terms of trade negotiations, it's fairly bipartisan. That's not an area where one side of politics has very differing views to the other side. They tend to agree, if you like, that certain things are in Australia's best interests. So I guess climate change is a bit different. There's very marked differences between the liberal and Labour parties in Australia. So you would see changes when there's a change of government there and that's why Australia's position is a lot more like global at the moment, because we've got a Labour government, should that change, you could see a reversion very similar to Trump with the Paris Agreement pulling the US out and then they rejoin the divide. So you know that aspect, yes, energy agreements, there is a difference between Liberal and Labour, but other trade areas, not so much. As I say, Australia has long been opposed to protectionism, it removed all tariffs fairly early on, and it's also a member of the Cairns Group of agricultural countries who, you know, work to ensure that agricultural goods don't attract tariffs. But, and those are bipartisan things. Those things wouldn't change.
Samuel Lee:
I see. I guess I have just one more final question for you. And I guess this is something students always want to know from people who've worked in diplomacy.Would you recommend it? I guess do you think it's a career that we should pursue at this time?
Rosanne:
Sure, why not? It can be a great career. As I say, you need to understand that it's not as glamorous as you might think it is, but that's OK. Most jobs aren't particularly glamorous. It's a good one. You get to meet other people, you get to live in other countries, learn about other countries. The work you're doing can be interesting.It can also be boring but again, that's the same in most jobs. You gotta be willing to take the good with the bad and know that there is that bad. If you like the dull, the boring, you know.That's fine. It's a good career. I would recommend it.
Samuel Lee:
Thank you so much for doing this with us.
Rosanne:
No problem.