LEX 8551 Documents.pdf

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 1
From:
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Former PM Abbott - Hungary conference [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date:
Tuesday, 30 July 2019 8:02:20 PM
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear s 22(1)(a)(ii)
For information.
Former PM Abbott has accepted an invitation to participate in the 3rd Budapest Demography
Summit which takes in Budapest on 5-6 September - https://bdfelsoacsalad.hu/en
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Invitations were issued under PM Orban’s signature.
The Conference organisers contacted us last week to let us know about Mr Abbott’s attendance
and subsequently provided s 22(1)(a)(ii) with some further information.
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
At this point, there has been no request for assistance from either Mr Abbott or the Summit
organisers, however we’ll continue to monitor.
Cheers
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Adviser | Australian Embassy and Permanent Mission to the UN
Mattiellistrasse 2-4 | 1040 Vienna | Austria
T: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
M
E: s 22(1)(a)(ii)@dfat.gov.au
1 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 2
From:
s 22(1)(a)
To:
s 47F(1)
Cc:
s 22(1)(a)(ii)  Lucienne Manton; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Subject:
Travel by former Prime Minister Abbott to Hungary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date:
Thursday, 1 August 2019 8:56:54 AM
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear s 47F(1)
For your information, our post in Vienna has advised us that former Prime Minister Abbott has
accepted an invitation to participate in the 3rd Budapest Demography Summit, which takes place
in Budapest on 5-6 September - https://bdfelsoacsalad.hu/en  s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Invitations were issued under Prime Minister Orbán’s signature.  s 22(1)(a)(ii)

  Former Prime
Minister Abbott has not as yet requested any assistance from post.  We will let you know (as well
as Executive Branch) if there are any further developments concerning Mr Abbott’s travel to
Hungary.
Best wishes
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Director
Northern and Central Europe Section
Europe and Latin America Division
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Canberra
Tel: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Fax:
2 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 3
Title:
Hungary: III. Budapest Demography Summit - Family First
MRN:
s 47E(d)
23/09/2019 05:33:41 PM CEDT
To:
Canberra
Cc:
RR : Europe Posts
From:
Vienna UN
From File:
EDRMS
Files:
References:  s 22(1)(a)(ii)
The cable has the following attachment/s -
Kevin Andrews - Budapest Demography Summit - 5.9.2019.pdf
Tony Abbott - Danube Institute Budapest - 4.9.2019.002.docx
Response:   Routine, Information Only
Summary
The third biennial Budapest Demography Summit took place on 5‒6 September 2019
s 22(1)(a)(ii)

Organised by the Hungarian Government, Australian speakers included
former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Hon Kevin Andrews MP s 22(1)(a)(ii)

On 4 September, Mr Abbott
delivered a lecture at a Government-linked think thank on Australia's migration policies
(script attached).
The III. Budapest Demography Summit took place on 5‒6 September 2019 under the theme
of "Family First". s 22(1)(a)(ii)

Australian speakers included former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the Hon Kevin
Andrews MP s 22(1)(a)(ii)

3 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 3
s 22(1)(a)(ii)

On 4 September, Mr Abbott delivered a lecture at the
Danube Institute - a Government-linked think thank in Budapest on Immigration: What
Europe can learn from Australia?(script attached). He was interviewed afterwards by Mark
Higgie, former Australian Ambassador in Budapest and Brussels, currently resident in
Budapest.
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
5. Kevin Andrews MP presented his book Maybe "I do" – Modern marriage and the pursuit
of happiness s 22(1)(a)(ii)

4 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 3
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
text ends
Sent by:  s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Prepared
by:
Approved  DHOM
by:
Topics:
POLITICAL-ECONOMIC/Domestic Political
5 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 4
children is a better deal than going without. In what it calls the Baby Bonus Scheme, the
government is offering cash to couples that have second and third children. It is extending
maternity leave and adding a brief paternity leave for government workers. It is
experimenting with flexible working hours to make child rearing easier. It is offering special
deals on apartment rentals for young couples. It has also increased infant and child-care
places, expanded healthcare for couples with children and funded assisted reproductive
technology.
“Let’s get on the love wagon” urged a headline in the Straits Times. For a nation where
dropping litter or spitting on the footpath is regarded as highly disorderly, it comes as a
surprise to read in the same article tips directions to “some of the darkest, most secluded
and most romantic spots for Romeos and Juliets.” Subsequently, Singapore’s Deputy Prime
Minister, Dr Tony Tan, announced that the Government would fund $50 million over five
years to educate the public on family life. This includes marriage education and parenting
classes. The government also established a service, ‘Marriage Central’, to dispense advice of
married life.11 More recently, the government set up an online dating service to boost
marriage rates among graduates.12 It also provides direct payments for each child, rising in
value for every additional sibling. Despite these endeavours, Singapore’s fertility rate has
fallen to 1.14 according the latest data.13 It has been predicted to fall below 1.0 in the next
five years.
The Singapore study illustrates the point that whereas the birthrate can be reduced
significantly within the space of a generation, it is much more difficult to increase again.
Direct pronatalist measures alone seem insufficient to reverse declining birthrates. For this
reason, policy makers also have turned to family friendly and economic policies.
Total Fertility Rate - Singapore
Singapore
2.5
2
1.5
1
Total Fertility
0.5
Rate
0
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2018
Hungary has been able to reverse its declining fertility rate in the past decade, but it is too
early to know if this reversal is permanent.
14 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 4
this measure, immigration to Australia, for example, has a very modest impact on living
standards according to an Econtech report.19
An Australian longitudinal survey of migrants showed very strong employment outcomes for
skilled migrants with an employment rate of over 97 per cent and a participation rate of 94
per cent just 18 months after arrival. Migrants on a spouse visa also had very good
outcomes, with unemployment of just five per cent, and participation at 72 per cent.
However, there are significant variations. Non-English speaking, unskilled and older migrants
have much lower levels of employment and many rely on welfare payments. This is
exacerbated by any economic downturn.
There are other limitations on immigration. Settlement issues, especially in larger cities,
effectively limit the number of immigrants that a place can house and settle. A worldwide
demand for skilled immigrants also restricts the numbers. Moreover, immigration does little
to influence the age structure of the population, as immigrants also grow older.
Thirdly, the assumptions about population increase over the next 50 years take little account
of any possible reversals of life expectancy. Professor Eberstadt observed:
Long-term stagnation or even decline in life expectancy is now a real possibility for
urbanised, educated countries not at war. Severe and prolonged collapses of local
health conditions during peacetime, furthermore, is no longer a purely theoretical
eventuality. As we look towards 2025, we must consider the unpleasant likelihood
that a large and growing fraction of humanity may be separated from the planetary
march toward better health and subjected instead to brutal mortality crises of
indeterminate duration.20
In the west, cancer, diabetes, alcoholism and other diseases related to affluent but
unhealthy lifestyles continue to strike the population. Obesity amongst children is at record
levels. In the world’s most populous nations, India and China, family sizes are expected to
continue to fall.21 In both the UK and the USA, life expectancy peaked in 2014 and then fell.22
Finally, population issues cannot be isolated from other national trends, including lower
levels of marriage, the higher incidence of separation and divorce, and the consequences for
children.
Immigration is a lazy, and, ultimately limited, response to the ageing of the population.
Changing economic circumstances can result in migration reversals. The exodus of migrants
from Eastern Europe in one example. Elsewhere, guest workers have been sent back to their
home countries as economic conditions fluctuate.23
Secondly, although generally younger, the new arrivals also age along with the rest of the
population. Only a commitment to a continually larger immigration program can counter
this fact. A record annual number of immigrants would be necessary, for example, if Europe
was to counter the impact of ageing.24  This would result in greater congestion and more
dense settlement, neither of which would be popular. According to UN estimates, the
magnitude of immigration required to prevent population ageing in Europe would result in a
migrant population constituting between 59 and 99 per cent of the population.25  Even if
theoretically feasible, where would these immigrants come from, and what would be the
impact on the existing resident population?  We have already witnessed tensions in a
number of countries between existing populations and more recent arrivals from other parts
of the world. Little wonder that a survey of fertility and population ageing in Europe
16 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 4
concluded that “the sheer numbers of immigrants that are needed to prevent population
ageing in the EU and its Member States are not acceptable in the current socio-political
climate prevailing in Europe.”26 Debates over identity are likely to increase, not decrease, in
this century.27
Challenge 2: There is no ‘magic bullet’ that will reverse population
decline
Many countries have deployed a variety of policies. These include pro-natalist inducements,
direct economic support for families, work and family measures, and programs to support
marriage and discourage divorce.28 No one policy or program has been successful in
reversing population decline. In Australia, for example, family taxation benefits, subsidized
health and childcare and a generous welfare system, along with encouragement to have
“one child for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the Country” initially resulted in a raise in the
birthrate, in the early 2000s before it decreased again a few years later.29
Challenge 3: Reversing population decline requires a long-term,
sustained effort
It is easy for nations in the early stages of fertility decline to be seduced by the phenomenon
known as the ‘demographic dividend.’ 30 This occurs when birth rates first fall, allowing more
people, especially women, to enter the paid workforce. Individuals are able to spend and
invest more, including in the education of fewer children. The phenomena occurred in Japan
and other Asian countries from the 1960s, and are occurring in China currently. But the
dividend must be repaid. As the population ages, there are fewer workers and the numbers
of dependent aged grows, there is a drain on resources. Japan is already experiencing the
impact, and China will in the coming two decades, as it enters longer-term depopulation.
Even nations that have seriously addressed population decrease have witnessed varying
outcomes. Reversing population decline involves sustained policies over two generations –
possibly longer.
Conclusion
Popular ideas and current lifestyle choices militate against the acceptance of appropriate
policy responses. Having experienced their parents’ divorces, the movement of
governmental support from families with children to the elderly, high levels of
unemployment, the need to have two incomes to achieve what their parent’s regarded as a
reasonable standard of living, and facing what they perceive as an uncertain future, many
young people are postponing or avoiding marriage and delaying children.
Reversing population decline will require the sustained, combined response of civic and
cultural institutions, government and the business community.
Hungary’s efforts to address the population challenge are a commendable example of
measures that nations will increasingly need to adopt if they are to avoid or mitigate the
economic, social and cultural consequences of population decline.
17 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 4
Hungary, 1970-2018
****
The Hon Kevin Andrews MP has been a member of the Australian Parliament since 1991. He served in the
Cabinet of Prime Minister’s John Howard and Tony Abbott. He is the author of a number of books, including
Changing Australia – social, cultural and economic trends shaping the nation (with Michelle Curtis) [Annandale,
NSW, Australia, The Federation Press, 1998], Maybe ‘I do’ – modern marriage and the pursuit of happiness
[Ballan, Australia, Connor Court, 2012, 2014 (concise edition)] and One People One Destiny [Melbourne,
Australia, Threshold Publishing, 2017]. Kevin is married to Margaret. They have five children and three
grandchildren. Prior to his election to Parliament, Kevin and Margaret co-founded the Marriage Education
Programme Inc, which provided pre- and post-wedding courses for some 20,000 couples.
Contact: xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xx
Website: www.kevinandrews.com.au
Notes
1 Kevin Andrews (2012) Maybe ‘I do’ – Modern marriage and the pursuit of happiness [Ballan, Australia, Connor
Court], 12
2 Danny Dorling (2019) ‘The smaller generation to come – worldwide’ www.dannydorling.org
3 Peter McDonald (2000) ‘Low fertility in Australia: Evidence, causes and policy responses’ People and Places 8: 6-
21; and Peter McDonald and Rebecca Kippen (2000) “Population projections for Australia’, BCA Papers,
September 96-104, cited in Kevin Andrews (2009) ‘Population, immigration and Australia’s future’ Australian
Polity 3: 12-16
4 United Nations Population Division (2019) World Population Prospects 2019, [United Nations, New York]
5 Nicholas Eberstadt, (2007) Too many people? [London, International Policy Network]
6 Dorling, supra
7 Graeme Hugo (2000) ‘Declining fertility and policy interventions in Europe: some lessons for Australia’ Journal
of Population Research, November 2000
8 Saw Swee-Hock (1990) ‘Changes in the fertility policy of Singapore,’ Institute of Policy Studies Occasional Paper
No 2 [Singapore, Times Academic Press]
9 Hugo (2000) supra
10 ‘Singapore, Hoping for a Baby boom, Makes Sex a Civic Duty.’ New York Times, April 21, 2001
11 ‘Marriage Central Singapore’ (2007) Threshold 90: 4. See also ‘Promoting marriage’ (2003) Threshold 75: 35
12 Lovebyte.org.sg See also ‘The flight from marriage’ (2010) The Economist, August 20, 20
13 https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/total-fertility-rate. See also: Justin Ong (2018) ‘Singapore’s
fertility rate at new 7-year low of 1.16: Josephine Teo, channelnewsasia.com (1 March 2018) and Singapore
Department of Statistics (2008) ‘Key demographic Indicators, 1970 – 2007,’ Population Trends 2008
18 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 4
14 Sanghan Yea (2004) ‘Are we prepared for world population implosion?’ Futures 36: 683-601
15 Nicholas Eberstadt (2011) ‘World population prospects and the global economic outlook: The shape of things
to come’ Working Series Paper on Development Policy 5 [Washington DC, American Enterprise Institute]
16 US Census Bureau, International Data Base. www.census.gov
17 Cited in K Andrews (2009) ‘Population, immigration and Australia’s future’ The Australian Polity 3: 12-16
18 Ibid
19Ibid
20 Nicholas Eberstadt (2007) ‘Global demographic outlook to 2025’ Speech, Economic Conference on
Demography, Growth and Wellbeing , Zurich [Washington DC, American Enterprise Institute]
21 See for example: ‘China: Changes to marriage’ (2005) Threshold 83: 28
22 Danny Dorling (2019) ‘We need more babies, not fewer, Harry!’ Daily Mail, August 4, 2019
23 See John P Martin (2008) International Migration Outlook [Paris, OECD]
24 R Lesthaeghe, H Page and J Surkyn (1988) Are immigrants substitutes for birth? Inter-university programme in
demography, working paper 1988-3 [Brussels, Inter-university]
25 United Nations (2000) Replacement migration: is it a solution to declining and ageing populations? [Geneva
and New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division]
26 Jonathan Grant et al (2004) Low fertility and population ageing [Leiden, The Netherlands, Rand Europe] 135
27 See for example Samuel P Huntington (2004) Who are we? [New York, Simon & Shuster]; and Jonathan Sacks
(2007) The home we build together [London, Continuum]
28 See Andrews, supra, 243-261
29 ibid
30 David E Bloom et al (2003) The demographic dividend: A new perspective on the economic consequences of
population change [Santa Monica CA, The Rand Corporation]
Acknowledgement: The charts in this paper are based on demographic data compiled for the author by the
Australian Parliamentary Library.
19 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 5
Tony Abbott
ADDRESS TO THE
DANUBE INSTITUTE

Source: http://tonyabbott.com.au/2019/09/address-to-the-danube-institute/ (Last access: 10/9/2019)
The working title for these remarks is what Australia can teach Hungary on border protection. In fact, Australia has very
little to teach Hungary on border protection. In fact, no country has much to teach Hungary on border protection. But
Australia does have much to teach Europe on border protection – as does Hungary, which has provided Germany, France,
Spain and Sweden (just some of the countries that have struggled with border protection) with an object lesson in how to
handle it.
Just as Australia has shown the world how to protect a maritime border, Hungary has shown the world how to protect a
land border – so between our two countries, there’s no end of a lesson for Europe which has now been subject to what
amounts to a peaceful invasion for about four years.
Yes, because of the fence that Hungary erected in 2015 to stop the hundreds of thousands marching towards Germany;
and because of policy changes to mimic Hungary’s in some other central and eastern European countries; and because of
deals that the EU has done with Turkey, that particular flood has become more-like-a-trickle. But there are still many tens
of thousands of people taking to small boats across the Mediterranean in the hope of a better life. Thousands are still
drowning but most are making it across, where they add immensely to the economic and social problems of Europe.
The people smuggling trade simply has to be stopped. To save lives it simply has to be stopped. That’s what Australia
has shown the world how-to-do. That’s what the countries of Europe could do if they were prepared to follow Australia’s
example. But to save lives in the short run, and to save themselves in the long run, the countries of Europe would have to
adopt some of Australia’s attitudes – and Hungary’s attitudes too – because you can’t put effective protections in place
unless you first believe in yourselves enough to make them work.
Yes, there are at least four million people who have been displaced by the war in Syria and Iraq. But only about half of
the nearly four million people who’ve shoved their way into Europe over the past four years have come from war zones.
In fact, they’ve converged on Europe from all over the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia, not because they were the
victims of fighting but because they’ve believed that Europe was open to everyone, thanks to the German chancellor’s
“we will cope” initial response to this human wave.
Of course, a well-organised country of some 80 million people can cope with a million arrivals. The question is not “can
it cope?” but “should it have to cope?” That’s the difference between Australia and Hungary, on the one hand; and most
of the countries of Europe, on the other. Australia and Hungary are quite clear that being poor and being able to benefit
from life in a rich country confers no right of entry. Most of the countries of Europe, though, are not so sure. They don’t
20 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 5
want people to arrive illegally by boat; they don’t want people to cross borders illegally; but they’re not sure that they
have the moral right to stop them.
There’s no doubt that people in immediate fear of their lives should indeed be able to claim sanctuary. Of course, civilians
threatened by war should be able to cross a border to seek safety. But there’s a world of moral difference between people
who cross one border to be safe and people who cross multiple borders to have a better life. No one can blame them for
wanting a better life but no one has a duty to give it to them, unconditionally, and with no questions asked. A person who
crosses one border to be safe is a refugee whom the host country has a duty to protect. A person who crosses multiple
borders for a better life is a would-be economic migrant whom the host country has every right to refuse.
Australia and Hungary accept this – although unlike Hungary, Australia also has the world’s largest refugee programme,
on a per capita basis, and since stopping the illegal migrant boats has actually increased its intake of refugees who come
the right way. But most importantly, Australia and Hungary haven’t allowed rich-country guilt to obscure their duty to
their own citizens to maintain strict control of their borders in order to keep their countries’ character.
Make no mistake: a rich country that takes the view that “anyone who can get here can stay here”, even if it’s 80 million
strong, will eventually find that it can’t cope with the numbers that have the inclination and the ability to come, especially
when the newcomers are effectively breaking in rather than joining in.
We have to face facts here: some of Turkey’s leaders have urged Muslims to take back parts of Europe; and as Europe
has discovered, among the would-be migrants are soldiers of the caliphate bent on mayhem. Many of those who have
taken boats across the Mediterranean, or clamoured at Europe’s gates, look set to join an angry underclass. Too many
have come, not with gratitude but with grievance, and with the insistence that Europe should make way for them. If
allowed to continue unchecked, over time, this could hardly-not-turn into an existential challenge.
Thanks to better transport and greater knowledge on-line, there is virtually no limit to the numbers that can and will turn
up on your doorstep if they think they might be welcomed. That’s the key to controlling your border: declaring that you
have the right to do so, because it’s only once you’ve done that, and mean it, that sensible measures can be adopted.
And that’s exactly what Australia did, under my government. We stopped illegal boats at sea and escorted them back to
Indonesian waters. As well, we had arrangements with the governments of Sri Lanka and Vietnam to fly back anyone
who had made the much longer journey from there by illegal boat. And if the boats were scuttled, we had big orange life
rafts on hand so that people could be safely returned to whence they’d come. I knew the risks to our personnel; I knew
the strain this could put on relations with Indonesia; I knew the outcry it would spark from well-meaning people but it
simply had to be done.
Effective border protection is not for the squeamish, but it is absolutely necessary to save lives and to preserve nations.
That, indeed, is the truly compassionate thing to do: to stop the boats and to stop the deaths – indeed, the only way to stop
the deaths is to stop the boats – and for more than five years now, there have been almost no illegal arrivals by boat in
Australia and the drownings have totally stopped.
Europe’s challenges are on a larger scale and the geography is different but with the right will and the right organisation
there is no reason why there could not be similar success. What it needs, though, is a conviction among the continent’s
leaders that stopping people smuggling, stopping deaths at sea, and protecting Europe’s way of life is the right and the
moral thing to do. You have to match the conviction of those demanding entry with the greater conviction that you have
a right to say “no”. What’s needed is an end to the self-doubt about the entitlement of European nations, individually and
collectively, to stand up for themselves.
21 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 5
Of  course,  Europe’s  navies  must  do  their  humanitarian  duty  and  rescue  people  who  might  otherwise  drown;  but
subsequently taking them onto Spain, Italy and Greece – the destinations they were always making for – just guarantees
that more will make this dangerous journey. So long as people think that arriving in Europe means staying in Europe,
they will keep coming. Sending them to more European countries won’t solve the problem; it will just spread it around.
People in no immediate danger just have to be turned back at Europe’s borders. People intercepted in the Mediterranean
just have to be returned to their starting point.
You see people smuggling can’t be managed; it just has to be stopped. And if that means European naval personnel
delivering people back onto the beaches of Libya, so be it. The morning early in 2014 I saw a photograph all-over-the-
front-page of our biggest selling newspaper of an orange life raft washed up on an Indonesian beach, I knew that we had
the people-smuggling trade beaten. Likewise, a photograph of European naval personnel putting people ashore, not in
Italy or in Spain but in Libya, would finally prove that these countries had rediscovered the will needed to say “no” to
moral blackmail. Because that’s what this is: foreigners saying to us that you’ve no right to stop us; and people in our
midst agreeing that because we’re relatively rich and they’re relatively poor we have to let them in.
Perhaps the most unseemly aspect of this now-drawn-out crisis has been the NGO flotillas cruising the Med looking to
“rescue” those in leaky boats and to take them safely to Europe. They claim to be good Samaritans but they’re actually
just unpaid assistants to the people-smuggling trade. What’s more, they’re confirming the moral entitlement of everyone
getting on a boat in Africa or in Asia to a new life in Europe. They’re effectively accessories to crime and in Australia
could  probably  themselves  be  charged  with  people  smuggling  offences.  But  in  Europe  they  seem  to  be  regarded  as
misguided “do-gooders” at worst.
Then there’s the pervasive reference to these would-be illegal immigrants as “asylum seekers”. They might be asking for
asylum but they’re hardly ever entitled to it. The vast majority have deliberately chosen a course of action that’s outside
the law; and anything that tends to depict them as having little or no choice is misleading, even morally corrupting. It
amounts to an attempt to condition, even to coerce our reaction by deliberately mis-describing what’s actually happening.
No doubt many of the believers in “open borders” are good people who just want the right thing for those who are worse
off. But it’s hard not to detect a political agenda here: those who-most-insist-on-letting-everyone-in must at some level
want to force the changes on Europe (and on other Western societies) that uncontrolled migration will bring – or are at
least  indifferent  to  them,  perhaps  because  they  think  that  these  changes  will  only  be  noticed  in  someone  else’s
neighbourhood.
At some level, they must want to see economies weakened, social cohesion reduced, and governments distracted because
you can’t will the cause without also willing the effect. Of course, most would prefer not to acknowledge the downsides
of uncontrolled immigration. But again, it’s hard not to discern a deliberate stratagem to change the nature of European
countries as much as to exhibit post-Christian compassion.
If you’d concluded that voters would never buy the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange,
and would never support confiscatory levels of taxation, maybe uncontrolled borders is a back-door-way to reducing the
relative wealth of the West and increasing the relative wealth of the rest.
Likewise, the high-sounding climate change policy that activists push on rich countries, but not on developing ones like
China and India, is a very effective way to make rich countries poorer and poor countries richer. The old socialists couldn’t
win an economic argument for the equalisation of wealth within countries, so the new socialists are now trying a moral
argument for the equalisation of wealth between countries.
22 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 5
With climate change, uncontrolled immigration has become the left’s preferred way to weaken the strength and self-
confidence of the West – and it’s quite clever because it’s an appeal to our ideals, not just a challenge to our best interests.
In his powerful book on the immigration crisis, The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray attributes the confusion
of the elites and the paralysis of governments to a collapse of cultural self-confidence linked to the loss of Christian faith.
There’s no doubt that it’s real: the loss of religious faith and even of religious knowledge; it’s real in Australia, no less
than in Western Europe; if perhaps less so in Eastern Europe. Yet at least one increasingly religion-free country, Australia,
has brought the problem of illegal migration under control, even if we’ve not yet really tackled excessive legal migration.
That suggests to me that countries that retain a strong sense of national pride, like Australia – and the US and the UK –
as well as Hungary and the other newly free countries of Eastern Europe are those most likely to keep their borders strong.
Countries that kept their freedom, or have won it back, seem more inclined to defend their borders than those that have
in relatively recent times surrendered their freedom or misused it. Perhaps there’s a lesson here: once you give some of
your national freedom away and forfeit some of your national pride, you risk losing much of what you have left.
23 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 6
Title:
Hungary: s 22(1)(a)(ii)

MRN:
s 47E(d)
02/10/2019 05:53:48 PM CEDT
To:
Canberra
Cc:
RR : Europe Posts, Geneva UN, UN New York, Washington
From:
Vienna UN
From File:
EDRMS
Files:
References:  s 22(1)(a)(ii)

Response:   Routine, Information Only
Summary
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 33(a)(iii), s 33(b)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
24 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 6
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
25 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 6
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
26 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 6
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
text ends
Sent by:  s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Prepared
by:
Approved  HOM
by:
Topics:
HUMAN RIGHTS/General, POLITICAL-ECONOMIC/Domestic Political
27 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 7
From:
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Hungary: Budapest Demography Summit - Assistance provided to Australian Speakers?
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date:
Friday, 4 October 2019 7:14:30 PM
UNCLASSIFIED
Hi s 22(1)(a)(ii)
No, post was not asked and neither did we provide support to Mr Abbott or Mr Andrews. We
were not contacted at any stage by either Mr Abbott or Mr Andrews offices. s 22(1)(a)(ii)

Cheers
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
From: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2019 3:55 AM
To: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Cc: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Subject: Hungary: Budapest Demography Summit - Assistance provided to Australian Speakers?
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Hi s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Did Post provide any assistance to either Mr Abbott or Mr Andrews for their participation in the
Budapest Demography Summit s 22(1)(a)(ii)
If so, what form did that assistance take?
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Also, can you please confirm (again for the brief) that s 22(1)(a)(ii) was the only person from Post to
attend. Was she there to provide any assistance to either Mr Abbott or Mr Andrews or solely as
an observer?
Many thanks and best regards
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
_______________________________
28 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 7
Policy Officer | Northern and Central Europe Section
EU Political and Strategy Branch | Europe and Latin America Division
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Phone s 22(1)(a)(ii)
www.dfat.gov.au
Web | Twitter | YouTube | Flickr
29 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 08
From:
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
To:
Cc:
Richard Sadleir; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Subject:
RE: Hungary s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Friday, 19 February 2021 3:59:00 AM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Tony Abbott No end of a lesson to Europe Mark Higgie Christianity Migration and
Multiculturalism HUNGARIAN REVIEW Nov 2019.pdf
OFFICIAL
Hi s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)

The first was former PM Abbott (speech, extracted in a journal, attached) and
the second was former minister Kevin Andrews MP s 22(1)(a)(ii)

30 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 08
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
31 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 08
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
32 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 08
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
33 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 09
34 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 09
35 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 10
From:
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Wednesday, 28 April 2021 10:08:26 AM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Tony Abbott No end of a lesson to Europe Mark Higgie Christianity Migration and
Multiculturalism HUNGARIAN REVIEW Nov 2019.pdf
OFFICIAL
Hi s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Thanks for your email.
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
The first was former PM Abbott (speech, extracted in a
journal, attached) and the second was former minister Kevin Andrews MP. s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
39 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 10
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Assistant Director
Northern and Central Europe Section
Mobile s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Phone
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
40 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 10
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
41 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 10
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
42 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 10
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
43 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 11
From:
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
To:
Cc:
Subject:
FW: Hungary: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Date:
Thursday, 3 August 2023 7:13:43 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
OFFICIAL
From: s 22(1)(a)(ii)

Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2021 4:40 PM
To: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Cc: Richard Sadleir <xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Hungary: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
OFFICIAL
Many thanks for this s 22(1)(a)(ii) great work. I’ll use it in my response to Canberra.
From: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2021 1:56 PM
To: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Cc: Richard Sadleir <xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Hungary: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
OFFICIAL
His 22(1)(a)(ii)
What about the below:
Previous Australian attendance at the demographic summit included participation by Mr Tony
Abbott in September 2019. Mr Abbott’s speech (attached), entitled "Immigration: What Europe
can learn from Australia", s 22(1)(a)(ii)

Also Liberal MP Kevin Andrews attended the
demography conference, and held a speech by the title of “Demography is Destiny: Families and
future Prosperity”.
44 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 11
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
45 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 11
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Hope this helps and grateful your advice on whether you would like me to do some further
research.
Regards
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
From: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2021 9:30 AM
To: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Cc: Richard Sadleir <xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Hungary: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
OFFICIAL
Thank you s 22(1)(a)(ii) If I’m not mistaken Kevin Andrews MP also attended? s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
From: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2021 9:04 AM
To: s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Cc: Richard Sadleir <xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; s 22(1)(a)(ii)
@dfat.gov.au>
Subject: FW: Hungary s 22(1)(a)(ii)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
OFFICIAL
Hi s 22(1)(a)(ii)
46 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 11
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Mr Tony Abbott attended the
demographic summit in 2019. Mr Abbott's lecture "Immigration: What Europe can learn from
Australia" s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
Regards
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
47 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 11
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
48 of 49

DFAT - RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982
LEX 8551 - Document 11
s 22(1)(a)(ii)
49 of 49