PM: Well, ladies and gentleman, it's an absolute pleasure to speak for Monash University on the

Opening Government for the fifth consecutive World's Grand Final. And we are particularly
excited at this moment because this is a topic that we entirely believe.

The nation state, ladies and gentleman, is an unofficial concept, but it's a beneficial concept. At
Monash, we are gonna prove two key things to you. Firstly, that nationalism and the nation state
have more benefits than harms. And secondly, we'll show you that nationalism is superior to
ulterior options of collective identity, such as class, such as religion, such as sexuality, if that
does exist; that it's also superior to no collective identity, ladies and gentleman. Those are the
key premises that we are going to be advancing as Opening Government. We are not going to be
comparing nationalism, in this debate, to a theoretical cosmopilitan utopia, because that simply
doesn't exist. What we are going to do is look at nationalism as it exists now, and compare it to
other forms of identity as they exist right now.

I'll have three key arguments as Prime Minister. Firstly, I'll explain to you why nationalism is a
critical, unifying framework. Secondly, I'll look at why nationalism helps promote essential
sacrifice, which is crucial to the state. And thirdly, I'll look at how nationalism is the most
inclusive framework of collective identity that exists.

So firstly, why nationalism is a critical, unifying framework. So what exactly do we mean by

nationalism? We mean nationalism essentially is based on a belief in the strength and the power
of the nation state. It's premised on a few things. It's premised on revelling on specific
commonalities even when you have a range of differences with other members of the state. It's
based on supporting the collective endeavor of your country, their economy, their healthcare
system, their educational system. It's based on sharing a joint future which is ultimately based on
cooperation, or if not cooperation, at least tolerance for the other members of your state, ladies
and gentleman. We of course recognise that the level of feeling associated with nationalism does
not apply uniformly, we recognise that in new state, it often take time to develop that type of
strong national identity, which is so central for all the benefits we believe in. But we believe
nationalism is something which does reinforce itself ove time. As more and more people opt into
this, it is harder and harder to opt out that shared collective identity, it's harder and harder and
harder to opt out that common belief that your country is important, ladies and gentleman.

So why is this so significant? We believe it's absolutely fundamental for population to succeed
and to drive benefits. We say, ladies and gentleman, particularly for countries within fasci-tarian
descend, say hypothetically a country like Rwanda in the 1990s, the preoccupation with ethnic
divide was incredibly corrosive, and the only way this kind of country could move beyond that is
through a collective identity based on the nation state, based on the recognision that the
differences, based on the ethnicity, based on sect, ladies and gentleman, are less important than
the commonality of being part of the same nation. This is particularly important if you look at
context, say, such as post-apartheid South Africa, ladies and gentleman. We say for post-
apartheid South Africa, it was so crucial to be able to unify the ... South Africa rugby team, a
national team which represents every member of that country, ladies and gentleman ([Note].
That was absolutely essential to moving beyond these conflicts and recognising their limitations.
Moreover, we believe that conflict often build when nationalism breaks down. So when countries
become grieven by sectarian divide, like in Yugoslavia, once national identity becomes corroded,
that's when the worst harms happen in terms of having collective identity and reduce conflict.
(Opposition: Sir?) I'll take Opening.

(POI: So, the problems are exacerbated at the point where nation states feel as if they need to tie
national identity to ethnic identity and ... anyone who is not part of that national identity?)

It's not our burden in this debate to defend extreme ethnic identities and polarizations within
state. The key premise of our case is that nationalism, which is purely about commonalities is our
ideal which is most important of a harmonious and peaceful society.

So second argument, why does this enhance the likelihood of sacrifice? We believe, ladies and
gentleman, human ... relies both on trust but also on willingness to sacrifice for other members of
your community. No thank you. ([Note] asking the person to sit down) And that's because not all
individuals have the same capacities to ensure that others within the society are protected. So a
good example of this is war, ladies and gentleman. On the Opening Government, we don't
always support war, but we recognize that it's sometimes necessary, when it's because of
resources, when it's because of defending your country and et cetra. We say when wars are
necessary, they're more likely to have support within the country, they are more likely to be
effective, once you base this on national identity, ladies and gentlemen. We say when you make
that difficult choice to go to war and risk your life, you have to believe in something that's worth
risking your life for. We think it's absolutely fundamental to have that national identity, that
national belief to power you to make that choice; that's much more likely than if your only
identity is constructed around your religion, around your family, around your class, where we
don't have any reason to actually mobalize for the collective wellbeing. That's harmful.

This is important also in the context of public service, ladies and gentlemen. We say one of the
key drives for people to enter public service, to make sacrafices in terms of their pay, in terms of
their conditions and to work really hard to the benefit of their country is when they believe that
they're sacraficing for something that matters. That occurs when that's based on this cohesive
national framework that people want to sacrafice for, want to put this energy into. That's when
you get all of those benefits to a national identity being constructed that's sturdy enough to power
those kinds of sacrafices.

So my final argument, ladies and gentlemen, is why nationalism is the most inclusive
framework. We recognize, ladies and gentlemen, that there are other ways in which identities are
shaped. We recognize that religion, like class, like social stratum, ladies and gentlemen, are all
significant ways that individuals form bonds with other people, and some of them share the same
benefits of our plan. The key difference with nationalism, ladies and gentlemen, is it's much
easier to opt in and it's much easier to opt out. If you want to be part of a particular community,
you can make that choice to live in that community, or to move away from that community,
ladies and gentlemen. You can't do that with something like religion, or something like class,
ladies and gentlemen, because other people within that class won't recognize your attempts to be
part of that particular identity. So you have a greater capacity to actually be part of an identity
and get that certainty, and get that collective benefits of being in that identity, true nationalism
rather than true divisive identities like religion, which are much harder both in terms of internal
recognision and in terms of the external recognition, ladies and gentlemen. This is both viral and
more and more harmonious, when you consider the huge movement of people from border to
border, it's crucial to have identities which aren't constructed by immutable characteristics, like
your religion or your class.

So ladies and gentlemen, we believe that nationalism isn't perfect, but it's the best form of
identity generation, it carries major benefits for the state, it's the most inclusive framework.
We're proud to propose.