National interest comes first in foreign relations

Scott Morrison’s preparedness to tear up Victoria’s Belt and Road agreement with China and take control of the deals with foreign powers by universities and lower tiers of government is a vital assertion of national sovereignty. The move deserves bipartisan support. The Prime Minister’s use of the external affairs power will bring states, territories, local councils and universities into line after a multitude of agreements between them and other nations. The action is courageous, constitutional and overdue. The Australian intelligence community repeatedly has warned of the perils of Chinese soft-power ploys. The warnings were ridiculed last year by Paul Keating as emanating from “nutters” who had gone “berko”. Events since, however, have vindicated our intelligence professionals. Too many people in key positions have been lulled into complacency by a regime that is ruthless in exploiting every facet of its national power to expand its influence.

The foreign relations bill, to be introduced to parliament next week, has been necessitated by concerns over Victoria’s Belt and Road Initiative, mounting cyber attacks on Australian institutions by foreign powers and growing infiltration of Australian universities, especially by Chinese interests. It comes amid increasing strategic concerns about Chinese aggression across the Indo-Pacific region, especially towards Hong Kong and Taiwan, and in the South China Sea. There, unlawful maritime claims have been backed by inexorable militarisation of artificial features and the declaration of air defence identification zones. This is highly provocative. China’s intention to undermine the regional security architecture on which Australia’s prosperity and freedom have been built since 1945 is plain for all but useful idiots and the wilfully blind to see.

It is not the role of state governments, under the Constitution, to enter into bilateral agreements with foreign powers, especially those whose conduct is manifestly at odds with central tenets of our defence and national security policies. On Thursday, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’s spiky response to the Morrison government’s initiative showed he is unable — or unwilling — to grasp that point. His attempt to dismiss the Prime Minister’s concerns reveal a narrow parochialism. Mr Andrews, unfortunately, ignored warnings raised by Mr Morrison in June over Victoria’s BRI agreement. He also snubbed ASIO security briefings offered to him after missing the key national cabinet meeting where the new foreign government transparency scheme was explained to other state leaders. In signing Victoria on to the BRI, Mr Andrews was effectively masquerading as the head of a sovereign nation. That pretence is about to stop. China’s aims in pursuing the BRI do not accord with Australia’s interests. Beijing uses the BRI to build a geopolitical and economic network on its terms, as the one-party state asserts itself as a global and regional power with a view to diminishing US and Western influence. Evidence of its manipulation of small states is clear in the southwest Pacific and in Sri Lanka under the BRI. It must not be allowed to happen here.

It is eminently sensible that, under the new bill, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will take stock of commercial arrangements and partnerships entered into by Australian universities with other nations. This will be an opportunity to scrutinise the Chinese-funded Confucius Institutes, which have long served as Chinese propaganda agencies on Western campuses. This week, The Australian’s investigation by Sharri Markson and Kylar Loussikian into China’s clandestine Thousand Talents program has revealed that dozens of leading scientists at major Australian universities are giving the Chinese Communist Party ­access to their technology and inventions in return for generous second salaries of up to $150,000, funded by China, and other benefits. Technology and inventions paid for by Australian taxpayers could be used to advance China’s military and intelligence interests. Incidents such as the retribution meted out to University of Queensland student Drew Pavlou, 21, for protesting against China’s suspension of guaranteed liberties in Hong Kong showed the influence the Chinese regime wields in some universities.

Mr Morrison has been at pains not to single out China when answering questions about the new legislation. But China has denounced the proposed bill, accusing Australia of “putting bacteria” into the relationship. It may respect the strength behind the decision, although it increasingly has been ready of late to punish trading partners, including Australia, for resisting Beijing’s bullying. The government can also expect plenty of criticism from vested interests in Australia’s business and academic sectors. Anthony Albanese’s response to the government’s move has been sensible, although frontbencher Mark Dreyfus was juvenile in branding the move to veto foreign deals with states as “Trumpian”. We agree with Mr Dreyfus that allowing the ill-considered leasing of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company in 2015 was a bad error. It would not happen now. Universities are entitled to be concerned about research, although there is a big difference between mutually beneficial collaboration and selling out to foreign interests.

Foreign policy is not the domain of state governments. National security is not the domain of amateurs or, worse, academics whose bread is buttered by a foreign power. By drawing this bright line in the sand Mr Morrison has acted decisively in the national interest. The initiative warrants bipartisan support.