Hastie was right on China, and we’re too hasty to self-censor on its influence

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

Liberal MP Andrew Hastie’s statement in parliament about Chinese influence in Australia has ignited the already fiery voices claiming the government is mis­man­aging the relationship with China.

There is loose talk about a “problem” the Australian government has because some ministers have the nerve to say awkward things. They dare say that Australian interests are not the same as those of the Chinese state, and that our domestic political debates and decision-making should be free of foreign interference.

Chinese Communist Party leaders in Beijing want to shift this thinking back to its “correct line” so that we can all work in the spirit of developing the great Chinese nation and benefiting from its rise in a spirit of win-win.

Beijing has the tools at hand to assist in this important work “correcting” other countries’ political thinking. In Australia’s case, the CCP leaders can turn up or down the level of official engagement between Australian ministers and their counterparts — and they can call on its United Front Work ­Department.

This key organ of China’s ruling Communist Party is not an obscure holdover from Mao Zedong’s time. As China’s President Xi Jinping has said: “The United Front is an important magic weapon for the victory of the party’s cause and must be sustained for a long time.” It exists, among other things, to shape the thinking of other countries’ political parties, civil society groups, media and business leaders in support of the directions of the CCP. This can involve money and trips.

But it’s not just the formal institutions of China’s ruling party seeking to return Australian ministers to the “correct line”; it’s also numerous Australians, whether in the business community or the political space.

My favourite call was from a prominent business leader who was extolling the Australian business community’s “professional” handling of business-to-business relationships with Chinese partners, with this being an example for our government about how to manage its own relations with the Chinese state “professionally”.

I think they were sincere. But business leaders don’t have to deal with pesky national security and human rights issues where ­Australia has international obligations to uphold and interests to ­protect. Governments must ­con­sider, but also look far beyond, the financial upside of the relationship. We are a multicultural democratic society, not just an economy.

The Australian government must manage its international relations with trading partners and other governments adeptly. As part of this, however, our government’s leaders — and senior officials — need to assert clearly and firmly our national interests.

At times this does cause tensions because no two nations’ interests are the same. In the case of Australia and China, for example, it clearly is not in our interest for China to militarise and seek to exert unilateral control over the South China Sea. Equally clearly, China sees these actions as in its interests.

It also is not in Australia’s national interest for the work program of the United Front department to succeed in influencing our domestic debates to undercut voices critical of Chinese government actions or directions.

It’s a topsy-turvy world when it is not the Chinese state’s actions that are the problem but the fact our government representatives publicly are discussing some of these actions.

Being able to say these things is the mark of a sovereign state and of an ability to debate serious ­issues domestically.

Hastie’s comments in parliament about Australian-­Chinese billionaire Chau Chak Wing, a big donor to both major political parties, as the “man who co-conspired to bribe the UN president of the General Assembly” and the “same man with extensive contacts in the ­Chinese Communist Party, including the United Front”, may not be news. But it is controversial, for two reasons.

First, such statements cannot be made freely outside the parliament because saying things that reveal the connections between the Chinese state and its influencing activities may be met with litigation few can afford.

Second, Hastie’s timing was tricky, as it was just after Julie Bishop’s meeting with China’s ­foreign minister and shortly after Steven Ciobo’s trade visit. These were designed to quieten down tensions while not stepping back from Australian national interests.

But Hastie’s message was right.

Of course, if the goal is to have no ripples in a relationship, then there is no good time to mention unpleasant facts.

A strong Australia-China relationship demands a sense of self-respect and a clear understanding of national interests by both the Chinese leadership and our own.

A sense of national self-respect is palpable in the many supporters of the Chinese leadership in China, including in how they discuss Australia — on Weibo for example. It would be a fine thing to see more of the national self-­respect so evident in China from Australians participating in our own domestic debates.

Let’s hope that Hastie’s remarks can do some good in energising a mature domestic debate inside and outside the parliament.

It’s dangerous to discourage a robust public debate, supported by a free and open media. And it’s worrying when some label such an important debate “megaphone diplomacy”.

Attempting to limit public discussion on important national ­issues may be labelled subtle ­diplomacy. But it’s censorship.

Accepting censorship or encouraging self-censorship is in the interests of no democracy.

Michael Shoebridge is the director of defence and strategy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.