‘Not helpful’: Former diplomats, spy chiefs warn against politicising China debate

Some of Australia’s most experienced former diplomats and national security practitioners have criticised the federal government for claiming Labor would “appease” China in government, warning against the creation of artificial differences on the key national security challenge.

The head of Australia’s counter-espionage agency ASIO also raised concern about the politicisation of national security on Wednesday night, saying it was “not helpful”.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has claimed that Labor leader Anthony Albanese would appease China in government.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

The Coalition has ramped up its attacks on Labor over the past week, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison claiming that Labor leader Anthony Albanese would “appease” China and accusing the opposition of being weak on national security.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton also said the Chinese Communist Party had “made a decision about who they’re going to back in the next federal election”, suggesting Beijing wanted Mr Albanese to win.

The tensions have been further inflamed by revelations in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age last Friday that China was behind a recent foreign interference plot that targeted the preselection process of NSW Labor in the lead-up to the federal election.

Labor senator Kimberley Kitching then used parliamentary privilege to claim Chinese-Australian businessman Chau Chak Wing was the “puppeteer” behind the plot, which was foiled by counter-espionage agency ASIO. Mr Chau labelled the claim “baseless” and called on Senator Kitching to repeat her comments outside Parliament.

Allan Gyngell, a former senior diplomat and head of the Office of National Assessments, said there were no substantive policy differences between Labor and the Coalition on China.

“An effective wedge has to be made out of something more solid than wishful thinking,” Mr Gyngell said.

“The language will differ person to person, but on the key policy issues, which is what matters – on the Quad, foreign interference, 5G – I think it’s clear.”

“Whenever I hear the word ‘appeasement’ used in contemporary debate I am always suspicious of what is meant because it has a very specific meaning in international relations, and none of the ways in which it is being used here seem applicable.”

ASIO director-general Mike Burgess, when asked whether he was concerned whether national security was being weaponised in the lead-up to the election, said he wanted to make clear that foreign interference was being committed against all sides of politics.

“ASIO is apolitical, my staff are apolitical, they put their lives on the line to actually protect Australians and Australia from threats to security,” he told the ABC’s 7.30 program.

“So I’ll leave the politics to the politicians, but I’m very clear with everyone that I need to be that [politicisation of national security] is not helpful for us.”

Former ASIO director-general and DFAT secretary Dennis Richardson said he was concerned with any attempt to create “artificial” differences between the Coalition and Labor on China policy and rejected suggestions the opposition had appeased China.

“The tradition in Australia has been that governments seek to promote bipartisanship on critical national security issues,” he said.

“Of course, you might have differences here and there, but on an issue as central as China, it is clearly in the national interest for there to be a bipartisan approach.

“And up till now, there has been a bipartisan approach both in response to Chinese activities, both in Australia and offshore, and also in the passage of significant legislation through the Parliament. All of that is in the national interest.”

Mr Richardson said the creation of “artificial partisan differences is not in the national interest”.

“Given the fact that the government has an excellent record on national security, any attempt to create artificial differences is puzzling,” he said.

“I don’t believe it can be objectively stated that the opposition has sought to appease China. It has been consistently critical of human rights abuses in China.”

Rory Medcalf, head of the ANU’s National Security College and a former diplomat and intelligence analyst, said the government was running the risk of “political overreach” which could “weaken its own great achievements on national security”.

“On the one hand, the government is rightly telling our AUKUS allies that this is a ‘forever friendship’ and we can be totally trusted with their technology crown jewels for decades to come,” he said.

“And we are properly telling India and Japan they can rely on us, that Australia will never again wobble on Quad solidarity like we did in 2008.

“Then in the next breath we hear that all bets are off if there’s a change of government a few months from now.”

Professor Medcalf said China and Russia were “creating an environment of global struggle – not peaceful competition – and therefore we need a maximum of national security bipartisanship”.

“And there are real achievements in bipartisanship over the past five years that need to be encouraged not dismissed,” he said.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne said both sides of politics should always seek to come to a bipartisan consensus on national security, but that didn’t give Labor a “leave pass” for its “inconsistency”.

“Whilst I would seek to prosecute the case for Australia’s national interests in an open and transparent and consistent way and that’s what I endeavour to do, I have found that has not always been the case from across the Parliament,” she told a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday.

Mr Albanese said last week that national security was “too important to engage in game-playing”.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.