POLITY 11(1)

AUSTRALIA’S HOT TOPICS IN NEWS, CURRENT AFFAIRS AND CULTURE 

AUSTRALIAN 

POLITY 

Volume 11, Number 1 (2023)

AUSTRALIAAU 

“ In every state, not wholly barbarous, a philosophy, good 

or bad, there must be. However slightingly it may be the 

fashion to talk of speculation and theory, as opposed 

(sillily and nonsensically opposed) to practice, it would not 

be difficult to prove, that such as is the existing spirit of 

speculation, during any given period, such will be the spirit 

and tone of the religion, legislation, and morals, nay, even 

of the fine arts, the manners, and the fashions.” 

- Coleridge, Essays on His Own Times. 

As Coleridge observed, every age is 

the subject of a prevailing 

philosophy. There are many 

elements to this public culture: the 

content of everyday conversation, the 

discourse of the daily media, the 

sermons from pulpits and other places, 

the subject matter of political debate, 

and the lessons of teachers and 

scholars, to name just a few. 

The prevailing philosophy is not static. 

Like a stream, it flows in a series of 

eddies, washing this way and that. It 

runs up against objects that can divert it 

in differing directions. It can be shaped, 

over time, in one direction or another. 

And it is subject to competing claims 

and interpretations. 

At its heart is the wellbeing of society. It 

defines how we live together: What is 

permitted and what is forbidden; what is 

right and what is wrong; what is lawful 

and what is unlawful; what is supported 

and what is rejected. 

Ideas are important. They shape the 

public culture. They inform political 

discussions. They shape the role of 

government. They define the 

relationships between individuals, 

families, and the institutions of civil 

society. They underpin policies and 

programs. In short, they inform us about 

how we should live together. 

There are certain ideas that we 

believe are important: 

• That the dignity of the individual is the 

foundation of all other relationships; 

• That the political and economic 

freedom of the individual is central to 

societal wellbeing, and that personal 

responsibility underpins such freedom; 

• That the convental relationships of 

love, loyalty, friendship and trust exist 

outside the political sphere but are 

essential to the health of society; 

• That social order and shared values 

underpin a healthy society; 

• That government should be limited, 

without forgetting that the protection of 

the poor and the weak are pivotal 

political challenges; 

• That functional families are crucial for 

the raising of children and the stability 

of society; 

• That society is a partnership across 

generations; 

• That we belong to a nation, not a 

series of segregated groups; and 

• That our western, liberal democracy 

best enhances individual freedom and 

human dignity and is worth defending. 

Our purpose therefore is to examine the 

principles that underpin policy and to 

discuss proposals and program 

directions. 

4 

5 

13 

15 

18 

29 

31 

CONTENTS 

AUSTRALIAN 

POLITY 

Australian Polity - Volume 11, Number 1 (2023) 

EDITORIAL 

Election 2022: Ongoing lessons 

THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY 

A product of geography 

Avoiding the fate of the Soviet Union 

The gospel of Xi 

FEATURE 

The great re-alignment 

HONG KONG 

The end of religious freedom 

Remembering Jimmy Lai 

THE LIBERAL PARTY 

Liberal Party woes 

Modernising the party structure 

Wooing the Chinese vote 

The Deeming saga 

Cleaning out the Augean stables 

ENERGY 

Monash betrayed 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE 

Risky business 

ISSN 1835-8608 

Published by Threshold Publishing for the Hon Kevin Andrews. 

Address for correspondence: polity2631@gmail.com 

www.kevinandrews.com.au/australianpolity 

2 3

EDITORIAL 

ELECTION 2022: 

ONGOING LESSONS 

Liberal Party supporters are entitled to 

ask why the coalition lost 

government, especially when Labor 

gained the Treasury benches with a very 

low primary vote. The short answer is 

that there was a record low vote for the 

major parties, but almost every other 

candidate preferenced Labor, or were 

elected with Labor or other party 

preferences. But that simple explanation 

disguises many factors that contributed 

to the result. 

The starting point to any honest analysis 

is the 2016 election, when Malcolm 

Turnbull, in a flight of political selfdelusion, 

forfeited 14 seats. The 

coalition has been on a political knifeedge 

ever since. 

The second is to understand why the 

coalition succeeded in 2019. It was not a 

miracle. Labor lost the election they 

should have won because of their attack 

on investors and retirees. Campaigning 

outside Woolworths in Eltham for 

months, I heard an oft-repeated story. 

ʻYou know we vote Labor over here, donʼt 

you,ʼ was the refrain from the 

superannuated public servants who lived 

in the rustic suburb north of the Yarra. 

Then they often added, ʻI am worried 

about Laborʼs policies on retirees.ʼ ʻSo 

you should be,ʼ I would reply politely, 

reminding them that ʻwhen you come to 

vote, it is a secret ballot!ʼ When Chris 

Bowen said ʻIf you donʼt like our policies, 

donʼt vote for usʼ many of them took his 

advice. The sentiments expressed by the 

people of Eltham were repeated across 

the electorate. I donʼt know if Scot 

Morison believed he had performed a 

miracle, or was just employing political 

rhetoric, but the reality is that the 

coalition didnʼt win in 2019; Labor lost. 

These factors underlined the 2022 

result, but they were compounded by 

others. The election was essentially a 

policy-free zone. The governmentʼs past 

term has been almost devoid of any 

significant policy, apart from the AUKUS 

agreement, which was one of the most 

important foreign policy decisions for 

decades. That said, the government 

offered few compelling reasons for reelection. 

The only substantial policy- on 

housing - was released in the final week 

after many people had voted, suggesting 

it was a reaction to failing polls. 

If the government thought it would be 

rewarded for the economic recovery 

from Covid, it was ignoring political 

reality. People acknowledged the 

recovery in employment numbers but 

asked what more are you offering? Even 

the slogan, ʻit wonʼt be easy under 

Albaneseʼ was limp. People went to the 

polls knowing that things will be more 

difficult in the future with inflation and 

interest rates rising. To say ʻit wonʼt be 

easyʼ failed to offer party differentiation 

and a plan for the future. 

There were also misguided initiatives, 

especially the national cabinet. The 

premiers exploited the arrangement, 

ignoring any purported agreement when 

it suited them politically, while blaming 

the Prime Minister for every 

disadvantage for the populace. 

I may not always agree with Graeme 

Richardson, but he was surely correct 

when he said ʻthe Liberal Party has to 

stand for something.ʼ The idea that left 

wing voters who donʼt like the Liberal 

Partyʼs policies and values will vote for a 

pale shade of their own is delusional. 

Why vote for a Katie Allen or Dave 

Sharma when you can have the real thing 

was how many ʻtealʼ supporters 

reasoned. Members who think they can 

cross the floor to protect their own seats 

often lose as many votes as they think 

they will gain from the noisy minority. 

4 

They also anger natural supporters of the 

Party elsewhere. It is of note that the 

National Party did not lose a seat. 

The absence of policy was compounded 

by hubris, which manifested itself in 

many ways. The factional battles in the 

Liberal Party, especially in NSW, were 

devastating. Did the PM have no 

authority to end the internal warfare? 

Bob Hawkeʼs famous dictum, ʻif you canʼt 

govern yourself, you canʼt govern the 

countryʼ springs to mind when 

considering that the NSW division was 

engaged in litigation in the High Court 

just days before the election was called. 

Factionalism is not confined to NSW. 

Many of the coterie members 

administering the party in the various 

states seem more interested in winning 

internal party battles than government. 

The election review by Brian Loughnane 

and Jane Hume must address this basic 

failure, as well as the inability - perhaps 

unwillingness - of the factional 

chieftains to encourage open, 

democratic recruiting of new party 

members. For the Liberal Party to have 

just 40,000 members nationally is a 

signal failure of internal leadership. 

Voters were quick to penalise candidates 

who had little or no connection with their 

local communities. The most prominent 

example was Kristina Keneally, who was 

parachuted into Fowler by Chris Bowen 

and the ruling clique in the NSW ALP to 

replace the hardworking and popular 

Chris Hayes at the expense of a local 

candidate. The phenomenon was not 

confined to the NSW Labor Party with 

voters in other seats expressing their 

displeasure at the manipulation of 

normal democratic party processes. 

Local electors take a dim view of party 

apparatchiks who run rough-shod over 

their communities. 

The fact that the PM described himself as 

a bulldozer in the final week was telling. 

Instead of placating voters concerned 

about his style, it reinforced their 

misgivings. In the absence of policy, the 

personality of the leaders is magnified. 

The electorate thought Mr Morrison was 

talking down to them, rather than 

listening. 

The focus since the election naturally has 

been on the loss by the Liberal Party, but 

the poll outcome also poses significant 

challenges for Labor. With the lowest 

primary vote since 1934, and significant 

swings in its heartland, the new 

government will have to earn greater 

trust from the electorate. Labor will have 

a critical buffer with the Greens and 

Teals, but it faces considerable domestic 

and international challenges. There will 

be opportunities for the coalition 

provided it focuses on offering solutions 

to the challenges facing Australia. 

Finally, a comment about the future. Five 

weeks before the election I observed in 

my valedictory speech the growing 

chasm between the interests of the 

inner-city voters and those in outer 

suburban and regional and rural 

areas. That cleavage, which was clearly 

exposed this year, can be bridged, as 

John Howard and Tony Abbott have 

shown in attracting a broad range of 

voters. But it will not be achieved by 

becoming a paler shade of blue. When it 

has been successful, the Liberal Party has 

prioritised the great number of middleand 

working-class Australians who now 

live in the middle and outer 

suburbs, regional centres and rural 

Australia. They are Menzies ʻforgotten 

peopleʼ, Howardʼs ʻbattlersʼ and Tonyʼs 

ʻtradiesʼ. Without their support, the 

Liberal Party will remain in opposition. 

- Kevin Andrews 

The Australian Polity is now published online weekly. 

This edition is a selection of some of the articles 

published online in the past year. 

5

PART 1 

DECIPHERING 

THE HISTORY OF THE 

CHINESE 

COMMUNIST 

PARTY 

In 2021, the CCP marked its centenary with an 

official history of itself. 

In this three-part feature, Kevin Andrews 

deciphers the official document. 

A PRODUCT OF GEOGRAPHY 

History, as we generally understand 

it, is the study of past events, 

especially those relating to human 

affairs. Apart from the ʻwhat, when and 

howʼ historians also ask ʻwhyʼ. As a 

consequence, there is no final version of 

history. New information is discovered, 

and novel interpretations applied to 

events. The ʻhistory warsʼ are neverending. 

In Paulʼs famous expression, we 

are looking ʻthrough a glass, darkly.ʼ 

This is not so in China, where a Marxist 

interpretation of history is mandated. 

Influenced by his philosophic 

predecessors, including Hegel and 

Fichte, Marx adapted a dialectic method 

which is revealed in the writings of the 

Chinese Communist Party. A 

consequence is that the three eras of the 

PRC, namely the rule of Mao Zedong, 

Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping are a 

journey to a higher form of communism. 

Maoʼs era represents a thesis, Dengʼs the 

antithesis, to which Xi is now delivering 

the synthesis. History is only a record of 

the past insofar as it is a reflection of the 

CCPʼs narrative about the present and 

the future. In the hands of Xi, it brooks 

no other interpretation. Any apparent 

contradiction, such as Dengʼs embrace 

of more capitalist economics, is 

explained as a stage through which the 

country advanced without any 

concession that the communist path had 

taken a different direction. 

Utilising the Marxist approach to history, 

Xiʼs socialism with Chinese 

characteristics is the inevitable outcome 

of the work of the Party. Equally, this 

approach mandates that there is only 

one future, as determined by the Party. 

Being cognisant of this perspective about 

history is central to understanding the 

CCPʼs official version of the party which 

was adopted in November 2021. Entitled 

the ʻResolution of the Central Committee 

of the Chinese Communist Party on the 

Major Achievements and Historical 

Experience of the Party over the Past 

Centuryʼ, it is only the third such 

document in almost a century, the 

previous two being released under Mao 

in 1945 and Deng in 1981. The 

document places Xi Jinping at the apex of 

the communist triumvirate. As this 

document has become mandated study 

for the Chinese people, knowledge of its 

narrative is important to understanding 

the CCPʼs intentions. 

The document contains numerous 

assertions that are untrue or 

questionable. The most obvious are the 

claims, oft repeated by Xi, that the nation 

has a glorious 5,000-year history, only 

interrupted by the 1840 Opium War and 

foreign subjugation. Hence the 

resolution records: ʻWith a history 

stretching back more than 5,000 years, 

the Chinese nation is a great and ancient 

nation that has fostered a splendid 

civilisation and made indelible 

contributions to the progress of human 

civilisation.ʼ 

ʻAfter the Opium War of 1840, however, 

China was gradually reduced to a semicolonial, 

semi-feudal society due to the 

aggression of Western powers and the 

corruption of feudal rulers. The country 

endured intense humiliation, the people 

were subjected to untold misery, and the 

Chinese civilisation was plunged into 

darkness.ʼ 

There in two paragraphs is the motif of 

the CCP: a great civilisation soured and 

destroyed by Western imperialists. True, 

this narrative was not confined to the 

communists, but it is exploited by their 

nationalistic fervour. 

Xiʼs history of China is part truth and part 

fiction, not intended to accurately record 

the events of the past, but to serve the 

Marxist cause of defining the future. 

Chinaʼs history is a product of its 

geography. Ninety-four per cent of 

modern Chinaʼs population live on the 

7

ich, fertile plains of the south and east 

of the country, despite the fact that this 

is only 43 per cent of the total land mass. 

This is the region through which Chinaʼs 

three great river systems run - the 

Yellow, the Yangtze and the Pearl - 

before flowing into the Yellow and China 

Seas. It is also the region that receives 

the most rain. It is the fertile land on 

which the Han settled and developed 

over centuries. Indeed, an imaginary 

boundary, known as the Hu Line, 

separates this sought-after region from 

the rest of China. To the West is the high 

Tibetan plateau, and beyond that the 

Himalayas, the great mountain range 

formed by the collision of the Indian and 

Eurasian tectonic plates. 

Being so fertile, the region to the east 

and south of the Hu Line was subject to 

regular incursions and invasions, 

particularly by the Mongols, who 

established the Yuan dynasty 

(1271-1368), although they had ruled 

China for many previous decades, and 

the Manchus whose Qing dynasty ruled 

China from 1644 to 1911. For much of 

the second millennium, China was not 

ruled by the Han. 

There was not one uninterrupted flow of 

Chinese history. The Han Ming dynasty, 

which replaced the Mongol-led Yuan 

dynasty in 1368, was for three centuries 

a citadel of great culture and civilisation, 

but in its latter period, suffered large 

scale civil conflict and ultimate financial 

collapse. As the Russian American 

sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin noted, 

civilisations tend to move from the 

ideational to the sensate over time. As 

Cicero observed of Rome, it was ʻthe 

enemy withinʼ that destroyed 

civilisations. 

Despite significantly expanding the 

Great Wall as a defensive structure 

across the north of the empire, the Han 

were defeated by Manchu armies which 

in 1644 founded the Qing dynasty. 

The claim that western nations, led by 

Britain, were unfair to China is true, but 

overlooks the fact that the Qing dynasty 

sunk into a wanton state of corruption, 

sclerosis and internal conflict. Some 20 

million people were killed in the Taiping 

civil war between Manchu and Han forces 

between 1850 and 1864. Nor was it the 

communists which replaced the Qing. 

Rather, it was Sun Yat-sen, the leader of 

the nationalist Kuomintang and the 

inaugural president of the new Republic 

of China in 1912, and his compatriots. 

The historic consequences of this 

geographic reality are deeply ingrained 

in the generational consciousness of the 

Han who in various ways have 

endeavoured to build a wall around their 

homeland. The Great Wall of China, 

which was expanded and significantly 

fortified under the Ming dynasty, was a 

barrier against Mongol and Manchu 

invaders. More recently, the annexation 

and occupation of Tibet, the oppression 

of the Uyghurs in East Turkestan 

(Xinjiang) and the attempt to claim parts 

of the Himalayas from India create a 

further barrier to invasion. The incursion 

by European powers is singled out by the 

CCP, but China engaged in other wars 

including with Japan and Vietnam in the 

20th century. For Xi and the CCP, the 

majority Han are China, and China the 

Han. Xiʼ narrative plays well to the Han, 

but it is historically inaccurate. Contrary 

to the CCPʼs official version, Chinaʼs 

history is a long tale of military conquest 

and usurpation. But it does help to 

explain the historical paranoia which Xi 

Jinping manifests. 

“In order to sanctify Mao and Deng all 

ʻprogress’ under their rule was 

positive, and any mistakes the fault of 

others.” 

PART 2 

AVOIDING THE FATE OF THE 

SOVIET UNION 

Reading the latest official history of 

the Chinese Communist Party 

reminds me of looking at a 

completed game of Snakes and Ladders. 

All that matters is that the Party having 

reached the winning square is the victor. 

The ups and downs - the ascension of 

the ladder and the falls due to poisonous 

snakes - are immaterial. Moreover, the 

result is interpreted as the inevitable 

trajectory and outcome of the game. 

How else, can the CCP continue to hail 

Mao Zedong as the ʻgreat helmsmanʼ 

overlooking his murderous ascension to 

power and his ruthless destruction of 

millions of Chinese people in clinging to 

it? In fact, the CCPʼs version of history is 

akin to three games, all with the 

inevitable result of the three leaders, 

Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and now Xi 

Jinping, being the winning player. 

Released last year, the document is only 

the third in the past century, the 

previous two being issued by Mao in 

1945 and Deng in 1981. Interestingly, it 

treats the history of the CCP as the 

history of China. As I wrote in last weekʼs 

column, the document is less a history of 

the past, but a justification for the 

present and a signpost to the CCPʼs 

intended future. This is clear in the 

emphasis given to various events. For 

example, the overthrow of the Qing 

dynasty in 1911 by the Nationalist forces 

of Sun Yat-sen is given cursory 

acknowledgement. For Xi the much more 

significant event was Russiaʼs October 

Revolution in 1917, as it was the 

ʻsalvoesʼ of which ʻMarxism-Leninism 

was brought to Chinaʼ. 

In order to sanctify Mao and Deng, all 

ʻprogressʼ under their rule was positive, 

and any mistakes the fault of others. 

Hence Maoʼs ascendency as General- 

Secretary of the Party at the expense of 

his opponents, including the first 

General-Secretary, Chen Duxiu, and his 

co-founder, Li Dazhao, was the result of 

their deviation from the correct 

ideological line. Equally, anybody who 

had argued for a different approach to 

Mao, and were eliminated or side-lined, 

such as Wang Ming, had deviated from 

the correct line. Linking their activities to 

the CCPʼs military campaign in the 

official history has a contemporary use, 

namely a warning to any elements of the 

PLA who think otherwise that the military 

is subservient to the Party. 

Maoʼs calamitous programs, such as the 

Great Leap Forward that resulted in the 

deaths of some 40 million people, 

occurred because the ʻCentral 

Committee failed to rectify these 

mistakes in good time.ʼ Similarly, ʻthe 

counter-revolutionary cliques of Lin Biao 

and Jiang Qing took advantage of 

Comrade Mao Zedongʼs mistakes, and 

committed many crimes that brought 

disaster to the country and the people, 

resulting in ten years of domestic turmoil 

which caused the Party, the country, and 

the people to suffer the most serious 

losses and setbacks since the founding 

of the Peopleʼs Republic.ʼ Despite this 

being described as ʻan extremely bitter 

lessonʼ, Mao officially remains the ʻgreat 

helmsmanʼ who achieved a prodigious 

transformation of the country. 

In order to explain the various turns in 

lifespan of the CCP as consistent with an 

unchanging Marxist narrative, the 

document repeats Xiʼs constant 

assertions that the Eighth National 

Congress, held in 1956 and 1958, 

recognised that socialism is a stage 

towards the final attainment of 

communism. This allows Xiʼs 

contemporary CCP to incorporate Deng 

Xiaopingʼs opening up as central to 

ʻsocialism with Chinese characteristicsʼ, 

not a deviation from it. Quoting Deng, 

the document observes ʻwhen everything 

has to be done by the book, when 

thinking turns rigid and blind faith is the 

fashion, it is impossible for a party or 

8 9

nation to make progress. Its life will 

cease and that party or nation will 

perish.ʼ Many of Xiʼs actions since 

becoming the General-Secretary have 

been directed at controlling this 

narrative. His ʻcommon prosperityʼ drive 

is as much about endeavouring to 

reconcile a system that maintains a 

Marxist ideology, but has allowed the 

accumulation of great wealth by 

individuals, as anything else. A plausible 

explanation of Dengʼs economic 

direction is required to maintain the 

CCPʼs Marxist ideology. If ordinary 

Chinese people began to believe 

otherwise, the edifice of the CCP would 

be in danger of collapse. 

Significantly, the document praises Deng 

for saving the CCP from the plight of the 

Soviet Union. ʻThe late 1980s and early 

1990s witnessed the demise of the 

Soviet Union and the drastic changes in 

Eastern European countries.ʼ In a veiled 

reference to the unmentionable 

Tiananmen Square protests, the history 

adds: ʻIn the late spring and early 

summer of 1989, a severe political 

disturbance took place in China as a 

result of the international and domestic 

climates of the time, and was egged on 

by hostile anti-communist and antisocialist 

forces abroad. With the peopleʼs 

backing, the Party and the government 

took a clear stand against the turmoil, 

defending Chinaʼs socialist state power 

and safeguarding the fundamental 

interests of the people.ʼ 

Avoiding the fate of the Soviet Union 

remains the fixation of the Chinese 

leadership. Whether Xi actually believes 

that his leadership is now critical to the 

existence of a Marxist-Leninist 

ideological movement or it is simply a 

means to maintaining the power of the 

CCP elite is moot. His writings suggest 

both. Last year, the CCP published a new 

book, Questions and Answers on the 

Study of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism 

with Chinese Characteristics for a New 

Era, in which Xi asserted that 

communism would triumph in the 

struggle with bourgeois democracy. The 

world, in his view, is a ʻcompetition of 

two ideologies and two social systems.ʼ 

While many in the West continue to 

debate about whether we are engaged in 

a new Cold War, Xi is prosecuting it. 

PART 3 

THE GOSPEL OF XI 

Reading the recently published 

history of the Chinese Communist 

Party is like reading the constitution 

and rules of a religious order. Central to 

the document is an insistence that the 

current leadership of the party 

understands the one true version of the 

countryʼs history and possesses an allknowing 

prescience about the future. 

The chronicle of the past frames the 

narrative that the party leadership 

projects about the future. Only one 

quarter of the document is devoted to 

the past; the majority is about the 

program that will ensure the 

membership remains faithful to the 

dictates of Xi Jinping and the Central 

Committee of the Communist Party, 

without which the nation will slip back 

into the evil ways of the past. 

This Gospel of Xi sets out 13 

commandments which party members 

are required to study and meditate upon. 

At the centre of these requirements is Xi 

and the Central Committee. ʻThe 

leadership of the Communist Party of 

China is the defining feature of socialism 

with Chinese characteristics and the 

greatest strength of the system of 

socialism with Chinese characteristics, 

and that the Party is the highest force for 

political leadership.ʼ Hence party 

members, like novices in a religious 

order, must ʻstrengthen their 

consciousness of the need to maintain 

political integrity, think in big-picture 

terms, follow the leadership core, and 

keep in alignment with the central Party 

leadership; stay confident in the path, 

theory, system, and culture of socialism 

with Chinese characteristics; and uphold 

Comrade Xi Jinpingʼ core position on the 

Party Central Committee and in the Party 

as a whole, and uphold the Central 

Committeeʼs authority and its 

centralised, unified leadership.ʼ 

is the chosen one ordained to lead the 

Party to the promised land. Like other 

religions, adherents are instructed that 

problems in the past have been because 

some members deviated from the rule. 

ʻIn particular, the Central Committeeʼs 

major decisions and plans were not 

properly executed as some officials 

selectively implemented the Partyʼs 

policies or even feigned agreement or 

compliance and did things their own 

way.ʼ 

This was the result of moral failings, 

including ʻhedonism, and extravagance, 

and a prevalence for privilege-seeking 

attitudes and behaviour.ʼ The 

misconduct of these sinners is spelt out: 

ʻsome officials engaged in cronyism, and 

ostracised those outside of their circle; 

some formed self-serving cliques; some 

anonymously lodged false accusations 

and fabricated rumours; some sought to 

buy popular support and rig elections in 

their favour; some promised official 

posts and lavished praise on each other 

for their promotions; some did things 

their own way and feigned compliance 

with policies while acting counter to 

them; and some got too big for their 

boots and made presumptuous 

comments on the decisions of the 

Central Committee.ʼ 

Officials who committed these sins have 

and will be punished according to the 

ʻhistoryʼ. Like the Superior of a religious 

order, Xi has ʻinvestigated and handled 

cases of deviation from the Partyʼs line, 

principles, and policies as well as 

instances in which the Partyʼs 

centralises, unified leadership has been 

undermined; and rid the Party of 

members who acted duplicitously.ʼ 

The antidote for the corrupt behaviour is 

to adhere strictly to the dictates of 

Comrade Xi and the Central Committee, 

There is little doubt to the reader, that which unashamedly promote a ʻtopdown 

approachʼ to decision-making for 

following the prophets Mao and Deng, Xi 

10 11

the nation. ʻThe centralised, unified 

leadership of the Central Committee is 

the highest principle of the Partyʼs 

leadership, and upholding and 

strengthening this is the common 

political responsibility of each and every 

Party member.ʼ If this is not clear 

enough, the document demands the 

ʻwhole Party obeys the Central 

Committee.ʼ This, according to the CCP, 

is ʻdemocratic centralismʼ! 

FEATURE 

THE GREAT RE-ALIGNMENT 

The need to maintain this unbending 

approach is described in religious terms, 

stressing ʻour faith in Marxismʼ, ʻthe 

great ideal of communismʼ, and the 

ʻcommon ideal of socialism with Chinese 

characteristicsʼ. Without these ideals and 

convictions, ʻwe would become frail and 

susceptible to corruption, greed, 

degeneracy, and decadenceʼ, insists the 

document. 

Like members of a religious order or 

group, members of the Party must ʻbe 

strict in practising self-cultivationʼ and 

avoid temptation. Importantly, they 

should imbue themselves in the great 

texts: ʻthe Party Constitution, Party 

regulations, and General Secretary Xi 

Jinpingʼs major policy addresses.ʼ In 

many other speeches and writings, Xi has 

insisted that CCP members study his 

works. 

Compliance with the dictates of the Xi 

and the Central Committee is critical for 

promotion. ʻIn appointing officials, the 

Party has adopted a rational approach 

with greater emphasis on political 

integrityʼ; in other words, to subscribing 

to the rule of Xi. The Party ʻhas adhered 

to the principle of selecting officials on 

the basis of both integrity and ability, 

with greater weight given to the former. 

. . ʻ 

Significantly, these two objectives - 

upholding the Partyʼs leadership and 

exercising its rules - are more important 

than any other, including economic 

development and reform. These ʻtwo 

upholdsʼ are the foundations of the 

Partyʼs authority without which the 

country would presumably return to the 

bourgeois state that Xi rails against. All 

officials are commanded to cultivate this 

ʻproper worldviewʼ and ʻwillingly submitʼ 

to the Central Committeeʼs oversight. 

Like the adherents of other religions, 

Communist Party members are reminded 

that ʻsolidarity is strengthʼ in their global 

mission. While persecuting any 

individual and group not adhering to its 

teachings, the CCP projects a narrative to 

its selected elite of promoting ʻharmony 

between different political parties, ethnic 

groups, religions, social strata and 

compatriots at home and abroad.ʼ Yet 

there is no other political party in China, 

ethnic groups such as the Uighurs and 

Tibetans are persecuted, as are members 

of most religious groups not under the 

direct control of the CCP. 

The Resolution of the CPC Central 

Committee on the Major Achievements 

and Historical Experience of the Party 

over the Past Century is part hagiography 

of XI Jinping, and part a semi-religious 

apologia for the rule of the CCP. Unlike a 

western history, its intention is to 

maintain the totalitarian rule of the CCP. 

The communists may decry religion, but 

they have adopted its structure, style and 

narrative to proclaim their rule. 

12 

If there is one lesson from Ukraine it is 

that allowing totalitarian regimes to 

presume their actions will be 

unpunished inevitably courts more 

aggression. The tragic reality of Ukraine 

is that Russia invaded its neighbour 

when it annexed Crimea in 2014. That 

invasion went unpunished, leading 

Vladimir Putin to presume he could act 

with impunity. The fact that his forces 

were totally unprepared for the 

resistance they have faced is evidence of 

the confidence he had when sending the 

long column of Russian tanks across the 

border in a further unwarranted assault. 

Other totalitarian regimes will be 

watching the consequences of the 

conflict with keen interest, none more so 

than Xi Jinpingʼs Communist Party in 

China which has repeatedly asserted its 

intention to claim Taiwan. Unlike the 

brash Putin, Xi Jinping is patient and 

calculating. Faced with economic 

challenges, including a major debt 

imbalance, a crashing housing sector, a 

spiralling Covid crisis, largely because of 

his zero-tolerance policy, and a national 

assembly later in the year at which he 

plans to be made General Secretary for 

life, now may not be the best time for Xi 

to invade Taiwan. 

More significantly, he is facing a great 

re-alignment of nations opposed to his 

ambitions. A clear casualty of Putinʼs 

aggression is the smooth rollout of 

Chinaʼs Belt and Road initiative, with 

many nations now resisting it. Not only is 

his Eastern European route in doubt, 

many nations in South East Asia are 

having second thoughts, leading to 

hastily arranged visits recently by the 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to a 

number of nations, including India. The 

Indians were unimpressed, denying 

Wang a meeting with Prime Minister 

Modi. China seemed to think it can wage 

war against India in the Himalayas with 

impunity! 

The notion of ʻstrategic ambiguityʼ is 

being consigned to history. Leading the 

charge is the former prime minister of 

Japan, Shinzo Abe. In one of the most 

significant statements about the defence 

of Taiwan in recent years, Mr Abe 

observed that the policy of ambiguity 

worked extremely well as long as the US 

was strong enough to maintain it, and as 

long as China was far inferior to the US in 

military power. ʻBut those days are over,ʼ 

added Abe. ʻThe American policy of 

ambiguity is now fostering instability in 

the Indo-Pacific region, by encouraging 

China to underestimate American 

resolve, while making the government in 

Taipei unnecessarily anxious.ʼ 

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Abe 

urged the US administration ʻto issue a 

statement that is not open to 

misinterpretation or multiple 

interpretations. The time has come for 

the US to make clear that it will defend 

Taiwan against any attempted Chinese 

invasion.ʼ The former Japanese prime 

minister noted that whenever he met 

President Xi, he always made it a rule to 

convey clearly to him that he should not 

misjudge Japanʼs intentions to defend 

the Senkaku Islands, and that Japanʼs 

intentions were unwavering. ʻThe human 

tragedy that has befallen Ukraine has 

taught us a bitter lesson. There must no 

longer be any room for doubt in our 

resolve concerning Taiwan, and in our 

determination to defend freedom, 

democracy, human rights and the rule of 

law.ʼ 

Mr Abe may no longer be his nationʼs 

prime minister but there is little doubt 

that he was conveying the attitude of his 

successor. The Japanese government 

has significantly increased its rhetorical 

support for Taiwan. It has also increased 

its military presence closer to Taiwan in 

recent months and signalled further 

strategic action. Last week, the ruling 

Liberal Democratic Party called for an 

13

increase in defence expenditure to 2 per 

cent or more of GDP, along with 

increased ʻcounterattackʼ capabilities. 

Like Taiwan, Japan has been targeted by 

China. In the 2021 financial year, Japan 

had to scramble its military jets over 700 

times against Chinese incursions. While 

there remains some obstacles to Japan 

militarily assisting Taiwan, such as 

Article 9 of its Constitution and its 

defence posture, Abe was signalling an 

unambiguous line against the CCP. 

Many western legislators are becoming 

increasingly publicly supportive of 

Taiwan. US Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee chair Richard Menendez who 

visited the island state recently as part of 

a delegation stated that Beĳingʼs 

unhappiness ʻwould not dissuade us in 

the future from supporting Taiwan.ʼ The 

former US national security advisor, John 

Bolton, recently called for the stationing 

of American troops in Taiwan and the 

granting of full diplomatic status, 

observing that it is a ʻtruly independent 

country within every conceivable 

meaning and customary international 

law.ʼ A European Parliamentary 

delegation has visited, and the Swedes 

are due in Taiwan soon. 

Given the lack of any real international 

resistance to the Chinese actions in 

quashing democracy in Hong Kong, Xi 

may nonetheless feel emboldened to 

pursue his vow of reunification. 

The same resolute approach to the CCP 

is required in our own backyard. The 

decision by the prime minister of the 

Solomon Islands, Manasseh Sogavare, to 

sign a defence agreement with China, is 

a major threat to regional security. A 

leaked draft of the agreement allowed 

the CCP to station naval ships and 

defence personnel in the Pacific nation, 

resulting in both the US and Australia to 

call upon Mr Sogavare not to proceed, a 

request which he snubbed. China has 

poured finances into the Solomons, 

some of it directly to local politicians. 

The cunning Mr Sogavare manoeuvred 

his way to the prime ministership, 

attracting winning candidates to join his 

ʻOur Partyʼ after the 2019 elections, a 

move which critics describe as 

circumventing the nationʼs electoral laws 

on registered parties. Photos of Mr 

Sogavare dressed in a Mao suit 

inspecting a Chinese military guard of 

honour completes the picture. His 

government had already indicated that it 

had no objection to allowing the import 

of automatic rifles, pistols, machine guns 

and a sniper rifle for the ʻsafety and 

security of the Chinese Embassy.ʼ His 

recent Parliamentary rant about being 

invaded reveals a manipulative paranoia 

that threatens the security of the region. 

The deal has already caused disquiet in 

parts of the nation, with the Premier of 

Western Province, Christian Mesepitu, 

expressing ʻdeep concernʼ about it. It is 

not hard to imagine the CCP, which has 

already funded election campaigns in the 

Solomons, deciding that it should step in 

militarily to ʻprotectʼ the nationʼs internal 

security – and Mr Sogavareʼs power! 

Finally, while we commemorated Anzac 

Day recently, it was disappointing to 

note that Prime Minister Ardernʼs 

government has refused to commit to 

two per cent of GDP on defence 

spending. New Zealand Labor are not 

alone in the neglect of the nationʼs 

defence; it has been a long-term 

problem. But with Chinaʼs influence 

growing in the South Pacific, the time has 

surely come for Kiwis to realise that they 

are no longer isolated from the strategic 

realities of the region. 

“The time has come for the US to make clear 

that it will defend Taiwan against any attempted 

Chinese invasion.” 

- Shinzo Abe 

HONG KONG 

THE END OF RELIGIOUS 

FREEDOM 

If future historians wish to date the end 

of religious freedom in Hong Kong, 

they can note Wednesday, May 11, 

2022. It was on that day a week ago that 

Hong Kongʼs national security police 

arrested Cardinal Joseph Zen, former 

parliamentarian Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, 

popular singer Denise Ho Wan-sze and 

academic Hui Po-keung. They were 

accused of colluding with foreign forces. 

All four were trustees of a now-defunct 

612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, which was 

set up to provide legal assistance to 

people involved in the anti-government 

protests in 2019. 

The CCP has been fixated with the 90 

year-old Cardinal Zen, who has spent the 

last few years visiting political prisoners 

in jail. Three years ago, when Zen and 

the leading democracy advocate Martin 

Lee were invited to speak to an 

international meeting of Catholic 

legislators in Portugal, Chinaʼs embassy 

in the country pressured organisers to 

withdraw the invitations. When this 

failed, they staked out the hotel and tried 

to infiltrate the meetings. 

Zen had been attacked in the pro-Beĳing 

newspaper, Ta Kung Pao, earlier this 

year, the oft used modus operandi of 

totalitarian regimes seeking to 

demonising opponents before arresting 

them. While Catholic clerics were subject 

to show trials and long imprisonments 

during the Mao period, Cardinal Zen will 

be the first Catholic bishop forced by the 

CCP to stand trial in many years. 

The arrest came just days after the next 

Chief Executive of Hong Kong John Lee 

was chosen. Under the Chinese 

Communist Partyʼs version of 

democracy, Lee was the unopposed 

candidate chosen by the 1,461 members 

of the Beĳing appointed election 

committee. The appointment of the 

former chief security officer of Hong Possibly more shocking than the arrests 

Kong clearly demonstrated the CCPʼs has been the response of the Vatican to 

determination to crush any support for the detention of a cardinal of the church. 

freedom and democracy. Lee had already ʻThe Holy See has learned with concern 

played a leading role in the crackdown the news of Cardinal Zenoʼs arrest,ʼ said 

on the pre-democracy protests. He has the press office director Matteo Bruni. He 

no experience of economics or the range added that the Holy See ʻis following the 

of services provided to the populace, let evolution of the situation with extreme 

alone international finance for which the caution.ʼ 

British colony was renowned. His record 

on democracy is to brutally oppose it. In There are a number of reasons for such 

2019, Lee visited Xinjiang province and a weak statement from the Vatican. 

subsequently informed Hong Kong Primarily, its foreign diplomats, led by 

legislators that they should learn from the Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro 

the handling of the Uyghurs. It is clear Parolin, still cling to the secret 

that Lee will continue the crackdown agreement with the CCP. Parolin is a 

pursued by his predecessor Carrie Lam devotee of the 

under the national security laws imposed disastrous Ostpolitik doctrine practiced 

on Hong Kong by Beĳing. As the last by a predecessor, Cardinal Agostino 

governor of Hong Kong, Lord Chris Casaroli, until it was ditched by a victim 

Patten observed, Lee ʻwould not know of totalitarianism, Pope John Paul II. 

the rule of law if it hit him in the eye with According to Parolin, such agreements 

a plastic baton rod,ʼ adding that the are ʻuseful for regulating the life of the 

regime is ʻhellbent on turning Hong church and guaranteeing its 

Kong into a police state.ʼ 

independence in the face of desire in its 

14 15

organisation.ʼ The Secretary of State 

seems oblivious to the truism that 

deception is a tool commonly deployed 

by authoritarian regimes. Whatever 

benefit the Vatican was promised by its 

agreement is illusory, as millions of 

believers in China know. Far from an 

improvement in religious freedom, Xi 

Jinping has led an increasingly brutal 

persecution of religious believers. 

Cardinal Zenʼs criticism of the Parolin 

approach probably contributed to the 

almost mute response of the church. Zen 

described the agreement with the 

communists as ʻsuicideʼ and a 

ʻshameless surrenderʼ to the CCP. When 

Zen went to Rome to discuss the issue, 

he was refused a meeting by the Pope. So 

much for collegiality! 

Contrast the limp language from the 

Vatican to the robust response from the 

President of the Asian Bishops 

Conferences, Cardinal Charles Bo. As 

Archbishop of Yangon, Myanmar, Bo is 

no stranger to totalitarian regimes. ʻI 

wish to express my profound concern 

about the situation for human rights and 

threats to religious freedom in Hong 

Kong. . . Hong Kong used to be one of 

Asiaʼs freest and most open cities. 

Today, it has been transformed into a 

police state. Freedom of expression, 

freedom of the press, freedom of 

assembly and association, and academic 

freedom have all been dismantled. There 

are early signs that freedom of religion 

or belief, a human right set out in Article 

18 of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights and the International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights, to which Hong 

Kong is a party, is threatened. I am aware 

of recent propaganda attacks against the 

Church in pro-Beĳing media in Hong 

Kong, and of growing self-censorship 

among religious leaders due to the 

circumstances. To see a city that was a 

beacon for freedom, including religious 

freedom, move so radically and swiftly 

down a much darker and more repressive 

path is heartbreaking. To see a 

government in China break its promises 

made in an international treaty, the Sino- 

British Joint Declaration, so repeatedly 

and blatantly, is appalling.ʼ 

ʻCardinal Joseph Zen was arrested and 

faces charges simply because he served 

as a trustee of a fund which provided 

legal aid to activists facing court cases. 

In any system where the rule of law 

exists, providing assistance to help 

people facing prosecution meet their 

legal fees is a proper and accepted right. 

How can it be a crime to help accused 

persons have legal defence and 

representation?ʼ 

Chris Patten is correct when he says ʻthis 

will presumably drive a nail in the coffin 

of attempts by the Vatican to establish 

some sort of deal with Chinaʼs 

communists, who regard any sort of 

religion as a threat to their tyrannous 

grip on power.ʼ We can only hope his 

prediction is accurate. 

REMEMBERING JIMMY LAI 

Remember Jimmy Lai, the successful 

Hong Kong businessman who 

founded the Giordano fashion chain 

and subsequently the Apple Daily media 

company? Jimmy Lai has been in prison 

since December 31, 2020. The Chinese 

Communist Party would like you to 

forget all about Jimmy Lai. Out of sight, 

out of mind. 

Laiʼs life is a ʻrags to richesʼ story. After 

escaping China as a stowaway on a boat 

at just 12 years of age, Lai started 

working under oppressive conditions in 

a garment factory. He was promoted to 

factory manager before starting his own 

clothing business which eventually 

became the very successful Giordano 

fashion chain. 

Following the Tiananmen Square 

massacre, Lai founded Next 

magazine, which became the most 

popular magazine in Hong Kong. 

Read by the middle class, the weekly 

publication appealed to the supporters 

of economic and political freedom. 

A sister publication, Sudden Weekly, also 

attracted a strong readership. 

In 1995, Lai launched Apple Daily which 

had a distinctly pro-democracy editorial 

stance, earning the ire of the communist 

regime. By Hong Kong standards, the 

paper was a racy tabloid. It became the 

largest pro-democracy, Chineselanguage, 

mass-circulation daily 

newspaper in Hong Kong. It was shut 

down by the CCP in June 2021. 

Lai was jailed in December 2020 while 

awaiting trial on various charges. He was 

briefly released on bail, but this was 

reversed and he has been imprisoned 

since the end of December 2020. 

Last December he was sentenced to 

more than five yearsʼ imprisonment on a 

series of falsified fraud charges, having 

already served two other sentences, 

including for lighting a candle and saying 

a prayer to mark the Tiananmen Square 

carnage, and for participating in a 

peaceful protest. 

The CCP has gone to great lengths to 

keep Lai in jail. He is currently awaiting 

trial, finally set down for the coming 

September, for violating the National 

Security Law. This law is a vaguely 

worded, draconian provision that allows 

the regime to claim almost any action as 

a breach of national security. 

So desperate is the regime that it has 

banned Laiʼs chief legal counsel, London 

KC Tim Owen, on the trumped-up 

suggestion that his representation of Lai 

would endanger national security. Hong 

Kongʼs Court of Final Appeal had 

approved Owenʼs representation, 

leading the regime to appeal to Beĳing in 

order to override the court. 

The reality is that the reference to 

national security is a cover to allow the 

regime to do whatever it pleases, which 

in this case, is to make an example of 

Jimmy Lai and jail him for life. 

The CCP claim that it abides by the rule 

of law is preposterous. Only in a 

totalitarian state like China could anyone 

believe that the rule of law applies. 

Laiʼs story is told in the documentary 

film, The HongKonger. Produced by the 

Acton Institute, it reveals that Lai became 

a Catholic in 1997. Having a British 

passport, the 75-year-old Lai could have 

left Hong Kong before he was arrested, 

but chose to stay and fight for liberty 

and freedom. 

As his friend, William McGurn, a 

member of the Wall Street Journalʼs 

editorial board, said “Heʼs in prison 

today for a simple reason. His 

publications told the truth about China 

and Hong Kong.” 

While various individuals and 

organisations have spoken up for Lai, 

one voice has remained silent, Pope 

Francis. Laiʼs friend, Cardinal Joseph 

Zen, also persecuted by the communist 

regime, has appealed to the Pope, but 

to date the Vatican seems more 

interested in its secret deal with the 

CCP, despite it having been blatantly 

breached. 

In the meantime, Australian journalist 

Cheng Lei also remains in detention. 

The former anchor of the state-owned 

television station CGTN was detained in 

August 2020 and charged 

subsequently with ʻsupplying state 

secrets overseasʼ. 

No details of the charges have been 

provided to Australian authorities. Nor 

have the hearings been transparent, 

with embassy officials locked out on 

the pretence that the proceedings 

involve ʻstate secretsʼ - a vague notion 

to allow the regime to do what it likes. 

No foreigner is safe in China. Both the 

police and the judiciary are an arm of 

the CCP. 

Jimmy Lai and Cheng Lei cannot be 

forgotten. Their treatment should be 

condemned by all defenders of human 

dignity and liberty. 

16 17

LIBERAL PARTY 

IS THE 

LIBERAL PARTY 

FACING AN 

EXISTENTIAL 

CRISIS? 

Recent events portray 

a troubled party. 

WOESPARTY WOES 

Aweek before Christmas, a 

newsletter arrived from the 

President of the Liberal Party in 

Victoria. It noted the loss of seats and 

members at the State election and the 

election of some new faces. Members 

were invited to contribute to the review 

of the recent electoral disaster, and then 

stated he had reviewed previous election 

reviews: ʻSo many of the “lessons” are 

the same, and so many of the 

recommendations seem to remain 

unimplemented,ʼ he wrote. ʻSo rather 

than produce yet another review, Iʼve 

asked the team to instead produce 

several products, anchored on the “2026 

Campaign Handbook”. I think itʼs critical 

to embed the immediate lessons and 

observations into an action plan rather 

than a report.ʼ 

Of more significance was an attached 

excerpt from the 2014 Review by David 

Kemp which highlighted one of the most 

significant issues facing the party. ʻThere 

must be a comprehensive change in the 

way the party goes about its business. It 

needs to become an organisation facing 

not inwards, but outwards. It needs to 

become an accessible community 

organisation, welcoming and open. 

Liberals need to engage better with each 

other and with the external world. The 

Liberal Party will not win the 2018 State 

election, nor be as effective as it must be 

in the 2016 Federal election, unless it is 

prepared to revitalize its approach to 

politics and to transform its approach to 

campaigning and to engaging with the 

electorate.ʼ 

The history since Dr Kempʼs 

observations is stark. The party lost 

seats at the 2018 state election – and a 

further one in 2022. It also lost seats at 

the 2016 federal election and just clung 

on to government in 2019 before losing 

in 2022. This reflects a much longer 

trend. Since 1990, Liberal/National 

Parties have only been in government in 

the States and Territories for an average 

of 12 years. While this varies between 

jurisdictions, State and Territory Liberal/ 

National coalitions have only sat on the 

Treasury benches for a little over onethird 

on average of the past 30 years. 

Only in Western Australia has the Liberal 

Party been in government for more than 

50 per cent of the time since 1990. 

Currently, it is likely to be some time 

before the party is returned to 

government on the west coast. 

Nationally, the situation much better, 

with the Coalition in government for 

more than 60 per cent of the past three 

decades. 

There is a recurring theme in state 

politics that is ignored often by the 

Liberal Party, namely while there is 

validity to the adage that ʻgovernments 

lose, oppositions donʼt winʼ the reality is 

that poorly performing governments will 

be re-elected unless there is a credible 

opposition. The pattern has repeated 

itself many times over the past few 

decades - in New South Wales, 

Queensland, South Australia and now 

Victoria. 

Of the more than five million Victorians 

aged 18 and over, less than 15,000 are 

members of the Liberal Party. In other 

words, only about 1 in 300 people 

belong to the Party, a fraction of what it 

was decades ago. Nationally, the 

proportion is less than 1 in 400 people. 

Instead of representing the broad cross 

section of the community, membership 

is concentrated increasingly in coteries 

which seek to control the party. 

Constitutional reforms of more than a 

decade ago in many states largely 

destroyed the local branches, lessening 

the influence of the remaining members. 

Factionalism is rife. As John Howard 

observed of the Party in New South 

Wales, these factions have become 

ʻpreselection co-operativesʼ. 

In his latest book, A sense of balance, Mr 

Howard observes: ʻThe greatest cultural 

change of the past few decades has been 

in the attitude towards what was once 

called branch development. Previously 

the main pursuit of a lively branch was to 

19

uild membership. These days building 

membership has given way to adopting 

strategies to stop the branch being 

ʻtaken overʼ by a rival faction. New 

members are viewed suspiciously, lest 

they upset the factional balance.ʼ 

Alternatively, factional aspirants for 

pre-selection spend years recruiting 

their supporters into friendly branches 

in the hope that ultimately, they will be 

rewarded with the numbers to win a 

contest. This is particularly the case in 

the plebiscite systems for preselection 

that operate in states like Victoria and 

South Australia. 

When I was first preselected three 

decades ago, I was able to succeed 

without factional membership or 

endorsement. That is virtually 

impossible today. A consequence is that 

an inordinate amount of time and effort 

is expended on internal factional 

warfare. A ʻwinner takes allʼ attitude 

dominates the party. Much of the time of 

the state administration is expended on 

these activities. Many operatives would 

prefer to defeat their internal opponents 

than the Labor Party. Ordinary people 

who join the party often feel estranged 

by the whole process. These 

observations can also be made about 

the Labor Party, but it seems more 

adroit in resolving the conflicts. 

A number of serious consequences flow 

from the declining membership and the 

rise in factionalism in the contemporary 

Liberal Party. First, the quality of 

candidates has fallen. Many people who 

would make good members of 

Parliament shy away from the invitation, 

often citing factionalism and social 

media intrusion as their main reasons. 

As a result, candidates for preselection 

become experts in counting the internal 

numbers, but often have little realworld 

experience. There are some 

notable exceptions, but too often 

parliaments now comprise managerial 

careerists in all parties. As John Howard 

writes, ʻwithin the Parliament elected in 

2016, 49 per cent of Liberal MPs had 

previously worked in state or federal 

politics – as staffers, party officials or 

corporate affairs employees of 

companies involved in political liaison.ʼ 

Many candidates canʼt even add the 

membership of the local kindergarten 

parentsʼ group to their resume, let alone 

involvement in a service club or local 

charity! 

Until its leaders recognise that a 

successful party must reflect a coalition 

of interests, not narrow factional 

interests, the Liberal Party will not 

regain its former success. Tens, if not 

hundreds, of thousands of voters 

including small business owners and 

operators and people of faith have fled 

to minor parties because they believe 

the Liberal Party no longer represents 

their values. Instead of reflecting John 

Howardʼs ʻbroad churchʼ the modern 

party seems incapable of tolerating a 

range of views and moulding the 

compromises that are required for 

widespread support. 

MODERNISING PARTY 

STRUCTURES 

The pattern of factionalism and 

decline in the parliamentary Liberal 

Party is a reflection of the 

leadership of the administrative wing of 

the party. Decades ago, the cream of 

business, professional and agricultural 

communities administered the Party; 

today they are mostly absent. The 

national election review by Brian 

Loughnane and Senator Jane Hume 

highlighted this problem. ʻThe Liberal 

Party is not a lobby group or a think 

tank. It is a political party whose 

objective is to form government to 

advance Australia. To do this it must be 

an effective political operation and 

appeal to the broader Australian 

community. Self-absorption by narrow 

sectional and factional interests is 

increasingly restricting the Partyʼs ability 

to meet this test, as are inflexible Party 

structures. It is a pre-condition for 

revival that this changes. Maintaining an 

engaged and energetic membership and 

volunteer base is the responsibility of us 

all.ʼ 

party are incapable of individually 

implementing the necessary reform. To 

expect the very people who have 

manipulated the factional arrangements 

to now walk away from their spoils is 

optimistic! 

As John Howard observes in A sense of 

balance ʻthe most negative consequence 

of factionalism is that political parties 

have become more inward-looking, less 

welcoming to newcomers. They are 

increasingly preoccupied with 

themselves, to the detriment of 

engaging with and understanding the 

thinking of the community.ʼ 

The decline in real world experience and 

the concentration on internal party 

politics also results in more 

parliamentarians who seem unaware 

and unconvinced of Liberal Party 

principles and are unprepared for the 

hard policy work required to persuade 

the electorate. While this is compounded 

by the 24-hour news cycle and social 

media, there is no substitute for detailed 

policies. When the coalition lost office in 

So bad is the situation that Loughnane 

2007, it almost immediately established 

and Hume publicly condemned the 

a polity review committee. For more 

ʻineffective and unprofessional 

than three years, under the leadership of 

behaviour in senior Party committeesʼ 

Julie Bishop, myself and subsequently 

and proposed that ʻthe Federal 

Andrew Robb, this group updated, wrote 

Executive discuss the role and 

and rewrote policies across all 

responsibilities of Party Executive 

portfolios. Shadow ministers had to 

members and develop a Code of 

produce regular updates about the 

Conduct to be signed by all candidates 

challenges in their portfolios, the 

wishing to contest senior Party 

individuals and groups with whom they 

positions, including State Executive 

were consulting, the range of possible 

positions and Federal Electorate 

solutions and their proposed policies. 

Committee membership. The Code 

These proposals were subject to 

should set out clear requirements of 

detailed costings. Some policies were 

behaviour and penalties for breaches. 

released in response to events, but most 

Party members should also, on applying 

were subject to regular review and kept 

for a position, waive their rights to take 

for the election campaign. Detailed 

legal action against party members.ʼ 

policy development is a necessary 

Significantly, they recommended that discipline if a party wishes to regain 

ʻafter endorsement by the Federal office. As Robert Menzies once 

Executive the recommended Code observed, ʻopposition must be regarded 

should be discussed and adopted by as a great constructive period in the life 

each State Executive.ʼ This is an of the party, not a period in the 

admission that the state divisions of the wilderness, but a period of preparation 

20 21

for the high responsibilities in which you 

hope will come.ʼ 

Missing from the narrative of recent 

Liberal leaders has been a vision for 

Australia. Yet it is critical if they hope 

people will support them. Visitors to the 

Howard Library at Old Parliament House 

will read on the wall at the entrance the 

former prime ministerʼs aphorism that 

ʻpolitics is not a public relations 

exercise. It is fundamentally a contest of 

ideas about what best serves the 

national interest. It is the ability to 

evaluate competing visions of the 

common good that mark a truly great 

people.ʼ John Howardʼs statement 

reflects Menziesʼ observation that if you 

get the policies correct, the politics will 

follow. His words should be displayed in 

the office of every Liberal 

parliamentarian, along with the values 

of the party. Where was the Liberal 

vision for Australia, or for a particular 

state, at recent elections? 

It is a common complaint amongst 

ordinary party members that they have 

no role other than to hand out ʻhow -tovoteʼ 

cards at elections. Most people 

who join the party wish to contribute to 

policy development, but these 

opportunities are now few or 

perfunctory. As a consequence, 

parliamentary members and candidates 

are less informed about the issues 

facing Australians, unless they take 

active steps to initiate regular policy 

discussions. The leadership of the party 

needs to implement an extensive 

ongoing program of real grassroots 

engagement. 

The federal review made a series of 

observations and suggestions about 

widening the base of the party by 

recruiting more members, especially 

from the groups largely unrepresented 

currently. If left to the very people who 

run the factions, all the party will 

achieve is the recruitment of additional 

factional operatives from the currently 

underrepresented groups. 

What is long overdue is a modernisation 

of the governance structures of the 

party. It is troubling that political parties 

fail to meet modern corporate 

governance requirements. The 

governing structure of every major 

sporting code, indeed every major 

sporting club, is more rigorous than the 

political parties, as is the governance of 

not-for-profit and charitable bodies. 

The Federal Executive of the Liberal 

Party should insist on a modern 

structure for the state administrative 

bodies, with a majority of independent, 

non-executive directors. There should 

be clear requirements on these directors 

for the conduct of the party, the raising 

of finances, the selection of candidates 

and the widespread recruitment of 

members, the average age of whom is 

now over 70 years. Few realise that a 

rapidly ageing party membership is an 

existential threat to its future. Under 

these proposals, party members would 

continue to vote in pre-selections and 

contribute to policy development, but 

the incentive for factional operatives to 

manipulate the governance of the party 

would be significantly diminished if a 

modern governance structure was 

implemented. A party without the 

ability to change is without the means of 

its own conservation. 

“Politics is not a 

public relations 

exercise. It is 

fundamentally a 

contest of ideas 

about what best 

serves the national 

interest. It is the 

ability to evaluate 

competing visions of 

the common good 

that mark a truly 

great people.” 

- John Howard 

22 

WOOING THE 

CHINESE VOTE 

The Liberal Party federal election 

review by Brian Loughnane and Jane 

Hume highlighted a fall in support 

from the Chinese community as a 

challenge for the party. ʻThe swing 

against the Liberal Party was 

significantly greater in electorates which 

have a higher concentration of voters of 

Chinese ancestry. In the top 15 seats by 

Chinese ancestry the swing against the 

Party (on a two-party preferred basis) 

was 6.6 percent, compared to 3.7 

percent in other seats.ʼ 

According to the authors, there were a 

number of reasons for this, including a 

perception the previous Governmentʼs 

criticisms of the Chinese Communist 

Party government included the wider 

Chinese community more generally. 

ʻThis was obviously incorrect but the 

Partyʼs political opponents pushed this 

perception among voters of Chinese 

heritage in key seats in 2022,ʼ they 

added. An egregious example of the 

latter was the footage that emerged of 

Kevin Rudd addressing a meeting in 

Chisholm in Mandarin during the last 

federal election campaign. 

According to the most recent census, 

5.5% (1.4 million) of Australiaʼs 

population identify as having Chinese 

ancestry. This has increased from 3% in 

2001, and 5.2% in 2016. ʻRebuilding the 

Partyʼs relationship with the Chinese 

community must therefore be a priority 

during this term of Parliament,ʼ the 

authors stated. ʻThere is a particular 

need for the Partyʼs representatives to 

be sensitive to the genuine concerns of 

the Chinese community and to ensure 

language used cannot be misinterpreted 

as insensitive.ʼ 

The review also recommended ʻthe 

Parliamentary Team to develop an 

outreach programme for Party MPs and 

Senators to culturally and linguistically 

diverse communities, in particular the 

Chinese Australian community and to 

review the need for the appointment of 

additional staff with bilingual language 

skills.ʼ 

While these suggestions are sensible, 

the notion that any criticism of the 

Chinese regime is a criticism of people 

with a Chinese heritage is mistaken. 

Having represented an electorate with a 

sizeable and growing Chinese 

community for more than three 

decades, I have some understanding of 

Asian communities, including the 

Chinese. 

Ethnic Chinese are not a homogenous 

group. For a start, they come from 

various countries. My former electorate 

reflected this pattern. The early gold 

rushes to Warrandyte on the Yarra River 

included many Chinese but few of their 

descendants remained a century later. 

The great Chinese influx began in the 

early 1990s. It was related to the 

handover of Hong Kong to China by the 

British. With a prescience now clear, 

thousands of people decided that the 

future for themselves and their children 

was in Australia. Their settlement in 

suburbs like Doncaster and 

Templestowe reflected the emigration 

patterns. Other ethnic Chinese 

emigrated from elsewhere – including 

from Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. 

These patterns of immigration have 

continued to change over the past few 

decades. In recent years, there have 

been many more people coming from 

mainland China. Like the previous 

immigrants, they have sought both the 

economic and political freedom 

unavailable to them at home. 

Over the three decades I represented 

them, two issues were paramount for 

Chinese immigrants: a strong economy 

and a good education system. These 

issues are important historically for 

23

most immigrants to Australia. The large 

Italian and Greek communities I 

represented also shared these 

aspirations. The opportunity to work 

hard, give your children a good 

education and a secure future were the 

factors that attracted most immigrants 

to Australia. 

The Chinese generally do not join 

political parties. This is not unusual. 

Neither Australian-born citizens nor 

others from different ethnic groups tend 

to join political parties. The recruitment 

of particular ethnic groups by the Labor 

Party creates a misleading impression 

that all people from a particular 

background support it. Traditionally, 

socio-economic factors have been more 

significant indicators of voting patterns 

than ethnic backgrounds. 

The reluctance to join political parties 

can be addressed. I initiated an Asian- 

Australian Forum, for example, to which 

leading members of the community 

were encouraged to join. The Forum 

helped to create a bridge between 

people of different ethnic backgrounds. 

It served the secondary purpose of 

allowing me to engage in ongoing 

discussions with the leaders of the 

Chinese community across various 

sectors. I also established a Weibo 

presence. 

The greatest failure in recent years by 

the Liberal Party is to proclaim the 

principles, values and policies it believes 

are important for the future prosperity 

of Australia. Politics, like nature, abhors 

a vacuum. If the voices propounding 

economic, political and security 

freedoms are not heard in the public 

square, others will be. 

The critical need to proclaim Liberal 

principles and values is reinforced by 

the competing claims on the loyalty of 

some of the more recent arrivals from 

China. Many are part of a new ʻorbitʼ 

generation - people who move between 

Australia and China, living in both 

countries. They are subject to the 

unrelenting propaganda of the CCP, 

which insists that members of the 

diaspora retain loyalty to China. Many 

have family living in China and remain 

concerned for their safety. 

This issue points to a more significant 

challenge, namely, to counter CCP 

propaganda and influence. Most 

Chinese language newspapers in 

Australia run a pro-Beĳing line. The 

popular Weibo social media platform 

carries a stream of CCP propaganda. Yet 

most Australians are ignorant of this 

pernicious influence on the Chinese 

diaspora and therefore the body politic. 

The ability of the regime to obtain 

information through platforms like Tik 

Tok compounds the challenge. The 

United Front Work Department 

infiltrates local diaspora communities, 

spreading the CCP message. Just as the 

US Congress has established a select 

committee on China, the Australian 

Parliament should be inquiring into the 

activities that threaten our freedoms 

and security. If the Labor Party thinks 

this is just an issue for the Liberals, it is 

seriously mistaken. 

“Many are part of 

the new orbit 

generation - people 

who move between 

Australia and China. 

They are subject to 

the unrelenting 

propaganda of the 

CCP . . .” 

THE DEEMING SAGA 

On most days that the Australian 

Parliament sits, there is one - 

sometimes two or three - rallies 

on the lawns in front of the building. 

Most parliamentarians are unaware of 

these events, unless they happen to 

wander out the front of the building. I 

would often observe the organisers 

setting up stages, amplifiers, flags and 

banners as I returned from my early 

morning bike ride. Unless the rally was 

covered by the media, most occupants 

of the house remained oblivious to the 

events. Over three decades, I attended a 

handful of rallies, and spoke at a few, 

but most went by largely unnoticed. 

The danger for parliamentarians is that 

someone can easily hold an 

unfavourable sign or banner behind you, 

allowing photographs and film to be 

recorded. Advisers were on guard to 

prevent this occurring, but it could not 

be avoided, as parliamentarians have 

learnt over the years. It was one reason 

that MPs were reluctant to attend the 

rallies. The other reason is that such 

protest rallies are ineffectual. They have 

little sway on public debate, with a few 

exceptions over the years. Protests are 

mainly a rallying-call to supporters of a 

particular cause. 

The main beneficiaries of protests are 

the organisers, who convey activity to 

supporters. Parliamentarians might 

attend if the subject was relevant to 

their own electorate. Apart from 

kindling a feeling of solidarity amongst 

the protesters, little came from the 

rallies. Passion was kindled amongst the 

believers in the cause, but little was ever 

achieved. Worse, if violence broke out, 

the protesters were condemned in the 

media, even if was not caused by them. 

This is increasingly the case for 

conservative groups in recent years. 

These thoughts came to mind as I 

followed the Moira Deeming saga in 

Victoria. Three issues are pertinent. 

First, the rally was hĳacked by a few 

neo-Nazis who understood the publicity 

value of their gestures. That the police 

allowed them anywhere near a rally in 

favour of womenʼs rights and 

freedoms is worrying. But organisers of 

such events, especially conservatives, 

should be aware of the possibility. 

Secondly, the events were stirred-up in 

the media by the Victorian premier who 

brands anyone who doesnʼt share his 

views as hateful. Thirdly, the Victorian 

Liberal leader fell for this narrative 

rather than sensibly rejecting it. Acting 

on unsound advice, he allowed the issue 

to become his own, with disastrous 

consequences once the real facts were 

disclosed. Instead of dismissing the 

premierʼs nonsensical claims, the 

Opposition leader accepted - and 

amplified - them. The State Liberals 

ended up in another round of internal 

warfare. 

A number of lessons can be drawn from 

the sorry saga. First Ms Deeming must 

move from being an activist to a 

parliamentarian. There are many more 

effective means of influencing public 

policy than organising or speaking at 

public rallies. This will disappoint her 

ardent supporters who value activity 

over outcomes, but if she wishes to be 

effective, she needs to assume a new 

role. She could start by helping to 

organise members of the Victorian 

opposition interested in discussing and 

developing policy, something that has 

been missing for decades. However, Ms 

Deeming can be excused as a political 

neophyte. 

Less understandable is the reaction of 

the Liberal leader. It is easy to imagine 

the scenario in the leaderʼs office. Overly 

influential inner-city party members 

who advocate a libertarian agenda, 

especially on social issues, would have 

been on the phone and messaging him 

immediately. Relatively inexperienced 

and junior staff would have reinforced 

the message; and having won the 

leadership by one vote, he decided this 

was the issue on which to stamp his 

24 25

authority. Prudence and judgement are 

invaluable qualities in politics, but they 

went missing. It appears that Mr Pesutto 

did not consult any experienced 

colleagues, just members of his 

leadership group, before making a 

decision. 

How expulsion from the party room 

could ever have been considered is a 

mystery. The irony is that members from 

the left of the party who are amongst the 

first to bemoan that it has a ʻwoman 

problemʼ seem unable or unwilling to 

defend the right of women to identify 

with their biological sex and demand the 

safety of women-only spaces. 

Liberals need to return to the ethos that 

Robert Menzies expressed when he 

founded the party. Freedom of 

association, speech and religion were 

foundational to the new political entity. 

In 1941, President Roosevelt, in 

discussing the things at stake in the 

Second World War, referred to ʻthe four 

freedomsʼ, namely freedom of speech 

and expression, freedom of worship, 

freedom from want and freedom from 

fear. It was a theme that Robert Menzies 

developed in his ʻForgotten Peopleʼ 

broadcasts in 1942. 

In October 1944, the inaugural 

conference of the Liberal Party, held in 

Canberra, adopted a set of principles. 

Amongst them is the statement: ʻWe will 

strive to have a country . . . in which an 

intelligent, free and liberal Australian 

democracy shall be maintained by (b) 

freedom of speech, religion and 

association.ʼ The subsequent November 

1954 platform went a little further, 

containing two objectives pertaining to 

freedom. The thirteenth clause affirmed 

that ʻWe believe in the great human 

freedoms: to worship, to think; to speak; 

to choose, to be ambitious; to be 

independent; to be industrious; to 

acquire skills; to seek and earn reward.ʼ 

The fifteenth stated: ʻWe believe in 

religious and racial tolerance among our 

citizens.ʼ 

It is notable that from the very 

beginnings of the Liberal Party, freedom 

of speech, religion and association have 

been fundamental values. They are 

manifestations of freedom more 

generally which has been diminished in 

the past decades. The assertion of basic 

freedoms by the Liberal Party from its 

inception reflected an international 

movement. 

In Victoria, another young conservative 

parliamentarian was also locked out of 

the Liberal Party caucus last year, not 

because of anything she said or 

believed, but because of the views of her 

father! This rejection was later 

overturned, but it should not have 

occurred. 

Liberals should learn from these 

incidents. Perhaps they could begin by 

reading the ʻForgotten Peopleʼ 

broadcasts. 

CLEANING OUT THE 

AUGEAN STABLES 

This weekend (May 21 & 22) the 

State Council of the Victorian 

Liberal Party meets in Bendigo. 

What a jolly gathering it will be. One 

group of the delegates will be fawning 

over the leadership for the decisive 

handling of the Deeming issue. Another 

will be there with their baseball bats, 

waiting for the opportunity to bash the 

people supposedly running the party. 

Others will be confused, wondering 

how the current farce came about. What 

a fun weekend! 

The ʻthirdsʼ rule is a useful political 

guide. On contentious matters, a third 

will take one position, a third the 

opposite, with a third in the middle, 

trying to divine the direction of the 

political breeze. This is especially so in 

leadership contests. The sycophants 

chant ʻlong live the Kingʼ until a new 

king is installed, when they again chant 

ʻlong live the King!ʼ 

The expulsion of Mrs Deeming, apart 

from being without foundation, reflects 

the precarious position of the Leader of 

the Opposition. A third of the 

Parliamentary party voted against the 

motion to expel her. Another third 

voted for it because of their preference 

to keep the current Leader which could 

dissipate quickly. Others consider the 

current Leaderʼs position untenable and 

are positioning for the future. Why the 

Leader thought this an issue to assert 

his authority defies common sense and 

political experience. 

1,000 people. It will be interesting to 

see whether there is a boycott of the 

meeting by many delegates this 

weekend. 

I have never seen the party in Victoria 

so bereft of common sense, political 

pragmatism and so divided. 

Factionalism is more rife than ever. 

Even State Council, which is the closest 

thing to a gathering of the general rank 

and file members, is more divided on 

factional grounds than ever. The 

ʻwinner takes allʼ is the current 

approach in many state divisions of the 

Liberal Party. As events of recent weeks 

demonstrate, it is a pathway to political 

irrelevancy. The only winners from the 

recent events are the Victorian Premier 

and the Labor Party. 

The expulsion of Mrs Deeming was an 

ideological ʻhitʼ. Deeming had to go 

because her championing of the rights 

of women to have safe spaces and fair 

sporting competition offends the latest 

lefty woke cause, transgenderism, 

which had been endorsed by sections of 

the Liberal Party. The political virtue of 

toleration has been replaced by an 

insistence that the issues the left 

advocate must be supported without 

dissent. John Howardʼs ʻbroad churchʼ 

no longer exists in sections of the 

Victorian Liberal Party. The new 

progressive left of the party no longer 

tolerates conservatives. Not only Moira 

Deeming, but Renee Heath and others, 

are being shown the departure mat. 

About 1,500 people are eligible to 

attend State Council, delegates from 

every branch and state and federal 

electorate conferences in the state. One 

of the three Council meetings each year 

is held in a regional city, usually 

Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo. The 

regional meetings attract fewer 

delegates, usually between 500 and 

Hundreds of thousands of people who 

would normally support the Liberal 

Party have deserted it for other minor 

parties. Many Liberal members have 

declined to renew their membership of 

the Party. 

What is to be done? One option is to 

formalise the factional system, as the 

26 27

Labor Party has practiced for decades. 

It is an approach that former senator 

and Howard government minister Nick 

Minchin advocated, based on his 

experience in South Australia. The 

problem with this approach is that 

factional allegiances in Victoria - and 

New South Wales - are less about 

ideology than personalities. Moreover, 

factions, as John Howard observed, 

have become ʻpreselection 

cooperativesʼ for the political 

careerists. This option is unlikely to 

resolve the problems in Victoria. One 

reason the left is in the ascendancy is 

that the party has lost the support of 

the outer suburban and regional 

electorates necessary to win 

government. Parliamentarians from 

these electorates are much more likely 

to reflect a middle of the road, 

conservative position on most issues. 

The Victorian Liberal Party cannot 

resolve its internal warfare by itself. 

The ruling faction is unwilling to share 

power. Nor are some of its opponents. 

The turmoil in the Parliamentary party 

is a reflection of the divisions in the 

administration of the party. Neither the 

Leader of the Opposition nor the State 

President have demonstrated the ability 

to unite the party. 

division. That should be done, with 

clear instructions to the Administrator 

to implement a modern governance 

structure for the Party that minimises 

the role of factional players. 

Finally, a suggestion for Mrs Deeming. 

The Victorian Liberal Party unwittingly 

has given you an opportunity that most 

parliamentarians struggle to obtain. 

The strength and dignity with which 

you have met the challenges of the past 

couple of months have earnt you the 

support of the quiet Australians. You 

have widespread sympathy. You now 

have a profile and a position to 

proclaim a message like few others. 

Use it wisely. Seek out some astute, 

experienced mentors. Avoid the 

comfortable temptation of speaking 

only about womenʼs rights. Broaden the 

matters you speak about. Indeed, focus 

on other issues for the next few months 

and become a voice for the 

conservative movement generally. You 

have a unique opportunity if you grasp 

it now. 

ENERGY 

MONASH BETRAYED 

As a child growing up in Gippsland, 

I was acutely aware of how 

Australiaʼs prosperity was built on 

the provision of affordable and reliable 

energy. From my parentʼs property on a 

ridge above the Latrobe River, I could 

see in the distance the power station at 

Hazelwood and the paper 

manufacturing plant at Maryvale. I recall 

driving past the great power stations at 

Morwell and Yallourn with my father as 

he transported stock throughout 

Gippsland and to the markets in 

Melbourne. On trips into the mountains 

to the north-east to collect cattle, I 

became aware of the great Snowy 

Mountains scheme that generated 

power for New South Wales and Victoria. 

I was at secondary school in Sale when 

gas and oil were discovered in Bass 

Strait off the Gippsland Coast, providing 

a new source of energy for the state. 

London: “If you seek his monument, 

look around you.” ʻ 

Sadly, Bernard Callinanʼs observation, 

made in 1980, could not be said today. 

A century after Monashʼs great 

achievement, the Latrobe Valleyʼs power 

stations are being closed. Hazelwood 

has gone, Yallourn will follow, as will Loy 

Yang. A few weeks ago, it was 

announced that the paper 

manufacturing plant at Maryvale would 

also close. 

Opened in 1937, the paper mill directly 

employed up to 1,000 people, many of 

them post-war migrants, manufacturing 

600,000 tonnes of paper and cardboard 

annually. Using waste wood from saw 

log operations, the mill also helped to 

reduce the hazards of bushfires and 

regenerate forests. 

Given the divided state of the Victorian 

division, federal intervention is 

justified. The grounds are clear. Clause 

12 of the Liberal Party of Australia 

constitution allows for intervention 

where in the opinion of the Federal 

Executive there are circumstances that 

ʻsubstantially prejudice the ability of 

the Party to effectively campaign or win 

federal seats.ʼ These circumstances 

exist; it is not merely speculative as the 

loss of Kooyong, Higgins, Goldstein 

and Aston indicate. Deakin is held by a 

few hundred votes and the once-safe 

Menzies by a few more! Metropolitan 

Melbourne is a sea of red seats. 

The last state election revealed a 

similar inability to win seats. The events 

of the past few weeks have only 

compounded the challenges. Does 

anybody seriously think the Victorian 

Liberal Party will be in government 

before 2030, if not 2034? 

The Federal constitution provides for 

the appointment of an administrator 

for up to two years to manage a state 

“I have never seen 

the party so bereft of 

commonsense, 

political 

pragmatism and so 

divided. 

Factionalism is 

more rife than 

ever.” 

The development of the Latrobe Valley 

was the work of Sir John Monash. While 

he is rightly celebrated as our greatest 

soldier who significantly turned the 

fortunes of the allies in the Great War, 

his most important achievement in 

Australia was the creation and 

development of the State Electricity 

Commission of Victoria. Ten months 

after his return from Europe, he became 

General Manager of the newly formed 

SEC which was to create an electricity 

supply based on Victoriaʼs brown coal. 

Three months later he became the 

Commissionʼs first full-time Chairman. 

He helped draft the Act which appointed 

him and he oversaw the development of 

the Latrobe Valley until his death in 

1931. 

As another great Australian soldier and 

engineer, Sir Bernard Callinan, wrote, ʻif 

you would seek John Monash, you must 

go to the Latrobe Valley and visualize 

the vital dependence of the whole state 

on the power transmitted from there. 

Then, recall the epitaph to Sir 

Christopher Wren in St Paulʼs Cathedral, 

Writing in 1937, the Forests 

Commission of Victoria noted that ʻthe 

manufacture of wood-pulp is the most 

important form of wood waste 

utilisation, and the advent of this 

industry should prove of immense 

economic value to the State.ʼ 

For more than eight decades, that 

observation was correct. But now a 

failed forestry plan and an unrealistic 

transition to renewal energy has 

destroyed hundreds of millions of 

dollars of investment and more than 

200 jobs in a region already suffering 

from high unemployment. 

It is yet another consequence of the folly 

of State and Federal governments failing 

to secure our energy needs. Not only is 

the Victorian government closing down 

the power plants, it has banned the 

exploration for gas. 

The papermill was one of the businesses 

told to cease operations from time to 

time on very hot days in order to avoid 

widespread blackouts in Victoria. Not 

28 29

that Victorians were told that major 

users of power were paid to temporarily 

close their operations! With the major 

sources of reliable power being shut 

down, the likelihood of power outages is 

likely to increase in coming years. We 

will also pay more to import paper which 

could have been produced in Australia. 

The deindustrialisation of places like the 

Latrobe Valley presents political 

opportunities for conservative parties in 

Australia if they can look beyond the 

inner suburbs. As the LNP demonstrated 

in the last federal election in 

Queensland, care for the mining and 

resources sector and the tens of 

thousands of jobs in it, was rewarded 

electorally. Many of the tradies and 

miners that have been the backbone of 

the Labor vote since the 1980s have 

deserted the party. 

The Liberal Party can attract these voters 

with sensible energy policies. Instead of 

agreeing with every fantastic novel 

proposal, the party needs to start 

indicating that the current plans to close 

our traditional sources of energy before 

reliable and affordable alternatives have 

been developed at the vast scale 

necessary to provide a substitute will 

lead to both higher prices and energy 

shortages. Crafted carefully, this 

message will also appeal to the 

professional women who deserted the 

party for the Teals. 

As a fellow Gippslander, having grown 

up at Traralgon - just a few kilometres 

from my parentʼs home at Rosedale – 

the new Leader of the Opposition in 

Victoria John Pesutto should understand 

the plight of the region and the political 

opportunities it presents. His father, an 

Italian migrant, was an electrician who 

worked at the power stations. His 

mother, also from Calabria, worked as a 

machinist in a shoe factory. 

We only have to look elsewhere in the 

world to realise that the provision of 

affordable and reliable energy is one of 

the most critical issues facing nations. 

China has approved the biggest 

expansion of coal power plants since 

2015 according to a report issued a 

week ago. Since suffering a series of 

blackouts in September 2021 as a 

consequence of coal shortages and a fall 

in hydropower caused by drought, the 

CCP has redoubled its efforts to build 

coal-fired stations, building six-times 

more plants than the rest of the world 

combined. 

Elsewhere, governments are rushing to 

install nuclear power. Canada already 

derives 15 per cent of its power from 

nuclear, and the government owned 

investment bank is pumping $1 billion 

to build more Small Modular Rectors. 

The Biden Administration announced 

last week the offer of another round of 

$1.2 billion to reopen nuclear power 

plants, saying that expanding nuclear 

technology was critical. More than 20 

new nuclear reactors are being installed 

in the UK to ensure a reliable supply of 

power. Across Europe, nuclear power is 

being bolstered. Yet Australia, with its 

vast reserves of uranium, still has its 

head in the sand. 

It is not just a question of keeping the 

lights on. How will we be able to defend 

the nation in our increasingly dangerous 

region if we cannot rely on dependable 

sources of power? 

What would that that great engineer and 

soldier John Monash think of our current 

policies? 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

RISKY BUSINESS 

Doing business in China has just 

become more risky. Changes to 

espionage laws and the imposition 

of bans on people leaving China pose 

increased risks for visitors, including 

professionals, business executives and 

scholars. 

The Xinhau newsagency reported that 

Chinese lawmakers voted a week ago to 

adopt a revised Counter-Espionage Law, 

which will take effect on July 1, 2023. 

The revised law was passed at a session 

of the National People's Congress 

Standing Committee. 

Adopted in November 2014, the current 

Counter-Espionage Law is a special law 

that regulates and safeguards the fight 

against espionage, which plays an 

important role in safeguarding national 

security, said Wang Aili with the 

Legislative Affairs Commission of the 

NPC Standing Committee. 

The law, which previously covered state 

secrets, does not define what falls under 

Chinaʼs national interests. The revised 

law expands the definition of espionage, 

specifying acts such as carrying out 

cyber-attacks against state organs, 

confidential organs or crucial 

information infrastructure as acts of 

espionage. 

It also expands the scope of targets of 

espionage, with all documents, data, 

materials and articles concerning 

national security and interests included 

for protection, Wang said. 

The revised law allows authorities 

carrying out an anti-espionage 

investigation to gain access to data, 

electronic equipment, information on 

personal property and also to ban 

border crossings. 

This includes access mobile phones and 

laptops. 

This vague, wide-ranging extension to 

the laws heightens the risks for 

foreigners in China, especially anyone 

collecting, creating, using or processing 

data – in other words, many providers of 

business services. Normal business 

activities, such as gathering commercial 

information, is potentially caught by the 

laws. 

Even before the passage of the news 

laws, foreign firms have been targeted 

by the CCP. 

The Shanghai office of the global 

management consulting firm Bain & Co 

was raided recently and staff 

interrogated. 

This follows similar actions against 

Deloitte and the Mintz, two other global 

firms. Five Beĳing Chinese employees of 

the Mintz Group, a major legal firm 

involved in corporate analysis, due 

diligence, and corruption investigations, 

were arrested. 

In 2013, a British corporate investigator, 

Peter Humphrey and his American wife, 

who operated ChinaWhys, a risk 

consultancy business, were arrested 

after working for the pharmaceutical 

company GSK. They were evantually 

released after some two years 

imprisonment. 

“I am aware of other, smaller western 

consultancies currently being harassed 

which are not yet in the news,” 

Humphrey wrote after the news of the 

actions against Bain & Co. 

China has also failed to renew 

subscriptions of foreign entities to Wind, 

an information company that provides 

data-bases of corporate registrations, 

patents, procurement documents, as 

well as official statistics. 

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has 

been widening the legal landscape for 

imposing exit bans and is increasing 

30 31

their use against everyone from human 

rights defenders to foreign journalists 

according to a new report by Safeguard 

Defenders 

The report ʻTrapped: Chinaʼs expanding 

use of exit bansʼ deploys official data, an 

examination of new laws and interviews 

with victims to explore how the country 

is increasingly resorting to exit bans to 

punish human rights defenders and 

their families, hold people hostage to 

force targets overseas to come back to 

China, control ethnic-religious groups, 

engage in hostage diplomacy and 

intimidate foreign journalists. 

China has approved new amendments to 

its Counter-espionage Law, that will 

allow exit bans on anyone under 

investigation (Chinese and foreigners) or 

on Chinese nationals if deemed a 

potential national security risk after 

leaving the country. 

Between 2018 and July of this year, no 

less than five new or amended laws 

provide for the use of exit bans, for a 

new total of at least 15 laws. 

“In the absence of transparent official 

data and excluding ethnicity-based exit 

bans, which number in the millions, we 

estimate that at least tens of 

thousands of people in China are 

placed on exit bans at any one time,” 

the organisation reports. 

“Dozens of foreigners are also being 

prevented from leaving China if they 

work for a company that is involved in a 

civil dispute. Deliberately vague wording 

in the Civil Procedure Law means that 

individuals not even connected to the 

dispute can be trapped in China.” 

Irish businessman Richard OʼHalloran 

was barred from leaving China for more 

than three years (2019 to 2022) because 

the company he worked for was involved 

in a commercial dispute, even though he 

wasnʼt even working for the firm when 

the dispute began. 

Another study revealed that 128 

foreigners being banned from leaving 

the country between 1995 and 2019. 

tactic to extract concessions. Often, the 

action is more serious, such as arbitrary 

detention, or sometimes exit bans are 

used in the initial stages. 

In December 2018, two Canadians, 

Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were 

arrested in China in retaliation for the 

arrest of Huaweiʼs chief financial officer, 

Meng Wanzhou, in Canada. 

Kovrig was a former Canadian diplomat 

and advisor for the International Crisis 

Group, and Spavor a consultant working 

on North Korea. They were indicted 

under Chinaʼs vague state secret law. 

When Meng was released after agreeing 

to a deferred prosecution deal relating 

to bank and wire fraud charges in the 

US, the two Michaels were released. 

The reality under the CCP is that 

lawyers, judges and courts are agents of 

the regime. 

In a directive by the Central Committee 

of the CCP, published in February, law 

schools, lawyers and judges were 

instructed to “oppose and resist Western 

erroneous views such as ʻconstitutional 

governmentʼ, ʻseparation of three 

powersʼ and the ʻindependence of the 

judiciaryʼ.” 

Two prominent human rights lawyers, 

Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, were recently 

sentenced to more than a decade in jail 

after being convicted of subversion of 

state power after secret trials. 

Not that trials in China are impartial with 

a conviction rate of over 99 per cent! 

For several years now, the US State 

Departmentʼs travel advisory on China 

has warned that Beĳing uses exit bans to 

“gain bargaining leverage over foreign 

governments.” 

The Australian Department of Foreign 

Affairs merely advises travellers to China 

to “exercise a high degree of caution.” It 

is perhaps time that the advice was 

updated to reflect the increasing risks 

involved in visiting the PRC. - AP 

In some cases, the targeting of 

foreigners is part of Beĳingʼs hostage 

diplomacy, a tit-for-tat retaliation 

aimed at a foreign government or a 

32

POLITY 11(1)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?