Australian Polity, Volume 10 Number 1 & 2

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

AUSTRALIA-JAPAN TIES

STRENGTHENED

XI’S BATTLE FOR ABSOLUTE

CONTROL

READ MORE ON

THE TYRANNY OF DISTANCE

US STANCE ON TAIWAN

PROTECTION AGAINST RELIGIOUS

DISCRIMINATION

Volume 10 Numbers 1 & 2

“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

programme directions.

2 Australian Polity

CONTENTS

Australian Polity - Volume 10, Numbers 1 & 2

4

6

12

15

21

24

27

39

44

EDITORIAL

The importance of policy

JAPAN

Australia-Japan ties strengthened – Peter Dutton

Key election result

EUROPE

Lithuania calls out China

HUMAN RIGHTS

Uyghur tribunal hears of rights abuses

The Olympics and the Uyghurs

SOUTH PACIFIC

The tyranny of distance

USA

US stance on Taiwan

CHINA

Xi’s battle for absolute control

Words mean what I choose them to mean

International rules snubbed

Business ethics exposed

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The protection of people of faith against discrimination – Scott Morrison

INDEX OF FEATURES AUTHORS AND ARTICLES

ISSN 1835-8608

Published by the Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Level 1, 651 Doncaster Road, Doncaster 3108

Printed by MMP, 10 Charnfield Ct, Thomastown 3074

Address for correspondence: Australian Polity, PO Box 124, Doncaster 3019

www.kevinandrews.com.au/australianpolity

The views and opinions expressed herein by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Australian Polity 3

EDITORIAL

THE IMPORTANCE

OF POLICY

/ KEVIN ANDREWS

4 Australian Polity

Editorial credit: Steve Tritton / Shutterstock.com

When this journal was launched in 2008, it

had a relatively small readership in mind: the

members of the Australian Parliamentary

Liberal and National parties. The two parties that

historically have formed a coalition, had just been

defeated at a general election after more than a decade

in government. Experience had shown that policy

discussion and development would be critical to a return

to government in the future.

is beyond doubt. Without such discussions, the polity

is deprived, and political parties languish.

Kevin Andrews.

As the founder of the Liberal Party and Australia’s longest

serving prime minister, Sir Robert Menzies, observed:

‘Opposition must be regarded as a great constructive

period in the life of a party, not a period in the wilderness,

but a period of preparation for the high responsibilities

in which you hope will come.’

Regrettably that sentiment had often been ignored,

especially at a state level. It may be true that governments

tend to lose elections, but without a credible opposition,

they often remain in power for much longer than would

otherwise be the case. The temptation to play the politics

of issues is strong - and a necessary aspect of political

success - but, as Menzies observed, ‘if you get the

policies correct, the politics will follow.’

Developing policy is hard, painstaking work. It requires

widespread consultation, the testing of various

propositions and proposals, and the experience to make

wise and prudent judgements. Not every ‘good idea’ or

proposal from an interest group constitutes good policy.

“Opposition must be

regarded as a great

constructive period in

the life of a party, not a

period in the wilderness,

but a period of

preparation for the high

responsibilities in which

you hope will come.”

Hence the Australian Polity was created with the modest

aspiration of promoting a discussion of policy amongst

policy makers. After a decade of relying on the public

service, it can be a confronting experience for some

Members of Parliament to thoroughly consider the

challenges facing the nation and find workable solutions

to address them. Most Members of Parliament can draft

a short media release or write an even shorter comment

for social media. Some struggle however to craft a longer,

detailed policy proposal.

Since its first publication over a decade ago, the readership

of this journal has grown. To the extent that it has helped

to achieve the aspirations for it is a matter of judgement.

But the continuing need for fora for policy discussions

Australian Polity 5

JAPAN

AUSTRALIA-JAPAN TIES

STRENGTHENED

/ PETER DUTTON

6 Australian Polity

The defence partnership of Australia and Japan

will again level up following the signing of the

Reciprocal Access Agreement by Scott Morrison

and Fumio Kishida. It is a profound moment, one that

Australians and Japanese of a previous generation could

never have imagined. One that our citizens today will see

as another example of the growing strength and special

nature of our bilateral relationship.

The signing of the RAA builds on our partnership and

friendship with Japan – one that is based on shared values

and interests, and on trust and respect. Significantly, it

elevates our bilateral defence relationship with Japan to

a new level. Japan is already one of our closest defence

partners, and with this agreement we are paving the way

for a new chapter of enhanced co-operation.

The purpose of the RAA is straightforward. It’s a treaty

allowing our military forces to operate in each other’s

countries. While Australia and Japan already have

arrangements that facilitate specific joint defence

activities, the RAA vastly broadens the scope of our

defence co-operation. It’s a natural and confident step

forward in defence engagement between the two

countries.

The treaty will enable more frequent and sophisticated

training exercises and operations between the Australian

Defence Force and the Japan Self-Defence Forces,

enhancing interoperability in the process.

signed with another nation.

The ninth 2+2 Foreign and Defence Ministerial

Consultations, held virtually in June last year, reinforced

our nations’ common defence interests and mutual

objectives. Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi and I committed

to increasing the practical defence initiatives of Australia

and Japan, building on the more than 80 already agreed

since 2014. We also pledged to step up bilateral cooperation

in cyber and space capabilities, while nurturing

stronger ties between our defence industrial bases. The

signing of the RAA will support these aims.

Last July, the Japan Self-Defence Forces participated

in the Australia-US Exercise Talisman Sabre. The closing

activity was an amphibious landing in which, for the first

time in history, forces from Australia, Japan, Britain and

the US worked together from the same ship. Japan

and Australia also trained with other partners during

exercises La Perouse, Pacific Vanguard and Malabar

last year. The RAA will help us undertake new joint force

training initiatives.

Growing defence co-operation between Australia and

Japan under our Special Strategic Partnership should

neither come as a surprise nor be viewed in isolation.

This agreement is another step in realising the 2020

Defence Strategic Update and Australia continues to

strengthen defence engagement with international

partners in support of shared regional security interests.

In streamlining administrative processes, the RAA also

speeds up physical force deployment into each other’s

territory. And it will complement new mechanisms for

the Japan Self-Defence Forces to protect the ADF’s

weapons, equipment and assets in situations short of

armed conflict. Although uncomplicated in its intent, the

RAA is nonetheless a complex pact, years in the making.

Provisions have been meticulously drafted to support

the treaty’s practical implementation, reconciling each

country’s laws, administrative systems and international

obligations.

Japan entered a similar status of forces agreement with

the US in 1960 that allows US forces to be stationed in,

and operate from, Japan. Significantly, the RAA with

Australia will be the first reciprocal treaty Japan has

Like-minded nations are taking steps to buttress their

own security, bolster defence co-operation bilaterally

and multilaterally, and build partnerships. They’re raising

defence spending as a percentage of gross domestic

product; coming together for joint exercises to improve

interoperability; undertaking multinational deployments to

uphold freedom of navigation and overflight in the region;

deepening industrial base co-operation; strengthening

collaboration in defence science, technology and

research; and reinforcing commitments to established

and emerging partnerships such as the Association

of Southeast Asian Nations, Five Eyes, the Five Power

Defence Arrangements and the Quadrilateral Security

Dialogue.

Like-minded nations are responding in these ways

Australian Polity 7

because they have been witness to regional military

expansion, a build-up on a scale and at a pace that, in a

historical context, has rarely been seen before. Indeed,

like-minded nations are waking up to difficult truths. That

vigilance is not, in and of itself, a sufficient strategy to

counter coercion. That in times of tension and uncertainty,

peace cannot be maintained from a position of weakness.

And that threats to sovereignty and security demand

action, not indifference.

That is why like-minded nations are not standing still in

the face of precarious circumstances in the Indo-Pacific.

Every defence initiative counts cumulatively towards

deterring aggression, strengthening regional stability

and maintaining peace.

“Like-minded nations are

taking steps to buttress

their own security,

bolster defence

co-operation bilaterally

and multilaterally, and

build partnerships.”

Peter Dutton is the Australian Defence Minister. The

article was first published in The Australian.

8 Australian Polity

JAPAN

KEY ELECTION RESULT

/ KEVIN ANDREWS

Australian Polity 9

The Australian media has been awash with reports

of the significant victory by Republican Glenn

Youngkin over incumbent Democrat Terry

McAuliffe in the poll for the governorship of the American

state of Virginia on November 2. Much has been written

and reported about the result, especially for the prospects

of the Democratic Party at the mid-term elections in

2022. But election results closer to Australia may be of

greater significance for us.

Three days before the Virginia poll, the Japanese voted in

national elections following the resignation of Yoshihide

Suga who had been in office for about a year. Suga, a

replacement for Shinzo Abe - who had served as Prime

Minister for the previous eight years - was suffering

declining popularity linked to Covid and the Olympic

Games. It was expected that the opposition would

perform well, especially after four non-government parties

promoted a common policy platform. The expectation was

that a significant swing against the conservative Liberal

Democratic Party would result in its reliance on pacifist

parties in the Parliament to govern, and a weakening of

Japanese defiance of China and support for Taiwan. But

the swing against the government was limited, with the

LDP winning 261 of the 465 seats, a reduction of just

23. Consequently, Fumio Kishida was confirmed as the

100th Prime Minister of Japan.

The attitude of the Japanese leadership about China and

Taiwan has strengthened this year. In July, the nation’s

longest serving Deputy Prime Minister, Taro Aso, said

that an attack on Taiwan would be an ‘existential threat’

to Japan’s security. ‘If a major incident happened, it’s

safe to say it would be related to a situation threatening

the survival of Japan. If that is the case, Japan and the

US must defend Taiwan together.’

A few weeks earlier, the Deputy Defence Minister, Yasuhide

Nakayama, told a US thinktank that ‘we are not friends of

Taiwan, we are brothers’, adding it was time to ‘protect

Taiwan a democratic country.’ In July, the defence minister,

Kishi Nobuo noted that the deployment of missiles to

Ishigaki, an island closer to Taiwan, could provide a

defence umbrella should China attack.

These statements were followed by the first ever security

dialogue between the LDP and Taiwan’s ruling Democratic

Progressive Party in August at which both parties shared

concerns about China’s aggression and committed to

strengthened cooperation.

Although the new Japanese Prime Minister had been

considered more dovish on foreign policy in the past,

his statements both during the election campaign and

since have revealed a tougher approach to the Chinese

regime. He observed in September that Taiwan was on

the ‘front line’ in the clash between authoritarianism and

democracy. Speaking since his election, Kishida described

Taiwan as ‘a critical partner and important friend’ saying

that ‘we hope to further strengthen co-operation and

exchanges between Japan and Taiwan.’ Significantly, he

has retained Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi, a pro-Taiwan

advocate, and Foreign Minister Motegi Toshimitsu, who

has been working closely with his Taiwanese counterparts

in response to Covid.

Japan, the current chair of the Comprehensive and

Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,

has signalled support for Taiwan’s bid to enter the

arrangement. Taiwan’s ban on Japanese food imports

from the Fukushima region has been a sticking point in

deepening trading relations between the two states,

but the Republic of China Government has considered

lifting the ban which other countries, such as Australia,

do not impose.

Japan has announced that it will authorise a new

National Security Strategy by the end of 2022. Kishida’s

Government is likely also to sign a coast guard cooperation

agreement with Taiwan, as it did with the

US. The Japanese ambassador to Australia, Shingo

Yamagami, has offered his nation’s cooperation with

AUKUS. Similarly, as Foreign Minister, Kishida reached

out to India in 2015 to agree on an Indo-Pacific Vision

2025 which has strengthened relations between the two

nations threatened by China.

Another, little known factor in Fumio Kishida’s openness

to Taiwan is personal. Following the Qing dynasty’s

agreement to cede Formosa to Japan at the conclusion

of the first Sino-Japanese war in 1895, Kishida’s greatgrandfather

moved to the island where he conducted a

business in the coastal city of Keelung, 25 kilometres

north-east of Taipei. The family eventually returned to

10 Australian Polity

Japan. While ruling the island for half a century, the

Japanese built the foundations of modern Taiwan,

including the thriving port of Keelung. The relatively

positive Taiwanese experience of the Japanese has

aided relations in recent decades.

Another recent election in a nation closer to Australia

was also significant. After a three-month constitutional

crisis, the Samoan Supreme Court declared the election

of Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa to be valid,

ending the 22-year reign of the Beijing aligned Tuila’epa

Sa’ilele Malielegaoi.

The new prime minister immediately cancelled a $100

million Chinese financed project to expand the island’s

seaport, saying it exceeded the Pacific Island nation’s

needs and would impose considerable debt on the

country. It was a major setback to China, whose leader Xi

Jinping, had visited Samoa twice. Perhaps the new Prime

Minister had viewed with growing alarm the predicament

neighbouring Tonga has found itself, due to accepting

China’s money.

“Japan, the current

chair of the

Comprehensive and

Progressive Agreement

for the Trans-Pacific

Partnership, has

signalled support for

Taiwan’s bid to enter the

arrangement.”

These developments stand in stark contrast to the bizarre

commentary by former Prime Minister Paul Keating at

the National Press Club recently. Mr Keating argued that

Australia had no interest in supporting Taiwan against

possible military aggression from China. This was the

same man who once said that ‘Asia is just a place you

fly over on your way to Europe.’ Nations like Australia

should always have an interest in defending democratic

states. Should countries like the US and the UK have no

interest in defending another nation of similar population

size to Taiwan, such as Australia if it were subject to

military aggression? There is also the important trading

relationship Australia has with the Republic of China.

In 1974, the then President of China, Deng Xiaoping, told

the United Nations that ‘if one day China . . . should play

the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others

to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people

of the world should . . . expose it, oppose it and work

together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.’ It’s a

statement of which his successor should be reminded.

This article was first published in the Spectator Australia.

Australian Polity 11

EUROPE

LITHUANIA CALLS

OUT CHINA

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


Lithuanians are no strangers to foreign

oppressors and totalitarians. After finally winning

independence at the end of the Great War, they

had barely two decades of self-rule before being invaded

by the Soviets in 1939. The Nazis then overran the

nation in 1941, murdering more than 100,000 Jews

during their occupation, before the Soviets reclaimed

the country. For the next five decades, Lithuania was

under the thumb of the Soviet communists, but the

spirit of the people was never quelled. In 1991, the Baltic

state, the home of just 2.7 million people, proclaimed its

independence, the first Soviet satellite to do so, earning

the wrath – and an economic blockage – from Moscow.

Shortly after, the Soviet Union collapsed.

Today, Lithuania is facing new threats from oppressors.

Last year, the government of Prime Minister Ingrida

Šimonytė withdrew from the ‘17+1’ block of central and

eastern European countries following Parliamentary

approval. Formed with China in 2012, the group fostered

cooperation with Beijing, including Belt and Road

Initiative projects. The Lithuanian Foreign Minister said

the arrangements had brought ‘almost no benefits’ to

the Baltic state after a decade. Not only did Lithuania

withdraw from the block, it upgraded relations with

Taiwan and allowed the Republic of China to establish

an office in Vilnius, attracting the ire of the PRC which

withdrew its ambassador and implemented a de facto

trade embargo. Even a shipment of Lithuanian rum was

blocked, prompting Taiwan to purchase it instead! Taiwan

has also floated $200 million fund to invest in the Baltic

state. The European nation would be consigned to the

‘garbage bin of history’ threatened China.

There are only three strategies in the Beijing playbook:

bully and intimidate; accuse adversaries of doing what

China itself does; and engage in tantrum diplomacy.

All three were on display with Lithuania. Not only did

the PRC block imports from Lithuania, it halted goods

from Europe containing parts made in the Baltic State,

leading to warnings from the EU Trade Commissioner

that Europe would take China to the WTO if the issue

was unresolved. Not that China fears the WTO; it has

flouted the Organisation’s rules ever since its entry

to the body two decades ago and its de facto ban on

Lithuania is outside the normal jurisdiction. But the

warning impressed on China what it fears the most:

concerted action by other nations in defence of an

international rules-based order.

German companies were a specific target of Beijing

bullying. The car parts manufacturer, Continental, was

‘instructed’ to stop using components made in Lithuania.

Europe hit back at China, imposing tariffs on aluminium

exports to the continent. In turn, Taiwan is exploring the

manufacture of semiconductors in Lithuania. Whether the

long-standing accommodation of China by the Merkel

government changes under her successor as Chancellor,

Olaf Scholz, remains to be seen. German reliance on

Chinese trade is significant. In his first phone call with

President Xi, Scholtz spoke about trade and failed to

mention human rights at all. However, the nation’s new

foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, a China-hawk, has

called out the PRC for its human rights record and recently

sent a naval vessel to exercise with the Vietnamese. EU

parliamentarians have criticised China’s human rights

record and an increasing number are supportive of

Taiwan. At the heart of the EU is a commitment to the

unity of the union and internal free trade – a factor Beijing

seems to have underestimated. Senior French officials

said they would push for EU action against China. The

annual EU-China summit was postponed. The Lithuanian

vice- Foreign Minister stated, ‘what we decide to do, by

calling Taiwan, is up to Lithuania, not Beijing.’.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reinforced the

need for international unity against Xi’s war on the world.

Better known as the ‘warrior of woke’, Trudeau nonetheless

spelt out a truism of the new geopolitical realm: “We’ve

been competing, and China has been from time to time

very cleverly playing us off each other in an open-market,

competitive way. We need to do a better job of working

together and standing strong so that China can’t play

the angles and divide us one against the other.” Trudeau

backed up his sentiments by sending a Canadian naval

vessel to the China Sea.

Regrettably, the strategic reality is still falling on deaf

ears in much of the financial and business community

which cling to an outdated notion that China is some

version of a free, capitalist market in which investments

will remain safe and secure under the benign guidance

of the CCP. Exhibit number one is the head of the world’s

largest hedge fund, Ray Dalio. Asked a question about


the disappearance of dissidents, Dalio compared China

to a ‘strict parent’. Facing an avalanche of criticism, Dalio

backtracked, insisting that he had ‘sloppily answered a

question about China’ and that he was simply attempting

to explain Confucian ideas about family!

Often business leaders back down to threats from China.

The Chief Executive of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, sparked

criticism in China when he joked that both the CCP and

the firm were celebrating their centenary, adding ‘I’d

make a bet that we would last longer’. On cue came the

faux outrage of the then editor of the Global Times, Hu

Xijin, who barked ‘think long term! And I bet the CCP will

outlast the USA.’

Kowtowing to China by business has become common

place. Apple CEO Tim Cook agreed to pay China $275

billion to ensure the company met the country’s business

regulations. Apple also gave the Chinese authorities full

access to data on its customers in the country, something

it would not even do to assist the FBI investigate a

terrorism incident in 2016. Apple has also been accused

of sourcing materials from businesses using slave labor.

Well-known fashion brands have refused to disclose the

supply chains of their merchandise even where slave

labor is suspected. Zara and Hugo Boss backtracked

from statements distancing the brands from cotton from

Xinjiang. Intel apologised to the CCP for asking suppliers

to avoid sourcing goods from Xinjiang after threatened

boycotts of the company’s products. Other firms, such

as Walmart, which has 434 Walmart and Sam’s Club

stores in China, was accused of ‘stupidity and shortsightedness’

by the Chinese authorities after removing

items sourced from Xinjiang. Even Amazon is reported

to have agreed not to allow any rating under five stars

for comments on Xi Jinping’s books!

Increasingly, western countries are enacting laws that

will force companies to comply with international norms.

The US Congress passed legislation that will ban goods

from Xinjiang unless companies can prove they were not

made with forced labor. Legislators are also becoming

more assertive. Senator Marco Rubio alleged that the

consultancy giant, McKinsey & Co, had repeatedly lied

to him and his staff about their involvement with the

Chinese government.


“There are only three strategies in the

Beijing playbook: bully and intimidate;

accuse adversaries of doing what China

itself does; and engage in tantrum

diplomacy. ”


HUMAN RIGHTS

UYGHUR TRIBUNAL HEARS

OF RIGHTS ABUSES

/ KEVIN ANDREWS

Editorial credit: The Road Provides / Shutterstock.com Australian Polity 15

An independent inquiry into the persecution of

the Uyghurs in the Chinese province of Xinjiang

concluded in London in September 2021 after

eight days of sittings, hearing from more than 70 witnesses

and reading from 500 witness statements. Chaired by Sir

Geoffrey Nice QC, who prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic

before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former

Yugoslavia, the Uighur Tribunal has compiled the most

extensive data base on the issue. It is due to hand down

its judgement in December.

The reaction from the Chinese Communist Party was

predictable. Sir Geoffrey, who is a prominent human

rights defender, was described absurdly by CCP officials

as a ‘notorious human rights abuser and a British spy’.

Nice is one of several leading critics of the Chinese

regime to have been sanctioned by the CCP, including

parliamentarians, Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Lord David

Alton. IDS, as Smith is known, described the sanction as

a badge of honour.

Despite the bellicose rhetoric of the CCP, and its assertions

that the million people in concentration camps are being

educated voluntarily, it ignored multiple invitations to

present its case. Most damaging for the CCP is the

documentary evidence that links Xi Jinping directly to

the repression. Even if the camps were closed, China

has created a massive electronic surveillance network

across Xinjiang utilising facial and voice recognition,

monitoring every movement of people’s lives outside

their homes. Phone calls and text messages are recorded

by the state, as are downloads to mobile phones. The

contents are analysed using sophisticated algorithms.

Artificial intelligence and biometric data are used to track

the movements of 15 million people. People who switch

off their phones or leave them at home are tracked and

interrogated. Family members of diaspora groups who

criticise the regime from overseas are threatened, jailed

or paraded on state television to denounce their relatives.

Just as it is doing in Tibet and Inner Mongolia, the CCP

is enforcing a policy to eliminate the local language and

culture.

The conclusion of the Tribunal’s hearings comes at the

same time as Xi Jinping reiterated his assertion that

human rights are not universal. Foreign Minister Wang

Yi had previously told the UN Human Rights Council

that concepts of ‘peace, development, equity, justice,

democracy and freedom’ could not be universally

interpreted.

In an article in the People’s Daily on the ‘Study of Xi Jinping’s

Thoughts on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’,

the President responded to the question: ‘Why should

we take a clear stand against the so-called “universal

values” of the West?’ The doctrinaire Xi repudiated

the values of freedom, democracy and human rights,

asserting they created an ideological fog. Applying his

strict Marxist-Leninist ideology, he argued these values

were instrumental in demolishing feudal autocracy but

are now just tools for maintaining the rule of capital.

Tellingly, he worries about how these values were used

to dismantle the Soviet Union and employed in the Arab

Spring and how they could be used to overthrow the

CCP! No wonder other totalitarian regimes, including

most Islamic autocracies, have sided with China over

the treatment of its Muslim population. In 2019, the

Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, representing 57

member states, commended ‘the efforts of the People’s

Republic of China in providing care for its Muslim citizens’.

Statements by such well-known citadels of freedom

and democracy – Cuba and Belarus – to the UN General

Assembly in 2020 and the UN Human Rights Council in

2021, commending China’s actions were supported by

Islamic autocracies. The latter statement was breathlessly

reported in the CCP mouthpiece the Global Times as

evidence of ‘the truth about Xinjiang’ as opposed to

‘rumours and lies made by the anti-China campaign’.

Xi’s increasing insistence on ideological purity – in schools

and universities, even in kindergartens, as well as public

and now private enterprises – should be a warning to the

West, including those who believe investment in China is

the same as buying shares at home. In addition to rejecting

universal values, the CCP has also proclaimed that Xi

Jinping’s ‘Thought on the Rule of Law’ is the central tenet

of the law itself. In a new five-year directive, the Central

Committee of the CCP and the State Council stated that

‘Party committees and governments at all levels should

study and understand Xi Jinping thought on the rule of

law to implement the whole process and all aspects of

the construction of the rule of law’. Xi Jinping ‘Thought’

is now infused into almost every aspect of Chinese life.


Even the religious institutions that are permitted to operate

under state licence are instructed to display photos of

Xi, sing patriotic songs and pray for the ‘martyrs of the

Red Army’ in temples and churches.

Some observers are now suggesting that Xi’s crackdown

on all aspects of society, including global private

enterprises, is the imposition of a ‘Cultural Revolution

2.1’. The circumstances of Mao Zedong’s Great Proletarian

Cultural Revolution which he launched in 1966, leading to

the deaths of at least a million people, and Xi’s ‘profound

revolution’ differ greatly, but there is one common feature.

The programs of both Mao and Xi are centred on the

accretion of personal power. There is a ‘Xi Jinping Thought’

on almost every aspect of Chinese life, including the

construction of public toilets! If the CCP is becoming

nervous about the growing rejection of its policies, it

can blame Xi for his aggression.

Which brings us to the welcome announcement of a

new agreement between the US, UK and Australia. We

can only hope it is neither too late nor subverted by

vested interests. If Australia’s sovereignty and security

is seriously threatened in the future, a great deal of the

blame can be directed at parochial provincial politics

that distorted Australia’s national interest for more than

a decade. The government should seriously consider

leasing Los Angeles or Virginia Class submarines, the

secondment of Australian submariners and technicians

to the US fleet and a hybrid build to reduce the time frame

and costs to deliver the new vessels as soon as possible.


“If the CCP is becoming

nervous about the

growing rejection of its

policies, it can blame Xi

for his aggression.”


HUMAN RIGHTS

THE OLYMPICS AND

THE UYGHURS

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


Editorial credit: Phil Pasquini / Shutterstock.com

Guess which country is a gold medallist for Olympic

boycotts. Surely not the country that claimed

recently a diplomatic boycott to be a ‘political

manipulation and a grave distortion of the Olympic

Charter.’ If you guessed China, you would be correct. The

PRC boycotted the Olympics in Melbourne in 1956, Tokyo

in 1964, Montreal in 1976 and Moscow in 1980. These

were full boycotts, not simply the diplomatic boycotts

imposed by the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, New Zealand

and Lithuania to date on the Beijing Winter games. Others

may follow: last July the European Parliament passed a

resolution urging EU leaders to ‘refuse the invitation of

government officials and diplomats to attend the Beijing

2022 Winter Olympics.’

At first, the Chinese Communist Party was dismissive of

the action which had already been foreshadowed when

some 20 nations declined the sign the traditional Olympic

truce. Foreign dignitaries weren’t invited was the official

line. ‘Whether they come or not, nobody cares,’ said CCP

Foreign Ministry spokesman, Wang Wenbin. But when

the decisions were announced, the CCP propaganda

swung to its usual high dungeon: the West would pay

for this snub.

True to form, the International Olympic Committee fell in

behind the CCP. The Olympics are about human flourishing

according to the IOC. Tell that to the millions of Uyghurs,

Tibetans, Hong Kongers and others suffering from the

CCP’s brutal activities.

The IOC is conflicted, if not compromised, over China.

Even the uniforms worn by the IOC members and

administrators for both the Tokyo and Beijing Olympics

are supplied by the Hengyuanxiang Group, which has a

textiles factory in Xinjiang where the use of Uyghur slave

labor is common.

Five years ago, the CCP and the IOC were involved in

the closure of the UN Office on Sport for Development

and Peace, giving more power to each. The UN itself is

highly conflicted. An employee, Emma Reilly recently

accused the Commission for Human Rights of sharing

names of dissidents with the Chinese authorities, who

then arrest them and place them in detention camps.

‘China wants to make sure that the Uyghur genocide is

never discussed anywhere in the UN,’ she said.

The IOC’s reaction to the ‘disappearance’ of the tennis

star, Peng Shuai, is telling. ‘Nothing to see here,’ is the

message from the Olympics body after a staged video

call between IOC president Thomas Bach and Peng. It

is most unlikely that Peng organised the call. A Chinese

IOC member, Li Lingwei, was also on the call, but all that

has emerged is a photo of Peng talking to Bach. There

was no transcript. It has also emerged that another call

was also held, but again the details are vague.

The attitude of the IOC stands in stark contrast to the

Women’s Tennis Association Tour, whose CEO, Steve

Simon, led the global concerns about Peng. Despite

repeated attempts to contact Peng, the WTA remains

unable to connect. Based on a likely choreographed

call to the IOC, the world is expected to believe Peng is

safe. In contrast to the IOC, the WTA has announced it

will suspend tournaments in China.

As these events were occurring, the independent China

Tribunal issued a devastating report on the plight of

the Uyghurs after a year-long investigation. Chaired by

the war crimes prosecutor, Sir Geoffrey Nice, the panel

concluded that China has committed genocide against

the Uyghurs. The panel was ‘satisfied that President Xi

Jinping, Chen Quanguo and other very senior officials

in the PRC and CCP bear primary responsibility for acts

in Xinjiang.’ The tribunal accepted evidence of torture,

mass internments, forcible transfer of Uyghur children to

state-run facilities, and a mass birth-prevention strategy.

China had undertaken a ‘deliberate, systematic and

concerted policy’ to bring about the ‘long-term reduction

of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations.’ While

acknowledging that there was “no evidence of mass

killings” in Xinjiang yet, Sir Geoffrey said that the efforts

to prevent births amounted to genocidal intent.

Many of the same practices have been deployed in

Tibet, where some 800,000 children have been housed

in state-run institutions. Chinese language and culture

are prioritised over Tibetan in a deliberate policy to wipeout

the local culture.

The Tribunal’s recent report followed previous findings

of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falan Gong

practitioners and Uyghurs had been proven beyond

reasonable doubt.


The direct reference to the role of Xi Jinping is significant.

Leaked documents reveal that the Chinese President

tied economic prosperity, including his Belt and Road

Initiative, and national security directly to punishing the

Uyghurs. In another of the documents, many marked ‘top

secret’, the CCP Secretary of Xinjiang, Chen Quanguo,

commands officials to ‘round up all who should be

rounded up’ and stressed that the detention camps

would operate for a very long time. Xi ordered changes

to family planning policies that the Tribunal found to have

involved a genocidal intent.

It is no longer credible for nations - and international

organisations such as the IOC - to ignore what is happening

in China under the direction of Xi Jinping.

Fortunately, the CCP is being called out for its behaviour,

despite its laughable claims to being a rules-based

democracy. Indeed, the Chinese regime has become

increasingly twitchy about President Biden’s democracy

summit, not having understood that the propaganda that

it can force feed the people of China is contested – often

ridiculed – in the outside world.

Complaints have been filed in Europe against a number

of clothing and footwear manufacturers alleging the use

of slave labor. Magnitsky-style legislation to sanction

human rights abusers has been passed in a number of

countries, including Australia recently. The US House of

Representatives passed by a vote of 428-1 the Uyghur

Forced Labor Prevention Act. A similar measure had

already been approved by the Senate.

TUNING OUT OF CHINA

Despite all the hype in Beijing, millions of

people tuned out of the Winter Olympics.

Just 16 million viewers in the US watched

the opening ceremony, down from the next

lowest of 20.1 million for Calgary in 1988,

and a 43% decline from the 2018 Games in

South Korea.

The ceremony, watched by dictators Xi

Jingping and Vladimir Putin, was designed

to showcase China’s technological progress.

The CCP even had an ethnic Uighur as one

of the final touch bearers, presumably to

counter the widespread claims about the

‘genocide games’.

With so much of the presentation as artificial

as the snow and ice, the Games were a costly

outlay for the many television advertisers

which expected significantly more viewers.

The latest iteration of ‘Xi’s Thought’ on everything is the

publication in many Chinese newspapers recently of

‘Selected Statements from Xi Jinping on the Respect

and Protection of Human Rights.’ Irony has never been

the strength of totalitarians, but the anthology could be a

useful tool for continuing to document the CCP’s record

of doing the opposite to what it proclaims.



SOUTH PACIFIC

THE TYRANNY OF

DISTANCE

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


Geoffrey Blainey’s famous reference to ‘the tyranny

of distance’ – the title of his 1966 history - may

resonate less today than it did with previous

generations of Australians. In a world of increasingly

rapid international transport and almost instantaneous

communications, the sense of isolation has markedly

decreased in recent decades, although covid travel

restrictions resurrected an historical consciousness of

remoteness.

trade routes. Any substantial interference to that stability

is a threat to our security and prosperity.

Recent events suggest that stability is being challenged.

While ongoing terrorism cannot be underestimated, and

ethnic conflicts will continue to simmer in various places,

the major threat is from China which has been pushing its

influence in Australia’s Pacific neighbourhood - in Tonga,

Samoa, Fiji, the Solomons Kiribati and PNG.

Reflecting on the significant changes wrought by World

War II, Blainey wrote of the Indo Pacific neighbourhood:

‘The new Asian nations had more vigorous nationalism

and far more acute social and economic problems than

the average European nation. Australia, after existing in

secure isolation for more than a century, had drifted into

a new orbit of dangers and uncertainties.’ The war proved

that isolation exposed vulnerabilities. The Japanese

naval commander, Admiral Yamamoto’s plans to cut off

Australia’s communications and supplies from the US by

establishing control of the South Pacific were never fully

realised, but his forces inflicted severe damage, sinking

the American fleet at Pearl Harbour and establishing a

perimeter from PNG across the ocean. He was driven

back in the Coral Sea. If his plans to control the Pacific

Islands had succeeded, Australia would have been left

in an even more dangerous predicament. The Japanese

forces were driven from the region by the allies, but

the ‘new orbit of dangers and uncertainties’, of which

Blainey wrote has been our reality ever since: conflicts

in Korea, Malaya, Vietnam and Timor Leste; unrest in

Myanmar, Bougainville, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, West

Papua, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Remarkably, Australia put aside old enmities towards

the Japanese people, and established a strong trading

relationship within 15 years of the war. While animosity

lingered for those who had suffered at the hands of

their former enemy, Australia was blessed by post-war

governments which strove to meet the challenges of

a new reality. Our growing personal engagement with

Asia, something that Blainey was unable to observe in

the early 1960s, was built on migration and enhanced

by tourism. Despite this, the geographic reality of the

Pacific remains the same today as it was in the 1940s:

Australia is an isolated continent, significantly dependent

on a peaceful, harmonious region and critical maritime

Tonga fell under the influence of China when taking loans

to rebuild the capital Nuku’alofa, after riots had destroyed

much of it in November 2006. Since then, the Chinese

Communist Party has feted the islanders, offering many

sweeteners to the locals, including training its Olympic

athletes. The Kingdom is one of the largest Chinese

debtors in the region – some two-thirds of the nation’s

debt is owed to China. It had to ask for a restructure of

the loans in 2020 and stands exposed to making further

concessions to the CCP.

By ‘assisting’ Pacific nations to rebuild after regular natural

disasters, China has infiltrated the region. In December,

the envoys of Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, the Federated States

of Micronesia, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to China

attended the launching ceremony of the China-Pacific

Island Countries Reserve of Emergency Supplies program

in Guangzhou.

Some nations, having observed Tonga’s predicament,

have grown wary of China. The new prime minister of

Samoa cancelled $100 million Chinese-financed project

to expand the island’s seaport after defeating the Beijingaligned

former government.

Concerns have also been raised in Fiji which faces an

election at the end of 2022.The current prime minister,

Frank Baiimarama was courted China following his

military coup in 2006, offering funding through the China-

Pacific Economic and Co-operation Forum. An incident

in October 2021, in which Chinese diplomats gate crashed

a Taiwanese National Day reception in Suva, intimidating

guests and bashing a Taiwanese official, was covered up

by the Fijian government. The revelation of the incident,

which expands the meaning of ‘wolf warrior’, has provided

fuel for opposition leader Sitiveni Rabuka’s campaign

against over-reliance of Beijing.


A week ago, The US Indo-Pacific coordinator, Kurt

Campbell, said the US had not done enough to assist

the region. ‘If you look and if you ask me, where are the

places where we are most likely to see certain kinds of

strategic surprise – basing or certain kinds of agreements

or arrangements – it may well be in the Pacific,’ he said in

what many understood as a reference to Chinese plans

to upgrade an airstrip on one of the islands of Kiribati.

Closer to Australia, pressures in the Solomon Islands

have been exacerbated by tensions arising from the

current government’s ties with China. Ongoing civil

unrest in Honiara arises from both economic issues and

the government of Prime Minister Manesseh Sogavare

to end diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favour of China

in 2019. Both AFP and ADF personnel were deployed

to the Solomons in November following civil unrest in

the capital. Payments from a Chinese fund to MPs were

used to secure votes for the embattled prime minister.

More recently, Chinese police have been invited to train

members of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force.

control the sea lanes of the Pacific will become a reality

under the domination of the repressive Chinese regime.


“China…has been

pushing its influence

in Australia’s Pacific

neighbourhood.”

The CCP has also wooed PNG, proposing a major city,

port infrastructure and a fisheries hub on Daru Island in

the Torres Strait, north of Cape York. The scheme did

not eventuate, but other proposals have been floated

occasionally.

China is entitled to pursue investment opportunities

globally, but its pattern of behaviour suggests mixed

motives. Ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Africa

involve not only economic investments, but strategic

opportunities. Chine has invested more than $1.3 trillion in

42 Commonwealth states alone since 2005. The existence

of ‘toxic’ clauses in BRI contracts, such as occurred

with Uganda’s Entebbe airport, illustrates the predatory

nature of these agreements. Given the convergence

of the economic and the military interests of the CCP,

an otherwise benign investment always carries longer

term dangers.

Australia has responded with the South Pacific stepup

– a necessary programme given the new strategic

competition in our backyard. The funding of Digicel to

provide a communications network in the South Pacific is

both sensible and strategic. But Australia and New Zealand

must do more. Otherwise, Admiral Yamamoto’s plan to


USA

US STANCE ON

TAIWAN

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


The recent US-China dialogue between Presidents

Biden and Xi produced a flurry of confusing

interpretations by commentators and the media.

The BBC, for example, chose both a pro-US and a pro-

China stance. The Corporation first headlined its report

‘US says opposed to “unilateral effort” to change Taiwan’

stating ‘US president Joe Biden had told his Chinese

counterpart Xi Jinping that the US is strongly opposed to

“unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine

peace across Taiwan.’ A few hours later, the headline was

changed to ‘China warns US about “playing with fire” on

Taiwan’ and the story rewritten.

The confusion arises partially from the different

understandings attached to the words and phrases

used by the respective leaders. The day after the virtual

summit, President Biden said, ‘Taiwan makes its own

decisions’ and that it is ‘independent’, but later asserted

that ‘we are not encouraging independence’ and that US

policy remains unchanged. ‘We are not going to change

our policy at all,’ said Mr Biden. ‘We are encouraging them

to do exactly what the Taiwan [Relations] Act requires.’

While the US recognises the People’s Republic of China as

‘China’, it does not declare Taiwan as part of China. The PRC

insists that Taiwan is part of the PRC, but Taiwan rejects

this assertion. In January 2020, Taiwanese President

Tsai Ing-wen was clear: ‘We are an independent country

already and we call ourselves the Republic of China,

Taiwan.’ The Taiwanese government has not proposed

any constitutional change or formal legal declaration of

independence. In her National Day address President Tsai

reiterated four commitments: that Taiwan will adhere to

a free and democratic constitutional system; that the

Republic of China and the PRC are not subordinate to each

other; that Taiwan will resist annexation or encroachment

upon its sovereignty; and the Republic’s future must be

decided in accordance with the will of the people.

President Biden reflects the continuing US view of his

nation’s ‘one China policy.’ But Beijing assets a ‘one China

principle’, in the face of 70 years of reality. As former British

Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said ‘China needs to realise

that Western countries don’t view the self-ruled island

of Taiwan in a similar way to the semi-autonomous city

of Hong Kong. . . . They have to understand that Taiwan

is not the same as Hong Kong.’

There is a current discussion amongst strategic policy

wonks about whether the US is moving from a concept of

‘strategic ambiguity’ to ‘strategic clarity’ about its stance

on Taiwan. The former describes a position in which

the US refuses to state if Taiwan has sovereignty and

whether it would use military force to defend the island.

The latter involves a declaration of Taiwanese sovereignty

and a preparedness to come to the aid militarily of the

Republic. In between is a notion of ‘strategic denial’ - a

position that the US and its allies will defend Taiwan

without proclaiming its sovereignty.

Recent comments suggest that the West has adopted

the concept of ‘strategic denial’. When asked at a town

hall meeting in October, President Biden said the US

would defend Taiwan against any unilateral attempt to

change the status quo. During the virtual summit, Mr

Biden reminded President Xi that as a Senator, he had

voted to support Taiwan’s self-defence. Secretary of

State, Antony Blinken, said recently that allied nations

would be prepared to ‘take action’ if China uses force

against Taiwan. More recently, Defence Minister, Peter

Dutton, said it was ‘inconceivable’ that Australia would

not participate in any US military action, prompting the

usual bellicose rhetoric from China.

The Biden administration has also rejected a list of 16

‘erroneous’ US policies towards China. The list, like the

14 grievances that China issued against Australia, was

handed to Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy R. Sherman,

by Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, during a meeting in

Tianjin in July. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson,

Zhou Lijian, told the media the following day that the US

must refrain from criticising Chinese communism, stating

that this was one of three ‘bottom lines’.

‘The first is that the US must not challenge, slander or

even attempt to subvert the path and system of socialism

with Chinese characteristics,’ he said. Secondly, the US

should not attempt to disrupt Chinese development.

Thirdly, it should not challenge China’s sovereignty or

territorial integrity. This list also contained grievances

levelled against Australia, including identifying China

as the source of Covid-19; criticising its human rights

record; and objecting to its actions in Hong Kong. It

also demanded that sanctions and visa restrictions on

Chinese officials be lifted.


Increasingly, the world is standing up to China’s aggressive,

intimidatory behaviour. Responding to the latest threats,

Peter Dutton said ‘we are not going to be bullied.’ China’s

propaganda claim to the China Sea, based on one old

dubious chart, is widely rejected. Indeed, the International

Court of Arbitration found that China had no historical

claim over the South China Sea. Notably, the CCP uses

de facto occupation to insist on de jure rights – except in

the case of Taiwan! Similarly, the claim to Taiwan, based

in Mao’s 1949 propaganda has little support.

“The PRC is engaged

currently in disputes

with 17 surrounding

nations.”

There are hundreds of Chinese militia vessels patrolling

disputed artificial reefs and islands in the South China

Sea such as a Spratly Islands. These so-called ‘fishing

vessels’ are deployed in ‘grey zone’ tactics against other

nations. Satellite imagery shows hundreds of vessels

anchored around disputed reefs and islands in the region.

Both the Spratly and the Paracel archipelagos have been

claimed by Vietnam since at least the 15th century when

the Nguyen Dynasty collected taxes on ships passing

through the islands. Vietnam has built modern facilities

on the Spratlys including schools for the children who

live there. In the 1890s the Chinese government refused

to pay compensation for a ship incident in the Paracels,

claiming it was not its territory.

The PRC is engaged currently in disputes with 17

surrounding nations. The maritime disputes involve

Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia,

Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Brunei, and even North

Korea. It has land disputes with another seven nations:

India, Nepal, Bhutan, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Tibet.

President Xi’s assertion to Mr Biden that China has never

taken one inch of land is preposterous.



CHINA

XI’S BATTLE FOR

ABSOLUTE CONTROL

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


Following the 1984 Sino British Joint Declaration

about Hong Kong, an increasing number of

residents of the island moved to Australia, many

of them settling in my electorate of Menzies in the

Eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Over the years, they were

joined by immigrants from Taiwan, and more recently,

the Chinese mainland. Others purchased houses in

the area for investment. Interestingly, some houses

were never occupied or rented, remaining a passive

investment. I found this rather strange until I realised

that the Chinese property market worked differently to

the Australian market. Whereas our superannuation and

savings schemes, together with the pension, provide for

retirement, this is not the case in China. Instead, many

Chinese invest in property developments, even if the

buildings remain unoccupied. Entire high-rise towers,

indeed, whole cities, across parts of China are virtually

ghost towns. The resulting property bubble, financed by

enormous debt, has been growing for years. In cities like

Beijing, apartment prices are 50 times average annual

income. Real estate loans account for close to 30 per

cent of the nation’s outstanding loans and private debtto-GDP

ratio is 220 per cent. Like all Ponzi schemes, it

risks an inevitable implosion.

This is the story of Evergrande, the huge Chinese property

developer, which has as many as 1.6 million unfinished

apartments and billions of dollars of debt on which it

has defaulted on interest payments. The debt crisis

is not confined to property developers. Huarong, the

state-run financial conglomerate is also facing serious

liquidity issues, as are many other institutions. Given the

impact a collapse would have, the government is likely to

intervene, using the People’s Bank of China to transfer

debt to other entities, including local governments which

are also heavily indebted.

Together with the CCP’s regulatory crackdown on the

private sector under Xi Jinping’s ‘common prosperity’

rubric, investing in China is becoming increasingly fraught.

Major investors are warning of the risks. The Japanese

government, which is strengthening defences near Taiwan

and warning the CCP about its aggression, is also taking

significant economic measures including subsidising the

move of Japanese companies from China and blocking

the PRCs entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive

Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Recently,

the Japanese Government Pension Investment Fund

stated it will not invest in Chinese government bonds.

Concurrently, China is suffering a major energy crisis,

with manufacturing heavily hit. Paradoxically, Xi Jinping’s

determination to punish nations which question his

regime, such as blocking Australian coal imports, are

having a serious impact in China, with households

suffering electricity shortages and industrial output cut

- leading to an easing of the ban. Instead of kowtowing

to CCP bullying, many nations are now standing up to

the Chinese regime.

The recent Chinese incursions over Taiwan’s ADIZ have

led to suggestions that the CCP is about to launch an

offensive on the island. The Chinese planes have been

breaching the zone at the furthest point from Taiwan,

not the Republic’s territorial boundaries.

Such breaches appear to follow events which anger

Beijing, suggesting that they are further warnings in

Xi’s psychological war against Taiwan rather than a

notice of imminent conflict. Last week Xi moderated

his previously aggressive rhetoric. Instead of swallowing

China’s propaganda, the West needs to better understand

the opaque workings of the CCP.

Former US Speaker Tip O’Neil’s quip that ‘all politics is

local’ applies to China. As part of Xi’s ruthless rise, his

ongoing quest is to displace the influence of the powerful

factions surrounding his predecessors, Hu Jintao and

Jiang Zemin.

Just as Xi used his anti-corruption campaign to remove

members of rival factions, both in the CCP and the PLA,

he is deploying his ‘common prosperity’ framework to

target influential and popular supporters of his rivals,

such as Alibaba founder, Jack Ma, and the movie star,

Zhou Wei.

Xi’s battle for absolute control of the CCP is far from over.

Recently, he warned the PLA, some senior members of

which are concerned about his ‘wolf warrior’ rhetoric

and their ability to prevail in a military conflict, that ‘the

Party commands the gun’. He also replaced several

senior military commanders with officers close to him.


Xi’s assertion that there is ‘no Iron Cap Prince that cannot

be punished’ - an allusion to the powerful princes of the

Qing dynasty - was seen also as a thinly veiled threat to

his prominent political rivals.

The CCP’s threat to Taiwan is real, but Xi’s immediate

goal is to achieve total power internally. His rhetoric is

directed at the Chinese people and members of the

CCP in the lead-up to the 20th National Party Congress

in 2022 where he aims to obtain another five-year term

as General Secretary.

The medium-term threat to Taiwan and the international

rules-based order is why other nations must use this

critical time to build formal and informal alliances and to

strengthen their defences. There is no time for wishful

thinking, sentimentality, or lack of preparedness.

States of America has been focusing a lot on itself and

has strategic interests that are being redirected towards

China and the Pacific”, and “it would also be naïve of

us – or rather, we’d be making a terrible mistake – if we

didn’t seek to learn lessons from it and act accordingly.

And so it’s with the same pragmatism, the same clearsightedness

about our independence, that we must, as

Europeans, play our part in our own protection.’

Oui monsieur le président. Just as France should protect

its sovereignty and seek the optimal means for peace and

stability in Europe, so must Australia in the Indo-Pacific.


Hence AUKUS. The French expressed outrage about

the submarine decision, complaining that they had been

betrayed by Australia. They were supported by Malcolm

Turnbull and Kevin Rudd who attacked the decision in

Le Monde, despite the revelation that Australia had not

signed on to the next phase of the submarine project,

expressly stating so. The French Naval group has been

on notice for a long time that the arrangement was

increasingly problematic.

Contrast the reaction by the French to AUKUS to another

statement by a world leader: ‘[People] must get over their

naivety. When we’re under pressure from powers that are

sometimes becoming harsher, to react and show that we

too have the power and capacity to defend ourselves

doesn’t mean giving in to escalation, it merely means

ensuring we’re respected…we must, as [People] play

our part in our own protection.’

Was that the Australian, Japanese or Indian PM, asserting

the reality of their responsibility to defend their national

interests? No, replace the word [people] with [Europeans].

The statement was made by the President of France,

Emmanuel Macron, who was outlining French interests

in announcing a ‘Strategic Partnership for Cooperation

in Defence and Security’ including a deal to build naval

ships for Greece in their conflict with Turkey.

Macron added, ‘for just over 10 years now, the United


CHINA

WORDS MEAN WHAT I CHOOSE

THEM TO MEAN

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


Humpty Dumpty’s reflection in Lewis Carroll’s

Through the Looking Glass that words mean

what you chose them to mean clearly applies

to the Chinese Communist Party. Having previously

informed the world that freedom, democracy, and human

rights are not universal values, Xi Jinping’s regime now

insists that democracy ‘with Chinese characteristics’

contains none of the principles that constitute it. This

should be the final confirmation, if still required, that the

CCP is a totalitarian regime dedicated to preserving its

own existence, rather than the dignity and freedom of

the Chinese people.

Speaking recently, Li Zhanshu, the Chairman of the

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,

enunciated in detail what Xi had outlined previously.

Regarded as the number 3 official in the CCP, Li listed

five ideas that are rejected by the CCP, namely, “so-called

‘constitutionalism’, multi-party elections, the division of

powers, the bicameral system, and the independence

of the judiciary.” What remains of democracy after the

removal of these foundational pillars?

The answer is the same one to most questions about

the Chinese regime: the CCP leadership is supreme and

must be protected at all costs. Li spelt this out clearly

in enunciating six doctrines of Chinese ‘democracy’,

insisting that adherence to ‘the Party’s overall leadership

as the highest political principle’ and ‘firmly upholding the

authority of the Party Central Committee and centralised

and unified leadership.’

The second doctrine is the rejection of western democracy.

The other doctrines reveal how undemocratic the regime

is. The Chinese people must believe and promote the

notion that the system empowers them and makes them

the master of their own destiny. As usual, the principles are

circular. The CCP leads the People’s Congress according

to the fifth principle. Finally, the Chinese people are

instructed to ‘tell good stories about Chinese democracy’!

Not that any other narratives are permitted in China.

The Party is implementing regulations to ban all media

not funded by the CCP. Only officially approved ‘news’,

including about financial and economic issues, will be

permitted. Already severe restrictions on foreign media

have been tightened. Journalists seeking to cover the

Winter Games are being obstructed. In addition, all

Chinese media personnel are now required to undertake

90 hours ‘continuing education’ each year to retain their

accreditation. Anyone who attempts an independent

voice, such as the former Hong Kong media proprietor,

Jimmy Lai, who is on trial this week, is silenced. Human

rights organisations such as Amnesty International and

Human Rights Watch are withdrawing from Hong Kong,

citing the draconian new security laws as the reason. The

digital platforms, LinkedIn and Yahoo, have abandoned

operations in China and others may follow. Even Wikipedia

has drawn a line, banning seven pro-Beijing editors and

removing the administrative powers of another 12. The

only narrative allowed in China is Xi Jinping thought.

The time has come to actively promote real democracy.

First, the Chinese regime should be called out continually

for what it is. The aphorism - wrongly attributed to Mark

Twain - that ‘a lie can have travelled half-way around

the world before truth get its boots on’ is pertinent.

Democratic nations are tiring of the CCP’s bullying

behaviour and rejecting its ‘wolf warrior‘ diplomacy. A

recent EU Parliamentary resolution encouraged ‘the EU

and Member States to deepen cooperation with Taiwan

in confronting disinformation from malign third counties’

specifically naming China.

Secondly, democracies must support each other when

confronted by the CCP. Again, this is increasingly occurring,

as nations realise that strength lies in cooperation.

Collaboration has increased militarily. Canada, for example,

which has been somewhat ambivalent towards China,

engaged in a right of passage naval exercise with the

US in the China Sea recently. The UK, the Netherlands

and even Germany have participated in naval exercises

in the Western Pacific.

Perhaps the most interesting shift is occurring in Europe

as the political elite slowly realise that the lure of trade has

its limitations. Led by smaller nations, such as Lithuania,

Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the EU is waking to

the reality of the CCP. Last week, an inaugural European

Parliamentary delegation visited Taiwan. ‘We came here

with a simple message: Taiwan is not alone. Europe is

standing with you in the defence of freedom, democracy

and human dignity,’ said Raphael Glucksmann, Chair of


the delegation. The visit followed the passage of the

first-ever stand-alone report in the EU Parliament on EU-

Taiwan political relations and cooperation. The report,

adopted by 580 – 26 votes, recommended that the EU

resume work on a bilateral investment agreement, and

for Taiwan’s inclusion in international organisations, such

as the WHO.

“Democracies must

support each other

when confronted by

the CCP”

The latter is also the focus of the US administration, which

is calling for meaningful participation by Taiwan in the

United Nations system. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken,

noted on October 26 that ‘as the international community

faces an unprecedented number of complex and global

issues, it is critical for all stakeholders to help address

these problems. This includes the 24 million people who

live in Taiwan. Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the

UN system is not a political issue, but a pragmatic one.’

Increasingly, China is being criticised for misusing UN

resolution 2758, which recognised the PRC, by excluding

Taiwan from international activities. Not only are other

nations calling out China’s appalling human rights record

but are recognising that a free-trading democracy should

be encouraged. This is partly pragmatic, for example,

recognising Taiwan’s pre-eminence as a semi-conductor

manufacturer, but also strategic. If the CCP was to rule

Taiwan, nearby nations like Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the

Philippines would be severely impacted, not to mention

the dangers to international trade and regional harmony.

The free world must support democratic regimes, such

as Taiwan. Unlike China, Taiwan is a thriving democracy

that has been self-governed for more than 70 years. If

you want to see the future of Taiwan under the CCP, just

look to the repression being inflicted on the people of

Hong Kong. Perhaps the best support, beyond military

cooperation, is the clear assertion that any forceful

measure against Taiwan would lead to economic and

international isolation resulting in the fermentation of

internal unrest for China. China suffers many internal

problems. If the price of ‘winning’ is too high, it will maintain

the status quo. Afterall, the preservation of the CCP is

the critical concern for the Chinese political elite.



CHINA

INTERNATIONAL

RULES SNUBBED

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


The first lesson in analysing the Chinese Communist

Party is to recognise that everything written and

said is self-serving. It is in the service of the Party

itself, and, increasingly, its leader, Xi Jinping.

All nations seek to advance their own sovereign interests,

but the most successful ones recognise that compliance

with an international rules-based order generates

advantages for all and compounds the benefits. China

however proclaims one thing but does another. There

are many examples.

When Xi Jinping stood next to Barack Obama and

proclaimed that he would not militarise the artificial

islands in the South China Sea, the CCP was already

building military installations on them.

The Party’s recent 100th anniversary publication, The

CCP - Its Mission and Contributions, is replete with further

examples. ‘China has strictly enforced international

conventions such as the Paris Agreement, the Convention

on Nuclear Safety, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition

of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of

Bacteriological (Bacterial) and Toxin Weapons and on

their Destruction . . . it has actively engaged in international

exchanges and cooperation under the UN framework in

such fields as . . . cyber security and biosafety, as well

as polar, outer space and ocean affairs.’

Compare these claims to China’s actions in rapidly building

coal fired power stations, constructing new nuclear missile

silos, developing hypersonic weapons, and snubbing

international rulings on the South China Sea. And what

about the gain-of-function biological research in Wuhan

that is most likely the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic?

These matters are significant when assessing China’s

statements of future intent, such as requesting to join

the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for

Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement (CPTPP).

Responding to the news that China had applied to join

both 11-nation free trade arrangement, the respected

commentator, Paul Kelly, asked ‘is Australia a dumb

country in diplomatic terms or can we exploit the golden

opportunity Beijing has given us?’

He went on to write: ‘The worst mistake Australia could

make would be to rigidly oppose China outright - that is

what the China hawks in this country will demand. They

need to be repudiated.’ But the material distinction over

China is between the realists and the wishful thinkers.

As Kelly acknowledges, ‘China would need to make a

range of economic reforms in state-owned enterprises

and pro-market practices’ and ‘China’s entry would

not be acceptable unless it adhered to World Trade

Organisation rules, honoured its current free trade

agreements with member nations and, obviously, engaged

during negotiations at ministerial and official level with

all members.’

Under Xi Jinping, the market is being significantly

restrained. Even private enterprise is being brought

under the control of the CCP, with a policy of placing

Party representatives on governing boards. The role

of state-owned enterprises has been strengthened,

not diluted. Increasingly, many foreign investors regard

China as a risk.

In a recent statement on the WTO Trade Review of China,

Australia was frank. ‘’China has increasingly tested global

trade rules and norms by engaging in practices that are

inconsistent with its WTO commitments. Australia is one

of numerous WTO members that has experienced this

firsthand. . . there is a growing body of information that

demonstrates China’s actions are motivated by political

considerations.’ The Statement continued: ‘China has

assured Members of its commitment to the rules-based

order; but from our viewpoint there is a growing gap

between China’s rhetoric and its actions.’

The boundary between the state and business enterprises

has become blurred increasingly under Xi. Tensions are

resolved in favour of the State. Further examples arise

almost every week. Hong Kong has quietly widened the

language of its national security law from actions that

‘endanger national security’ to ‘contrary to the interests

of national security.’ No wonder many foreign firms are

considering moving elsewhere. Chinese courts have

upheld anti-suit injunctions against foreign firms seeking

to make claims for patent infringements while cyberenabled

Intellectual property theft continues unabated.


The Wall Street bankers who still believe that China

will pursue economic liberalism should read the CCP

Mission Statement. In it, the Central Committee adopts

the Marxist doctrine that socialism is a stepping-stone

to communism. Responding to criticism that China was

departing from Marxism, the Party insists that it is still

in ‘the primary stage of Socialism’, yet to embark on

the communist stage when all private property will be

eliminated. In the meantime, all aspects of society are

subject to the ‘strict control of the Communist Party’

including its ‘centralised’ directives.

It is arguable that the world has reached an inflexion

point on China. Not only are an increasing number of

nations cooperating in military exercises or transiting

the China Seas, but they are also calling out China’s

breaches of World Trade agreements and human rights

violations. Some 43 countries delivered a cross-regional

joint statement last week about the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,

the largest number ever. Small nations such as Lithuania

and the Czech Republic have established links with Taiwan

and the European Union has increased its engagement

with the Republic of China. A reluctance to confront the

CCP is being replaced by frankness, cooperation and

global resistance.

At the same time, the Chinese leadership is bunkered

down in Beijing. Although the world’s largest emitter

which is rapidly building coal-fired power stations to

overcome its energy shortage, China’s President will

not be at the Glasgow climate conference. Xi has not

travelled outside China for almost two years. Nor have

most of his senior ministers. It has been accepted

generally that they have been isolated because of a fear

of contracting Covid, although recent reports suggest

other factors. As I wrote in my previous column, there is a

major power play underway in China, as Xi seeks to crush

his rivals, particularly those associated with Jiang Zimen.

Unconfirmed reports have filtered out of the country of

a plot to assassinate a senior figure, suspected to be

Xi. Security surrounding the recent 100th anniversary

events was extraordinarily high, even by the usual strict

standards. While Xi commands the PLA, Jiang has retained

considerable influence over the larger police and internal

security forces. Leaving China may be dangerous for Xi’s

health in more ways than one!


“It is arguable that

the world has reached

an inflexion point on

China.”


CHINA

BUSINESS ETHICS

EXPOSED

/ KEVIN ANDREWS


It is unusual for the blatant pursuit of profits at the

exclusion of human rights to be expressed nakedly.

Businesses employ a phalanx of public relations

advisors to script careful responses for their owners

and executives. Sometimes they obfuscate, like the

clothing chains that refuse to disclose whether they are

sourcing textiles from Chinese slave labor camps. Other

times they feign sympathy for the oppressed, but protest

there is little they can do. They may even respond that

their economic activity will help the afflicted people in

the longer term. Memos are written and lines carefully

crafted to respond to any possible question.

So, it is truly shocking when a business owner downright

rejects human rights as occurred recently with the

billionaire part-owner of the NBA Golden State Warriors

team, Chamath Palihapitiya. Clearly Mr Palihapitiya had

not read the PR memo before he waded into a friendly

American podcast.

“Nobody cares about what’s happening to the Uyghurs,

okay?” Palihapitiya told the broadcast host. “You bring

it up because you care, and I think it’s nice that you care.

The rest of us don’t care,” he said frankly. “And I’m sorry if

that’s a hard truth to hear, but every time I say that I care

about the Uyghurs, I’m really just lying...” To emphasise his

point, Palihapitiya, a former Facebook executive added:

“I’m just telling you a very hard, ugly truth. Of all the things

that I care about, yes, it is below my line.”

games have been played there, and many players earn

significant sporting wear advertising revenue from the

country. When Nike was criticised by the CCP after

expressing concern about forced labour, it retreated

faster than a return toss down the court. The company

even lobbied Congress to water down the anti-forced

labour bill. NBA stars like LeBron James pontificate about

all manner of alleged injustice, but quiver at the slightest

criticism from the CCP. The one stand-out, Boston Celtics

player Enes Kanter has repeatedly called out the human

rights abuses – and the hypocrisy of the league. He

posted ‘When the NBA says we stand for justice, don’t

forget there are those who sell their soul for money and

business like @chamath. . . When genocides happen,

it is people like this that let it happen. Shame.’ But the

relationship soured when the Houston Rockets general

manager, Daryl Morey tweeted ‘Fight for freedom stand

with Hong Kong’, leading to a television ban by the stateowned

China Central Television network. The NBA was

estimated to lose some $400 million in revenue. The

irony was that the Houston Rockets had been at the

forefront of involvement with China, especially through

the popularity of its former star player, Yao Ming. For its

part, the NBA has held firm, even showing images of

players with the words ‘vote’ and ‘liberty’ printed on their

t-shirts, unlike Tennis Australia which initially censored

t-shirts at the Australian Open which had printed on them

‘Where is Peng Shuai’ – a reference to the ‘disappeared’

Chinese player.

Calling concerns about the human rights abuse of the

Uyghurs ‘a luxury belief’, the Sri Lankan born, Canadian

American investor doubled down, saying it was ‘deplorable’

to criticise China’s human rights record. Clearly stating

his priorities, he added: ‘I care about the fact that our

economy would turn on a dime if China invades Taiwan.’

As an investor in special purpose acquisition companies,

a vehicle that enable private companies such as Virgin

Galactic to go public with less regulatory scrutiny, Mr

Palihapitiya, became sufficiently wealthy to invest in

the sporting league. He is also a major donor to the

Democratic Party.

Facing an avalanche of criticism, Palihapitiya backtracked.

‘As a refugee, my family fled a country with its own human

rights issues so this is something that is very much a

part of my lived experience. To be clear, my belief is

that human rights matter, whether in China, the United

States, or elsewhere. Full stop.’ Except he had already

claimed ‘every time I say that I care about the Uyghurs,

I’m really just lying...’ There is also a twist to the fleeing

refugee story. At the age of five, Palihapitiya moved

with his family to Canada where his father was posted

as High Commissioner. The family applied for and was

granted refugee status five years later when the posting

concluded.

NBA sponsors such as the sporting goods giant Nike are

enthralled at China. As many as 800 million Chinese are

claimed to watch the Association’s matches; pre-season

Palihapitiya attempted to claim some equivalence with

the situation in the US: “Look at the number of black and

brown men currently incarcerated for absolutely ridiculous


crimes,” he said. “I think we have a responsibility to take

care of our own backyard first, and then we can go and

basically morally tell other people how they should be

running their own countries.” The remarks prompted an

immediate response from Salih Hudayar, the elected

prime minister for the East Turkistan Government in

Exile group. “You can’t compare what China’s doing to

the Uyghurs to what’s happening in the United States,”

he said. “As a Uyghur, I would be a million times grateful

if our situation was like the … human rights [situation]

here in the United States.”

Opposition to China’s human rights abuses continue to

grow. Last week, the French National Assembly passed

a resolution by 169 votes to 1, recognising the plight of

the Uyghurs as genocide. It became the 8th country to

pass a similar motion. Businesses with connections to

slave labor are increasingly being identified and criticised,

including UK’s biggest bank, HSBC, which holds millions of

pounds of shares in a subsidiary of a sanctioned Chinese

paramilitary organisation responsible for human rights

abuses of Uyghurs.

The CCP is increasingly sensitive to global criticism.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin recently

used more than 20 slides in an attempt to refute

disinformation and rumours made by anti-China ‘scholars,’

the US government, western media and the Uyghur

Congress. Yet satellite images reveal factories inside

more than 100 ‘re-education’ camps in Xinjiang.

The CCP has also replaced Chen Quanguo, the party chief

in Xinjiang under whose directions the brutal persecution

of the Uyghurs occurred. Interestingly, his replacement

is Ma Xingrui, the former governor of Guangdong

province, one of the nation’s economic powerhouses.

The appointment of Ma, who has a background in the

aerospace industry, may reflect the growing economic

significance of the western province and an indication

that the global campaign against the CCP is effective.


“The CCP is increasingly sensitive to

global criticism.”


RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

THE PROTECTION OF

PEOPLE OF FAITH AGAINST

DISCRIMINATION

/ SCOTT MORRISON


Our anti-discrimination laws play an essential role

in protecting the liberty of our citizens, each as

individual human beings. In this Bill, we fix an

important weakness in our discrimination laws, as our

government promised to do, to the people of Australia, at

the last election. We honour that commitment with laws

needed to protect citizens in a tolerant, multicultural, liberal

democracy. The Commonwealth has a Sex Discrimination

Act, a Racial Discrimination Act, a Disability Discrimination

Act and an Age Discrimination Act. However, there is no

standalone legislation to protect people of religion, or

faith, against discrimination. Or indeed for those who

choose not to have a faith or religion. The introduction

of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 will fix this.

from discrimination for their religious beliefs is to tear at

the very fabric of multiculturalism in this country.

We are the most successful multicultural country on

the planet, united in our love of our country and the

freedoms that so many, so many, have come here to enjoy,

particularly to escape discrimination and persecution

for their religious beliefs. They came here seeking

that freedom. That freedom should be protected for

them. These freedoms, most importantly, should be

protected from discrimination. Our nation is an exemplar

of acceptance and tolerance. The Australia we love is

one where the people of all faiths and beliefs live side

by side and we’re an example to the world.

In this age of identity politics where we hear much about

how we are identified by our gender, our age, our sexuality,

our race, our ethnicity or our level of physical or intellectual

ability. These are known as protected attributes, and they

should be. We are rightly protected against discrimination

in relation to any of these attributes. But human beings

are more than our physical selves. As human beings, we

are also soul and spirit. We are also, importantly, what

we believe. For many, this can inform who they are more

than anything else.

The protection of what we choose to believe in a free

society is essential to our freedom. In a liberal democracy,

it is like oxygen. And so, it is only right we should expect

that what we sincerely believe should be afforded the

same protection from discrimination in a free liberal

democracy, as any other protected attributes of our

humanity. This includes not being discriminated against

for non-belief. Such protections respect the true integrity

and dignity of the individual. It’s what makes them who

they are, who we are, how we choose to live their life in

accordance with the laws of this land.

This bill is the product of a tolerant and mature society

that understands the importance of faith and belief to a

free society, while not seeking to impose those beliefs,

or ever seek to injure others in the expression of those

beliefs. It balances freedom with responsibilities. This

bill also builds on Australia’s proud record as the most

successful multicultural, multi-faith nation on the planet.

To so many Australians, religion is inseparable to their

culture. They are one and the same. To deny protection

A free society is a tolerant society. In a free society, we

don’t go around imposing our views on each other or

seeking to injure one another with those views. People

should not be cancelled or persecuted or vilified because

their beliefs are different from someone else’s in a free

liberal democratic society like Australia.

The whole point of faith is choice - it is the action of free

will. It is for this reason that free societies typically have

had a strong tradition of faith. Faith and freedom have

been so inseparable in liberal democracies all around the

world. It is therefore no wonder that people of faith and

religion have played such a prominent role in the creation

and establishment of free societies. The underpinning

principles of our free societies, indeed, the notion of

liberty itself, draws heavily from the roots of faith.

Religion and faith is also about humility and vulnerability. It

is about love. It is about compassion. It is about speaking

the truth in love, as the scriptures say. It recognises the

sanctity and dignity of every single human being. Faith

is about the heart; it is about the soul and the spirit. It’s

not about the state or the marketplace.

In our democracy we rightly divide church from state,

that is an important liberty. But we do not separate faith

from community. History has shown that dictators and

autocrats have never felt at ease with people of faith

amongst their ranks in their societies. They have never

felt at ease with faith or religion. They have never felt

comfortable with human choice, human dignity and

the refusal of individuals to give to the state what is the


proper place of the divine. Intolerance towards faith and

religion is to see the life of faith as a threat to nation and

liberty and often the state.

In so many settings, faith strengthens lives, it provides that

sense of belonging. It builds and sustains and nurtures

communities. I am so grateful for the contribution of

countless Australians of faith - who have built schools,

hospitals, food kitchens, shelters, started services to meet

almost every human need you can imagine. Religious

communities have always sought to bridge the gaps of

human need in our free society, between the state and

the marketplace. We need institutions like the Salvos,

Jewish Care, Lifeline, Muslim Women Australia, Mission

Australia, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, and countless

others, offering services large and small. All of them bring

a vital human dimension to their work. They attend to the

needs of the soul and the spirit - not just the needs of

our physical selves.

To leave the fulfilment of such needs only to the

Government or the state or the market is to weaken our

society. As the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks argued,

the state can deliver much - health, welfare, education,

defence and the rule of law. But I would agree with him

when he argues that the state is not the author of the

active citizenship that creates the face-to-face care

and compassion that constitutes the good society. The

capacity of the state or the market to meet the needs of

our soul and spirit have great limitations, if any capacity

at all. They can be incredibly impersonal. In between the

state and the marketplace, you will find the community,

the family and the individual - and there also you will

find the work of faith and religion. The protection from

discrimination of faith and religion in the public sphere

is therefore central to the strength of our civil society

and the health of communities, families, and indeed our

very selves.

Our country is better because of the generosity and

charity of our religious communities and institutions.

This bill is about helping protect what we value as

Australians: difference, fairness, choice, charity, and if

we are not hurting others, the right to live our lives as

we choose to. This bill is a protection from the few who

seek to marginalise and coerce and silence people of

faith because they do not share the same view of the

world as them. The bill is based on four years of work

and is a long-standing commitment of our government.

In November of 2017, the Government appointed an

Expert Panel into Religious Freedom, chaired by the former

father of this House, the Honourable Philip Ruddock.

The Expert Panel received over 15,000 submissions.

It reported to the Government in 2018. And in 2019,

the Government took the Australian people, we took

to them a commitment to introduce new protections

against religious discrimination, consistent with other

anti-discrimination laws. And since then, the Government

has been working through the issues with so many groups.

We have consulted widely on this bill.

This bill is balanced and thoughtful. It does not take from

the rights and freedoms of others. We do not seek to

set one group of Australians against another, because

to do so would diminish us all. It strengthens important

freedoms that have been buffeted over recent years. The

bill honours the mandate we have from the Australian

people to protect Australians of faith and religion against

discrimination. This bill is about extending the umbrella of

fairness that is so fundamental to our national character,

because Australians strongly believe in fairness. This

bill seeks to protect people of faith from discrimination

on the basis of their religion in daily life, including work,

education, buying goods and services and accessing

accommodation.

While there are some provisions in the existing laws that

provide some protections for people of faith, these can

be complex and can create uncertainty. And they are

inconsistent across Australia. In particular, there is a gap

in New South Wales and South Australia, where there

is either limited or no specific protection at all against

religious discrimination.

This bill will provide, for the first time, protections for those

of faith and religion at the Commonwealth level, and in

the states of New South Wales and South Australia where

there is currently no state-based religious discrimination

laws. This bill brings clarity, and it provides confidence

that Australians of faith can have confidence they will

be protected from discrimination. A Sikh should not be

discriminated against because of the turban they wear.

Nor a Maronite because of the cross around their neck.


Nor a Muslim employee who keeps that prayer mat in

the bottom drawer at their desk at work. Nor a Hindu

couple who are seeking to rent a property. Nor a Jewish

school seeking to employ someone of their faith - if that

faith is their preference - and the publicly stated policy

of their school.

This bill ensures people can’t be persecuted for moderately

expressing a reasonable belief, what could be fairer than

that - whether that belief is motivated by - or indeed,

critical of - a religion. It recognises the unique ways in

which those of faith express their beliefs and ensures

that good faith statements of that belief are appropriately

protected, for both religious and non-religious views.

However, the bill draws a clear line against harassment,

vilification or intimidation of anyone. Religious faith should

always be expressed in love. The bill is about creating

a bigger space for everyone in our national lives - to be

themselves - who they believe, what they believe - free

of discrimination, coercion and judgment. That is our

Australian way, and always has been so.

The bill recognises that religious bodies, religious

schools must be free to uphold the tenets of their faith

and the ethos that makes their school a community. It

is recognition of the sacrifices parents make to educate

their children in accordance with their values and beliefs,

and the choices they have made for their children’s

education. As many schools have said throughout this

process, “faith is caught, not taught”.

The bill protects the fundamental right for religious schools

to hire religious staff to maintain their religious ethos, in

accordance with a publicly available policy. This protection

will be able to override state or territory laws which seek

to interfere with that right. The approach detailed in this

bill provides certainty to school communities and to the

staff they employ through the development of policies

that are transparent to the school community. It’s only fair.

Nothing in this bill, allows for any form of discrimination

against a student on the basis of their sexuality or gender

identity. You won’t find it, anything of that nature in this

bill. Such discrimination has no place in our education

system.

The protections in this bill affirm the generous, openhearted

and accepted culture that is embodied in so much of our

national life. However, we believe it is important that what

has been treated as a culturally accepted norm should

be better codified in law. Sadly, every age faces its share

of bigotry against people of faith. The Treasurer and

his colleagues sadly know too much about this in their

own personal lives, and in their own communities. And

I particularly acknowledge all those of the Jewish faith.

It is a great shame that the Treasurer of our country has

to be offered close personal protection - not because

he’s the Treasurer, but because he’s a Jew.

The values of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ have been

appropriated against Protestant Christians, Orthodox

Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,

Hindus, Baha’is, Sikhs, and so many more religions.

Discrimination against people of faith is not a new thing. It

is ancient. The sectarian divide that dominated almost the

first two centuries of European settlement in Australia is

testament to that - Catholics and Protestants. Thankfully

now a thing of the past, and we worship freely together,

and openly. Equally, that sectarian divide is a reminder

that people of faith too have a responsibility to treat

others as they themselves seek to be treated - another

great principle and teaching of faith. Still, many people

from various religious traditions are concerned about

the lack of religious protection against the prevalence of

‘cancel culture’ in Australian life. It’s true, it’s there, it’s real.

The citizens of liberal democracies should never be

fearful about what they believe, the lives they lead, or

the God they follow, if indeed, they choose to follow

one or acknowledge one at all. Australians shouldn’t

have to worry about looking over their shoulder, fearful

of offending an anonymous person on Twitter, cowardly

sitting there abusing and harassing them for their faith or

transgressing against political or social zeitgeists. We have

to veer away from the artificial, phoney conflicts, boycotts,

controversies and cancelling created by anonymous and

cowardly bots, bigots and bullies.

In our secular society, every religion and belief should

have the same rights and freedoms. It’s what freedom is.

That means the faith of any religion, as well as ‘no religion’,

should not override the rights of others in a free society.

That means we rightly have a secular democracy and

government, but that does not afford secular humanism


the state, status of a state religion, as I said in my first

maiden speech to this place.

Just over 80 years ago, President Franklin Delano

Roosevelt spoke about what he called the four essential

human freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom from

want, freedom from fear and the freedom of worship. In

Australia, Sir Robert Menzies was so taken by those four

freedoms that he made them integral to his ‘Forgotten

People’ broadcasts. These broadcasts became the

intellectual foundation of the Party that he founded,

and I have the great privilege to now lead in this place.

In its DNA, together the Liberals and the Nationals -

our government believes in these four freedoms in the

deepness of our own DNA. The freedom to worship is

not merely the freedom to believe. It is the freedom to

think. It is the freedom to exercise our conscience. The

freedom to doubt. Indeed, the freedom not to believe.

“In so many settings,

faith strengthens lives,

it provides that sense of

belonging.”

This protection will give Australians of faith confidence

- confidence to be themselves and confidence in the

country they belong to. A resilient democracy that can

embrace faith and not be threatened by it. Our faith

communities contribute to our national life, all playing

a part in helping live out our great destiny as a people.

Australians - one and free.

Scott Morrison is the Prime Minister of Australia. This is

an edited version of his Second Reading Speech on the

Religious Discrimination Bill.


AUSTRALIAN POLITY

INDEX OF FEATURES AUTHORS

AND ARTICLES (2008-2022)

/ FEATURES AUTHORS

Abbott, Tony

Closing the gap 3(1): 11-13

A stronger Australian community 3(2): 25-31

Margaret Thatcher and modern challenges 5(4): 11-15

Making Australia right 6(1): 12-14

Abetz, Eric

All is not fair in Fair Work Australia 3(2): 43-46

Allan, James

In the people we trust 2:20-23

Andrews, Kevin

The business of indigenous affairs 1:15-17

Liberals and the future 1:28-30

Balancing family and work 2: 28-30

Population, immigration and Australia’s future 3: 12-16

In praise of thrift 3: 27

Future shock 3: 32

Family policies that work 4: 8-19

Housing affordability deteriorates 4: 31-35

The Green’s agenda, in their own words 5: 26 – 34

Proper screening: saving lives and us millions 2(1):21-22

Civil society and the role of government 2(2): 13-16

The Greens – policies, reality and consequences 2(2):

32-34

The government’s hard gamble 2(3): 21-25

The totalitarian impulse 3(1): 21-24

Empowering civil society 3(2): 13-23

Strengthening families and rewarding work 3(3): 15-23

Making family bonds stronger 3(4): 11-14

The economic benefits of marriage 5(1): 26-31

Submarines and ships: Australia’s future defence 5(2): 7-15

The building blocks of western civilisation 5(4): 20-27

Soft on drugs, hard on families 6(1): 15-20

The marriage debate 6(1): 21-23

What makes for good government? 7(1): 3-6

Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the challenge for the

Liberal party 7(1): 19-24

The governance of China according to Xi Jinping 7(2): 3-10

Xi Jinping’s economic directions 7(1): 11-12

Demography is destiny 8(1): 3-8

The aged care challenge 8(1): 39-40

The task ahead 8(2): 17-20

High time for Magnitsky 9(1 & 2): 21-23

On the Vatican and China 9(1 & 2): 24-26

Xi’s big red book 9(1 & 2): 27-29

Hidden hand – 14 grievances 9(1 & 2): 30-32

Xivinity 9(1 & 2): 33-35

Human rights lost in transition 9(1 & 2): 36-38

The long twilight struggle 9(3): 6-9

The people v. the privileged 9(3):10-11

Gold medal totalitarians 9(3): 41-43

The Uyghur tribunal and human rights 9(3): 43-44

The people v. the privileged 9(3):10-11The great challenge

9(3): 45-47

Key election result 10(1 & 2): 9-11

Lithuania calls out China 10(1 & 2): 12-14

Uyghur tribunal hears of rights abuses 10(1 & 2): 15-17

The Olympics and the Uyghurs 10(1 & 2): 18-20

The tyranny of distance 10(1 & 2): 21-23

US stance on Taiwan 10(1 & 2): 24-26

Xi’s battle for absolute control 10(1 & 2): 27-29

Words mean what I choose them to mean 10( 1 & 2): 30-32

International rules snubbed 10(1 & 2): 33-35

Business ethics exposed 10(1 & 2): 36-38

Blankenhorn, David

We need a marriage index 4: 20-24

Birrell, Ian

Who is Xi Jinping? 9(1 & 2): 18-20

Bishop, Julie

Charting the course of Australia-India relations 2(3):15-19

Australian cannot be complacent about China 4(1): 33-34

Bolt, Andrew

In pursuit of modern marriage 3(4): 7-8

Brandis, George

Why a charter of rights is wrong 2: 12-17


Shared parenting 4: 27-29

Broad, Andrew

An economic recovery 5(3): 27-35

Byrne, Ed

Challenges for our universities in the 21st century 5: 15–18

Canavan, Matthew

There are many things more important than working

5(2): 16-21

Trade diversification is achievable 8(2): 11-16

Cash, Michaelia

Taking care of childcare 3(3(1): 30-32

Chandler, Claire

I am woman 9(3): 21-26

Chang, Gordon C

China’s police state 7(3): 19-22

Cook, Michael

The disintegration of the Aboriginal family 1:25

Demography: a seismic global shift 8(1): 9-38

Costello, Peter

Only in Australia 6(1): 8-11

Craven, Greg

Beware of lawyers bearing gifts 2: 24

Davis, Glym

After Dawkins 5:10 – 11

Donnelly, Kevin

Labor’s education revolution: an evaluation 5: 21 – 23

Dutton, Peter

Government assault on private health services 2(1): 15-20

The Australian-American alliance 9(3): 37-40

Australia-Japan ties strengthened 10(1 & 2): 6-8

English, Bill

A social investment approach to welfare 5(3): 4-10

Fawcett, David

The future of Australian fuel security 7(1): 23-26

Lafayette is not Tiananmen 8(2): 32-34

Fierravanti-Wells, Concetta

Australia’s ageing future: too hard for Labor 2(1): 33-37

Our China strategy? 7(3): 16-18

Fifield, Mitch

Achieving landmark disabilities reform 3(2): 33-36

Fletcher, Paul

What is the role for government in broadband? 2(2): 26-31

Frydenberg, Josh

Australia’s near and important neighbour 3(3): 31-34

A return to strategic competition 9(3): 32-36

Gillespie, David

Achieving value for money in Commonwealth procurement

5(2): 33-35

Goodenough, Ian

From many: one 5(4): 16-17

Gove, Michael

The importance of teaching 5: 24 – 25

Harrison, Richard

The irresistible case for Commonwealth fiscal restraint

5(1): 8-11

From Magna Carta to the Australian Human Rights

Commission 5(3): 13-17

Havel, Václav

Human freedom, toleration, and peaceful co-existence

3(1): 15-19

Hayek, FA

The limits of competition 3: 28-29

Huang, William


Hutchinson, Eric

National heritage and arts lottery 5(3): 22-25

Jennings, Peter

Strengthening Australia’s national security and defence

policy 8(2): 21-27

Johnson, Paul

What great statesmen have to teach us 1:31-32

Johnston, David

The challenge ahead for defence 3(3): 25-29

Kemp, David

Robert Menzies and freedom of speech 3(1): 25-29

Kern, Soeren

BLM – Marxist to the core 9(1 & 2): 42-48

Key, John

Reflections from New Zealand 3(3): 9-13

Kurti, Peter

Religious liberty: a forgotten freedom 7(1): 7-15


Laming, Andrew

Labor no closer to big answers in health care 2(1): 29-32

Leeeser, Julian

The Indian opportunity 9(1 & 2): 8-11

Levin, Yuval

Trust and journalism 7(1): 27-28

Suicide of the west 7(1): 33-36

The more things change 7(3): 33-36

Ley, Sussan

Reaching for better child care 3(4): 29-34

Lloyd, John

Much to do in workplace relations 3(2): 39-41

Martin, John P

The limits of temporary migration 3: 21

Mason, Brett

The Liberal view of higher education 5: 12-14

Researching the Asian century 3(4): 23-26

McKenzie, Bridget

The impact of technology on government 5(2): 22-25

Mercer-Moore, Sandra

Allied health assistants: a new wave of health workers

2(1): 39-42

Molan, Jim

How much defence is enough? 7(1): 14-18

Mond, David

Politics and business: anything but ‘business as usual’

7(1): 16-18

Morrison, Scott

Human dignity – the foundation of freedom 9(3): 18-20

A world order that favours freedom 9(3): 27-31

The protection of people of faith against discrimination

10(1 & 2): 39-43

Myers, Allan

Trust and public institutions 2(2): 17-22

Nash, Fiona

Guarding food security in the national interest 4(1); 23-27

Nikolic, Andrew

The great policy debate: national economic sustainability

5(2): 36-39

O’Sullivan, Barry

Beyond sensationalism and tokenism: taking domestic

violence seriously 5(3): 18-21

Parkinson, Patrick

Rediscovering freedom in anti-discrimination law 4(1):

11-20

Passin, Tony

Reforming Australia’s industrial relations system for the

next generation 5(2): 27-31

Paterson, James

Learning from past leaders 7(3): 26-30

Payne, Marise

COAG health failures sum up Labor’s first term 2(1): 43-46

Pence, Mike

A new approach to China 7(3): 8-15

Porter, Christian

Adoption and child protection 5(1): 15-25

Pyne, Christopher

Lifting education standards 3(3): 37-39

Reynolds, Linda

Bipartisanship: the holy grail of defence policy 7(1): 19-22

Robb, Andrew

A vision for the nation’s future 2(3): 27-29

Robert, Stuart

How efficient is the dividend? 2: 32 – 34

Australian Singapore defence arrangement – a template

for future regional engagement 7(1) 27-30

Roberts, Marcus & Shannon


Rubenstein, Colin

Iran turns Arab spring frosty 2(3): 30-34

Rubio, Marco

China’s deepening authoritarianism 7(3): 23-25

Ryan, Scott

The deregulation challenge for small business 2(2): 23-25

Overcoming the threat to freedom of speech 3(4): 17-21

Sacks, Jonathan

Rethinking multiculturalism 3: 22-23

Sinodinos, Arthur

Cutting government red tape 3(1): 33-34

Smith, Chris


Smith, Wesley J

Rivers have rights! The return of nature worship 7(2): 3-7


Southcott, Andrew

Diagnosing Australia’s health care system 2(1): 23-27

Southwick, David

Nanny state perversity 3(3): 41-42

Spigelman, James

The common law ‘Bill of Rights’ 2: 18-19

Stone, Andrew

Economic policy lessons of the current crises 8(2): 3-10

Sukkar, Michael


5(1): 8-11



Taylor, Angus

The long road to reform 5(1): 6-7

Tax hikes and not tax reforms 5(4): 18-19

Tehan, Dan

Advancing rural and regional Australia 4(1): 29-31


5(2): 36-39

Tudge, Alan

Best in class 5: 19 – 20

Varghese, Peter

Why India and why now? 9(1 & 2): 12-17

Wehner, Peter

Thatcher, Reagan and Obama 3: 30

Obama’s financial failure 4: 26

Obama after the fall 5: 26

Political courage 2(1): 48

Idealism and pragmatism if foreign policy 2(1): 48

Barack Obama: political hack 2(3):36

The great divider 3(1): 36

Obama’s confession of failure 3(3): 44

The recalibration of conservatism 3(4): 36

In praise of political prudence 5(1): 32

In defense of tradition 5(2): 40-41

Jeb Bush makes his case 5(3): 36

Rubio ain’t overrated 5(4):28

Making the case for a good life 6(1): 24-25

Wilson, Caroline

Do foreign media hate China?

Xu, Vicky Xiuzhong

Uyghurs for sale 8(2): 29-31

FEATURES SUBJECTS

Adoption


Aged care

The aged care challenge 8(1): 39-40

Agriculture and food

Guarding food security in the national interest 4(1); 23-27

Alcohol

Nanny state perversity 3(3): 41-42

Arts


Bill of Rights

Why a charter of rights is wrong 2: 12-17

The common law ‘Bill of Rights’ 2: 18-19

In the people we trust 2:20-23

Beware of lawyers bearing gifts 2: 24

BLM

BLM – Marxist to the core 9(1 & 2): 42-48

Business

The deregulation challenge for small business 2(2): 23-25

Childcare

Taking care of childcare 3(3(1): 30-32

Reaching for better child care 3(4): 29-34

Child protection


China


The governance of China according to Xi Jinping 7(2): 3-10

Xi Jinping’s economic directions 7(1): 11-12



China’s police state 7(3): 19-22




Who is Xi Jinping? 9(1 & 2): 18-20


Xi’s big red book 9(1 & 2): 27-29

Hidden hand – 14 grievances 9(1 & 2): 30-32

Xivinity 9(1 & 2): 33-35


Gold medal totalitarians 9(3): 41-43



Xi’s battle for absolute control 10(1 & 2): 27-29

Words mean what I choose them to mean 10( 1 & 2): 30-32

International rules snubbed 10(1 & 2): 33-35


Business ethics exposed 10(1 & 2): 36-38

Civil society

Civil society and the role of government 2(2): 13-16

Trust and public institutions 2(2): 17-22

Empowering civil society 3(2): 13-23

A stronger Australian community 3(2): 25-31

Communications

What is the role for government in broadband? 2(2): 26-31

Conservatism


In defense of tradition 5(2): 40-41

Making the case for a good life 6(1): 24-25

Covid 19


Defence

The challenge ahead for defence 3(3): 25-29

Submarines and ships: Australia’s future defence 5(2): 7-15

How much defence is enough? 7(1): 14-18

Bipartisanship: the holy grail of defence policy 7(1): 19-22




Strengthening Australia’s national security and defence

policy 8(2): 21-27

Democracy

Human freedom, toleration, and peaceful co-existence

3(1): 15-19

The totalitarian impulse 3(1): 21-24

Demography

Demography is destiny 8(1): 3-8


Dignity

Human dignity – the foundation of freedom 9(3): 18-20

Disability

Achieving landmark disabilities reform 3(2): 33-36

Discrimination

Rediscovering freedom in anti-discrimination law 4(1):

11-20

Domestic violence

Beyond sensationalism and tokenism: taking domestic

violence seriously 5(3): 18-21

Drug policy

Soft on drugs, hard on families 6(1): 15-20

Economics

In praise of thrift 3: 27

The limits of competition 3: 28-29

Thatcher, Reagan and Obama 3: 30

Future shock 3: 32

Obama’s financial failure 4: 26



5(2): 36-39

An economic recovery 5(3): 27-35

Tax hikes and not tax reforms 5(4): 18-19


Economic policy lessons of the current crises 8(2): 3-10


Education

After Dawkins 5:10 – 11

Challenges for our universities in the 21st century 5:

15 - 18

Best in class 5: 19 - 20

Labor’s education revolution: an evaluation 5: 21 - 23

The importance of teaching 5: 24 – 25

Lifting education standards 3(3): 37-39

Researching the Asian century 3(4): 23-26

Environment policy

Rivers have rights! The return of nature worship 7(2): 3-7

Family

Balancing family and work 2: 28-30

Family policies that work 4: 8-19

We need a marriage index 4: 20-24

Shared parenting 4: 27-29

Strengthening families and rewarding work 3(3): 15-23

Making family bonds stronger 3(4): 11-14

There are many things more important than working

5(2): 16-21

Foreign policy









A world order that favours freedom 9(3): 27-31

A return to strategic competition 9(3): 32-36


Freedom of speech

Robert Menzies and freedom of speech 3(1): 25-29

Overcoming the threat to freedom of speech 3(4): 17-21

The more things change 7(3): 33-36

Gambling

The government’s hard gamble 2(3): 21-25

The impact of technology on government 5(2): 22-25


Governing Australia

Only in Australia 6(1): 8-11

Making Australia right 6(1): 12-14

What makes for good government? 7(1): 3-6


Greens

The Green’s agenda, in their own words 5: 26 – 34

The Greens – policies, reality and consequences 2(2):

32-34

Health

Government assault on private health services 2(1): 15-20

Proper screening: saving lives and us millions 2(1):21-22

Diagnosing Australia’s health care system 2(1): 23-27

Labor no closer to big answers in health care 2(1): 29-32

Australia’s ageing future: too hard for Labor 2(1): 33-37

Allied health assistants: a new wave of health workers

2(1): 39-42

COAG health failures sum up Labor’s first term 2(1): 43-46

Heritage


Hong Kong


Housing

Housing affordability deteriorates 4: 31-35

Human rights





High time for Magnitsky 9(1 & 2): 21-23

Xivinity 9(1 & 2): 33-35

Human rights lost in transition 9(1 & 2): 36-38

The Uyghur tribunal and human rights 9(3): 43-44

Uyghur tribunal hears of rights abuses 10(1 & 2): 15-17

The Olympics and the Uyghurs 10(1 & 2): 18-20

India


The Indian opportunity 9(1 & 2): 8-11

Why India and why now? 9(1 & 2): 12-17

Indigenous affairs

The business of indigenous affairs 1:15-17

The disintegration of the Aboriginal family 1:25

Closing the gap 3(1): 11-13

Iran


Japan

Australia-Japan ties strengthened 10(1 & 2): 6-8

Key election result 10(1 & 2): 9-11

Leadership

What great statesmen have to teach us 1:31-32

Political courage 2(1): 48

A vision for the nation’s future 2(3): 27-29

In praise of political prudence 5(1): 32

Margaret Thatcher and modern challenges 5(4): 11-15

Learning from past leaders 7(3): 26-30

Liberal Party

Liberals and the future 1:28-30

Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the challenge for the

Liberal party 7(1): 19-24

The great challenge 9(3): 45-47

Lithuania


Marriage

In pursuit of modern marriage 3(4): 7-8


The marriage debate 6(1): 21-23

Media

Trust and journalism 7(1): 27-28



New Zealand

Reflections from New Zealand 3(3): 9-13

PNG


Population and immigration

Population, immigration and Australia’s future 3: 12-16

The limits of temporary migration 3: 21

Rethinking multiculturalism 3: 22-23

From many: one 5(4): 16-17

Public administration

How efficient is the dividend? 2: 32 – 34

Cutting government red tape 3(1): 33-34


5(1): 8-11

Achieving value for money in Commonwealth procurement

5(2): 33-35

Religious freedom

Religious liberty: a forgotten freedom 7(1): 7-15

Xivinity 9(1 & 2): 33-35

The protection of people of faith against discrimination

10(1 & 2): 39-43

Rural and regional Australia

Advancing rural and regional Australia 4(1): 29-31

The long road to reform 5(1): 6-7


Singapore



South Pacific


Taiwan


Trade

Trade diversification is achievable 8(2): 11-16

Transgender

I am woman 9(3): 21-26

USA

Obama after the fall 5: 26


Barack Obama: political hack 2(3):36

The great divider 3(1): 36

Obama’s confession of failure 3(3): 44


Jeb Bush makes his case 5(3): 36

Rubio ain’t overrated 5(4):28

The long twilight struggle 9(3): 6-9



Vatican, The


Welfare

A social investment approach t welfare 5(3): 4-10

Western civilisation

The building blocks of western civilisation 5(4): 20-27

Suicide of the west 7(1): 33-36

Workplace relations

Much to do in workplace relations 3(2): 39-41

All is not fair in Fair Work Australia 3(2): 43-46

Reforming Australia’s industrial relations system for the

next generation 5(2): 27-31

Note: Australian Polity was numbered No 1 (2008) – No 5

(2010-11). From 2011 – 2022, it was renumbered Volume

2 ( ) – Volume 10 ( ).



AUSTRALIA’S HOT TOPICS IN NEWS,

CURRENT AFFAIRS AND CULTURE.

VOLUME 10 NUMBERS 1 & 2

Authorised by Kevin Andrews MP, Liberal Party of Australia, Level 1, 651 Doncaster Road, Doncaster, VIC 3108

Printed by MMP, 10 Charnfield Ct, Thomastown VIC 3074


Australian Polity, Volume 10 Number 1 & 2

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

Delete template?

Save as template?