Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I thank the minister for making the statement he has provided the Senate, both in the tabled document and in his address this morning. I would like to highlight several parts of the minister's very diplomatic comments on the state of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The first, from the minister's statement, is:

The targeted nature of the Chinese Government measures on Australian goods raises concerns about China's adherence to the letter and spirit of its ChAFTA and WTO obligations.

It is a good thing that, after much delay, the minister now acknowledges the clear pattern of China's action in what is a coercive trade campaign. Even if the minister can't quite bring himself to use words like 'coercive' or 'punitive', there is no doubt that this campaign is politically driven with the open aim of punishing Australia for noncompliance with China's geopolitical ambitions. In this regard, it's significant that the minister also revealed that China switched off ChAFTA's consultative and review mechanisms some time ago. ChAFTA includes a structure for regular bilateral meetings and a built-in agenda of reviews to address problems and increase two-way trade opportunities. The minister has now acknowledged:

After a reasonable start in bilateral engagement, in recent years the Chinese government's lack of engagement has prevented use of these structures.

It's worth emphasising this point: in recent years, Beijing has switched off the processes of dialogue and review by which bilateral trade problems could be addressed.

The reality is China has been preparing to move against Australia for some time. It is well known that tension in the Australia-China relationship has been building over the past three years. It basically started with concerns about Chinese espionage prompting the Australian government to ban Huawei—an appropriate step—from the 5G network rollout, and this parliament's enacted new laws against foreign espionage. The Chinese Communist regime expressed dissatisfaction with these measures as they ran counter to Beijing's aim of increasing its influence and interfering within Australia.

Against that background, there was a significant report in The Australian newspaper in mid-January. In an interview with The Australian, a senior Chinese official bluntly signalled that Australia-China relations were heading downhill. Wang Chao, President of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs, China's most influential foreign policy think tank, was a member of an official delegation for the sixth annual Australia-China political dialogue. In his interview, he set out several Chinese grievances, especially Australia's ban on Huawei and Australian criticism of China's human rights record, particularly the treatment of Uighurs in the Xinjiang province. Wang expressed the strong view that it was solely the responsibility of Australia to improve bilateral ties. He said Australia had to comply with China's core interests and major concerns. He said that it was up to Australia to do what was required. It was a view of a relationship in which China would call the shots.

What has changed over this year has been the escalation of China's hostile rhetoric and their resort to blatant coercive tactics, but China's political intent has been consistent. The minister could have been more honest today if he had directly acknowledged the politically driven nature of China's actions. China has long held a hierarchical view of international affairs in which Beijing should be the centre of the diplomatic universe. In Beijing's view, smaller, less powerful nations and peoples should pay homage and comply with directions from the centre. This is a world view forged long ago in the days of imperial China but fully held today by leaders of the Chinese Communist Party as their economic power and international influence has grown. Beijing sees our bilateral relationship as a one-way street where they must be in charge. They want to impose the diktat on Australia.

Part of the problem here is that there's been a lot of wishful thinking in Australian policy towards China for a long time. For far too long, our foreign policy elite, including both the coalition and Labor governments, imagined we would happily trade with China and make a lot of money while turning a blind eye to the totalitarian nature of the Chinese Communist regime. Both the coalition and Labor were naive in negotiating a free trade agreement with a regime with no respect for the rule of law. Some of that wishful thinking is still apparent in the minister's statement. The minister refers to Australia using all available dispute mechanisms under ChAFTA and the WTO. We'll get short shrift from China through the bilateral mechanisms and WTO appeals, which will take years to be determined and with which, as the minister mentioned, we have an issue in respect of the appeals jurisdiction. Even the Chinese compliance with any unfavourable ruling is quite uncertain, yet in that context, the minister has reaffirmed the government's commitment to 'building on the gains already achieved under ChAFTA'. Although it was not mentioned in the minister's statement, it was to that end that the government last month rushed to welcome China's expression of interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP. That was a foolish move. Our government should not have been so quick to lay out the welcome mat to the Chinese President's latest geopolitical ambition at a time when China is engaged in a coercive trade campaign against us. In their desperation to ease tension, the government conceded a significant position, to Australia's disadvantage.

Behind the minister's carefully chosen words, the realities of our relationship with China are all too clear. China's ministers refuse to interact with their Australian counterparts, and the Chinese embassy in Canberra released a 14-point diktat laying out their demands for Australia to kowtow before there is any improvement in bilateral relations. Beijing no doubt viewed the government's response in relation to the CPTPP as a concession, and they will press for more. They've already turned up the pressure further in relation to our beef exports, and that won't end the matter. It's noteworthy that in a shift from earlier Chinese wariness about the original TPP agreement, Chinese state controlled media are now portraying the CPTPP as a means to further strengthen China's regional trade position, especially to boost China's digital services sector and digital economy, including ending the national security restrictions on Chinese companies such as Huawei. Australia should not engage with, let alone encourage, China's latest initiative until such time as Beijing drops its current coercive trade campaign and engages properly and bilaterally on the basis of mutual respect. Why would you throw away a few good cards in your hand? Prime Minister Scott Morrison is obviously no poker player.

The regrettable but clear reality is that Australia-China relations are likely to get worse before they stabilise. Australia must stand firm in defence of our national interests and values. We have the national resilience, as well as reliable and powerful allies, to assist in resisting China's attempted coercion. Australia must make a major effort to diversify our economic ties and reduce our economic dependence on Beijing. It may well be that the Australia-China relationship will be considerably more distant in the future. Meanwhile, it cannot be said that China's so-called wolf-warrior diplomacy is a very good formula for winning friends and influencing people. China's diplomats aren't political wolves, and most of the time their yapping is directed mainly at their political masters in Beijing. We would do well to ignore most of their feigned outrage and attention-seeking tweets. China has done much damage to its reputation as a trading partner and as a responsible member of the international community. Amid all the tumult, that one thing is very clear.