Topics: China accusations of Australia; Jim Chalmers’s distraction from real inflation problem; Lidia Thorpe;

1020 AEST
25 October 2024

 

Laura Jayes:  China has accused Australia of systemic racism after a diplomat raised human rights concerns against Uyghurs at the UN. A China Foreign Ministry spokesperson criticised Australia for politicising human rights issues. Joining me now is the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Simon Birmingham. Simon, thanks so much for your time. Accusing Australia of being racist?

 

Simon Birmingham: Morning, LJ. Well, LJ, it’s a real study in contrast, here you’ve got Australia engaging at the United Nations in an established forum that is there for a human rights check to be undertaken on all the countries of the world through an established process. The contribution Australia made was careful, thoughtful, accurate and balanced and also contained some self-reflection, acknowledging that no country has a perfect record on human rights. And yet the Chinese response was to be accusatory, defensive and to not acknowledge at the very serious issues that have been independently identified in Xinjiang and Tibet, and issues that the Albanese Government talked tough on before the last election about pursuing with sanctions but has had little action since then. We welcome the statement, the accurate statement in an appropriate forum at the UN, and it’s unfortunate to see China respond in such a way and in a way that seems to suggest that the wolf warrior diplomacy that we thought existed in the past is something they’re still happy to roll out, even with the most careful and considerate of criticism is supplied.

 

Laura Jayes: I mean, a lot of the tension with China at the time was blamed on the previous government, the government you were involved in under Scott Morrison because of the call for an investigation into the origins of Covid. Does this show that this government is at risk of not the same thing, but, you know, China are pretty sensitive to public criticism, even private criticism.

 

Simon Birmingham: Well, LJ, I think much of the prior criticism was misplaced and that the approach China was taking at the time, which saw trade sanctions levelled not just against Australia, but against other countries around the world, against Lithuania, actions taken against Canada in different ways. China was at the time very aggressively targeting countries and trying to apply a coercive approach to stop countries from either acting in their self-interest, as the Coalition government was doing. When we put in place protections for our democratic institutions, for critical infrastructure in Australia, banning Huawei from our phone networks, decisions and actions that the Chinese government didn’t like but were necessary for the national interest. That is largely what provoked Chinese responses at the time. Equally, this sensitivity just to mere criticisms. And ultimately China is a great power. It is a very significant power in terms of its economic strength, its burgeoning military strength, which is of deep concern in our region. But on great powers does lie great responsibility. And what we and the nations of our region and the world really need to try to get Beijing to understand is the need to act and engage in responsible ways. It’s why we have to have a deterrence framework, and that defence investment is crucial, but also why diplomatic efforts have to drive home the fact that this type of response, in a diplomatic sense, equally the way China’s military conducts itself in our region, these are not the actions of a responsible great power. They indeed destabilise the region and undermine the credibility of international institutions that are there to try to advance issues like human rights.

 

Laura Jayes: On a separate issue, Jim Chalmers is in DC. We saw those IMF warnings about inflation and where Australia sits in all of that. He’s made a statement saying, well, look, if there’s no ceasefire in the Middle East that does risk the inflation story here and it not coming into that target band when we want to see it. It’s fair enough, isn’t it?

 

Simon Birmingham: It’s a distraction from the real task and responsibility that lies on Jim Chalmers’s shoulders. When he became treasurer, Australia’s inflation rate was below that of the United States, where he is right now. It was below the EU, the UK, Canada. Today it’s above all of those countries under Jim Chalmers watch. After three Labor budgets, the relative position of Australia’s inflation situation is worse than it was when he was elected. So, to try to create a distraction by talking about the international issues in the Middle East, when his own policies have ensured that Australians are facing inflation and interest rates staying higher for longer than in other parts of the world. That’s the real challenge that Jim Chalmers has got to own up to and tackle.

 

Laura Jayes: Lidia Thorpe, let’s end on this on a Friday. I spoke to her yesterday, she’s adamant she’s not going anywhere.

 

Simon Birmingham: Do we have to?

 

Laura Jayes: Well, I mean, she says she’s not going anywhere. She says that she read hairs because that’s how she read it. Maybe she said she misspoke. It was a mistake. She wasn’t trying to undermine it.

 

Simon Birmingham: Do you believe that, LJ?

 

Laura Jayes: Well, yeah, I do, because she signed it. She signed it anyway.

 

Simon Birmingham: Well, the day before she spoke to you, the tone and the words on the ABC seemed to be proudly declaring in a smart arse type way. I didn’t, you know, I didn’t say the oath. I didn’t read “heirs and successes”, I said “hairs”. That was the tone of what was said the day before. Of course, as soon as somebody suggested, well, if you did that intentionally, if you didn’t make the oath and take the affirmation as required by the Constitution, that could call into question the validity of you taking up your seat in the Senate. As soon as those questions were asked. Then she back-pedals.

 

Laura Jayes: Well, Anne Twomey doesn’t think so because she signed it. I mean she went and signed it. But it doesn’t matter. She signed it anyway. I mean. What’s the advice that the Coalition’s got so far?

 

Simon Birmingham: So, we’ve written to the president of the Senate. The relevant clause of section 42 of the Constitution indicates that members of Parliament need to both make and subscribe the oath or affirmation of office. There’s obviously no doubt that that Lydia Thorpe in signing the Test Roll did subscribe the affirmation of office. There is a doubt as to whether she made the affirmation of office. There are those two steps that are required in the Constitution, reflected in the Standing Orders of the Senate, explained in Odgers Australian Senate practice as to how that occurs, and practically apply by senators verbally standing there and undertaking an oath or affirmation, and then following that by signing the test roll. Those two requirements are both there in the Constitution, and it appears that Lidia Thorpe has only completed one of those requirements. Now it’s up to the president of the Senate to look carefully at that case and to consider the implications of it and how that may be addressed as to her eligibility to sit in the Senate and take up her seat, as she was duly elected by Greens voters to do so.

 

Laura Jayes: Yeah, she’s not part of the Greens anymore.

 

Simon Birmingham: Don’t vote Greens, one of the lessons there too. Don’t vote Greens and you won’t get people like Lidia Thorpe.

 

Laura Jayes: All right. You can have that on a Friday. Simon Birmingham, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.

 

[ENDS]