Australian Politics

China accuses Australia of ‘systemic racism and hate crimes’ as Xi meets Putin in Russia

The Peace of Westphalia ended a long episode of war. It said that governments should not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. Regrettable that Australia has not followed that

China has accused Australia of “systemic racism and hate crimes” and “hypocrisy” after an Australian diplomat raised international concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet in the UN.

In some of the sharpest comments launched at Canberra by Beijing during the “stabilisation” era, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Li Jian on Wednesday evening denounced Australia for criticising China publicly.

“Out of their ideological bias, Australia, the US and a handful of other Western countries stoked confrontation at multilateral platforms for their selfish political interest,” said the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, in response to an apparent dorothy dixer by China’s national broadcaster CCTV.

“Australia, long plagued by systemic racism and hate crimes, have severely violated the rights of refugees and immigrants, and left Indigenous people with vulnerable living conditions,” the Chinese government spokesman continued.

“Australian soldiers have committed abhorrent crimes in Afghanistan and other countries during their military operations overseas.

“These Western countries turn a blind eye to their severe human rights issues at home but in the meantime point their fingers at other countries. This says a lot about their hypocrisy on human rights,” he said.

Anthony Albanese said Australia had been “clear and consistent” with China in its concerns over Beijing’s human rights abuses.

“We, of course, will always stand up for Australia’s interests. And when it comes to China, we’ve said we’ll cooperate where we can, we’ll disagree where we must, and we’ll engage in our national interest” Mr Albanese said at a press conference in Samoa on Thursday.

“And we’ve raised issues of human rights with China. We’ve done that in a consistent and clear way,” the PM said.

Opposition foreign Affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham said Australia’s ambassador to the UN had been “factual, balanced and considered”.

“Australia has acknowledged that none of us is perfect on human rights, yet that is what China pretends,” senator Birmingham said.

But he said the government’s words underscored that Foreign Minister Penny Wong had fallen “a long way short of delivering on the tough talk of sanctions” she made before the last election.

The diplomatic tussle comes as President Xi meets with Vladimir Putin at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan, a key plank in their shared efforts to increase China and Russia’s voices in the international system and reduce the clout of America and its allies.

The group’s original members include countries with strategic ties with America, such as India, and countries that are openly hostile to Washington, such as Russia.

Chinese state media has hailed the grouping, which it argues is reshaping the international system to give more clout to marginalised non-Western countries.

China’s official newsagency Xinhua noted that Xi had compared the five original members of the BRICS group, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, to the fingers of one hand.

“They are short and long if extended, but form a powerful fist if clenched together,” Xi reportedly said.

China’s fresh diplomatic fight with Australia — redolent of the near daily tirades it launched at the Morrison government for much of 2020 and 2021 — demonstrates the intense struggle that continues below the surface of “stabilisation”, the Albanese government’s euphemism for its modest expectations for relations with Beijing in the Xi era.

China’s president has ordered his diplomats to show “fighting spirit” when their country is criticised.

Earlier this week, Australia’s UN Ambassador James Larsen told the UN General Assembly’s human rights committee that Canberra, on behalf of its partners, had urged Beijing to implement all the recommendations made by a UN report into human rights abuses in Xinjiang, home to most of China’s Muslim Uighur population.

The Australian Ambassador noted that rather than meaningfully address the UN’s “well-founded concerns”, China had instead labelled the UN assessment “illegal and void”.

Mr Larsen called on Beijing to allow “unfettered and meaningful” access to Xinjiang and Tibet for independent observers, including from the UN, to evaluate the human rights situation.

“No country has a perfect human rights record, but no country is above fair scrutiny of its human rights obligations,” the Australian diplomat said.

“It is incumbent on all of us not to undermine international human rights commitments that benefit us all, and for which all states are accountable,” he said.

Chinese diplomats were able to blunt the criticism by rounding up countries — almost entirely members of its Belt and Road Initiative — to support its position or withhold support for the Australian motion.

Pakistan, a huge recipient of Chinese financial support, delivered a joint counter statement on behalf of 80 countries that said any issues related to Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet were internal matters for China.

Australia’s joint statement was supported by Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the US.

Benjamin Herscovitch, an expert on the bilateral relationship, at Australian National University, said despite the “diplomatic sparring”, both the Australian and Chinese governments would keep prioritising their respective trade and investment agendas.

“This is sharper rhetoric than we usually see from either Canberra or Beijing in the recent stabilisation era. But it’s unlikely to cause serious turbulence in bilateral ties.

“Disagreements over human rights are baked into the Australia-China relationship,” Dr Herscovitch told The Australian.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/china-accuses-australia-of-systemic-racism-and-hate-crimes-as-xi-meets-putin-in-russia/news-story/02adf3f2589f4b7f060a8137a39eb4a8

*********************************************

An incredible feat of bureaucratic failure: Bass Strait ferries on ice until 2027

In what is labelled “Australia’s biggest infrastructure stuff up”, two new $900m ferries will be leased out or stored for up to two years because their new berth is not ready.

Tasmania’s ferries fiasco deepened on Thursday after the state government revealed the two new Spirit of Tasmania Bass Strait passenger and car ferries may not have a suitable berth built until February 2027.

The delay, on top of estimated $500m-plus budget blowouts and years of previous delays, led the state’s business community to suggest it had lost trust in the state’s Liberal government.

“This is a dark day for Tasmania,” said Michael Bailey, chief executive of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “This is even worse than we first thought.

“The economic costs will be felt by businesses and taxpayers for years to come, our brand has been damaged and it has impacted on business confidence…It will be very difficult to trust this government again because of this.”

It is estimated each year of delay in deploying the new larger capacity Finnish-built vessels on the busy Geelong-Devonport run will cost the state $350m in lost revenue.

The extraordinary failure to build a wharf capable of accommodating the new ships, despite years of notice, has already cost Treasurer Michael Ferguson and two ferry bosses their jobs.

Premier Jeremy Rockliff on Thursday said an expert report into how to best respond to the “extremely regrettable” situation had now advised the new Berth 3 may not be ready until February 2027.

Previous plans for a temporary solution at a nearby wharf had been rejected as too slow, costly and risky, given the proximity to commercial shipping.

Instead, attempts would be made to build Berth 3 by October 2026, allowing the new ships into service for the 2026-27 peak summer season, while leasing them out until then.

The first new ferry is due to leave Finland in coming weeks and the second is due to arrive by the second half of 2025.

While leasing could provide some income to offset cost blowouts – and to fund $25m tourism industry compensation announced this week – the government conceded it may not be “financial beneficial”.

In this case, the government said it would find a “medium-term storage option” and direct the state-owned port authority to provide it for free.

Mr Rockliff said the government – which has blamed its own ferry and ports government businesses enterprises for the blunders – would also reform these bodies.

“We will sort the Spirits, fix the GBEs and back Tasmania’s tourism industry,” Mr Rockliff said.

Transport Minister Eric Abetz said infrastructure delivery experts Ben Maloney and Peter Gemell would continue to help oversee project delivery.

“Despite the challenges, Tasmanians can be confident that Peter and Ben will get this project back on track and delivered,” Mr Abetz said.

Labor leader Dean Winter said the fiasco was now “even worse than anyone could have imagined”.

“The additional delay will cost our tourism industry another $500 million,” Mr Winter said. “When they do arrive, the Spirits will be second-hand.

“Tasmanian taxpayers have paid nearly a billion dollars for new ships, but it’s now another country’s tourism industry that will benefit first. It is a national embarrassment.

“This could well be the biggest infrastructure stuff up in Australian history.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/australias-biggest-infrastructure-stuffup-bass-strait-ferries-on-ice-until-2027/news-story/561a28e0ac5abaf3ce10190100290565

********************************************

No elected official should boast about what looks like trying to dodge constitutional requirements

Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe has doubled down on her importance in government saying she is there to do a job in getting “justice” for her people and bringing the “nation together”.

The real problem with Lidia Thorpe is not her manners. It’s her ignorance, closely followed by her duplicity.

How could a member of the Senate be so confused about basic elements of this country’s system of government?

And how could any elected official boast about what looks like an attempt to dodge the constitutional requirement to swear allegiance to Australia’s head of state?

This affair proves the case for a renewed emphasis on civics education, not just for new members of parliament but for schools and other institutions where woke ideology is attacking the legitimacy of so-called “settler states”.

Thorpe’s shouted assertion that King Charles is not her king was not just rude, it is at odds with constitutional reality and the fact that she purported to swear allegiance to the Crown when she entered parliament.

The Crown in question is not that of Britain. It is the Australian Crown – an institution that Charles personifies by force of the Constitution which is itself an expression of the will of the Australian people.

Thorpe’s return to obscurity might be hastened by her disclosure on ABC television that she only swore allegiance to the late Queen’s “hairs” not the Queen’s heirs.

If she thinks that’s clever, she has not read section 42 of the Constitution.

This provision says that before senators can take their seats in parliament they must make an oath or affirmation “in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution”.

The schedule is clear: it’s heirs and successors according to law, not hairs.

If the oath of office has not been taken in the form required by section 42 – and Thorpe says it has not – she cannot sit as a senator until that requirement is met.

But even that admission might be misleading if it turns out that she also swore allegiance in writing – something that now needs to be pursued.

Thorpe also seems to have forgotten that this country has been entirely decolonised since Labor’s Bob Hawke pushed through the Australia Acts in 1986 severing our last legal links with Britain.

Thanks to Hawke and earlier steps towards true independence, the source of sovereignty in this country is not the royal family or the British parliament, but the Australian people; all of us, including Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

The King is the symbol of that sovereignty. Its source is entirely Australian.

It is beyond argument that this country once consisted of British colonies. But that’s history.

To denounce contemporary Australia in obscene terms as a colony, as Thorpe did before the King, ignores the fact that the colonial era is dead and gone.

Unlike the American Revolution our break with Britain was incremental and amicable but it was just as decisive.

It was brought to completion on March 3, 1986, when the Australia Act came into force one day after equivalent legislation in Britain.

March 3, therefore, is this country’s true independence day – something that needs to be brought home to those who parrot the woke mantra calling for the “settler state” to be “decolonised”.

The Australia Act changed everything, including the nature of the Constitution which started life as part of a British statute drawing on the authority of the British parliament.

After the Australia Act, legal academic Geoffrey Lindell wrote that “ … the status of the Constitution as a fundamental law is now derived from the authority of the Australian people”.

Sir Anthony Mason, a former chief justice of the High Court, came to the same conclusion.

He wrote in the Federal Law Review that Hawke’s legislation “now provides a firmer foundation for the view that the status of the Constitution as a fundamental law springs from the authority of the Australian people”.

For Thorpe to denounce this country as a “colony” is an insult to one of the greatest achievements of one of our greatest prime ministers.

If Thorpe were aware of any of this, it was not apparent when she appeared draped in possum fur, face contorted in rage, screaming at a sick, old man who had just flown halfway around the world on his way to the Commonwealth heads of government meeting.

Her performance reveals no understanding of what real decolonisation involves.

Hawke’s process did not require screaming fits and insults. It required mature negotiations with the governments of Britain and the Australian states.

History everywhere is full of triumph and tragedy. And those like Thorpe who are determined to seek out tragedy can always find plenty.

But relitigating history does nothing for the issues of today that demand practical solutions, not performances.

Thorpe’s rant is based on the silly idea that the current monarch is to blame for everything bad that has happened to Indigenous people since 1788 when Arthur Phillip stepped ashore at Botany Bay.

There was plenty of tragedy. And it continued for too long on both sides of the frontier.

But if the King is responsible for the horrors of the past, he must also be responsible for everything on the other side of the ledger such as universal suffrage, free education, welfare, the rule of law, decolonisation and the fact that Indigenous people are equal citizens in a nation where 40 per cent of the land is under native title.

The reality is Charles did none of that. We did it all. The good and the bad.

To focus on the tragic while ignoring the triumphant is to sell Australia short. We are much more than the unbalanced caricature portrayed by this grievance monger.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/no-elected-official-should-boast-about-what-looks-like-trying-to-dodge-constitutional-requirements/news-story/fc22d6e4a66175b2aa884f92682ff702

***************************************************

Is Labor finally realising the folly of its energy plan?

At the start of the year, Energy Minister Chris Bowen made clear that he’d sought advice from the Climate Change Authority about the government’s 2035 emissions target. He assured the public the target “would be very clear to the Australian people well before the election”. Now he’s walked away from the commitment.

For a possible explanation, look no further than Bowen’s statement that the target would be “ambitious but achievable,” with a qualification that there’s “no point setting a target which the country can’t meet”.

Is this finally an admission by the government that its 2030 targets won’t be met? That Bowen’s “reliable renewables” plan can’t deliver on the promises made? It might also explain why the CCA recently recommended that the loss of social licence for the transition required a “dedicated, independent information and engagement campaign to combat mis- and dis-information”.

The best antidote to such spurious claims is to let facts speak for themselves.

When asked about his legacy, Anthony Albanese said he wanted to be remembered for “acting on climate change”. He legislated a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, underpinned by 82 per cent renewables in the grid and promised a $275 cut in power bills by 2025. It was clear, a long time ago, that the $275 promise was not going to be met. Prices have kept rising as the queues in energy poverty kept growing. Despite suggestions wholesale prices had recently stabilised, the facts tell a different story.

Sky News Political Contributor Chris Uhlmann slams the AEMO which announced it was unable to promise lower electricity prices despite Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s “explicit guarantee” the government could.

In the June quarter, average wholesale prices jumped to $133 per MWh, the highest since the spikes in 2022, and a 23 per cent increase on the previous year.

In NSW, the average price rose to a high of $173 per MWh. Low wind speeds and reduced rainfall in the southern states increased reliance on gas-fired generation, leading to a price hike of $131 per MWh in Tasmania, up by 104 per cent in a year. Proof positive that Bowen’s “reliable renewables” plan was adrift. There’s nothing “reliable” about intermittent, weather-dependent renewables.

These wholesale prices and further transmission costs will feed into the draft Default Market Offer, to be released in March. Labor’s transition plans will again be put to the test, with further power price rises forcing more people into energy poverty.

Emissions decreased by 0.6 per cent in the year to March 2024, now 28.2 per cent below the 2005 baseline and well short of target. Last year, the authority’s report to parliament advised that the transition was “not yet on track to meet its 2030 targets”. On current trends, the targets won’t be met and no expert independent advice suggests otherwise.

In the minister’s own words, “there’s no transition without transmission”.

The public is well aware of the inordinate delays in projects that are all hugely over budget. There’s not enough storage, nor battery capacity, to provide adequate firming for a grid absorbing more renewables. There’s huge workforce shortages in the trades and problems with accommodation and transport for projects in regional areas. This leaves us halfway to securing 82 per cent renewables by 2030.

Inevitably, progress with the transition will be measured against the government’s targets. That’s why Bowen’s priority and focus has been to meet them at the expense of securing reliable and affordable baseload power to replace lost capacity.

In that process, Labor has remained conflicted about the importance of gas, which puts manufacturing and jobs at huge risk. It’s a failure of public policy to not have a domestic gas reservation policy in place. It’s never too late to take decisive action in view of impending supply shortages for domestic use.

Being a responsible global citizen and playing our part under the Paris Agreement should not be at the expense of our national interest. In 2017, then chief scientist Alan Finkel was asked at a Senate estimates hearing to comment on the impact on the world’s climate if carbon emissions were reduced by 1.3 per cent, around the level of our contribution. In reply, Finkel said the impact would be “virtually nothing”.

His response won’t meet with approval by the virtue signallers, but surely our energy transition must be based on a strategy that’s grounded in reality, is accountable for costs, accepts the need for baseload power 24/7, recognises that renewables can’t power the economy, and avoids potential harm.

No doubt the results of the US presidential election will have a profound impact on climate policy. If Donald Trump is elected, will he withdraw from the Paris Agreement? And what might that mean for global climate action?

It seems the Albanese government won’t provide their 2035 emissions target before the election, signalling it could be as early as February. The Coalition made clear that while it’s committed to net zero by 2050, it would not be making any interim commitments ahead of the election.

Both parties have an obligation to provide their whole-of-system costings and the modelling that underpins their plans. This will enable voters to make an informed choice between two distinct and competing visions for the way forward. The result will decide the shape of our energy policy which, as ever, will be fundamental to Australia’s future prosperity.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/is-labor-finally-realising-the-folly-ofits-energy-plan/news-story/87c67565de7d27a90132d3a0a39e2e6e