Time for a Royal Commission on Australian politics’ China funding

Your Assistant Treasurer (and Minister for Housing) looking pretty matey with someone who may have allegiances to another nation.  Australians need to look at just who is funding Australian political processes, and who else’s interests are being served by any such funding. 

 

YET ANOTHER SECURITY ISSUE OVER AN AUSTRALIAN POLITICIAN & SOMEONE WITH ACCESS TO THEM

2021 already looks a lot like 2020 when it comes to China and Australia.  Starting with this week’s revelation that yet another Chinese ex-soldier has an array of links within the Australian government and has provided funding:

A Melbourne-based Chinese businessman who has aligned himself to prominent Liberal Party MPs is facing deportation after being assessed by ASIO as a national security risk, an ABC investigation can reveal.

The businessman, Huifeng “Haha” Liu, is a Liberal Party donor and former soldier in China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) who developed links with federal Liberal MP Gladys Liu and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar.

Mr Liu is contesting the deportation order after the Federal Government rejected his application for permanent residency when security concerns were raised.

This is after Sam Dastayari was caught having chats with people under investigation by Australian security services about the potential for their phones being tapped and then leaving parliament back 2017.  This follows an election which brought Gladys Liu to the Australian Parliament off the back Chinese language signage designed to look like Australian Electoral Commission in 2019.  This follows endless reports of senior people on both sides of Australian politics, and both the ALP and Liberal Parties, receiving very large amounts of funding from foreign sources – with about 80% of that foreign funding coming from China.

This is after China, on a range of spurious pretexts spent most of the year banning imports of Australian barley, beef, wine, coal, lobster & timber.  Those pretexts included (depending on your source of information)…..

 

Calling for an investigation into the origins of COVID19:-  ……..like hello! Is there a single person in the developed world who would NOT be expecting that there be an investigation into the origins, vectors of transmission, and national response to the advent of COVID19, as well as the societal and economic shortcomings the advent of the virus has exposed?  All the more so in nations like Australia where it appears that companies connected to the Chinese state were buying up personal protective supplies and shipping them to China, while the official message was that they had the virus, which first erupted into public consciousness at least in Wuhan, China, under control.

That was a 90 tonnes shipment of Anti  virus gear which was shipped to China by a Chinese Australian property developer at the request of the Chinese government

and

Australians supporting the right to Freedom of Passage through the South China Sea:- …..after a Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal convened under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea rejected China’s claims to a ‘nine dash line’ through seas also claimed by Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, meaning the subsequent building of military facilities on some reefs in the region is an act of confrontation with the nations which also have competing claims in the area, and with the world’s dispute resolution processes.  In this particular issue, Australia’s official position, notwithstanding the occasional exhortation by politicians who have been paid to exhort the pro-China line, has been to support peaceful resolution, and international law.

Like, What the almighty F#&$….

This is after Australia was raking over elected representatives just a few short years ago for having potential allegiances to other nations in breach of our Constitution!!….. Like the UK, Ireland, New Zealand and Italy!

These are nations which have never posed a threat to Australia. Nations which don’t block Australian imports. Nations which don’t detain Australian journalists. Nations where Australian consular officials can get access to any Australians. Nations where Australians can buy real estate. Nations where the the legal system amounts to something which is recognised by our legal system as being something more than the whim of an unknown official. Nations where questions about events and peoples in those nations are not dismissed as ‘internal meddling’.

None of those nations have security officials traipsing around at student demonstrations in Australia noting who is there or letting them know they know where their families are.  None of those nations send gangs of thugs to try and beat up Australian students for protesting in Australian universities about circumstances in those nations.

After so much overt evidence that the Chinese approach to a range of issues is so radically different from Australia’s, and that the Australian people’s expectations of what would otherwise seem reasonable needs to make an exception for something happening in China, is it that much to ask that our politicians not take funding from China?

Given that such a large chunk of the foreign funding for Australian politicians comes from just one nation, which doesn’t recognise dual citizenship of its nationals where they have Australian citizenship, is it that much to ask that our politicians refuse donations from any dual nationals who have Chinese nationality, in addition to Australian citizenship, who offer donations?

Like, What the almighty F#&$….

It is time for a Royal Commission into all funding of Australian politicians, and all funding of Australian political parties, however direct or indirect, which is in any way connected with China, and into what effect such funding has had over the past decade – in terms of public pronouncements, and the determination of Australian public policy.  In the same way it is now time to ask every last one of our elected representatives – at Commonwealth and State levels:

  1.  Can you assure your voters that you have never sought or received direct funding as an individual from Chinese state sources?
  2.  Can your party assure the Australian electorate that they have never sought or received funding as an organisation from Chinese state sources?
  3.  Can you assure your voters that you do not seek or accept direct funding from Australian citizens where these are dual national citizens, and the non Australian nationality does not accept dual citizenship?
  4.  Can your party assure the Australian electorate that they do not seek or accept funding from Australian citizens where these are dual national citizens, and the non Australian nationality does not accept dual citizenship?

Meanwhile back at the neighbourhood watch…..

The ABC piece also contained another factoid of staggering incredulity:

Mr Liu told the ABC he believed ASIO had assessed him as a security risk because he was the president of a popular Australian-Chinese neighbourhood watch organisation which had an agreement to take instructions from the Chinese consulate in Melbourne.

Why on Earth would any Australian neighbourhood watch organisation ‘take instructions’ from a Chinese consulate?  Are there any Chinese neighbourhood watch organisations who ‘take instructions’ from an Australian consulate?  Are there any neighbourhood watch organisations anywhere else on the planet who ‘take instructions’ from an Australian consulate?  And what on Earth would be the purpose of any organisation in Australia to ‘take instruction’ from the Chinese consulate?  To create (or intimidate?) in the minds of local Chinese-Australians the thought that the local Chinese consulate represents some other basis of power in the land in which they live – somehow beyond Australia police, regulatory authorities?  To make sure the local aspiring ‘wolf wanker’ is up to speed and has suitable bullying platform?

So lets add 5 questions for our elected representatives:

  1. Can you assure your voters that you have never sought or received direct funding as an individual from Chinese state sources?
  2. Can your party assure the Australian electorate that they have never sought or received funding as an organisation from Chinese state sources?
  3. Can you assure your voters that you do not seek or accept direct funding from Australian citizens where these are dual national citizens, and the non Australian nationality does not accept dual citizenship?
  4. Can your party assure the Australian electorate that they do not seek or accept funding from Australian citizens where these are dual national citizens, and the non Australian nationality does not accept dual citizenship?
  5. Do you believe it appropriate for any public or community organisations in Australia to ‘take instruction’ from any consulate regarding activities in Australia?

It is time for our politicians to tell us where they stand.

Enough is enough.

Latest posts by Gunnamatta (see all)

Comments

  1. Yep. We need to fight back against this stuff because the futures looking pretty depressing. All you can really do is live in Denial from talking about the future because the more you do, the more you realise, there just isnt a future.

    I dont know what it would take or whats involved but we need to fight back.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      It’s very clear what has to happen. We have to rid Australia of the LNP and Labor parties.

      Completely reform MSM, and get rid of the BS PC that has been designed to undermine the entire structure, security, citizenship, borders, and sustainability of the west.

      • Gunna.

        We know Royal Commission’s are just window dressing that temporarily placate the stupid masses and ultimately reinforce
        the status quo.

        The real problem is the MSM and political correctness. Fix that then we have a chance.

        So in other words we are screwed.

        • President elect George Bernard Shaw

          I don’t necessarily disagree with those sentiments. However at the level the author of the article is talking about the weakness in Australia is the weakness of the Australian judiciary. Compared to other countries Australian courts are weak on these matters, both as an individual unit and the lack of separation of powers.

  2. TailorTrashMEMBER

    The problem with ASIO is that they lack diversity
    What they need is an injection of a dozen or so
    ex PLA soldiers and that would put an end to all this
    national security nonsense .

    • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

      Well if we are preaching diversity, then I think they should also consider removing all the urinals from the men’s bathroom in order to create a more inclusive environment for any trans ASIO spies.

      https://twitter.com/_David_Edward/status/1345892065922703361

      However in regards to calls for a royal commission into political funding – agree 100%. Political parties should be funded by the electoral commission and private donations limited to what they can raise at (audited) sausage sizzles .

    • Isn’t it exactly the point that any state “Security apparatus” mirrors the very advantage that it was designed and developed to protect.
      Suggesting that that ASIO lacks Diversity is akin to suggesting that the Nazi Party expand it’s reach include people of colour. Surely the Aryan Brotherhood would be a more potent and important force today, if it embraced Diversity. See what I mean, these Security organizations are intended to protect and intrench exactly the advantage that one group has gained and is exercising within that society. they need diversity like they need another hole in their head.
      Ah but what about change? what about the inevitability of change? and what happens when this change is largely external and will continue with or without your acceptance?
      What is the point of an organization developed to mirror and amplify social and political advantage when this advantage is waning (and there’s not thing one that they can do to reinstate this advantage) .
      I think this state is called irrelevance, state security organizations hate the thought of becoming Irrelevant but it is the fate that awaits all organizations that fail to change.

      • TailorTrashMEMBER

        I’m sure when Australia is under the jackboot
        ( like Hong Kong , Tibet . Xinjiang ….and soon to be Taiwan then the new security service will embrace change and diversity .
        I’d prefer to stick to the devil I know

  3. Would be helpful to start posting this sort of stuff to Kyle Bass’s twitter feed. He seems one of the most influential voices highlighting these stories.

  4. “Enough is enough”
    Agreed, things are moving too fast and in directions which most westerners are uncomfortable with.
    But it is far from the first time that the first world has been forced to recognize a rising commercial power which is beginning to exercise it’s Political muscle . The famous Cato phrase
    “Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”
    comes to mind
    “Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed”

    For me global Political power is something which trails behind Commercial power and shifts around the world moving from one Empire to the next at a speed governed largely by the rate of change of Commercial power.
    When you intentionally create friction designed specifically to prevent Political power from leveraging Commercial power, you create an environment where war is inevitable.
    Maybe this time is different…

    • A Melbourne-based Chinese businessman who has aligned himself to prominent Liberal Party MPs is facing deportation after being assessed by ASIO as a national security risk, an ABC investigation can reveal.

      No, we should deport the “prominent Liberal Party MPs” as well. Back to China I say.

      Nations which don’t detain Australian journalists.

      …except Julian Assange.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      That bloke gives Independents a bad name.

      He and Oakshot should have;

      1. Defended Wilkie when Gillard reneged, and refused supply. Not because of the policy (pokies), but because that was her commitment.

      2. Demanded immigration be stopped as the core of our economy.

      3. Stopped all the other hare brained Gillard policies.

      What did the bloke stand for? Nothing.

      “do it right do it fibre” WTF. $60b NBN is superseded before it’s finished.

      • kierans777MEMBER

        > $60b NBN is superseded before it’s finished.

        Firstly the price tag got inflated because the LNP cocked up the implementation which saw a lot of waste. Secondly the NBN is “superseded” because the build didn’t allow for expansion. Tony Abbott, the suppository of all wisdom didn’t think anyone would need fast speeds, then Netflix came to Australia.

        The shite quality of the NBN can be squarely placed the LNP’s feet.

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          My objection is to Windsor receiving advice (presumably by vested interests), and making a decision in days to support a ($40b at the time) waste of money. He heard a cliche, “do it right do it with fibre”, thought he was smart and ran with it. I remember him saying it…Sounded like Granddad “look it up on the youtube”.

          There were 1000 other issues he fking ignored. The guy’s a hick who had the strings of the Labor party in his hands and completely messed it up with limelight grandstanding.

          He’s the exact opposite to the Independents we need to save us from LNP and Labor.

          • kierans777MEMBER

            > He’s the exact opposite to the Independents we need to save us from LNP and Labor.

            Seems the only type of Independent that will “save us” are one that thinks exactly like you. Maybe you should become a candidate.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            “are one that thinks exactly like you”

            Yeah. That’s right, one that thinks with the country’s future at the forefront of every decision.

            I can assure you I wouldn’t have made the stupid moves those 3 made. They are an embarrassment to Australia.

            Australia, you, don’t deserve people like me.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            “are one that thinks exactly like you”

            Yeah. That’s right, one that thinks with the country’s future at the forefront of every decision.

            I can assure you I wouldn’t have made the mistakes those 3 made.

            Australia, you kierans777, don’t deserve people like me.

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          “then Netflix came to Australia”

          Does that sound like a thriving economic need that justifies $40b?

          That’s FORTY THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS, blown out to $60b, and the incompetence is still off the scale that I’m still personally a victim of, as most people are.

          It was sold to the electorate as an essential moving forward, because, as Gillard said “we are the smart economy”. lol. There was already fast internet most places, and business that needed it could have moved accordingly.

          This is what you get when someone like Gillard ends up running a country, and someone like Windsor has power.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Windsor, Oakshot and Wilkie had Labor exactly where the country needed them, and had the opportunity to transform Australia. They completely and utterly, comprehensively failed the country.

      What the three achieved was to destroy the Labor party, and give us decades of LNP.

      It should have been different. What a sad part of Australian political history.

      • Yes agreed. Politics is all about marketing, and marketing is all about brand recognition. But I still think the best option is to back a party like SAP that has been out there, doing the hard yards for years. Their policy platform is also well-thought-out, consistent and fair.

    • How’s that yellow vest thing going in France? Is Macron still the president?
      The only way things will change is if you vote them out.
      Edit: To add to this, it is hard to justify protesting, especially when you’re protesting against a democratically elected government.

      • robert2013MEMBER

        There’s occupying an office and then there’s being in power. Macron occupies an office. The elite in France know that if they push, they will be pushed back. The elite in Australia know they can get away with corruption out in the open and nothing will happen. They need to be taught otherwise.

        • By “breaking things” you risk becoming like the BLM movement, some of who are trying to create anarchy by destroying small business and generally menacing peaceful people.

          • robert2013MEMBER

            That is a risk but take another look at the yellow vests. You don’t give them enough credit.

      • To add to this, it is hard to justify protesting, especially when you’re protesting against a democratically elected government.

        Say what ? “Democratically elected Governments” are the easiest to justify protesting, because they’re more likely to respond favourably to demands and you’re relatively unlikely to get shot.

        • Except for the Vietnam War protests, just about all protests since (that I can recall) have had no effect. For example, despite millions of people protesting the looming Iraq war, it still went ahead.
          Edit: actually another one that was successful was Bob Browns protests against the damming of the Franklin River.

          • That’s because there weren’t enough people…

            Yes it is hard to justify protesting against a government, when a much larger proportion of the population voted them in.

          • Except for the Vietnam War protests, just about all protests since (that I can recall) have had no effect. For example, despite millions of people protesting the looming Iraq war, it still went ahead.
            Edit: actually another one that was successful was Bob Browns protests against the damming of the Franklin River.

            And…?

            Yes it is hard to justify protesting against a government, when a much larger proportion of the population voted them in.

            Actually, it’s pretty easy when the Liberal Party runs the show and only attracts ~33% of the primary vote, and the National Party attracts half the vote of the Greens but has twenty times the representation (and therefore influence).

            Our system is more of an electoral dictatorship, than a democracy.

          • Yes I must admit that Australia has a democracy that could be flipped by protests with a parliament controlled by a one seat majority, however protests still don’t seem to have an effect as most of the time the protests appear to be from fringe groups or single issue grievances that most people don’t care about.

          • Look, in summary, what I’m saying is that promoting the general message by supporting sites like Michael West and SAP (which I do with a monthly donation for both) you can effect change. If SAP had enough funds to put up advertisements either on TV, YouTube and other social media, during an election, I’m sure they would get more traction.
            Edit: Protesting has a poor track record for changing anything.

          • bolstroodMEMBER

            Protesting works when there is a social movement behind the protest.
            e.g. Vietnam war, and Northern Rivers CSG Free (Bentely) blockade.
            Building social movements is time and labor intensive, ( Vietnam and Bently took 6 years from start to success) but very rewarding.

  5. kierans777MEMBER

    Shock, horror. Shady Sukkar is busted being even more shady!

    The big problem here is there simply isn’t any moral fibre in the Liberals to deal with this mess. ScumMo only cares about his one seat majority.

  6. I mean it’s not just Chinese donations – its ANY donations.

    Seriously – why does anyone give $$$ to a political party. Sure there might be the odd rusted on mum & dad who give and don’t expect a return but even a donation of $5k or so can get you far.

    In my mind its simple. A ban on ALL corporates and entities giving donations. Only individuals to donate and a cap of say $1k per year per person (that is you can attend a few events). Then we need ALL political parties to be publicly funded and then we have a set CAP (like a salary cap for sporting teams) on elections. Get the government department to book a certain number of advertising slots and hand them out.

  7. Need to reform the whole political donations mechanism with some big dumb rules.

    1. Donations allowed from registered voters only.
    2. Maximum of a few thousand $ per year.
    3. Any attempts to circumvent the limits should result in crippling fines and mandatory gaol time for all parties who had knowledge.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      How you going to make those reforms? If you think donations corrupt, why are you endorsing donations? You think people donate their own money to parties for anything but favours whether they’re registered voters or not?

      • I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong or corrupt with donations. Properly regulated (and it’s not like that would be difficult to do), they are a pseudo-democratic mechanism (good ideas will attract widespread support). Lots of people donate money to political campaigns if they believe in their message or objectives, and in amounts clearly too small to carry any expectation of individual quid pro quo.

        Ultimately, representatives need to get elected to achieve anything, and getting elected costs money. And that’s before considering other costs that might be incurred like policy development.

        The problem is very large donations from single individuals (and especially corporate entities) giving them (either explicitly or implicitly) disproportionate influence.

  8. Jumping jack flash

    Pollies are people too, and people need debt! Gargantuan piles of it to afford the standard of living they expect in a fine country like this.

    Debt eligibility is linked to income (at least for the time being), so if you can supplement your income with money from some Chinamen, then you can live it up on top of enormous piles of economy-crushing debt, and show off all your riches to your mates who scratch their heads and furiously wonder how it can be while they turn green with envy.

  9. President elect George Bernard Shaw

    Thanks for drawing the spotlight on this. However, I mean this in good faith, is a royal commission really the answer? It reminds me of the call we need a royal commission into royal commissions. Given the precedence of findings of royal commissions being ignored and the time gap from the commencement to any meaningful action being taken. Or maybe what is required is not exclusively a royal commission. A royal commission could be had with other action.

  10. TailorTrashMEMBER

    So the court has stopped his deportation but can an Australian court order an Australian government to issue a visa to a foreign National . Do foreign nationals have rights to reside in Australia if they decide to challenge the government . Can the court order that he be given permanent residence or even citizenship ?
    I’m sure he will have access to lots of funds to test these questions .

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now