Taxpayers have right to know what Morrsion adviser Michelle Chan had to say about government funding for the China driven Australia-China Belt and Road Initiative

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Michelle Chan



It is obvious that the Australia-China Belt and Road Initiative  obtained a useful cover for its China antecedents when it received funding from DFAT (see story below). It is equally obvious that the Morrison Government ought to have taken steps to prevent if not curtail that funding. Morrison's national security adviser Michelle Chan (see photo and caption above)  would have been the person responsible for the relevant advice.
Taxpayers have a right to know what she (or any other advisor) told Scott Morrison.



TO BE READ WITH



Adviser’s secret link to state’s agreement on Belt and Road
Daniel Andrews, left, with consultant Jean Dong, right, at an ACBRI event in Victoria.
EXCLUSIVE

DAMON JOHNSTON
VICTORIA EDITOR
@damonheraldsun

RACHEL BAXENDALE
VICTORIAN POLITICAL REPORTER
@rachelbaxendale
7:05AM MAY 25, 2020
453 COMMENTS


A pro-Chinese company was promoting the Belt and Road Initiative to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews while at the same time being paid by the Andrews government to provide advice on the controversial investment and trade deal.

Mr Andrews’s office confirmed the Melbourne-based Australia-China Belt and Road Initiative company was awarded two taxpayer-funded contracts in 2017-18 and 2019-20 totalling $36,850 to advise on China’s global commercial play.

The organisation was set up by young former Chinese television journalist Jean Dong five years ago

Ms Dong, now 33, was present at the signing of the Australia-China free-trade agreement in 2015 and recruited former federal Liberal trade minister Andrew Robb and former Labor finance minister Lindsay Tanner to the company’s advisory board.

Scott Morrison on Sunday ­repeated the commonwealth’s ­opposition to Victoria signing on to the Belt and Road Initiative as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned any BRI project was designed to boost the power of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Andrews government conceded on Sunday it had breached disclosure rules in failing to report the expenditure on the consultancy, blaming an “administrative error”.

“The advice from ACBRI provided valuable insights into opportunities for Victoria arising from the BRI,” a government spokesman said. “An administrative error led to the first of the engagements not being published in the relevant department’s 2017-18 annual ­report. The second of the engagements will be reported … as scheduled.”

Departments are required to publish details of all $10,000-plus consultancies.

ACBRI has been heavily ­involved in promoting China’s Belt and Road Initiative to the ­Victorian government and business community, and in 2017 posted online that it had in May of that year been “appointed as a consultant unit by the Premier of ­Victoria”.

Mr Andrews spoke at one of ACBRI’s events, during which he talked enthusiastically about closer commercial ties between China and Victoria. Mr Pompeo — who has in the past said any country that signed up to BRI was “selling their soul” — said on Sunday that the China deal would come at an economic and security cost to ­Victorians.

“Every citizen of Australia should know that each one of those Belt and Road projects needs to be looked at incredibly closely,” he told Sky News. “That proposes real risk. Real risk to the people of that region, real risk to the country, and quite frankly it builds the capacity of the Chinese Communist Party to do harm.”
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Picture: AFP

Mr Pompeo admitted he did not know the full details of the Victorian deal, but said anything that affected the US would result in a disconnect from wider security co-operation with Australia.

“To the extent they have an ­adverse impact on our ability to protect telecommunications for our private citizens, or security networks for our defence and intelligence communities — we simply disconnect, we will simply separate,” he said.

Despite concerns about the Victorian BRI deal in Washington and Canberra, there are no telecommunications projects lined up and any would be blocked as it falls under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth.

US ambassador to Australia Arthur Culvahouse Jr later clarified the Secretary of State’s comments, saying Mr Pompeo had been asked to address a hypo­thetical question.

“We have every confidence that Australia, as a close ally and Five Eyes partner, would take every measure necessary to ensure the security of its telecommunications networks,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the Victorian Premier told The Australian the state government would not agree to any telecommunications projects under the China deal. She said the BRI was needed to boost jobs during the COVID-19 economic recovery.

In October 2018, Mr Andrews defied federal government security advice and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese communist government to commit Victoria to joining its Belt and Road Initiative.
ACBRI chief executive Jean Dong, left, an event promoting Australia-China business opportunities.

A spokeswoman for the Premier said: “The agreement is about creating opportunities for Victorian businesses and creating more local jobs — and we’re proud to work with the Australia-China Belt and Road Initiative.”

In a statement released to The Australian on Sunday, Ms Dong, ACBRI’s director, secretary and chief executive, said: “ACBRI is not involved in any formal process towards the Victorian government striking a Belt and Road Initiative agreement.

“We are an Australian advisory organisation funded by Australian businesses to advise on Belt and Road opportunities and developments for Australian businesses. In that capacity, we advised the Victorian government on BRI ­opportunities and current developments. That was the end of it.”

While Ms Dong played down ACBRI’s role in persuading Mr Andrews to sign the 2018 MOU and 2019 “framework agreement” the 33-year-old businesswoman has previously talked up the company’s involvement.

In an official website post linked to the Chinese consulate-general in Melbourne in May 2017, Ms Dong indicates ACBRI was involved in promoting the scheme’s benefits to the government.

The website post states: “In May this year (2017), the center (sic) (ACBRI) was appointed as a consultant unit by the premier of Victoria. The next step will be to assist the state government to sign a co-operation agreement with the National Development and ­Reform Commission and to set up the ‘belt and road initiative’ office. The center (sic) will be responsible for planning and implementing specific projects, and strive to make Victoria a model for Sino-Australian ‘belt and road initiative’ co-operation.”

The ACBRI website details the influential role played by Ms Dong in Australian-Chinese business and political circles.

“Jean was invited to meet with President Xi (Jinping) and other dignitaries. Jean was also invited by Minister Andrew Robb to witness the official signing of the ChAFTA in Canberra in June 2015,” the website says.

“With Jean’s responsibility and achievement of executing this MOU in 2015, Jean was recognised by Tasmanian government as one of the key people leading the growth of the Tasmania-China ­relationship in 2015 and invited to meet with the Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Consultative Conference and the Premier of Tasmania at the first anniversary of the visit to Tasmania by President Xi Jinping.”

Ms Dong said Mr Robb and Mr Tanner were not paid for their roles. She said the ACBRI was hired by the Victorian government to “provide guidance in developing business focus for the collaboration of Australian and Chinese expanded trade and investment”.

Ms Dong said the ACBRI did not receive any funding from the Chinese government, and was created with seed funding through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Victoria has found itself at the frontline of tensions between Australia and China because of the decision by Mr Andrews to sign up to the Belt and Road Initiative.

Last week, as Victoria was locked in the final weeks of negotiations with China to strike a final agreement on a BRI “investment road map”, due mid-year, Treasurer Tim Pallas slammed the Morrison government’s handling of Chinese relations.

READ MORE:Premier’s office censors emails on deal|We’ll stand up for national interest despite the bluster|US threatens to cut us off over Victoria’s China deal|China deal ‘went too far’|We ain’t seen nothing yet as China flexes bullying muscles

To counter Chinese infiltration Australia must take the same medicine it approved for Singapore in the 60s: A Singapore type Operation Cold Store is needed as a matter of urgency-Intelligence man Peter Varghese would understand, and should offer himself as a subject for interrogation and sanction

by Ganesh Sahathevan




As a former intelligence chief UQ's
Peter Varghese would understand better
than most why Australia needs a
Singapore style Operation Cold Store.
Australia faces in the 21st century the same sort of infiltration by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)  that  Singapore and Malaysia have had to confront since the mid 40s.  While the CCP's strategy in Australia is more covert and does not include a 1940s style armed insurgency, the objective of influencing local politics to serve the interest of the CCP remains.

As is the case today in Australia, the CCP found support and gained the cooperation among Singapore and Malaysia's political classes, including those in government. In Singapore the problem was addressed in 1963 by the detention of a number of prominent members of  the ruling Peoples Action Party (PAP). Codenamed Operation Cold Store, it's execution by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew remains controversial and is considered by many to be nothing more than part of Lee's determination to get rid of his rivals. Be that all as it may be, Chin Peng the leader of the Malayan Communist Party at the time, wrote in his autobiography:

"Operation Cold Store shattered our underground network throughout the island. Those who escaped the police net went into hiding. Many fled to Indonesia".

The Australian Government in 1963, led by Robert Menzies, did not object to Operation Cold Store and successive Australian prime ministers remained firm supporters of Lee Kuan Yew and his methods. The current Australian Government should then have no objection to adapting some of Lee's techniques: while detention without trial might not be possible under Australian law, removing from positions of authority or influence those who have been identified with the CCP and its operations in Australia should not be difficult. 

The Australian case is in many ways simpler to analyse, for supporters of the CCP have not been shy to identify themselves with the CCP cause. One recent example is Peter Varghese, the University Of Queensland Chancellor who  has found it possible to justify disciplinary action against a student activist on the basis that the student's activities condemning the conduct of the CCP would harm UQ's relationship with the CCP. As former intelligence chief Varghese of all people would understand why he should  be first among those subject to sanctions under an Australian version of Operation Cold Store.

TO BE READ WITH 

uesday, May 19, 2020

That ordinary Australian university student politics can harm trade with China demonstrates why Peter Varghese & Andrew Robb's China FTA is a bad deal: Varghese must be removed as UQ Chancellor, must not be allowed to trash Australian university traditions in order to defend his legacy

by Ganesh Sahathevan

                         

                                           Australian national interest better served by the removal of
                                                               Peter Varghese as UQ Chancellor



In praise of his work the then  Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Peter N Varghese AO declared in 2015: 

"ChAFTA is a remarkably good deal for Australia and the best deal that China has done with any partner to date.ChAFTA will make a real difference to the livelihoods of Australian farmers and producers".

The claim that the China-Australia Free Trade deal (ChAFTA) is "the best" that China has done with any country is interesting. Given the position that Australia finds itself in today where it would seem that nothing can be decided in the national interest 

Varghese worked on that deal with his minister, the then Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb.  That Robb agreed to Chinese workers effectively taking the place of local workers on Australian construction sites, in order to get the deal done, says much of Robb's incompetence. That he then went on to work for the PLA linked Landbridge says much about his loyalties. 

That ordinary student politics at UQ  can be seen to harm UQ's  business relationship with China provides further evidence that the ChAFTA was a bad deal to begin with. That Varghese finds himself in a position where he has to deal with the consequences of his work is poetic. He must not however be allowed to use his position to defend his legacy, and in the process ruin the tradition we have in Australian universities of open and vigorous debate, no matter how unruly or offensive it may seem. 
Varghese must go,and Pavlou be provded all the backing he needs to ensure that the perpetrators of the so-called "disciplinary action" against him are removed from the tertiary education system.

END 

TO BE READ WITH 

Peter Varghese has been wrong about Iran, jihadis in SEA, and now China: Australia's national interest better served by the activism of UQ student Drew Pavlou, not UQ Chancellor Peter Varghese. Australians should seek Varghese's removal as UQ Chancellor

Lee Kuan Yew's solution to the problem of Nanyang University a way out of the problem of Zhu Minshen's Top Group and Sydney City School Of Law

by Ganesh Sahathevan

From left to right :Prof Eugene Clark, Hon George Brandis, 

Dr Minshen Zhu.Politicians constantly change their position

on matters and their allegiances, so Brandis being critical

of Zhu while being happy to be photographed with him is not

inconsistent, for a politician. 

The security and intelligence issues with regards   Zhu Minshen and his Top Education Group's one and only license to grant law degrees are escalating given the growing tensions between Australia and China.  
The license has been used to establish  the Sydney City School Of Law, which https://ganeshsahathevan.blogspot.com/2020/02/surprised-that-anyone-in-their-right.html?fbclid=IwAR0aYumIrRLFea5Q1_9f2T-JmyDGjucgFVW6u731keFs87i7M-3ToUl6g3k

The issues faced here are not very different from that faced by the Government of Singapore in 1963, with regards the Communist Party Of China backed Nanyang University.

Outlining the problem then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said: 

One special problem in education is how to check the nation from being undermined by Communist groups recruiting and training in some Chinese schools and in Nanyang University; and in Nanyang University the Communists may confuse some people into believing that action meant to restrict their conspiracy is a violation of some sacred principle.
Nanyang University Council has hitherto spurned every Government grant to help it raise its standards and put its organisation into shape, largely because the Communists have been able to manipulate some leaders of the Chinese merchant community who have pretensions to greatness to perhaps inherit the mantle of another Chinese patriot like the late Tan Kah Kee.

In Nanyang University with their financial autonomy leaving them in an academic morass, a situation is developing, which, if left unchecked within five years, will make it a University of Yenan more than of Nanyang with young pro-Communist graduates and student leaders manipulating the entire governing Council of Nanyang University. Professors and lecturers on year to year contracts renewable at will of the Council cannot have economic security, let alone academic freedom. Indeed, the problems of Nanyang can never be resolved until the political abuse the Communists make of it is exposed and stopped.

Only a few days ago, the Communists manipulated Nanyang University Students’ Union issued a statement declaring that the University Council should discontinue discussions with the Government on aid and reorganisation and without supervision and refuse any financial aid unless given unconditionally.

It is the duty of the Government to raise academic standards in Nanyang University and give it as much assistance as it gives to the University of Singapore. But it is also the duty of the Government to see that none of this money is allowed to be expended on strengthening the intellectual cadre of the Communist Party of Malaya.

Members will agree that it is not the business of our Government to give money to help train more Communist cadres to destroy the democratic state. 

The problem the Australian Government faces with regards Top Group and its soon to be admitted lawyers is in a sense more insidious for with the license to grant law degrees comes inclusion into the regulatory bodies that govern the legal system in Australia.  That Commonwealth funding in the form of FEE HELP is being used to further Zhu's activities in China is a matter of public record.

Lee's solution to the Nanyang problem was to simply absorb Nanyang into the then Singapore University, to establish the new National University Of Singapore. Similarly the solution to the problem of Zhu Minshen's license to issue law degrees would be to absorb students enrolled pursuant to that license into one or a range of existing law schools. Enrolment of new students can be halted, and the license suspended.  The grounds for doing so are many and varied, but the conduct of the NSW LPAB in issuing and reviewing that license would be a good place to start.

TO BE READ WITH

"The fishy smell around Zhu Minshen's Top Education Institute": Clive Hamilton's "Silent Invasion" raises questions for NSW AG Mark Speakman & the LPAB
NSW LPAB granted Zhu Minshen his license to grant LLBs despite Law Society WA complaining of oversupply of lawyers:NSW LPAB said it consulted with other states before granting Zhu his "one and only" license

Did the Law Council Australia and the NSW LPAB ignore ASIO advice in granting Zhu Minshen the right to grant LLB degrees, and entree into Australia's legal system?

In July 2019 Nick Saunder's TEQSA declared that almost all Australian unis were not at risk of over-reliance on a single source of revenue-TEQSA and Saunders have yet to explain errors post COVID19

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The following information has been extracted from TEQSA's Key risk findings on Australia’s higher education sector, published in July 2019

Financial Sustainability considers the longer-term financial strength and capacity of providers, including structural characteristics that support operating endurance. Measures are generally analysed over a three-year period and cover change in total revenue, asset (capital) replacement, employee benefits expenditure, enrolments, and revenue concentration/diversification (page 81 of publication).


The position post-COVID19, where the university sector as a whole is reeling from the  loss of revenue from Chinese students ,  is well summarised by The Guardian in these paragraphs:

Australia’s university sector says it faces economic catastrophe and massive job losses unless it receives more help from the government during the coronavirus crisis.

It is begging the federal government to immediately extend interest-free loans, as institutions – large and small – devise plans to slash hundreds of millions of dollars from their 2020 budgets in anticipation that foreign student income will dry up in the second semester.

The TEQSA report is ultimately the responsibility of its chairman, Nick Saunders, who has yet to explain his now obvious error. He must not be allowed to hide behind any argument that his report did not say "China", "Chinese students" or similar with regards"revenue concentration" or "single source revenue".

TO BE READ WITH 

Nick Saunder's TEQSA has granted Minshen Zhu's Top Group permission to open a branch campus in Hobart, and increase Sydney student numbers despite sharp fall in market cap;TEQSA approval can aid Top's cashflow

HK's Simply Wall St raises even more concerns about Zhu Minshen's Top Education Group's cashflow - Proper investigation of issues hindered by the effective immunity enjoyed by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst who granted Zhu the one and only license to grant law degrees

Dan Andrew's China deal reinforces the need for a Malaysia style Operation Judas: Australia has a legion of Chin Peng's and they can command the obedience of leaders in government, the legal system, and business

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Victorian premier Daniel AndrewsTim Blair Blog Posts                                                                                 While Daniel Andrews pretends to hear nothing, other Australian leaders                                                            seem genuinely deaf and blind to China's infiltration

 Australians are slowly learning that the Government of Victoria, one of their largest and most prosperous states, are about to take that state into a comprehensive Belt&Road debt plan: 

Victoria is locked in critical final-stage negotiations with Beijing over investments worth billions of dollars at the same time as its Treasurer has savaged the Morrison government’s “vilification” of China over trade and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tim Pallas’s pro-China intervention comes as the deadline for Victoria to sign an “investment road map”, which ties the state to the communist giant with extraordinarily cosy language, is just weeks away.

Under Victoria’s decision to sign-up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative — in defiance of federal government security advice — key investment details are meant to be signed by the middle of 2020 following completion of a draft road map in March.


The looming deadline emerged as the Andrews government dodged parliamentary questions on Wednesday about whether any of the state’s $24bn coronavirus rescue package would be borrowed from China.

The “framework agreement” underpinning the Victoria-China deal was signed by Premier Daniel Andrews and Vice-Chairman Ning Jizhe of the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China on October 23 last year.

The document raises the possibility that Mr Pallas’s unprecedented backing of Beijing in its row with the Morrison government over the global coronavirus pandemic investigation was motivated by protecting the Belt and Road Initiative.

The above adds to the evidence of Chinese Communist Party infiltration of Australia's legal , political and business systems. As suggested on this blog recently, Australia needs a Malaysian style Operation Judas to counter the infiltration.

The Malaysian case involved a known leader, Chin Peng, who was being backed by the Communist Party Of China, and by the time Operation Judas was executed, his influence had waned.

In Australia on the other hand there appear to be very many handlers who can call on a legion of assets in both the private and public sectors. 

As the former head of ASIO Duncan Lewis put it:

“Espionage and foreign interference is insidious,” he said. “Its effects might not present for decades and by that time it’s too late.

“You wake up one day and find decisions made in our country that are not in the interests of our country.”

Decisive action is needed, regardless of who it affects, and how high it goes.

END 

SEE ALSO 

My law school is also very unique: Zhu Minshen happy to brag about what NSW LPAB ,chaired by NSW Chief Justice Bathurst prefer be kept quiet ; Bathurst has placed himself at the centre of a security issue , must stand down immediately and allow investigation by ASIO, AFP.

Riza Aziz settlement: Was ex-MACC chief Lateefah Koya referring to "in-house" interference when she went public with the Najib Razak Darling-gate tapes

           Why were Riza Aziz's offer of a plea bargain even considered? Why has not more been done to recover all and any assets he might have that can be traced back to 1MDB money


 Former MACC chief Lateefah Koya sighted interference with the work of the MACC and AGC as the reason why she went public with the Najib Razak Darling-gate tapes. 
The public spat over the Riza Aziz settlement raises the question whether Koya was alluding to interference from within the MACC and AGC. 



TO BE READ WITH 

Najib Tapes: Lateefah Koya did nothing more than place some material the MACC received in the public domain-Messrs Haniffa,Kadir & Ramkarpal ought to be more concerned to determine why Koya feels the MACC and AGC are being undermined

Public exchanges between AG Idris Harun & predecessor Tommy Thomas raise even more questions about Malaysia's 1MDB investigation and prosecution of Najib Razak: Crucial evidence of the paper trail seems to have been ignored, and nothing done to investigate and recover 1MDB funds