Australia spent FOUR TIMES MORE than necessary to save 14,000 lives: Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy has revealed economy crushing lockdown saved about FOUR TIMES LESS the number expected

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy seems confused by numbers, to a point where he is slowly but surely revealing his poor errors


Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy has been reported telling a Senate Inquiry: 

If we had their (the UK's) death rate and outcomes , we would've had about 14,000 deaths in Australia, not just over 100........ so I think we have done well, we are in a very cautious phase now of trying to move to a living-with-COVID economy."

Based on Murphy's advise the Morrison Government put the economy into lockdown, at a cost to taxpayers of between AUD 200-AUD 300 Billion. Morrison's DPMC's Value Of Statistical Life Guidelines provide that the government can spend about $4.2 Million to save a life. The government does not have a blank cheque, contrary to popular belief.

Rounded up to $ 5 Million taxpayers would have expected that the government intended that  40,000-60,000 lives needed to be saved. 

Saving 14,000 lives should have cost approximately $ 70 Billion, which is THREE TO FOUR TIMES LESS than what has been incurred. 

Put in another way, the number of lives that needed saving was just above FOUR TIMES LESS than budgeted. 

For all this, the person who must bear blame is Brendan Murphy. As reported on this blog, in early to mid January when he should have acted but did nothing, Murphy seemed more interested in playing at being human rights commissioner.

He seems to have then been over-cautious in his advice to government, causing a loss to taxpayers of more than $130 Billion to $ 180 Billion. The cost to the economy as a whole is far greater, and still being tallied. 

TO BE READ WITH

Monday, April 6, 2020

Australia's COVID 19 policies based on modelling that ignores financial costs -Govt seems clueless as to how many lives will be saved in relation to its economy crushing policies

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Australia's Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy says modelling shows social distancing and hygiene measures are "flattening the curve". Source: AAP

Murphy has recommended policies intended to limit community contagion, but in January insisted that there was little if any risk of community contagion in Australia.

The Australian Government has at least released the modelling that is guiding its COVID 19/Wuhan Virus response, which has  caused the economy to  collapse. 

As before, the modelling makes no mention about the benefits to the whole of the population in the long term. The Government seems to have ignored its own cost guidelines, set out on the  Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet website, which effectively value an Australian life, on average, at $4.2 Million.

It does now seem as if the Government has allowed itself to spend as much it wants, without any regard to the number of lives that might actually be saved.

END











TO BE READ WITH

Is an Australian life still worth AUD 4.2 Million? Forced shuttering of businesses, massive job losses, loss of wealth implies life is now worth less; Morrison Govt duty bound to ask taxpayers first before spending another cent on its Wuhan Virus stimulus



March 29, 2020

by Ganesh Sahathevan

                                          Even the ABC is worried that things have changed 
                                          forever


An Australian life is worth $4.2 Million. That is the value of a statistical life, or the offical rate that guides Government policy in for example, the cost  of the stimulus and other measures that the Morrison Government is implementing to manage the economic impact of its Wuhan Virus/Covid-19 mitigation measures.


The concept is summarised on the Commonwealth Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet 
website:


Key Points:

• Willingness to pay is the appropriate way to estimate the value of reductions in the risk of physical harm – known as the value of statistical life.


• Based on international and Australian research a credible estimate of the value of statistical life is $4.2m and the value of statistical life year is $182 000 in 2014 dollars.


• There are complicating assumptions used to derive these estimates so a sensitivity analysis should be undertaken as part of the cost-benefit analysis.


Based on the above , it can be roughly estimated that Australians are prepared to pay, or rather let their government pay on their behalf, say $420 Billion to save 100,000 lives. This is the estimate that the Government ought to be relying on to determine the size of its Covid 19 economic and health package.

However, the Australian Government led by Scott Morrison has imposed on the country what is in effect a ban on trade, which it refers to as "hibernation".
In real terms there has been a forced shuttering of businesses, massive job losses and generally a loss of wealth. Consequently it is likely that the willingness to pay is now less than that $4.2 Million.
Put in another way, the ability to pay has fallen drastically, and that is more likely than not to have adversely affected the willingness to pay.

The  Morrison Government is  duty bound to ask taxpayers first before spending another cent on its Wuhan Virus stimulus. and on the health measures.

END

60,000 lives saved in the present time: Morrison Government's likely estimate of lives saved by his lockdown may be an acceptable lossApril 02, 2020

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Morrison seems to be speaking of lockdowns of three, six, twelve months and more as if Australians
have an infinite capacity to pay



The Morrison Government's $265 Billion stimulus package may be based on the premise that Australian are prepared to spend $ 4.2 Million each, on average, to save an additional life.
(see explanation below).


The workings are straight forward, but Morrison has not been prepared to state the number.
Meanwhile, despite the stimulus, earnings from work and business are evaporating; when that happens the value of life is likely to decline.

When that happens Australians will  the expect  number of lives saves to be higher; so for example if the value of life falls to $2.1 Million, Australians would expect 120,000 lives to be saved. Anything less would be considered an acceptable loss.

Additionally, the the cost to the taxpayer may well be in excess of the $ 265 Billion stimulus for despite the stimulus earnings from work and business are evaporating.
Here again, a loss of 60,00 lives among those who are older or have underlying conditions would be considered an acceptable loss.

What is or is not an acceptable loss is a decision for us to make, not the Prime Minister and his " war time" Cabinet. Ultimately it a decision for taxpayers, not the PM and his Government.

END

Malaysian experience suggests Victoria will incur debt, gain no jobs, as a result of Andrews Govt Belt&Road debt deal-Andrew Robb's ChAFTA exemption for Chinese workers on Chinese projects will be to blame

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Mr Andrews said the deal was all about growing jobs.(Supplied: Chinese Embassy)

Malaysians will find this statement by the Premier Of Victoria, Daniel Andrews familiar:
"I'm not going to apologise for a (Belt&Road) trade policy that is all about growing Victorian jobs."

These were of course the type of words that former PM Najib Razak relied on when trying to justify his China backed East Coast Rail Link project, which Malaysians later discovered was nothing more than a cover-up for the 1MDB theft.

Malaysians were to also discover that the project would not create jobs for locals; Chinese labour was to be used because of apparent language requirements. 

Australian workers are not protected from an onslaught of Chinese workers. Andrew Robb's ChAFTA only requires that employers make "genuine efforts" to seek local workers.

In short, Victorians  can look forward to higher debt, and a few if any new jobs once the Andrews Government finalises its Belt&Road deal.

END

NSW AG and premier in waiting Mark Speakman is part of the problem of racism; his anti-racism campaign is part of a regime that considers blacks, browns, coloureds like house pets, who are expected to show servility in exchange for demonstrations of affection and protection.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman/A screenshot of a poster from the state government's anti-racism campaign Source: SBS News

The latest from the Attorney General Of NSW Mark Speakman, who is considered a potential premier of NSW in the near future: 

The New South Wales government has launched a public awareness campaign to help victims of racially-fuelled threats and abuse understand their legal rights.

The Stop Public Threats campaign, launched on Monday night, includes promotional posters bearing the slogan: "public threats against some of us, a problem for all of us".

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman said he hoped it would encourage people to report threats of race-related violence to the police for investigation.

“A criminal law was introduced in 2018 in NSW. It makes it a criminal offence to threaten or incite violence on the basis of someone’s race, religion, gender sexuality,” he said.

“We need to work together to combat abusive and violent behaviour that discriminates against cultural or religious groups as well as other sections of our community.”

The problem for those of us that Speakman seeks to protect is this: in real terms protection is not available to any black or coloured who dares assert any right against Speakman and friends. Coloured Catholics for example, will not be heard. And any black or coloured who dares even think of questioning the regime that gives Speakman his power and privilege will be condemned.  Put in another way, Speakman and his ilk think of blacks and coloured as if they are household pets, who must remain obedient if they want to be protected. That protection is supposed to justify anything, including attempts to mislead Asian buyers of the Australian legal services.

END 

Australian private equity with Chinese investors must be subject to the same scrutiny applied to the Kerry Packer-Conrad Black Tourang Consortium in the nineties :Albert Tse's Wattle Hill's Capilano Honey takeover a case in point

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Albert Tse, Capilano CEO Ben McKee and Roc managing partner
Mike Lukin at the Capilano Honey headquarters in Brisbane.
Picture: Glenn Hunt,The Australian

FIRB chief David Irvine and former ASIO boss Dennis Richardson have insisted that the Australian Government's scrutiny of Chinese investment in Australian assets is strong, robust and naturally "the best in the world".
However, these best in the world processes do not apply to acquisitions by Australian private equity firms, even when the firms investors are primarily foreign. Albert Tse's Wattle Hill, which led the takeover of Capilano Honey, is a good example.

As stated on its website: 

Wattle Hill RHC established its Australian fund in March 2016 with two of the largest insurance groups from China and Europe, as well as family-office investors from China’s leading private e-commerce and FMCG companies. Wattle Hill RHC’s Investment Committee includes one of Australia’s most respected investors, Ashok Jacob of Ellerston Capital, and Sean Huang of Riverhead Capital, the private equity arm of Sunshine Insurance Group, one of China’s largest privately-owned insurance groups with over 35 million direct policy holders.​


The Australian profile of Tse and Wattle Hill says: 

Tse is building up his own private equity firm, Wattle Hill Capital, with the backing of several wealthy Chinese families. This has involved buying a stake in ASX-listed infant formula company Bubs and a takeover last year of the Capilano Honey company. Wattle Hill’s ­advisers include Kerry Packer’s former right-hand man Ashok Jacob and former NSW premier Nick Greiner; co-investors in the deal include Kerry Stokes’ family — ties that date back to Albert’s days working with Macquarie Bank in Beijing.


The Capilano Honey takeover was not subject to FIRB scrutiny, that is the law. However, scrutiny of takeovers of Australian assets by foreign funded private equity firms has happened before. The case of  the  House of Reps Select Committee on Print Media (4/11/91), better known as the parliamentary inquiry into the Packer-Conrad Black Tourang Consortium takeover of Fairfax is a good example.

Public sentiment today demands that acquisitions such as that of Capilano Honey by Albert Tse's Wattle Hill be subject to the same type of scrutiny.



TO BE READ WITH 

Power players


How Kevin Rudd’s daughter and her Hong Kong-born husband built a business empire on Chinese connections.


By GLENDA KORPORAAL
Jessica Rudd and Albert Tse in Shanghai. Picture: Daniele Mattioli

From The Weekend Australian Magazine
February 22, 2019
12 MINUTE READ
69


In his book Not for the Faint-hearted, Kevin Rudd recalls the moment he stood on stage, a freshly minted prime minister after the 2007 landslide election, his ­family by his side, and how one “factional operative from the right” said later that evening: “We need to fix the Asian problem with the first family.” Asked about this now, his daughter Jessica laughs. “Do they mean my husband or my children?”

All these years later there’s still interest in this power marriage between ­Jessica, the only daughter of the former PM, and Albert Tse, the Hong Kong-born son of a Malaysian Chinese businessman. “In China, people who don’t know my background ask how I, a Chinese guy, could get the prime minister’s daughter,” Tse says. “They had never seen a Chinese guy become a ­son-in-law to a first family in a modern Western democracy. I tell them when I first met her, Kevin was not prime minister. I always joke about it. I tell them I didn’t get her, she got me.”

The pair first met in Brisbane as a result of their mutual concern at the rise of Pauline Hanson’s anti-Asian One Nation party. It was the year 2000; Tse was 21, studying at university, and Rudd was 16, still at high school. She had formed a group protesting against Hansonism, while Tse joined the Labor Party and did volunteer work for his local Labor MP, Kevin Rudd. “It was scary times,” he recalls. “You had a party which was not very fond of people who looked like me which almost had the balance of power in a one-house parliament in Queensland. That’s when I became active in politics and joined the Labor Party.”




Tse, who taught himself English after arriving in Brisbane with his family in 1988 at the age of 10, was surprised to find his local member had an interest in China. “Kevin could speak Mandarin, which was quite cool,” he says. “I could only speak Cantonese at the time.”

Through their volunteer electorate work, ­Jessica and Albert kept bumping into each and their relationship grew. In May 2007, when Jessica was 23, they married at an Anglican church in Brisbane on an unusually hot day with television cameras outside as Opposition leader Rudd walked his daughter down the aisle.
Former PM Kevin Rudd, wife Therese Rein, daughter Jessica, granddaughter Josephine and son-in-law Albert Tse at the ALP campaign launch in Brisbane, 2013. Picture: AP /Tertius Pickard

Fast forward to 2019 and Rudd and Tse are the parents of two young children, now based back in Brisbane after stints in London and Beijing and five months in Shanghai last year, a global life with growing business interests between Australia and China. Brought together by a shared anger at the state of politics, they have abandoned any thoughts of direct political involvement, working instead to raise their family and build what has the potential to be a significant business combining online shopping with investing using their unique mix of Australia-China connections.

Jessica is an Australian ambassador for ­Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, selling Australian products into China through an online shop called Jessica’s ­Suitcase. A merger in train between the ­Jessica’s Suitcase group (now folded into ASX-listed eCargo) and the Chinese arm of Australian wholesaler Metcash will allow the business to expand from online sales of Australian products into China to bricks and mortar stores across the country with the combined backing of Jessica and Albert’s connections as well as the sourcing power of Metcash.
Albert Tse, Capilano CEO Ben McKee and Roc managing partner Mike Lukin at the Capilano Honey headquarters in Brisbane. Picture: Glenn Hunt

At the same time, Tse is building up his own private equity firm, Wattle Hill Capital, with the backing of several wealthy Chinese families. This has involved buying a stake in ASX-listed infant formula company Bubs and a takeover last year of the Capilano Honey company. Wattle Hill’s ­advisers include Kerry Packer’s former right-hand man Ashok Jacob and former NSW premier Nick Greiner; co-investors in the deal include Kerry Stokes’ family — ties that date back to Albert’s days working with Macquarie Bank in Beijing.

While the Australia-China political relationship has been strained in recent years, the Tse/Rudds have forged a thriving business developing their own connections among China’s young newly rich as well as some older hands. For those who care to look, the couple have many common strands in their family backgrounds. Both have parents with a strong entrepreneurial drive. Jessica’s mother Thérèse Rein founded a government contracting business, Ingeus, helping the long-term unemployed find work, expanding from Australia to the UK and Asia, while Tse’s father Bob founded a Hong Kong packaging business that was the basis for a business visa that allowed his family to move to Australia. Both families have lived in Hong Kong and the mainland and share a common love of ­Brisbane as a place to bring up children.

Tse is happy for his wife to have the spotlight, although his business interests are beginning to attract attention in Australian business circles. And they have made an impressive list of contacts among China’s newly wealthy. “If you’re not in the Tse family Sino/Australian Rolodexes, it’s pretty likely that you are dead or, even worse, irrelevant,” says Sydney businesswoman Gabrielle Trainor, an adviser to Wattle Hill who has known the couple for more than a decade since being introduced by a mutual friend just after Rudd became PM. “Albert switches smoothly and easily from the ­traditional Chinese approach to seniority to the more informal Australian business style,” she says.

I meet Tse in the coffee shop of The Opposite House, a funky upmarket hotel in Beijing’s ­Sanlitun designer shopping district. It has a popular bar where Tse recalls the Rudd family and the Turnbull family meeting in happier times some years ago for a drink to celebrate the engagement of Malcolm Turnbull’s son Alex to Hong Kong-born Yvonne Wang, whose family has high-level connections in China. “I went shopping with Kevin, to buy them an engagement present,” Tse recalls. Asked what he thinks of the Turnbulls these days, Tse’s anger is palpable. He thinks about making a comment, barely restrains himself, and says through tight lips: “Ask Jessica.” The Rudd family has never forgiven Turnbull for not supporting Kevin Rudd’s bid for secretary ­general of the United Nations.

It was Kevin’s rapidly rising political career that prompted them to leave Australia and set out on a global career path. “We made a decision that win, lose or draw with the [2007] election, we needed to get out of there,” Jessica says. “I was thinking about working in communications. But if I had stayed there everything would have been through the prism of what my father was doing. It was not how we wanted to start our married life together.”

In early 2008 they signed a lease on a flat in London’s Notting Hill. Jessica started working in crisis communications for Hill and Knowlton while Albert eventually worked with Macquarie Bank specialising in infrastructure financing, making the big shift to higher-end investment banking. But the couple’s enthusiasm for living in London faded as the global financial crisis hit. Albert was offered a job in Macquarie’s Beijing office so the couple moved to the Chinese capital in 2009. While the economies in the West were suffering from the GFC, China’s was taking off.

Despite his Chinese heritage, it was not an easy start for Albert in Beijing. When they arrived, ­Jessica had more Mandarin than he did, from her school studies in Brisbane. “Chinese ­people would congratulate me for being able to say ‘Ni hao’ while they would look critically at Albert even if he delivered a complicated sentence in Mandarin,” Jessica recalls. “It was difficult,” Albert agrees. “I had a few months of part-time ­lessons. But I just had to dive in. We were working on a lot of big deals involving state-owned enterprises. There is not a lot of English spoken in the SOEs. When you have clients that don’t speak English, you learn Mandarin quite quickly.”

One of the biggest deals he worked on was the listing of the Agricultural Bank of China on the Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges in 2010. It was the world’s biggest ever initial public offering, raising more than $US22 billion. The job gave him a box seat for meeting a new generation of Chinese ­business people as well as influential foreigners looking to invest in China. The fact that he was married to the daughter of the Australian prime minister didn’t hurt, either. The deal gave Albert a connection with the Stokes family, which invested in the Chinese bank IPO, and allowed him to meet Chinese entrepreneurs making their fortune in online businesses, such as Alibaba founder Jack Ma. Albert’s contact list began to grow. He was often invited to dinners by Chinese friends who were entertaining high-powered ­people passing through the capital. “Beijing is such a happening place. I would get these phone calls in the afternoon saying, ‘Hey. We have a dinner on tonight. Do you mind coming?’”

With Albert working in investment banking and studying Mandarin, Jessica found herself at home with a lot of time on her hands. On the ­urging of her mother she decided to write a novel, turning to her friend from their London days, author Kathy Lette, for advice. “She said, ‘If you want to write a novel you have to write what you know’,” she says. “I knew politics and I knew about being laid off from investment banking. It was around me every day. So I came up with something that was political chick lit.” From a Japanese wine bar in Beijing, Rudd wrote her first novel, Campaign Ruby, about a young British woman who is laid off from investment banking in London, comes to Australia and gets involved in a political campaign.
Jessica Rudd with her parents at the launch of her first book in 2010. Picture: Lyndon Mecheilsen

The book was already at the printers but its release was rushed when she heard the news that her father was being ousted from his job by ­former deputy Julia Gillard. “It came out immediately after the coup. The 24th of June 2010. We had to fast-track it.” Some commentators described its observations of the dog-eat-dog world of Australian politics as “a little too uncanny”.

She followed up with a second book, Ruby Blues, in October 2011, while she was pregnant with their first child. Josie was born in May 2012, and having a baby in China changed their lives. When they flew back home they would stock up on baby goods they couldn’t get in China. “We would arrive back from Australia overloaded with baby oil, nappy rash cream…” Soon her friends with young children wanted to try them. “My friends in Beijing who were mums would come over and nick my stuff,” she says. After bringing back more goods from Australia for themselves and their friends they realised there was a demand in China for Australian products.

Jessica had witnessed the rise of online shopping in China first hand as couriers would appear regularly in their apartment building, dropping off so many goods that the doormen would get angry. A work friend of Albert’s put them in contact with ­Alibaba, the rising star in China’s e-commerce world. At Alibaba’s headquarters in Hangzhou, south of Shanghai, Jessica was introduced to ­Maggie Zhou, one of Alibaba’s first employees, who had a strong interest in Australia. “They very kindly walked me around,” Jessica recalls. “I was flabbergasted at the vastness of it and how sophisticated it was. There was a two-storey screen with live data projected onto it. It was a map of the world showing parcels being flung around like ping pong balls. I was just so blown away by it. I thought, whatever happens next, I want to be part of it.”

So Jessica became a retailer, establishing an online store selling goods on Alibaba’s TMall global platform. She set up the business with a friend, Chantelle Ye, an investment banker and fellow new mum. They called the store Jessica’s Suitcase, after all those suitcase runs bringing ­Australian goods to friends in China.

After their second child, McLean, was born in December 2015, the couple decided to move back to Brisbane. The pull of home was strong and they were worried about the impact of pollution on the health of their young children. The day she landed, Jessica began visiting small companies making products she thought would sell well to young buyers back in Beijing. “I kept knocking on doors saying, ‘Hello, skin care manufacturer, I am ­opening up a store on Alibaba’s TMall Global’. “They would say, ‘What? You mean Chinese ­people want to buy stuff from Australia?’”

The number of brands on Jessica’s Suitcase has steadily increased, and now includes everything from paw paw ointment to face creams, toy bears made of Australian sheepskin to Penfolds wine. Jessica’s search for goods led to Bubs, an infant ­formula business based on goat’s milk, set up by an Australian woman, Kristy Carr, who had lived in Hong Kong with young children.

Around 2015, on the suggestion of a major ­Chinese fund manager, Albert decided to go out on his own and set up a private equity fund ­investing in Australian products that Chinese ­people and ­others overseas would be interested in buying. “I decided to invest in Bubs as I thought it was a really good company with really good ­management. We helped to fix some of their issues with the China market and in January 2017 we were able to list the business.” Wattle Hill was formed, the name taken from the apartment building where they first lived in Brisbane. The Bubs investment was followed by the Capilano Honey takeover last year. The investments have one thing in common — the potential to take them to the China market.
Jessica Rudd and Albert Tse in Shanghai. Picture: Daniele Mattioli

Jessica says she doesn’t plan her life but she is confident her own newly merged business now has the critical mass to take off. On a five-month stint in Shanghai last year she decided to update herself on China’s changing retail market. “Neither of us has worked in retail or has branding ­experience but we know this place [China] and we can spot its trends,” she says.

Former NSW premier Nick Greiner, an adviser to Wattle Hill, met Albert when they were both incoming independent directors on the board of Jemena, an electricity, gas and pipeline utility company owned by State Grid and Singapore Power. He met Jessica later socially. “In many ways they are a 21st century renaissance couple who effortlessly bridge Australian and Chinese culture, society and business,” Greiner says. “They are able not just to network but also to do business with large and small counterparts in both countries.”

Jessica rejects suggestions it’s difficult for ­Australians to do business in China. “People in Australia get über-excited about taking a tiny piece of the US market, but they think China is just all too daunting. Isn’t Trump’s ­America more daunting than this place?” Nevertheless she says people need to be prepared for many twists and turns in the rapidly changing Chinese market — hence the couple’s decision to spend an extended time in Shanghai last year.

Jessica says the family may decide to move ­overseas again but they will always have a base in Australia. “That is the upbringing we were both lucky enough to have. It is idyllic, we are glad to be able to give it to our children, but we don’t feel like that means we are people of one place. We can be anywhere and we can still return.”

GLENDA KORPORAAL

ASSOCIATE EDITOR (BUSINESS)
Glenda Korporaal has been covering business and finance in Australia and around the world for more than thirty years. She has worked in Sydney, Canberra, Washington, New York, London, Hong Kong and Singapore an... Read more

Why does Dan Andrews need ACBRI and Jean Dong when he has the services of Commissioner for Victoria in China Tim Dillon ?

                                                        Meet the Commissioner for Victoria to China – Tim DillonIn this video, Tim explains                                                            some of what’s needed to build successful business relationships, and why he loves living                                                           and working in China.,

In defending the Victorian Government's work with the Australia-China Belt and Road Initiative Premier Dan Andrews has 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.”

Why the services of the ACBRI, founded and led by Jean Dong, were required is unclear, given that the Victorian Government  has had an office in Shanghai doing very much the same thing. In the Vic Government's own words: 

Appointed as the Commissioner for Victoria in China in September 2014, Tim Dillon is based in Shanghai and heads up the Victorian Government Trade and Investment (VGTI) network in China, helping Victorian businesses to connect with Chinese markets.

Tim brings significant experience to his position, having previously served as the Commissioner for Victoria in South East Asia (2009-2014) and as the Executive Director of the Tokyo office (2004-2009).

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