Beijing has been grooming Australian business leaders to lobby the federal government to change its policy settings on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), amid rising scepticism of Australia-China relations, according to Professor Clive Hamilton, an expert on CCP influence.
Hamilton, author of “Silent Invasion”–which details Beijing’s influence operations in Australia–said the CCP was leveraging business “proxies” to pressure the government. The activities of these proxies have escalated in the fallout from the recent Beijing-instigated trade dispute.
“A few hints from Chinese officials about how it would be a pity to jeopardize a good relationship is usually enough to prompt business lobbies and mining tycoons to speak out in public or to privately pressure senior ministers to capitulate to Beijing’s demands,” he said.
Hamilton called this a “well-drilled tactic” commonly employed by the communist regime called “yi shang bi zheng” meaning - using business to pressure government.
When pressed on whether Beijing would boycott trade with Australia, the ambassador said, “tourists may have second thoughts.”
He continued: “Maybe the parents of the students would also think whether this place, which they find is not so friendly, even hostile, is the best place to send their kids to.
“Maybe the ordinary people will think why they should drink Australian wine or eat Australian beef. Why couldn’t we do it differently?”
Hamilton said the ambassador’s comments were calculated, targeting export-reliant industries, and designed to send a message to “vice chancellors, tourism executives, farmer representatives, and wine exporters to pressure Canberra to back down.”
“It’s worth noticing that as soon as Beijing expressed its ire at Minister Payne’s call for an inquiry, several influential commentators who frequently call for appeasement of China went on the attack, castigating the government for its ineptness and for provoking Beijing ‘unnecessarily,’” he said.
Hamilton said business leaders had been “groomed” over many years and were “easy targets for the CCP’s techniques of persuasion.”
“Their minds have been rewired so that they believe that whatever keeps Beijing contented is in their own and their country’s interests,” he wrote.
Years of grooming can result in business leaders speaking up for Beijing, even if there is no financial gain at stake.
Hamilton also called into question foreign investment from Chinese firms saying Australia’s due diligence on China-based companies needed “urgent upgrading.”
“Due diligence faces special barriers when the information must come from China’s extremely opaque court system, corporate regulators, banking system and complaints mechanisms,” he said.
Hamilton made three recommendations to the federal government. The first is to liaise with industries deemed vulnerable and overly exposed to the China market. They should be encouraged to factor in potential risks in their business planning and be told they cannot rely on taxpayer support if risks evolve into problems.
The second recommendation is to direct Austrade to play a more proactive role in diversifying Australia’s trade relationships.
Third, the government can introduce a levy on exports to compensate companies if they are penalised by Beijing. Hamilton referred to Beijing’s plan to compensate brewers in China for the increased cost of barley imports—a consequence of the regime imposing 80 percent tariffs on Australian barley.
“With more than 36 percent of our exports being sold to China, representing 7.9 percent of GDP, it’s clear we have put too many eggs in the one basket,” he said.
