Nationals Leader Must Decide: Soften on Beijing or Stand Firm on Security: Report
Udumbara
The Nationals Party leadership faces a choice on whether to take a firmer stance on Beijing, or to continue “moderating” their rhetoric to avoid apparently offending local Chinese-Australian voters, says one report.
“The Nationals have long contained divergent views on the PRC (People’s Republic of China). Some figures favour dialogue and trade restoration, while others have pushed a more security-driven and sceptical approach. Party leader David Littleproud has attempted to reconcile both these impulses,” according to the Australia-China Relations Institute at UTS.
The Institute noted that on some matters, Littleproud had adopted a more conciliatory tone towards the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—akin to the Liberal Party—in its report, “The Nationals’ turn: PRC policy after Coalition breakdown.”
While he previously accused Labor of being weak on the CCP during the 2022 election campaign, Littleproud welcomed the Albanese Labor government’s moves to restart trade with China following Beijing’s arbitrary decision to bar Australian exports from entering the country.
Littleproud called improvements in bilateral ties “a good thing” so long as principles like sovereignty were upheld.
He also supported negotiated WTO (World Trade Organisation) dispute settlements, and met with senior CCP officials, including head of the CCP International Department, Liu Jianchao, and Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian.
At the same time, Littleproud has also outlined national security and human rights issues.
He strongly backed AUKUS, the three-way security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, calling it one of the “great legacies” of the Liberal-National Coalition era.
He also called the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to the Chinese-owned company Landbridge “a mistake” and supported returning it to Australian hands.
The party leader also criticised communist China’s military pressure on Taiwan, and condemned the treatment of journalist Cheng Lei during CCP Premier Li Qiang’s 2024 visit.
While endorsing peaceful dialogue on Taiwan, he has emphasised self-determination and cautioned Beijing against “sending missiles one over one another.”
The China ‘Hawks’
Some of the tougher voices within the National Party include Senator Matt Canavan and New England MP Barnaby Joyce.
For instance, Canavan, in response to the CCP’s live fire exercises in the Tasman Sea, wrote, “If China acts more aggressively in our region in the future, Australia would remember acts like this and it would colour our response”
He also called for Trump-style tariffs, stating it was “not safe” to do extensive business with the CCP.
Joyce, as National’s leader in 2021, described the CCP as “the biggest issue confronting us” since it could “take the liberties off your children” and “affect the freedom of your nation.”
He described the CCP’s live fire exercises as “practicing for war” and urged Australia to “wake up.” He also suggested future parliamentary visits to Taiwan should include government officials or ministers.
Littleproud meanwhile has pledged not to shift the Nationals “to the left or the right.” Rather, his approach has been “not to chase extremities, but to use common sense … and to actually be the sensible centre.”
The brief break up of the Liberals and Nationals threw into starker relief some of the conflicting views within the parties on China policy, according to the research.
.
.
Michael Shoebridge, the founder and director of Strategic Analysis Australia, a Canberra-based defense think tank, suggested Australia’s political rhetoric on Beijing shouldn’t be influenced by the CCP’s infiltration efforts through its United Front Work Department.
The United Front is the leading CCP organ designed to influence, or infiltrate, overseas government and non-government bodies.
Recent revelations found that United Front-linked groups were connected with volunteers helping to distribute how-to-vote cards for certain party candidates. Party members also had to tread carefully discussing the issue to avoid any confluence with racism against the Chinese-Australian community.
Shoebridge said it was important Australia’s public discourse be allowed to discuss, and criticise, Beijing’s overseas infiltration efforts “in a way that doesn’t allow the issue to be turned back on those who raise it,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.
“The issue of foreign interference became politicised for domestic reasons here in Australia, and lost its actual significance as a threat to our democracy.
“Without focusing clearly on the Chinese government in this area of policy, Australian politicians play straight into CCP propagandists’ hands, by allowing them to claim anyone who talks about Beijing’s foreign interference activities as somehow biased against 1.2 million Australians.”
Shoebridge also reminded Australian politicians that not all Australians of Chinese ethnicity support the CCP.
“In fact, many of them left China specifically because they did not want to live under CCP rule, and all Australians value our freedoms and democracy and are unlikely to support a ruthless authoritarian regime like [CCP leader] Xi Jinping’s,” he said.
.
Analyst Warns Against Playing into CCP’s Propaganda Trap
