We were premature in thinking that Scott Morrison would be haunted by the image of him cradling a lump of black coal. There’s an even better parliamentary picture: Scott, holding aloft the hand of the freshly elected Liberal Member for Chisholm, Gladys Liu.
Liu is lit up like Christmas, following her interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky for which “trainwreck” is way too generous a label. Liu failed to recall her membership of the China Overseas Exchange Association (COEA), then denied it, then admitted it the following day before she was bundled out and buried up to her neck in the prime ministerial flower bed for national security reasons. The COEA is just one of a number of jolly clubs with which she has been associated, linked to the Communist Party’s United Front network, its principal means of seeding influence in other countries.
Bolt’s closing flourish: “Gladys Liu, are you in effect a spokesman for the Chinese communist regime in Australia?” No, replied Liu, leaving the tantalising possibility that she’s actually a spokeswoman. She has since reassured everyone that she is a loyal Australian, one of those cute oaths that we only ever make non-white citizens swear.
Unsurprisingly, Labor has sought to make an omelette with the eggs Liu left all over the walls. The question the opposition is framing for the public mind, eagerly picked up by the media, is this: where lies Liu’s allegiance?
It is true that Liu has failed to provide a coherent answer to a number of questions. There is her long involvement in numerous organisations closely linked to the Chinese regime. Her responses so far offer no comfort. She has also only added to the confusion regarding $300,000 in donations to the Liberal Party from people she allegedly invited to a fundraiser in 2015, which the media reported had to be refunded because of concerns about the donors.
Separately from her new self-generated disasters, Liu is facing a case in the Court of Disputed Returns (along with Josh Frydenberg) challenging her victory at the May election.
The case regards allegations of illegal misleading conduct by the Liberal Party in its posting of Chinese language signs in AEC colours that directed voters to give their first preference to the Libs. If she loses, her election will be declared void and there will be a byelection.*
In the meantime, if the government can’t kill this scandal (which looks unlikely), then sooner or later it will have to address Liu’s issues rather more seriously than she has been able or prepared to do.
Ultimately, while her situation is in part a muddled intersection between genuine concerns about Chinese government influence and mundane “yellow peril” xenophobia, there’s an actual question at its root regarding the integrity of the Australian parliament.
Our constitution retains some anachronistic rules about who is or isn’t eligible to sit in parliament, exposed in recent years by serial section 44 cases over dual citizenship and pecuniary interests. However, there is a ground for expulsion that has never been successfully invoked but could come into play if Liu’s story isn’t adequately clarified.
Section 44 disqualifies from parliament, in addition to foreign citizens, anyone who is “under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power”. Call it the foreign agent provision.
The High Court has been asked twice to invoke this law, and both times said no. In 1949, Gordon Anderson was elected in the Sydney seat of Kingsford-Smith. He was challenged on the grounds that, as a Roman Catholic, he owed an allegiance to a foreign power: the Vatican. True, the Vatican is a country; but the court was having none of that anti-Papist rubbish which had been made obsolete in 1829 when the United Kingdom finally allowed Catholics to sit in parliament. Freedom of religion, which the constitution separately guarantees, trumped any suggestion of divided loyalties by virtue of personal faith.
The question next came up in 1987. Elaine Nile (wife of Rev Fred) challenged Robert Wood, who had beaten her to a Senate seat representing NSW. Among her grounds was that Wood had, years earlier, been convicted of a criminal offence of “obstructing shipping”, and this action “against the vessels of a friendly nation” indicated that he had an allegiance to a (not identified) foreign power.
Entertaining argument, but the High Court is not for cheap thrills. The case was kicked out, although the judges did make one interesting observation: section 44, they said, will only operate on a person who has “formally or informally acknowledged” a foreign allegiance, and not withdrawn or revoked it.
What this would mean for Liu, if she found herself facing a section 44 challenge (which now can only be referred to the court by the House of Reps), is that her professed accidental membership of various Communist Party-front organisations would not likely be enough to meet the test of allegiance to a foreign power. There’d need to be a much smokier gun than has so far come to light.
The logical conclusion is that Liu is just what a party should expect to be lumbered with when it doesn’t do its due diligence on candidates.
If I could draw a cartoon, it’d be about a lump of coal called Gladys.
*Disclosure: Michael Bradley’s law firm is representing the petitioners in the cases in the Court of Disputed Returns against Liu and Frydenberg.
Do you feel Gladys Liu has breached section 44 or any other aspect of a parliamentarian’s role? Write to boss@crikey.com.au with your full name and your views.
Luckily for Liu she is now embedded tick like in the soft warm armpit of the Liberal party…a party that everyone knows have no allegiance to the people of Australia.
Gladys can join Morrison, Alexander, Taylor, Cash, Ley, Joyce and a myriad other shonky spivs who know they are protected by membership of a party that demands so little of it’s own fellows, while asking the poor to pee in a jar for the pittance on offer.
You forgot Robb who took a lucrative position with the company, Chinese oddly enough, that bought Darwin Port when he left Parliament . I use ‘bought’ knowing that it was a lease but let’s face it the conditions of the lease effectively mean it was a sale that compromised Australia. If you want to get really concerned about what it means look at what is happening in Piraeus.
Within that (loyalty) context, Hamster, it’s well worth reading what Clinton Fernandes has to say about Pezzullo’s history of allegiance in today’s Crikey.
Always, always satisfy the demands of the US first…………
First class piece, again, from ‘Clint’, and I ordered Toohey’s book last weekend – ‘ol’ school’ Toohey, and suitably lauded by Clint for being so.
Brian Toohey writes quite frequently for John Menadue’s Blog.
http://johnmenadue.com/
What happens in lieu of proper vetting – when gimmicks and stunts rule – when winning is everything by “whatever it takes” – like the way some people would have us believe is “usual Labor m.o.” …….Stand up Michael Kroger….. Michael…?
…… Can’t wait for those viewsmedia stocks to be put to use as they were for Dastyari? Save your rotting tomatoes……
Who needs a rotting tomato, when you have a candidate who can muck up a friendly interview?
Ms. Liu obviously wasn’t going to chance even a reply to 7.30 tonight.
Leigh Sales is waiting for you, Ms. Liu and although she is polite and very cool, she is fair.
As the head of BUPA can attest, she is clear and fair, just don’t try to do the BS, We are sorry, blah blah.
Or she will skewer you.
We all look forward to BUPA’s CEO in 6 months time.
The question is, Will Ms Liu still be in parliament or will Michael Sukhar being holding fund raisers in Chisolm for the next candidate from the CCP?
Sales crucified Dastyari (for what he did with a Chinese donor who had dealings with her pet Coalition as well) – how has she and 7:30 dealt with Liu so far?
No mention of Morrison’s “Shanghai Sam” remark last night – ABC news did.
That’s on the day Morrison branded Labor’s queries as “racist”?
Just for a moment let’s give Ms Liu the benefit of doubt & accept she forgot being a member of COEA for over a decade. As a Chisholm constituent it would be impossible to have confidence in, or trust, an MP who appears not on the ball & suffering memory loss.
Don’t worry, the party whip will give her written instructions every day but then which way will she vote if “Its alright to be white” comes up for another vote.
This was already getting silly when we turfed out people who had a right to dual citizenship but haven’t taken it up.
Frankly, I just don’t care about this divided loyalty crap. As if no member of parliament has ever taken on foreign issues. We had a member for Israel in Danby and that was only an issue for the ALP activist base.
If the liberals want to take a pro-Beijing stance (unlikely) they may and will, and it won’t be a backbencher that does it all. It’d be geopolitics that brings it about.
People need some bloody perspective.
And the outgoing member for Israel, Danby, has been neatly replaced by the Lib’s Dav Sharma.
Yeah, but my point is there isn’t anything wrong with that unless you are a constituent or party member that disagrees.
Personally, I’d want an MP like that out and someone more effective in. But someone like that doesn’t get to decide the foreign policy of the Commonwealth. Especially something so ‘bipartisan’.
Members of front organistaions for the CCP are never “former”. CCP doesn’t allow that. And they don’t obey the rules of any game. This woman is a potential threat to national security, although not of the order of Morrison or Dutton or Taylor or Canavan etc. etc.
Oh dear. Maybe we can jail her on suspicion of spying, by guilt by association, really show the evil commies how it is done in the free world!
If Sam Dastyari had to go, then so does Gladys. If anything, her ‘sins’ are greater. Sam took around $1600 from his Chinese ‘friend’…which was subsequently paid back. Gladys collected $300,000 from her ‘friends’ for the LNP…also later paid back.
I don’t recall Sam ever being a member of any Chinese secret organisation, but Gladys has belatedly ‘fessed up to this. But they have both had problems with the south China sea ongoing illegal (internationally) ‘squat’ by China…seemingly reluctant to agree with the policy of their associated political parties. In Sam D’s case the ALP dealt with this matter by actually ending his career as a Senator.
That in a nutshell is why Liu has to go…what is good for the ALP, is also good enough for the LP! On your way Gladys!!
Gladys Liu can’t go she is the proud member for Communist China everyone now knows that. At least Sam Dastyari eventually resigned from parliament. I doubt if Gladys Liu will. The Chinese Government won’t let her important plant at the top echelon of a bumbling and ineffective Australian Government.
They may be forced to do a midnight extraction, just as the CIA did after Trumpy blew the cover of the spy in Putin’s inner circle.
I suspect that was deliberate, after all, Trump couldn’t afford to have something slip up and get back to the CIA, could he?