The Albanese Government’s “stabilised” China policy faces the test of deepening ideological and strategic divides.

The Albanese Government has successfully “stabilised” our relations with China, the prime minister repeatedly saying that ‘“we will co-operate where we can, disagree where we must and engage in our national interest". The pragmatism involved has contributed to an easing of tensions, but where we must disagree is widening, not narrowing.

Concerns within Australia’s defence and security community about the risks from China’s growing power and increasingly active international engagement may be exaggerated (and perhaps President Trump’s recent comments on Taiwan will help to dampen more jingoistic warnings of imminent conflict), but they must not be ignored.

On the domestic front, my recent visit to Beijing confirmed the strengthening authoritarian control within China by Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party notwithstanding improvements in public services. This is a development Australia must at some point disagree with, firmly if politely and respectfully, particularly as China encourages other countries to follow its authoritarian approach.

Getting the tone right, however, is a challenge.

Party control

Strengthened party control was evident in the processes for entering universities. Passport details must be provided in advance for permission to enter, with details of who authorised the visit and any event being attended; the passport must be shown whenever entering the university, the number being entered into the security system to confirm permission. Embassy staff require further details for permission to visit or even have contact. I can recall just over a decade ago when there were no security gates at all (like Australian universities).

The famous China firewall is also stronger. The only Australian newspaper I read that is accessible in China is the Canberra Times (which might say more about that paper’s quality than about the firewall); the ABC and even The Conversation are not accessible without a VPN (and unauthorised VPNs can attract serious penalties).

Face-recognition cameras are also now ubiquitous.

Continued academic engagement

And yet, the forums I attended reveal continued interest in academic engagement internationally and continued effort to improve services to the public and their efficiency.

The Asian Association of Public Administration conference hosted by Tsinghua University attracted more than 150 scholars and students (and a few practitioners) from Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea and India, as well as China. I was among the invited experts along with a Canadian and a Russian as well as prominent Chinese and Korean professors of public administration.

Issues discussed in plenary sessions included the evolving institutionalisation of AI in the public sector and the implications of AI for teaching public administration and the challenges for public administration in Asia in an era of “de-globalising” pressures and increasing uncertainty. Small panels considered more than 100 presentations on recent research across Asia on a myriad issues and developments from water management to healthcare and from performance management of cities to village adjustments to the urban migration of workers. Real issues and genuine research.

A repeated message was that public administration must reflect each country’s circumstances — culture, history, institutions, economic development — adapting any lessons from abroad. Many took this further, advocating the development of Eastern theories of public administration in place of Western liberal ideas, drawing on Asia’s rich heritage of administration and Confucian and Taoist philosophies.

For some, this clearly meant authoritarian frameworks such as China’s, lending support to China’s endeavours to displace democratisation reforms in the Global South with its own model of governance. Others were more cautious, emphasising the need to safeguard intellectual independence and to engage not only within Asia, but also with global public administration networks, while endorsing an Eastern approach.

The widespread acceptance, and even advocacy, of weakening liberalism internationally, presents a serious challenge to supporters of liberal democratic government. The principles of liberalism are not just narrow Western ideas but emerged over millennia and particularly the last three centuries; they encompass human rights, the rule of law, responsible government, impartial administration, free markets and free trade. Adaptation to local contexts is essential, but the basic principles are universal.

The complex mix of reform and party control

The other forum was a small workshop at Peking University exploring civil service capability in Australia and China.

Among the “modernisation” reforms being pursued in China are to improve the responsiveness of government to society (“social governance”), reducing the burdens on grassroots-level government (villages and street level) and digital transformation. Capability is also being enhanced by diversifying the sources and channels of recruitment, including elite university students from elite universities (“special selected graduates”) and lateral recruits from private and state-owned enterprises.

The absence of any separation of politics and administration means that such reforms are often very different in practice from those being pursued in Australia.

The “social governance” reforms are more about the party than those delivering public services and are being led by the party. The “special selected graduates” are to be trained for political careers, not civil service careers. China’s authoritarian system may best be described as a “political meritocracy”.

Performance is based upon both political loyalty criteria and administrative and professional competence criteria, with the former dominating for those pursuing more political careers and the latter dominating for those pursuing more administrative or professional careers. But under Xi, the political loyalty criteria are being emphasised for everyone, with constant education and training, and testing, of Marxist-Leninist theories and “Xi Jinping thought”.

Implications for Australia

The importance of China to Australia is certain to continue to increase, economically and strategically. Whether that increased importance is positive or negative (or a complex mix of both), engagement through as many channels as possible is in our national interest.

There are areas of public administration in which China excels and we could learn from: city planning and management, infrastructure investment, project management, digital government. We might also note that investment in public administration research and teaching is also continuing to increase in China.

The overall model, however, particularly under Xi Jinping, impinges on human rights in ways we should never accept. It is almost certainly constraining its own economic growth, but that seems a price Xi is willing to pay to ensure continued control.

Learning about China’s approach to public administration is an essential component of a “stabilised” relationship. Participating and contributing, to both its own forums and the growing Asian regional forums in which China is influential, is also critical.

Disagreeing where we must, however, remains a challenge.

Republished from The Mandarin, 4 November 2025

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.