February 8, 2023
MICHAEL ROWLAND: The Australian War Memorial is set to remove a number of Chinese surveillance cameras over fears they could be used for spying. Liberal Senator James Paterson is campaigning for all government departments now to remove these devices. He joins us now from Parliament House. James Paterson, good morning to you.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Michael. Thank you for having me.
ROWLAND: Yeah, great to have you on. The story broken by The Canberra Times this morning. It turns out quite a few of these Chinese-made surveillance devices are not just in the War Memorial, but right across government departments.
PATERSON: Michael, I'm actually underway a full audit of the entire Commonwealth departments and agencies just to assess what our risk exposure is to these
products. And I've asked every government, department and agency to come back to me through Questions on Notice through the Senate to answer that question. And I hope to have the results of that very soon. The War Memorial is to be commended in a sense that they recognise that they have these devices and that they should be removed. In their response to me, they said the devices that they have at their site here in Canberra will be removed and that is appropriate recognition of the national security risks that they pose.
ROWLAND: Okay. Where else, as far as you know, based on the information you have already, I know you're auditing it, are these devices?
PATERSON: Well, a number of government departments have identified it. In the first instance, the Department of Home Affairs, I approached and asked them whether they had it on their sites and whether they had visibility of these cameras on any other sites throughout the government. They identified a couple of cameras at two sites in buildings they occupied, which is obviously concerning because the Department of Home Affairs is our principal policy agency for national security, and there is no business having Chinese government-linked surveillance companies having their cameras installed in those sites. But equally concerning for me was that Home Affairs did not know and was not able to tell me whether or not there were any other of these cameras in the Australian Public Service. And so that's why I launched this audit, which I hope we'll have the results of soon.
ROWLAND: So why, why do they get through the tender process and the like in the first place?
PATERSON: That's an excellent question, Michael, and I suspect the answer to that is that it is because they offer value for money in a very superficial sense. It is often the case that they undercut their commercial rivals. They are closely linked to the Chinese government. And like many other leading Chinese technology firms, they have assistance from the Chinese government, including concessional loans and subsidies, and that does allow them sometimes to outcompete their Western competitors and make them look like a more attractive offering. But of course, the discount that you get upfront is not worth the long-term national security risks you expose yourself to.
ROWLAND: Okay. So, an issue for both sides of parliament. Unless these cameras were installed in the last nine months, they could very well have been approved under the Morrison and Turnbull governments.
PATERSON: I'm not seeking to make this a partisan political issue at all. I'm not attacking the Labor Party over this. It's a problem which I've now identified which has to be fixed and they're the government, so I hope that they will fix it.
ROWLAND: Okay. Just on another issue while I've got you on the Voice, your Senate colleague Andrew Bragg, has come out very strongly today and said he is going to be very strongly supporting the Voice. We knew that. But he's gone further today, describing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament as a Liberal solution to reconciliation. So why aren't all Liberals coming out now and saying, yes.
PATERSON: Andrew's a long standing friend of mine. We were good mates before either of us were elected to the Parliament and I respect his very sincerely held views on this issue and as a backbencher he is of course entitled to campaign in any way he sees fit on this issue. What I really appreciate from Andrew, who's a longstanding supporter of the Voice, is that in his commentary today he also recognised the constitutional risks and he has asked the government to be upfront about that and provide more information about that because he is concerned that in the hands of the High Court that this could expand to be far beyond what it is intended to be. And that's coming from a very strong and sincere supporter of the Voice. So, I think there really is a very heavy burden on the government who are putting this question, who are choosing the wording of it, who are determining how the Constitution will be amended at this referendum to provide more information to the Australian public so they can make an educated choice when the time comes.
ROWLAND: Okay, Andrew Bragg's a backbencher, but you've got the likes of probably after Peter Dutton, the second most senior Liberal in Australia, the New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet, coming out strongly in support of the Voice, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania strongly in support of the Voice. Does this make Peter Dutton's position and the wider federal Liberal Party's position more challenging?
PATERSON: Well, unlike the Labor Party, Michael, we are a party that values intellectual freedom and I absolutely celebrate my colleagues coming to their own judgements on these issues, whether they're state colleagues or federal colleagues, and they're entitled to do that and we don't seek to force them to have a different view. We are going through our processes internally and considering all of the information we've been provided. I have to say I am concerned by the machinery of government provisions, the referendum provisions that the Government has outlined. They are proposing to abolish the official Yes and No cases. They're proposing to provide no funding for either the Yes or No case, and they're proposing to abolish the
information booklet that was provided in previous referendums to all Australians. And that looks to me like they are trying to tilt the playing field in favour of one side of the debate or the other. Of course, we know they've also granted tax deductible recipient status to the Yes case but haven't provided equal opportunity to the No case. So, I think that is a suspicious way to start this debate. I think it is an underhand way to start this debate and I hope they reflect on that and change their position.
ROWLAND: James Paterson, appreciate your time this morning. Thanks for joining us.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
