February 17, 2022
ANDREW CLENNELL: Joining me now is Liberal Senator and renowned hawk James Paterson. So, Manchurian Candidate, was it a bit too far?
SENATORJAMES PATERSON: You would know, Andrew, from your long career in covering politics here in Canberra and New South Wales that Question Time can get a little bit heated, and the Prime Minister was right to withdraw that comment. I don't think Richard Marles is a Manchurian candidate, although I do think it's a little bit strange that the only place today, if you want to read his speech from Beijing in September 2019, to go to read it is my website and not his. He obviously is embarrassed about something in that speech. There's obviously something in there that he wants to hide.
CLENNELL: Alright, well what do you make of Dennis Richardson and Mike Burgess's comments? Because they're pretty full on,aren't they? I mean, I think I heard in that grab Dennis Richardson used the word "grubby", in China's interest, Mike Burgess saying this isn't helpful?
SENATORPATERSON: I'll deal with them very separately.
CLENNELL: Sure.
SENATORPATERSON: I work very closely with Mike Burgess. I hold him in the highest regard, and I listen to what he has to say very, very carefully. I think his comments have been overinterpreted. I think Mike's concern is that his organisation and the intelligence product that it produces not be politicised. And if you look at the history of ASIO, where it has in the past been politicised and hasn't always had bipartisan support, it's completely understandable why a Director-General would be anxious about that. I don't think what he was trying to do is say these are the acceptable parameters of public debate of national security, and politicians must not cross these lines. I don't think that's what he was trying to say.
On Dennis Richardson, he's had a very long and very distinguished career in the public service. I've worked with him directly in the context of his comprehensive review into intelligence agencies to make sure that his recommendations are implemented through our committee. But there are issues of national security which I disagree with Dennis Richardson on, and which the government disagrees with Dennis Richardson on. Probably the best example of that is Huawei. It's been publicly reported that in 2011, when he was Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he went on leave from DFAT to negotiate on behalf of the Canberra Raiders a lucrative sponsorship agreement from Huawei for the Canberra Raiders. And in 2018, when the Cabinet was considering whether Huawei should be allowed to be involved in the 5G rollout, he publicly advocated that they should be involved in the 5G rollout. Now we had very good advice from our intelligence agencies that the national security risks of Huawei being involved in the 5G rollout could not be mitigated, and it is one of the best decisions our government has made, and I stand by it even if Dennis Richardson disagrees.
CLENNELL: Wasn't that a different era, though? Prior to President Xi or what have you, like, was it a different circumstance?
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm glad you asked that, Andrew, because a year later, after the government had made this decision and after it was publicly revealed that there was very good intelligence advice it was based on, at a game of the Canberra Raiders versus the Sharks that the Prime Minister attended, Dennis Richardson introduced John Lord, the Australian Chair of Huawei to the Prime Minister. Now at the time, Huawei was running a furious lobbying campaign to try and overturn the decision that the Morrison government made to ban them from 5G. Now, personally, I wouldn't be comfortable assisting in any way or being seen to assist in any way that lobbying campaign because I think it was against our national interests.
CLENNELL: Well, you've hit him hard there, and he's one of Australia's most respected public servants, but you obviously feel like you have to put that forward, given the attacks on the government from Mr Richardson?
SENATORPATERSON: There's a reason why I acknowledged his long and distinguished service. There's no question that as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,Secretary of the Department of Defence, Director-General of ASIO, he has had along and distinguished career. But that doesn't mean I'll have to agree with every contribution he's made. I strongly disagree with him on Huawei.
CLENNELL: Alright, well, now you've worked on this Joint Parliamentary Committee on Security with Labor MPs, and my understanding is that they've been pretty cooperative with the government on a lot of security issues. Is there really the gap the Prime Minister's trying to portray here? What's been your experience of that committee?
SENATORPATERSON: I have a very good relationship with my Labor counterparts on the PJCIS, and it's a great process, a deliberative process. And by and large, we tend to arrive at the same ending or at least pretty close on the same page. Sometimes there are differences, but I think they're within the acceptable limits of tolerance. But I think if you step back and you look at more widely over the period of this term, it's very clear that at a number of junctures, Labor has sought to obtain partisan political advantage, particularly on the China relationship. Anthony Albanese, for example, in December 2020, blamed the government for the fact that none of our Chinese counterparts would pick up the phone. And he did so after the release of the 14 demands in which the Chinese government made it very clear that they wouldn't be engaging with us unless we compromised on core issues of sovereignty. Penny Wong in June last year attacked the Prime Minister after his meeting at the G7 with Joe Biden and Boris Johnson, and said that it was because of our stance on climate change that the Prime Minister couldn't get a meeting with Joe Biden. We now know that was one of the seminal meetings for the securing of the AUKUS agreement. Is that politicising national security? Is that acceptable? Madeleine King, the Shadow Minister for Trade has for the best part of the last two years, suggested that it's our fault that the Chinese government is engaged in trade coercion against Australia. So Labor's apparently completely fine to attack the government on national security and on China. But if we in turn point out their record, well, that's inappropriate politicisation.
CLENNELL: Alright. If Labor wins, what happens with China? What are your fears?
SENATORPATERSON: I'll be watching very closely for any signs of backsliding. And I'll be watching very closely to see whether they do again what they did in their last term of government where they cut defence spending down to the lowest level since 1938,where they cut funding to ASIO. That's what I don't want to see happen again. And I hope that everything they're saying about national security in the last few weeks does reflect their true position and does reflect the true beliefs. But I don't think it's inappropriate to draw attention to their longer period of contribution on these issues, which haven't been consistent.
CLENNELL: So, is this a winner for you? Going to the election, clearly, the government believe so. I mean, you're a long way behind in the polls. Do you think that can be narrowed significantly or you can even get over the line campaigning on this issue?
SENATORPATERSON: Time will tell, but ultimately, I think if most Australians are walking into the ballot box and they're thinking about our strong record on the economy and our strong record on national security, I think ultimately we'll be rewarded for that.
CLENNELL: James Paterson, thanks so much for your time.
ENDS
