February 20, 2022
Sunday 20 February 2022
ABC: Insiders
Subjects: China, Labor’s record on national security
DAVID SPEERS: Senator Paterson, welcome to the program.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you, David. I'm only sorry I don't have any more online dating tips for your viewers.
SPEERS: It was very good last week. Look, as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, a principle question first, do you believe it is appropriate or not to use classified information for political gain?
SENATOR PATERSON: I listened very carefully to the words of Mike Burgess uttered on 7:30 last week and, this week sorry, and I take his warning very seriously. I think there've been a range of references to classified material, both in the Parliament and in the media from a range of sources, and we should be very mindful of the warning that he makes, and I understand why he has that anxiety as an ASIO Director-General. If you look at the history of ASIO, it was in the past apolitical football, it did become politicised a long time ago. Famously after the 1954 election, Doc Evatt, the Opposition Leader, accused ASIO of manufacturing the Petrov defection to aid the re-election of the Menzies government and had two Royal Commissions into ASIO as a result –
SPEERS: – look at what's happening now though, it was the Defence Minister Peter Dutton, who publicly referred to classified intelligence that he'd seen while making the case that China wants Labor to win the election. Was that politicising intelligence?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, he wasn't the only person to make a reference –
SPEERS: – but was he –
SENATOR PATERSON: – he wasn't. Well, I think it's important that we point out here, David, that there were references from both sides of politics to classified information in the Parliament –
SPEERS: – and we’ll get to the other one but was, was this one?
SENATOR PATERSON: And in fact,in the media reports that speculated about the ultimate target of that interference operation cited Labor Party sources. So, I think the point that the ASIO Director-General is making is that all political parties, all political actors need to be very careful about that. And I heed that warning.
SPEERS: I think you're talking about Labor's Kimberley Kitching and what she said in Senate estimates. Is that the other side of this you're talking about?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yeah and look, I'm not being critical of either Kimberley Kitching or Peter Dutton. They are individual members of Parliament who are exercising their own judgement and there's a very good reason why the Parliament has privilege and we can speak freely in the Parliament.
SPEERS: One's a Labor backbencher though, one's a Defence Minister. Again, was it appropriate for Peter Dutton to talk about classified information as part of a political attack?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I think it's important to remember David, that Peter Dutton didn't refer to any classified information. He didn't divulge any classified information. He just he just indicated there was classified information.
SPEERS: Was that appropriate?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I think we should be very careful. I think we should all listen to the Director-General.It's not –
SPEERS: – so it's not appropriate?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, David,I'm very careful about what I do with the information I have access to.
SPEERS: But was Peter Dutton being appropriate?
SENATOR PATERSON: I think we should all heed the warning of the ASIO Director-General – all of us. We should be careful in referring to classified information.
SPEERS: All right, we'll take that as a; no, it was not appropriate. Ok. The former ASIO boss and former head of Foreign Affairs and Defence, Dennis Richardson, certainly feels the government has been manufacturing differences when it comes to China. He says this will only help China. You have raised some concern about Dennis Richardson's own record on Huawei. What are you trying to suggest there?
SENATOR PATERSON: David, what I was trying to suggest is that it's ok in a liberal democracy for an elected politician like me or the Prime Minister or anyone else to have a disagreement with a former public servant, even an eminent one like Dennis Richardson.Dennis and I spoke on Friday. He told me that in 2011, when he took leave from DFAT as Secretary, it wasn't to 'negotiate' with Huawei the sponsorship agreement. It was just to make an initial pitch to Huawei on behalf of the Canberra Raiders for that lucrative sponsorship agreement.
SPEERS: You've got that bit wrong.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I think it's a subtle difference between negotiate and pitch, but anyway, I'll leave that for others to decide. He also acknowledged to me that he did, in March2019 at the AFR Business Summit, publicly float the idea that Huawei could be allowed into Australia's 5G network in the same model that the United Kingdom was then pursuing with some safeguards and assurances. But he told me that since the government didn't make that decision, he accepted the government's decision. He now supports our 5G policy, and I welcome that because I never thought that it was in Australia's interests to follow the UK model. The advice from our agencies was very clear that the risk could not be mitigated satisfactorily and indeed the UK has now followed the Australian model and has taken all out of their 5G network. That was a very sensible decision.
SPEERS: But he says you're attack on him the other day was 'grubby' and factually incorrect. Now I take it you, as you've just said, you've spoken since then. Do you offer any apology?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I didn't use any emotive language in my contribution. I just pointed to information that was already on the public record –
SPEERS: – [inaudible] your facts were wrong.
SENATOR PATERSON: I didn't refer to anyone as grubby or despicable. But Dennis and I have agreed that we should catch up for a beer and I look forward to that.
SPEERS: Ok, but no apology?
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
SPEERS: And you don't accept you got any facts wrong?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I said that he negotiated and I should have said that he pitched, but otherwise I think it was very accurate references for information on the public record.
SPEERS: Ok. You said that he publicly advocated Huawei should be involved in the 5G rollout?
SENATOR PATERSON: That was referring to his comments that the March 2018 AFR Business Summit, where hesaid we should follow the UK model of allowing while into 5G with safeguards,and I didn't think that was sufficient.
SPEERS: Ok, so no apology.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
SPEERS: Let's talk about Richard Marles then. Prime Minister called him a Manchurian candidate. You disagree?
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, he's of course he's not a Manchurian candidate, and the Prime Minister very quickly withdrew that comment. I note when Anthony Albanese made the same comment a day later towards the Prime Minister, he didn't withdraw it. So, I think the Labor Party's outrage over this is confected. I mean, I think what we know is happening here, David. The Labor Party has the most left-wing leader since Gough Whitlam. They're very sensitive about their weakness on China, and they're very uncomfortable with that now being pointed out.
SPEERS: We'll come to that but do you have any concerns about Richard Marles?
SENATOR PATERSON: No, I don't have any concerns about his loyalty to Australia. I think he gave a very bad speech in Beijing in September 2019.
SPEERS: What was wrong with the speech?
SENATOR PATERSON: Well he proposed there should be closer military cooperation between Australia and the People's Liberation Army. That's the same People's Liberation Army that's out there aiming lasers at our Royal Australian Air Force pilots right now.
SPEERS: Well, he said in that speech that Australia and China should explore quote "political cooperation and even defence cooperation." What's wrong about that?
SENATOR PATERSON: I think we shouldn't be cooperating with what has become a very serious strategic adversary that is trying to coerce and intimidate Australia.
SPEERS: Because a month after he gave that speech, the Defence Department issued this press release announcing the next round of military exercises with China, Operation PANDAROO. These are military exercises your government, the Coalition government began. How come it's bad for Labor to suggest it, but ok for your side to do it?
SENATOR PATERSON: They are long-standing, pre-existing arrangements and what Richard Marles was suggesting–
SPEERS: – they began under the Coalition government –
SENATOR PATERSON: – yes, but they were long-standing, long before Richard Marles’ speech. And what he was suggesting is we should take it up an extra tempo. We should increase it even further on a political and military level.
SPEERS: I'm not sure if your verballing him there, Senator, I've got the quotes, he said: "our starting point has to be that we respect China deeply, value our relationship with China. We must seek to build it and not just in economic terms, but also through exploring political cooperation and even defence cooperation." He's not saying, up the tempo on military exercises?
SENATOR PATERSON: I think it's very clear he was. Why else would he make reference to it –
SPEERS: How is that clear?
SENATOR PATERSON: If all he was saying David is we should just continue what we've already been doing, then why did he say it at all? And why has it never been posted on his website? Today the only place you can read Richard Marles’ speech is on my website, not on his. Don't you think that that's a bit strange? Don't you think he's obviously embarrassed about something in that speech and doesn't want to talk about it?
SPEERS: Should the Prime Minister post everything else, speeches he gives on his website?
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't know.I don't run the Prime Minister's website. It's up to him to post what he wants to post. But I think it's strange that Richard Marles hasn't posted it still today.
SPEERS: Should he, the PM, perhaps post his speech he gave to the Christian Churches Congress?
SENATOR PATERSON: That's a matter for the PMO, David.
SPEERS: What about Anthony Albanese? What evidence is there that he is weak on China?
SENATOR PATERSON: There's lots of examples, David, and it goes not just for him as leader, but the entire Labor Party. Labor often says, oh, we vote for national security legislation in the Parliament, so that's sufficient. And look, I hesitate to use this example because Senator Keneally is one of the members of the PJCIS that I work very well with. But in 2017, when the Turnbull government introduced espionage and foreign interference legislation, the Chinese government accused Australia of racism. And in the Bennelong by-election that year, Senator Keneally said that she'd heard voters say that Australia was “China-phobic” and that we were“scaremongering”, so she was elevating those false claims against Australia. Now, Labor ultimately voted for that legislation, but it's a good example how they seek partisan advantage on so-called bipartisan issues.
SPEERS: That's five years ago. There's plenty of track record on both sides when it comes to changing positions on China. What evidence is there now that that Anthony Albanese is weak on China?
SENATOR PATERSON: Ok, I'll cite some more recent examples then David. In December 2020, after the list of 14demands had been released by the Chinese Embassy, in which they said we would have to compromise on core issues of sovereignty, like freedom of the press and freedom of the Parliament, Anthony Albanese said it was the Morrison government's fault that we couldn't get a Chinese counterpart to pick up the phone, and it reflects poorly on us. Now he knew when he said that that the only way we could get them on the phone is if we sacrifice on a core issue of sovereignty. And so it's up to him to say which of those 14 demands would he give in to? Would he silence the press, would he silence the Parliament, would he silence independent think tanks? Would he abolish our reviews of foreign investment, would he –
SPEERS: – it's a bit of a leap, though, to say that he was suggesting we should give in to China's demands? He never said that.
SENATOR PATERSON: Ok, I'll give you another example, David. A couple of years ago at the Labor Party conference, Paul Keating said that the heads of our intelligence agencies were nutters and that they should be sacked if Labor came for office. After Paul Keating made that disgraceful attack on our intelligence chiefs, our serving current intelligence chiefs. Anthony Albanese said that Paul Keating is always worth “listening to” and he has “wise counsel” –
SPEERS: – and he disagrees with him on these issues of China. He said that repeatedly.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I don't think that's wise counsel David, and I don't think we should be building up someone who's got clearly insane views on the China relationship.
SPEERS: Ok, but you're taking some selective quotes here. I'm still searching for the evidence that Anthony Albanese is weak on China now?
SENATOR PATERSON: Ok, I'll give you another example, David. The Labor Party says they support AUKUS. That's very welcome, I'm glad that they do that. But at the same time, they've spent much more energy and much more effort being aggrieved on behalf of the French government for being upset about cancelling the contract than they have in demonstrating interest towards the defence capability we're going to acquire which we need to defend our country. Anthony Albanese has said that we were 'gaslighting' in relation to that agreement. Penny Wong has said, accused us of'vandalism' and of course, we know Labor's record when they were in government.They cut defence spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP. That was the lowest level since 1938. They ripped money out of the AFP. They subjected ASIO and our other intelligence agencies to an efficiency dividend of four per cent. And it got so bad that the former head of the PJCIS, Anthony Byrne, had to stand up in Parliament and denounce his own government for it. That is their record.
SPEERS: Well, again, we're talking about events of 10 years ago and look fair enough, they did, you know, defence spending as a percentage of GDP did fall and we can go through the government's record of spending on submarines that it's no longer buying from the French or the Taipan helicopters that it's had to scrap and so on. What now, though, tells us that Labor would do anything differently on national security?
SENATOR PATERSON: David, I think we need to take their whole record into account. We can't just cut it off and say we won't look at anything before then. I mean, Anthony Albanese tried to table in the Parliament the other day an essay he wrote as a university student in 1981. So if he thinks that's relevant, and I understand he shopped it around to the Press Gallery as well. If that's relevant, then I think what they did in the government the last time they were in office is relevant. I mean, Anthony Albanese sat around the Cabinet table that signed off on those cuts to our intelligence agencies, that signed off on those cuts to our Defence Force. Their own White Paper in 2009, David, said we urgently needed 12conventional submarines. What steps did they take in government to order those in six years? None at all. They didn't order a single naval vessel at all, and we're still making up today for those consequences.
SPEERS: But if it's fair to look at records,this government looked seriously at an extradition treaty with China, allowed the Port of Darwin to be leased. I mean, there's a long list.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm glad you mentioned those, David, because I was the first government backbencher to tell the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, that I would cross the floor if need be on the extradition treaty –
SPEERS: – the point is, the point is both sides have –
SENATOR PATERSON: – no this is important David. And the Labor Party only announced their opposition to the extradition treaty after I and others said we're going to cross the floor. They waited until there were government backbenchers who were unhappy with it –
SPEERS: – so they only did it because of you? Ok.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I'm not taking credit for it, but what I'm saying is they made a political calculation. Up until that point, they were going to support the extradition treaty.
SPEERS: Alright, finally, 12 months ago, soon after you took this role as Chair of the Committee, you talked up the strength of bipartisanship when it comes to national security. You told The Guardian, quote: "it's very powerful for us to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder across the political spectrum and send a very strong message to the world that we won't be separated on these issues of national interest." What's changed? Is that the approaching election?
SENATOR PATERSON: David, I don't just talk about bipartisanship, I've delivered it. On my watch in the last 12 months on the PJCIS we've handed down 17 bipartisan reports on issues as diverse as critical infrastructure, high-risk terrorist offenders and the dark web. And many of those reports have required hours of painstaking negotiations with my Labor counterparts. I take that responsibility very seriously. But it doesn't mean I'm going to lie about their record. I think we have to be honest. Albanese is trying to paint a small target. He's trying to sneak into government and in a liberal democracy, we are absolutely entitled to examine their record and make competing claims about what we think they'll do in office. It's up to them to meet the high bar that we're setting for bipartisanship. If they're not comfortable meeting that standard, well, then they can justify that to the Australian people.
SPEERS: Senator Paterson, thanks for joining us.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thanks, David.
ENDS
