October 2, 2022
ANDREW CLENNELL: Joining me now is Senator James Paterson. I’m going to get to that in a second but I want to ask you about Kristy McBain having more integrity in her little finger than your side of politics have in your whole bodies. What do you make of that?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, that's a cheap line to get through a Sunday morning television interview. But Andrew, you follow this issue very closely, Kristy McBain held shares that she shouldn't have. Then she transferred them into her husband's name, which she shouldn't have. Then her husband and her appear to have received dividends while she continued to hold those shares before she disclosed them, before she got rid of them. And then she told the Parliament that none of that happened. Now, that seems to me, on the face of it, to be a breach of the ministerial standards of the Albanese Government and appears to me to be a strong case for having misled the Parliament. Now, if Anthony Albanese's standards are to mean anything, he has to enforce them on Kristy McBain. They have to apply to his
ministers otherwise we can't take this government seriously at all when it comes to integrity.
CLENNELL: Alright, well should she go? Should she be dropped from the frontbench, given what you've just said?
PATERSON: Well, that's a matter for the Prime Minister to enforce, and it is a very important test for him. And the Australian people will be watching. Do his ministerial standards mean anything at all? The early days of the Howard Government, many ministers were lost on the enforcement of the ministerial standards. Let's see if Anthony Albanese can uphold the same high standards.
CLENNELL: Ok well, let's move to Optus in this hack. The Government has really laid into Optus over this. Do they deserve the treatment they've been getting, the criticism from the Government?
PATERSON: Yes. I think it's very clear that Optus has erred here. They did not have in place sufficient protections to protect the data of almost 10 million Australians that they were holding. And absolutely they deserve criticism. I am really concerned, Andrew, about the real disconnect between what Optus is saying on the one hand about the nature of the attack, what the government is saying on the other. Optus is very clearly said - and repeated - that this is a very sophisticated attack and the Minister for Home Affairs has said this is a very basic attack. In responding to the Minister's observation, Optus accused her of misinformation. Now that's a very serious accusation for major companies to make about a minister of the Crown and really it is up for the government to, within the bounds of respecting classified and sensitive information, to reveal what it is that they know that leads them to believe that this was a very basic hack. Because Optus customers are entitled to know. If Optus has made very serious errors here in protecting the data, they're entitled to know what they were.
CLENNELL: Should the Optus CEO resign or consider a position?
PATERSON: It's a bit premature for that at this stage, Andrew. But certainly if Optus has misled the public and if the Optus CEO has misled Optus users, that would put her in a very difficult position. And it is either the case that Optus is misleading the
Australian people or the government is misleading the Australian people. They can't both be telling the truth. And so very serious consequences will flow if it is demonstrated that one of them has been misleading the public.
CLENNELL: Alright well Claire O'Neil, the Home Affairs Minister has come out swinging in the Sunday papers against the former government this morning. She's pointed the finger at Communications Minister, former communications minister Paul Fletcher and suggested that he didn't do enough in terms of the critical infrastructure security legislation, although the former government didn't in general. What do you say to that?
PATERSON: I've been a bit puzzled by this line being briefed out by the government this week. In fact, on Melbourne radio this week, Clare O'Neil said that the former government exempted the telecommunications sector from the security of critical infrastructure reforms. That's not true. And if the Minister really believes that she does not understand the legislation that she is in charge of administering. In fact, the reforms to the Critical Infrastructure Act, which were first introduced in 2018 and then amended in December last year and again in March this year, explicitly included for the first time the telecommunications industry among the 11 industries that were regulated under the Act....
CLENNELL: But not to the same standard, they weren't to the same standard were they? It was said that some of the regulations covered by other Acts?
PATERSON: Well, I'm just about to get to that, Andrew. The telecommunications sector is regulated both under the Security of Critical Infrastructure reforms and under the Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms in 2018. It's one of the most highly regulated sectors when it comes to telecommunications security or indeed cyber security generally. Now, if the government believes that new evidence has come forward during the Optus attack and that changes to either of those acts is necessary to make them even stronger, well the opposition will be very constructive and bipartisan about that of course. We'll support any sensible changes that the government brings forward. But it is still not clear whether the government has used the powers that it has under its own act or the acts that we passed sufficiently to protect Optus. For example, under the SOCI, under the Critical Infrastructure Act, the Minister has the power to declare an operator and assets that they hold as a system of national significance. Once the Minister has done so, the government can then impose what are called enhanced cyber security obligations on that provider and on their assets. Now it's up to the Minister to say whether or not in the case of Optus,
she has declared that as a system of national significance. And if she has done so, whether she imposed those enhanced cyberspace obligations on them.
CLENNELL: Alright, well the government also said you didn't have tough enough fines in your legislation for this sort of breach. What do you say to that?
PATERSON: Well it is true, that Optus will be up for millions of dollars of fines under the Privacy Act. They'll probably also be subject to at least one, if not more class actions, which could run into the many millions of dollars. I suspect they'll lose millions of dollars more in reputation and lost customers. So I don't think anyone can say that Optus is going to get off lightly. But again, if the government believes that increased fines are necessary, then the opposition will be very constructive and bipartisan about that. We'll consider any proposal they bring forward on their merits. We do want to make sure that major companies in Australia are taking this very seriously because they do have a very important responsibility to their customers, particularly when they hold millions of people's very sensitive personal information.
CLENNELL: Okay. I wanted to turn now to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Do you have any concerns about how its operation might pan out?
PATERSON: Andrew I support the introduction of an anti-corruption commission at the federal level. The electorate sent the parliament a very clear message at the last election that they have lost a level of trust and faith in our federal institutions, and I don't think that will be restored unless we introduce an anti-corruption commission. But the laws and the details of that corruption commission are very important. And I want to make sure that when we do so, that doesn't have any unintended consequences that harms public administration in this country and prevents us from acting in the public interest in our role. One issue which I've already raised is the fact that the corruption commission will be able to, without a warrant, surveil a ministers, including, for example, a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, tap their phones, that it will be able to raid the Department of Defence without a warrant. That will put in its possession very sensitive and potentially classified information, and that will make it a very attractive intelligence collection target for foreign intelligence services. And if that's the case, they must put in place the most robust protection possible. Frankly, I would rather they don't hold any sensitive information like that at all. But if they have to, then it must come with the most strong protections...
CLENNELL: Can I just, can I just ask you about Mr Paterson, can I just ask you about something you just said? I have read that they'll be able to raid an office of a department without a warrant. I haven't read, I haven't seen the part of the legislation which suggests they can surveil, phone taps someone without a warrant. Is that your understanding?
PATERSON: Yes, that is my understanding. My understanding is that the anti-corruption commission will be able to tap the phone of a member of parliament or a minister or indeed a public servant without seeking a warrant.
CLENNELL: Well, that is not how state ICACs operate, as I understand it. Now, when they introduced the ICAC bill, they introduced this other surveillance legislation. You've looked at that and you believe that you wouldn't need a warrant to tap a minister?
PATERSON: Yes, it's my understanding. It's up to the government to clarify. I'll be comforted to know if that's not the case. But it is my understanding that the Anti-Corruption Commission can tap the phone of a minister without a warrant.
CLENNELL: You mentioned the prospect of foreign intelligence services utilising this. The NSW ICAC's actually looked at some shady characters involved in foreign interference, such as Huang Xiangmo. So I guess it can have another benefit these sort of bodies, can't they? They can look at the issue itself.
PATERSON: You're absolutely right, Andrew. We do want our anti-corruption commissions to look at members of parliament or those seeking to influence them for a whole range of motivations that they might have. They might be motivated by personal financial gain, or they might be motivated by acting in the interests of a foreign power. I absolutely want a tough cop on the beat that's able to do that. But you mentioned the New South Wales ICAC, I mean it is the case that it has occasionally not been as careful as it should with the evidence that it's collected, it's been uploaded inadvertently online, it's occasionally found its way into the media, even though it was supposed to be private. If that were to happen, in the case of collecting sensitive and classified information about ministers or about our departments in the national security realm, then that would be very dangerous indeed. And I want to know that the agency which will be established at the federal level has the most robust protections in place possible to ensure that that doesn't
happen. For example, the government needs to clarify whether or not employees of the Anti-Corruption Commission will have to be security vetted to work there and if so, to what standard will that vetting have to take place, and if so who will conduct that vetting?
CLENNELL: Mr Paterson, just a couple of quick questions. We're nearly out of time, brief answers if you can. What is your view on the cessation of the COVID isolation period?
PATERSON: Well, I welcome that. I think most Australians have really moved on. They understand that if they're sick, they should stay home until they get better. But that it has gone on well and truly long enough in this country. I think most Australians will welcome it, as do I.
CLENNELL: And what is your view of Stephen Smith being appointed High Commissioner to the UK?
PATERSON: Stephen Smith is a very eminent, very senior former cabinet minister. It is appropriate that high level postings like London and some others, that former senior ministers are appointed to it because they can bring something important to the role. They speak for the government in a way that a public servant can't, and they have access and influence in the way that a public servant can't. So just as we appointed people of similar stature to that role. I welcome that appointment.
CLENNELL: James Paterson, thanks so much.
ENDS
