March 17, 2023
LAURA JAYES: The UK has banned TikTok on government devices effective immediately due to growing security concerns. It's over risks the Chinese-owned app can use government data and information:
CLIP: Mr. Speaker, this is a precautionary move. We know that there is already limited use of TikTok across government, but it is also good cyber hygiene.
JAYES: It follows similar decisions by the EU, US and Canada and the US and threatened to widen its ban and TikTok owner doesn't sell its stake. Let's go live now the Shadow Cyber Security Minister James Paterson. He's been right on this story from the very beginning. We now have another country following suit on TikTok. The British government is effectively putting this ban in place immediately. Why is it taking so long to do it here?
JAMES PATERSON: I wish I knew the answer to that question, Laura. I've been calling on the Albanese government to act on this serious national security threat for nine months now after TikTok admitted to me in July last year that Australian user data is accessible in China. Almost all of our close allies and friends around the world have now acted and we've seen no action from the Albanese government at all other than the Minister has commissioned a
review. Well, a review is all very well and good, but we need action right now to deal with this serious national security threat.
JAYES: Certainly do. So, with that review up to because we spoke to you about this, I think less than a fortnight ago. You've done your own audit on government departments, so some of the more risky departments already ban TikTok from government devices. Is that why we don't really need to proceed in haste here?
PATERSON: It's certainly a good start that departments like Home Affairs and Defence and the Prime Minister and Cabinet have banned their employees downloading on their work devices. But as our allies and friends in the US and Canada and the EU and UK and elsewhere have shown it's not just a risk for people working in sensitive national security related departments, it's a risk to all government users and in fact it's a risk to all Australians. On the front page of The Age today is a submission to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media, and that really explodes the myth that there is a strict separation between TikTok and Bytedance and the Chinese Communist Party. Really, they are one and the same and intimately linked. TikTok will have to serve the interests of the Chinese Communist Party because they are subject to the control of the Chinese Communist Party. And that means not just government users, but all Australians are exposed to that risk.
JAYES: How do you reflect on the journey some of these Western countries have been on when it comes to the security risk posed by China and Chinese state-owned companies like these? Because remember, you know, the British government was at one stage going to allow Huawei to be a major infrastructure partner.
PATERSON: All of us have been on a journey contemplating the threats that Chinese technology companies posed to our democracies. Because they are subject to the national intelligence law of China, which compels all their employees to secretly cooperate with their intelligence agencies as requested. First Australia led the world in 2018, by banning Huawei and many other countries, the United Kingdom included, have followed our lead. We could have led on TikTok as well, but unfortunately, we're now falling very far behind and we need to urgently catch up with our Five Eyes and other partners because the threat has become clearer and clearer. I mean, you could have argued before July of last year that we didn't know where the data was going, but now we know where it is going. You could have argued before December last year we didn't know what TikTok would do with the data, but they were forced to admit that they were using data collected by the app to spy on journalists who were writing critical articles about it. And maybe you even could have argued before last month that no one else was acting on this, no one else was addressing it. But you just can't argue that anymore. All of these revelations have happened on the Albanese government's watch. Other governments around the world are waking up to this threat and acting on it. And we are not.
JAYES: I don't wish to assume anything here, but given what Paul Keating said at the Press Club the other day, you might fall into the category of "numpty" for warning about this kind of
thing, or was it "ning nong", I'm not so sure. More seriously, though, what did you think about some of the claims made by Paul Keating? Does he have a point at all?
PATERSON: Probably I do fall into that category, Laura, but I feel in good company because he singled out our intelligence agencies and their chiefs in that category as well. And actually, I thought that was one of the most disgraceful aspects of his performance at the National Press Club. His attack on our intelligence chiefs, who can't enter into the political fray to defend themselves. So let me defend them on their behalf. These are highly professional, dedicated, patriotic Australians who serve our country in the national interest and provide advice to governments which governments then act on. And for him to attack them is an appalling thing. Just as, frankly, I think it was appalling for him to attack the media in the way he did, very personally singling out journalists for his invective and abuse. And it's a bit surprising in a way that the National Press Club provided that platform for him to attack the media. I mean, those are the kind of tactics that Donald Trump has been rightly criticised for in the United States and we shouldn't tolerate it in Australia...
JAYES: Hang on. Are you saying the Press Club shouldn't have hosted him? I mean, that would be quite silencing, wouldn't it?
PATERSON: Well, the Press Club seem very keen to have Mr Keating and have his views very often. And at the very least, if he's going to be allowed to attack the media like that and attack journalists like that, I think he should be challenged by the host who had him on the platform. Those attacks shouldn't go unresponded. I'm not saying we should ban Paul Keating, he's entitled to his views...
JAYES: But was he right about one thing? He talked about a contest of ideas that needs to be facilitated probably better by the media. There hasn't really been a contest of ideas when it comes to the AUKUS partnership. Is that fair?
PATERSON: I don't think it's fair. I mean, any Australia who has a different point of view, Paul Keating or anyone else, is entitled to question the merits of AUKUS, to criticise it and there'll be no adverse consequences from them doing so. But there's a very strong unity of purpose from everybody who's been briefed on the intelligence, whether they're Labor or Liberal, government or opposition, who have been involved in this along the journey who understand just how important this capability is for our country and how dangerous it would be for us not to go down this path because we would lose the ability to defend our interests and our values in our region if we don't do this. He doesn't have the benefit of that insight. He's free to espouse his views. He's free to decline to criticise the Chinese government while he attacks the Indian government, the US government, the UK government, the Japanese government, all of our friends. But I think we're also entitled to draw reflections on him when he does so.
JAYES: Yeah, well said. Good to have you on the show. Thanks so much.
PATERSON: Thanks Laura.
ENDS
