August 8, 2023
LUKE GRANT: You'll know I've been raising some of the concerns that have been expressed by Liberal Senator for Victoria James Paterson around solar inverters made by companies in China, and we know what that can mean. It's a security issue and it should be front of mind for government. Well, yesterday in The Australian, we're told by reporter Sarah Ison about the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, which has raised the alarm, just as Senator James Paterson did, over the threat posed by these solar inverters, and that's technology that convert solar energy to electricity. And of course, Beijing now dominates up to three quarters of the global market of supply of these inverters. As I say, it's a security issue. And Senator James Paterson, who first raised this, is on the line to tell us more. Senator, I hope you're well.
JAMES PATERSON: Good to be with you, Luke.
GRANT: Thanks so much for your time. And, James, really important that story yesterday, kind of and you've raised this a couple of weeks back from memory. This, again, is proof positive that we need government to just have an eye on this, don't we?
PATERSON: That's exactly right. It was last month that I warned that 58 per cent of the smart solar inverters that are being deployed in Australians homes and businesses and schools right now are being supplied by companies closely linked to the Chinese Communist
Party. These are Internet connected devices with known cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could be exploited not just to damage those individual units and those individual homes, but when they reach a mass scale and they have enough in our energy grid could be used to take out the entire grid and put it offline. And the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, an independent, widely respected study group on these issues, has put out a report on this today that completely backs up my concerns and provides some advice for government to deal with it.
GRANT: And the concern here is unlike, say, in a country like Australia or perhaps the United States, the Chinese Communist Party does have a hold, doesn't it, over these manufacturers and these suppliers. But if they want information, they're entitled to provide it.
PATERSON: That's exactly right. In an economy like China's, in a society like China's, there's really no such thing as a strictly private company. Even the private companies serve the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, or they're no longer allowed to exist. And there's a series of laws which govern their activities, including the 2017 National Intelligence Law, which compels individuals and entities to cooperate with the intelligence services of China and to keep that cooperation secret. It's one of the main reasons why in 2018, Australia led the world in Banning Huawei from our 5G network because we thought they were beholden to the Communist Party. Well, guess what? One of the major suppliers of smart solar Internet connected inverters in Australia is Huawei. So if they're not safe to be the backbone of our 5G network, our telecommunications network, how can they be safe to be the backbone of our new energy system? I mean, the Labor Party is rushing us to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. We can't allow that to be dominated by Huawei or anyone else.
GRANT: No, 100 per cent correct, and I know Australians would agree entirely with that proposition. What's the Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil, said about this? Or are they trying to get more tariffs lifted?
PATERSON: Look, very little at all. In response to the first story, the minister basically said, well, we're looking at this, but then mostly responded with a political attack on me personally, and that's fine if the government wants to go down that route of attacking me. But attacking me doesn't make Australia safer. Attacking me doesn't stop these vulnerable products from high risk vendors being embedded in our economy and society. And so really, they can attack me as much as I like, as long as they're going to get along with fixing the problem and I don't see any evidence of that yet.
GRANT: And James, in ramping this up, it's not like we're at max solar panel. They want more and more and more of these on, as you say, schools, and homes and business rooves. So, it's not a problem that's going to get away. Nor is it one that will get smaller.
PATERSON: That's right. There's literally thousands of these devices being installed every week across Australia. And in some states and territories it is mandatory to install these smart inverters as opposed to the old inverters which are more simple in their technology and not Internet connected. And to be clear, there's a good reason why we want them to be
Internet connected that offers features that you don't currently have access to and benefits, but not if it is provided by a company that ultimately has to answer to the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. Because we know there's a very high chance in the future that Australia's interests and China's interests will diverge as they have in the past.
GRANT: I saw some coverage of you, I think it was in Senate estimates in relation to the AFP and the story that was doing the rounds about Peter Dutton and what he had or had not been briefed by the AFP. Of course, the Opposition Leader was on holidays and came back to face some questions and you think, and I think rightly, that the AFP should have been on the front foot to correct the record rather than allow this false political story to exist for as long as it did?
PATERSON: Well, that's right. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have been running a series of stories about the Department of Home Affairs, and they're perfectly legitimate stories in the public interest. But one of the stories that they wrote was that Peter Dutton was personally briefed on a particular individual who was believed to be involved in corruption and bribery, and that that person continued to receive contracts from the Home Affairs Department even after Peter Dutton was briefed. Now, that story was based on the answer provided by the AFP in response to a question asked by a Labor Senator. And you could barely feel the glee on the Labor Members and Senators faces when this story was revealed. In fact, the Minister, Clare O'Neil, and the Prime Minister leapt on this and said Peter Dutton has questions to answer.
GRANT: He did.
PATERSON: Well, so it turned out, in fact he was not briefed on this matter by the AFP, who have now corrected the evidence, but only after I raised it with them in Senate estimates and asked them whether this was right, and they admitted it was wrong. Really the obligation was on them to come forward as soon as they knew that this was wrong to correct the record. We can't have false answers being given to the Senate and they're not urgently corrected when they're identified.
GRANT: Look, I so agree with that. I so agree with that. And had they done that, then this story, which was a slur against Peter Dutton, wouldn't have existed for the time that it did. I think you're spot on there and good on you for doing it. Now, I follow you on Twitter, obviously, and I note yesterday you made mention of a deal done by the government with the Greens and the crossbench and you were concerned about it in terms of national security. Can you tell me more about that one?
PATERSON: Yeah, we had a debate in the Senate yesterday about the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill and there's a whole range of changes in the bill, most of which the Opposition supported and agreed with. They're sensible changes in the national interest and we offered to provide passage of those changes for the Parliament. But included in that bill was another provision that increased the size of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from [11] members to 13. And we have very good reason to believe
that the Labor Party is doing that because they intend to appoint either a crossbencher or a Green to the PJCIS. Now the PJCIS is not like any other committee of the Parliament. It hears evidence from our security agencies in classified settings. It handles highly sensitive, top secret information and for a very good reason for all of its history, with only one exception, it has always been made up of the major parties, because it's only the major parties that have the burden of having to live with the consequences of this legislation and to make Australia a safe and secure place. So, crossbenchers for their legitimate role in the political system, don't have that burden. And yet I believe that the government is doing that and that they've done a deal with the Greens. The reason why I believe that is that the Greens didn't like the other features of the bill. The Greens thought the other features of the bill were dangerous and bad and they tried to move amendments which failed and yet they still voted for the bill and they never explained why. And I think it's because some sort of deal has been cooked up, but the government has not been transparent about it.
GRANT: Wow. That's a real worry because we don't have to go too far back in time to know that the Greens were referring to an esteemed Coalition Senator as a war criminal. I mean, it was absolutely appalling. You can't help but think, can you, that the Greens, even the crossbench, they'll politicise this?
PATERSON: Well, exactly right, Luke. And it was not also that long ago that a then-member of the Greens Senator Thorpe was a member of another important committee of the Parliament, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which hears sensitive information from the Australian Federal Police. And she was, at that time, in an undisclosed relationship with someone who was alleged to be involved in a bikie gang. Now that was reported to the Greens leader Adam Bandt's office. His office took no action on it, and it only subsequently emerged that she sat on that committee, including while looking into matters relating to bikie gangs and never disclosed that. Now if the Greens think that that was perfectly fine on the Committee for Law Enforcement, imagine the kind of conflicts and attitudes that a Green on the PJCIS would have and how dangerous that would be.
GRANT: You work so hard on this stuff. Please don't think it doesn't go noticed. We pay attention to it. I know Peta Credlin on Sky pays attention to it and we'll continue to pay attention to it because it's very important. You're almost like a lone voice in this space. Good on you for all you're doing and thanks so much for your time, James.
PATERSON: Thanks, mate. Appreciate you having me on.
ENDS
