June 17, 2024
.png)
SARAH FERGUSON: China's second highest ranking official Premier Li Qiang was in Canberra today. This is the first such visit by a Chinese premier since 2017. His itinerary includes the Australian mining and winemaking sectors, as trade with China over the last year jumped to record levels. At the same time, Australia's security agencies have warned of China's voracious appetite for spying on MPs and other high placed officials. Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson joins me from Melbourne. James Paterson, welcome to 7:30.
JAMES PATERSON: Good evening.
FERGUSON: Is this visit a victory for Penny Wong's quiet diplomacy?
PATERSON: It's certainly very welcome to have Premier Li in Australia. It's an important part of any important bilateral relationship to have visits like this because dialogue is important, not just when we disagree, but especially when we disagree, because it's an opportunity to raise the very serious issues in the bilateral relationship. So it is welcome. I think it's partly due to the approach taken by the government, but I think it's also partly due to a change in approach by the Chinese government. It's not just changing its diplomatic relations with Australia, it's recasting its diplomatic relations all around the world, including with other US allies.
FERGUSON: That's true, but at the same time, there was no thawing of relations during the coalition's time in government. Did you get your diplomacy wrong?
PATERSON: Well, it's not quite right, Sarah. From 2013 to about 2020, there was normal bilateral relations between Australia and China. And of course, there were issues in that relationship from time to time. But for seven of the nine years that we were in office, it was very normal. In the latter part of our time in government, yes, relations were absolutely strained. And a large part of that is because of decisions that Australia took in our national interest. Decisions like banning Huawei from our 5G network were tough decisions that were made in the national interest and taken on a bipartisan basis. And I think it is telling that the Albanese government hasn't sought to undo or unwind any of those policy decisions that we made, even though it was the source of discontent of the Chinese government. And one of the other reasons why diplomacy has been re-engaged now is that we withstood the campaign of economic coercion under the previous government and under this one.
FERGUSON: So tell me, do you trust the appearance of a new attitude from China, or is it your judgement that we're being lulled into a false sense of optimism?
PATERSON: Well, I certainly hope that we're not being lulled into that because below the surface, what is not visible to most Australians in that world of cyber attacks and foreign interference and espionage, things are as hot as they have ever been. In some ways, they're worse. We have one Chinese state sponsored actor who is right now examining our civilian infrastructure networks like water and power and others looking for vulnerabilities, establishing a dormant presence. And the only purpose of that is for future sabotage. So while on the surface it might seem warmer, below the surface, there's a lot going on which should concern all Australians.
FERGUSON: Now, there you're talking about, you're specifically talking about a state sponsored hacking group that we understand is called Vault Typhoon. What kind of threat overall does this kind of activity pose to Australia? To be clear.
PATERSON: A very serious one. And a measure of that is that the Australian Signals Directorate has issued not just one, but two public advisories, where they've warned Australian critical infrastructure operators to look at their networks and try and identify this presence. They wouldn't do that lightly, and nor would they lightly attribute that to a Chinese state sponsored actor. That's a measure of their concern. Also significant is the FBI director, Christopher Wray, and the National Security Agency in the United States, very openly talking about finding these dormant presences on US civilian networks. In the words of the former Home Affairs Secretary, Michael Pezzullo, this is akin to putting dynamite under a bridge, and we should take it very seriously.
FERGUSON: Now, Peter Dutton met with the Premier this afternoon, I understand, did he raise these issues, particularly the hacking issues with him?
PATERSON: Peter raised a full range of both positive and concerning issues in the bilateral relationship, and it's not my place to list them all individually, but they included things like cyber attacks, foreign interference, espionage, the Australian detained, in China right now, Dr Yang Hengjun, as well as the very dangerous and unsafe actions by the People's Liberation Army towards the Australian Defence Force in our region.
FERGUSON: Do you think that the Prime Minister should be talking more about this kind of cyber activity?
PATERSON: Yes. I think it is very important to have that political leadership. We cannot leave it to our intelligence agencies alone to bell the cat on this, because people take it even more seriously when they hear it from the Prime Minister. And we haven't heard a lot from Prime Minister Albanese on these matters. I understand they're pursuing a bilateral stabilisation, but that should never come at the expense of Australia's national interest or our national security.
FERGUSON: Now, the Australian Signals Directorate also warned about using that phrase I used in the intro, which is China's voracious appetite for spying on high profile Australians. Again, what action should the Australian government be taking about that activity?
PATERSON: Well, look, this is not the act of a friend. And I was among those parliamentarians that were targeted, unsuccessfully in this instance. But they will be constantly looking for vulnerabilities and opportunities. We have to raise that robustly and directly, but also, I think publicly, because that's consistent with who we are as a liberal democracy. In fact, earlier this year, Australia joined an attribution by the United Kingdom and New Zealand for attacks on their parliamentarians and their electoral institutions. But we didn't at that time disclose that we'd been on the receiving end of those attacks, and I think that's a mistake. I think we should call out that behaviour plainly and clearly when it happens.
FERGUSON: There was a minor incident in the scheme that you have described, but nonetheless an incident today in the press conference with Premier Li. And I think there's a short piece of footage of it where we can see, Chinese officials trying to physically block cameras from filming. Australian journalist Cheng Lei, that's the Australian who was imprisoned in China for three years. Should the government be insisting on an explanation from the Premier and from the local officials?
PATERSON: Yes, I think that's the bare minimum required. I don't like the way that China chooses to treat journalists in their own country, but that is a matter for them. The way that journalists are treated in our country is a matter for us, and particularly in our own Parliament, and it shows incredible disrespect to us and our customs and norms to treat a journalist in that way. And I think nothing less than an apology is owed from the Chinese delegation. It's even worse that it was Cheng Lei who had every right to be there, and particularly given her experiences and now as an employed journalist, had no right to be treated that way.
FERGUSON: So what do you want the Prime Minister to do about that incident?
PATERSON: Well, I was disappointed when the Prime Minister said that he didn't know about this incident when he did a press conference this afternoon, that was about an hour after this incident occurred. It's simply not credible that he did not know about that, that he wasn't briefed by one of his 11 media advisers about this incident. So I think he should address this publicly. And he has another opportunity to address this with Premier Li when he meets with him in Perth tomorrow, and I hope he does so.
FERGUSON: Do you agree with the Prime Minister that dialogue, that really meaningful dialogue, is essential, not least for the avoidance of misunderstanding about military incidents that could have potentially fatal consequences?
PATERSON: Yes, I do, but with the caveat that the incidents that we have seen in the last two years in our region between the PLA and the ADF have not been as a result of miscommunication, and they have not been accidents. They've been very deliberate acts of coercion and intimidation from the People's Liberation Army. And they're not just doing so against Australia, but they've done so against many other nations in the region who are legitimately operating, including in international waters. And so while that dialogue is welcome, we shouldn't be naive that it's going to solve these problems.
FERGUSON: Now, just a question about Peter Dutton's short speech that he gave during the lunch today. It was a short speech, but he took time to reference the former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, the reformer who opened up China, but who also, whose philosophy included preventing the concentration of political power in a single leader. What point was he trying to make by referencing Deng Xiaoping?
PATERSON: Well, I think that point is probably very self-evident to your very informed viewers, Sarah. The trends under XI Jinping, I think, are very concerning for the Chinese people, but for the region and the world. And that power concentration around Xi Jinping is manifesting in very serious ways for the people of the region, whether it's people in Hong Kong, whether it's those in Taiwan or in the Philippines, who right now are on the receiving end of extremely aggressive conduct on behalf of Chinese Coast Guard and their maritime militia, as well as the PLAN, and we should be concerned about that. And we're entitled to raise that in an appropriate and respectful way, as Peter Dutton did today.
FERGUSON: James Paterson, thank you very much indeed for joining us today.
PATERSON: Thanks, Sarah.
ENDS
