September 11, 2023
.png)
TRANSCRIPT
Monday 11 September 2023
ABC National Radio
Subjects: Alleged Chinese Spy UK Parliament, need for security vetting of staff, G20 joint-statement, PMs trip to China
ANDY PARK: Well, members of the British Parliament have raised concerns about procedures for parliamentary passes in their halls and offices. It comes after a parliamentary researcher has been arrested on suspicion of spying for China under the UK Official Secrets Act. Back home, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, James Paterson, says the allegations are very real and that Australia is vulnerable to a similar threat. Senator Paterson, welcome back to Drive.
JAMES PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
PARK: What do you make of these allegations coming out of the United Kingdom? Because we're not talking about a lobbyist shuffling down the carpet, the sort of carpeted halls of power. We're talking about someone who is employed by the parliament as a researcher. Is this similar or difference to your concerns about the Australian Parliament?
PATERSON: Well, it's every member of Parliament's worst nightmare. You go out and hire someone who you think will help you work on the important national security or other policy priorities you have and it turns out down the track that allegedly there are a spy for a foreign government that's been acting against not just the interests of your country, but you as an employing parliamentarian. It's very disturbing and unfortunately, what we've seen happen in the UK, I think is very great risk of being repeated here in Australia because the processes we have in place for employing staff, unless you are a minister, frankly just aren't as robust as they should be given the security environment that we're now in. I think it would probably surprise a lot of your listeners that if you're a government backbencher or an opposition member or senator, regardless of whether you're on the frontbench or the backbench, your staff are not vetted and there is no way to get them vetted. And so effectively you're left to fend for yourself in trying to work out is the person I'm hiring a security risk.
PARK: But ultimately the person who is the signatory of the pass is responsible. That's how Parliament House sort of works. Do you think that this should be more greater steps taken to ensure that the responsible party understands the risks, or is it the individual who gets the pass?
PATERSON: No, I think it's absolutely the responsibility falls on the employing member or senator when it relates to their staff or certainly if this signing passes for other people to access the building or visit the building. But we need help to do that. We can't do that on our own. We're not intelligence agencies were not law enforcement agencies, and we don't have at our disposal the many sophisticated means that they have to determine whether someone has any potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited or whether or not, indeed, they have already been compromised in their journey to this role. And that's exactly why we have security vetting. You can't work for a government department or agency, whether they're a security agency or not, without at least a baseline level of vetting. And that is escalated based on your access to sensitive information. So if you're a staff member working for a politician who has access to sensitive information by virtue of being on the Intelligence Committee or a new statutory defence committee that we're establishing, I think those same restrictions should apply to you.
PARK: Won't the system that you're suggesting that if essentially political staffers have greater vetting, end up in accusations of political bias once a pass would be deemed not appropriate or not suitable or denied? Clearly the potential for that to become political is quite high.
PATERSON: Look, I'm open minded about how this would work in practice. I think a good starting point would be that it should be compulsory for the staff of members who are members of an Intelligence Committee or the Defence committee because of the national security risk involved. But perhaps for other parliamentarians who are not directly involved in national security, it could be optional and they could choose whether or not they put their staff through this process and ultimately when they receive the advice about whether they can receive a clearance or not, choose where they want to employ them. I mean, I think it's good practice and good hygiene whether or not you're on a sensitive committee or not, because all of our work is sensitive to some degree and involves important matters in the national interest. But if if some parliamentarians are not comfortable with that and wouldn't want to participate in it, or then that should be up to them.
PARK: We spoke earlier in the year about orange passes, these elite passes that lobbyists get, effectively giving them unfettered access to Parliament House's private corridors. Has it changed in this term of Parliament? Have you seen any change in the number of orange passes being granted or wandering the halls looking to strike up important conversations?
PATERSON: No. My understanding is that the process for granting of those passes hasn't changed and the numbers haven't materially changed either. And it's still very common to see orange passes walking around the building. And to be clear, most of them have completely legitimate reasons and need to be here, and I think that's appropriate. But effectively, there should be strong oversight over who has access to this building, who has unfettered, unsupervised access to this building. And it doesn't just include pass holders. It also includes members of the press gallery. There has been controversy in the past, for example, when employees of companies like Xinhua, which is a state organisation out of China that is purportedly a news organisation, but I think we all know what they really do and they have access to this building too, which is unrestricted.
PARK: So you're saying that a cleaner in Parliament House will have to get security check because they work for a department, whereas a staffer doesn't?
PATERSON: That's right. A staffer doesn't. A journalist doesn't. A lobbyist does not.
PARK: If you just join me on the RN Drive, Senator James Paterson is here, he's the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security. Let's move on to the G20 summit in Australia. Signed a declaration highlighting the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine, end quote. But this declaration did not condemn Russia. What did you make of this statement?
PATERSON: Look, it was a it was a good statement as far as it was. But we could never expect the G20 to make a really robust statement because both China and Russia are participants in the G20 and neither of them are going to sign off on a fulsome condemnation like the G7 or other international bodies have been able to do. I still think it's significant that there was implied criticism of Russia and the consequences of its invasion of Ukraine for the world. But we know, for example, with the Chinese government has made a decision to effectively continue to finance the Russian economy despite the global sanctions against them, that they are never going to be party to any kind of robust criticism of Russia, let alone Russia itself.
PARK: Should Australia have even signed this?
PATERSON: Look, I think there is value in signing these because what we are trying to do is build consensus and not every country approaches this for the exact same perspective as us, but what our objective is to persuade them to see the world in the same way we do. And if we can make any progress, then progress is welcomed. But we should also take every other opportunity to be really clear about where we stand through other multilateral forums and in our own right.
PARK: The Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has accepted China's invitation to visit. What do you think about this move? Is the right move in the right time for an Australian sitting Prime Minister to visit China?
PATERSON: The Opposition has provided bipartisan support since the election for the Albanese Government's policy of trying to stabilise the relationship between Australia and China. And we do think the resumption of ministerial contact is a welcomed thing. We thought it was very counterproductive that the Chinese government refused to engage in that ministerial contact under the previous government and when the Prime Minister chooses to go to Beijing or not is a matter for him. Well, I would say that I really hope some tangible progress comes out of that and first and foremost, for the Australians who are detained, who we believe arbitrarily detained, particularly Yang Henjung and Cheng Lei. I mean, this is years of their life where they've been detained in the Chinese system with no access to their family or friends and with no evidence that they've broken any law or committed any crime.
PARK: Is it really that wise, diplomatically speaking, to raise human rights abuses as a top priority with someone like China, given, I don't know the temperamental nature that the relationship has taken in the past? I mean, surely there's going to be more productive opening priorities to begin this dialogue?
PATERSON: No, I couldn't disagree more. The safety and security of Australian citizens, wherever they are, the world must always be the number one priority of the government and of the Prime Minister. And although there'll be other important things to discuss in that bilateral conversation, and I'm sure he will also cover the human rights of people in China and the interference in our democracy by the Chinese Communist Party, as well as the unjustified trade sanctions against us. Absolutely the safety and security of Australian citizens should be forefront.
PARK: Senator James Paterson, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, I do appreciate your time this afternoon.
ENDS
