July 5, 2023
DANICA DIGIORGIO: Well, the Opposition is calling for government agencies to blacklist more than 3,000 Chinese made drones over renewed security concerns. A cyber security audit uncovered the CSIRO and Australia's defence agencies have over 2,400 drones operating manufactured by company DJI. The company is linked to the People's Liberation Army in China and has been blacklisted by US government organisations. The drones have been taken offline and grounded since May while the audit is conducted. Joining me now live is Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister James Paterson. Thank you for joining us. So, what's been uncovered so far in this audit?
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Danica. Well, as you said, last year, the Pentagon and the US military, our closest strategic ally, took a decision to blacklist DJI drones for two reasons. One, they assessed that the company was secretly controlled by the People's Liberation Army and had close links to the Chinese Communist Party. And second, the US government also sanctioned the company because of their involvement in human rights abuses against the Uyghur ethnic minority in Xinjiang province in China. They are two very good reasons why Australian departments and agencies shouldn't be using those drones either. So, in response to those revelations, I launched an audit through Questions on Notice in the Senate to find out how many of these drones we had and in which departments they were. And what I learned is that there are hundreds of these departments, of these drones, not just in the Australian Defence Force, but in the Border Force, in the Federal Police and CSIRO, as you say, across the public service. In total more than 3,000 of these devices
which represent both the moral risk and the cyber security risk, and that's why they should be grounded.
DIGIORGIO: So, who is keeping track then of how many Chinese devices are being used in government departments? It just seems extraordinary that for so many years these drones have been used not just under Labor, but also under previous governments, including the Coalition.
PATERSON: You're right, Danica. The extraordinary thing is that other than me asking questions about this, no one is keeping track of these devices at all. And that's obviously not a very good approach to take to the cyber security of this nation. What we need is a much more proactive approach that gets ahead of these risks and anticipates them, assesses them and mitigates them when necessary rather than a reactive approach that waits until an Opposition Senator lodges questions on notice before action is taken. What I've advocated is that the government establish a National Security Technology Office within the Department of Home Affairs to, first of all, get to the bottom of how many of these high-risk authoritarian products are being used and then to mitigate them, but in the future to stop these things from being bought in the first place before they become a problem. Now, interestingly, after I made that call about a month ago, the United Kingdom government adopted something very similar as part of their procurement reforms. It's something that the Albanese government could take up and I'm urging them to do so urgently.
DIGIORGIO: All right, let's move on now. Hong Kong police have put a bounty on to Australian residents. What's your response to this development?
PATERSON: I'm very concerned by this. A bounty of Hong Kong $1 million has been placed on the heads of Kevin Yam and Ted Hui, one Australian citizen and another Australian resident. And in addition to that warrants have been issued for their arrest. And the chief executive of the Hong Kong government, John Lee, has said that they will be pursued for the rest of their lives and monitored wherever they are in the world. This is a totally unacceptable attempt to interfere in Australia's domestic affairs, in the rights of freedom of speech and political activism of our citizens and residents. It should not happen. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Minister Penny Wong has condemned this behaviour. But I am very concerned that the Prime Minister plans to visit China later this year, to meet with President Xi and stand alongside him, shaking his hand and smiling as if nothing has happened. Well, I don't think that's something that the Prime Minister should do without considering what message it would send while there are bounties on the heads of Australian citizens.
DIGIORGIO: And before these bounties were announced, Beijing's new anti-spy laws came into effect. How worried are you about the impact that this could possibly have on Australian companies? Could staff be detained?
PATERSON: These are very wide-ranging laws that seek to target what was previously normal business activities, particularly companies seeking to offer advice to Western
companies doing business in China. They employ people, both of Chinese origin and also Western origin, in China to map the Chinese economy and policies of government and provide advice to companies about the risks. Well, those people themselves are now at risk because Beijing has effectively defined that activity as espionage. And we know in the past that they have arbitrarily detained and arrested people engaged in a business like this. That's a very real risk for Australian citizens who are already in China. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade already says that you should consider your need to travel because you are at risk of arbitrary detention and arrest. And we only have to look at the cases of Cheng Lei and Yang Hengjun to realise how serious that is. I think there's a very good case for the government to look at upgrading that travel advice. The United States government in the last week has upgraded their advice and have urged US citizens to reconsider their need to travel. That's an option available to the Foreign Minister Penny Wong, if she chooses.
DIGIORGIO: Alright, it will be interesting to see what happens then. Just finally, before we let you go, just on the Voice, Linda Burney will tell the National Press Club in about an hour and a half that health, education, jobs and housing are the four policy priorities on which she will ask the Voice to provide advice. Does that allay the Coalition's concerns about a lack of information surrounding its scope?
PATERSON: Unfortunately not because the Minister for Indigenous Affairs will have no power if the Voice is permanently enshrined in our Constitution at this referendum to restrict in any way, shape or form the issues on which the Voice decides to provide advice. There's nothing in the constitutional amendment which limits it, and the parliament cannot limit the constitution. That is not how it works. Only the High Court will be the final arbiter of this. And that's why we believe there's very significant legal risk due to the lack of detail and the fact that this will be a permanent institution in our Constitution. If we decide we think it's not working or if it has adverse consequences, there's nothing we can do other than to try and hold another referendum to remove it down the track, which is not realistic. So unfortunately, the Minister's speech today, while outlining the issues that the Voice might focus on, actually has no power to deliver on that and can't stop the Voice, for example, advocating the abolition of Australia Day. And we know that the Prime Minister himself has said it would be a very brave government that ignored the advice of the Voice.
DIGIORGIO: James Paterson, we have to leave it there. Thank you.
ENDS
