February 9, 2023
JAMES PATERSON: An audit I launched six months ago has today finally revealed almost 1,000 devices provided by Chinese government-linked entities, Hikvision and Dahua. They're all throughout the Commonwealth, including our Department of Defence, our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, our Department of Home Affairs, our Attorney-General's Department. I'm calling on the Albanese government today to outline a plan to get rid of them and get rid of them all because these are companies who are intimately linked to the human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. These are companies who have been banned by the United States and the United Kingdom, our closest security allies. And these are companies who are ultimately beholden to the Chinese Communist Party and subject to the National Intelligence law of 2017, which says that all Chinese citizens and all Chinese companies must secretly cooperate with Chinese intelligence agencies if asked. So, we would have no way of knowing if the sensitive information, images and audio collected by these devices are secretly being sent back to China against the interests of Australian citizens.
QUESTION: Senator, the government says it's looking at them, but it doesn't sound like they'll be removed immediately. How urgent is this matter?
PATERSON: Well, I welcome the comments by the Defence Minister Richard Marles this morning. That's an appropriate response that they're taking this seriously. I'm encouraged by
that. This need not be a partisan issue at all. This is just a serious issue of national security. So, I hope the government swiftly acts on this information and removes these devices as soon as possible. I was concerned that in one of the answers to the Questions on Notice I received from the Department of Defence, they said that they were aware of one, but there might be others, and they were currently conducting a physical assessment to determine whether or not that is the case. That is alarming. The Department of Defence, of all departments, should know if there are any more.
QUESTION: What's the risk here? What is your greatest concern?
PATERSON: I have two concerns. One is a security concern. We have no way of knowing whether images, audio or other data collected by these devices are being sent back to China and handed over to Chinese intelligence agencies. But I also have a moral concern. These companies have been implicated in what the United Nations has called crimes against humanity, what others call genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. And I don't think any Australian taxpayer dollars should be going to companies involved in these things.
QUESTION: Why did you request this information? Were you aware of anything being done with cameras overseas?
PATERSON: I first requested this information in September from the Department of Home Affairs. I was curious to know whether the department had any devices in their facilities or whether they had any visibility of it in any other government departments and agencies. They came back to me and said they did have some in their facilities and they didn't know whether they were anywhere else in the Commonwealth. And so, I thought it fell to me to conduct an audit and that's why I submitted Questions on Notice to every government department and agency. And those results are now here.
QUESTION: And when you found out there were more than 900, what was your reaction to that?
PATERSON: I was shocked. I was shocked by how many there were and I was shocked at how many national security related agencies and departments had them there. The Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Defence, DFAT. None of these departments should have these devices anywhere near them.
QUESTION: Senator, Simon Birmingham says this morning that he doesn't support, I think the phrase he used was, licks of taxpayer cash going to the Yes and No campaigns. Do you have a view on that? Isn't there a million better ways to spend taxpayer dollars?
PATERSON: No one's talking about a massive amount of money, but this is…
QUESTION: Maybe 10 million.
PATERSON: This is a change to our Constitution, which is very fundamental and which will be very far reaching and which could have consequences for decades. It's one of the most substantial proposals to change our Constitution since Federation in 1901. So, we do need to make sure that the public is adequately informed about the risks and benefits of that change so they can make an informed judgment about whether or not they want to go through that. I think public funding for a Constitutional referendum is appropriate.
QUESTION: Public funding for the Yes and No campaigns?
PATERSON: Yes.
QUESTION: As well as the brochure?
PATERSON: Yes.
QUESTION: Given Australia's long trading relationship with China, isn't it potentially that our entire country is full of Chinese electronic devices that could be exploited? Is this a concern we should be looking at?
PATERSON: If there are almost 1,000 devices in federal government departments and agencies, I suspect they're all over the rest of Australia in people's homes and businesses and maybe even in public places. Certainly, in the United Kingdom they've identified it being rolled out by local councils as part of their CCTV program and the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner in the UK, a statutory appointee, has called these devices "digital asbestos" and he says we need a plan to get rid of it. I think we need the same in Australia. Firstly, they need to be gone from all federal government departments and agencies. Then I hope State governments, local governments and others look at this very closely. Consumers need to be empowered with information so they can make informed decisions. If they really want to have these cameras in their homes and their businesses, then that is their right. But I want to make sure they understand the risks.
QUESTION: Does this go beyond security devices. What about Chinese made cars? Chinese made phones?
PATERSON: The truth is that all Chinese technology companies are subject to the 2017 National Intelligence law of China, and all of them can be compelled to cooperate with China's intelligence agencies without us ever knowing. This is a systemic and significant challenge. And consumers, particularly those who are involved in areas of national security
or human rights, journalists, politicians, academics, should be particularly sensitive about their privacy and security and safety and be cautious when buying products, particularly any that are internet connected, from Chinese companies.
QUESTION: You mentioned that people at home could have cameras, and they don't probably know the full extent of what they are or aren't capable of. Do you have any advice to mums and dads across Australia if they wanted to get more information?
PATERSON: Yes. Think very carefully before you install a Hikvision or Dahua camera in your home. If you already have one, explore the options for alternatives. There are other companies out there that are manufactured in jurisdictions that are not as problematic as China, and there are other companies that have better track records with cyber security and safety, and they provide much better alternatives.
QUESTION: Is it relatively easy to spot these cameras for people obviously don't work, you know, on a day-to-day basis? Is it relatively easy to see what camera they have at home?
PATERSON: They are often labelled either as Hikvision or Dahua, but some of them also have sub-brands that might not be as obvious to you. So, you might need to do a bit of Googling to make sure you know exactly what's in your premises.
QUESTION: Why's it taken so long to come to know this?
PATERSON: That's a good question. I put these questions first in September to the Department of Home Affairs and then to other departments after that. And I waited patiently for the questions on notice to be answered by those departments. Finally, they were all received this week. Thanks everyone.
ENDS
