September 11, 2023
.png)
Monday 11 September 2023
Parliament Doorstop
Subjects: Alleged Chinese spy UK Parliament, Voice Referendum, G20 statement on Ukraine
PATERSON: Well, good morning. I first want to make some comments about the case in the United Kingdom over the weekend about an alleged spy on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party working for a member of parliament. Then I'll be very happy to take any questions. This is a very disturbing and concerning report, if correct and if proven true in a court of law. This is a researcher who was hired by a member of parliament to work on Chinese government related issues. He was allegedly acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, feeding back intelligence to them and working on their behalf to undermine consensus to take action on issues related to the Chinese government, its human rights abuses and its national security encroachment on the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the risk of this happening in Australia is very high because the vast majority of staff who work in this building here in Parliament House are not security vetted or cleared in any way. If you work for a government backbencher, anyone in opposition, including shadow ministers, then you are not required and you're not able to be security vetted. Only ministerial staff are security vetted. I think it's time that that changed, at the very least for MPs who work on sensitive committees like the Intelligence and Security Committee or the new statutory defence committee which is going to oversee AUKUS. We must have security vetted and security cleared staff working for those MP's as a protection against risks of foreign interference and espionage. We know that ASIO assesses this to be our number one security risk and we can't afford to be complacent about this or leave MPs to fend for themselves when they are hiring staff.
JOURNALIST: Would you support all workers at Parliament House going through some sort of vetting clearance that would increase as they handle more sensitive information?
PATERSON: I think there is a very good case for at least baseline vetting, which is the most basic vetting, which just establishes some very basic facts about people who can work in the Australian Army or Navy or Air Force at least having a baseline clearance. And then, of course, as appropriate, as you become more senior and access to sensitive information, higher levels of vetting are appropriate.
JOURNALIST: Just two matters in relation to the voice. One What is your response to polling showing a further drop in support for the referendum? And on Sunday, Noel Pearson cast doubt or he actually called the prospect of a second referendum a mirage. If you were able to respond to those two issues.
PATERSON: Well, my view is still that this will be a very close referendum. The Yes campaign has some enormous advantages; the support of the federal government, every single state and territory government in this country and the vast majority of our largest listed public companies and many significant and influential backers in the media, they have tens of millions of dollars of advantages in terms of fundraising and financing. And we really haven't seen that corporate backing flow into the commercial television and radio advertising yet that we know is coming. When they have millions of dollars from Qantas and Rio Tinto and the big banks we know that is going to have an impact on the campaign. So I and my colleagues who are working on the No side are taking nothing for granted and we believe it will be very close. In relation to Noel Pearson he himself has previously supported constitutional recognition. Now all Australians are entitled to change their mind, as he obviously has. This was once a very popular concept and I believe the vast majority of Australians would vote for constitutional recognition if that was the question on the 14th October. If this fails and if there is a change of government, Peter Dutton has said that we will work in a bipartisan way across the aisle to form consensus so that we can secure a change to the constitution that will win the support of the Australian people. That's the key mistake that Anthony Albanese made. He decided to proceed without bipartisan support and frankly put almost put no effort at all to securing that bipartisan support.
JOURNALIST: Just on the comments made in the G20 summit on Russia. Do you think the comments were Strong enough or should it have been a stronger, I suppose?
PATERSON: Condemnation of Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is always welcome wherever it comes from. And every country has a different perspective on this issue. But it was heartening to see a degree of consensus in the G20. Let's remember, though, that there are some members of the G20, some participants of the G20 who frankly are quite supportive of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including the Chinese government, who is propping up Russia's invasion of Ukraine by financing and backstopping the Russian economy, which would otherwise collapse, given the sanctions have been applied from the rest of the world. So to get any criticism at all out of the G20, given China's position, is actually quite an achievement.
JOURNALIST: What do you make of the PM's statement and was that the strongest statement that has been made so far?
PATERSON: Look from the G20, that's certainly true. It's not true of other bodies like the G7, which have made much stronger statements and other more like minded partners. But frankly, we need to press on every front. We want to see an end to this war. It's a shocking war. It's having an enormous human toll. And we cannot allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine. That would be disastrous for the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, but for the whole world. The last thing we want anyone in the Indo-Pacific to think is it would be acceptable, tolerable or achievable to simply erase lines on the map by sheer force alone. Because if people take that lesson out of this conflict, unfortunately, we'll see more of it. Thanks, everyone.
ENDS
