February 29, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Well good morning, I want to welcome the speech by the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, last night in his fifth Annual Threat Assessment. It contained a number of very important and very welcome disclosures that bring the Australian public into our confidence to understand the threats that our country faces. Director General Burgess most memorably disclosed that there is at least one Australian politician who has betrayed their country, who sought to do the bidding of a foreign power. And there are others associated with that politician who sought to do the same. Now, I know some people have been surprised by these revelations this morning, but they should not be. For the last three years in a row the Director-General has publicly assessed that espionage and foreign interference is our principal security concern, higher than it ever has been in our history, even at the height of the Cold War. And I wonder what people thought that meant, if it was not that there are some people who are willing to betray their country and serve the interests of a foreign country?
So it is very welcome and very important that these disclosures have been made. It's exactly why the former government legislated the espionage and foreign interference reforms. Why we provided record support for ASIO and other intelligence agencies. And why this government must continue that support and continue those powers so we can get on top of this very serious problem for our country. But it wasn't the only important disclosure last night. He disclosed that there are now 14,000 Australian government officials who publicly advertise their security clearance on their LinkedIn pages. In my view this is a prima facie case why those people should have to explain why they should continue to have their security clearances. Because it is an obvious threat to security to put your security clearance online and advertise it. He also said that foreign intelligence agencies are assessing, mapping and trying to get a presence on our critical infrastructure networks. These are civilian infrastructure networks like water and electricity, communications and finance. There's no innocent reason to be on there. The only reason to be on there is to use it to disrupt our country or to do harm to it in the future. We need to step up to that threat and we need to tackle it.
JOURNALIST: So the former politician who betrayed the country be named.
PATERSON: The Director General has taken the decision not to name the former politician, I think for a range of understandable reasons. As he's explained, the conduct occurred before the passage of the espionage and foreign interference legislation in 2018, which means they couldn't be charged for offences because it was not retrospective. Given that, I think it would be unfair to name someone publicly and you would obviously be running a very serious defamation risk if you do so.
JOURNALIST: There were still very strong comments, though, against this former politician. And for the transparency of our democracy and in our politicians, should that person be named, if you if it was up to you?
PATERSON: I'm sure they know who they are. And I'm sure they were listening last night. And I'm sure if they hadn't already decided that their behaviour was not a good idea, I'm absolutely certain this morning that they won't be repeating it.
JOURNALIST: But basically, this person won't face any consequences.
PATERSON: Well, they won't face any legal consequences and I think that is a regret. I think it would be very powerful and important if someone has betrayed their country, particularly someone who has the honor of representing their country in the parliament, that they face legal consequences and very serious ones for that. But the reality is the laws weren't there when this conduct occurred. That makes it very difficult for good reason we tend not to do retrospective legislation in this country, and I understand why.
JOURNALIST: Have you been made aware of who that politician is?
PATERSON: I have a fair idea who it is, but I won't publicly speculate.
JOURNALIST: Is it your understanding that they were serving as a politician at the time, have they left Parliament?
PATERSON: I won't comment on that.
JOURNALIST: Where they a federal politician?
PATERSON: I won't comment on that.
JOURNALIST: What about the general, threat level that the ASIO boss spoke about over night?
PATERSON: Well, I think he's right. I think that we are in a very contested security environment, and we have a range of complex threats, whether it is from, far right extremists, Islamists, foreign intelligence services, or other disruptive actors. We're in a very contested security environment. And that's why it is important that we support our intelligence and security agencies. It is why they need the powers that they've been given by this parliament, the resources that have been given by this parliament. And it's imperative that this government continue that, so that we can continue to protect our sovereignty and democracy.
JOURNALIST: Are public servants equipped to deal with foreign interference risks?
PATERSON: They're much better equipped than they were five years ago, because the general awareness about these threats is much better than it was and the powers and resources at our agencies are much better than it was. But clearly, there are people who are still behaving in a naive way. If you advertise your security clearance on LinkedIn that is basically putting up a billboard for a foreign intelligence service saying, please contact me, I have sensitive information that I could share with you. And the Director General explained exactly how that happens; fake personas are set up on these accounts under the names of fake businesses and consulting contracts and other offers are made and unfortunately, some Australian public servants have taken up those offers, either naively or knowing exactly what they're doing. And that that really is a travesty. It should not happen.
JOURNALIST: Should advertising security clearance be banned for public servants?
PATERSON: That's a fair question. I mean, I can't think of a genuine reason to do so. I can't think of a legitimate reason to do so. There is no reason to publicly advertise it, except put your own interests, your personal interests ahead of the national interest.
JOURNALIST: Just back on the former politician. You have a fair idea who it was. Did you know about this incident prior to last night?
PATERSON: I'll be careful how I answer that question, given the limitations placed on me by the Intelligence Services Act. I think there are probably a number of people who are aware.
JOURNALIST: Do you think the politicians party and, Prime Minister in question would be aware?
PATERSON: I would hope so.
JOURNALIST: Do you think someone will try to name this person under parliamentary privilege?
PATERSON: That's certainly a right that's available to people. That's not something that I intend to do because of the restrictions placed on me by the Intelligence Services Act. But it's certainly something that someone could do. Thanks, everyone.
ENDS
