November 7, 2023
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning. A new audit released today has revealed that of the 119 companies that the Future Fund invests in, in China, 50 of them are high risk. They represent companies across a range of sectors, from energy to health care to manufacturing and among these companies include companies who are suppliers of the People's Liberation Army. Among these companies include beneficiaries of the Chinese Communist Party's industrial intellectual property Theft campaign. And among these companies include those who have been directly implicated in the oppression of the Uyghur people in the Xinjiang province and the use of forced labour. It is not okay for Australian taxpayers money or Australia's retirement savings to be invested in high risk companies like these. But if even the Future Fund, with its robust processes and oversight is invested in these high risk companies, I'm deeply worried that many other Australian investors are exposed, including our superannuation industry. It's really time that the Albanese government stepped up and provided at the very least guidance, if not implementing outbound investment restrictions to make sure this doesn't happen. In August, the Biden administration announced it was imposing outbound investment restrictions on American investors into China to make sure that sensitive and critical technology was not being paid for by Americans to be used against them in the future by the Chinese Communist Party. The Financial Review reported in August that the Albanese government was considering doing the same. But until now, we still haven't seen any progress at all. I hope that changes from today. Happy to take some questions.
JOURNALIST: The main goal of this China trip was to stabilise the relationship, given the tone of the meetings we've seen over night between the PM and President Xi, would you say that it's been a success?
PATERSON: I do think it is welcome that an Australian Prime Minister and other ministers can again visit China. That's something that we were always willing and open to do, but that was not something that was welcomed by the Chinese Communist Party when we were in power. I think the most important thing from the Prime Minister's trip is that he robustly advocates for Australia and our national interest, that he stands up for Dr. Yang Henjung, the Australian who continues to be unjustly detained in China, that he advocates for the removal of the remaining tariffs on Australian industry, that he advocates against the espionage and foreign interference of the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for in our country. And that's the true test of his trip. Also critically important is that he doesn't make any more concessions to the Chinese Communist Party because it wasn't Australia which damaged this relationship, it was the CCP.
JOURNALIST: So has it been a success so far, would you say?
PATERSON: I think that will be hard to judge immediately. I do have to say, I think some of the Instagram posts from the Prime Minister at the Whispering Wall at the Temple of Heaven, where he seemed to be recreating his dream trip following in Gough Whitlam's steps was frankly a bit beneath the office of an Australian Prime Minister. This is a serious trip on which there was serious business to be done and I don't think posing happy snaps like Gough Whitlam did 50 years ago is the purpose of the trip.
JOURNALIST: The former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's, accused you of extravagant language when it comes to your characterisation of China. So the idea that it's a volcano ready to erupt at any point. Do you think that the Coalition's use of language or the rhetoric around China did contribute partly to how frosty diplomatic relations became?
PATERSON: Yeah, I've never actually said that and Patricia Karvelas, the ABC reporter who put that to Malcolm Turnbull, has since issued a correction and an apology.
JOURNALIST: Yeah, you said it was the bubbling beneath the surface, didn’t you?
PATERSON: What I said on Sky News on Sunday was that although above the surface it appears that relationship between Australia and China has been restored, below the surface the challenges remain and I listed some examples, including the foreign interference, the espionage and cyberattacks, intellectual property theft. So that quote ascribed to me was not accurate. I never said that. But to your broader point, I think we always need to be measured and calm and clear when we talk about this relationship, because it is an important relationship. I've always sought to do that and I always try to be calm and direct about it. But we also have to stand up for Australia's national interest. We have to be clear there to.
JOURNALIST: Have to used extravagant language?
PATERSON: I don't think so, and I don't think Malcolm Turnbull would say so if he knew that was a false quote that was attributed to me.
JOURNALIST: And just I guess, you know, following on from that point, you know, we had seen a promise or a guarantee, at least indication that the remaining trade tariffs on lobster and beef will be lifted very soon. Do you think that we can take China on its word?
PATERSON: Well, I'm certainly hopeful that those remaining tariffs are removed. They shouldn't have been imposed in the first place. They were unlawful and the World Trade Organisation will find they are unlawful if those processes are allowed to continue and I know that the Chinese government, which portrays itself to be a country that upholds the international rules based order, doesn't want an adverse ruling at the World Trade Organisation. That's why the previous government made those applications to the WTO. So I suspect that the Chinese government will be motivated to withdraw those tariffs before those WTO rulings are handed down.
JOURNALIST: China's expressed eagerness to join the CPTPP. Would you be supportive of this if Australia maintains solid relations?
PATERSON: No, I don't think there's a very good case at all for China to join the CPTPP. It's one of the highest standards trade agreements in the world, and China has demonstrated in recent years that it's not even willing to abide by the conditions it voluntarily entered into in the China-Australia free trade agreement. So it would be quite absurd to admit to the CPTPP a country which has recently used its trade as an economic point of leverage and a weapon against its bilateral trading partners, and I suspect that that would be the verdict that most members of the CPTPP as well.
JOURNALIST: And do you have any thoughts about four leaders not being able to attend the PIF summit? I guess, what broader meaning is to be drawn from that?
PATERSON: Yeah, I've seen those reports and the Pacific Island Forum is a very important forum that Australia takes very seriously. It's the pre-eminent regional forum where we can sit down as peers and as equals and talk about the issues that affect the Pacific. Certainly we appreciate when leaders can participate in the PIF. I hope our government is able to be well represented at that forum. It's important place for us to have those conversations. Whether other island leaders are able to be there really is a matter for them and I don't want to comment on why they may or may not be going.
JOURNALIST: But do you think it's a good thing that this Beijing trip comes significantly before the PIF? Because obviously, there is a lot of concern within the region about this US-China rivalry.
PATERSON: Absolutely. Pacific Islanders have been very clear that they are concerned about strategic competition and the implications it has for them. What they say that they want is for their sovereignty and self-determination to be respected and in Australia they have a partner that's always willing to support them in their sovereignty and their self-determination and in their economic empowerment as well. Thanks everyone.
ENDS
