August 2, 2023
PETER STEFANOVIC: A Senate committee is recommending Chinese messaging app WeChat be banned from government devices. TikTok had already been banned from government devices. This was done in April over concerns about data being shared with Chinese intelligence agencies. The committee also recommended key transparency standards for large social media companies. If implemented, the Home Affairs Minister would have the power to issue fines or even ban the offending platforms from operating in Australia. Let's bring in the Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson. James, good to see you. Thanks for your time. How many government devices do you think WeChat would be on?
JAMES PATERSON: That's a great question, Pete, and we don't know for sure. All we do know is that there are government departments that do permit it to be downloaded and there are others that ban it, just as was the case six months ago with TikTok when I first started asking questions about it. And eventually, after many of our allies first acted, Australia followed, and we banned TikTok from government devices. The truth is that WeChat represents almost exactly the same espionage and data security risk that TikTok does. It collects an enormous amount of data on its users. That data is remitted back to China, where it can be accessed by their China-based employees, and those China-based employees are subject to the National Intelligence Laws of China, which compel them to cooperate with China's intelligence agencies. If we were concerned about that risk with TikTok, we should be equally concerned about that risk with WeChat. And there's no reason why we shouldn't take the same decision.
STEFANOVIC: Okay. So why would that not extend beyond government devices then?
PATERSON: Well, we set out a series of recommendations that hopefully try to solve these problems without bans, but crucially, keep bans on the table as a means of making sure that platforms comply, and as a last resort if they fail to comply so that the national security risk can be mitigated for all Australians. So, we set out 11 transparency recommendations, which include things like they must have an Australian presence, they must disclose foreign interference on their platform, they must disclose directions by foreign governments, they must be transparent about how the app and the algorithm operates. They must be transparent about their data. If they can't meet those then they would first be fined and if they repeatedly fail to comply, then the Minister for Home Affairs would have the power to ban them entirely.
STEFANOVIC: Yeah, but up until now they're not willing to play ball, are they? They don't want a presence here for that very reason.
PATERSON: That's exactly right. These platforms, WeChat, TikTok, doesn't matter who they are, if they headquartered in authoritarian states, they've demonstrated contempt for the Parliament of Australia, for our regulators and for our laws. And effectively they feel that they don't need to participate in an inquiry like this, or if they do participate, they can do so in a way that's completely insincere and non-genuine, because they don't think there's going to be any consequences. They have to understand there'll be real consequences to improve their behaviour.
STEFANOVIC: I mean, there's so many Chinese Australians here, I mean this is beyond government, but so many Chinese Australians who use WeChat and a lot of folks probably unaware of what it is, it's, you know, a Chinese messaging app. And so that brings with it a lot of power, doesn't it, James?
PATERSON: Well, some of the best independent experts that we had before the committee described WeChat as a "narrative machine" for the Chinese Communist Party. It is a platform that engages in mass censorship of its users, mass surveillance of its users, and is one of the most permissive platforms for foreign interference that's available out there. And there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who use that app. Now, many of those are Chinese Australians who use that app feel that they are forced to use that app, that there's no alternative because it has become an indispensable tool for communicating with family and friends back in China and doing business back in China. And so many of them don't wish to be on there but feel they must be on there. And so for their sake, I think we've got an obligation to try and improve WeChat's behaviour, to try and make it a better experience and a safer experience for them. But if we can't, I think we have to keep all options on the table.
STEFANOVIC: So how is the Chinese government using it as a propaganda tool? You know, how is it using the algorithms to its favour through TikTok and WeChat?
PATERSON: Well, for a start, what they do is they censor content, which is critical of the Chinese Communist Party and unfavourable to its narrative. So that might involve things like criticism of the human rights record in Xinjiang towards Uyghur people or Hong Kong or Taiwan or Tibet or many other issues. They also put a whole lot of disinformation on the platform that says that there's nothing bad happening in Xinjiang, that it's a wonderful place and Uyghurs are very happy, that Hong Kong is prosperous and safe and stable and free. And that content is pushed to people and is very dominant on those platforms. One study by ASPI a couple of years ago showed that 95 per cent of the content on TikTok about Xinjiang was positive. Now, this is a region that the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many others have said there is either crimes against humanity, genocide or other serious human rights violations happening. So, for 95 per cent of the content to be positive cannot be happening and occurring just naturally. It must be driven by the Chinese Communist Party with the willing participation of TikTok.
STEFANOVIC: Okay. Just a quick couple of economic matters while I've got you, James. The Future Housing Fund. It returns today. Are your heels dug in? Is the Coalition's heels dug in? There's no room to move on that, you're firmly against it and not going to change your mind?
PATERSON: Well, we believe in this fiscal and economic climate that it is irresponsible to be borrowing billions of dollars off the books, off budget, to be financing a tiny number of social and public houses to be built over the next few years when the vast majority of Australians will never interact with the public or social housing market. They'll be renting in the private market, or they'll be buying in the private market. And this will do nothing for those Australians. We've got a crisis right now, today...
STEFANOVIC: Is 30,000 a tiny number though, James?
PATERSON: In the scheme of the Australian housing market with millions of dwellings, yes, it is. And with the shortages in housing construction that we have right now, yes, it is. I mean, we need to be building hundreds of thousands of homes every single year and making them available in the private market because of course we know the government plans to bring in 1.5 million people over the next few years and has no plan at all to house them. And with the crisis we already have with housing affordability, that is only going to become worse. So, we don't believe this bill goes any way to materially solving the serious housing affordability challenges that we have in this country. And it is a distraction as well as being fiscally reckless. So no, the Liberal Party and the National Party will not be supporting this legislation.
STEFANOVIC: James Paterson, appreciate your time as always. We'll talk to you soon.
ENDS
