November 8, 2023
GREG JENNETT: Comments were made a number of hours ago now, late in the morning Eastern time. Now, the whole problem with vulnerability in critical systems has long been recognised as something for federal governments to deal with, to be fair, they've tried with units set up inside the Home Affairs Department, bringing together operators of telco networks, power grids and other forms of critical infrastructure, they hold regular meetings. James Paterson is the Shadow Home Affairs Minister and he joins us in the studio. Senator, welcome. Quite unprecedented in scale and duration. Are you aware of anything in similar circumstances to the debilitating nature of this network wide failure?
JAMES PATERSON: No, this is certainly the worst telecommunications outage we've had in the modern era, and you probably have to go back decades to find previous system outages that were so widespread and so long lasting and affecting so many customers. And of course, it's more relevant to us today because so much depends on these networks, not just our ability to communicate with each other and not just our ability to access information, but even things like payment systems networks, including the EFTPOS network in some retail stores which have gone down today. And the disturbing thing about this is that that doesn't appear to be very robust redundancies and backups and resilience in the system, because while there doesn't appear to be any evidence on this occasion that it was a malicious cyber actor, next time, it could be and next time it might not be Optus that's getting taken down, but Telstra that's taken down too and what happens to our economy and our society if that occurs.
JENNETT: Well, I might explore some cyber questions with you in a moment. Being on the outside of government as you are and obviously we are, it's difficult to assess what was done from a management point of view today. We do know that at least one state government in South Australia convened a high level coordination meeting there. Would this be the sort of incident that would invite an NSC style meeting at the federal level?
PATERSON: Well, we have seen a bit of a pattern of behaviour Greg with this government, which is on national security issues they are quite slow to act. I mean, famously after the outbreak of hostilities, the attack by Hamas on Israel, it took almost a week before the Prime Minister convened and NSC to discuss things like repatriating Australians home from the Middle East. When the Optus cyber attack did occur last year it took several days before the Minister for Home Affairs and Cybersecurity said anything at all and I fear that the same has happened here again. They've seemed to rule out very early on in the day that it was a cyber attack. But I would like to know that that was properly and robustly tested before they decided that a national security response wasn't necessary and wasn't needed here and that those mechanisms didn't need to be put in place.
JENNETT: Let's talk about that, because the government was quick to conclude that, quote, It has received no indication that this is a cyber incident. Now, the use of those words, no indication, came as early as about 3 hours into this. On your understanding of cyber incidents, are they always obvious that early that it was or that it was not?
PATERSON: Sometimes they might be. If it's an environmental catastrophe that's led to a cable being cut you can very clearly say that that's not attributable to a cyber attack. But generally, if you can't say what it is, it's better to wait to say until you know what it's not. And I really think that was a very early decision by the government to declare that it wasn't a cyber incident. Now, I'm not aware of any evidence it was a cyber incident either. But let's wait until we have an adequate explanation from Optus about what exactly did cause this before we go ruling out anything. Because if it was a cyber attack, then there are a whole lot of things which flow from that and necessary processes which should be put in place and I don't think we should be just saying to our agencies that they can stand down and wait until we're absolutely 100% sure that it's not necessary.
JENNETT: And what are the rights of access their powers through the course of an event like today? Could ASD or any other arm the government produce instruments upon Optus that says you must let us get in and have a look in the background here?
PATERSON: Yes, there are actually extraordinary powers for the Signals Directorate and the federal government to step in in an event like this, thanks to reforms to critical infrastructure legislation passed by the previous government in the previous parliament, which allows in the event of a crisis for critical infrastructure assets like a telecommunications network, for an agency like ASD to step in and take over the network and remedy it if necessary. Now, I'm not saying it was necessary in this instance. It might not have even been helpful, but those powers are there in reserve in case they are necessary and they can be activated very quickly.
JENNETT: Does this case highlight in your own mind as a shadow minister these days any further federal response about vulnerabilities in critical networks generally not only restricted to telcos in this case, but other gaps there that might need to be tightened?
PATERSON: Yeah, I think this is a wakeup call and a timely one because we are living in an uncertain strategic environment, and we know that there are highly sophisticated state actors who are interested in identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure networks and there's a lot of things we need to do to guard against that. One is for them to uplift their own defences and to protect themselves. But the second is to make sure that if the worst does come to the worst, that we can't stop it, that there are redundancies and there is resilience in the system so that we can continue to function as a society and an economy if that's the case. And I'm deeply worried about the impact of the lack of redundancy and resilience that appears to be in the system just from this outage. Imagine if it wasn't just Optus, it was Telstra too, and imagine if it lasted for more than ten or 12 hours, it lasted for a couple of days. What happens to our economy and our society in those circumstances?
JENNETT: Well, that would be quite unthinkable, wouldn't it? We will get answers from the government as and when that becomes possible. James Paterson, why don't we move on to a couple of other things. The Prime Minister has wrapped up, his China trip he is now in the Pacific after working on re-engagement with that country. A couple of things will flow from it, are you comfortable with President Xi coming to Australia? Let's say, in this life of the Parliament? We're not quite sure when he might accept the invitation, but a formal invitation has been issued. What's your attitude towards that?
PATERSON: Bilateral conversations with partners, whether we agree with them or disagree with them, are important and if part of that, the government thinks it's necessary and in fact helpful for President Xi to come here and visit Australia, then I wouldn't be opposed to that. But I think the circumstances would be really important and there would be a couple of things that I hope would be well and truly resolved before we are rolling out the red carpet for Xi Jinping to come and visit Canberra. First of all would be the release of the detained Australian Dr Yang Henjung. He is arbitrarily and unjustly detained and I don't think we should have a bilateral visit with all its pomp and ceremony and all the celebrations if someone is languishing in arbitrary detention who is an Australian citizen. I'd also hope that the remaining, all remaining sanctions and tariffs on Australian industry have been removed, and I'd like to see a different attitude from the Chinese government when it comes to the foreign interference, espionage and cyber attacks that they are responsible for in our country, all of which they are the number one state backed source of, as well as some of the malign conduct we've seen from them in the South China Sea against Australia's friends and partners like the Philippines only a few weeks ago.
JENNETT: So you'd like to see them cease and desist as a precondition on those latter elements foreign interference in South China Sea maritime activities you'd like to see that halted and explicitly denounced before the president would come to this country?
PATERSON: Well, I mean, extending an invitation to a foreign leader to come and visit our country is an act of friendship. And it's an indication that we have a normal and healthy bilateral relationship. But if at the same time we're pretending that we have a normal, healthy bilateral relationship, there's all this malign conduct taking place underneath the surface, which is not visible to Australians but is still there, that doesn't indicate to me that it is normal and healthy. So, talking is important, discussions are important, but context is also important.
JENNETT: All right. And earlier this week, James Paterson, you highlighted Future Fund, Australia's sovereign wealth fund, if you like, its investments in Chinese companies with strong CCP links or CCP control. What does that mean when you have these concerns that you're not in favour of free wheeling, private investment, capital investment, chasing returns where they are best? Or do you want more of a sort of ESG emphasis on those investments?
PATERSON: Well, firstly, the Future Fund is a taxpayer owned entity. It's a sovereign wealth fund and we found of the 119 investments in China, 50 of them were high risk in companies that were involved in human rights abuses, companies that have been beneficiaries of state backed intellectual property theft, companies involved in supplying and providing the People's Liberation Army with equipment. I don't think that's something that taxpayers money should be invested in. I think there are also questions about whether our retirement savings should be invested in those things. I think most Australians would not be comfortable with that. And what I've been asking for is the government to, as they’ve said they would introduce either at least some guidance for outbound investment or even restrictions where it's appropriate so that the investments that Australia is making is consistent with our values.
JENNETT: And would they be universal guidelines or ones that attach only to China and other autocratic states?
PATERSON: Well, in August, the Biden administration for the first time put in place these outbound investment restrictions for China, recognising in the context of strategic competition that they didn't want American money financing a potential future adversary, particularly military and technology advances of a potential adversary. I think, frankly, Australia is in a very similar boat. I don't think Australians would be any more comfortable with that and the Albanese government floated in the media that they were open to following the Biden administration on that, but we haven't seen any detail from them on that. I'd like to see them step up and provide that clarification.
JENNETT: Or put that on the list. That is we might be able to ask about on a future occasion. Briefly and finally, I suppose, James Paterson, after the High Court's decision in the terrorist Benbrika's case. Have any discussions being held so far between the opposition and the Government about remedial legislation that might allow citizenship stripping but in a different High Court compliant way?
PATERSON: Well, this is a really important piece of power for the federal government, if a terrorist commits a terrorist act, is convicted of it, they should be able to have their Australian citizenship taken off them when they have another citizenship available to them or when they're a dual citizen. And it's been clear for some time that the High Court was likely to make a ruling that would adversely affect it. But again the Albanese the government has been very slow. We've heard absolutely nothing from them at all about any plan to fix this. The Senate is meeting right now. They should have had legislation ready to go knowing that the High Court was handing down its decision this week. And we should have been able to pass it this week and ready for the House to deal with next week. But so far, we've had absolutely nothing at all from the government.
JENNETT: One to watch in the remaining sitting period, perhaps in this calendar year. We'll see, James Paterson, really appreciate you covering so much with us today.
ENDS
