Speers: Time to talk to the Liberal Senator James Paterson,
Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence
and Security. To take us there, here was the ASIO Director General
on the politicisation of his agency's work. Mike Burgess: ASIO is apolitical. My staff
are apolitical. They put their lives on the line to actually protect Australians
and Australia from threats of security. The Act, the ASIO Act, requires us to
be apolitical. I take that very seriously. Leigh Sales: Well it can't make your job any
easier when politicians do politicise it. Burgess: So I'll leave the politics to the
politicians, but I'm very clear with everyone that I need to be that that's not helpful for us.
Speers: Senator Paterson, welcome to the program. Paterson: Thank you, David I'm sorry I don't have
any more online dating tips for your viewers this week.
Speers: That was very good last week. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence
and Security, a principle question first: Do you believe it is appropriate or not to
use classified information for political gain? Paterson: I listened very carefully to the words
that Mike Burgess uttered on 7.30 this week and I take his warning very seriously. I think there
have been a range of references to classified material in the Parliament and in the media from a
range of sources and we should be very mindful of the warning he makes and I understand why he has
that anxiety as an ASIO Director general. If you look at the history of ASIO, it was in the past a
political football. It did become politicised. Speers: A long time ago.
Paterson: Well, famously after the 1954 election. Doc Evert, the Opposition Leader accused ASIO of
manufacturing the Petrov defection to aid the re-election of the Menzies Government. We've
had two royal commissions into ASIO as a result. Speers: Look at what is happening now though,
it was the Defence Minister Peter Dutton who publicly referred to classified
intelligence that he had seen while making the case that China wants Labor to win the election.
Was that politicising intelligence? Paterson: He wasn't the only person
to make a reference…. Speers: But was he?
Paterson: I think it's important we point out here David that there are
references from both sides of politics to classified information in the Parliament.
Speers: And we will get to the other one. Was this one?
Paterson: In fact, in the media reports that speculated about the ultimate target of that
interference operation cited Labor Party sources. So, I think the point that the ASIO
Director general is making is that all political parties, all political actors need to be careful
about that and they need to heed that warning. Speers: I think you're talking about Labor's
Kimberley Kitching and what she said in Senate Estimates. Is that the
other side of what you are talking about? Paterson: Yes, I'm not critical of either
Kimberley Kitching or Peter Dutton. They are individual members of Parliament who
are exercising their own judgment and there is a very good reason why the Parliament has privilege
and we can speak freely in the Parliament. Speers: One is a Labor backbencher, one is a
Defence minister. Again, was it appropriate for Peter Dutton to talk about classified
information as part of that political attack? Paterson: I think it's important to remember,
David, that Peter Dutton didn't refer to any classified information,
he didn't divulge any classified information, he just indicated there was classified information.
Speers: Is that appropriate? Paterson: I think we should be very careful
and listen to the Director-General of ASIO. Speers: So it's not appropriate?
Paterson: I'm very careful about what I do with the information I have access to.
Speers: Was Peter Dutton being appropriate? Paterson: I think we should all heed the
warning of the ASIO Director-General, all of us that we should be careful
in referring to classified information. Speers: I will take that as no, it was
not appropriate. The former head of Foreign Affairs, Defence and former ASIO boss Dennis
Richardson certainly feels the Government has been manufacturing differences when it comes to China.
He says this will only help China. You have raised some concern about Dennis Richardson's own record
on Huawei. What are you trying to suggest there? Paterson: What I was trying to suggest that it
is OK in a liberal democracy for an elected politician like me or the PM or anyone else to
have a disagreement with a former public servant, even an eminent one like Dennis Richardson.
Dennis and I spoke on Friday. He told me that in 2011 when he took leave from DFAT as secretary,
it wasn't to negotiate with Huawei the sponsorship agreement, it was to make an
initial pitch to Huawei on behalf of the Canberra Raiders for that lucrative sponsorship agreement.
Speers: You got that bit wrong? Paterson: Well I think it was a subtle difference
to negotiate and pitch, but anyway I will leave that for others to decide. He also acknowledged to
me that he did in March 2019 at the AFR business summit publicly float the idea that Huawei could
be allowed into Australia's 5G network and the same model that the United Kingdom was then
pursuing, with some safeguards and assurances but he told me that since he didn’t make that decision
he accepted the Government's decision and now supports our 5G policy. And I welcome that because
I never thought that it was in Australia’s interest to follow the UK model. The advice
from our agencies was very clear that the risk could not be mitigated satisfactorily and indeed
the UK has now followed the Australian model and taken Huawei all out of their 5G network.
I think that was a very sensible decision. Speers: He says your attack on him the other
day was grubby and factually incorrect. I take it, as you've just said, you've
spoken since then. Did you offer any apology? Paterson: I didn't use any emotive language
in my contribution. I just pointed to information that was on the public record,
I didn't refer to anyone as grubby or despicable, but Dennis and I agreed we should catch up for a
beer and I look forward to that. Speers: Ok, but no apology?
Paterson: No. Speers: You don’t
accept that you got the facts wrong? Paterson: I said that he negotiated,
I should have said he pitched, but otherwise I think it was very accurate
references to information on the public record. Speers: Ok, you said that he publicly advocated
Huawei should be involved in the 5G rollout. Paterson: That was referring to his comments in
the March 2018 AFR business summit where he said we should follow the UK model of allowing Huawei
into 5G with safeguards, and I didn't think with safeguards was sufficient.
Speers: So no apology? Paterson: No.
Speers: Let’s talk about Richard Marles then, the Prime Minister called
him a Manchurian candidate. You disagree? Paterson: Of course he is not a Manchurian
candidate and the Prime Minister very quickly withdrew that comment, and I note that when
Anthony Albanese made the same comment a day later towards the Prime Minister he didn't withdraw it,
so I think the Labor Party's outrage over this is confected. Think about what we know
is happening here David is the Labor Party has the most left-wing leader since Gough Whitlam,
they’re very sensitive about their weakness on China and they are very uncomfortable
about that now being pointed out. Speers: We will come to that. Do you
have any concerns about Richard Marles? Paterson: No, I don't have any concerns
about his loyalty to Australia. I think he gave a very bad speech in Beijing (crosstalk) in 2019,
he proposed there should be closer military cooperation between Australia and the People’s
Liberation Army, that’s the same People’s Liberation Army that are aiming lasers at
our Royal Australian Airforce pilots right now. Speers: He said in that speech that Australia
and China should explore quote political cooperation and even
defence cooperation. What is wrong about that? Paterson: I think we shouldn’t be cooperating with
what has become a very serious strategic adversary that is trying to coerce and intimidate Australia.
Speers: Because a month after he gave that speech, the Defence Department issues this
press release announcing the next round of military exercises with China, operation PandaRoo.
These are military exercises that your Coalition Government began. How come it is bad for Labor to
suggest it but OK for your side to do it? Paterson: They were longstanding
pre-existing arrangements… Speers: They began under the Coalition Government…
Paterson: Yes, but they are longstanding, long before Richard Marles' speech and what he was
suggesting was that we should take it up an extra tempo, we should increase it even further
on political and military level. Speers: I'm not sure if you are verballing him,
there, senator. I’ve got the quotes. He said, “Our starting point has to be that we respect China,
deeply value our relationship with China. We must seek to build it and not just in economic terms
but also through exploring political cooperation and even defence cooperation." He is not saying
up the tempo on military exercises. Paterson: I think it's very clear he
was. Why else would he make reference to it? If all he was saying David is we should just
continue we have been doing, then why did he say it at all? Why has it never been posted
on his website. Today the only place you can read Richard Marles’ speech is on my website,
not his? Don't you think that's strange. He is obviously embarrassed about something in that
speech and doesn't want to talk about it. Speers: Should the Prime Minister post
all the speeches he gives on his website? Paterson: I don't know. I don’t run the
Prime Minister’s website. It's up to him to post what he wants to post, but I think it's strange
that Richard Marles hasn’t posted it today. Speers: Should the PM perhaps post the speech
he gave to the Christian Churches Congress? Paterson: That's a matter for the PMO
Speers: What about Anthony Albanese,
what evidence is there that he is weak on China? Paterson: There are lots of examples David and it
goes to him, not just him as leader but the entire Labor Party. Labor often says we vote for national
security legislation in the Parliament, so that is sufficient and I hesitate to use this example
because Senator Keneally is one of the members of the PJCIS who I work very well with, but in
2017 when the Turnbull Government introduced espionage and foreign interference legislation,
the Chinese Government accused Australia of racism and in the Bennelong by-election that year,
Senator Keneally said that she’d heard voters say that Australia was Chinaphobic
and that we were scaremongering, so she was elevating those false claims against Australia.
Labor ultimately voted for that legislation, but it is a good example of how they seek
partisan advantage on so-called bipartisan issues. Speers: That was five years ago. There is plenty
of track record on both sides when this it comes to changing positions on China. What evidence is
there now that Anthony Albanese is weak on China? Paterson: I will cite some more recent examples.
In December 2020 after the list of 14 demands had been released by the Chinese embassy in which they
said we would have to compromise on core issues of sovereignty such as freedom of the press,
freedom of the Parliament, Anthony Albanese said it was the Morrison Government's fault
that we couldn't get a Chinese counterpart to pick up the phone and it reflected poorly on us.
He knew when he said that, that the only way to get them on the phone was if we sacrificed on
a core issue of sovereignty, so it’s up to him to say which of those 14 demands would
he give into. Would he silence the press? Would he silence the Parliament? Would he
silence independent think tanks, would he abolish our reviews of foreign investment?
Speers: It’s a bit of a leap though to suggest that he was suggesting we should
give into China's demands. He never said that. Paterson: Ok, I’ll give you another example.
A couple of years ago at the Labor Party conference, Paul Keating said that the heads
of our intelligence agencies were nutters and they should be sacked if Labor came from office.
After Paul Keating made that disgraceful attack on our serving intelligence chiefs,
our serving current intelligence chiefs, Anthony Albanese said that Paul Keating is
always worth listening to and he has wise counsel. Speers: And he disagrees with him on those issues
of China. He has said that repeatedly. Paterson: I don't think that is wise
counsel David and I don’t think we should build up someone who has got
clearly insane views on the China relationship. Speers: You’re taking some selective quotes here,
I'm still searching for the evidence that Anthony Albanese is weak on China now.
Paterson: Ok, I’ll give you another example. The Labor Party says they support AUKUS.
That's very welcome, I'm glad that they do that, but at the same time
they've spent much more energy and effort been aggrieved on behalf of the French Government
for being upset about a cancelled contract than they have in demonstrating interest towards the
defence capability we’re going to acquire which we need to defend our country. Anthony Albanese
has said we were gas lighting in relation to that agreement, Penny Wong accused of us of vandalism
and of course we know Labor’s record when they were in government, they cut defence spending to
1.56% of GDP, that was the lowest level since 1938. They ripped money out of the AFP. They
subjected ASIO and our other intelligence agencies to an efficiency dividend of 4% and it got so bad
that the former head of the PJCIS Anthony Byrne had to stand up in Parliament and denounce his
own government for it. That is their record. Speers: Again we’re talking about events of 10
years ago and fair enough, defence spending as a percentage of GDP did fall and we could go through
the Government's record of spending on submarines that it is no longer buying from the French or the
Taipan helicopters that they've had to scrap and so son. What now though tells us that Labor would
do anything differently on national security? Paterson: David, I think we need to take their
whole record into account. We can't just cut it off and say we won’t look at it before then.
Anthony Albanese tried to table in Parliament the other day, an essay he wrote as a university
student in 1981. If he thinks that is relevant and I understand they shopped it around to the press
gallery as well. If that's relevant, then what they did the last time they were in government
was relevant, I mean Anthony Albanese sat around the Cabinet table that signed off on those cuts
to our intelligence agencies, that signed off on the cuts to our Defence Force. Their
own white paper in 2009 said we urgently needed 12 conventional submarines. What steps did they
take in government to order those in six years? None at all. They didn’t order a single naval
vessel. We are still making up for that today. Speers: If it is fair to look the records,
this government looked seriously at an extradition treaty with China,
allowed the Port of Darwin to be leased. Paterson: I'm glad you mentioned those David,
because I was the first government backbencher to tell the Foreign
Minister Julie Bishop that I would cross the floor if need be on the extradition treaty…
(CROSS-TALK). Paterson:
And the Labor Party only announced their opposition to the extradition treaty after I
and others said we would cross the floor. They waited… (crosstalk) I am not taking
credit for it but what I am saying is they made a political calculation. Up until that point,
they were going to support the extradition treaty. Speers: Finally, 12 months ago soon after
you took this role of chair of the committee, you talked up the strength of bipartisanship when it
comes to national security. You told The Guardian, "It is very powerful for us to be able to stand
shoulder to shoulder across the political spectrum and send a very strong message to the world that
we won't be separated on these issues of national interest."
What has changed? Is it the approaching election? Paterson: David I don’t just talk about
bipartisanship, I have delivered it. On my watch in the last 12 months on the PJCIS
we've handed down 17 bipartisan reports on issues as diverse as critical infrastructure, high-risk
terrorism offenders, and the dark web and many of those reports required hours of painstaking
negotiation with my Labor counterparts. I take that responsibility very seriously. But it doesn’t
mean I am going to lie about their record. I think we have to be honest. Albanese is trying
to paint a small target, he is trying to sneak into government and in a liberal democracy we are
absolutely entitled to examine their record and making competing claims of what we think they will
do in office. It is up to them to meet the high bar they are setting for bipartisanship, if they
are not comfortable meeting that standard then they can justify that to the Australian people.
Speers: Senator Paterson, thanks for joins us. Paterson: Thanks, David.