Shadow Minister for Home Affairs Sen. James Paterson warned that the risk of a Chinese spy undermining Australia’s democracy processes is “very high.”
The report said the man had links with senior Conservative MPs, had high-level security clearance, and had helped shape the UK’s China policy.
Risk of Similar Case in Australia ‘Very High’: Senator
Mr. Paterson warned that similar things could happen in the Australian Parliament.“Unfortunately, the risk of this happening in Australia is very high because the vast majority of staff who work in this building here in Parliament House are not security vetted or cleared in any way,” he told media in Canberra on Sept. 11.
“If you work for a government backbencher, anyone in opposition, including shadow ministers, then you are not required and you’re not able to be security vetted. Only ministerial staff are security vetted.”
The opposition home affairs spokesman called for a change.
“I think it’s time that that changed, at the very least for MPs who work on sensitive committees like the Intelligence and Security Committee or the new statutory defence committee, which is going to oversee AUKUS,” he said.
CCP Spies Can Be Non-Chinese Heritage
Mr. Paterson further said the UK case is a “wake-up call” that not only people who are of Chinese heritage or ethnicity can be potential spies.“Every time myself or my colleagues put up a job advertisement on the internet seeking a researcher, you can bet there’s a foreign intelligence agency looking at that job, wondering how they can place someone in that office and close to that MP,” he said.
China Expert Says to Remind Staff of Obligations
However, a China expert believes that difficulties remain with more security vetting.“The challenge with extending security vetting will be two-fold,” James Laurenceson, director of the Australia–China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, told The Epoch Times on Sept. 11.
“First, the current vetting system is already overloaded. It is not unusual for an applicant to wait a year or more before being cleared to work in a government department.
“Second, it is a simple fact that the security vetting process works against much-needed diversity in government. Migrants with family still in China, for example, struggle to get a positive assessment. So, there are costs to consider.”
Mr. Laurenceson doesn’t think that the argument for broader vetting is as compelling as Mr. Paterson suggests.
“Aside from the costs of broader vetting, the UK man, for example, was a parliamentary pass holder but did not have a security clearance,” he said, noting that The Times found that the material exchanged in the UK was “not necessarily classified or top secret.”
“So, the worry seems to be that, in the future, the man may have been able to get those who did have a security clearance to tell him secrets, which might then need to be passed on.
“To my mind then, the most obvious, the cheapest and most effective response is to remind those who do hold security clearances of their obligations.”
ASIO wouldn’t comment on individual cases.
“Decisions of this kind are matters for the Parliament. It is not appropriate for ASIO to comment,” an ASIO spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
The Epoch Times reached out to the Australian Parliament for comment but was referred to the Department of Finance, which didn’t respond by press time.
