Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government recently extended a contract for the Department of Defence, for the storage and management of data, with Chinese-owned data centre Global Switch, without due process or public tender; and

(b) the extension of this contract threatens Australia's national security;

(2) condemns the Government for putting cost-saving measures above the safety of Australians' national security; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) immediately terminate all government contracts with foreign-owned external data storage companies, including Global Switch;

(b) promptly and securely transfer all externally-stored government data to Australian-owned and managed data centres; and

(c) explain to the House why the Department of Defence has delayed its withdrawal from Global Switch, unlike other government agencies such as ASIC and the ATO which have already begun transferring their data.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion immediately—

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government recently extended a contract for the Department of Defence, for the storage and management of data, with Chinese-owned data centre Global Switch, without due process or public tender; and

(b) the extension of this contract threatens Australia's national security;

(2) condemns the Government for putting cost-saving measures above the safety of Australians' national security; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) immediately terminate all government contracts with foreign-owned external data storage companies, including Global Switch;

(b) promptly and securely transfer all externally-stored government data to Australian-owned and managed data centres; and

(c) explain to the House why the Department of Defence has delayed its withdrawal from Global Switch, unlike other government agencies such as ASIC and the ATO which have already begun transferring their data.

We must suspend standing orders and deal with this motion urgently because we must urgently get Australian data out of the hands of foreign owned companies. I would remind members of the facts of this matter. They are quite simply that the Department of Defence currently stores data with the Global Switch company. Global Switch was an Australian owned company, but in 2016 Global Switch's ownership changed when the Chinese datatech consortium Elegant Jubilee bought a 49 per cent stake in it. Since then, Global Switch has become entirely Chinese owned.

Four years ago the then Treasurer, now the Prime Minister, gave government agencies a deadline of September 2020 to transfer their data from Global Switch to an Australian owned data company. Despite that, the government has extended the contract between the Department of Defence and Global Switch until 2025. The contract has been re-signed for $53.5 million, which is approximately $300,000 above the original quote. By the way, the ATO and ASIC also have data stored with Global Switch; however, they have begun transferring their data out with intentions to have it all withdrawn by next year, 2022.

There is an urgent need to deal with this motion because there's an urgent need to get government data out of foreign owned data centres. This is wrong on so many levels. It is obviously wrong from a national security point of view. It is self-evident that we should not have sensitive government data in the possession of foreign owned data companies, whether that data is stored within Australia or up in a cloud or offshore. It beggars belief. If you were to walk down the street and ask 100 people at random, 'Do you think it's okay to have sensitive official data is in the possession of a foreign owned company?' I reckon 100 out of 100 Australians would say, 'Of course it shouldn't be in the possession of a foreign owned company!'

It's also about exercising and proving our sovereignty. Are we a sovereign nation or what? Are we a sovereign nation, with the intent and the commitment and the capacity to look after our sovereignty and our security, starting with storing our data with Australian owned companies? In this day and age, data is every bit as important as the land on which we walk and our resources. It is part of our very being and our nation. It's a missed opportunity to support Australian companies and Australian workers and to ensure that the profits that are enjoyed by these companies go back to Australian shareholders. It's that simple.

This is not about any one country. In some ways, it's unfortunate that Global Switch is a Chinese company, because there's been a lot of talk about China and our bilateral relationship, obviously, in recent times. But this is not about China specifically; it's about the principle of Australian data being stored in the possession of an Australian company and not a foreign owned company. We could be having this conversation in much the same terms if Global Switch were owned by the Singaporeans, or the Kiwis even, or the British or the Americans or the Canadians or the Germans or the French. It's the matter of principle that Global Switch is owned by a company based in another country. That is the point.

What we're talking about today is a symptom of a broader problem, and that is foreign ownership, involvement and influence in our country. In some ways, the Global Switch issue is a symptom of this bigger problem, like the fact that the Van Diemen's Land Company, Australia's biggest dairy asset, is owned by a Chinese company—a Chinese company that made all sorts of commitments to the Foreign Investment Review Board, the Treasurer and the Australian community, commitments that have not been delivered. They said they'd be exporting fresh milk to China—not happening. They said they'd be employing about 100 extra Australians—hasn't happened. They said there'd be significant capital improvements, including for environmental protections—hasn't happened. Fortunately, I should add, the company that now owns the Van Diemen's Land Company has committed to dispose of some of the properties, but it's still the fact that Australia's largest dairy-producing asset is foreign owned. About a quarter of Tasmania's agricultural land is now foreign owned. That is completely out of step with public expectations. The Port of Darwin is on a 99-year lease to a foreign company. The mainland east coast gas distribution network is controlled and owned by a foreign company. It is not good enough and it is completely and utterly out of step with community expectations, our security needs and the importance of safeguarding our sovereignty.

The government not only needs to get Defence data out of Global Switch; it needs to have a fresh look at the whole issue of foreign ownership and involvement in our nation. We need root-and-branch reform. I'm not averse to foreign investment. This country was built on foreign investment, and we need foreign investment. I'm not anti-foreign investment. That would be a ludicrous proposition. But we do need to apply a national interest test to foreign ownership or control of our strategic assets. Surely the data centre storing the Australian Department of Defence's data is a strategic matter.

There are so many reforms we could turn our minds to. I'm very mindful that I'm speaking to the need to suspend standing orders. This is such an urgent matter. That's why we need to suspend standing orders now and deal with this motion and start dealing with the broader issue, the unacceptable issue, of excessive foreign involvement, influence and ownership in this country. After we've dealt with Global Switch, let's turn our minds to all of the other reforms that might apply; for example, the fact that the Foreign Investment Review Board must apply much tougher scrutiny to investment that could adversely affect Australia's agriculture, business and property sectors, including the commercial property sector, as well as—and this is crucial—our cultural, environmental and heritage wellbeing.

We've got to lower the threshold for FIRB's involvement in the purchase of agricultural land. Currently the threshold is $15 million. That's an awful big farm in a lot of parts of Australia! Surely the FIRB's threshold for scrutiny of the purchase of agricultural land should be more in the order of $2 million. As to this idea that it's all current foreign business investment and acquisitions of an interest of 20 per cent or more, or businesses valued at over $261 million—surely that's too high as well. I don't know what the correct figure is, but to think that the FIRB would only be interested in a business acquisition by a foreign entity when the value was over $261 million is ludicrous.

I'll end my comments there. I'm grateful that the government has allowed me to have my say. I believe I'm speaking for a great many Australians when I say: we need to suspend standing orders immediately and deal with this motion immediately; the government, as quickly as it humanly can, has to get our sensitive defence data out of the Global Switch company, because it's foreign-owned. We've got to start worrying more about our national security—start worrying more about exercising and proving our sovereignty.

See this speech in context