James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. An audit, through questions on notice, revealed that almost 1,000 units of surveillance equipment provided by Chinese-government-linked companies Hikvision and Dahua are installed across more than 250 Commonwealth sites. I welcome defence minister Richard Marles's comments today that they'll be removed from his department. Minister, is the government concerned about this national security risk at other departments and agencies?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Paterson, for the question. I have seen the media coverage regarding this issue in the last couple of days. What I can advise the chamber is that the Attorney-General has requested advice on whether a government-wide ban is required to address protective security risks. Of course, the Albanese government take national security seriously, and we will always act in the national interest.

You may have seen, Senator Paterson, that the defence minister, Mr Marles, has made public commentary to the effect that the government is doing an assessment of all the technology for surveillance within the defence state, and, where those particular cameras are found, they're going to be removed. So there is an issue here, and we're going to deal with it. I think the government has been very clear in taking responsibility for addressing this issue.

I can also advise that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and its portfolio agencies do not have any installed devices manufactured by the companies concerned. DFAT, Austrade and Tourism Australia retain some legacy Hikvision or Dahua manufactured CCTV systems in non-sensitive areas, and these are not connected to the internet or to agency IT networks.

It is worth making the point that these cameras were installed not under the Albanese government but under a coalition federal government. It is good that Senator Paterson is now taking an interest in this issue—an issue that neither he nor anyone in the former government saw as worthy of investigation at the time. Unlike the coalition government, this government is taking action, and, as I say, the Attorney-General has requested advice on whether a government-wide ban is required to address protective security risks. As Senator Paterson knows, having asked those questions on notice, departments and agencies have provided answers to them.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, a first supplementary?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When asked last year, the Department of Home Affairs said they did not know whether other government departments and agencies had these devices installed. Will the government now direct Home Affairs to conduct a formal audit of all Australian government sites to determine our exposure to these devices?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, I think I've already answered that question by saying that the Attorney-General has requested advice on whether a government-wide ban is required to address protective security risks. Of course, being government-wide, that does involve every part of this government and every agency, including the ones that you referred to.

But, again, why is Senator Paterson only asking about these issues now, when he's on the opposition benches? Why didn't Senator Paterson or anyone else—why didn't Senator Ruston, why didn't Senator Cash, why didn't Senator Payne, why didn't Senator Hume, why didn't Senator Duniam, why didn't Senator Henderson or why didn't, among others, Senator McKenzie—think that this was an issue important enough to ask about when they were actually in government and having these cameras installed? That was fine, but now, after the event, it's worthy of asking questions! These are serious matters, no doubt about it, and that's exactly why the Albanese government is taking action, unlike the former Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott-and-whoever-else-there was government.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, a second supplementary?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In November last year, two of our closest security partners, the United States and the United Kingdom, announced they were effectively banning the devices from government premises. Will the Australian government follow them and direct government departments and agencies beyond Defence to remove these devices?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, for the third time, the government, through the Attorney-General, has requested advice on whether a government-wide ban is required to address protective security risks. If that advice says that that is necessary then I have no doubt that we will take that action. Yet again—for the third time—why were these matters not serious enough for the former government to do something about them when they actually had the opportunity to do so, when these cameras were actually being installed? It's all very well to be wise after the event and ask questions about things that happened when you were in government, but I suggest that the time to actually do something about it was when you were in government and making the decisions to install the cameras, rather than trying to call into question a government that is taking serious action on this, just as it is taking serious action on national security in general.