The chair of parliament’s joint committee on intelligence and security, the Liberal senator James Paterson, has rebuked the defence minister, Peter Dutton, and other parliamentarians for referencing classified information during last week’s hyper-partisan brawling over national security.
Paterson told the ABC on Sunday he was not “being critical” of either Dutton or the Labor senator Kimberley Kitching, who both referred to classified intelligence during last week’s confrontations in the House of Representatives and Senate estimates.
Paterson said politicians had a right to “speak freely in the parliament” and he said Dutton had not divulged classified material, just referred to its existence.
But the Liberal senator added: “I think we should all heed the warning of the Asio director general [Mike Burgess] – all of us – we should be careful in referring to classified information.”
“I’m very careful about what I do with the information I have access to,” Paterson said.
Last week, Dutton and Scott Morrison unleashed swinging partisan attacks on Labor, declaring Anthony Albanese was weak on national security, and alleging the ALP would not stand up to aggression from China.
The blatant politicisation drew a rare public rebuke from Burgess. He said pre-election weaponisation of serious issues made it harder for Asio to do its job.
A former chief of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Dennis Richardson also argued in a series of interviews last week that the Morrison government was serving China’s interests, not Australia’s, by politicising national security ahead of the election, and “seeking to create the perception of a difference [between the major parties] when none in practice exists”.
Labor has characterised last week’s rhetorical assault as substantively reckless and politically desperate.
But Dutton on Sunday was unrepentant about the government’s tactics. The defence minister told Sky News he disagreed with the assessments of the national security establishment that there was demonstrable bipartisanship on defence and security in Australia.
Dutton said Burgess and Richardson were first class public servants: “I have the utmost respect for both men and I know both of them very well.” But he added: “I disagree with the conclusions they are drawing. I think there is a big difference between the Coalition and Labor.
“I think the public recognises that,” Dutton said. “I think the public has seen the actions of the Labor party when they were in government, when they lost control of the borders.
“If you can’t stare down the people smugglers, how can you stare down the acts of aggression coming from the Chinese government?”
During his appearance on the ABC on Sunday, Paterson, a China hawk, echoed Dutton’s broad political critique of Labor’s record. He also said he had no intention of apologising to Richardson after questioning his judgment last week.
Paterson publicly criticised Richardson in an interview with Sky News last Thursday. He said Richardson had advocated that the Chinese telco Huawei should be involved in the 5G rollout – a position the Coalition rejected on advice from intelligence agencies – and had taken leave “to negotiate on behalf of the Canberra Raiders a lucrative sponsorship agreement from Huawei for the Canberra Raiders” while he was secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Richardson suggested in 2018 that Australia should follow the UK’s lead and establish a cybersecurity unit to manage risks and safeguard Australia’s national interest, rather than banning the Chinese company outright.
But the former spy chief told Guardian Australia last week he had never advocated for Huawei’s unmitigated involvement in 5G. He accused the Liberal senator of engaging in a “grubby” and “despicable” attempt to blacken his name.
On Sunday morning, Paterson acknowledged Richardson had not negotiated the sponsorship agreement, but had “made an initial pitch to Huawei on behalf of the Canberra Raiders for that lucrative sponsorship agreement”.
But the Liberal senator said he did not owe Richardson an apology. “I didn’t use any emotive language in my contribution,” Paterson said. “I just pointed to information that was already on the public record.”
Asked whether he acknowledged some of his facts were wrong, Paterson said: “Well, I said that he negotiated and I should have said that he pitched, but otherwise I think it was very accurate references for information on the public record.
“Dennis and I have agreed that we should catch up for a beer and I look forward to that,” Paterson said.
Given he echoed Dutton’s negative commentary about differences between the Coalition and Labor on national security on Sunday, Paterson was asked on Sunday why he had previously valued the importance of bipartisanship in his role as chair of the intelligence committee.
One year ago, Paterson told Guardian Australia in an interview: “It’s 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.”
Asked whether the proximity of the looming election had prompted a change of heart, Paterson said: “I don’t just talk about bipartisanship, I’ve delivered it.
“On my watch in the last 12 months on the [committee] we’ve handed down 17 bipartisan reports on issues as diverse as critical infrastructure, high-risk terrorist offenders and the dark web – and many of those reports have required hours of painstaking negotiations with my Labor counterparts.
He added: “In a liberal democracy, we are absolutely entitled to examine their record and make competing claims about what we think they’ll do in office. It’s up to them to meet the high bar that we’re setting for bipartisanship. If they’re not comfortable meeting that standard, well, then they can justify that to the Australian people.”
