News Topic: Foreign Affairs

PETER KHALIL MP
MEMBER FOR WILLS

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
ABC NEWS BREAKFAST
THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2022

Subjects: National Security, China, Defence Personnel  

STEPHANIE FERRIER, HOST: Defence Minister Richard Marles has launched a review over China luring former personnel to help train the Chinese military. Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Peter Khalil joins me now from Canberra. Thanks for coming on the program Peter.

PETER KHALIL, MEMBER FOR WILLS: Morning Steph.

FERRIER: Well, first of all, just how concerned should Australians be about these latest revelations?

KHALIL: I think very concerned Steph. Look, from a personal point of view; for over 20 years before I even entered Parliament, I worked in various National Security roles. In Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs, as a national security advisor and I was obviously privy to some sensitive information that goes to the National Security of Australia and Australia’s interests. And there is an enduring obligation as the Minister said, when you leave that service to protect that sensitive information. Because you, effectively you are protecting Australia and fellow Australians and when you breach that obligation, that enduring obligation, that is really a breach of trust with your fellow Australian. So, it’s seriously concerning. The government did move, very speedily; there was a real alacrity of response by the Ministry of Defence, a couple of weeks ago he called an investigation into this when it came to his attention, and yesterday he pointed out that there was enough serious concern, that he has gone into a much more detailed examination of the policies and procedures around former personnel, defence personnel and the way that framework works. And if there are any weaknesses, he’s going to fix them pretty quickly. So, it is a concern, but the government is working very, very quickly to address the issue.

FERRIER: And can you say how this actually came to light, and do we know whether or not any of these pilots that were approached actually did go on to work for China?

KHALIL: Look, there are various media stories out there about pilots being approached by China to train and be instructors and that goes to some other countries as well. And when that came out, obviously, in the media, there are immediate investigations that were underway. There is currently a joint AFP-ASIO task force, a countering Foreign Interference Task Force that is investigating a number of cases, and Defence is supporting that of course, as well as the announcement made by the Defence Minister yesterday of a much deeper dive internal inquiry into the procedures and policies around former personnel. And so, I mean, I can’t comment on individual cases, but they are all being investigated by the security agencies currently.

FERRIER: And just on that inquiry at the moment; what possible holes are there in this current arrangement that pertains to former ADF employees?

KHALIL: Well, if there are any weaknesses in the policies and procedures around former personnel, you know after they leave obviously service, the Minister and the Government have committed to addressing those immediately. That’s what the investigation is for; to determine whether the entire framework If you like is adequate, whether it works and whether there are any gaps that need to be filled. Look, I think in a general sense if you’ve worked in this space, and that goes to being a former Defence personnel, a former commonwealth public servant who’s working in those areas, where they’ve got exposure to sensitive information; those people have a really, an enduring obligation, as the Minister said to keep those secrets and that sensitive information, in trust, if you like, even if they’re not working for the government or the commonwealth anymore because it is about protecting Australia and Australia’s national interest. So, there will be a real deep dive look at how that works with respect to former personnel and their, you know, next stage in life in the private sector I suppose.

FERRIER: Andrew Hasty, the Liberal frontbencher and former soldier says that these personnel might need to be educated. Do think that’s needed?

KHALIL: Did you say educated?

FERRIER: Educated about their obligations?

KHALIL: Look education, may very well be part of the process, absolutely, I mean having said that, I know for a fact that, you know having worked in this space in the past that you know, the responsibilities and the obligations are made very clear to Defence personnel, people working in national security agencies, in the Commonwealth Public Service, about their responsibilities around sensitive information I think there’s a very strong level of understanding of about what your responsibility is during your work, but also outside of your work, and when you leave that work, you sign off on a number of documents that confirm that responsibility. So, more education is always good, but certainly people know what their responsibilities are.

FERRIER: I just want to ask you as well, about what you think that this means in terms of our diplomatic relations with China. Obviously, Anthony Albanese is going to be trying to get that meeting with the Chinese President Xi Jinping next week; where will this place us?

KHALIL: Yeah, that’s a good question. Look, the Prime Minister has said clearly that it’s a good thing, any type of dialogue at the leadership level is a good thing. We want to be able to engage with China through dialogue and it will be a good thing if the Prime Minister, if the Prime Minister does meet with Xi Jinping. Of course our Foreign Minister has had multiple conversations with her counterpart Wang, and our Defence Minister has met with his counterpart as well. That’s good, because for us as Australians, it’s important to do everything that we can to engage in dialogue and diplomacy to reduce tensions that might exist, to address some of the issues around economic sanctions and barriers that have been placed there, and to try and get a good result and good outcomes in that respect, but we will always stand up for our values and our position, the Prime Minister has been very strong on that, he won’t be budged on, you know, our particular commitment to human rights, democracy and our values, but he’s always open to talking to our partners and it would be a very good thing for that dialogue to occur in some of these international forums in the coming weeks.

FERRIER: Peter Khalil, thank you.

KHALIL: Thank you very much.

ENDS

PETER KHALIL MP

MEMBER FOR WILLS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEECH

TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2022

Subjects: Israel Embassy

PETER KHALIL, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS: Notwithstanding the last speaker, the previous speakers in the opposition have not been able to acknowledge, or won’t admit to, three things about this MPI. No. 1: they won’t acknowledge that the government’s policy is actually a reaffirmation of the longstanding bipartisan policy of successive Australian governments that has been in existence for decades. No. 2: they won’t acknowledge that it was actually they, the opposition, when they were in government under Scott Morrison, that, in 2018, decided to do foreign policy on the run, breaking and breaching decades of bipartisanship, and for what? For a pathetic attempt at short-term political gain. And No. 3—and this is a general point: as you’ve seen in the first couple of months of government, our foreign policy is based on a sensible approach to the national interest, not a personal political interest, not a short-term political gain in a by-election. In this case, our foreign policy is in alignment with the international community’s broad agreement that Jerusalem is a final status issue that should be resolved as part of any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. Let’s be very clear: the position of successive Australian governments has been that there can be no lasting peace that does not address that final status of Jerusalem, and, as the Prime Minister said earlier today, he will not and his government will not undermine that approach.

This goes back in history; I’ll reach back to 1967, to when your own Liberal external affairs minister, Paul Hasluck, called for the commencement of ‘an effort to build long-term peace’ and outlined that in relation to the future status of Jerusalem. I’ll talk about how, even more recently, your former Prime Minister John Howard said himself in a joint press conference that the status of Jerusalem is something that would be resolved by the parties in discussion. And, of course, former Liberal foreign minister Julie Bishop said something similar:

This wasn’t changed in the Gorton government. It wasn’t changed by Malcolm Fraser. It wasn’t changed by Bob Hawke. It wasn’t changed by John Howard, Julia Gillard or Malcolm Turnbull—or Tony Abbott for that matter. But it was changed by Scott Morrison, the exception amongst all those prime ministers. He decided, ‘Oh, I’ll exploit the sensitivity of this issue for a short-term political purpose,’ when he decided to drop in the media during the by-election for Wentworth that he was going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he was trying to do this, of course, so that he could win the by-election in Wentworth for Dave Sharma. Scott Morrison said at the time he was persuaded by the arguments of Dave Sharma, leaving no doubt in all of our minds that this was simply a cynical attempt to get Dave Sharma re-elected in Wentworth. It didn’t work. They lost the by-election. The voters of Wentworth saw right through that political stunt, and they lost the by-election.

This confirms our suspicion about what we know about Scott Morrison in doing this the former Prime Minister, after that by-election, announced that he was backing down and not moving the embassy at all. He scrubbed it. The fact that he backed out of it and didn’t move the embassy once the by-election was over tells you everything you need to know about how cynical the political play was. He didn’t just make this announcement out of conviction; it was done as a political stunt, it was done as a political tactic and it was a pathetic attempt to play into the hopes and expectations of both Israelis and Palestinians and their communities.

Let me be very clear: the Albanese Labour government does not do that and will not use sensitive issues to play political games. You’d think those opposite would have learnt the lesson—that group over there, that mob over there. You’d think they’d run a hundred miles away from Scott Morrison— and the former Prime Minister’s political tactics. The member for Cook—you’d think they’d run a hundred miles away from it. But no: they have come in with this MPI, playing the same old political games, trying to get some short-term domestic political runs on the board.

Here’s the craziness of it. When you ask their shadow foreign minister what their position is, he says: ‘Well, we haven’t decided that. The proposition is at least a couple of years away. It’s not necessary until the next election.’ When you ask the opposition leader, he says, ‘Oh, we’ll make that decision or announce that policy in the run-up to the next election.’ It’s all political games with this mob, but this is too important to play those games. Our national interest, the region’s interest, the world’s interest must focus on making a substantive effort to reach peace through negotiations between the parties, and Australia can play that role under an Albanese Labor Government.

ENDS

PETER KHALIL MP
MEMBER FOR WILLS 


E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
JOY 94.9FM
SATURDAY 22 OCTOBER 2022

Subjects: Israel Embassy, Stage Three Tax Cuts, Tax Reforms

DAVID MACCA, HOST: Our next guest is the Federal Member for Wills. And in fact, my local member Peter Khalil. Good morning, Peter.

PETER KHALIL, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS: Morning Macca, morning Paul. How are you both?

MACCA: Pretty good.

PAUL HOWELL, HOST: Very good, thanks Peter.

MACCA: Look I wanted to kick off by actually delegating the first question to Paul because he was asking me this off air, earlier in the show. Off you go Paul.

PAUL: Yeah Peter, we were talking earlier the fact that you sit on a number of subcommittees in government. One of those you know in related to security, and Lidia Thorpe is now departing, probably one of those committees. But I was interested to read both in the UK and in Australia. The Chinese have been trying to recruit our top gun pilots to help train the Chinese pilots and clearly with looming tensions in Taiwan, it was a little disturbing. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that.

KHALIL: Yeah, that’s an interesting question, Paul. I’ve just got back from Indo-Pacific. Command at Pearl Harbour and I was actually speaking, before this story broke, with a 3-Star Air Force General and I actually asked the question. I said, you know, with the difference between 5th generation fighters and 4th generation, listeners who have been watching Top Gun, they’ll know what I mean. Is there really a difference between the pilot skill, that can make up the difference if you like? And do the Chinese pilots have because, of their cultural differences and growing up in a you know Communist regimes, they have less initiative, less decision-making maneuverability I suppose at that really tactical level. Do Western pilots for example outperform them? And they didn’t know. And then this story broke. And then I got my answer, which is that the Chinese Communist Party obviously have seen maybe a weakness in their pilots and are trying to get some advanced training from Western pilots. So, I think that’s where it’s coming from. I think it’s quite a problem. I know the British Government is actually moving to put strong penalties in place around that. It’s interesting because they’re a retired pilot, for example and they’re being offered a commercial payment, if you like, to go and train Chinese pilots. But I think in this space where you look at national security, this obviously has a huge impact and they’re passing on doctrine or tactics and things that could be detrimental to our pilots.

PAUL: That’s know how and that’s got a commodity, I know it’s price and you don’t want to stop anyone earning a living, however, it’s concerning because you could be giving away the ‘how to’, if you need to try and do that.

KHALIL: That’s right, and I know our government, the Defence Minister announced a review into the situation in Australia, were there any Australian pilots, there is some media that some Australian pilots have been approached. It was interesting that Andrew Hastie, the Shadow Defence Minister, the Opposition Defence Minister you know, made a bit of a song and dance about this and my response in the media as well, you were in government for 9 years if he knew about it, why didn’t you take action? Ironically, talking about it now.

PAUL: No, but it’s all your fault now. But it’s you know; history shows us there was some American and British pilots just prior to the Second World War. RAF and Army Air Force pilots that actually trained Japanese pilots. Some of them you know, who then you know visited Hawaii uninvited. I think. I think the challenge here is that one of the big differences, of course, is the Western world’s Air Forces are voluntary, the Chinese is a conscription Air Force, and I’m not saying people don’t join the Air Force or the defence force in China on a voluntary basis. But predominantly it is a conscription army. It’s interesting that the US Navy has, certainly the commander in this region, has been on record highlighting that difference between a volunteer military force and a conscripted one. Of course, we’re seeing, you know, in the Ukraine the different outcomes there, so I think it’s an interesting one to follow. And I don’t know how you actually stop people from taking up those opportunity. But it’s the information they may share, that’s the most damaging, isn’t it, Peter?

KHALIL: That’s right and there’s going to be a judgement call about whether that information is so sensitive that it is detrimental to our national security and our national interest. I actually met with Admiral Aqualina. You referenced the Indo-Pacific commander. He is a U.S. Navy pilot, he’s a Four-Star Admiral and you watch Top Gun and there’s this sort of cliché, of the A-list pilot or whatever, he’s that guy. You know, very New Yorker, you know, get things done kind of guy. You know he came out in his aviator suit and his name is long. Like Maverick, but a very smart guy as well and he understands that his whole perspective is about deterring crisis and deterring conflict. Making sure that we work together to maintain the stability and the security of the entire region and dissuade others from moving towards a crisis. Point or conflict point and that’s really important. People sometimes misunderstand.

PAUL: I was going to say, does that make you a quasi like Top Gun if you’re rubbing shoulders with such esteemed company does that make you a quasi Top Gun.

KHALIL: Paul. I think if I got in one of those planes there would be some mechanical difficulties because of my weight. I wouldn’t, probably I wouldn’t make the cut. But I was just saying people might misunderstand that when you do defence and you prepare capabilities for defence, you’re actually doing it to deter conflict. You want to make sure that we don’t move to a conflict situation. And you know, for a trading nation like Australia, where our imports and our exports, you know 90% of which go through, you know, maritime approaches and so on. Having that security in the region, that stability is actually quite important for our economic prosperity, frankly.

MACCA: It is. I want to ask you about tax Peter. We’ve seen, I’m not going to ask you whether or not the government is going to revisit the stage 3 tax cuts, because they’re not going to be revisited in the budget, but I suspect they might be down the track. The treasure has said that the cost of those stage 3 tax cuts has increased by $11 billion, $11 billion. Does that surprise you? Or is it, because of income growth and you know it’s just getting higher isn’t.

KHALIL: The way that the coalition set up the bill or the law itself was to reduce the tax bracket. You know reduce for example the top end from 32.5% to 30%. So, if you get more people in employment, you’re getting more tax coming in and so, on so it does shift the costings in that respect. Look my issue with that whole episode was that the Coalition, basically structured it in a way that the tax cuts and the tax relief for low and middle income earners, you know from 45,000 to 180,000 was tied together with the benefits that would go to higher income earners. And if you said no to it, you’re basically denying I think 80-90% of Australians that tax cut. But at the same time of course part of the tax cuts, a big part chunk of it, that go to very high income earners. And there’s this big debate going on about whether that’s appropriate going forward. As you said, they’re not coming into play, the stage three until 2024. So, I think the Treasure is right in saying, look my focus in this budget, particularly this mini budget in October is cost of living relief and all of the reforms that we need to do, given the fact that, you know there’s huge pressures on the budget. We’ve left with a trillion-dollar debt and you’re seeing even the interest bill on our debt is, Mac it’s like 17% or 17.5% of increases there on that. So, there’s massive pressures, the NDIS has to be paid for, there’s indexation rises for, the highest for 12 years on the pension and job seeker, which is a good thing for those people. But the point is that it’s adding further pressure on the budget and he has some big decisions to make and we’ll be revealing on Tuesday night. My view on tax reform, Macca is that and I’ve been arguing this publicly for a number of years now is that there is a big space of reform within multinational tax avoidance. A lot of these big multinational companies, either offshore their headquarters in low tax or no tax jurisdictions. You know some island off in the Caribbean, where they pay no taxes, but they’re making the profits here and they end up basically avoiding paying tax in the country in which they’re making you know their profits on their business. And that is unacceptable, I mean the end result of that as, well, as some clever accounting that they do. Were they you know load up subsidiaries with debt in order to do tax write offs in the country as well. The end result of that is some of these big multinationals are making you know, $800 million, 1.5 billion Australian and paying $0.05 on the dollar, whereas your local small businessperson is you know or your wage earners paying 30% of you know of their taxes so it’s unfair, it’s not equitable, and they need to be called to account and the OECD is working on this. There is an international effort to try and work this out because of the transnational complications and Australia needs to be front and centre on that and I know Jim is really keen on that.

MACCA: While we’re talking about tax Peter, you know we understand the level of debt. We understand that the tax system needs a big overhaul because it’s not fit for purpose. But you know I think I wrote to you recently about a proposal you know around something Treasury and the government are looking at. I am not a fan as you know of the current system of franking credits. I think it is over generous and you know, I argued that case on air actually, before the last election with Chris Bowen, he didn’t like what I said, but anyway. You know the Treasury is proposing a relatively small change to how franking credits work and look it’s a complex issue. It’s around capital raising and other things. By all means the government has a right to look at this, it didn’t flag this in the election. What troubles me Peter, is this legislation or this proposal is to be retrospective. Retrospective that is a very very bad idea if you want to change the law change it. But don’t change the law, you know, make it retrospective and make people pay for something that was legal and we’re not even talking about $100 million a year here, so why retrospective Peter, why retrospective?

KHALIL: Well, can I confess that I haven’t looked at that particular tax policy area. I’m certainly not an expert in the area either. You probably know more than me about tax reform and tax policy. But on the principle of retrospectivity, I am very averse to laws that go backwards, like it’s just, basically it’s bad practice. But I don’t know the circumstances of this one. I’m going off to Canberra tomorrow night for budget week. It’s one of the things I will be looking at, that you’ve raised it. But I don’t like, from a public policy standpoint retrospectivity in legislation.

MACCA: Yeah, it’s a bad road to go down. Well, Peter thanks, you know I always appreciate your time and I think you know we’re going to be you know the budget comes out on Tuesday night, we’ve got a Victorian election coming up. There’s no shortage of topics, but it’s always great to talk to you and.

PAUL: We could have chatted for another hour Peter, there’s so much on our list for you.

KHALIL: Thank you Paul. That’s very kind of you and. And I like how you let out, I notice your British accent, you let out with a question about the UK. I’ve met with the High Commissioner yesterday in Canberra and we’re doing a lot of work with the UK, but you’re an Aussie now, aren’t you Paul?

PAUL: Yeah, I’m a fully paid-up blue passport holder now. I was having tea with the British Consulate up in Sydney just a few months back actually obviously move in the same circles, but there you go. Anyway, we got to go Peter. Thank you ever so much for joining us this morning.

MACCA: Yeah, I always appreciate it.

KHALIL: Thanks Paul, thanks Macca.

MACCA: Thank you, take care.

PETER KHALIL MP
MEMBER FOR WILLS 


E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS
TUESDAY 18 OCTOBER 2022

Subjects: PJCIS, National Anti-Corruption Commission, Australian embassy in Israel

ASHLEIGH GILLON, HOST: Welcome back, you are with Newsday. A parliamentary committee is reviewing Australia’s Temporary Exclusion Order scheme, established in 2019 to give greater control over Australians returning from overseas, including foreign fighters. It has heard from two major stakeholders in this game about the orders placed in security and counterterrorism operations. Joining us live now is the committee’s chair, Peter Khalil. Peter Khalil, really appreciate your time, thank you. I am going to get to that issue of TEOs in a moment, but first, as we just told our viewers, we are standing by to hear from the Foreign Minister Penny Wong. We’re expecting the issue of moving the Australian embassy back to Tel Aviv to be canvased. I remember several years ago you were very critical of the government decision to move the Australian Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Labor promised to reverse that decision. We had been told this morning that cabinet is yet to sign off on the change. Is Labor still committed to moving the embassy back to Tel Aviv?

PETER KHALIL, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS: Yeah, look; Penny Wong the Foreign Minister is about to speak, but she recently also made a statement with respect to the fact that the former government, the former Morrison government, did recognize West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that no decision has been made by the current government to change that. So, that’s really for the Foreign Minister to discuss this afternoon. In context, where this all came out of, was – and you mentioned I was critical of the Morrison Government – Scott Morrison as PM at the time, actually made the announcement that he would move the Australian Embassy to Jerusalem in the middle of a by-election for Wentworth. My critique was that it was an attempt to get short term political benefit; maybe appeal to the Jewish Australian vote in Wentworth. It failed miserably because Dave Sharma actually lost that by-election; it was foreign policy on the run, and that was my main criticism. It was foreign policy done for domestic political purposes, very specific political purposes. The final status of Jerusalem under international law and with respect to the peace negotiations, is all something that is before us. And I’m one of those people that still has hope that we can find peace in the region, that there can be a two-state solution, and that Australia can play a role in being an honest broker.

GILLON: Well, let’s return now to Peter Khalil he is the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We were just beginning our discussion before that news conference with the Foreign Minister Penny Wong. We’ve just heard your thoughts just before Penny Wong’s announcement about Jerusalem and the decision to now recognize Tel Aviv. So, we will move on from that issue, because there are some other things I’m keen to talk to you about. I did mention in the introduction a bit earlier, that it is timely to be looking at these TEOs, Temporary Exclusion Orders, which govern how we handle Australians returning from overseas who are of counterterrorism interest. We know right now that Islamic State women and children are preparing to be flown home from Syria. What stood out to you yesterday during the public hearing into these TEOs? Do you see the need for these to be reexamined? The law council is arguing that these orders should be issued by a court rather than by a Minister. Do you come to this with the view that more safeguards are needed?

KHALIL: Yeah, good question Ash. The TEOs, the Temporary Exclusion Orders regime set up in 2019, as you said, to delay the return of Australians who are involved or linked to terror or terrorism related activities, largely to give intelligence and security agencies and law enforcement agencies the time to make their proper assessments, build up evidence, if necessary and so on, around the links to terrorism and related activity. But also as a national security management, you know, national security risk management tool with respect to the return of the Australians. So, they’re the two things that the regime is being used for. Our role as the Intelligence Security Committee and myself as chair is to undertake these hearings in relation to a review of the regime to determine its effectiveness, its efficacy, whether it’s doing what it’s supposed to be doing, how well is it doing? We heard as you said from a lot of stakeholders, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, all of our intelligence security agencies, as well as you know, Home Affairs Department and so on. So, we’re going to make a judgement call. I don’t want to preempt the committee report back to government around the efficacy of the regime. But what we’ve heard so far is that there are always with national security laws, areas that can be improved, refined, made better. And an assessment about what you know their necessity is going forward for our national security, and that’s something that we’re going to report on once we’ve completed the hearing.

GILLON: Our regular viewers will know that you have a real background in issues of security and this is something that you really have spent many years focusing on. The Australian is reporting today that the AFP and ASIO are given the government a briefing on any potential risks that could be posed by the return of some of these families from Syria and how they can be mitigated once they’re on Australian soil. The opposition, as you know, has raised concerns about the resources that that sort of mitigation program will use up. What is your personal view? Do you believe the benefits of bringing these Australians home do outweigh the risks?

KHALIL:  Let’s set aside any discussion around operations – and the security of those operations are really important – but on a policy level, I’ll give you my view. The fact is that there are a couple of reasons around this decision, is my understanding. One is humanitarian; we’re talking about children, Australian citizens who are kids that are largely innocent kids. They’re 8, 9, 10 years old and they are Australian citizens. And secondly there is an obligation that Australia has to our citizens. The passport means something; citizenship means something; and in a humanitarian sense for those kids, that is really important. But there is a national security issue here, and the fact is that if we don’t repatriate these children, they stay in these camps as a humanitarian risk to them, but there’s also the radicalization risk to these children. So, when they do become teenagers and grow much older, you have this cohort of kids who have been radicalized, if you like, by Islamic State, who are in in in these areas. So, there is a national security risk, so the assessment really is around whether the risk going forward is mitigated by or the risk at least as you outlined it as far as the way that this cohort when it returns is assessed. And some of the women might be put under control orders and other arrangements; whether that is outweighed by the fact the longer-term national security risk of not taking action. And frankly, the previous government kicked this down into the long grass and just said, “look, we don’t think we can deal with this now”, but there is a problem in the long term and my interest is in the long-term national interest for Australia and the national security of Australia. And if you look at this from that perspective, you do not want to have a situation where you have dozens of Australian citizens radicalized as young people and then down the track whether it’s 5- or 10-years’ time, come back and take certain actions. So, from a humanitarian point of view and a national security point of view, it is a very significant and important decision in the national interest.

GILLON: Well, I expect we’ll be seeing a lot more political debate over that issue in the coming weeks. No doubt about that. Just finally, I understand your committee is also going to be looking at the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation. You’ll be looking at the access that body will have to data from our security agencies. What are the issues at play there? What are you planning to examine and when it comes to the other issue of holding public hearings or not, do you think the proposal strikes the right balance?

KHALIL: Yeah, you’re referring to an amendment to the Telecommunications Act, which is around the definition of the law enforcement agencies that have the powers to intercept communications, and making an amendment to give that power to the national Anti-Corruption Commission. We’ll be looking at what safeguards are around that, what processes there are with warrants and how warrants are given in order for those investigations to be undertaken by the Commission, and how that balances out with the right of individuals and the privacy of individuals as well. So, with most national security laws, as you can imagine Ash, there’s always this balancing looking at the collective public interest versus the individual’s rights, and getting that balance right. But the fact is, it’s a very specific and narrow review that we’re conducting, because it’s just one amendment to a particular act that pertains to the broader national Anti-Corruption Commission legislation. The broader legislative, most of the legislation is going to be looked at by a special parliamentary committee set up to do that. We’re looking at a very specific power that is being through an amendment, that we have to assess.

GILLON: OK, yeah, I understand that you do have that that narrow focus in terms of the committee, but more broadly on this question of whether or not we should be seeing more public hearings, do you think that the current proposal is striking the right balance? Do you come to this thinking that the public have a right to bear witness to all of those hearings?

KHALIL: OK, so sorry to be fair, your question around the balance within public hearings and private hearings. Getting that balance right, then – this is a personal view of mine as a as a lawmaker and looking at the legislation as well, like every other Member of Parliament making sure that from my perspective that that balance is struck correctly. There is a right for the public to know. But there’s also a right for private individuals who may be called as witnesses or have not been under any allegation, for example themselves, to have their identities kept confidential so that they’re, you know, they’re not dragged into the media scrum around a particular hearing. So, I think we need to assess that; we’re looking at that balance. I need to look at all of the different arguments for and against and that’s an iterative process that’s being conducted within the Parliament as lawmakers.

GILLON: Yeah, Peter Khalil we will be following that one closely as well. Really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today. Thank you.

KHALIL: Thanks, Ash.

ENDS

PETER KHALIL MP
MEMBER FOR WILLS 


E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
AUSTRALIA TODAY WITH STEVE PRICE

THURSDAY 13 OCTOBER 2022

Subjects: Ukraine – Australia training troops, Russia’s missile barrage, Blast on Kerch Bridge

STEVE PRICE, HOST: We’re joined on a regular basis by the Labor MP for Wills in Victoria, Peter Khalil. He’s the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. He’s been kind enough to join us while on a trip to the United States. Great to catch up with you Peter.

PETER KHALIL, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS: G’Day Steve, it’s good to catch up. I’m not all the way on the mainland, I’m in Honolulu, in Pearl Harbour, so it’s not quite as far as the East Coast.

PRICE: I wanted to get your reaction to this quote from Joe Biden the US President. He’s said this a couple of times now, but he said this overnight, have a listen.

“I’m talking to Putin, he in fact cannot continue with impunity in talking about the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, as if that’s a rational thing to do. Mistakes get made, the miscalculation could occur, no one can be sure what would happen and it could end in Armageddon.

PRICE: That is the term – “Armageddon” – that’s frightening Peter. What do you make of that language?

KHALIL: Well, I can only assume the President, in his statement is trying to call out the fact that President Putin has intimated that he may use tactical nuclear weapons and the fact that that is unacceptable and in a very strong language, it is frightening language, is it a way of deterring Putin from taking that step? I think in a diplomatic sense, I think that is the best way to explain the United States’ President saying, “unacceptable you cannot go there”, and there will be massive consequences obviously for the world if you do. My only other point about this Steve, is that Putin has intimated this in the past, the fear that we all have is that because he has constructed this artificial construct of those autonomous territories now becoming part of Russia, it gives him the trigger to say if they are attacked, then I am able to then use whatever is at my disposal, including nuclear weapons, to defend Russia. But we all know that those referenda were very staged and people were sort of at gun point, being forced to vote and so on and that those autonomous regions are actually part of Ukraine.

PRICE: Well, let’s just hope that it is just words, and it doesn’t end up being action. I know it’s always difficult when you’re travelling to ask you to react to something that’s occurred back in Australia while you were on the road, but I just have to ask you about this – the former Prime Minister Paul Keating made a speech at the La Trobe University last night in Australia. He said it was not intelligent for Australia to be “owned by the US”. He trashed The Quad and said it shouldn’t happen – “it’s a piece of strategic nonsense” – and he talked about us walking away from AUKUS. Now, I know you might not have seen all of that, but you are in a meeting with the Australian America Leadership Dialogue and that includes obviously people who are senior in the military in the United States, that’s not very helpful from your former Prime Minister, Paul Keating isn’t it?

KHALIL: Steve, I’m familiar with those arguments that former Prime Minister Keating made, in fact I wrote an Op-Ed which basically said ‘Why My Hero Paul Keating is Wrong on AUKUS’ and published that in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald when he first came out with some of these arguments and he’s fundamentally mistaken and I made this in my counter to his initial comments and the ones he has made overnight. He is fundamentally in error about that, we are not owned by the US. They are a very important ally of Australia and in fact in many respects the work they have done in the Indo-Pacific as far as the military and security work, which has allowed many Asian countries to economically grow and increase the prosperity of hundreds of millions of people and has been critical for them and for us to be able to spend more on education and healthcare. Now frankly, we are going into a period of time, geostrategic circumstances that are very volatile, very uncertain, we are now having to step up to the plate. So, its not so much Keating just doesn’t see it correctly, because we are now as a country having to step up, take our responsibility in the Pacific, in the Indo-Pacific, work with our partners, work on the economic engagement, the defence cooperation, all the things that are absolutely necessary to ensure that we maintain the stability in the region, the security in the region, where our prosperity flows. We’re a trading nation, Steve and we need to actually make a contribution, make the effort without partners like the US, like Japan, like other countries in the region who want to defend that rules-based order. So, I don’t think his arguments hold water with anyone in Government, frankly I think he’s wrong on these points and I’ve said so publicly in an Op-Ed people can have a read of that as well.

PRICE: Dead set when his name bobs up on your phone ringing you, you know what it’s for. As I have been on the other end of the phone to PJ Keating.

KHALIL: He’s basically saying Steve, one of the gravest mistake is the assumption that China, as the hegemon in the region, the primary power in the region will be benign. Now, all of the evidence that we have seen, particularly over the last 5-10 years is the opposite of that. The economic coercion, the aggressive stance that has been taken, stopping our exports, all of these things because they didn’t like what we said or the positions we took. Now, that is an evidence base which runs completely counter to the argument that Keating’s making or the assumption he’s making that it will all be fine, they’re going to be a benign power going forward. That’s just not the case.

PRICE: Just finally and I know that the Defence Minister, Richard Marles has already mentioned that this is under consideration – the Ukraine situation – we have helped a lot, we’ve sent money and equipment. There is now some push for us to provide some military training for Ukraine troops. Obviously, our training would be first class, although the Ukrainians are doing a pretty good job of defending their own country without that. Most Australians might get a little nervous saying ‘well, we went to Vietnam on a training mission, we ended up in the Middle East on a training mission, do we really want to go there again?’

KHALIL: Look, they’re all good points. I think just to verify and clarify for listeners, any training that is undertaken – I haven’t been briefed, I’ve been over here – but my understanding is that would be not in Ukraine itself, but in other European countries, whether it’s in Germany, where the logistics centre is the support of Ukraine, whether it’s in Poland, wherever else. It wouldn’t be in Ukraine, so ADF personnel would not be posted to Ukraine or deployed to Ukraine. And, secondly, it’s important because it adds to the already significant contribution we’ve made to Ukraine. We are the largest non-NATO contributor of military aid to Ukraine, some $400 million. There’s a lot of humanitarian aid as well – that’s a significant contribution by Australia. And why has the Prime Minister made this commitment – yes he visited Ukraine, yes he’s met with Zelensky, yes he’s seen first hand the horrors of Russia’s brutal invasion and that is important from a humanitarian point of view, but it goes back to what I was saying earlier, we are in a contest in the 21st century between authoritarian regimes like Russia, who would invade their neighbour with no respect for sovereignty or territorial integrity, who have brutalised peoples and democracy, those authoritarian regimes against democracies and that is playing out around the world. And our support for Ukraine is supporting us in the Indo-Pacific – don’t forget Beijing and Moscow signed a Strategic Cooperation Agreement literally a week or two before Putin invaded. Now, I hope China sees the fact that this path is the wrong path, that they put pressure on Putin to de-escalate. I would like to see China play a more responsible role as a great power in the region and that is why we are talking to them, that is why we are engaging with them, because we have a very strong economic relationship as well. That effort is really important, but we also have to support those countries that are in the fight for democracy around the world.

PRICE: Good luck on your trip and your meetings. It was a pleasure to catch up, we’ll talk again soon.

KHALIL: Thanks Steve, thanks for having me.

ENDS

House of Representatives 27/09/2022

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (19:35): I’ve spoken numerous times in this place in support of peaceful protests around the globe, whether it be in Myanmar, Hong Kong, Chile or Iran. Why have I done this? I think for the same reason as most members in this place: because, as democratic representatives, I believe we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to defend the values and principles that underpin the very freedoms that we enjoy, such as freedom of speech and expression, an independent press, equality before the law and the right to go about our day-to-day lives without fear. So I speak out in solidarity with people protesting in support of these principles, wherever they may be, because freedom is not just a remote concept. It’s not just an ideal for a lucky handful of countries. I think it’s an innate human desire—a desire to live our lives the way we choose to.

In this place, we are regularly focused on the big geostrategic challenges of the Indo-Pacific, our region, and the challenges to human rights in our own region, which Australia has a very important part to play in advancing, of course. But we need not be limited in our ambition to see everyone enjoy the same rights as we do here.

Today I want to speak in support of those demonstrating peacefully in Iran for their own freedom. The Iranian people, I know, are a proud people—an ancient and storied civilisation that has bequeathed so much knowledge and culture to humanity. They are also a passionate people, and that passion and that courage is on full display right now.

For nearly two weeks, people have been taking to the streets in Iran following the death—the murder—of Jina Mahsa Amini. Mahsa died in custody. She was killed. There are corroborating witnesses for that evidence. She was killed at the hands of the so-called morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad. They arrested Mahsa for improperly wearing a headscarf. There is no morality to be found in arresting women for the clothes they choose to wear or not to wear, and it is appalling to think that she would lose her life as a result. Whether it be in Iran or elsewhere, anywhere in the world, whether a woman wants to wear a hijab or not, it should be her choice. I stand in solidarity with the people in Iran and here in Australia protesting in Mahsa’s name.

Many are doing so at great risk to their own safety. The Iranian regime has targeted protesters with the same violence they directed at Mahsa. Students have been met with tear gas, batons and water cannons. Dozens of protesters have been detained and some taken to unknown locations. This includes journalists reporting on the unrest, as the government has sought to shut down the internet. Security forces have fired indiscriminately at protesters. Dozens of people are reported to have been killed, including 23-year-old Farjad Darvishi and 16-year-old Zakaria Khayal—young people protesting for their freedom, slain on the streets by the forces of the theocratic government in Iran.

The Australian government condemns the use of deadly force against these protesters. Our concerns around the death of Mahsa Amini have been raised directly with the Iranian embassy here in Canberra, as we have previously raised our opposition to human rights abuses and discrimination with Iranian officials across multilateral fora, including at the UN. We also support the calls for an impartial investigation into Mahsa’s death by an independent body. The people responsible for these crimes must be held to account, because her friends and her family and the Iranian people deserve truth. They deserve justice. They deserve the freedoms they have fought for for so long.

To stand up for freedom is really to stand up for freedom everywhere. They are an example to us. People, young and old, are standing up in the face of great and serious and grave threats to their safety and to their lives to demand the right to make decisions about their own lives. That’s what they’re fighting for. So I want them to know, and I want all the Iranian Australians watching this to know: we stand with you here in Australia. Whether it be on the streets of Melbourne, where many people have joined protests in solidarity, or here in this place, in the federal parliament of Australia, we stand with you in your fight for your freedom. To the people of Iran: we stand with you. Zendebad Iran, zendebad azadi!

PETER KHALIL MP
MEMBER FOR WILLS 


E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS FIRST EDITION
TUESDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

Subjects: Russia-Ukraine tensions

PETER STEFANOVIC, HOST: Back to our top story now, the Optus hacker has released the private data of up to 10,000 people. Joining us live now is Labor MP Peter Khalil and Liberal Senator James Paterson. Good morning gentlemen. First to you Peter, first of all your reaction to this?

PETER KHALIL, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS: Of course, very concerning Pete this security breach, which we know the Minister has pointed out, rests with Optus. We shouldn’t be expecting this kind of breach of this nature from a large telecommunications company, and we’re obviously doing everything we can to support Optus through the Australian Cybersecurity Centre and the Australian Signals Directorate, the ASD to provide that support. But also, our law enforcement and other agencies are monitoring all of this and investigating it and making sure that you know, especially if people try to buy some stolen credentials that that the full force of the law is brought to bear. So, it is very very concerning. But I just gotta say one important point, I’ve heard the opposition, a Congo line of Shadow Ministers led by Peter Dutton, the Opposition Leader, including James Paterson, who’s here with me today, have been clutching their pearls, sort of being critical of the Minister for Home Affairs, whereas she wears a response. Let me tell you what the Minister for Home Affairs has been doing, she’s been fixing up a problem that is partly of their making, the previous government, the Liberal government decided to exempt telecommunication companies from the security of critical infrastructure laws. They made that decision; it enabled this attack. Now Optus is responsible, but of course you know that we live in a very dangerous neighbourhood, we all agree on that. And that decision and of course the Minister for Communications was a former Optus executive, Paul Fletcher. So, they left out, the telco is because the telco said, oh we’ve got this, we can handle it. But of course, that has meant that they have left not only the door unlocked in this dangerous neighbourhood, when there’s a rise of cyber-attacks and cyber criminals and so on, they’ve left it wide open. They’ve left the back door open. And they’ve left the windows open.

STEFANOVIC: OK, there’s a bit to get through there and I will get your response to that James. But first of all, back to this threat today. The threat, it seems, has been backed up with action with up to 10,000 people having had their data released. Now the threat is that 10,000 every day will have data leaked. Your thoughts on that?

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Peter, this will be very distressing news for Optus users this morning. I’ve been contacted over the last week by many anxious and concerned Optus users who’ve been asking why has the company made a decision to expose them in this way and Peter Khalil is right, Optus spares the overwhelming responsibility for this but that doesn’t exempt the government from its responsibility and the public response, at least from the government, has been slow. For three days after the attack the Minister for Home Affairs made no public comment at all and her first public comment came at three quarter time of the Grand final in the form of three tweets. It took five days before the Minister made a media appearance, on ABC yesterday and the Minister has still not fronted a press conference to answer questions about what the government did and when it did it. Now I have no doubt that the highly professional team in our intelligence agencies like the Signals Directorate, the Cyber Security Centre and the Australian Federal Police are working day and night and throughout the weekend to do everything they can. But the public needs to be reassured that the government is using the powers that it has within its remit, to address these issues and until they hear the Minister say that that she has done so, they don’t know that. Peter is actually not correct the telecommunications industry is not exempt from the Security of Critical Infrastructure Legislation. I encourage him to go and read it and also to read the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Securities report into the legislation last year before it passed. The 11 critical sectors includes the telecommunications sector and many provisions of that legislation do encompass the telecommunications sector except, where it is already regulated by telecommunications regulation and in fact, the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has issued parallel regulations this year to mirror the provisions in the Security of Critical Infrastructure Legislation. So, there are no gaps in the legislation, there is no instance where the telecommunications sector is not regulated. The only way in which the telecommunications sector is not covered by SOCI is if it is already covered by telecommunications regulations. So, the intention of the Act, which I believe has been reflected in the law and certainly the recommendations of the committee, was to ensure that everyone is covered by a minimum standard and that if necessary higher standards are applied to more sensitive industries. Now it’s not clear whether the Minister has applied all the powers available to her under the Act and it is up to her to say if she has.

STEFANOVIC: Alright, Peter should Optus just pay the ransom?

KHALIL: Well, hold on before I answer that kind of question, just to respond to James the important word that he used, or two words were ‘except for’. And that was the point I was making. There was a decision made that the telecommunication companies’, large telcos would be exempt from SOCI from the Security of Critical Infrastructure.

PATERSON: That’s not true, that is not true. Have a look at the legislation, Peter they’re not exempt.

KHALIL: Well, no they are not included by your very own words.

PATERSON: Wrong, wrong go and have a look at the legislation, they are included.

KHALIL: They are included under a different regime in a different set of legislation. You just said that they were they were covered by a different set of laws, is that right?

PATERSON: Peter, they’re covered both by SOCI and by telecommunications sector regulation.

KHALIL: Well, no, well. You were just saying except for when they are covered by the other set of laws. Anyway, we’re getting into some fine detail here, where I do agree with James and what he did say correctly to. Is that our agencies the ASD, the Australian Security Cyber Security Centre and AFP and other security agencies are working around the clock. And this sort of political criticism of the Minister when she’s been working around the clock to, as he would know when attacks like this happen, they can be, at least initially, very complex to work out what’s going on. In this case this has been a pretty simple hack, at least not a very complex hack and obviously the anger that people have towards Optus for not preparing themselves and being properly protected from the cyber security hacks is a critical point in all of this debate, but the government is doing everything it can to try to.

STEFANOVIC: What makes it a simple hack?

KHALIL: Well, as I said, it is not a sophisticated hack, as far as the information that we’ve seen publicly. Well, I’m not a computer expert or a cyber expert like some others. But there are different levels of complexity and the Minister herself had pointed out that it wasn’t necessarily a complex security hack.

STEFANOVIC: So, should Optus just pay this ransom to stop more private information from being released?

PATERSON: Peter, can I jump in quickly on this issue of whether it was a simple or sophisticated attack? Cause this is a really important point, on the 7:30 report last night, the Minister for Home Affairs effectively accused Optus of misleading the public when Optus said this is a sophisticated attack and she said in fact it’s a very basic attack. Now I’m aware of the facts that led the Minister to reach that assessment and I agree with her assessment. And it is appropriate if she believes that Optus has mislead the public for her to be very candid with the Australian public about that. So, I welcome her comments. However, what she hasn’t yet done is explained to the public the facts that she’s aware of which has led her to make that assessment. And I think the Australian people deserve to know, within the appropriate bounds without revealing any classified intelligence or information of course. Optus users in particular are entitled to understand if it is the case that Optus is misleading them about the severity of this attack. That’s a very serious accusation for a Federal Minister to make and it’s important that it’s substantiated

STEFANOVIC: And that seems like a fair enough point to argue against the Home Affairs Minister, Peter.

KHALIL: Well, look the Minister has been very clear in her statement and I dispute James’s characterization. She’s been on the 7:30 report, once all of the information and the issues have been sorted through and been briefed by all the detail that she’s had to go through since this attack. She’s been open and clear on the 7:30 report, which is sort of no disrespect to Sky is a pretty well watched program and has been out there as well in Parliament and publicly stating our position.

STEFANOVIC: OK, I’m just running out of time so there’s a couple of quick questions I want to get to. So, should Optus just pay the ransom to stop more private information from users from being made public and used against?

KHALIL: Oh look, I’m not going to answer that kind of question.

STEFANOVIC: But why not? I mean, if there’s been a simple attack here, shouldn’t they just pay it and get it get it over and done with?

KHALIL: Pete this is not a question that the government, or the opposition or any of the sort of Parliament has to be responding to. This is obviously a matter for Optus, but my personal view would be, in my experience that you don’t reward this kind of behaviour. Obviously, some of these issues, I don’t know all the details, I haven’t been fully briefed. But my personal view would be that you would not be rewarding this kind of criminal behaviour.

STEFANOVIC: OK, just a final one here James. The Telecommunication Act dates back to 1979, the world, as you know and as we all know, a very different place now. Does this prove that protection laws? Are out of date and need to change.

PATERSON: Well, certainly the Act commenced them, but it would have been amended, you know, two dozen, if not three dozen times since then, to keep pace with technology, including it’s been recently reviewed by the Intelligence Committee last year we did make some recommendations about it. Of course, the Opposition is very open to supporting any constructive proposals that the government has to change the law. We will provide bipartisan support for any sensible changes that the Government brings forward. But my concern is though that those changes as important as they may be and as necessary as they may be, are not going to provide much comfort for the 10 million Optus users. What they want to know is what steps the government has taken already to protect them under the powers they already have. And the Minister herself has praised the former government for its passage of that Security of Critical Infrastructure Legislation in public interviews. She’s recognised how world leading that is. And when Peter and I were in the United States recently, it was repeatedly raised with me how important that legislation is and how jealous the Americans are that we have those powers. But the powers are only good if they’re actually used, and that’s the test that the minister has to meet today and explain.

KHALIL: Can I just say Peter, in response to James? Very very quickly, the Minister has also and I agree with James, there is a real need for substantial reform she’s outlined that. And that includes investigating whether cyber security requirements we currently have in place are fit for purpose, particularly telcos and other companies. So, there’s an intention to work across the Parliament in pursuing this and I’m really pleased to hear that the Opposition is keen to work in a constructive way. Because we do have to get these laws up to scratch and fit for purpose.

STEFANOVIC: Peter and James a nice extended chat there. Appreciate your time though we got to go but thank you. We’ll talk to you again soon.

ENDS

Federation Chamber 26/09/2022

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (17:23): I thank my colleagues across the aisle, across the parliament, for their contributions on this motion, particularly those who have served our nation in uniform—the member for Herbert, the member for Solomon, the member for Braddon. Thank you. For many of us in this place, events that occurred in Afghanistan in August 2021 remain fresh in our memories. How could we forget the tragic photos and footage, the planes packed full of people, the victims of violence and the destruction at the hands of the Taliban, or the thousands upon thousands of emails, calls and representations from people to our electorate offices across the country? We all saw the tragedy unfolding before us. But, however tragic those scenes were for us here in Australia, one can’t really imagine what it was like for the brave Australian men and women deployed during the evacuation—in particular, the members of the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment and more than 250 Australian Defence Force personnel who, along with military attachments, led one of Australia’s largest humanitarian evacuations. That included not only Australian citizens but Afghan nationals who bravely put themselves and their families in harm’s way to support our operational efforts.

In total, more than 4,100 people were evacuated by Australian service personnel. Whilst we were all watching from the safety of Australia, these people were going back into harm’s way to rescue Australian citizens and passport holders, and other noncombatants from Kabul, in what truly was a rapidly evolving and perilous environment.

I’ve seen firsthand the chaos of a war zone, but I also saw, as we did in the evacuation of Afghanistan, the bravery and commitment of Australian service men and women amidst that chaos. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, I also saw the contribution of interpreters and of local staff who supported local operational efforts. Many of these interpreters and staff, of course, were let down by the previous government.

It’s hard to do these motions without being bipartisan; that’s important. But the fact is that many of us in this place were screaming for the actual evacuation and effort to start earlier—months earlier. That takes nothing away from the sterling effort of our Defence Force personnel and our people who conducted that evacuation. For many, the rescue was too late or didn’t reach them at all, despite years of sounding the alarm about the danger both to them and to their families that they faced after aiding Australia’s efforts.

This is personal for me. I will never forget the interpreters who supported our efforts in Iraq—people like Ali. He was so excited about rebuilding his country. He was half Sunni and half Shiite, and he wanted more than anything to bring his country together. Ali was found by the roadside, killed. He was beheaded by insurgents because he had been identified as having worked with us, with the coalition. For years I have thought—and I still do think—that, if he hadn’t worked with us, he might still be alive. There are very similar stories that have come out of Afghanistan of the people left behind. And I know that it is equally personal for the defence personnel who worked with them and served alongside them. Some of those personnel have contacted me to share their grief.

Whilst we often can’t agree across the political divide, I suppose we can agree on honouring the sacrifice of our defence personnel for their service. We can’t forget the failings of the past and the need to do better. In the months after the fall of Kabul, the ADF continued to support the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in moving evacuees to safety, and they did a tremendous job. I join my colleagues from across the House, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the foreign minister and others, in thanking them for their honourable service. In doing so, I also pay tribute on behalf of my community of Wills to the 41 Australian soldiers who paid the ultimate price while serving in Afghanistan, and, of course, to their families; and to all the people who returned, who so often carry the lasting physical injuries and mental scars of their service.

House of Representatives 23/09/2022

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:37): My maternal grandfather, George Kamal Guirguis, was an Egyptian auxiliary soldier in the British Army in Egypt and North Africa in World War II. Apart from stories of taking out Italian artillery units in the desert, two things came out of his experience, which he impressed upon me as I was growing up: his passion for the Liverpool Football Club, which he must have learnt from some of the Pommies he served with, and his deep, abiding respect and admiration for the monarch King George and then later Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. This wasn’t shared by my dad or his side of the family, who came from a generation which was far more antagonistic to the British occupation of Egypt. But, nonetheless, my maternal grandparents, who migrated to Australia in 1971, had, in their modest housing commission home in Preston in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, a portrait of Her Majesty, which hung in the lounge room and looked over us as little kids running around in the seventies, as teenagers in the eighties and as younger adults visiting—perhaps less so—our grandparents in the 1990s and 2000s.

My grandfather passed away in 2009, but my nana is still alive. She’s 96 years of age—or young. She’s the same age as the Queen, and she shed tears last week at Her Majesty’s passing. My nana, just like Her Majesty, has been the constant in our lives—constancy which we’ve heard a lot about today, in service; holding fast to duty; and constant commitment to faith and family: I’m mindful of these remarkable qualities and the example they present to us. On behalf of the people that I represent in my electorate, the people of Wills, I also pay respects and express condolences at the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

We often in this place reflect on service. All of us here, regardless of what side of politics we’re on, are sent here by our constituents to serve, and that duty to serve, I think, is also a great privilege within our democracy. Despite the day-to-day rough and tumble of politics, I know we all come to this place with that firmly in mind because it’s not just what our community expects but what they demonstrate themselves in their day-to-day lives.

When I’m not here in Canberra, I’m in my community in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I’m sure all of my colleagues do the same back in their electorates—spend time with local organisations, sporting clubs, Scout groups, schools, mosques, temples, churches and so many other groups. All of them are bound by that common theme of service, the theme that the Deputy Prime Minister talked about earlier today, that binds us as a democracy and that Her Majesty placed such store in as the critical ingredient to the success of a democratic society, the service to others that she so amazingly embodied for seven decades—service to each other, service to worthy causes and service to the community. To represent my community in this place is to represent that very spirit that drives them, the spirit of service. We might say that this is the Australian spirit, one of looking out for others, a fair go and gratitude, in some ways, for all the great privileges and fortunes we have here in Australia.

It has been eloquently said by many speakers that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth dedicated all of her own life to the service of others. ‘The little girl who was never meant to rule’ we have seen her referred to as in recent weeks. Events, of course, would prove otherwise as she would go on to take the throne at just 25 years of age. Yet even well before all of this, her commitment to the service of others was clear. I think that’s probably why the Queen’s passing and loss have been so profoundly felt. It’s because as Australians I think we can understand and really appreciate the selflessness of service and duty. No matter our background, we can all serve our community in some way.

One of the great privileges I have as the member for Wills is celebrating annual honours named as part of the Queen’s birthday celebrations, and these past ones will be the last of her reign. They were given to people who served their communities, who gave something of themselves for others. That is the very best of our community. I wanted to recognise that here today as well in paying respects to Queen Elizabeth because, with her passing, she would expect everyone to remain focused on that commitment to service. May she rest in peace.

PETER KHALIL MP
MEMBER FOR WILLS 


E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
RN BREAKFAST
MONDAY 19 SEPTEMBER 2022

Subjects: PJCIS, US IPAC trip, Russia invasion of Ukraine

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: For the most part, the world has been united in its condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and in backing the sanctions against the regime. Two notable exceptions have been the biggest powers in our region; India and China have refused to criticize the invasion and continued to buy Russian oil and gas. But evidence of their growing concern about the war was on public display at this weekend’s Shanghai Cooperation organization Summit Uzebekistan, where Prime Minister Modi and President Xi raised their concerns with President Putin. Labor MP Peter Khalil is the new chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. He’s just back from Washington, DC and he joins us this morning, Peter Khalil, welcome.

PETER KHALIL, FEDERAL MEMBER FOR WILLS: Good morning, Patricia. How are you?

KARVELAS: Good. You were elected chair of this committee last week. This is one of the most powerful committees in the Parliament. What do you want to achieve as chair?

KHALIL: I think there are two parts, two objectives really, of this committee. One is to ensure that we pass, as a Parliament, the best possible national security laws. Now obviously we disagree on different sides of the aisle in politics, but there’s always been this tradition of a degree of attempt at really good consensus through the work of the committee, regardless of which party you’re in, to make sure that we make recommendations for the best possible national security legislation, as it goes through to the government. We may disagree, but the committee has shown that kind of consensus work going forward with its bipartisan recommendations. Secondly, it is a critically important committee because, as you said, we are charged with the responsibility of reviewing and oversight of all of our national security laws. The bills that come up through Parliament, but also an assessment of our intelligence agencies and our security agencies. Their efficacy, their effectiveness, whether there’s taxpayer dollar you know is being spent wisely in that respect and particularly in these critical, you know geo strategic circumstances that we face. It’s more important than ever to actually get that work done right. It always was important, but it’s particularly important now that we get the most bang for our buck, with respect to our agencies and our security and intelligence organizations.

KARVELAS: You’ve been in Washington, DC for a meeting of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China. It counts Labor, Liberal and Green MPs as members. It’s co-chaired by Republican Senator Marco Rubio. What was the focus of those meetings?

KHALIL: It’s also co-chaired by Democratic Senator Menendez. 30 different countries, lawmakers from 30 different democracies around the world; the focus was particularly on how we develop policy around China. Obviously, there’s a lot of China analysts who contribute to that, but as lawmakers looking particularly at how we can ensure that our laws are fit for purpose in a very volatile period. Now my view of this – and I joined this organization or was a co-chair of IPAC – because actually, it’s also about the commitment that we have as democracies, as lawmakers to the rule of law, to the international rule of law as our Prime Minister calls it. To systems of democratic governance and the values that we hold dear, the freedom of the press for example, the independence of judiciaries in our systems; our ability not to be interfered with, or those systems being interfered with by others; the cyber security threats that we face. So as lawmakers we have a lot of challenges, not just from state actors like China or Russia, but also non-state actors, in defending democracy and obviously in a period of time were there’s a lot of disinformation, a lot of threats towards democracies and a diminishing if you like in the public, of the effectiveness I suppose of democracies; the trust in democracy has been an effort of that. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that we promote and enhance those liberal rules-based order that we benefit from; like human rights, like the international rule of law. And so that plays a really, I think a very important role in the work that we did at IPAC.

KARVELAS: How significant was it that India’s President Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping raised concerns about Russia’s war in Ukraine at this Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Uzbekistan this weekend? Given they’ve refused to publicly condemn it previously?

KHALIL: It’s an easy answer to that question; it is significant, and the question really in my mind is whether Chairman Xi is really having those questions or concerns because Russia is failing so badly in the war and the Chinese Communist Party has sort of tethered itself to Russia. Particularly, as listeners might know, a week before the invasion, there was a big strategic partnership agreement between Beijing and Moscow. And there’s been this convergence between Beijing and a strategic convergence between the two, that has built up over time. So, there could be some real concerns in Beijing about the fact that the war is not going very well for their partner. I think also from the perspective of India it’s significant because India has a long-standing relationship with Russia. It goes back, historically; a lot of Indian military hardware and equipment is Russian equipment and so there’s a strong relationship there. And there’s obviously concern, given India’s competition with China, that they may be exposed to the relationship that China and Russia have and particularly in those circumstances. So, I think significant is probably an understatement of the concerns that you’re seeing from those big major powers.

KARVELAS: How well founded do you believe fears are that Russia’s President will escalate the war in Ukraine, including attacks on civilians or the use of unconventional weapons in response to the defeat he’s suffered?

KHALIL: Well, that’s what everyone’s afraid of, Patricia. I mean the more that Putin is pushed into a corner, the more he acts like a wounded animal that lashes out – and the concern is that he may reach for, as you pointed out, chemical weapons or biological or even worse, tactical nuclear weapons. We are doing everything we can to ensure that that doesn’t happen. Obviously, I know that the US President has made statements around this. The problem of course is that the more that Ukraine’s counter offensive is effective and the more that they start winning, the more Putin is pressed into a corner. And we’ve seen the horrific story around the mass graves that have been found in Ukraine and in territory that’s been recaptured by Ukrainian forces. And you can see the brutality and the horror of what Russia’s brutal invasion has meant for the people of Ukraine. So, I’m very, very concerned about it myself. There are efforts being made, I think with all sort of world leaders, European world leaders and other leaders to try and mitigate those risks vis-à-vis Russia. I think India can play a part in that, so can China.

KARVELAS: Australia is actively considering a request from the Ukrainian ambassador for more military assistance. Is this a moment where the international community needs to step up their support, including us?

KHALIL: Well, that’s a good question, because we’ve provided almost $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine. In fact, Australia is the largest non-NATO military contributor. We’ve also provided non-lethal aide, as well, development assistance and so on, emergency assistance. So, it is extremely important that the international community continues to support and Australia included in that Patricia, continues to support Ukraine in their efforts to push back on that brutal invasion. And the reason that that’s important, some people say “It’s on the other side of the world, what’s it got to do with us?” It has everything to do with us, because the principles – those values that I was talking about earlier – the principles around sovereign integrity and the rule of law and international law are being attacked by the very fact of that invasion. And it cannot be allowed to succeed, because then we are looking at the attacks on the other parts of our system that we’re seeing elsewhere be accelerated. Now Putin’s on the back foot and that’s a good thing in the context of the broader global contest between authoritarian regimes and democracies around the world. And so, it’s important to provide that support for Ukraine to win this contest and push Putin back. There is danger inherent in that, as I said earlier, given that they may become more desperate and he may become more desperate, as dictators are want to do, and lash out in much more extreme ways.

KARVELAS: The Commonwealth Ombudsman has slammed Australia’s law enforcement agencies in his annual review, saying the AFP and some state police illegally access people’s metadata and telecommunications records. Including without obtaining a warrant or without the consent of the victim of a crime and in some cases failed to properly secure and dispose of this information. Are our law enforcement agencies flouting privacy protection laws?

KHALIL: Well, I’m very concerned with the issues around compliance and I should say, good work by the Ombudsman. That’s why we have in a democracy these organizations, independent bodies that investigate and ensure that laws are being abided by or uncover the fact that they may be being breached in different ways. And this committee that I’m on, this Intelligence Security Committee has actually looked at this issue in the past and made recommendations, nearly two dozen recommendations.

KARVELAS: But the laws haven’t been implemented. Is that now a priority?

KHALIL: And they haven’t. Yeah, absolutely and I think, again I don’t want to be partisan about this so much, but that those recommendations were not taken up by the previous government and those guidelines for accessing and handling data are really important. The Morrison Government didn’t respond to that report of the PJCIS and that was a bipartisan report, by the way, members of their own government were supportive of those recommendations. So, I know that the relevant Ministers in our Government are looking very closely at this, very concerned about this, looking at what implementation, what actions need to be taken, and that’s likely within the purview of the Attorney General Mark Dreyfus, as well as the Home Affairs Minister Claire O’Neill and how we can improve these safeguards. I’m hopefully going to Canberra this week to have conversations about that as well. In the meantime, there should be repercussions if our law enforcement agencies are acting outside of their scope under the law and I know that’s something that the Government is putting a priority towards.

KARVELAS: Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

KHALIL: Thanks Patricia, much appreciated, cheers.

KARVELAS: Labor MP Peter Khalil is the new chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

ENDS