Kevin Rudd

21/01/2021 3:10:22 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Kingdom

21/01/2021 3:10:22 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

New Zealand

21/01/2021 3:10:22 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Netherlands

21/01/2021 3:10:22 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Germany

21/01/2021 3:10:22 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

21/01/2021 3:10:23 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Korea, South (Republic of Korea)

21/01/2021 3:10:23 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Canada

29/01/2021 12:22:47 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Saudi Arabia

8/02/2021 12:05:38 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

22/02/2021 2:25:27 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Multijurisdiction

24/02/2021 1:50:28 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

5/03/2021 1:28:29 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Singapore

10/05/2021 10:22:23 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

13/04/2021 2:17:41 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

14/04/2021 12:28:32 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Arab Emirates

23/04/2021 4:12:55 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

23/04/2021 4:12:55 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

27/04/2021 1:35:44 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

4/05/2021 10:36:43 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Sweden

18/06/2021 10:04:29 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Korea, South (Republic of Korea)

9/07/2021 3:09:30 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Canada

9/07/2021 3:09:31 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Italy

27/07/2021 1:56:46 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

France

27/07/2021 1:56:46 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Greece

29/07/2021 3:03:50 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Kingdom

10/12/2021 4:56:01 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

India

29/11/2021 11:12:16 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Switzerland

29/11/2021 11:12:17 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Vietnam

29/11/2021 11:12:17 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Kazakhstan

2/12/2021 1:03:52 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

2/12/2021 1:03:52 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Kingdom

17/01/2022 2:51:30 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

27/04/2022 8:27:13 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

6/09/2022 12:57:45 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

India

31/08/2023 4:32:43 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Singapore

6/09/2021 3:10:09 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Russia

6/09/2021 3:36:09 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Multijurisdiction

6/09/2021 3:36:09 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

New Zealand

28/09/2021 12:19:40 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020.

It is now sixteen months since my lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government.

The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January.

Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused.

I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record.

The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution.

Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published Mr Walker’s advice online: https://kevinrudd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Memorandum-of-Advice.pdf

France

28/09/2021 12:19:40 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

28/09/2021 12:19:40 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

28/09/2021 12:19:40 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

8/10/2021 12:08:13 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

10/11/2021 10:32:45 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

4/01/2022 2:57:02 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

India

27/02/2022 12:16:16 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Qatar

30/03/2022 11:29:52 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Germany

30/03/2022 11:29:53 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Canada

30/03/2022 11:29:53 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

31/03/2022 4:55:52 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

New Zealand

5/07/2022 10:20:26 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Ukraine

5/07/2022 10:20:27 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

27/05/2022 12:49:04 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Sweden

5/07/2022 10:20:27 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Japan

5/07/2022 10:20:28 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published Mr Walker’s advice online: https://kevinrudd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Memorandum-of-Advice.pdf

China

29/07/2022 4:47:11 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United States of America

29/07/2022 4:47:11 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Norway

19/10/2022 1:29:55 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

France

28/10/2022 4:53:14 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

28/10/2022 4:53:15 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Sweden

28/10/2022 4:53:15 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Germany

28/10/2022 4:53:15 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Kingdom

28/10/2022 4:53:15 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Korea, South (Republic of Korea)

1/12/2022 11:49:10 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, The, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, The, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, India, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Republic of the, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

1/12/2022 11:49:10 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China, Germany

1/12/2022 11:49:11 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

15/12/2022 4:34:40 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Germany

16/12/2022 2:47:40 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, South (Republic of Korea), Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vietnam

19/03/2023 1:23:30 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published Mr Walker’s advice online: https://kevinrudd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Memorandum-of-Advice.pdf

Germany

17/05/2024 4:10:00 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Kingdom

17/05/2024 4:23:00 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

United Kingdom

26/05/2021 3:53:02 PM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

3/06/2021 10:15:00 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published this advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

China

3/06/2021 10:15:01 AM

I refer to Acting Secretary Anderson’s letter of 12 January 2021. In it, Mr Anderson expressed a much narrower interpretation of my obligations under this scheme’s special requirements for former cabinet ministers than was expressed by his predecessor, Mr Moraitis, less than two months earlier on 25 November 2020. My lawyer first contacted the Department in September 2019 to clarify my obligations. He did so at my initiative, despite his advice that I had nothing to register. I am not an agent of foreign influence and any such suggestion is forcefully rejected. I engage internationally as an individual, a scholar, a commentator, a former leader and in my roles with non-government and UN-affiliated institutions – never as an agent on behalf of any foreign government. The Acting Secretary’s letter maintained his predecessor’s view that some of my appointments are registrable. However, he indicated that “merely communicating with a foreign principal or a person/entity from an international jurisdiction is not in itself a registrable activity... Similarly, merely meeting with a foreign government – at their request or yours – to discuss current issues would not be registrable”. This significantly narrower interpretation was confirmed by departmental officials to my representatives in a conference call on 19 January 2021, recorded in our letter of 20 January. Nonetheless, the Acting Secretary has maintained the strange view that discussions of current issues should be registered if they take place with international public broadcasters, such as the BBC or Radio New Zealand. This defies the Attorney-General’s public statement that this law would be interpreted with “common sense”. It is ridiculous to imagine that being interviewed by the BBC could make someone an agent of UK Government influence, especially if they use that platform to criticise the UK Government, as I often do. Given such interviews are already publicly transparent when they are broadcast or published, disclosing them here seems redundant. For this reason, I requested an exemption from the Department from this burden. This was refused. I wholly support this legislation which, when properly implemented, has the potential to help safeguard Australia’s core interests by highlighting potential agents of foreign influence. However, the Department’s sweeping interpretation will result in the waste of both officials’ time and taxpayer funds. Australia must have dozens, if not hundreds, of living former cabinet ministers, all of whom must now be chased by the Department to register engagements that, by their nature, are already on the public record. The Department had also earlier expressed the view that I should consider registering my enrolment as a research student at Oxford University. However, in a telephone call to my office on 20 January, the Department’s officer indicated that, upon further reflection, they did not believe that merely being a student at a foreign university constituted an arrangement “on behalf of” that institution. Further, I am concerned about the implications for the press. I have obtained advice from Bret Walker SC as to the obligations of media organisations, such as News Corporation, which frequently make confidential arrangements with foreign governments seeking to covertly influence Australia. I have written to the Department on this topic in the hope that they can work through the detail with professional journalists through their union, the MEAA, to properly balance the requirements of national security and press freedom. As this is a matter of clear public interest, I have published advice online and provided it to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5fede6b0-912d-4881-82c2-b5b8e135be43

Germany