Liberal frontbencher James Paterson says there's a good case for security vetting of Parliament House workers, with the risk of a Chinese spy undermining Australia's political processes "very high".
It follows revelations of espionage in the United Kingdom, where a Chinese spy was feeding back information to the government through their position as a researcher for a member of parliament.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak confronted the Chinese premier Li Qiang on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Delhi, where he “conveyed his significant concerns about Chinese interference in the UK’s parliamentary democracy”.
"Unfortunately, the risk of this happening in Australia is very high because the vast majority of staff who work in this building here in Parliament House are not security vetted or cleared in any way," Senator Paterson told reporters in Canberra on Monday.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute deputy director of security Mike Bareja said foreign interference and espionage would always be a risk.
"It’s up to us to understand and minimise that risk, that includes securing the digital and physical locations where we keep valuable information and assessing and determining who can access that information," he told AAP.
“Australia has matured its approach to this risk over the last five years, introducing new legislation to address foreign interference and protect our democratic system and processes.
“The changes we’ve seen in mindset and legislation are good, but we need to be constantly vigilant and adaptive.”
The opposition home affairs spokesman said the checks should be conducted at the very least on the staff of MPs and senators who work on sensitive bodies such as the intelligence and security committee or the new statutory defence committee which will oversee the AUKUS security pact.
"We know that ASIO assesses this to be our number one security risk and we can't afford to be complacent about this, or leave MPs to fend for themselves when they are hiring staff," Senator Paterson said.
Senator Paterson said there was a "very good case" for baseline vetting of people working at parliament, that would establish "some very basic facts" about people.
Then, as they progressed through senior ranks, higher levels of vetting would be appropriate, he said.
