Why Australia Banned Huawei from its 5G Telecoms Network
Canberra’s hand was forced by overlapping cyber and national security concerns
As Canberra, Australia’s sleepy bush capital, was gripped by yet another political leadership crisis this month that later overthrew former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, an unexpected media release was dropped on the capital’s distracted media.
Amid the chaos, the government had finally taken a much-anticipated decision on the involvement of Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei in the build of Australia’s next piece of critical national infrastructure, its 5G network. Informed by a national security review that had been undertaken, then acting home affairs minister — and now prime minister — Scott Morrison had banned Huawei.
The text of the announcement worked hard to avoid stating this directly. Instead, you had to carefully read between the lines. But China’s state-run media agencies were quick to confirm the ban and get to work.
The nationalist tabloid Global Times published exclusive statements from Huawei that threatened legal action. Their first English-language editorial on the topic, titled “Canberra stabs Huawei in the back”, stated “those who wilfully hurt Chinese companies with an excuse of national security will meet their nemesis”.
The Chinese government also vocalised its frustrations in press briefings. China’s Foreign Ministry urged the Australian government “to abandon ideological prejudices and provide a fair competitive environment for Chinese companies.”
The Commerce Ministry responded to the ban with a statement. “Australia should look at the big picture of bilateral economic and trade co-operation, rather than easily interfere with and restrict normal business activities in the name of national security,” it said.
The Australian government’s closed-door review focused on the security of the telecommunications industry and the vendors supplying equipment to that industry. A key sentence in its announcement pointed to concerns over unauthorised access or interference by “vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflicts with Australian law”.
A debate about Huawei’s involvement in Australia’s telecommunications industry has been simmering for a decade. Last week’s ban is not the company’s first in Australia. In 2012 it was excluded from Australia’s National Broadband Network. Since then, Huawei has engaged in a charm offensive in the hope of swaying public and political opinion.
They’ve used the same template in Australia as they have elsewhere round the world, placing former politicians on their local board of directors, hiring advisers straight out of relevant political offices, sponsoring popular sports teams (including the Australian capital’s rugby league team) and, most controversially, funding the travel of federal and state politicians to visit their headquarters in China.
However, it was not concerns over such moves that spelt the end for Huawei’s 5G ambitions in Australia. Rather, a series of security issues weighed heavy.
These included the Communist party’s tightening grip on its technology companies and the vulnerability of telecoms systems to subversion for espionage purposes.
African Union officials this year accused China of hacking its computers at the Beijing-funded $200m headquarters building in Addis Ababa. There were no allegations made about Huawei and China’s foreign ministry denied the AU hacking allegations as “baseless” and “complete nonsense”.
More generally, there were concerns in Australia over allegations of Chinese government’s intellectual property theft and cyber espionage. The latter was highlighted again in Australia last month after allegations that Chinese cyber actors had not just hacked into one of Australia’s premier universities — the Australian National University in Canberra — but had held an ongoing presence in the university’s IT systems for at least seven months.
One option under consideration by Canberra was the UK government’s approach, to start a cyber security evaluation centre that would be responsible for providing Australian policymakers with an ongoing assessment of Huawei products. This option was seen as a sort of middle road compromise. Given the less-than-happy state of the Australia-China relationship, this option was seen as one that would at least avoid a backlash from Beijing.
But, there was a hitch. While it might have been a better outcome for Australian diplomacy, the UK’s approach has not worked. After seven years of operation, this world class research centre has only been able to provide “limited assurance” that risks to UK national security have been sufficiently mitigated.
The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre said last month that it “is less confident” it can provide “long-term technical assurance of sufficient scope and quality around Huawei in the UK” because of the “repeated discovery of critical shortfalls”.
In bureaucratese, the language used by the UK government in this report was damning. Clearly informed by the experience of its five-eyes partner, the announcement read: “[The Australian] government has found no combination of technical security controls that sufficiently mitigate the risks.”
However, a key impetus behind the Australian decision was a close analysis of China’s 2017 national intelligence law which states: “Organisations and citizens shall, in accordance with the law, support, co-operate with, and collaborate in national intelligence work and guard the secrecy of national intelligence work they are aware of.”
This law is a double-edged sword for China. Requiring individuals and organisations to engage in intelligence activities bolsters intelligence collection but with a clear cost to companies, their reputation and ongoing access to international markets.
As Australia prepares for more threatening statements from the Chinese Government and intimidating op-eds from its state controlled media, which will no doubt include accusations of “anti-China” bias and threats to retaliate against Australian industry through boycott diplomacy”, it’s important to note two things.
First, this decision was not taken lightly, nor was the decision political. There were several compelling and overlapping cyber and national security concerns that forced the Australian government’s hand. As new Foreign Minister Marise Payne has noted, the decision was about solely protecting Australia’s interests.
Second, China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law is bad news for the international expansion ambitions of China’s companies. When weighing up the involvement of foreign companies in critical infrastructure projects, how can policymakers put forward credible arguments in support of companies whose international behaviour is bound by their domestic security laws?
Long-term, the Chinese Communist party is going to have to make a tough call about how it sees its citizens and organisations. Which is more important — that they participate in espionage or participate in and benefit from the global economy?
As Huawei’s demise in Australia has shown, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
- Security Analyst. Financial Services. UK. Permanent
CH7863 Security Analyst. End User . Financial Services Security Analyst needed to monitor and manage a security suite of tools within an End User environment. The Security Analyst will be responsible monitoring, configuring, fine tuning, incident management and generally improving the security tool capability. Specific experience with CyberArk, Tripwire Log Center and Tripwire Enterprise is highly desirable). Current experience with Vulnerability management and penetration testing is highly desirable. Specifically the ability to effectively manage 3rd party pen tests. You will be working within a specialist security team reporting to the CISO. Experience working within an end user environment within financial services is highly desirable. Flexible location. This is an exclusive role to DCL Search & Selection. To book a call please use my Calendy link https://calendly.com/chris-holt/arranged-call-with-chris-holt-soc-role-
- DevSecOps - Security design / review consultant. SC Clearance. London
CH7858 London £70,000 DevSecOps - Security design / review consultant. DevSecOps - Security design / review consultant will ensure that newly created, public facing apps are secure by design and by default by aligning them to current / best practice security policies and standards into the design phases. The individual must have a technical software / application development background with specalist experinece in secure architecture design. (Frameworks, processes, best practice etc) Practical experience translating and ensuring that the OWASP top 10, ISO27001, HMG frameworks requirements are reviewed and embedded into project designs which are implemented is essential. Experience working projects through a full development lifecycle is key. You will work along side the design and project teams to idenitfy and mitigate risks throughout the design phases. This is a permanent role. SC clearance is essential as is the ability to get to the London office. (When appropiate #covid) Security DevSecOps consultant. To arrange a discreet call book via https://calendly.com/chris-holt/devsecopp--security-design-review-consultant
- CONTRACTOR Cyber Vulnerability Analyst, NESSUS, Rapid 7, SC clearance required.
Cyber Vulnerability analyst NESSUS, Rapid 7, needed for IMMEDIATE 3 month contract MUST have / be able to achieve UK SC clearance role to work within a live environment within a public sector department. The individual must have experience in using various security methods and tools such as Rapid7 and NESSUS scan for / identify vulnerabilities, prioritise them according to risk and raise appropriate tickets for remediation / follow up. In depth experience utilising Nessus highly beneficial. Current cyber public sector experience highly desirable.
- Internal Security Auditor, Level 1 Service Provider (ISO27001)
- Upto 55,000 plus benefits
Internal Security Auditor ISO 27001, PCI, needed to join a Cyber team within this expanding Fintech business. The Internal Security Auditor will have end to end responsibility for planning, delivering, remediating any findings etc. Experience working within financial services is highly desirable. This Is a great time to join a newly formed and growing Cyber team within a rapidly expanding fintech, that is taking a major share of its market. We are looking for someone with experience, (but not to be limited to) a mix of Information Security standards, frameworks, audit principles, controls / policies and the management and use of the technical tooling etc. ISO 22301, ISO 27001, NIST Cybersecurity Framework etc An ideal candidate will be working within an end user environment with a cyber consultancy background. Experience taking a company through accreditation is highly desirable Experience managing internal stakeholders, technical teams and external third parties essential Flexible working, but with the ability to get into London. This is an exclusive role to DCL Search & Selection.