Huawei ruling defended
The head of New Zealand’s external spy agency has given an assurance no other countries played a role in his decision to block Chinese telco Huawei from building a prospective 5G network.
Speaking to the intelligence and security committee meeting, the director-general of the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB), Andrew Hampton, said that at ‘‘no point’’ was he ‘‘under direct or indirect pressure from any party’’. ‘‘My decision was independent from ministers and while we share intelligence with Five Eyes partners, there was no pressure, request or demands made by partners, either publicly or privately, to ban any vendor.’’
Speculation over a rift in the relationship between China and New Zealand has been brought about, at least in part, by the spy agency’s veto of an application from Spark to contract Huawei.
The GCSB cited security concerns over the proximity of Huawei to the upper echelons of the Chinese Government among its reasons.
Meanwhile, open statements from the United States and other Five Eyes partners against the use of Huawei in national information networks, has largely been viewed within China as a Five Eyes stitch-up.
Hampton appeared at yesterday’s meeting alongside his counterpart from internal spy agency the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), Rebecca Kitteridge.
She warned MPs that New Zealand was not immune to espionage and foreign interference from other countries.
The rare public comments come after a recent report from the GCSB’s National Cyber Security Centre reported a 10 per cent increase in state-sponsored cyber attacks on New Zealand organisations in the past year. ‘‘The reality is, foreign intelligence services have the intent and capability to target our nation’s interests both in New Zealand and offshore,’’ Kitteridge said.
Under questioning from Opposition leader Simon Bridges, Hampton laid out the rest of the process for Spark’s appeal to use Huawei technology. It was now up to Spark to mitigate any risk and lodge a new appeal if it was deemed worth pursuing from a business sense.
‘‘We have identified a network security risk, we have talked to Spark in detail about the nature of that risk. Spark know what our concerns are, they are currently weighing up what their options are,’’ he said.
‘‘The option open to them is they will then go: OK let’s start again and come up with a different proposal; and it’s been our experience that network operators often have a number of proposals on the go.
‘‘In terms of how the process plays out from here; once Spark have determined which way they are going proceed, we will consider that with an open mind.
‘‘If they come up with a mitigation plan with the current vendor or a different one, we will consider that on its merits and make a fresh determination.’’
If the veto was applied again, then the commissioner of warrants would likely look at the decision and assess whether Hampton had made the right decision. ‘‘And I think one of the reasons for that is to make sure I’m not overcooking the intelligence,’’ Hampton said.
Then Hampton would have to consider that report, and had the option of placing it on the minister’s desk for final say – a rare occurrence.
The GCSB could only apply a national security lens to its assessments, and it was legislatively bound to only regulate network operators, and not vendors. That meant it was ‘‘highly inappropriate’’ for the GCSB to engage with Huawei – that was Spark’s responsibility.
Kitteridge said a range of ‘‘state actors’’ had attempted to ‘‘seek out New Zealand information, intellectual property and technology, covertly gain influence with a range of decision makers and pressure individuals and communities to subscribe to particular views or actions’’.
The SIS was particularly concerned with covert attempts to influence, where a foreign state actor sought to obscure their involvement – even if it wasn’t always illegal.
‘‘Likewise, NZ SIS is concerned with foreign interference which seeks to prevent disrupt or undermine the normal functioning of the authority of New Zealand’s Government, or the ability of New Zealanders to exercise their lawful rights,’’ she said.
‘‘Not all of this activity is illegal but it is all of security concern.’’
The committee is chaired by the prime minister and is often held behind closed doors but is opened for a public session for the spy agencies’ annual review.
On it, also sits minister responsible for the spy agencies Andrew Little, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, Bridges, and Opposition intelligence spokesman Gerry Brownlee, as well as Green Party co-leader James Shaw.