Former senator Nick Xenophon and his business partner Mark Davis have drawn heat from both sides of politics after it was announced their legal and advisory firm has brought in Huawei as a client. But the two are hardly the first agents from the worlds of politics and journalism to take a job spruiking for the Chinese technology giant.
Indeed, it has been a veritable conga line.
In 2009 Huawei Technologies employed its first non-Chinese background public relations operative Jeremy Mitchell. Mitchell had previously been editor of Telstra’s long-defunct discussion forum “Now We Are Talking” and was a staffer for Tony Abbott in the early 2000s. As he began to rise in Huawei — he is now director of corporate affairs and public relations for the region — he started to try all sorts of strategies to get the company better positioned.
About a year in, Mitchell hired Luke Coleman, then a junior reporter and editor at long-time Australian telecommunications daily newsletter Communications Day. Like all paid PRs, Coleman fell in love with the company before turning his back on Huawei when he landing a job with Liberal MP Paul Fletcher in 2014. He eventually ended up in former communications minister Mitch Fifield’s office in 2018. It was Fifield who officially banned Huawei from involvement in Australia’s 5G networks.
In 2010 Huawei brought on one of Australia’s most expensive lobbying firms, Bespoke Approach. At the time, the firm’s principles were Ian Smith, former Jeff Kennett staffer and husband of former Democrats leader Natasha Stott-Despoja; Alexander Downer, former Liberal foreign affairs minister; and former Labor immigration minister Nick Bolkus. All three spruiked for Huawei.
The next step, in July 2011, was the creation of a “local board” of Huawei — the first such initiative worldwide — as the company tried to get into the tender process for the National Broadband Network. Downer was all too happy to step up, as were former Victorian premier John Brumby and retired admiral John Lord.
Downer left in 2014 when he was appointed high commissioner to the UK, but Brumby would stick around until February 2019 — three days after the US announced it would prosecute the Chinese company (Brumby claims the timing was unrelated). In 2014, during his Huawei stint, Brumby took up another role as national president of the Australia China Business Council, a position he held until just last month.
Only one other Australian has been brought onto the board since Downer and Brumby departed — former Aurizon (previously Queensland Rail) CEO Lance Hockridge. Two of Huawei’s main company board members, Li Jie (Jason Li) and Chen Lifang, have been on the local board since its formation.
Mitchell has former Telstra colleague Brent Hooley on his public relations staff, and this year scored something of a coup by luring former NBN spokesman Tony Brown across.
Mitchell’s latest masterstroke of employing Xenophon and Davis comes at a difficult time for Huawei, whose Australian business is showing signs of struggle: just last week the group warned that “around 1500 jobs in the local telecom construction industry” would likely be lost in the next 18 months “unless the 5G ban on Huawei”. Insiders say it may also be exiting its work in the mining sector in Australia, where it has gained some traction despite the wary eye of Australia’s security agencies and government, who have been avoiding buying Huawei tech.
So for all the efforts of the politicians, journalists, professional spin-miesters and business executives over the past decade, Huawei’s position in the Australian market — mobile handsets aside — seems to be growing steadily weaker.
For Xenophon and Davis, at least, it will be money to kick off their budding firm. But perhaps not the best branding.
Xenophon, the filthy conservative fraud from S A who gimmicked his way into a lucrative virtual criminal career of exploitiation, coercion, insinuation and any profitable lie. What price? A dollar a bum or a million a bribe? Who would trust this maggot except a promise to intrude?
Which ever way you turn it, the Chinese can not be trusted by any one, even their own people don’t trust themselves. They are the world’s best at manipulation and false politics. They would run rings around any poker player whilst dealing from the bottom of the pack. Even the Russians don’t trust them.
After every Diplomatic Dinner, the silverware is doubled checked, and counted before they are permitted to leave the tables, and they use paper cups for after dinner drinks just to be safe.
Huawei is part and parcel of the Chinese intelligence gathering industry.
Can’t Crikey get any other writers on China apart from Sainsbury. Geoff Raby or Andrew Farran for example.
“At the time, the firm’s principles were…” flexible? Perhaps you meant their principals.
Bad luck Vasco. Gotta have your weekly dose of the “…eternal PR conga line.”
Another example to counteract Sainsbury’s single minded narrative. Brian Toohey in SMH 05/12/2019. “Reports of China spies and takeover plots are fanciful”.
I appreciated the history Michael; one of your more factual pieces. Well done but just WHAT was (or is) your point? I’ve got a pencil and a ruler but I need some dots; at least two.
In your assessment, is Huawei some big global bogey, the agent of the PRC whose creepy net is suffocating the globe or are you, indirectly, congratulating Xenophon for his initiative and his economic taste in global customers?
The principals of Huawei have published a history of the company. You might wish to take a look. The company rivals Microsoft and its very big in Europe and Central and South America. It also has a huge market at home.
If Huawei can insert a back door onto a printed circuit board then so can anyone including Cisco or Hewlett Packard. An article published in one of the major Tech mags in Germany declared that there was no trace of back doors in any of the units sold by Huawei. Now, it JUST could be the case and they have not been detected but in any event EVERYONE is in the same boat. For some bed-time reading take a look at what Snowden published (with sources) regarding the NCA. Better still read his recently published autobiography for a layman’s guide to surveillance by ones on country.
Slightly different tack, Michael, but let’s consider some real-world options. Trump’s idiotic trade war is hurting his own retailers and industry. More to the point Trump hasn’t a prayer of winning. War? Probably not if were going to bang on about illegals. The THIRD option is cooperation in research and trade. Now there is a thought Michael. Xenophon may well be awarded an AO after all!
Xenophon has always sickened me. He pretended to be some sort of independent centrist. But he participated in the crime of the century in voting down the Gillard government’s carbon pricing scheme. He was basically just another whacky right wing nut job.
Well that is your assessment Scott. He actually did the country a favour. With the major players emitting 10x what Australia emits the sensible course for Australia is to do nothing because if the country switched off everything tomorrow it would not make a damn of difference to total global emissions!
God I get sick of such stupidity. Of course we cannot do it alone. Of course we should be doing everything in our power to play our part and be a beacon to others. The attitude of totally self centered stupidity that because we cannot do it alone we should do nothing enrages me. As has been pointed out many times, the accumulated total of emmissions from countries whose contribution is comparable to Australia’s accounts for around 40% of the total.
I actually do have some sympathy for your reply, Scott, but (rather unambiguously) the late Jack Lang observed, on numerous occasons, that self interest has a habit of coming first. The global output of the E7 (emerging nations) is approximately that of the G7 and you will find rational estimates to the effect that the E7 may well exceed G7 output by 2035-2050 so there can be little expectation of curtailing emissions over the next 30 years.
James Lovelock pointed out, some decades ago, that with a world population of 3 billion people (or under) we can, more or less, do as we like. At 7 billion people+ the situation is out of control and you will find creditable forecasts to global population touching 9 billion in the not too distant future. I don’t think that I need to remark on the consequences.
The matter is most complex Scott and Gillard-type initiatives do NOT contribute to solving the problem; in fact (and I do wish it were otherwise) they are irrelevant to the main global programme. At most they “might” make us fee good but my preference is the face the reality.
Associated with the reality is the very large group of ill-read prats (many polies and their advisers in fact) who are utterly polarised as to what alternative energy sources ought to be pursued. The (so called) reports that have been initiated (for Australia) are amateurish at best. No rigorous analysis has been applied but that is a topic in itself – which has been debated on these pages.
You may well be right. The consequence is the end of the human species or at least human society as we know it. I find it abhorrent that we, as a society, or as a nation, should simply accept this without trying to change it. At the very least reality should be acknowledged and plans made for what happens next.
The problem is that no-one currently in parliament and certainly not that ignorant prick Nick Xenophon seems to comprehend the stakes or the consequences of inaction. I have a fantasy of some sort of Numerenberg trials for the people who had a chance to make a difference and retreated into denialism. Nick Xenophon is a prime candidate for maximum sanctions.