Huawei has strongly rejected claims that it is controlled by the Chinese government and should be excluded from Australia’s 5G infrastructure.
Last week, Telecoms reported that Australian Labor MP Michael Danby urged Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to prohibit Chinese telecommunications firms from participating in 5G projects. Danby argued such companies are “effectively controlled by Beijing,” specifically naming Huawei and ZTE.
John Lord, Chairman of Huawei Australia, addressed the issue on Radio National’s Breakfast program:
“Huawei is owned by employees. We have 170,000 employees in the world but it’s only owned by 80,000 because we haven’t got enough shares.
There is no ownership by the Government whatsoever — we would term our form of ownership a cooperative in Western societies.”
Previously, when Malcolm Turnbull served as communications minister, Huawei was barred from bidding for contracts related to the National Broadband Network (NBN).
Because 5G promises faster speeds and greater reliability, it is being considered for more critical infrastructure than earlier mobile generations. That has amplified concerns about potential influence, even though Huawei’s equipment already accounts for roughly 55 percent of Australia’s 4G infrastructure.
Lord emphasized that Huawei complies with the laws of every country in which it operates. He noted that software updates — which critics fear could contain backdoors — are developed across 14 global research and development centers, including locations in Italy, the UK, and Russia; only half of those centers are in China.
Regarding maintenance work, Lord said Huawei generally employs local staff or local subcontractors. “We don’t have Chinese nationals doing the maintenance on the equipment we provide to the major telcos, and they are the operators, not us,” he stated.
Lord added that if Huawei were found to be operating illicitly, it would lose trust worldwide. “If we do one thing wrong, our business is dead,” he said.
In the United Kingdom, Huawei gained confidence from regulators by agreeing to have its equipment reviewed by the national signals intelligence agency, GCHQ.
On that arrangement, Lord commented:
“That was the way to enter the market and be as open as possible, and that’s what we are offering around the world.
We believe that all telcos should be open, and equipment should be checked.
We build equipment on the supposition that nations or companies or rogues will try and crack your equipment.”
Concerns have also centered on Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei’s past military service. Lord explained that Ren served like many young men of his generation and was later pensioned off when the military reduced in size. He also asserted that Huawei does not produce military hardware.
Lord mentioned that politicians, academics, and journalists have been invited to visit Huawei’s facilities in China. Telecoms reporters likewise visited Huawei’s sites; although the tours were guided and some areas—particularly those linked to smartphone manufacturing and testing—were off-limits to protect trade secrets, the visits did not reveal any clear cause for alarm and proceeded much as expected.
Huawei’s products are often regarded as technically impressive and, in some areas, ahead of competitors by about a year. Some industry observers warn that an outright ban on Huawei could disadvantage a country by slowing its 5G rollout and limiting access to leading technology.
It is also clear that a ban would significantly affect Huawei’s operations and likely lead to job losses. “This is still the main part of our business in Australia: mobile broadband,” Lord noted.
Do you think Huawei should be barred from 5G infrastructure? Let us know in the comments.
Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss topics like this and share real-world use cases? Attend the co-located IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series events in locations such as Silicon Valley, London and Amsterdam to explore the future of enterprise technology.