You might remember a couple of months ago there was a flurry of public scrutiny on the National Government’s stonewalling on what it knew about the Chinese company Huawei’s involvement in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband.
The Australian Govt had blocked Huawei from bidding for contracts to supply services to its massive ultrafast broadband scheme claiming issues of national security. In contrast, the NZ Govt turned a blind eye to Huawei’s involvement here. And refused to comment. Much.
Then a few weeks’ ago, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce announced a whole of govt deal to save money on mobile phone costs across multiple departments. It included the involvement of 2 Degrees, NZ’s reputable third mobile phone provider, but which has equipment and services provided by Huawei.
Meanwhile, in the US Senate last week, questions continued to be raised about Huawei. Please explain letters have been written to Huawei’s CEO and Chair.
I think it’s valid to continue to ask the questions of the New Zealand Govt. Here’s what I asked Amy Adams (the current ICT Minister) in parliament last week:
Clare Curran: Is she aware of concerns raised by members of the United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committee this week regarding the possible national security threat posed by the potential expansion of Huawei into the US telecommunications infrastructure; if so, has she received any reports about the national security implications of the all-of-Government mobile phone procurement contract recently signed by Steven Joyce, which includes services provided by Huawei?
Hon AMY ADAMS: As that member is well aware, we do not comment on matters of national security, but I can assure her that we take network security very seriously.
Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an article published on 13 June in Computerworld , titled “US lawmakers quiz ZTE, Huawei over spying concerns”.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a media release by representatives from the US intelligence committee about concerns about the investigation of Huawei and ZTE.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Clare Curran: I seek leave to table the correspondence between the US House of Representatives select committee on intelligence, and the chairman and senior vice-president of Huawei Technologies.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
- Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have heard the Minister’s answer. She said: “we do not comment on issues of national security”. However, the very point that the member is asking about is that given Steven Joyce has signed a document that says it is not a matter of national security, why, then, can the Minister not answer the question? Mr Joyce and National have assured us that Huawei’s involvement is not a matter of national security. Therefore, why can the Minister not answer the question she has been asked?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have got to think back now to the answer given by the Minister and the question that was asked, but if I recollect correctly—and I do not claim to have this absolutely right—the member first referred to whether the Minister had seen a report from the US committee, and whether she had concerns about this security matter. That is why, in answering, she said she does not comment on security matters. I cannot second-guess a Minister on an issue like that. If a Minister says that it is not their practice to comment on matters of national security, and she sees this as being in that category, as Speaker I cannot second-guess that and say that I disagree with the Minister and I think she should answer. I cannot do that; it would be most unreasonable.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. But you see our quandary here. We have had a series of questions on this before, and we have been assured by the Prime Minister and Mr Joyce that there is no issue of national security involved here. So our quandary is when any of us raise questions we are stopped by a statement that she will not comment on issues of national security. That is the issue. We are assured that there are no such issues in the involvement of this Chinese company, and that is why the question is being asked of that Minister.
Hon AMY ADAMS: Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Amy Adams, briefly.
Hon AMY ADAMS: If the members wish to ask questions of the responsible Ministers around that particular contract, they are welcome to do so. They have directed it to me, in my capacity as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, and I am responding in that capacity—that I do not comment on matters of national security. That has been the longstanding practice of this, and many previous, Governments.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard, briefly.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I think that generally we defer to you on memory of questions, but I think on this particular one it was not a matter of whether the member asked whether the Minister had concerns, but only whether she had received reports on it. That, I think, is different.
Mr SPEAKER: I will check it out, because that is not my memory. I fully accept I may have it wrong, but I will check that out. I think we cannot take this matter any further today, because I think the Minister’s contribution to the discussion on that point of order was a reasonable point the Minister made. We cannot take it further today, but I will check to see whether I got that wrong, because I suspect that it went beyond just whether or not she had received reports. It certainly started that way.
Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether she was aware of concerns, and then asked whether she had received—if so, had she received any reports. I am happy to table—
Mr SPEAKER: The member acknowledges that she asked whether the Minister was aware of concerns around security issues, and she said—[Interruption ] Order! I think we cannot take that one further today.
It seems Adams has dug herself into hole. They seem to hold contradictory views at the same time.
There are no security concerns about Huawei equipment
We cant talk about it because we dont discuss security concerns
It is not a matter of whether they are hiding something but of what they are hiding.