Nick Xenophon and Malcolm Turnbull are used to being on the opposite sides of political arguments. They’re now accusing each other of pushing the interests of the world’s biggest superpowers.
Former independent South Australian senator Xenophon has been representing Chinese firm Huawei since December last year through his law firm Xenophon Davis, which he runs with former SBS and ABC journalist Mark Davis.
And former PM Turnbull has recently joined the board of cyber security firm Kasada, which has been reported as having attracted venture capital from funds associated with private equity firm KKR and the US’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He’s also a shareholder in the company.
This month, Turnbull joined the ranks of China hawks calling for Xenophon to register his name on the foreign interests register, saying it was “difficult to believe” that Huawei had hired Xenophon purely for his legal skills.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Turnbull told Sydney Morning Herald reporter Latika Bourke last week that Xenophon should have a “closer look” at why Huawei have hired him.
“Given Nick’s background, it’s difficult to believe that the only reason that they’ve retained him for is his legal skills,” he said.
“Is he also seeking to influence governments and public opinion and is he doing more than just being the lawyer giving advice on technical legal matters?”
Huawei has been banned from helping build the 5G network in Australia, the UK and the US over fears that it is a spy tool for the Chinese government.
The company represents the rise and fall of the West’s relationship with China. In less than a decade it’s gone from being a symbol of Chinese capitalist success to a perceived apparatus of the communist party.
Xenophon has called the firm the “most maligned company in Australian history”.
“This is a private company that has abided by the rules in Australia and indeed in other countries,” he told Crikey.
Xenophon’s law firm on the face of it doesn’t appear to be a regular law firm. First of all, Davis, although a qualified lawyer, is better known for his work as an investigative journalist at Four Corners and Dateline.
This has given fuel to Turnbull’s claim that it’s doing more than just offering legal advice, especially when the firm’s website claims to offer “strategic advice”.
But Xenophon insists he’s not lobbying politicians on behalf of Huawei, and that the law firm is not required to be listed on the register, which Turnbull helped set up as prime minister.
“My role is to represent Huawei as a lawyer where they have been treated unfairly,” Xenophon said. “I’m not meeting with politicians. I’m advocating for Huawei publicly as a lawyer.”
Xenophon says Turnbull’s calls “smack of hypocrisy”.
Kasada is an Australian technology company that promises to fight bots and unwanted internet traffic. Its formula has helped it expand internationally and attract funding from the US, including from In-Q-Tel (IQT), the investment fund started as part of the CIA. IQT now partners with 10 US government agencies and works in Australia with the Office of National Intelligence to support a partnership between the intelligence agencies of the US, UK and Australia.
Xenophon says Kasada’s connection to IQT meant Turnbull had closer ties with a powerful foreign government agency than the privately-owned Huawei.
But Turnbull told Crikey that the two were incomparable.
“Nick is receiving money from Huawei to represent them. I am an investor in an Australian company in which In-Q-Tel also has an investment. It isn’t even remotely comparable,” he said.
“There is literally no comparison or comparability between my situation and his. I’m not representing anyone for a start. “
Turnbull’s criticism of Xenophon joins a chorus of other conservative voices who have brought the western war on Huawei to Australia, including Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) veterans Tim Wilson and James Paterson, who have accused Huawei of building a spy network for the Chinese government.
In March Liberal MP Andrew Hastie used his parliamentary privilege to call on Xenophon’s firm to join the register “so that we have full transparency about his dealings with Huawei and the Australian people”.
In December Paterson said Xenophon risked a “sad end” to his career of public service by taking on Huawei’s cause in Australia. And last week Wilson told Sky News last week Huawei presented a “greater moral evil” than pokies — a dig at Xenophon’s anti-pokies advocacy.
Xenophon could have a lot of work on his hands with Huawei, which is trying to defend its diminished reputation in the West. But he says the company’s critics are ignoring their own conflicts.
“This is part of a campaign that is quite hysterical,” he said.
Get Crikey for $1 a week.
Lockdowns are over and BBQs are back! At last, we get to talk to people in real life. But conversation topics outside COVID are so thin on the ground.
Join Crikey and we’ll give you something to talk about. Get your first 12 weeks for $12 to get stories, analysis and BBQ stoppers you won’t see anywhere else.
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
I refuse to submit to the idea that I and others must remain loyal bent over naked bumboys for USA types of lobbyists, fantasists, fronts, paticularly two queer queasy quarks from the repulsive IPA, a nest of ignorant, romanist, fascist fraudy frog fingerers.
couldnt agree more
Well, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that our politicians and government officials, both current and former, have worked for the CIA. Surely all this ‘look over there’ hysteria carries a heavy burden of hubris. Anyone else backing ‘Fine Cotton?’
Turnbull would do well to not be investing in anything, surely has enough money to coast to the finish line by now. Otherwise all his fine ideals are just shareholder spruiking and should be seen as such.
Personally, I can’t believe all those coal mining companies and Woodside happen to be employing former LNP politicians for their intelligence, strategic nous or analytical skills. They displayed none while in office.
What’s wrong Malcolm, did the pot call your kettle black?
The issue, Gerorgia, is the South China Sea. Huawei is by no means unimportant but its not critical. The assumption is that Huawei has back doors on everything. Research the German Tech press who, over a period of months, found nothing. Furthermore, if Huawei can plant a back-door-chip onto one of its boards then so can Cisco or HP or anyone. The latter two, given the contents of Snowden’s recent book of about six months ago are definitely candidates for NCA bidding.
On the one hand, Gerogina, you have presented a reasonable ‘form guide’ as to the situation but your article does not possess any context at all. The options for Australia are either to pursue an independent diplomacy which something that Xenophon is undertaking verses the Turnbull inclination of making Australia a “Lennie” (Mice & Men) of the USA. The matter is actually rather serious.
It has taken a NZ parliamentarian to point out that the Five Eyes commitment was to share intelligence and that it is not a treaty or an arrangement that carried defined obligations. A similar remark may be said of ANZUS – which, actually, guarantees nothing. The issue of the South China Sea is a given. The point that no rag in the West gets (with the possible exception of the NYT) is that EVERY move on the global chess board has a LONG TERM plan (35+ years) associated with it.
Xi is setting up the South China Sea NOT for himself of for the current Chinese work force BUT for the generation in China beginning school this year. That is the difference, I am sorry to say, between short term electoral expediency in the West and Asia generally.
The options are elementary (Watson). Australia has an opportunity to co-operate with its largest market in terms of research or anything or Australia can emulate Lennie. Given the issues over consulates (Houston and the USA in Chengdu), HK, the South China Sea and (in the rear) Huawei the likelihood of a blood nose for Australia, within 12 months is, I’d say, close to 50%
Australia is in an appalling situation.
Our biggest customer is seeking world domination by fair means or mostly foul. Our biggest ally is run by a narcissistic, megalomanic, and ignorant person, who couldn’t give a stuff about his former allies.
What to do?
Well, recognise that despite the current challenges we have had a very good relationship with China in the past and do our best to restore that relationship. In many, many ways they need us as much as we need them.
Ditto for our dear mates in the USA.
Not easy, but it can be done. Don’t ignore the past.
Our leaders must keep up contact at all levels, sure the CCP may ignore us, but don’t give up. Keep reminding them that they can make more money peacefully with us, than in conflict.
It’s a lessor challenge with the USA. We have many mutual friends and that relationship will prevail. We just need to be careful that under the current regime, only self -interest will prevail, and hope that it does not survive.
‘World Domination’ do you say PB? Would that not be a “first”. Every empire (last I looked) is about the domination of its ethos and customs.
Long story but, from the latish 18th century one would have to give the prize to the Royal Navy which was confirmed in 1805. Then we had a silly feud between the grand kids of Queen Victoria which more or less, created the second fuss over, at least, the domination of Europe. Interesting how that turned out with one system “N” being replaced with another (Soviet). The joint with the greatest productive capacity assumed control (or is the word ‘domination’) from 1945 to where we are now.
For those who like patterns there is a “250 year rule” which expresses the life of a particular social and political order. The interval of the UK was, following the pattern, from 1700 to 1950 when the UK lost its major colonies. The numbers are by no means exact but interesting in the same way that modern art can be interesting and as some correlations are apt to be. 1776 + 250 = ?
Trump is either finished at the end of the year or in 2024. He could try making himself “President for Life” but its not a likely proposition. Placing the farm on the Republicans being returned (they have control of the Senate) for another four years, somehow, doesn’t seem to be best practice – so we are agreed here. We seem to disagree on the sentimentality.
Had Japan embarked on its programme in 1911 or 1921 rather than 1941 “better” progress may have been made. Over a period of 50 years nothing remains the same.
Japan did start establishing its place in the world in 1904 at Port Arthur, Manchuko when it destroyed the Tzar’s fleet.
Britain being still dominant at the time suggested that they desist and turn their attention elsewhere.
As they were regarded by Britain as ‘honourary Whites’ it was thought that they’d be a good fit for this country – the Bulletin was replete with cartoons & rantings against that idea and probably led to the well known banner, anti Jap as much as China.
Indeed to the events in 1904; they rather wrecked the Czar’s birthday for 1905. A victory parade over Japan was in the planning stages. However, my point is that in world affairs the timing is very important.
As I say, Japan could have advanced south from circa 1911 but the Jubilee in 1912 (India) would have cramped Japan’s style. Equally circa 1920 given the utter ineffectiveness of the League (and of which Wilson refused to join).
Similarly for the (USA) Civil War. Had the South moved in 1831 when (1) cotton was actually king and (2) when State’s Rights were a big deal with no trace of Lincoln-Federalism. Had the South succeeded the world would be quite a different place. Arguably for 1841 but not after 1850 when the Brits had options for cotton from India and with their economic needs having changed radically.
The South anticipated assistance from the Brits and such may have been forthcoming had the event commenced in the 1830s or 1840s.