Could this be the real reason why the Australian government does not allow Huawei to build 5G networks? !

Last April, an Australian journalist exposed a worrying plan within the Australian government: the country's cyber espionage department, the Australian Signals Directorate, not only intended to expand its law enforcement powers within Australia, but also planned to introduce a plan to monitor its citizens on a large scale.

However, this was later denied by the Australian government, which said that there was no such plan.

But just this morning, the journalist who exposed the incident last year was suddenly "raided" by the Australian police...

According to reports from the Australian Daily Telegraph and other media, the female reporter named Annika Smethurst from the Australian Daily Telegraph was suddenly blocked at home by a group of Australian federal police when she was about to leave home for work this morning. After showing her a court-issued search warrant, the police began to search her home, as well as her personal computer, mobile phone and other electronic products.

The female reporter did not resist the police investigation and did not stop the police from searching her residence and electronic products, but apart from confirming her identity, she did not answer any questions from the police.

Afterwards, the Australian Federal Police issued a statement saying that they did send people to investigate a case of suspected "unauthorized disclosure of national security information" this morning and searched the residence of a relevant person, but no one would be arrested today.

The picture shows a female reporter whose home was searched by the Australian Federal Police

But how did this reporter get involved in a case of "unauthorized disclosure of national security information"?

Australia's Daily Telegraph and other media further introduced that in April last year, the reporter exclusively disclosed a piece of news that attracted the attention of Australian society, saying that Australia's Department of Defense, Department of Home Affairs, and the country's cyber espionage department, the Australian Signals Directorate, held a high-level secret meeting at the time and planned to expand the power of the Australian Signals Directorate so that the department could more freely monitor the emails, bank accounts and text messages of Australian citizens in Australia without having to apply for permission or report to the Attorney General.

Not only that, judging from the content of the confidential meeting exposed by the female reporter from The Daily Telegraph, the three Australian departments even intend to give their cyber intelligence departments mandatory powers, so that government agencies and private companies must cooperate and obey the measures taken for national security considerations.

However, the Australian government strongly denied the incident at the time, and the three departments involved jointly issued a statement saying that there was no such plan and that such a plan would not be implemented. The three departments also stated that all their actions would be "within the scope of the law" and emphasized that their work was essentially to "protect Australians and the Australian economy."

But just when people thought the matter was over, the Australian government began to "settle accounts", which led to the "house raid" of the journalist mentioned by Gengzhi Ge at the beginning of this article. But this move made people more suspicious: Is Australia's intelligence agency really planning to conduct large-scale surveillance of its citizens?

It is also important to note that the Australian Signals Directorate, which was exposed by the Australian media for intending to monitor its citizens, also played an important role in the Australian government's ban on Huawei from participating in the construction of its 5G network.

Last November, the then director of the agency, Mike Burgess, declared that the importance of Australia's 5G network was "very high" and that it was not enough to restrict "high-risk suppliers" such as Huawei to non-core parts of the network, which would still pose a threat to the security of the entire network. However, John Lord, chairman of the board of directors of Huawei Australia, was shocked by this politically biased conclusion because Australia had no evidence to prove that Huawei would pose a threat to Australia's 5G network.

But combined with what was revealed by the journalist whose home was raided by the Australian government, perhaps it is because Australia's official cyber espionage department wants to conduct large-scale surveillance of its own people that they dare not use Huawei's equipment.

And if we take into account the Australian intelligence agencies' obedience to the US intelligence agencies, the close cooperation between the two countries' intelligence agencies beyond the scope of normal state relations, and the Australian intelligence agencies' repeated and unwarranted espionage accusations and smears against Chinese people in the country in recent years, I even suspect that the Australian government's exposure of its intention to monitor its own citizens is another part of a new round of "Prism"-type plans instigated by the United States?

In fact, according to another report from the Australian media today, the Australian government has been asking the UK to cooperate with the United States in banning Huawei. This scene also makes Gengzhige wonder whether Australia is a sovereign and independent country or a state under the rule of the United States...

Therefore, in my opinion, it is not that Huawei is unsafe for the Australian people, but for the Australian government, which wants to eavesdrop on Australian people like the US government eavesdrops on the world, Huawei may not be as "easy" to use as some Western companies?