Key orders SIS to exempt MPs from spying
March 17th, 2009 at 7:44 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Prime Minister John Key has asked the Security Intelligence Service to put on ice any active files it has on MPs after a report found they should be treated as a special case. …
Mr Key said he had written to SIS head Warren Tucker “inviting” him to take up the recommendations. He had also asked the Speaker to begin considering it and would ask Justice Neazor to do a follow-up report in about six months.
It is worth remembering that John Key could have done what his predeccesors normally did, and just say “I don’t comment on security issues”. Instead he ordered the Inspector-General to do a review, and is ensuring a change of policy.
Recommendations are:
- “Deactivate” files of any person who becomes an MP.
- Require the SIS to get Speaker’s permission to put any MP under surveillance.
- SIS must show good grounds for believing the MP is involved in activities which endanger security.
- Limit the information the SIS can keep on any other person’s dealings with an MP.
All looks sensible.
Related posts:
- Suppression Orders and the Internet
- SIS spying
- GCSB acted unlawfuly in Megaupload case
- Protection Orders
March 17th, 2009 at 7:52 am
One rule for them, another rule for us.
Why not just make all MP’s above the law. Sure, Helen Clark gave that ago during her corrupt nine years in office.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am
They should continue to moniter Commie Keith. If he’s not a danger to the security of this country, then the people he associates with are.
Vote:Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal with having a file on a child of communist parents in a 1955s NZ, who then is a life long communist himself. Sorry John Key, I think this one is a bad move.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Reading between the lines it seems Hulun tacitly or overtly approved of spying on MP’s and I bet they weren’t Labour MP’s.
Figures.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Why should MP’s be exempt? Why do they get a different set of laws to the rest of the public? If any MP is exempt from SIS investigation, then I want to be exempt too. Why? Why not then? Let’s make everybody exempt!
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I agree Pascal. Just because someone convinces his party to put him on their list doesn’t make them a loyal citizen.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Doesn’t anyone else see the threat to democracy if the PM (Head of the SIS) allows MP’s to be bugged without recourse to an independent authoriser?
Good call John Key.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I agree with those who say this is a bad idea, history has taught us that we cannot rely on the word or honesty of many MP’s.
I simply do not trust the likes of Locke, Bradford, Norman, Hone Harawira, Mallard, Cullen or Dyson.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:42 am
MP’s should be kept under 24/7 observation based on tehir exploits.
This is bullshit from Key.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:57 am
No no expat. Helen (the micro-managing megalomaniac formerly in charge of the SIS) had no idea that commie Locke was being spied on. She said so. And the media didn’t question her further.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 9:07 am
thanks for setting me right about hulun.
I have wronged her.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Murray has it right. On past performance, MP’s have rarely had the best interest of NZ at heart. They have always had the best interests of themselves at heart. Anyone remember the three minute passing of their own pension scheme?
P J O’Rourke said “Giving politicians control of power and money is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys”
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
This is wrong. The SIS needs to be a completely politically neutral organisation, and as such shouldn’t be taking instructions from the PM about who they can and cannot investigate. And that means both ways – Key should not be able to direct them to monitor any person or group, nor should he be able to stop them keeping tabs on others. It wouldn’t surprise me that Locke et al are meeting with people who are likely a security concern, and I hope he is investigated along with all the barrel scrapings he associates with.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 9:27 am
You’ve never dealt with any of the highly trained and motivated members of the SIS have you?
rolls over splitting sides.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Kiwireader the SIS CAN’T be politically neutral, they answer to and work at the direction of the PM. This might be nice if you happen to like the current government but blows ropey goat chunks if you don’t.
If you don’t want the people you don’t trust to have power then you can’t let those you do have it either.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I don’t trust MPs either – how about we insist that the security service only spies on MPs, of all political shades, and reports directly to the NZ public?
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am
What about if the highly unlikely transpires, and Kyle Chapman becomes an MP and neo-fascists like the National Front thrive overseas? Wouldn’t the country like a watch on any links between the Chapman party and the overseas far rightists?
Also, why should MPs have greater rights of privacy than other citizens? Who will be exempt next? Academics? News media people? Clerics? Trade unionists (under Labour)?
Will Key next give MPs exemptions from police powers?
If lack of resolve to solve the leaks that brought down Don Brash is an indication, I think Key has shown his Achilles heel: flakiness on law and order.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Isn’t the real question whether the individuals concerned are real security risk. I don’t think you can totally rule out the possibility of a rogue MP – but the idea that hapless Keith is a real risk and that we would be saved by the collection of newspaper clippings the SIS accumulated is just nonsense.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Trev
Sometimes…just sometimes, you talk sense.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Trevor – hapless may be your assessment. For my part, any leader of NZ who has openly endorsed terrorist and/or genocidal regimes deserves to have their lives pried into.
If said newspaper clipping are useless – and you are almost certainly right there – then perhaps the SIS should have done a better job and increased their surveillance.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Jack5 “What about if the highly unlikely transpires, and Kyle Chapman becomes an MP and neo-fascists like the National Front thrive overseas? Wouldn’t the country like a watch on any links between the Chapman party and the overseas far rightists?”
My point exactly. I trust the intelligence service to do the right thing and avoid politcal interference. We’re not in a police state, and they only did what any one else could legally do. Taking photos from public places, and cut out newspaper articles are still within our legal rights.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Trevor – hapless may be your assessment. For my part, any leader of NZ who has openly endorsed terrorist and/or genocidal regimes deserves to have their lives pried into.”
Leader?
Lying loser Locke a “leader”?
Ha ha ha ha ha
For the sake of NZ I hope to god you are once again wrong.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I haven’t gone into this issue in any great depth but one thing I would say.
This is my rule of thumb when dealing with any issue regarding our much loved green MP.
If Keith Locke is for it then I am against it.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Mallard also thought school zoning was a great idea for other peoples children. His were of course exempt from such stupidity….
Mallard – why do you insist on wanting one rule for MP’s and another for everyone else – wasn’t rorting the EFA enough for you ? You want to remind us again that we must do as you say and not as you do….
Retire you shameless hypocrite, you day has passsed and the country nolonger wants self serving muppets like you telling us what we must do while doing whatever you bloodly like yourself.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I agree with that rogue Trevor on point a and disagree on point b.
Being a gibbering buffoon does not render someone “harmless”,particularly when they are an MP. Quite the reverse.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
MT_Tinman – good point. It should have read “any NZ leader”, of which there are a house full.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I agree with the majority, indeed MPs should be under even greater scrutiny than us plebs, and if they are truly patriotic they should welcome it.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
baxter
Mallard would rather we have a risk based assessment. Perhaps we could have a points system. If you are in the same party as Mallard – zero points. In a party that will support mallards party no matter what – 1 point. In a party that is in opposition to Mallards party – 1,000,000 points.
Self serving pricks always want a subjective assessment, as long as they are the ones deciding the criteria and setting the terms they will be happy. The rest of us think one-rule-for-all sounds good.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The report from SIS Inspector General Paul Neazor that PM Key accepted is a compromise designed to prevent politically-motivated (and manipulated) surveillance of sitting MPs. According to the report’s recommendations, if the SIS has credible reason to believe than an MP needs to be surveilled, it can present that evidence to the Speaker, who can then authorise the covert monitoring. The operative term is “credible” evidence about threats to national security–not sex lives, not attending protests, not meeting with foreign dissidents and political refugees. It is a small step but on this one Key has struck the right balance between security, parliamentary independence and civil liberties. It is also a break from past practice, including that of his predecessor.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“a break from past practice, including that of his predecessor”
You could infer that nice Auntie Hulun was a little paranoid.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I don’t, and never will agree with Keith Locke’s politics, but I regard him as a loyal New Zealander who only wants to do the best for his constituency of like-minded souls. His election to Parliament merely legitimises (and pays him) for the activism he practised before entering the House, ditto for Sue Bradford. Neither of them would sell NZ out, though.
However, what I do worry about with Key’s decision is that there are MP’s in the House who do not have Locke or Bradford’s intellectual awareness to resist improper influences and that those MP’s will now be exempt from any SIS scrutiny. For example, the ideological battle between China and Taiwan rages on here in NZ with the representatives of each of those countries forever trying to gain influence with the likes of Pansy Wong, and now the other Asian MP’s who have recently entered the House. Presumably our muslim MP is similar lobbied by competing islamic factions in this country.
Until now, only an agency like the SIS has been in the position to alert the PM to the possibility that an MP is being unduly influenced by a foreign government. The Locke case may now bring about unintended consequences for this country’s security and our right to be free from surreptitious foreign influence of our politicians.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Ah, the “Yellow Peril” and “Islamic bomber” influence will tempt Pansy Wong to the dark side yet intellectual giants like Bradford will not be swayed.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Paul G. Buchanan – while you are here on Kiwiblog, can I correct you on two errors you keep making in your writings and commentaries of New Zealand security issues.
Firstly, Paul Neazor is the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. He is not the “SIS Inspector General”. He is responsible for overseeing more than just the SIS.
Secondly, in your security articles you always refer to the head of the SIS as the “Director General”. He is not, his legal title is “Director”.
As an academic I am sure you won’t mind me correcting you on these points.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Chris2: If it bothers you that much, I am happy to oblige the correction. Be aware though that the government itself refers to the terms that I use, so pedantic confusion abounds….
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Chris2 – It’s true Locke and Bradford are all for New Zealand, it’s just that their perception of how the ideal New Zealand should be is so totally warped as to make me cringe – I don’t know if I could ever stomach calling them loyal. I fully agree with you on the point about other MPs being influenced though. I don’t think it comes down to intellectual awareness either, rather the fact that people just tend to look after their own. A case in point being the banning of Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering Britain, in part due to the lobbying efforts of Lord Nazir Ahmed of the Labor Party. I see it being only a matter of time before the same sort of thing starts happening here.
Paul B – And while we are on the topic of pedantic corrections, it’s Dr. Tucker (engineering I believe, but correct me if I am wrong).
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
One of Key’s few mistakes. Clark continually refusing to comment on security was one of the few things to admire about her, Key should have continued in that vein. The hard left are not above infiltrating the halls of power to push through & promote their rubbish. It would be fair to say that the high-profile cases of espionage in NZ have been committed, by and large, by those on the left and probably those cases that have flown under the radar also.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
kiwireader:
Vote:Ph.D.s are properly called “Mr.” since they are not MDs. I, myself, prefer to be called by my first name, without titles. That way there is no pedantic confusion.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
“That way there is no pedantic confusion.”
Thank goodness. It was doing my head in… Paul.
Personally my informal job title at work is Obergruppenfurer and I prefer to be addressed with a snappy “jawohl mein herr” but I’m not pedantic about it.
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Out of respect I go by what they prefer
http://www.nzsis.govt.nz/about/director.aspx
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
If we are going to be precious with titles, I personally prefer “Exalted Cyclops.”
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but is this Paul Buchanan of Buchanan v. Jennings fame?
Vote:March 17th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Perhaps it is, or perhaps not. And perhaps it pertains to Zaoui v. NZSIS (the Crown) and Buchanan v University of Auckland.
Vote:March 18th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Don Brash made a point of emphasising “One law for all”. Not totally surprising that John Key would back track on that and start featherbedding privileges for MP’s.
Vote: