Pablo on SIS
March 14th, 2009 at 11:03 am by David FarrarPablo at Kiwipolitico looks at how the change of Government may impact the SIS:
The new Parliamentary Intelligence and Oversight Committee has been announced, and it has the potential to be a milestone for intelligence oversight in NZ. Tariana Turia and Rodney Hide were appointed by John Key (who chairs the committee), and Russell Norman was chosen by Phil Goff (who also serves on the committee). Turia and Norman lead parties that have had their members spied on by the SIS or Police, and Hide has opposed on libertarian grounds the expansion of security based constraints on civil liberties (he opposed passing of the Terrorism Suppression Act, among other things). Thus three out of the five new members have been critical of the intelligence services, which is in stark contrast to previous members during the Fifth Labour government. Although the possibility of their being coopted cannot be discounted, there is an equal if not greater possibility that their appointment signals a shared belief by Mr. Key and Mr. Goff that the time has come for a review of the way intelligence operations are conducted in NZ.
Interestingly while Goff nominated Norman, John Key had to approve the nomination in advance. So there does appear to a deliberate decision to do things differently to under Helen.
Lets hope so. There are already signs that moves in that direction are afoot–Mr. Key’s request of the SIS Inspector General to report to him on the domestic spying programme and SIS Director-General Warren Tucker’s apparent commitment to more transparency being two examples.
It is almost unprecedented to have the PM intervene on behalf of a political opponent of his, and order a review of the SIS’s actions in relation to that person. The outcome of the inquiry will be interesting.
Related posts:
- Peter Gibbons researches politics on Facebook
- Imagine the minor party leaders’ debate
- GCSB acted unlawfuly in Megaupload case
- Holmes rates the senior MPs
March 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Locke has only engaged in legitimate protest and is generally a pacifist though he has supported people who use force to impose their will. It WOULD be legitimate to spy on anyone including MPs who engage with people who are a threat to the security of the state – that is the focus of the SIS and has been so since the Denning report into Profumo in the early 1960′s. I do not subscribe to the notion that an MP is immune form this sort of scrutiny, that really would open up every MP, having this sort of immunity, to be open to all sorts of pressure and manipulation. If you put it that way MPs should welcome not having an immunity.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I agree with Tvb………….A Marxist, a Maori Radical, and a Civil Libertarian, at a time when the Nation in the recent past has provided refuge to all sorts of dubious Moslems and others. At a time when Terrorists strike indiscriminately in any nation where they perceive a weakness. At a time when intelligence sharing among freedom loving countries who can trust each other is paramount. This committee seems designed to undermine the confidence and activities of the SIS. I think to be effective they need virtually the opposite of which they seem to have got.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Does it strike anyone here as funny that we are reviewing an article written by a guy starring in a series of TV ads for Instant Kiwi? And he plays an invisible friend?
Perhaps Pablo knows more than he’s letting on (and the SIS is now the Lottery Commission’s new ad agency).
XChequer
Vote:http://thenzhomeoffice.blogspot.com/
March 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I consider myself a classic liberal and fairly close to Rodney philosophically. However in my view he is treading on thin ice here.
The only real priority of a state nation is to protect its citizens, from both internal and external threats. To achieve this a state nation needs a security service and a defence force and a police force. Sure, the SIS may go around peeping and peering and who knows, they may hold a file on me. But I’ve got through 40+ years without worrying about them knocking on my door and I’m sure I’ll get through the next 40 without any concerns too.
ACT was right to oppose the Terrorism Suppression Bill. It is constitutionally abhorrent because it removes the separation of powers principle that is essential in our democracy. But I’d urge caution on Rodney and ACT criticising the SIS on libertarian grounds because a true libertarian knows how vital a security service is to protect our liberty.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
True minarchists know how vital a security service is to protect their property.
True libertarians go by a different name.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I think I can say with some degree of certainty that Pablo at Kiwipolitico has not featured in any TV ads for Instant Kiwi.
It is also clear that the new appointments to the PISC are sending a clear message of support to Warren Tucker as he tries to reform what is clearly a dysfunctional institutional culture within the SIS in which objective threat assessment has been eschewed in favour of manipulation of intelligence data for political and bureaucratic purposes. It remains to be seen how successful Mr. Tucker will be, but at least this government is signaling its approval of his reform project.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
How do you know that it is a “clearly disfunctional culture” there Paul?
We only ever hear about a few controversial occurances in the media, which get blown out of proportion by someone on the left having a tantrum. I fail to see how an organisation of 200 odd people could get the amount government funding they do, and not be producing any results. Common sense dictates they must be doing far more than we know of, yet people make their judgements on the occasional story that pops up in the papers.
I think most people get their knickers in a twist about the SIS simply because they are not privvy to what goes on, and resent that. I for one am comfortable with them doing what they do.
Vote:March 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Kiwireader: There are systemic flaws at play, not just a “few controversial instances.” They are outlined in the linked posts. One of the issues is that the SIS has external intelligence, domestic intelligence and counter-intelligence functions, which for an agency with less than 150 analysts and collectors is a tall order–in fact, it means that they do not do any of those functions very well. Then there is the manufacturing of threats to suit partisan/bureaucratic purposes, the 2005 SIS annual report stating that NZ’s gravest threat came from “home grown jihadis” being the most notorious of them (that threat assessment disappeared entirely in the 2006 annual report and was substituted by a new threat scenario that had not even been mentioned in 2005, which is quite remarkable to say the least). Again, the details are in the links and other related writing. I guess another way to look at it is to consider why Mr. Key agreed to this new committee, Was in just a sop thrown to a couple of minor parties in an effort to cultivate them for future political bargaining? Is he simply playing cosmetic games but has no intention of changing anything? Or could it be perhaps that the intelligence fiascos under the previous Labour government convinced him that the time for a review and reform of the intelligence apparatus might be in order? His reasoning might be to group points one and three together, but I am doubtful that his reasoning is just the second option. Remember, he had to approve the Labour nominee, which means that he is prepared to accept the first time Green (and Maori Party) presence on the committee. Surely there is more than cosmetic intent there, which means that Mr. Key may well have concerns about the intelligence apparatus and wants to offer his support to Mr. Tucker’s apparent reform efforts.
Vote: