Two reports by the Inspector-General

May 30th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Inspector General of Intelligence and Security has published two reports, both interesting.

The first report is into the incorrect data in the annual report. It had previously been disclosed and corrected. This was a pretty serious error, and to be honest if it occurred again you’d expect the responsible staff to resign.

Frustratingly we are not told how the error occurred. The IG says “any worthwhile account of the processes involved carries severe security risks”.

The second report is about the and their interactions with a resident whose house they had a warrant to search. The resident is not named, but it has been widely reported to be Rajesh Singh – a former Fiji Minister who was suspected of being involved in a plot to kill Commodore Frank Bainimarama. It is somewhat ironic that the official policy of the NZ Government is that the Commodore is an illegitimate traitor, yet they also help protect him from assassination plots (which is the correct thing to do).

Anyway Singh has multiple complaints about the SIS behaviour during the raid. The Inspector-General dismisses all but one of them, noting that the evidence of Mr Singh is less credible than those of the two SIS agents and two police officers.

The one thing the IG does ping the SIS for is Agent A saying:

“would not tolerate [redacted] whether in New Zealand or not. Anyone involved in planning would be dealt with by the NZ police … A told [the complainant] he should be careful who he spoke to about the topics which had been discussed.”

The IG says that the role of the SIS is to gather intelligence only, not enforce security.

Basically the SIS agent should have got the Police officer to tell Mr Singh not to get involved in assassination plots, rather than tell him directly. It’s not a huge issue, but it is important to have the roles clearly defined.

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Two reports by the Inspector-General”

  1. questions (168 comments) says:

    Wow, breathless unquestioning obedience to the lines handed down by the spin doctors.

    “Basically the SIS agent should have got the Police officer to tell Mr Singh not to get involved in assassination plots, rather than tell him directly. It’s not a huge issue, but it is important to have the roles clearly defined.”

    You know full well that is is a big deal, neither of these govt departments should be handing out legal advice of this kind, but we both know that’s not what this is about.

    The real issue is should these public servants be issuing threats of violence to members of the public (because we both know that’s what it was)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Albert_Ross (248 comments) says:

    Perhaps you “both” do know that threats of violence were issued to members of the public by public servants, but I don’t. What is the evidence for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. questions (168 comments) says:

    It’s right there: “would not tolerate [redacted] whether in New Zealand or not. Anyone involved in planning would be dealt with by the NZ police … A told [the complainant] he should be careful who he spoke to about the topics which had been discussed.”

    Implicit threat of violence. Perhaps pretend the Labour party is the governement and read it again, maybe then you can see it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.