Kiwiblog

I blogged on the 23rd of March about the renaming and focus of the External Assessments Bureau to the National Assessments Bureau. I was mainly rebutting hysteria that the PM was getting a private spy agency, and pointing out that the EAB/NAB do analysis only – they do not collect intelligence or “spy”.

However I did note:

I am interested in the rationale for change, and think there should be a fuller understanding of what “gaps” in analysis there were, that this change will plug. To that end I have just filed an OIA request with the DPMC for any information about the change of name and mandate for the EAB to the NAB.

I got a partial response from DPMC which I blogged on 7 April. It revealed that NAB is now tasked with establishing quality standards for intelligence analysis across the entire NZ intelligence community, and that they are moving into the same office building as the SIS and GCSB.

The request was also passed into the SSC who did the review of the intelligence community, and today I received a response from the State Services Commissioner – 2010 05 12 letter to mr david farrar re murdoch review and oia release.

I was not expecting a great deal of information, due to the nature of the agencies concerned – probably a lot of blanked out lines. But the SSC has prepared and released a summary of the review of the intelligence agencies done by Simon Murdock (former DPMC and MFAT head). The summary is here – 2010 05 12 summary of murdochreview released under the OIA.

This is a welcome level of openness, The SSC also advises the PM is going to make a public statement on the review late afternoon.

People can read the review for themselves, but here are the parts I found interesting:

1. The current shape of the NZ intelligence community (NZIC) is due to historical legacies, rather than design, and mainly modelled on overseas.
2. NZIC was predominately focused on foreign intelligence. Post 9/11 there is a greater “homeland security” focus
3. A need to have a balance between intelligence which is about risk mitigation, and intelligence which reveals and helps understand medium-term trends and intentions. In other words strategic and tactical intelligence.
4. That the EAB Director should have his role to set quality control standards across the NZIC revalidated.
5. Encourage NZIC agencies to pool corporate and back office functions
6. Against merging SIS and GCSB as they have different cultures and centres of excellence. “They both collect secret information, but in very different ways”. Also they have different requirements for what they do and do not share with overseas partners.
7. That the SIS and GCSB Directors should be subject to performance reviews (they are currently outside the state sector CEO framework)

What I find interesting is that the Murdoch review does not explicitly recommend the change of name and focus of the EAB to the NAB. It fits in with with the Murdoch review, but is not explicit.

So how did the decision arise. Well, I look back to the TVNZ story in March:

It is now called the National Assessments Bureau and it has a new mission – to look at both domestic and foreign security risks.

Security for events like the Rugby World Cup is one of the factors driving the change.

“Of course we would engage our intelligence agencies to make sure we can provide the appropriate level of protection for New Zealanders and international visitors that come for the Rugby World Cup so in that regard it is a National Assessments Bureau as opposed to purely external,” says Prime Minister John Key.

As the change is not explicitly states in the Murdoch review, I wonder if the idea came from the PM himself. The RWC is a major focus for him, and he would want to make sure that intelligence and security for the event was not falling between different agencies – hence giving the EAB a wider focus, to cover all intelligence, not just foreign intelligence.

Personally I think the change is quite sensible, and good to see that not even the intelligence community is immune from the drive for efficiency and cost savings. The NAB’s role is purely analysis, not collection, so it doesn’t mean greater “domestic spying”, just that foreign and domestic intelligence will be analysed by the one agency.

I blogged on 23 March the change of name and focus for the External Assessments Bureau, who have now become the National Assessments Bureau.

Mainly I rebutted the hysteria that this meant the PM is getting a private spy agency, but I did comment at the end:

Having said all that, I am interested in the rationale for change, and think there should be a fuller understanding of what “gaps” in analysis there were, that this change will plug.

To that end I have just filed an OIA request with the DPMC for any information about the change of name and mandate for the EAB to the NAB. I have no doubt parts of any papers I receive will be redacted, but I hope to gain some better understanding of the change, and will blog it when I get the response.

DPMC have responded, and their reply is here – OIA Reply – Farrar, David – change of name and mandate of EAB [DPMC] – Scanned

Most of my request has been transferred to the SSC, as the lead agency that did the review. They’ve also withheld any info from within the NAB itself (no surprise), but did provide a news item from the DPMC Intranet, which has some quite interesting aspects to it:

1. NAB is now tasked with establishing quality standards for intelligence analysis across the entire NZ intelligence community.
2. NAB now responsible for developing a national assessment programme which will draw on resources outside DPMC
3. The NAB and the DESG (Domestic & External Security Group) are moving out of their current location (Reserve Bank Building) into the new GCSB bulding in Pipitea Street, when it is completed later this year. So most of the intelligence community will be housed together.

Giving the NAB a role in quality control over the intelligence community seems quite sensible.

No Right Turn blogs:

The Prime Minister has got himself a private spy agency.

OK, so he’s always kind of had one. Since 1990, the External Assessments Bureau, part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has been providing assessments to the government on foreign events. This was pretty uncontroversial – EAB had no operational role, was focused strictly on analysing information, and its target was strictly foreigners. It could not be considered any form of threat to the New Zealand public.

Having worked in the PMs Office, I got to see the occassional EAB analysis. They tended to be of two types – a country report or a person report, the persons generally being Heads of States and Governments.

They did not tend to use top secret information, from spying. In fact much of what was in the reports, you would find on the Internet. However they were sensitive because they would offer observations that can be blunt, and could upset other countries. Of course, there were probably some reports that did use more classified information that I didn’t see, but the vast majority was based on public sources.

So really, their job is quite straight forward – taking information from multiple sources, and doing summaries for the PM and/or other Ministers. They are often widely distributed within MFAT also – so again these are not generally top secret stuff.

Now, thanks to the Rugby World Cup, its been renamed the “National Assessments Bureau”, and has got itself a domestic focus. As well as looking at the politics of other countries, it will be looking at those of New Zealand. As well as looking at foreigners, it will also be “assessing”, and advising the government on, the beliefs, actions, and plans of New Zealanders.

Now this is a significant change, but it does not mean they are suddenly a spy agency. They have no powers, and AFAIK no field operations at all – they just analyse information and write reports based on it.

I guess the reason their role has been expanded, is because there was no one clear agency who was responsible for domestic security analysis, and there may have been a silo problem (such as the US had prior to 9/11).

As all the EAB, now NAB, is analysis, I don’t think portraying them as a new MI5 or SIS is helpful. Again, they have no powers. They can’t get warrants like the SIS. They can’t intercept communications like the GCSB. They can’t arrest people like the Police. They can’t shoot people like the military.

Having said that, the change is not insignificant, and where I do agree with NRT, is that there should have been some greater transparency around the change, including a better explanation of why the change was seen as desirable. Why, for example, would the Police not be in charge of domestic security analysis?

But NAB has no controls at all. It does not even have to issue an independent annual report giving a broad idea of the scope of its activities. And when they are assembling dossiers on New Zealanders for the Prime Minister’s consumption, that is simply unacceptable.

It has no controls as it has no special powers. It is part of the Department of PM and Cabinet and hence subject to the Official Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Ombudsman etc.

And they do publish an annual report – it is part of the DPMC report.

The NAB website says:

NAB is an unusual organisation. It has no role in providing policy advice to the government and no operational functions, and nor does it provide services to the public. Its mandate is sharply defined: NAB’s role is to provide assessments, not advice. This means that it seeks to explain events and developments, but it does not offer advice on what actions the government might take.

Having said all that, I am interested in the rationale for change, and think there should be a fuller understanding of what “gaps” in analysis there were, that this change will plug.

To that end I have just filed an OIA request with the DPMC for any information about the change of name and mandate for the EAB to the NAB. I have no doubt parts of any papers I receive will be redacted, but I hope to gain some better understanding of the change, and will blog it when I get the response.

NZPA report:

Staff from a radio station have found notes handwritten by a senior government servant suggesting a merger of New Zealand’s two state intelligence services.

Radio New Zealand reported finding the notes on the street, with the merger one of three options to be considered in a review of the sector.

The State Services Commission confirmed former Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Simon Murdoch, was to consider ways for the security services to work more effectively.

I doubt the services will be impressed by such notes being left lying about.

Not sure what the pros and cons of merging the SIS and GCSB would be. The SIS have greater protection under the law. It is illegal to name any staff member except the Director. The GCSB does not have the same protection.

The review might extend beyond the SIS and GCSB of course. There is also the External Assessments Bureau in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the co-ordinating role of DPMC’s Domestic and External Security Group.

John Key has released the DPMC BIM. The breakdown of the 120 staff is interesting:

1. External Assessments Bureau 27
2. Government House 27
3. Cabinet Office 25
4. Corporate Services 17
5. Policy Advisory Group 16
6. Domestic & External Security Group 6
7. CEO Office 2

The last five sections look right to me in terms of staff numbers. Cabinet Office basically runs the cabinet system of government, and the Policy Advisory Group do a magnificent job in co-ordinating and leading policy across the entire Government. No-one sane would reduce their numbers.

But I am surprised 27 staff are needed for the Governor-General. That’s more staff than the PM has in his personal office.

Also somewhat surprised by 27 staff working in the EAB. I wouldn’t have thought there was that much assessing to be done – especially when you consider MFAT, SIS and GCSB also work somewhat in this area.

So maybe the Cabinet Committee on Expenditure Control can start in the centre