photo: 123 of the Russian Federation
A comprehensive review of New Zealand’s national security system has revealed a lack of transparency from intelligence agencies about their activities and concerns about the effectiveness of control and oversight mechanisms.
The Taumaru’s report this is the first review of New Zealand’s intelligence and security laws since the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. Since then, the country has survived two terrorist attacks and seen the rise of cyber security threats, foreign interference and disinformation.
The 274-page report, written by former solicitor-general Sir Terence Arnold and prominent Māori lawyer Matanuku Mahuika, examined the operations and oversight of New Zealand’s two intelligence and security agencies: the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service . (NZSIS).
He made 52 recommendations, which will now be considered by the government.
The review was submitted following the report of the Royal Commission into the Christchurch terror attacks. This report criticized the transparency and scale of New Zealand’s national security system, saying it operated as a collection of agencies with little common leadership.
So far, the law has not defined what “protecting national security” actually means.
The report recommends applying one of these, proposing to define it as “the protection of New Zealand, its communities and people from actions that pose a threat because they undermine or attempt to undermine one or more of New Zealand’s…” – and then list activities that could pose a threat
It suggested that agencies publicize their priorities so that the public has a realistic understanding of what they are actually doing. The authors believed that this would enable meaningful public engagement and strengthen agencies’ social license to operate in New Zealand.
The report also recommended a review of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Established in 1996, it is the only ad hoc committee chaired by a member of the executive branch (prime minister). It also meets less frequently than other committees.
But the report argued that this meant the committee lacked independence from the executive branch and the time and ability to exercise close scrutiny of the agencies’ work. He proposed to stop members of the executive branch from serving on the committee, replacing them with a broad cross-party selection of MPs.
Currently, the committee is only reviewing the work of the GCSB and NZSIS. The report says it should be extended to other agencies such as the Defense Force, Customs Intelligence, Immigration Intelligence and Police Intelligence.
The issuing of warrants has also come under scrutiny, with the report recommending that regulations be adjusted so that warrants for New Zealanders and non-New Zealanders are subject to the same requirements. It was also recommended to change the way intelligence is collected, shared, stored and disposed of.
He also found that, unusually for such a piece of modern legislation, the Act made no mention of te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said the government would not release a response to the report until it had consulted with other parties in parliament.
Chris Hipkins says there is room to do better in terms of parliamentary oversight of agencies.
photo: RNZ // Angus Driver
“The government will now consider the report in full and wait for advice on assessing the potential impact of the proposals before making a decision on the recommendations,” Hipkins said.
“While it will take time to respond to the review, we are committed to doing so in a timely manner to ensure that the law remains clear, effective and fit for purpose.”
At a media briefing on Monday after the Cabinet meeting, Hipkins said: “We’ve only had one very preliminary conversation about the report so far. The commitment I made to the other parties in the parliament, I don’t think it needs to become a political football.
“The review panel produced a complex set of recommendations … I think we owe it to them to effectively review them one by one and consider the conflicting advice on them.”
As for the parliamentary control of the relevant departments, he said that there is an opportunity to do it better.
“I’m not convinced that what the group came up with is the right way to do it, but I certainly think there’s room for discussion about how we can improve the reliability of our intelligence agency vetting.
He says the proposed proposal would mean MPs would control agencies without access to controversial advice.
“In fact, the ministers at the moment – myself, as the minister of national security and intelligence, and the leader of the opposition, who interacts with the security agencies, as well as the international interaction in this space, can actually bring a different perspective than a back bench MP may not be able to “.
“I don’t take things off the table.”
The response to the report will be led by Hipkins and the Minister responsible for GCSB and NZSIS, Andrew Little.