The Anti-Bases Campaign’s Intelligence agency of primary interest is the NZ Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), which operates the Waihopai and Tangimoana spybases. It has the biggest budget of any NZ Intelligence agency and, in terms of New Zealand’s links to the American warfighting machine and Western Intelligence, it is far and away the most important. The problem for both ABC, and the media, is that the GCSB is literally faceless. Its’ specialities are “sigint” (signals intelligence) and “elint” (electronic intelligence). Its’ public face consists of domes and aerials, not humans.
The agency that gets all the attention is the NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) which, although it has a smaller budget than the GCSB, is much better known. That is because the SIS deals in “humint” (human intelligence) and also, far from incidentally, because it has a long history of spectacular cockups. Maxwell Smart, the legendary secret agent in the cult 1960s’ American TV series, “Get Smart”, had his famous shoe phone; the SIS simply has its foot in its mouth all the time. So, although it is of secondary interest to us, Peace Researcher has devoted much attention to the SIS over the 20+ years of our existence. For example, in the past couple of years, it has got itself tied up in knots over the disgraceful case of Ahmed Zaoui. I refer you to the article by David Small, and the book review by Jeremy Agar, both elsewhere in this issue. It has been extensively covered by David Small in recent issues.
Systematic Spying On Maori
But, don’t worry, there’s no shortage of other examples of SIS perfidy and cackhandedness. Currently, it is in the spotlight over accusations of systematic spying on Maori activists and Maori in general. These claims were made in several articles by Anthony Hubbard and Nicky Hager in the Sunday Star Times of November 21, 2004. There is nothing new about claims that the SIS spies on perfectly law abiding organisations – what was new this time was that the claims supposedly came from three of the spies themselves (who have not been named or otherwise identified). The articles revealed that:
· the code name for the programme was Operation Leaf,
· the SIS contracted “computer geeks” to physically plant bugs in the computers of Maori organisations or change the settings to allow remote access;
· they were told to gather intelligence on internal iwi business negotiations, finances and Treaty of Waitangi claims, and inter-tribal communications;
· they were instructed to watch for “dirt” on Maori leaders;
· and that serious divisions exist within the NZ Intelligence community, with some spies believing that the SIS is too deferential to its Big Brothers in the US, UK and Australia.
The articles provided considerable detail to back up its claims, including all sorts of insights into SIS operational methods, training and even down to the nitty gritty of how these characters got paid (one article consisted of an e-mail question and answer session with one of the anonymous spies). One of the iwi organisations targeted allowed the writers to trawl through its invoices and computer records, which established overwhelming proof that the spy who claimed to have bugged their computers had performed extensive “maintenance” work on those computers in the period that he said that he done so (posing as a repair man and technician).
Basically the spooks reckoned that their motivation for going public and exposing this politically explosive spying was because they became disgusted by what they were doing. As one said: “I met some nice people, not activists or criminals, and I just started questioning myself what it was all about” (ibid., 21/11/04, “Citizens targeted by SIS”).
The Minister in Charge of the SIS (and the GCSB) is always the Prime Minister. Helen Clark usually refuses all comment on “security matters”, continuing the bipartisan policy of all New Zealand governments in the nearly 50 years of the SIS’ existence. But, unusually, in this case she commented, indeed she came out swinging, denying the claims in their entirety, saying that she is responsible for signing all SIS bugging warrants and that she had never signed any warrants to spy on the groups specified in the articles. She described the claims as “laughable” and said she had been assured by Richard Woods, the SIS Director, that they were a “work of fiction” (ibid.)
“…However the operations described in Leaf appear to have used surveillance techniques that did not require formal warrants and therefore reporting to the Minister and Parliament. It is not clear that Clark would have been informed of the existence or the scale of Operation Leaf… Until October 1, 2003, SIS operatives could covertly access other people’s computer systems without obtaining a SIS interception warrant. It is not clear whether warrants were obtained for the Leaf operations after that date” (ibid., “Citizens targeted by SIS”, 21/11/04). The article doesn’t specify what law came into effect on that date, but our research leads us to conclude that it could only have been the Crimes Amendment Number 6 Act (more popularly known as the Swain Bill, named after Paul Swain, the Minister who introduced it, at the turn of the century). For ABC’s submission on this noxious piece of legislation – one among many such Acts in recent years – go to http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/subswain.html.
Contractors Give The SIS “Plausible Deniability”
The articles also made very clear that the likes of the “computer geeks” used to bug Maori computers would have been contractors, not actual SIS agents (this is all allowed for in the SIS legislation, going back to the original 1969 Act). Why? For all the same reasons that any employer likes using contractors rather than actual employees (they’re much cheaper, and can be used only when needed). But also, for the reason unique to spy agencies – the use of such contractors provides “plausible deniability” if something goes wrong, such as the operation’s cover being blown. In 1998, I sat through the one and only day of an actual court hearing of Aziz Choudry’s damages claim against the Government, arising from the bungled 1996 SIS break-in at his Christchurch home – refresh your memory about this landmark case at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/choudry.htm – and one thing that struck me was the reference to the fact that the SIS can legally use contractors (the wording is along the lines of “or any authorised persons”) to do its dirty work. Private investigators, moonlighting cops, military personnel and security guards, “computer geeks”, maybe good old-fashioned “patriots”. The SIS was so anxious to avoid having to spend any more time in court having its dirty laundry examined in public that the (National) Government settled the Choudry case out of court.
Not surprisingly the Sunday Star Times articles created a sensation. Other papers had a field day attacking that paper for refusing to divulge its sources (which is the golden rule of journalism, after all) and in speculating on likely candidates, giving great prominence to one fellow with a very colourful background (including having been a Labour candidate). They also suggested that the involvement of Nicky Hager - routinely disparaged as a “conspiracy theorist”, or as a “Leftwing agitator” (Press, 26/11/04, editorial, “SIS Inquiry welcome”) – would have particularly raised Clark’s hackles. Why? Because, so the theory goes, the political fallout from Nicky’s last bombshell piece of investigative journalism, his book “Seeds Of Distrust” (about the cover up of the importation of genetically engineered corn) which was released just before the 2002 election, stuffed up Labour’s grand plan to be able to govern alone without having to pay any heed to minor parties.
On the contrary, Nicky Hager is a world-renowned researcher and writer on all matters military and Intelligence (what’s that old saying about prophets being without honour in their own lands?). He wrote the seminal 1996 book “Secret Power: New Zealand’s Role In The International Spy Network”, which comes complete with a glowing Foreword by David Lange, one of Clark’s predecessors as a Labour Prime Minister. In it, Lange says that he learned more about the workings of NZ’s Intelligence agencies from Nicky’s book than when he had been Minister “in Charge” of them. Perhaps Clark should likewise do some reading of the essential Hager, rather than mouthing off about it.
Plus it is entirely plausible that the SIS would regard Maori (in the very broadest definition) to constitute a subject of interest to them, and quite likely a threat to the State (or, at least, their definition of the State). For the past several years all things Maori have constituted the hot button issues for the Labour government. It performed astonishing policy U turns to pander to the perceived Pakeha backlash evidenced by National’s temporarily soaring into the opinion polls lead following Don Brash’s January 2004 Orewa speech attacking “special treatment for Maori”. The foreshore and seabed issue and the resulting defection of former Cabinet Minister, Tariana Turia, from Labour and the creation of the Maori Party (which genuinely does threaten Labour’s traditional monopoly of the seven Maori seats at the 2005 election) has taken an enormous amount of the Government’s time and energy to try to contain and control. Maori radicalism is seen as a threat to be stamped on, as confirmed by the unprecedented December 2004 decision to lay a charge of seditious conspiracy (last used more than 80 years earlier) against a man accused of being involved in a protest against the foreshore and seabed law (the one which left an axe embedded in the window of Helen Clark’s Auckland electorate office).
Chris Trotter Trots Out His Theories On The Choudry Case Again
So, the question needs to reversed – why wouldn’t the SIS be spying on Maori, with or without the explicit instructions of its Minister? The Establishment’s tame Lefty, Chris Trotter, sees it as entirely likely. Trotter brings his own particular slant to the story, using it to dredge up the Choudry case yet again (http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/choudry.htm). Back in PR 23, June 2001, we reported (“Trotter Trots Out Rot: The Strange Resurrection Of The SIS Break-In Case”, Murray Horton) that he had written, both in the Independent (14/2/01, “Perhaps The SIS Was Right To Burgle Choudry’s House) and in Political Review, which he edits, that the reason the SIS was trying to break into Aziz’s Christchurch home in 1996 was because the latter’s house guest was Dr Alejandro Villamar, from Mexico. You can read that 2001 PR article online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/trotrot.htm.
In his regular Independent column (1/12/04; “True Lies”), Trotter now goes further. “…The SIS's routine surveillance of Maori radicals and Helen Clark's knowledge of it was first drawn to my attention in March 1999, not long after the anti-free trade activist, Aziz Choudry, received an unspecified, but rumoured-to-be large, sum in compensation for the SIS's unlawful entry into his Christchurch home on 13 July 1996…For it appears that Dr Villamar was not Choudry's only house guest that week. The woodsman of One Tree Hill, Mike Smith, was being billeted at the same Christchurch address (in the 1990s, leading Maori radical, Mike Smith, became famous/notorious for his unsuccessful attempt to cut down the solitary tree on Auckland’s One Tree Hill. He started a trend, which led to the tree’s ultimate demise. Ed.).
“Now, at last, the pieces of the puzzle could be put together. Villamar, whose organisation the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade, was sympathetic to the plight of indigenous peoples the world over, would, at the time of his New Zealand visit, have been extremely interested in the ongoing struggles of the Mayan Indians of Chiapas province in Southern Mexico.
“On 1 January 1994, the Mayans rose in revolt against the Mexican government's signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Calling themselves the Zapatistas, after the Mexican revolutionary hero Emillio Zapata, and led by the mysterious ‘Commandante Marcos’, the Mayans were soon at the forefront of one of the world's most sophisticated indigenous rights and anti-globalisation movements.
“In 1995 the Whanganui River iwi, backed by the wider indigenous rights movement of Aotearoa-New Zealand, had mounted its own regional rebellion by staging a highly successful occupation of Moutoa Gardens in the provincial city of Wanganui. Most of New Zealand's Maori ‘radicals’ - Mike Smith included – had participated in the occupation, led by Ken Mair and a hitherto unknown Maori activist, Tariana Turia.
“Free trade, indigenous rights, Mexico and New Zealand were also linked together when in 1995-96 the multinational corporate giant, International Paper, began investigating the feasibility of establishing a pulpwood industry in the strife-torn Chiapas province. Taking its lead from Americans, who had just acquired Carter Holt Harvey, Fletcher Challenge Forests decided to investigate the possibility of setting up a complementary forestry biotechnology company in Chiapas to produce and market tree seedlings genetically engineered to yield pulpwood with short growing times (Independent, 14/2/01).
“Clearly, Aziz Choudry, Alejandro Villamar and Mike Smith had plenty to discuss in July 1996. That the SIS was interested in those discussions would have come as no surprise to any of them. From 1 July 1996, the SIS had become legally responsible for ‘making a contribution to New Zealand's international and economic well-being’…”.
Our rebuttal to Trotter’s farfetched conspiracy theory is in the 2001 PR article (see Link, above) and there’s nothing new in this latest “revelation” to make us change our minds. But he goes further in his latest article, asking if the Sunday Star Times writers “have been misdirected into revealing a series of fantasies in order to facilitate a much more ambitious undertaking?…The Government of Helen Clark is not highly regarded by the Intelligence agencies of those two countries (US & UK)…Those in charge of the security of the English-speaking world, especially the Americans, have always been sensitive to the dangers posed to global order by such ‘bad examples’ (NZ’s refusal to join the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ed.). I can’t imagine they’d be sorry to see Helen Clark replaced by Don Brash at the next election. Since the collapse of Communism, the Pakeha majority’s fear of Maori nationalism has always struck me as the most obvious place for Labour’s enemies to start prodding. Sufficiently provoked, radical elements within Maoridom can be relied - or even prevailed – upon to stoke that fear and drive a jittery electorate into the eager arms of the Right…” (Independent, 1/12/04; “True Lies”).
That’s a heady brew with a cast of thousands – Aziz, Zapatistas, Maori radicals, Western Intelligence, Don Brash, all apparently working, directly or indirectly, to undermine and get rid of Trotter’s beloved Clark government. We stand by what we said in 2001, in rebuttal to Chris Trotter’s first version of this conspiracy theory. ABC has no opinion on Maori nationalism one way or the other, and no relationship with Maori activists (but, wearing my other hat, that of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa, I do have a longstanding productive relationship with some of them). However, we have no doubt that they would be both amused and insulted at the suggestion that they are being manipulated by foreign Intelligence agencies to get rid of the present Government. We’re sure they can find plenty of motivation of their own to challenge the State, regardless of which party is in power.
ABC Joins Call For Independent Inquiry
Getting back to the here and now, and the matter at hand. As soon as the Sunday Star Times articles were published, there were calls for an inquiry into what the hell the SIS thought it was up to. Some of Operation Leaf’s targets were bemused. “Leading Western Bay (of Plenty) Maori leader Brian Dickson, the chief executive of Ngatierangi, who was named as a target of Government spooks…. said: ‘I thought the SIS must be having a very slow day at the office to be investigating me’…” (Stuff Website, 22/11/04; “Calls mount for inquiry into spy claims”, NZ Press Association).
One Christchurch initiative saw 17 organisations (including ABC), fronted by David Small and Leigh Cookson, of GATT* Watchdog, write to the Prime Minister calling for a full independent judicial review of the SIS. “…The recent revelations about SIS surveillance of the Maori Party and Maori organisations are consistent with a long and disturbing list of incidents involving the SIS that give the distinct impression that the Service is working to a political agenda that is inconsistent with its statutory obligations and unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders…We believe that nothing short of a full independent judicial inquiry into the SIS is acceptable. To restore public credibility, the inquiry cannot be conducted by the established oversight mechanisms.
“It cannot be conducted by the Intelligence and Security Committee because much of the SIS’s apparently unacceptable activity has occurred under the watch of that committee. And, irrespective of the standing of the current Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, that office has proved completely ineffectual in fulfilling its statutory purpose of providing the New Zealand public with a means of holding the SIS accountable for its actions…” (letter to Prime Minister, 26/11/04. Numerous other organisations wrote to GATT Watchdog complaining that they would have been only too happy to have signed on to the letter if they had been asked. It was organised at such short notice that there was no time to widely advertise it in advance). * GATT = General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The original name for what is now the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It was in the course of a GATT Watchdog-organised activity in opposition to a 1996 Christchurch meeting of Ministers for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) that David Small caught SIS agents trying to break into Aziz Choudry’s house. Both David and Aziz were leading figures in GATT Watchdog. Ed.
MPs, right across the spectrum from Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash to the Greens’ Keith Locke, called for an independent inquiry. Crucially, so did Maori Party Co-Leader, Tariana Turia, who said that she’d suspected that the phone in her Wellington Ministerial house had been bugged, while she was in the process of leaving the Cabinet and the Labour Party, earlier in 2004. She said that she’d had the house swept by a private eye, who confirmed that some sort of device had been there, but reckoned that it hadn’t been put there by the SIS, as it was too crude. The question arises – was this “crude” bug aimed at Mrs Turia, or was it left over from a historic bugging operation against a previous occupant of that Ministerial house? But certainly, the Co-Leader of the newly formed Maori Party (which has proved to be such a pain in the arse to the Government) would be a tempting target for the spooks and/or their “contractors”.
Mrs Turia laid an official complaint with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor. He immediately said that he would investigate it. This undercut Helen Clark, who had dismissed all such claims as “laughable” and “a work of fiction”. The Inspector-General was not obliged to launch an inquiry into Turia’s complaint if he believed it was without substance. Clark was never going to agree to a real inquiry into the SIS, so she opened up the broom cupboard marked “Whitewash” and hauled out the Inspector-General. Even this represented a backdown from her previous position of haughty disdain.
So, Clark had no choice but to announce (a mere few days after the publication of the Sunday Star Times articles) that the Inspector-General would hold an inquiry into all the claims. She gave no time frame for the inquiry, and at the time of writing, nothing more has been heard about it. Rest assured, however, that this is a story that still has a long way to run.
The Inspector-General
All of this, of course, focused attention on what laughably passes for oversight of the SIS and the other Intelligence agencies. There is the Inspector-General, the Commissioner for Security Warrants (a retired High Court judge, who has stayed completely out of the limelight), and the Intelligence and Security Committee. As already mentioned, the Inspector-General is Paul Neazor, also a former judge, whose previous highest legal office was as Solicitor-General in the 1980s (in which capacity he was responsible for downgrading from murder to manslaughter the charges against the French Intelligence agents captured here after the fatal bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, in 1985. That, in turn, led to the secret deal which saw those two agents released from New Zealand prisons). Neazor has a pathological dislike for publicity. When his appointment was announced, in 2004, the media discovered that the most recent photos of him dated from that 1985 Rainbow Warrior trial (which showed him as a wonderfully retro chap, complete with hat, coat and pipe, the spitting image of Georges Simenon’s iconic Inspector Maigret). And, furthermore, that he hadn’t given an interview since before then. He was singularly unforthcoming with attempts to interview him about his current job.
Being rather too honest in a media interview led to the demise of Neazor’s predecessor, the hapless Laurie Greig. To quote from David Small’s article on the Zaoui case in PR 29 (June 2004; “Ahmed Zaoui Still Imprisoned Without Charge. Government Loses Legal Battles, Inspector-General Loses Job”):
“ …the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security resigned as a direct result of his handling of (the Zaoui case). In particular he was found by the Court (of Appeal) to have expressed views and behaved in such a way that could have given the impression of bias against Mr Zaoui and in favour of the SIS.
“Two matters contributed to this finding. The first related to his comments in the infamous "outski” interview to Listener journalist Gordon Campbell (29/11/03; ‘Who Watches The Watchers?’ Greig said in that interview that, if it was up to him, Zaoui would be ‘outski’ on the next plane. Ed.). Of greater concern to the judges than the ‘outski’ remark was this statement of Laurie Greig‘s: ‘We don’t want lots of people coming in on false passports that they've thrown down the loo on the plane and saying ‘I‘m a refugee, keep me here’.
“The other issue was how the Inspector-General conferred with the Director of the SIS and officials from the Prime Minister's office in constructing a damage control operation when the media learned of the existence of a secretly recorded videotape of an interview with Mr Zaoui soon after his arrival in New Zealand. Besides the scandal of the tape being made in the first place, and then being allegedly lost, there was concern expressed that the Inspector-General, who was supposed to be reviewing all the evidence that contributed to the issuing of the Security Risk Certificate, appeared to be unaware of the tape's existence.
“In response to this matter Laurie Greig was found to have noted that he received a call from the SIS Director and written: ‘Concern that TV said I had not been told about the tape and so inference that SIS had concealed it from me" and "Reported back to ERW (SIS Director Richard Woods). Later spoke to David Lewis (Prime Minister's Press Secretary) confirming foregoing and agreed with him that advice to selected newspapers enough’. Within hours of the Court ruling that, as a result of this ‘apparent bias’, Mr Greig should stand aside from the Zaoui case, the Inspector-General tendered his resignation, in March 2004.
“Laurie Greig’s replacement in the position, Justice Paul Neazor, is not likely to reveal the personal views that influence how he exercises his discretion… the new l-G reveals very little about himself. It appears that almost everybody who has had close dealings with the former Solicitor-General vouches for his integrity. However, the same was said about Laurie Greig when he took up the position. While the issue of ‘apparent bias’ brought down Greig, any lack of ‘apparent bias’ does not address the fundamental problems with the office itself.
“In resigning, Laurie Greig saved the Government from further embarrassment. Had he chosen not to resign, he could not have been sacked. As a member of the judiciary the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security enjoys all the protection of a High Court Judge. He can only be removed by a vote in Parliament and only on very limited and specified grounds. Exhibiting ‘apparent bias’ is not one of them”.
Structural Flaws Exist Independently Of Who Holds The Job
“This protection of the judiciary from undue political influence is an essential aspect of the separation of powers, one of the pillars of a liberal democracy. However, other members of the judiciary function within a system of sophisticated internal rules, conventions and checks and balances. These include hierarchies of courts and rights of appeal, persuasive and/or binding precedents, rules about the conduct of cases and admissibility of evidence. There are, therefore, limits to how much harm can be caused by the untoward actions of any single member of the judiciary.
“The office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security exists in quasi-isolation from this broader legal apparatus. And the person holding that office exercises an extraordinary amount of individual discretion. Had Laurie Greig declined to give an interview with the Listener, as he was perfectly entitled to do, the personal views which were informing his judgment on the Zaoui case would never have been revealed and there would have been no grounds at all to have him removed from the case.
“The position of Inspector-General was introduced in 1996 at the same time as the powers of the SIS were broadened under the SIS Amendment Act. To allay public fears about this widened scope of SIS activity, the National government, supported by Labour, held up the office of I-G as a means for greater public oversight and accountability. Anyone who felt unfairly treated by the SIS, it was claimed, could raise his or her concerns with an impartial judicial watchdog.
“Laurie Greig was the first person to hold the position. Calls for his resignation began with his first case, which was one familiar to readers of Peace Researcher. He heard complaints from Aziz Choudry and me concerning events around the 1996 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Trade Ministers’ meeting in Christchurch: the SIS break-in to Mr Choudry’s house; a hoax bomb that looked like a set-up; and questionable Police searches. The Inspector-General, without confirming or denying any SIS involvement, concluded that no law had been broken. Subsequent court cases found that both the SIS and Police had acted illegally. His report could not be released without the approval of the Director and the Minister in Charge of the SIS.
“Since that time, the powers of, and resourcing available to, the SIS have increased dramatically. However, these same structural flaws in the avenues open for appeal against the SIS remain. They exist independently of the person who occupies the position of Inspector-General….”.
Neazor Is Hamstrung
This current inquiry into the claims made in the Sunday Star Times articles marks Neazor’s first test as Inspector-General. “Neazor’s SIS inquiry was initially announced as wide-ranging and powerful. In theory, Neazor has wide powers to call evidence, witnesses, demand documents and require people to testify – including members of the SIS who would otherwise be bound by a code of silence. But despite Clark’s assertion that the Inspector-General has powers not dissimilar to a court, the reality appears somewhat different. Wellington lawyer, Stephen Price, says the Inspector-General is not really acting judicially in conducting the investigation. Neither is he technically a commission of inquiry. Price points out that the maximum fine in statute that Neazor could impose on anyone who refused to testify is $5,000…
“Other problems beset the Inspector-General. The way his office is set up means he is largely beholden to SIS Director, Richard Woods, for much of his information about the SIS. While Clark has assured Neazor that the Director will fully cooperate, it is likely Woods will remain guarded. The office of the Inspector-General has finally been separated from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – a far too cosy association that led to the appearance that Greig was too close to both the SIS and the Prime Minister’s office.
“Neazor’s office is now nominally attached to the Department of Justice. But while Neazor has the power to co-opt anyone he likes to assist him with his inquiries, his office has an overall budget of just $62,000 a year - $32,000 for fees including his own part-time salary, and $30,000 for servicing and administration. Hardly enough to start hiring QCs (Queen’s Counsels, the most senior lawyers. Ed.), and private investigators to check up on the SIS…” (Press, 4/12/04; “Head above the parapet”, Colin Espiner).
He does, however, have the legal right to initiate his own inquiries, without waiting for a complaint or instructions. And Clark has made clear that it is up to Neazor to request the resources that he may need to do his job properly. But, most cripplingly, the Inspector-General is expressly forbidden, by the law which created his office, from inquiring into SIS “operationally sensitive matters”. And the Prime Minister has several legal grounds under which s/he can block the Inspector-General’s access to SIS information.
So it’s no wonder, that even if he were so inclined to really investigate the SIS, he is hamstrung. David Small was quoted, in the same Press feature, as saying: “The Inspector-General operates in isolation from the rest of the judiciary and is beholden to the Director of the SIS, so it is no wonder he gets it wrong” (ibid.). Neazor works alone and part-time, with no research staff to help him. The Listener’s Gordon Campbell, the mainstream media’s best journalist on Intelligence matters, wrote: “If New Zealand is truly living in a new world of vigilance after 9/11, the Inspector-General patently needs to be funded and staffed along the lines of the Police Complaints Authority or the Ombudsman’s office. He also needs wider powers to investigate the SIS and its operations” (Listener, 4/12/04; “Intelligence test. How do we best regain control of the security services, without jeopardising their role?”).
“Oversight” Committee Averages Less Than Two Minutes Per Week
As for the Intelligence and Security Committee, there is a common misconception that it is a Parliamentary Select Committee. Gordon Campbell, who should know better, refers to it as such in his Listener article quoted above. As I wrote in PR 27 (August 2003; “Who Watches The Watchers? The Intelligence And Security Committee”): “It, very deliberately, is not one of Parliament’s Select Committees and they are prohibited from examining anything to do with Intelligence and security agencies. It is a statutory committee, a committee of Government, not of Parliament. As such, it is not governed by Select Committee procedures and can conduct its hearings in total secrecy. It is a throwback to the old First Past The Post system, and makes no pretence of representing all the parties in Parliament. Membership is determined exclusively by the Prime Minister. She is automatically a member and she can nominate two others; the Leader of the Opposition is also automatically a member and he can nominate one other…”.
In September 2004, the Greens’ Keith Locke revealed that the Committee had met just five times since the July 2002 election, for a total of 211 minutes (the longest meeting being 49 minutes – ABC meetings always take longer than that). As he said: “A Parliamentary Select Committee meets together for longer each week than this Committee has in two years. The very people who are entrusted with ‘watching the watchers’ actually spend less than two minutes a week, on average, doing their job…The time has come to review the Committee’s composition, powers and role. Its make-up isn’t representative of Parliament, it clearly does not meet often enough and it doesn’t have access to operational material” (press release, 1/9/04; “Spy-watchers neglect their duties”).
All of this, combined with the embarrassing exposure of the total lies peddled by the major Western Intelligence agencies to justify the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, has meant that the NZ media has felt the need to cast a critical eye over the SIS, which it does periodically (but never over the GCSB, which is far more important to those same Western Intelligence agencies and their imperial wars than the poor blundering SIS will ever be). So 2004 saw a spate of lengthy articles examining its shortcomings, both historic and current. The Choudry/Small case (which now dates back nearly a decade) was dusted off and publicised all over again. Why? Because it provides the absolute textbook example of the SIS caught in the act. As such, it has become part of New Zealand law, politics, history and cultural mythology. Everyone knows about it, it’s so obvious and easy to understand (and I must say that I derive a quiet satisfaction in the small personal role that I played in seeing that whole saga through to its far from inevitable outcome). Once again, David Small was all over the media – he does it so very well (Aziz Choudry has lived in Canada since 2002, and has not been back to New Zealand). Stumbling upon those clowns in the bushes at Aziz’s place set both David and Aziz onto the path to media stardom.
One point to clearly emerge is that the SIS, and its nominal political masters, still operates an absurd and anachronistic culture of secrecy. David pointed out that one of the previously classified pieces of SIS evidence released under court order in the Choudry case was a Christchurch map with Aziz’s street highlighted on it. “Was it a threat to national security to know the SIS were using road maps?” (Press, 4/12/04; “Best to say nothing?”, Warren Gamble). Nor is this confined to current “secrets” – in November 2003, Helen Clark announced a policy on public access to old SIS files. “The SIS will release no documents less than 50 years old (the SIS itself is not yet 50 years old. Ed.), and sensitive subjects must wait until 100 years after the death of those concerned. 99% of old personal and subject files will simply be destroyed and – very convenient when you’re the Minister signing the warrants – all information about who is bugged will be withheld indefinitely” (Press, 7/2/04; “Bugged by secrecy”, Nicky Hager). By contrast, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is actively assisting a writer who is doing a book about ASIO spying on political activists in the 1960s and 70s. Plus ASIO has a Website with actual information on it, as opposed to what the SIS has on offer in cyberspace.
But Wait! The SIS Has Found Some Terrorists
All of these recent developments constitute further bad public relations for both the SIS and the Government. So what did it do? In time-honoured fashion, it came out claiming that it had uncovered “international terrorists” and was, therefore, indispensable in defending the country from the catchall post-9/11 bogeymen. Just days before Christmas 2004 it released its “startling” Annual Report to Parliament. Lacking only a drum roll, trumpet fanfare and creepy horror movie music, it claimed, for the first time, that it suspects that terrorists and/or their sympathisers are operating in New Zealand. The Report claimed that the SIS had investigated everything from people with links to terrorists, to “links in New Zealand to weapons of mass destruction development programmes overseas… and people operating in New Zealand and overseas to procure equipment or technology for foreign governments” (Press, 21/12/04; “SIS tails Islamic terrorist groups”, Colin Espiner). That was enough for Don Brash, who had previously called for an independent inquiry into the claims in the Sunday Star Times articles. The only things the Report lacked were any details or evidence whatsoever.
It made a great front page lead story to frighten the Christmas shoppers but the Greens’ Keith Locke put it into perspective the next day. “It seems more likely the SIS is trying to justify its existence, because if there really were several people in New Zealand linked to international terrorist organisations, we would have seen some sight of it, or someone would have been charged” (Press, 22/12/04; “Critics dismiss SIS suspicions”, Jarrod Booker).
This was the second time in 2004 that the SIS publicly claimed that it was dealing with suspected terrorists in New Zealand. In March, its Director, Richard Woods, met the media in a “rare” briefing in the appropriately spooky setting of the emergency bunker under the Beehive (apparently he shares a fondness for bunkers with his fellow famous troglodytes, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden). Woods said that the SIS vets all applications for NZ citizenship (26,000 in the previous year) and that he had personally intervened to prevent three applicants from being granted citizenship, on the grounds that they could use Kiwi passports to plan terrorism overseas. But, tellingly, the Government had done nothing to revoke the permanent residency status of these unnamed individuals, let alone deport them. When asked about that obvious contradiction, Woods could only reply: “You can make your own judgments about that. It’s an immigration matter” (Press, 17/3/04; “SIS vetoes bids for passports”, Leah Haines). Once again, Keith Locke put it into perspective, saying that it was a public relations campaign to assuage concerns after the dreadful train bombings in Madrid that month by Islamic terrorists (which killed nearly 200 people). Keith pointed out that the only previous case of the SIS intervening in a citizenship application had gone badly for it, with the Sikh national who had been rejected later getting citizenship (ibid.).
And these claims of uncovering people with “links to international terrorists” need further explanation. One example, wearing my Philippines Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA) hat: the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), its New People’s Army, and Party founder, Jose Maria Sison, have all been included (ludicrously) on various lists of “international terrorists”. I say ludicrous, because they have been fighting a civil war of national liberation for 35+ years, without the slightest “international” component to it, not even when the US military had huge bases in the Philippines. Not to mention the absurdity of lumping Maoist Communists on the same lists as the likes of fanatically anti-Communist obscurantists like bin Laden. But their inclusion on such lists has very real adverse consequences, particularly for Sison, who lives in Dutch exile, and is in legal peril (with a global support campaign being waged on his behalf, both legally and politically). PSNA routinely receives, electronically, the newsletter of the CPP and a whole stream of press releases and articles from Sison and the CPP. Does that make us a “link to international terrorists”? If so, perhaps I’d better shine a torch into our hedge before going to bed every night in case there’s any spooks hiding in it. And what about the fact that when Sison made a high profile NZ speaking tour in 1986 (after nine years of imprisonment without charge, and torture, under the Marcos dictatorship), the most high profile politician to attend his Wellington public meeting was none other than – Helen Clark. Does that make her a “sympathiser of international terrorism”?
No matter, the Clark government is sticking to the SIS through thick and thin (or should that be, thick and thicker?). In December 2004, the Prime Minister announced the creation of a threat-establishment group, to be headed by the SIS. The group would be charged with assessing “terrorist threats, crime in countries visited by New Zealanders, and other potential threats to New Zealand interests” (Press, 21/12/04; “SIS tails Islamic terrorist groups”, Colin Espiner). That should narrow the field down a bit.
SIS Needs To Be Cleaned Up, At The Very Least
2004 was a vintage year for the SIS. It stuffed up big time in the Zaoui case, which it had been doing since 2002, and the courts finally got sick of the whole squalid business, and released him on bail. The Sunday Star Times articles provided a very detailed analysis of a large scale spying operation against individuals and groups right across the spectrum of Maoridom. Throughout it all the media returned time and again to the textbook example of the 1996 Choudry/Small case, because that provides indisputable proof of the SIS’ spying on legitimate political activists. All it can do to justify its existence is to make grandiose claims that it is protecting us from terrorists, without providing any proof, of course. It finds that its’ best, and indeed, only defence, is a blanket of secrecy. That is necessary because when SIS operations see the light of day, they make a sorry sight. The temptation is always to laugh at these guys and deride them as buffoons (and I’m as guilty of that as the next person), but they hold power over people’s lives in any number of ways. We pay their wages, we are nominally their employers, yet we get no accountability and very little in the way of answers. The time has come for them to be dragged out into the daylight so we can all have a look at them and be allowed to have all the facts in order to judge their usefulness for ourselves. That’s why ABC didn’t hesitate to sign on to the call for an independent inquiry into the SIS. That should be merely the first step in the process of cleaning up, and if necessary, abolishing this most obnoxious of spy agencies.
