Surveillance in New Zealand

Being spied on - and paying for the pleasure

Kiwis pay $103m 'membership fee' for spying

David Fisher

The Waihopai Valley Satellite Station. Photo / Mark Mitchell

NZ Herald,

21 October, 2014

The $103 million taxpayer funding of New Zealand's intelligence agencies is effectively a membership fee for joining the Five Eyes surveillance club with the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, according to a de-classified report.

The report says the money pays for our spies to do a few "niche" tasks well and to use our international partners to do the rest.

The "Murdoch Report" was written by former diplomat and senior public servant Simon Murdoch in 2009 for the State Services Commissioner and classified secret because of the details contained about New Zealand's spy agencies.

It was a review of the framework in which the agencies operated, carried out at a time when New Zealand's intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States was undergoing massive change.

It was released to the Herald under the Official Information Act, requiring it to be declassified from "secret" to be mad public

Mr Murdoch charted the growth in funding for New Zealand's intelligence community, which includes "human intelligence" specialists at the NZSIS and the electronic eavesdroppers at the GCSB, finding it had doubled in staff numbers and more than tripled in cost to $103m since the September 11 2001 terror attacks in the US.

Mr Murdoch wrote the money should be seen "in the context of the annual 'subscription' paid by New Zealand to belong to the 5-Eyes community whose annual capital investment and operating outlays would dwarf our".

"It helps explain why the niche contributions that we can make to 5-Eyes burden sharing are so important and why agency heads strive to be responsive to partner demand."

The theme of working hard for the Five Eyes partners is echoed in a number of places in the report.

In describing the "way ahead", he said the intelligence community needed to "manage the expectations of NZIC's key offshore partners from the centre more actively".

He said NZ needed to show itself as a "niche contributor with capacity constraints but some high quality competencies".

The intelligence agencies have always been vague on what contribution New Zealand makes to the 5-Eyes partnership.

Speculation ranges from having good positioning on the planet for some satellite intercepts to our benign nation status being used as a staging point for electronic spying on countries less friendly to the UK or US.

Mr Murdoch listed a range of security threats faced by New Zealand, including cyber threats to IT infrastructure, "imported or homegrown Islamic militancy" and working to contain the spread of the weapons of mass destruction.

Threats also included "transboundary criminality, civilisational friction, resource rivalry and energy brinkmanship".

Mr Murdoch suggested a restructuring of the intelligence community which has only partly taken place, describing it was a collection of agencies which had grown without planning over the years.

He also illustrated the lack of constant, formal links between the heads of agencies, describing a monthly "working lunch" between spy bosses of the GCSB, NZSIS, DDIS, and the lesser known External Assessments Bureau (now National Assessments Bureau) and the Domestic and External Security Group.

The purpose of the lunches was to "share issues and perspectives", but they stopped in late 2008 because its members became too busy.

Large sections of the document are blanked out, particularly the areas which appear to discuss relationships with Five Eyes' partners.

The redactions also pose a puzzle - the glossary has removed acronyms for two organisations listed alphabetically between the NZIC (NZ Intelligence Community) and NZSIS (NZ Security Intelligence Service).

The GCSB went from about $20m a year to $50m, the NZSIS from about $10m to $35m and the little-known Directorate of Defence Intelligence and Security from $2.4m to $11.3m.

Mr Murdoch has held some of the most sensitive roles in New Zealand.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

DOCUMENT

PAGES

TEXT

Zoom

p. 1

p. 2

p. 3

«

Page 1 of  62

»

Police criticised for 2007 Urewera terror raids

Police Complaints Authority criticises illegal searches during Urewera raids

A landmark report has heavily criticised the police for illegally searching and detaining people, and for setting up unlawful roadblocks, during the Urewera raids in October 2007.

Radio New Zealand,

22 May, 2013

The Independent Police Conduct Authority on Wednesday released the findings of its investigation of the case and made a series of recommendations for change.

The authority said it received multiple complaints about 'Operation Eight' which began in late 2005 and ended on 15 October 2007 with the coordinated execution of 41 search warrants throughout the country and the establishment of road blocks at Ruatoki and Taneatua.

The authority has found that, as a whole, the police operation was reasonable and necessary, but it also faults the police for several shortcomings.

Authority chairman Judge Sir David Carruthers says it scrutinised police actions at 11 properties that were searched, after people from three different addresses complained that they and others had been personally searched.

"Police had no justification for personally searching occupants, and these searches were unlawful.

"The detention of the occupants at five properties examined by the authority was also unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable."

Judge Carruthers finds fault with the police for leading people to believe they were being detained, and has also criticised what he calls deficient planning for roadblocks set up in Ruatoki and Taneatua.

He says photographs were taken of 66 drivers, 15 passengers and some children, which left people feeling degraded and intimidated.

"It also added to people's fear and anxiety. Police did not have reasonable grounds to search vehicles at the Ruatoki roadblock. Police actions in this regard were contrary to law."

The authority has made seven recommendations, including ordering the police to repair their relationship with Tuhoe and to change Armed Offenders Squad policy

.

Police acknowledge mistakes

Police Commissioner Peter Marshall says he accepts the report's criticisms and acknowledges officers acted illegally in some parts of the raid.

Mr Marshall says the operation was a large one, with 300 officers deployed to search and raid properties around the country.

While there had been a two-year investigation leading up to the raids, he says, officers were only briefed that morning.

Mr Marshall also says the officers in charge of the road block at Ruatoki misinterpreted the legislation they were working under,but were not acting with any malice.

"There was an abundance of caution being exercised by them and they simply got in wrong in terms of the interpretation of the legislation on the roadblocks, and we accept that."

He apologises to anyone whonot involved in the investigation who was not a suspect and who was inconvenienced, frightened or distressed.

Tuhoe complaint

Tuhoe has complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority that it was not given an advance copy of the report.

The police had access to the report in advance, as allowed under the law, and Tuhoe leader Tamati Kruger says the central Bay of Plenty iwi would have appreciated a similar opportunity.