Rugby and National Security are Just Pretexts - the NZ SIS Amendment Bill Needs to be Stopped.
By Annemarie Thorby, 7 December 2010.
In the name of 'National Security', and in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup, the government is pushing through a Bill
to enhance the powers of the SIS. And John Key says, "We do not need to know what's happening."
There have been other amendments to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act (1969) over the years, but this
Bill is not a tweak here or there. This Bill is more of an overhaul. The legislation will, says Key, "...make the
operation of the New Zealand SIS more effective and efficient....But for reasons of national security, I don't want to
detail what those are."
In rushing through this Bill, the government is specifically ignoring the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. She stated
that review of the security laws should take up to three years. Key either considers that the Rugby World Cup is more
important than a careful consideration of any infringement of so-called 'civil liberties' and 'human rights' or he
specifically wants to trample even more over those rights.
Before the rugby kicks off next year, the government wants the following powers in place for the SIS:
1. more use of electronic tracking devices, computer-based surveillance, and other technologies like cellphones and
cyber identities. (This probably means that there is also a catch-all clause in the legislation comparable to the
Residual Warrant Clause in the Search and Surveillance Bill. That is, a clause to allow surveillance to cover and use as
yet uninvented technological developments.)
2. protect SIS personnal and those acting under SIS warrants from legal liability, regardless of whether the
warrant is for a NZ or foreign citizen. (Protection from liability only currently applies to domestic warrants. Another
interesting phrase is 'those acting under SIS warrants' – the implication is that the SIS contracts out some of its
work)
3. and amend rules around delegation powers for the Director of Security.
So what is the SIS?
The SIS was created in 1956, although their files date back to the waterfront dispute of 1951 and they have archives
going back to 1919. They were established when the cold war was in full swing and one of the biggest threats was
supposed to be the Soviet invasion.
The purpose of the SIS is to gather 'intelligence' on anything that threatens the 'national security' and to assess the
risk posed. This means spying on anyone they consider a potential danger – from individuals (both NZ citizens and
visitors, e.g Ahmed Zaoui, Keith Locke), to groups of people (HART, Greenpeace). There is very little parliamentary
oversight of the SIS and there is no complaints process for the public. The director of the SIS is directly responsible
to the Prime Minister.
The focus of the SIS appears to change according to what is currently en-vogue in terms of 'national threats'. In 1979,
terrorism was added to espionage, sabotage, and subversion as a security risk in an amendment to the NZ SIS Act (1969).
Economic well-being and international well-being were also later added.
The SIS goes through cycles of rapid growth. From the mid-1970s to 1983, during the times of the Land March, a Royal
Tour, the Springbok Tour, and the 1980s land re-occupations, the SIS doubled in size. Another increase in the SIS budget
was after the ‘war on terror’ began.
Over the years, there have been some amendments to the NZ SIS Act (1969). For example, in 1999 the SIS Act was amended
to retrospectively legalise searches of private premises and homes. In 1996 the SIS were caught red-handed in the act of
burgling Aziz Choudry's home. Aziz, a Christchurch activist, sued the SIS but after several hearings the court turned
down his case – it found that judges have no place in matters of 'national security', the SIS had argued that the
court-case jeopardised an unspecified on-going operation. However, Aziz was later awarded a substantial amount in an
out-of-court settlement.
It is interesting to note that in the few recent cases of actual 'terrorism' in NZ, the SIS were taken by surprise.
Someone bombed the Wellington Trades Hall in 1984, killing unionist and cleaner Ernie Abbot. And when the French
government bombed the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, the SIS were also nowhere to be seen. But that was most probably because
they were too busy spying on Greenpeace to notice the foreign secret agents working within Greenpeace – or maybe they
just turned a blind eye to them.
According to the SIS leaflet available on their web-site, most people should have nothing to fear from them. They only
work "in a manner that is both lawful and proportionate. We do not investigate institutions or individuals solely because of
their faith, creed, nationality or ethnicity or because they engage in lawful protest activity."
However, anyone reading the SIS archives and files made public over the last few years, would not have much faith in the
words printed on any SIS leaflet. The SIS files show that the SIS have been snooping on a variety of people around NZ.
Basically anyone who holds a Tino Rangitiratanga flag or attends a left-wing meeting is liable to get noticed by the
SIS. If you oppose the government or work to bring change to the system, it is highly likely that you will be under
surveillance at some stage of your life.
The Rugby World Cup and 'National Security' are just a pre-text to rush through more legislation that further enhances
SIS powers to snoop and spy. It is yet another example of legislation that the NZ Law Commissioner warned us against
twenty years ago when he said that, “The danger is that States will over-react… [I]t is possible to imagine government
officials doing more to destroy democracy in the name of counter-terrorism than is presently likely to be achieved by
terrorists themselves.” [NZLC R22 Wellington 1991].
The NZ SIS Amendment Bill needs to be stopped. Rather than expanding the powers of the SIS, we should be curtailing them
and seriously reviewing their role in this country.
ENDs