Dunne Speaks on Security Reviews
14 October 2014
So, we are embarking on a rapid, four week review of our intelligence and security settings in the light of the rise of
ISIL and associated groups. But did we not have a major review of the GCSB legislation last year, and was not one of the
outcomes of that review a new requirement that from 30 June 2015 the GCSB and the SIS would be independently reviewed
every 5 to 7 years to ensure that they remain relevant and fit for purpose?
The answer to each of those questions is yes, so what has changed so dramatically in the last 12 months to apparently
override all of this? The rise of what Minister Finlayson described as the “international terrorist” as evidenced most
dramatically by the ISIL is the obvious answer. Repugnant as ISIL’s and related factions’ actions have been, the term is
essentially pejorative, and needs to be treated with some caution. After all, we used to talk of “freedom fighters” to
cover people who joined a variety of “liberation” movements to fight for decolonisation in Africa and Asia, without
attracting huge security attention. When New Zealanders were killed in such actions, in East Timor for example, we took
clear stances to find out what had happened. And in an earlier generation, many idealistic, progressive young people,
New Zealanders included, joined the International Brigade to fight fascism in the Spanish Civil War.
So what has changed? Is it the graphic display of the brutal atrocities being carried out by groups like ISIL? Or the
cause they are perceived to represent in this post 9/11 world?
Whatever the reason, all governments (curiously most reporting always contains the adjective “western” governments,
which may of itself be telling) are responding. That in turn is bringing renewed focus upon international intelligence
sharing arrangements, in New Zealand’s case Five Eyes, and the extent to which national sovereignty is being influenced
if not actually limited by the information being obtained and shared.
Now these are not necessarily reasons why we should be wary of the urgent review being undertaken, but they raise very
serious questions about the timing and the apparent rush to complete it, compared to, say, the more deliberate way we
are approaching the potential Ebola pandemic, arguably of far greater risk to humanity. (The Prime Minister has spoken
of legislation being passed under Urgency by the end of the year.) Yet we are scheduled to have a fully independent
review of our security services as soon as possible after 30 June 2015, and Minister Finlayson was reported at the
weekend noting the importance of that process.
Until the case for urgency is made, we are all left to speculate. For example, has this got something to do with shoring
up support for our UN Security Council seat bid, or placing New Zealand in a good international position ahead of next
month’s G20 meeting? Or will the Prime Minister’s promised major speech in the next few weeks reveal a set of
circumstances so compelling to make obvious the need to leap-frog next year’s planned reviews and introduce new measures
now, which ironically may not survive those reviews?
Time will tell, but, in the meantime, a dose of healthy caution is warranted. Breathing steadily and deeply and focusing
on the facts, not the emotive hyperbole, is the best way forward.
ends