Rebecca
Kitteridge, CVO, Director-General of Security for New Zealand (who was
appointed to post in May 2014) told members of the Intelligence and
Security Committee of the New
Zealand Parliament in Wellington on 20 February 2019, in evaluating New
Zealand’s ‘terrorism threatscape’ that “currently, the national terrorism
threat level is set at ‘low’, which means an attack is assessed as possible but
not expected.”
She
added ‘Low’ does not mean no threat. The threat level is continually under
review and can change, and we need to be prepared for that.”(https://www.nzsis.govt.nz/news/speech-opening-statement-to-the-intelligence-and-security-committee/)
Less than three weeks
later to most devastating terrorist attack, leaving at least fifty muslim worshipers
dead in two mosques in Christchurch. (“Christchurch
mosque shootings: In one day, more people were killed in New Zealand than
usually murdered in a year,” NZ Herald, 15 March 2019; www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213233)
Ms
Kitterigde – who has a background in law - joined the New Zealand
Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) after six years as Secretary of the
Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council, within the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet, and has served under four Prime Ministers and four
Governors-General in that role.
She
is reported to believe that a ‘secure state’ and a well-informed government as
fundamental in supporting and maintaining the New Zealand way of life.
But in an exclusive interview
with the NZ Herald last May, she admitted to a hole
in the law in a memo (dated 30 June 2017) to former NZSIS minister Chris
Finlayson "the NZSIS no longer had
the power to apply for a visual surveillance warrant" or to use emergency
power to act without a warrant in emergencies.”
The same article alarmingly
revealed “A law-making bungle deprived our
spies of a key weapon against terrorism in the wake of classified briefings
warning of "an increasingly complex and escalating threat
environment" in New Zealand.NZ Security Intelligence Service documents
revealed the blunder left our spies unable to use video surveillance tools to
watch terrorism suspects in their cars, homes or workplaces for six months last
year.
The documents, declassified and released through the
Official Information Act, also revealed NZ spies had been involved in ‘high
threat operations’.”
(“Our spies disarmed by legal
blunder amid 'high threat operations' against terrorists”; NZ Herald, 8 May, 2018; www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12046732
In
her evidence to the NZ Parliament three weeks ago, Ms Kitteridge outline the
key threats she believed New Zealand is facing and “what we are doing about
them.”
Terrorism and Violent Extremism
At
any one time, around 30 people are of particular interest to the NZSIS, she
stressed But, this number is not static. As investigations into individuals of
interest are resolved or their activities of concern diminish, other
individuals of interest emerge. The overall number accordingly fluctuates over
time, but during the reporting period the number of more serious concern remained steady.
A
small but concerning number of New Zealanders continue to engage with often
violent online radical Islamist content and radical ideology which presents a
risk to others, she added, going on to state:
“As
I have said previously, there is a small number of New Zealand citizens – men
and women, some of whom are dual citizens – who are likely in the conflict zone
in Syria. As you can imagine, it is very difficult to obtain accurate
information about the fate of those individuals because the situation is very
fluid. We are working with international partners to obtain intelligence
about any New Zealand person who may be involved in the conflict.”
But
it was clear the main concern was Islamic terrorism. She emphasised that “In the
event of a return of a foreign terrorist fighter or somebody who has travelled
to the conflict zone to join ISIL, we would work closely with New Zealand
Police and other agencies. That contingency planning has been in train for some
time.Within the wider geographic region, extremist groups remain influential in
Southeast Asia. There is an ongoing threat to travellers and Western interests
in the region.”
Observing
that “over the past three years, many Southeast Asian countries have
experienced a second wave of extremist attacks, “ she pointed out “Just last month (January 2019) ISIL claimed
responsibility for the bombing of a church in Jolo, Philippines. The attack
killed at least 20 people and injured over 100 others”.
Internationally,
Al-Qaida retains influence and capability, particularly in the Middle East and
North Africa, but with links elsewhere. Their capability has been degraded but
not destroyed.
Finally
she added -almost as an afterthought- that “Internationally the slow, but
concerning rise of right wing extremism also continues.”
Yet
it was this species of malevolent manic terrorism that devastated Christchurch
last Friday morning.
After
her Cabinet meeting on Monday 18th March, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced a new
review of government agencies including the Security intelligence Service and
Government Communications Security Bureau. (“Christchurch mosque shootings: Changes
to gun laws coming, NZ Herald,19 March https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213986
This, despite the fact
that just last August Ms Ardern’s office
announced publication of the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) follow-up
review of the New Zealand Intelligence Community, 30 August 2018; www.nzic.govt.nz/assets/assets/SSC43-PIF-NZIC-31jul.pdf)
NZ’s Counter-Terrorism legislation under
review
NZ’s
intelligence chief told the NZ MPs’ intelligence public hearing last month that as “has been stated publicly, the Government is
seeking to review New Zealand’s counter-terrorism legislative settings,” adding
that NZ’s counter-terrorism legislative regime spans several statutes, and has
evolved over time, often in response to significant events like 9/11.
But,
she stressed; the NZSIS does not lead policy work on legislation, but are
actively working with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
Ministry of Justice and Police to analyse the counter-terrorism legislation
regime “to ensure that it is fit for purpose.” However, she qualified this with
the cautious “As this work is still underway I am unable to comment further at
this stage. Outcomes will be reported to Ministers in due course”.
Protective security functions
Later,
she added “In addition to our intelligence functions, NZSIS also has protective
security functions for which it is responsible.Ensuring we have strong
protective security settings across our public and private sector is a way we
can help protect New Zealand from some of the key methods deployed ...”
She
closed by asserting she was extremely proud of the “unwavering commitment” [of
her staff] to protecting the security of
our country, and the safety of their fellow New Zealanders.
Through
their hard work and dedication the Service has positively contributed to the
ongoing security and wellbeing of New Zealand and New Zealanders.
In the
annual Intelligence and national security report, which was evaluated in the hearing,
Andrew Little, Minister Responsible for the New Zealand Security
Intelligence Service it perspicaciously stated in his introduction:
"Overseas experience shows that it is possible
for someone who is not known to security and intelligence agencies to move from
radicalised to undertaking a terrorist attack or other action in a short
timeframe, often with minimal forewarning. While the NZSIS
and law enforcement counterparts work hard to identify and mitigate threats, it
is possible that an isolated individual, unknown to these agencies, could be
inspired to carry out a terrorist act in New Zealand
"https://www.nzsis.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2018-NZSIS-Annual-Report.pdf
The
report also adds: “the world is becoming increasingly challenging and
uncertain. The New Zealand Intelligence Community must be agile to adapt to
this changing environment.
We
must be alert to the risk of interference in New Zealand’s domestic affairs by
hostile states inappropriately influencing New Zealand communities or seeking
to access sensitive information and intellectual property for their own purposes. At the same time the threat posed by terrorism has
not reduced and continues to evolve. Lone actors are being influenced by
radical and violent ideologies online and may be mobilised to act, as we have
seen in other countries.
Over the
past year, I have seen the proactive efforts of the Directors-General of both
the NZSIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to increase
public awareness about the work done by the intelligence organisations and the
role they play in safeguarding our country and institutions. Sharing what they
can is an important part of building and maintaining the trust and confidence
of the New Zealand public and this is something we will continue to see.
New Zealand should be confident the work the New
Zealand Intelligence Community undertakes to understand, mitigate and manage
threats will continue to keep New Zealand and New Zealanders safe and secure. “
In her
Director-General’s Overview, Rebecca Kitteridge said: “It is essential that our work is
underpinned by a high level of public confidence and trust. New Zealanders
should feel safe to go about their daily lives knowing that our institutions,
infrastructure, and information assets are protected…”
She
interpolated a sadly very accurate prediction: The threat environment we operate in is
changing and we need to remain agile and capable to respond to, and counter,
the challenges ahead of us. One of our main priorities is to counter foreign actors seeking to
advance their own interests to New Zealand’s detriment….”
The report
itself stated: “The majority of leads identified during 2017/2018 were linked
to ISIL. Most related to individuals allegedly viewing violent or objectionable
extremist propaganda, supporting or seeking to support the activities of ISIL,
or seeking to travel offshore in order to associate with extremist groups or
terrorist entities. Upon receiving lead information, the NZSIS considers
whether a national security threat exists and if the threat meets the threshold
to trigger an investigation or a wider government response.”
It added: “With
partners such as the Police, Customs, and Immigration New Zealand, the NZSIS works to ensure threats do not escalate to
acts of violence and that New Zealanders do not become the perpetrators or
victims of terrorism” (emphasis added)
Here
are some conclusions from NZ spooks agency most recent annual report,
which in retrospect, read somewhat over-optimisticly.
Delivery
Excellence
“The
NZSIS aims to deliver high quality intelligence and security products and
advice to inform enable decision makers to make the best decisions possible.
The
NZSIS continues to work with our customers to ensure that the intelligence
provided to them is impactful, meets their requirements and is delivered in a
timely manner. We are constantly looking at our processes to see what can be
done to improve the overall customer experience.
Investing in our Capability
Over
the past four years, a number of initiatives have been underway to strengthen
and build our capabilities. These initiatives were a result of the NZIC
Performance Improvement Framework in 2014, the Independent Review of
Intelligence and Security in 2015, the Strategy, Capability and Resourcing
Review (SCRR) and subsequent Budget 2016 decisions, and the implementation of
the ISA in 2017. Change has been
necessary to ensure we are fit for purpose and significant resources have
been devoted to improving our systems, policies, processes and organisational
structures.” (emphasis added)
Last
year the NZSIS continued to focus on building strong foundations for future
growth. We have completed the second year of our four-year growth path and are
now focused on lifting the operational outcomes and impacts delivered by
the agencies.
On its fiftieth
anniversary, the Māori name for the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service
[NZSIS] -established in 1956 - Te Pā Whakamarumaru, which translates to The
Sheltering Citadel, was adopted as part of its official emblem. It reads
rather sickly now
Backstory:
Christchurch mosque shootings: In one day, more people were killed in
New Zealand than usually murdered in a year
NZ Herald, 16 March
2019
When a
gunman opened fire on a mosque in Christchurch yesterday, and a second mosque
came under attack, the resulting death toll of at least 49 people meant that
more were killed on one day than are usually murdered in an entire year in New Zealand.
Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern addressed the public last night, calling it "one
of New Zealand's darkest days."
Three
suspects are in custody, and one man, the only one so far charged with murder
in the case, released a manifesto online hinting at the years-long relative
peacefulness in New Zealand as one motive for the attack, which he suggested
would show "that nowhere in the world was safe." His claim echoed
remarks by an apparent role model, Norwegian far-right extremist Anders Breivik,
who killed 77 people — many of them teenagers — in 2011. Norway has roughly the
same population as New Zealand and an even lower murder rate.
In the
coming days, debate over New Zealand's gun laws is likely to take place in
response to the massacre.
"I
can't imagine a country less likely to let this slide than New Zealand,"
said Philip Alpers, a New Zealander professor at the University of Sydney who
founded a website that tracks gun policy worldwide.
"Jacinda
Ardern is not likely to say 'our thoughts and prayers are with you' and then
move on."
In New
Zealand, gun owners must be licensed to carry guns and gun ownership is seen as
a conditional privilege, but firearms do not have to be registered. Gun
licenses are valid for 10 years, and Alpers said the interview process for
licensing involves interviews with individuals who have intimate relationships
with prospective gun owners, including spouses, ex-spouses and roommates.
Gun laws
came under scrutiny in New Zealand in 1997, when retired High Court judge
Thomas Thorp released a report that endorsed mandatory registration and said
self-defense should no longer be considered reason enough for purchasing a gun.
The report also recommended that the government buy back military-style assault
rifles, among a number of other suggestions that were not adopted in
legislation. Now, Alpers said, essentially all those measures will be back up
for discussion, particularly regulation of assault weapons. "They are the
choice of mass killers and they will be the focus of everybody's
attention," he said.
Although New
Zealand's gun laws have triggered tense but restrained debates in the past, the
conversation isn't as heated and ideological as it is in the United States. By
comparison, American civilians are estimated to own nearly 400 million
firearms, or about 120 per 100 people. In New Zealand, civilians hold around
1.5 million firearms, averaging out to approximately one gun per three people
in the country of around 5 million.
"New
Zealanders see themselves certainly not as a gun-free nation but as a nation
with fewer firearm problems than most," Alpers said. "They look on
the U.S. as most of the world does ... with some degree of horror."
In his
alleged manifesto, the suspect charged with murder in the mosque attack
implicitly hoped for a gun debate.
"I
chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra
media coverage they would provide and the effect it could have on the politics
of United States and thereby the political situation of the world," the
manifesto says. The implied hope was that the debate may eventually escalate
tensions between supporters of gun rights and opponents and result in
civil-war-like violence that would cause more damage than one attacker or group
could do alone.
Although
some New Zealand residents have joined Islamist militant groups, the threat of
terrorist attacks has consistently been regarded as low. The European debate
over the cycle of crimes blamed on migrants and right-wing violence has largely
been unknown in New Zealand, where the far right remains marginalised. Instead,
authorities have predominantly focused on bringing down the number of
incarcerated indigenous Maori people, who are disproportionately represented in
the country's prisons.
Until
recently, police in New Zealand had not felt the need to carry firearms on
duty. Last month, however, the Canterbury district on New Zealand's southern
island broke with that protocol after a series of incidents that left a shooting
suspect on the loose.
At the time,
New Zealand Police Association President Chris Cahill told Reuters that
"more and more policemen are finding criminals with guns, so unless we
find a way of stopping these firearms from reaching them, we will have no other
choice but to arm our officers."
Analysis: Christchurch massacre - what did we miss and
who missed it?
How
did we miss this? The little we know asks questions of those who would keep us
safe.
At
first reports, New Zealand appeared to have a terrorist in the style of Anders
Behring Breivik, the far right terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway in
2011.
Breivik
was a "lone wolf" - someone who planned alone and carried out his
attack alone.
This
killer was something different. There are signs which point to an ugly rotten
core in our society which could have been identified earlier.
In
his online manifesto, he said he had recently come to New Zealand from
Australia to plan an attack.
When
he settled in, he decided New Zealand was the place to carry it out.
READ MORE
• Live: Massacre at the mosques - gunmen kill up to 30 people
• Christchurch mosque shooting: What you need to know
• Mosque shooting: Dad went in for prayers and never came out
• All Black Kieran Read locked in, waiting for his children during massacre
• Live: Massacre at the mosques - gunmen kill up to 30 people
• Christchurch mosque shooting: What you need to know
• Mosque shooting: Dad went in for prayers and never came out
• All Black Kieran Read locked in, waiting for his children during massacre
Something
happened in Christchurch which changed his views. In his manifesto, he said
"an attack in New Zealand would bring to attention the truth of the
assault on our civilisation, that nowhere in the world was safe, the invaders
were in all of our lands".
That sounds
like he's been radicalised. And the fact the attack happened here suggests
whatever influence there was on his thinking, it was domestic in origin. He
found like minds.
Then there's
the firearms.
He had
multiple firearms and, of those he did have, witnesses report the shots sound
like "firecrackers".
While some
semi-automatic rifles can be bought with a basic gun licence, repetitive
semi-automatic weapons with extended magazine capability of the sort witnesses
describe need a special category of gun licence.
It is meant
to involve extensive police checks and background inquiries of the prospective
owner.
It seems
unlikely a recent immigrant - Australian or where-ever - whose introduction to
weaponry in New Zealand is getting the most restricted licence would raise a
flag.
It seems far
more likely the weapons were supplied by people already here.
As
information emerged today, we learned four people had been arrested - three men
and a woman.
Not only did
they have extensive weaponry, they also managed to plant improvised explosive
devices across the city.
It's one
thing to fly beneath the radar as a lone wolf.
It's a
completely different proposition to join and develop a functional and organised
terrorist cell which can deliver compelling rhetoric to new recruits and then
provide weaponry, and knowledge, to carry out an attack such as today's.
Cells
operating as a group require communication and co-ordination which increases
the number of points at which authorities can notice and disrupt their plans.
We have a
number of security agencies in New Zealand which will face serious questions.
The easiest
to contemplate is the firearms. Police Minister Stuart Nash is looking at
firearms law now. He needs to look harder.
In
Whangārei, we had murder committed
by an angry man who bought weapons illegally with extraordinary ease. In
Rotorua, we had a killer convicted on forensic evidence
which owed little to police systems but to exceptional diligence by a lone
police office and ground-breaking Australian forensic work.
That's only
the firearms.
The real
danger are the people who choose to carry them and commit acts such as we have
seen today.
St John staff working to help those
injured during the rampage. Photo / Supplied
The police
force, which expends huge effort gathering and ordering intelligence on gangs,
will need to consider whether it committed sufficient resource towards the
increasingly polarised, hate-filled groups which have sprung up across Western
nations.
Gangs
largely prey upon themselves. Groups with extreme views prey upon the rest of
us.
These groups
have been responsible for a number of massacres in Western countries, which
should have tripped warning bells.
There are
hard questions for the NZ Security Intelligence Service. It has - like its
Western counterparts - a strong focus on potential threats in the Islamic
community.
Has it
dedicated the same effort to other parts of society? It certainly used to.
Pre-September 11 NZSIS tasking files pay huge attention to neo-Nazi, far right
groups.
The NZSIS -
and its electronic counterpart, the Government Communications Security Bureau -
have more funding than ever, and almost double the staff numbers they had six
years ago.
They also
now have the most powerful legislation
they have ever had.
This attack
isn't a call for new powers or greater funding. The spies have all they need in
a society such as ours - even with the shocks of today.
Instead, we
need to check how they have grown into that accelerated growth in funding and
broader legislation.
It was only
last year NZSIS director general Rebecca Kitteridge told the NZ Herald it had struggled to match its
improved capability against its need.
She had told
the former National Party spy minister Chris Finlayson in 2015 "in the
context of the threat environment we are facing, the NZSIS capabilities will
continue to be less than the demand on our services".
"We
will need to continue making difficult prioritisation decisions about which
targets we investigate [and for how long] and which we do not."
A Royal
Commission - in public, with open evidence - needs to ask those questions. The
country deserves evidence and answers. And let's not hear overblown claims of
"classified information".
It also
needs to check when the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should
have funding and staff to match the agencies her office oversees.
There's a
considerable gulf between what she has to work with and the work she needs to
do.
There's
nothing which sharpens the focus of a security service - unless it's an attack
of this sort - than an oversight agency working hard to make sure it is doing
its job properly.
NZ Herald journalist David Fisher is a member of a Reference Group
formed by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security intended to hear
views on developments possibly relevant to the work of the oversight office.
The group has a one-way function in offering views to the IGIS. It receives no
classified or special information from the IGIS or the intelligence community.
The information in this story was not sourced from Reference Group discussions.
Our spies disarmed by legal blunder
amid 'high threat operations' against terrorists; NZ Herald, 8 May, 2018; www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12046732
NZSIS director Rebecca
Kitteridge.
By:
David
Fisher, Senior writer, NZ Herald
A law-making bungle deprived our spies of a key weapon
against terrorism in the wake of classified briefings warning of "an
increasingly complex and escalating threat environment" in New Zealand.
NZ Security Intelligence Service documents revealed the
blunder left our spies unable to use video surveillance tools to watch
terrorism suspects in their cars, homes or workplaces for six months last year.
The documents, declassified and released through the
Official Information Act, also revealed our spies have been involved in
"high threat operations".
It did not state what those operations were and NZSIS
director-general Rebecca Kitteridge, in an interview with the NZ Herald,
would not elaborate other than to say they involved police assistance
She would not give details of the operations but said the
NZSIS had taken active steps with the police to stop people who wanted to carry
out terrorist attacks in New Zealand.
The details about the security situation in New Zealand is
an unnerving backdrop to the blunder over warrants allowing visual
surveillance.
Kitteridge revealed the hole in the law to former NZSIS
minister Chris Finlayson last year.
In a memo on June 30, she said "the NZSIS no longer had the power to apply for a visual surveillance warrant" or to use emergency power to act without a warrant in emergencies.
In a memo on June 30, she said "the NZSIS no longer had the power to apply for a visual surveillance warrant" or to use emergency power to act without a warrant in emergencies.
READ MORE
• David Fisher: This is how our security services expect terrorism to strike NZ
• Analysis: 'Trust me I'm from the government'
• The Big Read: How our spies wound up getting Kiwi data 'unlawfully'
• David Fisher: This is how our security services expect terrorism to strike NZ
• Analysis: 'Trust me I'm from the government'
• The Big Read: How our spies wound up getting Kiwi data 'unlawfully'
The memo said warrants to allow visual
surveillance were to "detect, investigate or prevent a terrorist
act".
But she said the NZSIS was unable to do so for
six months after the old law expired on April 1 2017 because the new
Intelligence and Security Act did not apply until September 28 2017.
PIF
follow-up review for core New Zealand Intelligence Community
Thursday,
30 August 2018
A Performance
Improvement Framework (PIF) follow-up review of the New Zealand Intelligence
Community has been released.
No comments:
Post a Comment