A report by prominent Māori lawyer Matanuku Mahuika and former Solicitor General Sir Terence Arnold has criticised New Zealand's national security system for lack of transparency. Photo / NZME
A comprehensive review into New Zealand's national security system has found there is a lack of transparency from intelligence agencies on their activities, and is concerned over the effectiveness of control and oversight mechanisms.
The Taumaru report is the first review into New Zealand's intelligence and security laws since the Intelligence and Security Act was established in 2017. Since then, the country has experienced two terror attacks, and seen a rise in cybersecurity threats, foreign interference, and disinformation.
The 274 page report, written by former Solicitor General Sir Terence Arnold and prominent Māori lawyer Matanuku Mahuika, looked into the operations and oversight of New Zealand's two intelligence and security agencies: The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS).
It made 52 recommendations, which the government will now consider.
The review was brought forward following the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks. That report criticised the transparency and scale of New Zealand's national security system, saying it functioned as a collection of agencies with little shared direction.
There was currently no definition of what "protection of national security" actually meant in the act.
The report recommended applying one, suggesting defining it as "the protection of New Zealand, its communities and people from activities that are threats because they undermine, or seek to undermine, one or more of New Zealand's..." - and then a list of the types of activities that could constitute a threat.
It suggested the agencies make public what their priorities actually were, so the public had a realistic understanding of what they actually did. The authors believed this would enable meaningful public engagement, and enhance the agencies' social license to operate in New Zealand.
The report also recommended the Intelligence and Security Committee be overhauled. Established in 1996, it is the only select committee chaired by a member of the Executive (the prime minister). It also meets less frequently than other committees.
But the report believed this meant the committee lacked independence from the Executive, and the time and capacity to undertake meaningful scrutiny of the agencies' work. It suggested stopping members of the Executive from serving on the committee, instead replacing them with a broad cross-party selection of MPs.
Currently, the committee only scrutinises the work of the GCSB and NZSIS. The report said it should be expanded to other agencies such as the Defence Force, Customs Intelligence, Immigration Intelligence, and Police Intelligence.
The issuing of warrants also came under scrutiny, with the report recommending the provisions be adjusted so warrants relating to New Zealanders and non-New Zealanders were subject to the same requirements. Tweaks to how intelligence was collected, shared, retained, and disposed of were also recommended.
It also found, unusually for such a modern piece of legislation, there was no mention of te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Act.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said the government would not release a response to the report until it had consulted with other parties in Parliament.
"The government will now fully consider the report and await advice assessing the potential impact of the proposals, before taking decisions on the recommendations," Hipkins said.
"While responding to the review will take time, we are committed to doing so in a timely way to ensure the Act remains clear, effective, and fit for purpose."
At Monday's post-Cabinet media briefing, Hipkins said: "We've only had one very preliminary conversation about the report so far. The commitment that I have made to the other parties in Parliament, I don't think there's any need for this to become a political football.
"The review panel has produced a challenging set of recommendations ... I think we owe it to them to go through those effectively one by one and consider contestable advice on that."
In terms of parliamentary scrutiny on the relevant agencies, he said there was room for doing that better.
"Whether what the panel have come up with is the right way of doing that I'm not convinced, but I certainly think there's room for discussion about how we can improve the robustness of the scrutiny our intelligence agencies.
He says the proposal put forward would mean having MPs overseeing the agencies without having access to contestable advice.
"In reality the ministers at the moment - me, as the minister for national security and intelligence and also the leader of the opposition who has interaction with the security agencies, and also international interaction in this space can actually bring a different perspective that a backbench MP might not be able to."
"I'm not taking things off the table."
The response to the report will be led by Hipkins and the minister responsible for the GCSB and NZSIS, Andrew Little.