KEY POINTS:
The director of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has publicly suggested that his organisation should be empowered to focus on this country's gang problems, in addition to its remit in safeguarding us against all manner of foreign and domestic threats to national security.
The plan has brought
some interest from Prime Minister Helen Clark and National Leader John Key. On the face of it, the suggestion seems sensible. The SIS, after all, must justify its taxpayer funding, and gangs are every bit a threat to social cohesion as subversion by foreign agents or the actions of terrorists.
On the other hand, the plan can be seen as a populist response by politicians to an intractable social problem that has always existed but seldom been acknowledged. It is every bit as ridiculous as John Howard's plan to send in the military to sort out domestic abuse in Aboriginal communities.
The danger of such a quick-fix is that while it appears good in theory and makes it appear that politicians are "doing something" about the gang problem, the implications for individual privacy - of all of us not just gang members - are disproportionately large.
There are two real dangers. The first is that by allowing a new agency to tackle gangs, the agency with primary responsibility for this task, the New Zealand Police, already struggling to recover from numerous attacks on its integrity, will be further emasculated.
Enforcement of the law is first and foremost the duty of the police, not the secret police.
There may be a peripheral role for other agencies, such as the SIS, in intelligence gathering and perhaps in technological support, assuming of course they are really competent in using such James Bond-style contraptions, as well as monitoring international criminal connections, although there is at present little evidence that gangs are involved in any grand international conspiracy.
But the existing intelligence capability of the police, including its undercover operations, should not be underestimated. Too many meddling spooks are just as likely to spoil things.
The second danger is that to personal privacy. Giving the SIS authority to spy on gang members and possible gang members is giving it a blank cheque to potentially spy on any New Zealander.
The police generally need warrants to enter homes or intercept communications.
In the case of the SIS, this is effectively by administrative fiat, since the decisions of the Inspector-General - a retired judge - cannot be further challenged in court.
The standards associated with law enforcement tend to be lowered once intelligence agencies become involved.
The slide down this precipice can lead to detention without trial, reversal of the normal evidentiary burdens, and the use of torture.
All these have already occurred in the United States. We do not need to follow this road and there is no demonstrable threat to New Zealand from either gangs or terrorists.
In the United States post September 11, laws such as the Patriot Act have seen the slide down a slippery path - from the right to obtain library records etc, to the eventual interception of thousands of Americans' phone and internet communications without any warrant.
The United States has at least the semblance of congressional oversight over the activities of intelligence agencies.
In New Zealand, the police are accountable for their actions and operate under judicial and parliamentary scrutiny.
The same does not hold true for the SIS. The Intelligence and Security Committee is not a parliamentary committee and its proceedings are as secret as those of the SIS itself. Its members are largely appointees of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
This is too select a grouping in the age of MMP and has led to suspicion that the SIS might be used against smaller parties, such as the Maori Party. Urgent reform is needed.
The track record of the SIS does not inspire a great deal of confidence. There have been at times almost comical antics involving its employees.
The agency's processes have been called into question following its dismal performance in the Ahmed Zaoui case.
And it should not be forgotten that the SIS proved incapable of forewarning the Government of the only terrorist act to be carried out on New Zealand territory so far, the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French agents. It was the New Zealand Police who eventually apprehended two of the perpetrators.
While the need for a domestic intelligence agency cannot be seriously doubted, the uses to which it is put should be as narrow as befits such an agency in a democracy, and scrutiny of its activities should be commensurate with its functions.
The way to address gangs is to prevent young people from joining them by giving them a real stake in society, not by alienating gangs further from society by turning the spooks on them.
* Gehan Gunasekara researches privacy at the University of Auckland.
