The report does not specify which foreign state the New Zealand citizen was collecting information for.
In the IGIS report, it details the SIS had carefully drafted the wording of the warning to give the New Zealand citizen "in a public place".
The template warning is printed in the report as such:
"My name is [xxx] from NZSIS.
"You are not being detained. Your actions are foreign interference on behalf of the [foreign country]. You are a threat to New Zealand's national security.
"You need to stop this foreign interference. We know what you are doing and so do others. You have been in the media recently and our annual report.
"Enjoy your [dinner/coffee/drinks/meeting]."
The IGIS report also evaluates the legality of the SIS warning and states they are "guided by Crown Law opinion on the matter".
"Warnings in the NZSIS context are quite different from those issued by the Police or regulatory agencies due to the law enforcement roles of those agencies," the NZSIS report states.
"I accept, as did the previous IGIS, that under the Intelligence and Security Act the NZSIS can deliver a warning, provided it is in accordance with its functions and does not amount to enforcement of measures for national security.
"As the previous IGIS noted, the fundamental question is how far the NZSIS can go in making statements designed to affect people's behaviour given it has no enforcement function."
In its conclusion, the IGIS report determines that the in-person warning was "carried out lawfully and properly".
In an accompanying media release to the IGIS report, Inspector-General Brendan Horsley went on to say the SIS can issue warnings but "has to be careful about when and how it does so".
"It is not an enforcement agency and has limited scope for action beyond its normal role of collecting and reporting intelligence," Horsley said.
"I reviewed this particular warning because it differed significantly from a past example examined by this office. While that case led to the Service developing internal guidelines on issuing warnings, I found that guidance was of limited value in this case.
"To its credit the Service recognised this. I have recommended it reviews this policy and have provided some guidance on what I expect it to cover."
Horsely said he did however find some "deficiencies in pre-operation consultation with other domestic agencies" regarding the warning.
"The way in which the Service consulted others meant it was not as well informed as it could have been on the risks involved from the perspective of other agencies. These risks were mitigated somewhat by how the operation was carried out. However similar operations in the future would be better served by more formal and robust consultation."
Horsley recommended the SIS engage with relevant New Zealand agencies to develop arrangements for how they will co-operate in these situations, and provide information on its website about when and how it may issue warnings.
An unclassified version of the Inspector-General's report has been publicly released and provided to the Minister responsible for the Service, Hon Andrew Little, with a more detailed classified version provided to the SIS.
