Rhys Ball: Spy-law changes are a necessary benefit

The GCSB won't have carte blanche to spy on New Zealanders at will. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Opinion

Rules covering the GCSB and oversight of it are too loose, says Rhys Ball, so revamping them is a good thing

Despite what you might hear, changing intelligence legislation - in this case, the proposed amendments to the Government Communication Security Act - is a good thing. If there are holes they need to be repaired, for when it becomes apparent the way in which agencies operate is ambiguous the Government must remove any opportunity for multiple interpretations.

A team of professional and hugely capable civil servants with a depth of knowledge in the drafting of such laws has been called in from outside the realm of the intelligence agencies to ensure the process is accurate, robust and precise.

This is the absolute minimum necessary after the disappointing Dotcom fiasco, and is vital to restore public confidence in New Zealand's intelligence agencies. There rightly needs to be a substantial overhaul to address the failings of the law we see now.

Scaremongering by uninformed commentators - particularly since former United States contractor Edward Snowden revealed American data collection systems and other Western intelligence operations - has not helped a balanced and considered debate take place in New Zealand.

That the bureau has the capacity to collect information from a variety of sources is no secret; the challenge has always been to crack the technologies where this intelligence might sit.

I don't doubt that New Zealand's intelligence agencies could have a similar capacity to collect information and data as the American National Security Agency, but we must remember our agencies will continue to have limited budgets and, more importantly, limited need to target anyone in this country other than those whom they deem absolutely necessary to surveil.

Spying is intrusive and it is important to make sure there is absolute justification in what is being requested when a Security Intelligence Service officer or a police representative lawfully seeks a warrant for the purposes of intercepting the communications of a New Zealander.

And that does not mean that GCSB will just ask its American and British counterparts to collect on their behalf.

The bureau continues to be acutely aware of what it can and cannot do. The same applies to our law enforcement people; they know there is always a line that cannot be crossed, and we see more and more that those who do cross this line are removed from these agencies.

Let us not forget that at least one individual deemed responsible for the state in which Rebecca Kitteridge found the bureau late last year, was removed shortly thereafter.

This was something of an ignominious departure after a lengthy career of service to your country, but when it comes to accountability, nobody - and certainly no one within the intelligence services - should be immune from such consequences.

The Inspector-General's investigation into the possibility more than 80 New Zealanders were "illegally spied on" by the bureau determined the accusations unfounded, and there remains no suggestion that any individuals within GCSB deliberately ignored or circumvented official legal advice.

Those who believe the proposed amendments to the GCSB legislation give the agency carte blanche to spy on us whenever they so desire are wrong. It does not. The purpose of the amendments is to provide a clear and unambiguous statutory framework from which the bureau can effectively, and most importantly, legally, operate. Nothing more, nothing less.

The revised legislation also calls for exemptions from the Privacy Act for the GCSB; more common sense and in no way a bad thing. Further legislative updates will take place in respect of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Parliament's intelligence and security committee oversight mechanism.

Again, efforts by the Government to make oversight more robust and credible are necessary; no longer can this system of checks and oversight be seen as a "rubber-stamping" exercise. It must have bite.

The current legislation is loose and does not reflect realities the state faces. So let the Government clean up the GCSB's act. And then let us revamp the oversight capability so that it has real teeth.

• Dr Rhys Ball is a former intelligence officer lecturing at Massey University's Centre for Defence and Security Studies.

Dialogue: Contributions are welcome and should be 600-800 words. Send your submission to dialogue@nzherald.co.nz. Text may be edited and used in digital formats as well as on paper.