We expect our intelligence agencies to be politically neutral. That’s been thrown into real doubt in the past couple of days. The SIS claimed it had briefed Phil Goff on the possibility that Israeli spies had been in NZ during the Christchurch earthquakes. Phil said he didnt receive a briefing. I believe him because after the 2006 Israeli passport scandal any report like that wouldve jumped out and been unforgettable. Instead the SIS helped the government turn that story against Goff four months before an election. As a result, when I became Labour leader, I insisted on having another person at any SIS briefings I received. I simply didnt trust security agencies at their word. Given security is a bipartisan activity that - to my knowledge - has never been abused by either major party in opposition, thats a sad indictment of where things lie. I commend Gwynns report. But the only time our security agencies are put under real scrutiny is in response to a scandal. Internal oversight does not appear to get to the bottom of serious shortcomings. Thats in part because at the political level, the watchdog on security affairs is the Security and Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by the PM, who is also the head of the security agencies and who also holds the casting vote on the committee. Its hard to think of a more compromised setup. It can only work against getting to the bottom of real issues and keeping security truly bipartisan.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:54:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015