Now we know what monsters lie under our bed.
That’s what is revealed through the light shone by a survey released today by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the central cog of the Government machine.
With it came a draft long-term plan on how to manage those risks from New Zealand’s nine security agencies - the stick to poke under the bed and roust those monsters out.
These are valuable new insights and well due time as those working in this space have looked for DPMC to produce a pathway through an increasingly complex and volatile world.
The work programme facing DPMC after the Royal Commission of inquiry into the March 15 attacks was extensive. Its ability to work through that programme became entangled with the pandemic.
Before long, DPMC was dealing with increasing national security consequences from management of the virus through to the false and misleading information which came with it and the coalescing of groups that believed those fictions.
For those expecting great change after the Royal Commission, the release of the draft long-term plan and the detailed survey results is a good answer to: “What have you been doing?”
It continues a theme which now appears to be New Zealand’s footing in dealing with threats to national security. That is one in which those who traditionally managed those threats - the security agencies - will do so in partnership with the public of New Zealand.
“National security” was often cited as a reason to keep silent. It was the signal for information to be held closely and kept from the public.
Now it’s a call for engagement from everyone. We all have skin in the game. That’s healthy and a long way from spy agencies that were so siloed a decade ago that internal secrecy undermined their capabilities.
This new future of sharing the burden of national security is a theme running through much of the reform that followed March 15.
Also in line with the theme was the Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism hui in Auckland this week. It was a key recommendation from the Royal Commission into the March 15, 2019, attacks which urged a national hui “to build relationships and share understanding of countering violent extremism and terrorism”.
The NZ Security Intelligence Service set off down this path after March 15 but before the Royal Commission reported in a review carried out by a Five Eyes’ partner. One outcome of the Arotake review was to recommend greater public engagement to increase understanding. That engagement with the public would be a force multiplier for “relatively limited” NZSIS resources.
The NZSIS has looked for ways to bring New Zealand along, most recently with the release last week of a “guide for identifying signs of violent extremism”. It’s a guide to spotting violent extremists - a task that has become increasingly difficult against a backdrop of heightened anger across the community.
These moves towards increased public engagement serve as a response to the public mood in the just-released survey. It found only 20 per cent of those surveyed felt the security agencies were sufficiently open about how and what they did.
None of these individual steps is an endpoint. The survey, for example, isn’t the definitive guide to threats faced by New Zealand - it’s people’s perceptions of those threats - but it’s a way of having a conversation. If reality is out of step with perception, look to Government to continue that conversation by correcting the balance with information.
The greater engagement with the public on national security also reflects the development of an increasingly complex and volatile national and international environment that has a greater presence in our lives than it has before.
That complexity and volatility is not only around what is happening but how we learn about it. In years gone by, troubling events arrived with the morning newspaper and the evening news.
Now, the 24/7 nature of traditional and social media means we are swamped with the woes of the world (and New Zealand) constantly. It’s draining - and that’s just consuming the content we can trust.
The tsunami of conflict and turmoil creates in the public a need for assurance. It asks the question, “are we safe?”. Public engagement on national security, and involvement in its management, is a good way to provide an answer to that question and the comfort of being part of the solution to the problem rather than simply victim to it.
It’s taken some time to get to this point. Opportunities are being lost with the speed at which we are moving. It’s hard not to feel that DPMC should have - and could have - moved faster.
Our nation’s first National Security Strategy is promised for mid-2023. The discussion document calling for submissions was not released until July this year. That’s a long lead time if you start the clock on March 15.
As we go forward, there are useful self-checks for our society. The gathering at this week’s hui showed an engaged non-government community wanting its voice heard on ways to counter terrorism and violent extremism. It should be supported to broaden engagement on national security into its communities and across different communities.
There was an element, too, of that hui appearing to lack direction or shape. It was as if Government had created a space in which interested parties were left to make of it what they will.
There is a role for Government here with its greater resources and its sophisticated intelligence-gathering machine to set a direction. Better dialogue and stronger partnership will allow Government to create a space and a direction, leaving those in the public (or interest groups) to provide momentum.
It will be important that public involvement is genuinely sought and received. Concerns were raised during sessions that government consultation can sometimes seem as if it sends its most junior people to speak with your most senior people for discussion on a matter that is already decided. Again, Government needs to keep a check on its ability to take on the views of others, especially when they are foreign to Wellington’s Beltway. It needs to recognise the power imbalance that exists and that it does not have all the answers.
As we develop state security, we must keep watch we don’t become a security state. Increased public involvement should not be seen as, or allowed to become, an opportunity to co-opt engaged citizens into accepting over-securitisation.
The agencies will always be nervous of that which they cannot see, whether through financial or legal handbrakes. Some parts of the survey suggested a public willingness to accept greater restrictions on freedom in return for safety. There’s no sign this is necessary and it was good to hear Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern characterising New Zealand as a state not given to surveillance of its citizens.
Compare this to where we were a decade ago. Whatever fears we had were quiet fears, not shared, and largely in the dark. New Zealand did not have a plan, or not one shared with the public. Ten years ago, the national security priorities of government were secret while the public’s concerns were unknown.
Danger looms big in the dark. When you can’t see the monsters under the bed, they are enormous.
Police have recovered a firearm believed to be used in the incident.