Inspector General of Security and Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn may have to use a legal summons to get information she is entitled to view. File photo / Mark Mitchell
Editorial
EDITORIAL:
The tribulations of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn as revealed this week speak most unfavourably about the attitudes of our intelligence-gathering agencies.
The watchdog for New Zealand's spy agencies has been hindered for months while trying to view secret emails about a controversial NZSAS raid in Afghanistan.Gwyn was eventually given access to "several tens of thousands of emails" - only to then discover another 115,000 were apparently "overlooked".
Gwyn has since been advised how the emails were missed and is prepared to use a legal summons should they continue to frustrate her legal duty.
To suggest someone with such a no-nonsense background - and good enough to be appointed and then reappointed - would need assistance with "balancing operational needs" is a stretch, perhaps too far.
The carefully couched terms used by the agencies when asked about the clear breach of duty speak more of contrariness rather than contrition.
GCSB director-general Andrew Hampton said the agency understood the Inspector-General's powers and made access to its systems possible "in a number of ways". "In regards to the specific matter you have raised, the GCSB is working actively and constructively with the Inspector-General."
Hampton reinforced the missing emails were an "oversight". "Only a small proportion of the emails were connected to the inquiry in any way."
Director-General of Security Rebecca Kitteridge also said the Inspector-General's presence was welcome and the NZSIS worked to meet her requirements "while balancing operational needs".
"Some issues require quite a lot of discussion and we work through them with all parties working for the best outcome for New Zealand."
There should be little doubt Gwyn is well aware of the best outcomes for New Zealand. The Inspector-General is an independent statutory officer appointed under the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 by the Governor-General on a recommendation from the House of Representatives.
Gwyn was appointed as Inspector-General for a three-year term in May 2014, and reappointed for a three-year term in May 2017. She has extensive experience in public law and human rights law. She has been Deputy Secretary for Justice and Deputy Solicitor-General at the Crown Law office.
Previously she was a litigation partner at Chapman Tripp and then at Russell McVeagh. Prior to her legal career, Gwyn was a knife hand at a Hawke's Bay freezing works for six years before becoming an investigator with the Office of the Race Relations Conciliator.
To suggest someone with such a no-nonsense background - and good enough to be appointed and then reappointed - would need assistance with "balancing operational needs" is a stretch, perhaps too far.
Our intelligence agencies are in the midst of a brick-by-brick rebuilding with increased funding and staff. Gwyn's office hasn't enjoyed similar growth, which - until the balance is restored - places an onus on the agencies to be less resistant to her overview.
As investigative reporter David Fisher points out, Gwyn has the highest of security classifications and "the right to penetrate even the thickest veil of secrecy drawn around our spies to ensure they follow the law and have a legal basis for their actions".
The Minister of National Security and Intelligence, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, is ultimately responsible for the overall policy settings of the intelligence and security sector. Perhaps their policies on disclosure to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security need a reset.