Inquiry into the Government Communications Security Bureau
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Inquiry into the Government Communications Security Bureau’s process for determining its foreign intelligence activity – 14 May 2015, at 3pm
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn has commenced an inquiry into the way the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) considers undertaking foreign intelligence activities.
The inquiry is in response to issues recently raised around a Minister of the Crown’s bid to become Director-General of the World Trade Organisation.
“I consider the issues raised about the process followed when the GCSB considers undertaking particular intelligence activity are of sufficient public importance to warrant an own motion inquiry,” Ms Gwyn said.
“While it is unlikely that I will be able to publicly confirm or deny the specific allegations relating to this process, I can inquire more generally into how the GCSB determines, within its statutory constraints, what intelligence activity to undertake and what policies and procedures are in place to regulate its activities.”
The Inspector-General has initiated the inquiry under her own motion powers pursuant to sections 11(1)(a) and (ca) of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 rather than in response to a specific complaint.
The following questions frame the inquiry. They relate to the amended Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 which was not in force at the time of the specific alleged events. In contrast to its predecessor, the amended Act provides explicitly for the safeguards of political neutrality and the involvement of the Commissioner of Security Warrants.
The Inspector-General will approach the inquiry in terms of the following questions:
• how the GCSB determines
whether proposed foreign intelligence activity falls within
its statutory functions and within New Zealand’s
particular intelligence requirements;
• whether and how the GCSB assesses the benefits and risks of the proposed activity;
• where there may be any issue of potential or perceived political advantage, how the GCSB identifies and manages any issue that may arise from its duty of political neutrality; and
• how the GCSB keeps the responsible Minister(s) and the Commissioner of Security Warrants informed, and ensures effective ministerial oversight, particularly where the proposed activity involves a potentially contested assessment of the international relations and well-being and/or the economic well-being of New Zealand.
“I have notified the Acting Director of the GCSB of my inquiry and she has assured me of the Bureau’s full co-operation,” Ms Gwyn said.
The Inspector-General will provide a report of her broad findings to the public at the conclusion of her inquiry.
• The Inspector-General’s office will advise of the likely timing of release of the inquiry report once that is known, but the Inspector-General does not expect to make any other public statements on this inquiry until the inquiry is concluded.
About the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an independent statutory officer, appointed under warrant by the Governor-General to provide oversight of the GCSB and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, to assist responsible Ministers in ensuring that those agencies act lawfully and with propriety, and to undertake independent investigation of complaints.
The powers and functions of the office were
expanded by legislation in late 2013, and its resources
significantly increased, with provision for the appointment
of a Deputy Inspector and a standing investigative staff.
The Inspector-General’s functions and powers include a
requirement to conduct an ongoing programme of review of
procedures and compliance systems of the intelligence and
security agencies. That review work involves scrutiny of
warrants and authorisations that have been granted to each
agency by responsible Ministers and the Commissioner of
Security Warrants and also more focussed review of
particular operational activities and the agencies’
governing procedures and