JOHN KEY’S DECISION to hand off day-to-day responsibility for the national security apparatus to Chris Finlayson is deeply troubling. The tradition of making the Prime Minister the Minister-in-Charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) and, more latterly, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), reflected the public’s expectation that foreign and domestic intelligence gathering must never be permitted to overstep the democratic boundaries. As the nation’s most powerful elected official, the Prime Minister is supposed to keep the spooks in line.
But now the Attorney-General – the country’s most important legal officer – is being asked by the Prime Minister to double as New Zealand’s Spymaster. Ominously, the responsibility for administering the law and supervising New Zealand’s national security apparatus is to be vested in a single individual. Inevitably, the biblical question arises: can Mr Finlayson serve two masters?
Historically, those charged with preserving the safety of the State have demonstrated little patience for formal legal protocols. In the words of the Roman jurist, Cicero: salus populi suprema lex – the safety of the people shall be the highest law. And when that safety is perceived to be under imminent threat, the first impulse of those in possession of the State’s defensive weaponry has almost always been to strike first and ask the judges later.
And if the Spymaster’s swift action results in the threat to the State being removed, then why should the courts be troubled with it at all? A spymaster is, of course, expected to declare absolute fealty to the Rule of Law and express nothing but horror at the thought of the Crown’s servants taking the law into their own hands. All quite right and proper. And yet, the State will have its reasons, as compelling as they are unacknowledged. What spymasters profess to believe, and what they actually do, have long been very distant cousins.
It is also worth bearing in mind just how difficult it is for those with the power to execute their judgements secretly to then have those same judgements subjected to wider (even public!) scrutiny. Surely the expectation of any leader who sees fit to devolve such extensive authority upon a subordinate is that his servant will use the power to both protect and advance their master’s cause? And, surely, one of the best ways to protect one’s master is to ensure that he or she retains what the American’s call “plausible deniability”. To work from the assumption that there are some decisions best made and executed without the leader’s knowledge – or approval?
And therein lies the greatest threat to the liberties of the citizen. That an individual, having been given immense power within the State begins to use that power in ways that are accountable to no one – save the conscience of he or she who wields it. From Elizabeth I’s Walsingham to Joseph Stalin’s Beria to the FBI’s almost wholly unaccountable J. Edgar Hoover, spymasters have, practically without exception, regarded themselves as the system’s secret dagger: a weapon to be driven home in dark places, far from prying eyes, but always in defence of its most profound values. Often unacknowledged and frequently unthanked (at least in public) the Spymaster seeks no greater reward than the knowledge that he or she has kept the Crown/the Revolution/the Constitution safe from its enemies.
And it is precisely for this reason that, hitherto, our prime ministers, by making themselves, alone, accountable for the exercise of the State’s secret power, have protected us against the rise of such individuals. Theoretically, it is an arrangement that denies our leaders all hope of “plausible deniability”. They know what has been done because they were the ones who gave the orders to do it. If the State’s secret dagger must be wielded, then better the blood be upon our leaders’ hands. That way, only the public, in full democratic array, has the power to absolve them.
Chris Finlayson has proved to be a politician of icy rectitude: an austere and unbending executor of his official responsibilities as Attorney-General. All well and good, it is an office well-suited to austerity. But John Key should think again before entrusting a person so confident in the unassailability of his own judgements with the awesome weaponry of the secret state. Let the Spymaster’s dagger remain in the Prime Minister’s hands – where we can all see it.
“Chris Finlayson has proved to be a politician of icy rectitude: an austere and unbending executor of his official responsibilities as Attorney-General. All well and good, it is an office well-suited to austerity. But John Key should think again before entrusting a person so confident in the unassailability of his own judgements with the awesome weaponry of the secret state.”
Which suggests, this Chris, that you think this is about serious issues and has subtle implications.
Have you thought about it from less cerebral, sophisticated and administrative design? Maybe it’s to do with protecting Mr Key from having to get up and lie about his dealings around the responsibility. Again.
I think everybody except the uninterested saw what John Key is doing in his own interest. Everybody includes Chris.
I am thankful to Chris for pointing out what most of us might have seen, had we better knowledge of history and the insight to understand it. Chris did it faster than the rest of us.
The Attorney General will soon have the power to become a Walsingham, a Beria, or a J Edgar Hoover. That is what Chris says we have to fear if I understand him correctly. And it is indeed something to fear. It should be our concern, above any concern about John Key.
I wouldn’t trust that man with a butter knife.
He can’t even shake hands properly, so eager he is to be noticed.
I think you’re looking for danger in the wrong place here Chris.
John Key is doing what he always does. Removing himself further from the machinations of evil. He likes to keep his hands clean for the next job he aspires to… whether it be at the UN, World Bank or IMF.
John Key Aspire to be head of UN or World bank or IMF,
More like the head director of his Bilderberg Group he attends.
He loves secret societies like they are, with their plot to be the global Government inside 15yrs.
Key will be there driving the shadowy secretive global elitists boat forward.
That’s contrary to the Smiling Assassin’s “Mr Nice Guy” brand, probably one factor contributing to the change for the long-term.
Totally disagree with you here. This is the only good move to come out of the National government since the funding of the fibre network.
Finlayson is not the spymaster, Ian Fletcher is. And it is better to have some oversite from someone who isn’t as busy as the PM. Sure Finlayson might not be a nice guy, but who in National is? And Key will still chair the Cabinet Security Committee or whatever it’s called.
And, shit, your sure going a bit strong on the all the cloak and dagger metaphors aren’t you? I doubt the spy’s even get out of the office that much these days other than to tail diplomatic staff in cars and plant bugs.
Elected representatives aren’t spymasters, Directors of the GCSB and SIS are. It would be a mistake for the left to revert this.
i disagree
motivations shape actions which shape outcomes
it doesnt matter if the claimed reason or suggestion is a good thing – if the motivations for doing so are bad, the outcome wont achieve what its claimed to – in fact it could be quite the opposite
much like keys sudden concern for child poverty – we know he doesnt care about it – so whats the likely hood of a good outcome? Slim to nothing
Well ,…first I must say that you , Mr Trotter have been in my eyes one of the best commentators for social democracy we’ve had…I well remember your views on commenting on the Lange , Bolger and Shipley govts and the destructiveness of the neo liberal agenda.
You were bang on and and I found myself seeing you as one of the only voices of reason left at that time.
However – you function more as a ‘signalman’ leaving the ball in the air for the public to decide….less as a hard nosed critic in the role of a ‘ public political prosecutor ‘ of corruption in parliament.
Which brings me to this : There’s a REASON why this is being done.
We have a situation where the warrant , arrest , and surveillance of Kim Dotcom was found to be ILLEGAL . And also the surveillance of 88 other individuals.
We have a situation where the PM was found to be lying about mass surveillance of the public- until Greenwald , Assange , Snowden and Amsterdam virtually FORCED it out of him and made it perfectly clear he was lying.
Even the GSCB / SIS insisted Key potentially compromised the nation when he dragged data out on demand in record time under OIA to defend himself from the onslaught of KDC and the above whistelblowers – and which were proven to be totally irrelevant anyways…and failed totally in Keys defense of himself.
Is this man Key incompetent ? …is he irresponsible with our national security ?….because during ALL THAT TIME …he conveniently ‘forgot’ , fabricated , or gave ridiculous irrelevant football analogy’s to justify not only his lying but his real opinion of what he thought of Kiwis as being thick , disinterested or blind.
We then have a situation where the PM ‘ kissed all the hurt better ‘ by conveniently changing the spy laws AFTER the fact so as not (hopefully ) to be caught out publicly. But he was too late. We did find out.
Was it not the Law society , the Human Rights Commission among others who said we were entering a dangerous era?
We have a situation where Jason Ede was purposefully kept in hiding when ‘Dirty Politics’ came out…Collins ‘ resignation ‘ , until a mockery of our legal system was made by the PM taking over the role of what amounts to an ‘ internal inquiry ‘. And an impotent Police force standing by doing nothing – except waiting for further orders which culminated in the 10 hour search of Nicky Hagers home.
And what of the so called ‘investigation’ into corruption of the attacks on the head of the Serious Fraud Office?….seems very QUIET in those circles now, …..DOESN’T IT.
Conveniently , the day before the election Jason Ede turns up publicly…..and the media reports he has ‘resigned ‘ from working for National. Never mind the fact that IP traced directly to the PM’s office. And that Ede was the National party’s chief media officer regularly in touch with Whaleoil.
These people would make Joh Belke Petersen look like a champion for scrupulously clean politics and law and order !!!!
So now that Collin’s is back in parliament, Ede is living in Mongolia, and the whole affair is being buried under dubious ‘due process’ to eventually come out at the end of the decade in a written report about ‘there being insufficient evidence’ or was ‘lost ‘or was some other contrived bullshit that no one ever gets prosecuted….
We NOW HAVE a situation whereby Key further abdicates responsibilities as PM by appointing Finlayson as the man for all things concerning National security .
How VERY CONVENIENT !!! ……I would further posit that under the guise of delegation to Finlayson that this cozily is the solution for several dilemmas.
1) It gives Key more room to operate under ‘plausible denial’.
2) It deflects any ‘blame’ onto a subordinate if charges of corruption arise – further keeping Key from any perusal of wrongdoing.
3) It gives Key an alibi for using data under the OIA to attack his political enemies ….Key can use the now famous ‘My Office’ excuse. And direct attacks on his enemies from HIS office instead – using a minion to do the dirty work.
4)It gives an air of ‘credibility ‘ that the Attorney General is responsible – not Key….the Prime Minister….yet further denigrating the position of highest office in the land.
5) It gives Key (like Banks did ) the excuse to decline further into convenient Alzheimers type ‘memory fades’ or….’I was not aware’ or ‘I was out of the country in Hawaii’…..but My Office…..handles issues of National security…
6) It gives Key the option of convenient ‘tokenism’ as head of national security….until such time as he wants to perform a hit on any one he doesn’t like eg : Mr Kim Dotcom.
If anyone cant see the lies and corruption and ulterior motives dressed up in legal speak here , – there’s something seriously wrong with their thought processes….either that or they are so partisan and dedicated to passive totalitarianism that they not only conduct themselves in the same manner but give hearty approval to others that do the same.
Its called corruption in high places , people…and its up to you to fight it. This is the sort of major legislative change that is worthy of a public referendum – not only was there never a public mandate given but arbitrary sweeping changes made to suit this government ,…it has now entered the realm of creeping fascism by stealth.
And fascism was what many of our servicemen and women went away to a foreign land to bleed , suffer ,and die for …and ultimately put an end to.
LEST WE FORGET.
This post is a very clear and coherent outlining of the issues involved in Mr Key handing over this position to anyone else. Mr Trotter has outlined how things can go wrong or the power abused, he has then backed it up with historical precedents for those who need them to take the problem from the hypothetical to the actual.
Even if Mr Finlayson is a fine upstanding Attorney-General, this doesn’t eliminate the problems raised in this article. Nor does it address what happens in the future when some other person is in the role. How can we tell what their ethics are going to be like?
Then the resulting comments have outlined the second, and quite frankly far more probable reason for the move. That John Key is trying to get his sorry self out of the firing line as quick as possible. He didn’t like being on the back foot in the GCSB parliamentary debates, he further squirmed during the enquiries into the Kim Dotcom affair where illegal use of the spy agency was proven.
This is a totally self-serving move committed by a man who can’t be trusted to do anything other than what’s good for John. He’s an embarrassment as a representative for this once fine nation.
He’s not my Prime Minister.
I agree with KORAKYS.
This is about intelligence oversight, not the conduct of operations.
Whatever the motivations, it is a good, albeit small, step towards effective oversight of spy agencies after years of misuse and manipulation by governments of the day because virtually all powers of oversight were vested in one person, the PM.
If the PM is a hands-on type (Helen Clark), the situation lends itself to regular interference. If the PM is a hands-off type (John Key) it allows spy agencies to play loose with their charter under the guise of plausible deniability. Neither is acceptable.
The hallmark of democratic intelligence oversight is decentralisation and horizontal accountability. This step moves us in the right direction and is line with what other liberal democracies practice. Even so, it is a necessary but not sufficient step and should be followed by additional reforms to how the NZ intelligence community conducts its business. That may well be forthcoming later this month when Mr. Key announces further changes to NZ spy agencies .
I would expect that SIS Director Rebecca Kitteridge (of Kitteridge Report on the GCSB fame) and Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn will have significant say in the way this happens, and I do not think that they will play the role of government patsies.
For those who might be interested, I offer some thoughts on the subject of democratic intelligence oversight here: http://36th-parallel.com/2014/05/03/analytic-brief-a-primer-on-democratic-intelligence-oversight/
While appreciate your experience in this area Mr Buchanan I am having difficulty reconciling your article’s statement that, “It is important to separate executive oversight from the partisan logics and political expediency that constitutes the daily ebb and flow of democratic governance,” with Mr Finlayson’s appointment to the role. Obviously the Attorney-General is a very political position to the point where the Solicitor-General is meant to act as a balance to prevent partisan actions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-General_(New_Zealand)).
I also question your claim that Rebecca Kitteridge and Cheryl Gwyn won’t be government patsies on this issue. Firstly as Ms Kitteridge is now Chief Executive of the GCSB I can hardly see her as independent and unbiased on matters of oversight and control of the same agency. Even John Armstrong in his article in the NZ Herald outlines how, “The new configuration conveniently takes Key out of the direct firing line should the SIS and the GCSB be caught exceeding their powers.” (NZ Herald 11/10/2014, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=11340687).
Cheryl Gwyn brought her independence into question by her actions on 17/09/14 when she made a public statement in support of the Prime Ministers position to the effect that, “I am only able to comment on specific GCSB activities through my annual and inquiry reports. However, I can advise that I have not identified any indiscriminate interception of New Zealanders’ data in my work to date. I will continue to monitor these issues.” (NZ Herald 17/09/14, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11325926). If she is only able to comment on specific activities through her annual and inquiry reports, why did she chose to comment that day when she could have remained neutral and made no statement on the matter?
As to the system you expect is being constructed as a replication of ‘international best practice’, as Nehimia Wall calls it below, in line with other Western liberal democracies, these are the same states like the USA and UK whose oversight systems have allowed the proven wholesale surveillance of their citizens as shown in the Snowden documents. Hardly something worth copying if you ask me.
Admittedly my analysis is fuelled by disgust at the actions of government’s invasion of their citizens privacy so I declare that in the interests of full disclosure. However I still see the above as definite problems with your opinion on the matter.
Freemannz:
Ms Kitteridge is now the Director of the SIS, not the GCSB.
I share your distaste for Mr. Key and Mr. Finlayson, but the positive of the move lies not so much in the incumbent but in the framework governing the AG’s new role. One would hope that regardless of incumbent or party in government, the new framework will keep them honest.
Ms. Gwyn is new to the job and has been thrust into the thick of it with the Slater/Tucker/OIA mess, so let’s wait and see how she handles that first challenge.
I also share your concerns about mass surveillance but the problem was not so much the oversight mechanisms but the fact that there were no specific laws preventing the collection and storage of meta-data until Snowden revealed the practice. At that point the US and UK oversight mechanisms kicked in and have worked hard to disentangle legitimate intelligence collection from bulk collection without cause. The fact that the NSA was able to circumvent the oversight mechanisms using legal technicalities should be more reason to diversify oversight rather than concentrate them in one office or person.
The bottom line is that democratic intelligence oversight depends on a separation of powers in order to be effective, just as democratic government as a whole is founded on that concept. NZ has been woeful in that regard, which has led to the political manipulation of intelligence time and time again under both Labour and National governments (remember Zaoui?). Do you really want to continue the practice of having virtually all powers of intelligence oversight vested in one person aided by a few minions and some bureaucratic window dressing?
I have written at some length for the need for a parliamentary intelligence oversight committee with legally-mandated powers of compulsion and compliance under oath and with access to classified information about operational matters. That idea has gotten zero mileage from both major parties, which shows that both sides of the house prefer to centralise power rather than decentralise it in pursuit of more transparent and accountable governance.
Thanks for the correction Paul. Obviously – Fletcher/GCSB & Kitteridge/NZSIS, this will teach me to write without having enough coffee in my system. I think the point I was trying to make is that as part of the intelligence community she doesn’t seem in a fit position to contribute in an unbiased fashion to oversight. The fox would be watching the hen house in my view. You are right again that Ms Gwyn is new to her position, I’m quick to judge, but I don’t feel she acted appropriately on that day.
I see the prospect of a parliamentary intelligence oversight committee, as you’ve suggested, as a much more promising solution, but my preferred option would be an independent judiciary committee. I’ll read further into your writings on the matter.
I’m not supporting the prior arrangement of having the PM as sole charge, or the move to have the AG perform this function, but it seems like you, want oversight separated and diversified from those whose actions are being judged.
In an ideal world (yes, what a dream), I would prefer that the intelligence community acted morally without need for legal restraint to tell them where appropriate boundaries are. Thanks for taking the time to outline your reasoned response.
From what I understand, NZ is simply moving to a system that is widely used overseas, in which there is a division of responsibility between the setting of security strategy and the implement of security oversight. This is international ‘best practice’, and in my opinion a very good move.
Yes Nehima. That is correct. Within the general policy framework adopted by the government, the AG now overseas the implementation of intelligence policy by the Directors of the respective agencies.
Also note that the division of policy formulation from policy implementation was a hallmark of neoliberal reforms in the late 80s and early 90s, so suits the managerial orientation of the current government.
Be that as it may, I hope that the move becomes permanent and is reinforced by forthcoming reforms.
More dirty tricks from Key nothing he ever does is in the interests of the people. This country is so mired in secretcy we cant trust anyone.
Key distances himself from anything that might cast him poor light,
and his minions take the rap, but that’s ok because Key protects them anyway.
Cameron Slater disclosed the dirty secrets but he’s portrayed as being the victim ,no sign of prosecution for him or Ede because it would bring out Key and Collins dirty secrets.
The PM uses all his departments ie Police ,SIS etc to shelter himself from any criticism.
Finlayson is the man who deals with moari treaty deals which are done with overseas involvement at the forefront , give land to maori some of whom can be encouraged to sell to big business . Finlayson and Key are two of the most untrustworthy people in government.Just my opinion .
Chris, when will you learn that your poetic messages only impress the educated left but will not reach a wider audience, namely ‘the ordinary bloke’. Get to the point- that Key is distancing himself further from the ‘security’ mechanisms he will be rolling out with frequency in the next 3 years. Expect the dirty politics to continue along with a systematic stripping of personal freedoms and rights to privacy. After all, he has a mandate….right? The descent into a fascist ( yes, look up the definition) state just picked up the pace using the excuse of ‘terrorism’ to justify the means.
The thread is descending into farce.
Fascism is the combination of state capitalism with a mass mobilisational one party regime looking to deepen the industrialisation project using war mongering as an excuse to galvanise nationalist pride to promote economic motivation during the interwar period. No more, no less.
All other uses of the term, be they favourable or pejorative, are ignorant. Calling Key and his approach to security “fascist” is absurd even if the concern about the expansion of the security state is genuine.
Perhaps not fascist – there is one of the few terms we on the left have to counter accusations of communist, pinky, socialist. But the are definitely totalitarian aspects of Key’s excessive willingness to tow the US line. To quote from Hannah Arendt:
“Totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations.
The lies of the movements, on the other hand, are much subtler. They attach themselves to every aspect of social and political life that is hidden from the public eye. They succeed best where the official authorities have surrounded themselves with an atmosphere of secrecy.
Revelations of scandals in high society, of corruption of politicians, everything that belongs to yellow journalism, becomes in their hands a weapon of more than sensational importance. Apart from their cheap Machiavellianism, their essential political characteristic is that in their crackpot manner they touch on every important political issue of the time.
They are antinational in principle and picture the nation-state as a colossus with feet of clay. They discard national sovereignty and believe, as Hitler once put it, in a world empire on a national basis.
They are not satisfied with revolution in a particular country, but aim at the conquest and rule of the world. They promise the people that, regardless of superiority in numbers, territory, and state power, they will be able to achieve world conquest through organization alone.”
Dear Mr Trotter,
I descend from a long line of National Party Supporters, dating back to my Great Grandfather, who came out from Ireland in about 1870, and who built a little two storey home for his family in the suburb of Belfast in Christchurch.
Over the past year, I have not watched television, because there is no tv aerial where I live.
I own a lovely big flat screen telly, and lots of sound equipment, so it would have been easy enough for me to attach an aerial.
But I chose not to.
So for the past year I have listened non stop to Radio Live.
When you take away the visual expect of the “goggle box”, and have to focus upon your audio absorption, your senses adapt accordingly.
You are a good level headed man (mostly).
I know this, because I listened to you voice your opinions on radio for probably at least six months leading up to 20 September 2014.
Could you please tell me who you would like to be elected the Labour Party Leader and Deputy Leader.
I am a very sensible centre right voter.
If an apocolypse should occur, and the National Party ceased to exist (heaven forbid) then who would someone like me naturally gravitate towards, in your opinion.
There are two names that I have had in my head since Election night, but I want your view point Chris.
Kind Regards,
From Frankie.
Comments are closed.