A rare glimpse into the intelligence community

One of Parliament's key functions is scrutiny of the executive, and it is under this banner that select committees hold annual review hearings.

The main purpose of these hearings is to look into the function and performance of any of the many government organisations.

Well-known ministries and departments like the Ministry of Education, Oranga Tamariki, and the Ministry of Justice all send officials to Parliament to front up before committee members.

So might the less visible or more autonomous government organisations, agencies and entities go through this process - anything from the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service to Genesis Energy.

This week, MPs, and perhaps more significantly, the public, got a rare glimpse into New Zealand's intelligence community, during the annual review of the Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).

The GCSB and the NZSIS, along with the National Assessments Bureau (NAB), make up the three branches of New Zealand's intelligence bureau.

They all have a distinct remit but do work closely with each other.

The NAB is part of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), and its primary function is to collect information (intelligence) on foreign matters. It receives its annual review as part of the annual review of DPMC.

It might seem odd that agencies that are inherently secretive about their operations would let the public know what they are doing.

Ultimately though, all government organisations are accountable to scrutiny from Parliament - spies are still public servants, and are paid by the taxpayer.

Given the highly confidential nature of their work, it wouldn't be realistic for the agencies to share operational specifics with the public.

That sounds mysterious, but if you're picturing secret agents in tuxedos and dark glasses pulling up to Parliament in Aston Martin DB9s you're a long way off.

The intelligence community, particularly in New Zealand, is far from the glamorous Hollywood depictions of agents jumping out of planes, and attending high-stakes poker games.

This hearing was more of a general overview from the director generals of each of the two agencies, outlining the nature of their work, and their analysis of the current state of security both domestically and globally.

The Director General of the GCSB, Andrew Clark, described his organisation to the Intelligence and Security Committee this week as "New Zealand's lead organisation for signals intelligence and cyber security, [we're] predominantly outward looking. We provide our customers with intelligence that helps them to make good decisions and to build cyber resilience in a challenging geostrategic landscape."

Another Andrew, Andrew Hampton, Director General of the NZSIS, told the committee his agency, "while primarily a domestically focused agency, [is] increasingly involved with intelligence, cooperation and resilience building in our region."

As well as describing the work of their agencies, both Andrews commented on the threat of terrorism, the unstable political state of the world, and the emerging issue of regulating AI.

From the public's perspective, one of the more illuminating moments of the hearing was when Hampton told the committee that "another terrorist event in New Zealand remains a realistic possibility, with the most likely threat actor being an individual who has been self-radicalised, uses readily available weapons, and seeks to avoid attention.

"Attacks are likely to happen with little or no warning."

He attributed this to a "deteriorating global extremist environment, and an increasingly complex domestic situation."

Ultimately, hearings like this are significant, and it's not because the shadowy world of espionage and intelligence has a certain allure to many.

It's because even those secret spooks are accountable to the public via Parliament.

At this week's hearing, committee members made the most of that opportunity, and put some questions to the agencies on behalf of the public.

For example, ACT's Brooke Van Velden asked if there were "any changes to the threat actors that the public should be aware about?"

Hampton replied: "The deterioration, it's multifaceted, so obviously wars are occurring around the world at a level we haven't seen for some time.

"The whole rules-based order that New Zealand depends on is coming under huge pressure, and various liberal democracies like our own are experiencing quite a lot of polarization."

Judith Collins did a bit of promotional work for Five Eyes when she invited the agency heads to speak about how important the alliance is.

"It's absolutely critical for my business," Clark said regarding the GCSB.

"I think it would be fair to say that without that really close partnership that we have with the Five Eyes partners, my organisation would need to be a whole lot bigger and then there would still be a lot of stuff that we would miss."

Hampton agreed, adding that "everything we do, is in accordance with New Zealand's government priorities in accordance with our own legislation and in accordance with our own human rights obligations.

"We can't ask our partners to do things [that] we can't legally do ourselves, just like they can't ask us to do anything that we can't legally do ourselves.

"However, the benefit we get from working together is significant and notwithstanding the changes occurring within some of our five-eyes partners, there is a strong understanding of the benefit that we get from working together as a high-trust model."

A very special committee

The Intelligence and Security Committee is probably the most unique of all the committees at Parliament and meets less regularly than Parliament's other committees.

It's a statutory committee rather than a select committee, having been established by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

Secondly, its membership must include the prime minister, who chairs the committee, and the Leader of the Opposition; with the remaining membership made up of MPs nominated by the prime minister, who must consult with the leader of every party, and the Leader of the Opposition, who must consult with the prime minister, and the leaders of all non-government parties.

Its current membership is made up of National's Christopher Luxon and Judith Collins, Labour's Chris Hipkins and Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Act's Brooke Van Velden, the Green's Teanau Tuiono and Winston Peters on behalf of New Zealand First.

Not so secret agents?

While the bulk of their work will always be kept confidential, there are signs that increased transparency and public engagement have become the norm for New Zealand's intelligence community. Hampton and Clark were asked by Labour's Chris Hipkins about what each agency was doing on this front.

"For agencies like ours," Hampton said, "it's fundamental that we are accountable to the public ultimately. And yes, as you say, Hipkins, there are some things that the public won't be able to know in detail.

"So that's why oversight from this committee and from the Inspector General, from the Auditor General is key.

"I think ultimately, though, the test for the public is, is what we're providing to them useful, does it help them to make better decisions? And I do think we've made some real progress here."

* RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.