23 March 2021
IWCNZ appreciates the release
of the Arotake Report. While it’s a positive move towards
transparency, it reinforces that there are many outstanding
questions that need to be answered about the systems and
processes within the New Zealand Security Intelligence
This was an internal investigation,
in that the terms of reference were set by the Director of
the NZSIS, and the review was carried out by a member of a
Five Eyes partner. Given that New Zealand has defense and
security relationships with Five Eyes partners, this is not
a fully independent review. Any failure of the NZSIS would
also reflect badly on the partners who were providing
intelligence and tools to New Zealand.
The Director of
the NZSIS is appearing before the Intelligence and Security
Select Committee tomorrow. IWCNZ is providing some of the
questions that she needs to address:
- How was the
business decision made to prioritise Islamist extremist
terrorism, and what informed that decision? How is a
prioritisation decision translated from high-level to
mid-level to lower levels?
- Since issuance of this
report, what have the SIS done to adapt their system? What
are they doing to ensure, until a new system is built, that
there will not be anything lost in translation from high
level to mid-level to lower levels?
- There are white
supremacists and also misogynist threats. How can we be sure
that these threats are being addressed?
- This Arotake
report was not an internal investigation, it was a learning
or sharing project as no-one was required to participate.
Anyone who had controversial information could have withheld
it. The reviewer conducted a database search but the report
states that they can’t guarantee they got everything.
Intelligence officers are officers of this nation, why did
they get to choose to participate in this
- The report revealed that an extensive
array of unique identifiers attributable to the Christchurch
terrorist were discovered post the attacks. They were
already in existence prior to the terrorist attack, so what
impeded their discovery before the attack
- They knew of the terrorist’s travel in
and out of NZ, but found it unremarkable. He went to North
Korea, Myanmar, Serbia, Bosnia, Pakistan, and Peru, amongst
other countries. He spent quite a bit of time in these
places, and it’s difficult to understand why this travel
was unremarkable. Why wouldn’t this range of countries
trigger questioning upon arrival?
received the report midday Monday, it needs further analysis
by experts and there will be further questions. We look
forward to a full response at the Intelligence and Security
Select Committee and we will be listening with keen interest
The Government has announced a housing package that will increase the supply of houses and remove incentives for speculators, to deliver a more sustainable housing market.
“This is a package of both urgent and long-term measures that will increase housing supply, relieve pressure on the market and make it easier for first-home buyers,” Jacinda Ardern said… More>>
The Australian and New Zealand Governments today reiterate their grave concerns about the growing number of credible reports of severe human rights abuses against ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.
In particular, there is clear evidence of severe human rights abuses that include restrictions on freedom of religion, mass surveillance, large-scale extra-judicial detentions, as well as forced labour and forced birth control, including sterilisation… More>>