- Posted March 24, 2021
- Director-General Speeches
NZSIS Director-General Rebecca Kitteridge opening statement to Intelligence and Security Committee
Wednesday 24 March 2021
Open session
===
Kia ora koutou
I am Rebecca Kitteridge, Director-General of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.
I would like to start by acknowledging new and returning members of the committee.
I am going to talk today about our ongoing response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attacks on Christchurch masjidain. I will also outline how we are maintaining our efforts on the other national security threats facing New Zealand, as well as commenting on our future direction.
Christchurch victims
Firstly I want to acknowledge the victims of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, their families and the survivors.
We have just marked the second anniversary of the attacks. I was among those who attended the recent national remembrance service in Christchurch. I am acutely aware of the impact that terrible day continues to have on the families of those who died, and the survivors.
Their grief, loss and suffering is always front of mind for me as the NZSIS responds to the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Royal Commission of Inquiry
It has been a time of deep reflection for the NZSIS since the 15th of March 2019.
We have been thinking hard about how and when we engage with the Muslim community, and other communities as well.
The NZSIS has participated fully and openly in the national hui with the Muslim community since the Royal Commission’s report was released.
We have listened. We have had important and at times difficult conversations about how the Muslim community views the NZSIS. We know we must do better, and we will.
Arotake
Our counter-terrorism effort has not halted during this period of engagement – far from it.
It is important to note that we did not wait for the Royal Commission of Inquiry report before strengthening our systems. After the attacks I commissioned a searching review of our operations.
That review, the Arotake review, was undertaken by an external expert. In the interests of transparency I released the report’s summary last December, and a redacted version of the full report last Monday.
The NZSIS was already undergoing a significant transformation at the time of the terrorist attacks, and we have systematically reviewed all aspects of our counter-terrorism operations.
This transformation includes our organisational strategy – called Discover – which has enabled the NZSIS to be more focused on identifying previously unknown, new and emerging national security threats.
The Royal Commission’s report acknowledged the changes already made, and gave further insight and impetus to us to continue our evolution.
I am absolutely committed to making this change happen.
National Security Conversation
The Royal Commission was clear that New Zealand needs to have a more mature discussion about national security.
The Royal Commission encouraged NZSIS and other agencies that are involved in national security to speak openly and regularly about the security challenges we face, acknowledging that we will never be able to talk fully about all our work.
By speaking responsibly and factually about national security, we can build understanding of issues that have not in the past been the subject of a lot of discussion in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Our goal is not to create fear or alarm. Our goal is to help to create a confident and inclusive approach to national security, where everybody understands they have a role to play in keeping New Zealand safe.
National Terrorism Threat Level
A starting point for this conversation is the current New Zealand national terrorism threat level.
The national threat level is continually monitored by the Combined Threat Assessment Group or CTAG – a multi-agency team housed within the NZSIS.
The threat level can change at any time in response to events. It is also subject to an annual review, which was recently completed.
The outcome of the review is that the threat level remains at MEDIUM, meaning a terrorist attack in New Zealand is assessed as feasible and could well occur.
The threat level is informed by a range of factors, including the influence of the Christchurch attacks on violent extremism in New Zealand and the potential for further attacks to be inspired.
CTAG considered those who have a probable violent intent and who have, or could easily acquire, the capability to undertake a terrorist attack in New Zealand.
The most likely form of attack would involve readily available weapons such as bladed weapons, vehicles or firearms.
An attack would also most likely involve an individual acting alone, who might be unknown to the intelligence agencies or police.
An attack could be motivated by a spectrum of ideologies, including Identity Motivated Violent Extremism or Faith Motivated extremism.
You may notice these are new terms, which reflects a deliberate change in our language. This terminology is adapted from a helpful framework developed by our Canadian sister agency.
Our new terminology makes it clear that our concern is with violent extremists and terrorists of varying ideologies. Those threats should not be conflated with communities.
Around the world extremist ideologies – enabled by the modern online environment – are increasingly diversifying. New subsets and overlaps are emerging, leading to multiple extremist ideologies or views.
NZSIS, working closely with New Zealand Police, has continued to detect and disrupt individuals with violent extremist ideologies. Our counter-terrorism effort is split approximately 50/50 across white identity motivated violent extremism and faith motivated violent extremism.
It is not yet clear what the impact of Covid-19 will be on violent extremism in New Zealand. In other countries, social isolation and increased time online has allowed grievances and conspiracy theories to thrive, increasing the risk of radicalisation. New Zealand is a part of the global on-line community and New Zealanders may be influenced by extremist disinformation and propaganda.
This is part of the increasingly complex global environment in which we operate.
Foreign Interference and espionage
I have spoken mainly about counter-terrorism, but New Zealand faces other serious national security risks: particularly foreign interference and espionage.
Foreign interference and espionage have the potential to prejudice New Zealand’s democratic processes, economy, intellectual property, and critical infrastructure.
At risk sectors include central and local government, businesses, academia, media and community groups.
I want to emphasise that I am not talking about legitimate, open, diplomatic activities. Our focus is on covert, threatening or deceptive acts by foreign states to influence, disrupt or subvert New Zealand’s interests.
We have increasingly observed states seeking to gain access to sensitive government and commercial information, as well as valuable intellectual property. Where we have become aware of foreign interference or espionage, we have worked actively to mitigate that activity, with some real success.
I am pleased to say that we did not detect any significant state-driven interference in the 2020 General Election, but other kinds of interference in our democracy continue.
PSR
In response to this the NZSIS has made significant efforts over the last year to raise awareness of foreign interference across a variety of sectors.
Through our Protective Security Requirements team we have delivered targeted briefings to political parties, members of Parliament, mayors, and local government officials.
We have also increased our engagement with academic institutions, particularly universities and Crown Research Institutes, to help them identify and manage risks associated with sensitive technology.
I am confident that this awareness raising has also helped to mitigate the threat of foreign interference and espionage in New Zealand.
Closing
Finally, I want to highlight how important collaboration is in our work, regardless of the threat involved.
Perhaps the most critical challenge faced by all intelligence agencies is accessing and analysing the right information at the right time. It’s about joining the crucial dots – but we have to find the right dots in the first place.
In detecting national security threats, we rely on information we receive from many sources.
We continue to value information provided by the public. Public information has always been, and will remain, crucial to alerting us to issues of concern and providing us with leads. The Royal Commission of Inquiry report made it clear that the public have a very important role to play and that people should say something if they see something of concern. National security is a national effort.
We can also generate our own leads, by accessing information networks and data holdings beyond our own to ensure we can see as many dots as possible and discover unknown threats.
That is not to say we monitor the entire internet. New Zealand’s intelligence agencies have neither the legal mandate or social licence for mass surveillance, and nor should we in a liberal democracy like New Zealand.
Unlike the public, the tools we use are subject to careful controls. Our work must be targeted, necessary and proportionate, and comply with the law. We need to take into account ethical, privacy and human rights considerations.
In the on-line environment, we must target the sites and platforms where those most likely to have the capability and intent to commit violent attacks are living.
Our activity will not be visible to the public, and we will not be able to comment on it in any public forum. To say where we are active and where we are not would make New Zealand less safe.
What I can assure the committee, and assure the public, is that the people of the NZSIS are completely committed to the mission of keeping New Zealand secure. My staff are clever, well trained, and driven in their efforts to keep our communities and our institutions safe. We are not a large organisation but we are focused.
Access to information and keeping pace with technology are crucial to our endeavour, as is the support from New Zealanders for our work.
Given the ever-evolving picture of national security threats, and the challenges posed by new technologies, the tools and powers of the intelligence agencies will always need discussion. Where New Zealand chooses to set the dial in terms of public safety and individual privacy should be the subject of measured and informed debate.
It is only by having this conversation that, as a country, we can have an inclusive and confident approach to keeping safe in this increasingly uncertain world.
END