Terrorism challenges: the dynamic nature of the terrorism and violent extremism risk

A contribution to a panel discussion by Rebecca Kitteridge,
Director-General, New Zealand Security Intelligence Service

Delivered to He Whenua Taurikura – New Zealand’s Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism in Ōtautahi, Christchurch

15 June 2021

Tēnā koutou katoa

Ko Rebecca Kitteridge ahau

Nō Te Whanganui-a-Tara ahau

Ko te Tumu Whakarae mō Te Pā Whakamarumaru ahau

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear on this panel at He Whenua Taurikura – the first event of its kind.

It’s entirely appropriate that we hold this conference here in Ōtautahi, Christchurch, the location of the terrible events of 15 March 2019.

We come here to acknowledge the Shuhada, their families and the survivors, and to honour them by collectively finding ways to strengthen our national security. I am acutely aware of the impact that awful day continues to have on the families of those who died and the survivors.

I know some of the families of the Shuhada and survivors are here today and I want you to know that your grief, loss and suffering is always front of mind for me as the NZSIS continues to respond to the Royal Commission of Inquiry and as we play our part in making New Zealand safer.

The Royal Commission recognised that New Zealand has not traditionally talked a lot about security issues. The Commissioners emphasised the importance of New Zealand having a more mature conversation about national security.

This conference is a really important step in that direction.  It is hugely helpful to have a public forum in which security practitioners can exchange perspectives with academics, media and members of a range of communities; and directly address the topic of national security in Aotearoa New Zealand, with a specific focus on counter-terrorism.

We have a responsibility as a country to learn from the terrible events of 15 March, and to reframe what national security could and should mean for New Zealanders. Together, we have an opportunity to approach national security with a greater sense of confidence and inclusion, understanding that we all have a role to play in protecting Aotearoa’s freedoms and values.

Having that mature national security conversation is crucial to help us respond to a threat that is constantly evolving.

So what does the threat in New Zealand look like at the moment?

The violent extremist narratives we see here are almost entirely driven by overseas trends, sometimes adapted to fit the New Zealand context.

The terrible events of March 15 have inspired attacks in North America and Europe, and will likely have a long-term effect on violent extremism in New Zealand.

The attacks continue to be discussed among New Zealand-based White Identity Extremists, and the attacker’s manifesto and livestream footage are still circulating online. Accordingly, there is a realistic possibility that the terrorist’s actions could inspire another White Identity Extremist attack in New Zealand.

The attacks of March 15 are not, however, the only focus of violent extremists in New Zealand. Extremist ideologies, enabled by the internet, are constantly diversifying and overlapping. New subsets emerge all the time that give rise to new ideologies.

Violent extremists learn tactics from each other and the internet continues to be used to influence, radicalise and recruit to extremist causes.

The two most common forms of violent extremism in New Zealand today are Identity Motivated Violent Extremism, most prominently the White Identity Extremism subset, and Faith Motivated Violent Extremism inspired by the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or ISIL).

At this time, we consider extremists in New Zealand are more likely to have been influenced by Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism than other ideologies.

Support for ISIL has very likely declined in New Zealand as the group’s physical presence in Iraq and Syria has been degraded, but the threat has not been eliminated either internationally or in New Zealand.

The New Zealand domestic threat environment is influenced by international developments. Experience teaches us that when a new terrorist group or violent ideology emerges, susceptible New Zealanders will probably pin their flag to the emerging mast.

If a terrorist attack were to be committed in New Zealand in the next 12 months, we think it would most likely be carried out by an extremist lone actor without any detectable forewarning, meaning that they act under the radar, don’t signal their plans in advance or warrant the attention of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

While we are open to all possibilities, we think it is most likely that an attack in New Zealand would be carried out using easily available weapons such as knives, vehicles or some types of firearms.

I have articulated the threat as clearly as I can. The question now is: what is the appropriate response?

Cecile has asked us to suggest three practical or policy steps we feel we could adopt as a nation to contribute to the prevention of violent extremism. From my perspective:

• First: it will help if we can respond to national security threats, including the threat of terrorism, in a way that is confident and inclusive.
• Second: It will help if each one of us plays our part in keeping our country safe. We are developing a terrorism indicators framework to help with this.
• Third: I will highlight the importance of data and technology.

First: We can build confidence by having a responsible and thoughtful public discussion about the threats we face, and engaging with those threats through preparedness, resilience and responsibility.

We can also build confidence by linking national security to the values we hold dear as a society. In particular, I’m thinking about our commitment to human rights and the rule of law; our desire to be open and transparent; our tradition of being an inclusive nation; and the increasing value our society places on the importance of wellbeing. Connecting national security to our national values will help the public to support our mission of keeping New Zealand safe.

Inclusiveness means being very clear about the nature of the terrorist threats we face, and uniting against those threats.

Violent extremists, of various ideologies, do live in our communities; the threat they pose shows no signs of abating.  Like other countries, we need to confront that reality without sensationalising it.

It is important to inform the public that some of those violent extremists probably have the capability, and the intent, to carry out an attack, and to provide information about what forms of attack are most likely.

These messages need to be conveyed in such a way that:

• New Zealanders are aware of the threat but don’t panic;
• each of us knows what to look out for and how to report it; and
• we are clear about the threats against which we need to unite: by which I mean violent ideologies and violent extremist groups and individuals, and not entire communities.

It is inaccurate and completely counterproductive for communities to be stereotyped as threats. NZSIS has changed our threat terminology to avoid that kind of stereotyping, and I am pleased to say our language is being increasingly adopted across government agencies.

Today you will have heard me refer to Identity-Motivated Violent Extremists and Faith-Motivated Violent Extremists. We also talk about Politically-Motivated and Single Issue-Motivated Violent Extremists. A range of ideologies fall under those four broad terms, sometimes overlapping.

Language is important. I hope the new terminology, if more widely adopted, will result in communities feeling less securitised.

Communities that feel included rather than securitised, that are treated and perceived as the solution rather than the problem, are more likely to have a constructive and trusting relationship with law enforcement and security agencies. And that is a virtuous cycle.

Because everybody has a role to play. And we all need to understand what we can do, both individually and together, to oppose violent extremism in all its forms and to keep our communities safe.

NZSIS is in the process of completing a set of terrorism indicators, which will outline behaviours that the public should be aware of and know to report. Our indicators framework is similar to those developed by partners overseas, adjusted for our context.

In many cases, changes in the behaviour or beliefs of a lone actor will be observable by family members, friends, on-line associates, and workmates. The indicators of terrorism framework will help them to know what to look out for. If they see indicators of concern they will understand they have a responsibility to say something to the New Zealand Police or NZSIS.

The final point I would make is that intelligence agencies around the world are grappling with immense challenges in detecting and monitoring national security threats.  The 15 March attacks – meticulously planned by a terrorist who did not reveal his plans to anyone – are an example of the challenges we face.

The Royal Commission identified a critical challenge faced by all security agencies such as ours: how to join dots and identify weak signals to reveal and understand would-be terrorists or other security threats.

Joining these dots is hugely assisted by having access to and analysing the right data at the right time. NZSIS, like other 21^st century organisations, is increasingly data-led, a trend that will only continue.

Access to new and evolving technologies is critical too – especially since such technologies are used so effectively by those who would do us harm. Keeping pace is a challenge and we are immensely grateful for the investment in the Intelligence Community over recent years.

In thinking about the use of data and technology for national security purposes, we might reflect on New Zealand’s successful response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The public clearly understood the health importance of being able to track and trace personal movements and connections, and how technology would make that effort quicker and more accurate.

There has been a good public discussion about how data would be collected, held, and used, and how private information would be protected.

Let me be clear: I do understand that using data and technology in the context and legal framework of a pandemic is very different from the context and legal framework of national security.

My point is that Covid-19 shows us that there can be a measured and informed public discussion about how to achieve public objectives while safeguarding privacy, leading to a broad consensus about the best balance.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to answering your questions later in the session.