Locke Keith: Address in Reply 
Locke Keith: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1073] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I begin my speech by complimenting the director of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Dr Warren Tucker on the new spirit of openness that he has conveyed since he took over in the position a year or so ago. It is very good that he is allowing under the Privacy Act people like me—and others who have been involved in various progressive movements—to look at their files. What those files show are some very bad practices in the history of the Security Intelligence Service in respect of targeting dissenters. My file was concerned with my involvement in the anti - Viet Nam War movement the antinuclear movement the anti-apartheid movement and movements for human rights in Latin America the Philippines and elsewhere. 
The horrific thing about that file is that it shows that the Security Intelligence Service had infiltrators pretending to be fellow campaigners. Those infiltrators reported on everyone who was present at the meetings—public and private—and they reported on who was doing what who was carrying the banners and who was going out. They even reported on trivial details such as the fact that at 0900 hours a person went out to buy a Sunday newspaper. It was very detailed stuff. My own file detailed my movements around the country and around the world what car I was driving and my romantic attachments. All of this was completely unjustified in terms of the law of the Security Intelligence Service and in terms of any concept of fair play. In my case the record goes from when I was aged 11 in 1955. This file has been updated and continued since I have been in Parliament not only with newspaper clippings but also with the monitoring of my private conversations with constituents in the Tamil community of Sri Lanka back in 2003 before I went off on a peace-monitoring trip to Sri Lanka. 
It is good that the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa and other groups have also obtained their files. Those files show a similar pattern over the years of the Security Intelligence Service not upholding the new legislation. It should have been watching only people involved in treason espionage and terrorism but in the interests of the Government of the day it has been countering the activities of campaigners. In my case that countering meant trying to stop me from getting jobs and conspiring directly with employers. It was recorded and reported back to the Security Intelligence Service that I supported someone who was applying for permanent residence in New Zealand. The fact that I had a personal Security Intelligence Service file probably stopped that person from getting permanent residence. So having such a file had concrete effects. It was not just about being watched; it hindered my career and probably the careers of many many others. 
It is good that John Key has responded by asking the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor to look at the way in which files are set up maintained and closed. It is good that John Key says that I—and hopefully others whose files show a similar pattern—can cooperate with the inspector-general to really get to the bottom of this issue. We need a much broader inquiry but that is a good start. 
The surveillance—or what might be called oversight or accountability measures—of the Security Intelligence Service is very weak. In Parliament today my colleague Kennedy Graham tabled what he received from official sources as being the current membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It still lists the members of the previous Parliament including Winston Peters. No new committee has been set up over the past few months of this Parliament. When I have put forward written questions in the past I have found that the committee meets for only about an hour a year which is enough time to hear a little report from the director of intelligence and perhaps have a cup of coffee. It is not an oversight body and that is why over the years the Security Intelligence Service has effectively been able to be a law unto itself—even spying on members of Parliament. 
This MMP Parliament represents a much wider range of views than was the case when we had a Labour-National monopoly. The Green Party in particular represents movements outside Parliament. It represents people fighting for social change environmental issues and international social justice issues like the ones I have been involved in. The twisted logic is that if organisations are spying on these movements for social change and international solidarity they are also spying on MPs. This practice is an offence to democracy in this country—particularly parliamentary democracy—and it is an offence to Parliament’s independence from the executive. That is why it must be opposed. Thank you.