Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10392] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service) 
: 
 I would like to respond to the member Keith Locke on a number of matters and perhaps inject a small element of fact into some of the assertions we have heard on this matter. 
First of all I deal with the issue of the archives. In fact the member is wrong. Already some declassified documents have now been deposited with Archives New Zealand. The reason for the long delays is that working through what can be declassified is of course a much more difficult process for intelligence archives than for almost any other set of archives the Government has. It requires consultation with intelligence partners and takes a very very long period of time. Initially resources simply were not available to engage in that activity compared with the primary role of the Security Intelligence Service. Resources have now been directed to this work and the Security Intelligence Service is actively engaged with Archives New Zealand on appraisal of the service holdings and we can expect that more information will be transferred into the archives. As the only non-archivist life member of the Archives and Records Association let me say that I warmly welcome that fact. 
Let me come to a couple of the other points made by the member. He lit upon the fact that the Security Intelligence Service is separate from the police. I was not clear whether that was supposedly a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to me to be an essential thing. It is absolutely essential that the workings of the New Zealand Police are separate from the workings of the external intelligence agency and the internal intelligence agencies—the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service—partly because of the nature of the information they have to deal with. Indeed the director of the Security Intelligence Service referred to a potential role in crime for the service. The Government has made no decisions and has not even considered that matter but the reality is that there is an increasing interpenetration in trans-national crime with terrorist activities. This is why the director of the Security Intelligence Service has drawn attention to the potential role of the Security Intelligence Service in that regard. 
In respect of Mr Zaoui I note that the member is utterly convinced of what the outcome should be. I place some faith in the process and do not prejudge the outcomes in that regard. Obviously the member considers that he has more information about security matters than any other member of the House. I doubt that is true. It is a matter for the Inspector-General to determine finally whether the security risk certificate was properly issued. The member objects to the fact that counsel for Mr Zaoui are appointed by the Inspector-General and effectively sworn to secrecy on certain matters. That is because to do the job they have to have access to the Security Intelligence Service records. Those are not records that should be put in the public arena just so everybody who rings up talkback radio can decide whether they got it right or wrong in terms of their initial prejudices on these matters. These are classified security intelligence matters and should remain within that kind of purview right or wrong in their judgments rather than being released into the public arena. 
I must say I do find it strange that so many on the left regard Mr Zaoui as some kind of untrammelled spotless hero. He separated from his wife and his children because he chose to do so. He left them and came to this country. He left them and came to this country on a false passport. He left them and came to this country on a false passport which he destroyed. At that point of course it made it easier for him not to be immediately returned to some other place because he had no legitimate travel documents. His case has been considered by other tribunals in similar countries and he has been found to be somewhat wanting if I can put it that way in those respects. 
But in respect of the matter of the basis for the security risk certificate that is a matter for the Inspector-General to determine not a matter for any member of this House individually or for the House collectively to determine and the Government will abide by that decision. It would be interesting to know whether Mr Locke would make the same undertaking should the decision go against the view he holds on this matter. I might say on that matter as well that the delays are very largely the product of the legal counsel who have been engaged by Mr Zaoui and are working on his behalf. 
Vote agreed to.