An Israeli minister touring the Pacific to discuss defence and cooperation says Fiji and Papua New Guinea are “great friends”.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel recently visited the two countries and RNZ Pacific spoke with her during a brief stop in Auckland.

She said the main goal of her trip was to thank PNG and Fiji for their support, including the opening of embassies in Jerusalem.

Israeli Minister Haskel speaks to RNZ on Pacific visit     Video: RNZ

“It was an important message for our people and it was a great opportunity for me to thank them in person and to see how we can strengthen our friendship.”

The countries were “strategic allies” who worked together in the areas of agriculture, water technology and cybersecurity, Haskel said.

She pointed to the agricultural industry in PNG.

“They used to import almost all of their products, vegetables, fruits,” she said.

Agricultural help
“There are a few Israeli companies that went into the industry, developing a lot of the agricultural aspect of it to the point where all of the products they’re eating are local and they’re even exporting some of these products.”

Israeli farms there had also helped with the growth of the local dairy industry, she said.

“This is part of the collaboration that we want to do,” she said. “I came with a delegation of businessmen coming from those industries to see how can continue and develop it, it’s a win-win situation.”

An agreement with Fiji has been expanded to see more agricultural students sent to Israel for an 11-month paid internship.

Also while in Fiji, Haskel signed a memorandum of understanding on cybersecurity.

She said that came after three hacking attacks on the Fiji government’s system.

“[The MOU] starts a dialogue between our cybersecurity agency and between the proper agencies in Fiji as well,” she said.

Cybersecurity experience
““This is something that they’re starting to build, we’ve got a lot of experience with it and I think the dialogue can give them and lot of advice and also to connect them to quite a few Israeli companies.”

A representative from Israeli defence and security company Elbit was among the delegation.

“They have a lot of cybersecurity systems so it’s a start of a building of a relationship,” Haskel said.

Israel’s relationships with PNG and Fiji had been going for many decades, and were not about the amount of aid given, she said.

“Israel is not a major economic power that has a lot of money to spend, especially during times of war,” she said.

“It’s not about the amount of money that we can invest but the quality and the things and how it affects the people.”

Commitments honoured
Asked about aid projects that had been cancelled, Haskel said Israel had honoured any commitments it made. It was not responsible for changes to United States policy that had seen trilateral agreements cut, she said.

“There were many projects that were committed in many different countries, together Israel and the Americans, some are continuing and some are cancelled,” she said.

“This is part of [US President Donald] Trump’s policy. We can’t predict that.”

Haskel also met with people from indigenous, Christian and farming communities while in Fiji and PNG and she said Israel is also hoping to become and observer of the Pacific Islands Forum next year.

The PNG government said it continued to regard Israel as a valuable partner in advancing shared development goals.

Meanwhile, Fiji’s government said the “historic” visit between the nations would foster continued cooperation, innovation and friendship.

‘Strategic step’
Prime Minister Rabuka said the cybersecurity agreement was “a strategic step forward to strengthen Fiji’s security framework and promote deeper cooperation across sectors”.

Israel’s influence in the Pacific has been under the microscope recently, including around the United Nations vote supporting Palestinian statehood.

It follows years of wrangling between superpowers China and the United States over aid and influence in the region.

Oliver Nobetau, a Papuan development expert at the Australian Lowy Institute, told RNZ Pacific that Israel wanted to lock in UN support for the future.

“I think they have demonstrated their support, but also may have an ability to sort of sway between votes,” he said.

“We’ve seen it, between the switching from recognition from China to Taiwan. And this can be another instance now where they can be persuaded to vote in a different way.”

On aid, Nobetau said there would now be a hope that Israel increased its aid to the region.

“I would say there’s an expectation on Israel to carry on or fill in that funding gap,” she said.

“The question now falls on the Pacific governments themselves, if this is something that’s worth pursuing . . .  they would prefer, if the USA are now is out of the picture, if Israel can continue to fill that.”

Nobetau expected Israel to look at bringing its military and intelligence services closer to the Pacific.

“From what I recall, when I was working with the government, there were institutional exchanges with the Mossad: internal capabilities to collect intelligence is something that’s that’s needed within Pacific countries,” he said.

“So I think that could be another area as well.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

However, the Prime Minister said that the government’s robust firewall security systems were able to fend off these attempts.

Brown revealed this while speaking in support of the Financial Transactions Reporting Amendment Bill 2024, which was passed in Parliament last week.

The hacking attempts from overseas had, however, affected a couple of local companies in the hospitality industry in which their systems were compromised, he said.

“We were able to provide support to reduce any damage caused by these cyber security threats,” Brown said.

The Financial Transactions Reporting Amendment Bill’s primary purpose is to implement the recommended actions put forth by the Global Forum on Transparency and the Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.

This Forum conducts peer reviews and assessments across over 130 jurisdictions in which Cook Islands is a member of. The aim of these reviews is to evaluate the country’s ability to cooperate effectively with established standards, Brown explained.

‘Increasing collaboration’
“The financial transactions reporting requirements that our country have signed up to is an example of the increasing collaboration among international jurisdictions to share information. Additionally, the need to protect the integrity of our financial centres and enhance our cybersecurity measures will only intensify as the world increasingly moves toward digital currencies.

“Our initial peer reviews took place in 2017, and the Cook Islands received a very positive rating for its capacity to exchange information.

“In light of the subsequent growth and improvements in both the quality and quantity of information exchanges, as well as enhancements to the standards themselves, a second round of assessment was initiated just last year. This latest round includes a legal framework assessment and peer reviews that also cover technical, operational, and information security aspects.”

Brown said that during this process several gaps in the legal framework were identified, and the Global Forum provided recommendations aimed at helping the country maintain a positive rating.

He said Cook Islands is required to address these recommendations by implementing the necessary legislative amendments by the 31st of this month in order to qualify for another round of onsite assessments and reviews in 2025.

The Prime Minister said the security of information is very important, and the security of tax information, in particular, is of significant importance to the Global Forum.

He added that some of the areas identified for improvement extend beyond legislative requirements.

Security codes
“For example, all doors in the RMD (Revenue Management Division) office that hold tax information must have security codes. The staff that work there must have proper identification cards with ID cards to swipe and allow access to these rooms,” Brown said.

“It is a big change from how our public service has operated for many years and maybe we do not see the actual need for this level of security. However, the Global Forum has its standards to maintain and we are obligated to maintain those standards, so we must follow suit.

“Not only that but now there’s also a requirement for proper due diligence to be conducted on employees or people who will work inside these departments. It is these sorts of requirements that compels us in our government agencies, many of them now to change the way we do things and to be mindful of increased security measures that are being imposed on our country. ”

Justice Minister Vaine “Mac” Mokoroa, who presented the Bill to Parliament, said: “The key concern here is to ensure that the Cook Islands continues to be a leader in the trust industry . . .  our International Trust Act has been at the forefront of the Cook Islands Offshore Financial Services Industry since its enactment 40 years ago, establishing the Cook Islands as a leader in wealth protection and preservation.”

“At that time, these laws were seen as innovative and ground-breaking, and their success is evident in the growth and development of the sector, as well as in the number of jurisdictions that have copied them, either in whole or in part.”

Mokoroa said that the Cook Islands Trust Companies Association, which comprises seven Trustee Companies licensed under the Trustee Companies Act, along with the Financial Supervisory Commission, conducted a thorough review of the International Trust Act and recommended necessary changes. These changes were reflected in the Financial Transactions Reporting Amendment Bill.

Republished from the Cook Islands News with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The release of the threat assessment by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) this week is the final piece in a defence and security puzzle that marks a genuine shift towards more open and public discussion of these crucial policy areas.

Together with July’s strategic foreign policy assessment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the national security strategy released last week, it rounds out the picture of New Zealand’s place in a fast-evolving geopolitical landscape.

From increased strategic competition between countries, to declining social trust within them, as well as rapid technological change, the overall message is clear: business as usual is no longer an option.

By releasing the strategy documents in this way, the government and its various agencies clearly hope to win public consent and support — ultimately, the greatest asset any country possesses to defend itself.

NZSIS’s first unclassified threat assessment targets competition, public trust, technology https://t.co/5wetaOL1oA

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) August 10, 2023

Low threat of violent extremism
If there is good news in the SIS assessment, it is that the threat of violent extremism is still considered “low”. That means no change since the threat level was reassessed last year, with a terror attack considered “possible” rather than “probable”.

It is a welcome development since the threat level was lifted to “high” in the
immediate aftermath of the Christchurch terror attack in 2019.

This was lowered to “medium” about a month later — where it sat in September 2021, when another extremist attacked people with a knife in an Auckland mall, seriously
wounding five.

The threat level stayed there during the escalating social tension resulting from the government’s covid response. This saw New Zealand’s first conviction for sabotage and increasing threats to politicians, with the SIS and police intervening in at least one case to mitigate the risk.

After protesters were cleared from the grounds of Parliament in early 2022, it was
still feared an act of extremism by a small minority was likely.

These risks now seem to be receding. And while the threat assessment notes that the online world can provide havens for extremism, the vast majority of those expressing vitriolic rhetoric are deemed unlikely to carry through with violence in the real world.

Changing patterns of extremism
Assessments like this are not a crystal ball; threats can emerge quickly and be near-invisible before they do. But right now, at least publicly, the SIS is not aware of any specific or credible attack planning.

Many extremists still fit well-defined categories. There are the politically motivated, potentially violent, anti-authority conspiracy theorists, of which there is a “small number”.

And there are those motivated by identity (with white supremacist extremism the dominant strand) or faith (such as support for Islamic State, a decreasing and “very small number”).

However, the SIS describes a noticeable increase in individuals who don’t fit within those traditional boundaries, but who hold mixed, unstable or unclear ideologies they may tailor to fit some other violent or extremist impulse.

Espionage and cyber-security risks

There also seems to be a revival of the espionage and spying cultures last seen during the Cold War. There is already the first military case of espionage before the courts, and the SIS is aware of individuals on the margins of government being cultivated and offered financial and other incentives to provide sensitive information.

The SIS says espionage operations by foreign intelligence agencies against New Zealand, both at home and abroad, are persistent, opportunistic and increasingly wide ranging.

While the government remains the main target, corporations, research institutions and state contractors are now all potential sources of sensitive information. Because non-governmental agencies are often not prepared for such threats, they pose a significant security risk.

Cybersecurity remains a particular concern, although the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) recorded 350 incidents in 2021-22, which was a decline from 404 incidents recorded in the previous 12-month period.

On the other hand, a growing proportion of cyber incidents affecting major New Zealand institutions can be linked to state-sponsored actors. Of the 350 reported major incidents, 118 were connected to foreign states (34 percent of the total, up from 28 percent the previous year).

NZSIS’s first unclassified threat assessment targets competition, public trust, technology https://t.co/5wetaOL1oA

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) August 10, 2023

Russia, Iran and China
Although the SIS recorded that only a “small number” of foreign states engaged in deceptive, corruptive or coercive attempts to exert political or social influence, the potential for harm is “significant”.

Some of the most insidious examples concern harassment of ethnic communities within New Zealand who speak out against the actions of a foreign government.

The SIS identifies Russia, Iran and China as the three offenders. Iran was recorded as reporting on Iranian communities and dissident groups in New Zealand. In addition, the assessment says:

Most notable is the continued targeting of New Zealand’s diverse ethnic Chinese communities. We see these activities carried out by groups and individuals linked to the intelligence arm of the People’s Republic of China.

Overall, the threat assessment makes for welcome – if at times unsettling – reading. Having such conversations in the open, rather than in whispers behind closed doors, demystifies aspects of national security.

Most importantly, it gives greater credibility to those state agencies that must increase their transparency in order to build public trust and support for their unique roles within a working democracy.

Dr Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

MPs confront Iran’s Ambassador to New Zealand over protest crackdowns https://t.co/Mtqr5OLetS

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) August 3, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse the advent of new technologies and the rise of hybrid warfare.

In this episode, Buchanan and Manning take you on a journey into a world that exists all around us, no matter where we live. But, it’s fair to say, it’s a world few realise exists and few realise how it is effecting them.

With the technologies that surround us, tech that we use every day, it has become easy to conduct indirect or non-attributable warfare using a variety of means.

There’s the grey area phenomena where opponent states undermine adversaries from within, sowing distrust, or fear, where there should not be. The purpose is to weaken public trust and a population’s resolve to support their government.

In an extreme situation, this form of hostilities can escalate into hybrid warfare using indirect and direct means, from cyber offensives to firepower.

To illustrate the issue, we will draw on the build-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and also evaluate other locations around the world where there is evidence of hybrid warfare.

It may surprise you to realise how close to home are real world examples of hybrid warfare.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will analyse the advent of new technologies and the rise of hybrid warfare.

In this episode, we will take you on a journey into a world that exists all around us, no matter where we live. But, it’s fair to say, it’s a world few realise exists and few realise how it is effecting them.

With the technologies that surround us, tech that we use every day, it has become easy to conduct indirect or non-attributable warfare using a variety of means.

There’s the grey area phenomena where opponent states undermine adversaries from within, sowing distrust, or fear, where there should not be. The purpose is to weaken public trust and a population’s resolve to support their government.

In an extreme situation, this form of hostilities can escalate into hybrid warfare using indirect and direct means, from cyber offensives to firepower.

To illustrate the issue, we will draw on the build-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and also evaluate other locations around the world where there is evidence of hybrid warfare.

It may surprise you to realise how close to home are real world examples of hybrid warfare.

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The President of the Federated States of Micronesia says he has serious concerns about the details of two leaked Chinese government documents to be tabled at a meeting next week.

President David Panuelo warns the sovereignty of the Pacific Island countries is at stake, and that the outcome of one of the documents could result in a cold war or even a world war.

Panuelo has written to 18 Pacific leaders — including New Zealand, Australia, and the Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum — specifically about the China-Pacific Island Countries Common Development Vision.

The other document is a five-year plan to implement the outcomes into action.

In his letter he said the Common Development Vision and Monday’s meeting was a “smokescreen” for a larger agenda, and further warned that China was looking to exert more control over Pacific nations’ sovereignty and that this document threatened to bring at the very least a new Cold War era but in the worst-case scenario, a world war.

He has urged leaders in the region to look at it carefully before making any decisions.

In particular, Panuelo noted that the Vision sought to “fundamentally alter what used to be bilateral relations with China into multilateral issues”.

Ensuring ‘Chinese control’
The Vision he added sought to “… ensure Chinese control of ‘traditional and non-traditional security” of our islands, including through law enforcement training, supplying, and joint enforcement efforts, which can be used for the protection of Chinese assets and citizens.

It suggests “cooperation on network and governance” and “cybersecurity” and “equal emphasis on development and security”, and that there shall be “economic development and protection of national security and public interests”.

“The Common Development Vision seeks to ensure Chinese influence in government through ‘collaborative’ policy planning and political exchanges, including diplomatic training, in addition to an increase in Chinese media relationships in the Pacific …,” he said.

“The Common Development Vision seeks Chinese control and ownership of our communications infrastructure, as well as customs and quarantine infrastructure …. for the purpose of biodata collection and mass surveillance of those residing in, entering, and leaving our islands, ostensibly to occur in part through cybersecurity partnership.”

The Vision he said “… seeks Chinese control of our collective fisheries and extractive resource sectors, including free trade agreements, marine spatial planning, deep-sea mining, and extensive public and private sector loan-taking through the Belt and Road Initiative via the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.”

Panuelo said the proposed China-Pacific leaders meeting on Monday in Fiji was intended to “shift those of us with diplomatic relations with China very closely into Beijing’s orbit, intrinsically tying the whole of our countries and societies to them.

“The practical impacts, however, of Chinese control over our communications infrastructure, our ocean territory and the resources within them, and our security space, aside from impacts on our sovereignty is that it increases the chances of China getting into conflict with Australia, Japan, the United States, and New Zealand, on the day when Beijing decides to invade Taiwan.

China’s goal – ‘take Taiwan’
“To be clear, that’s China’s goal: to take Taiwan. Peacefully, if possible; through war, if necessary.”

Panuelo said the FSM would attend Monday’s meeting and would reject both documents “on the premise that we believe the proposed agreement needlessly heightens geopolitical tensions, and that the agreement threatens regional stability and security, including both my country’s Great Friendship with China and my country’s Enduring Partnership with the United States.”

He said the Vision and meeting were a “smokescreen for a larger agenda”.

“Despite our ceaseless and accurate howls that Climate Change represents the single-most existential security threat to our islands, the Common Development Vision threatens to bring a new Cold war era at best, and a World War at worst.”

He said the only way to maintain the relationship with Beijing was to focus exclusively on economic and technical cooperation.

Panuelo hoped that by alerting his Pacific colleagues of developments that “… we can collectively take the steps necessary to prevent any intensified conflict, and possible breakout of war, from ever happening in the first place”.

“I believe that Australia needs to take climate change more seriously and urgently. I believe that the United States should have a diplomatic presence in all sovereign Pacific Islands Countries, and step-up its assistance to all islands, to include its own states and territories in the Pacific.”

Not a justification
Panuelo summed up: “However, it is my view that the shortcomings of our allies are not a justification for condemning the leaders who succeed us in having to accept a war that we failed to recognise was coming and failed to prevent from occurring.

“We can only reassert the rightful focus on climate change as our region’s most existential threat by taking every single possible action to promote peace and harmony across our Blue Pacific Continent.”

Panuelo said his cabinet has suggested the FSM resist the objectives of the documents and the nation maintain its own bilateral agenda for development and engagement with China.

He also said the documents would open up Pacific countries to having phone calls and emails intercepted and overheard.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi is currently visiting several Pacific countries.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Aotearoa New Zealand makes up a small portion of the world’s population, yet the country is being hit by a relatively bigger share of cyber attacks.

Chances are, you’re familiar with the term ‘distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack’. Not because your organisation has been subjected to one, but instead, the recent numerous, high profile attacks on local and global businesses have captured your attention.

With cyber attacks ramping up across the globe and Aotearoa New Zealand an attractive target, every business—no matter the size—must put protections in place.

What’s a DDoS attack?

Designed to disrupt the normal function of a server, DDoS attacks harness compromised computers and hardware like Internet of Things (IoT) devices to flood the target or its surrounding infrastructure with traffic. This influx can slow down or overwhelm a website or service, denying access to genuine traffic.

DDoS attacks are on the rise across the world, with attackers using different styles of malicious activity to take down websites and even using them as an attempt to extort money. Businesses from all industries were victims of ransom DDoS (RDDoS) attacks in 2021, and Q4 saw a 29% YoY and 177% QoQ increase.

New Zealand is a prime target

Only three active undersea submarine cables connect Aotearoa New Zealand to the outside world. In comparison to the rest of the world, this relatively small number makes it easier for the country’s networks to be overwhelmed.

In fact, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) reported an increase in criminal or financially motivated actors with a significant national impact or potential to cause serious harm in its 2020-21 threat report (27% compared to 14% the year prior).

A spate of high profile, local businesses experienced repeated DDoS attacks over the last 18 months—from Vocus to one coordinated attack on NZ Post, MetService, Kiwibank, ANZ and Inland Revenue.

However, it is critical to note that organisations of any size can fall victim to a DDoS or RDDoS attack. No business is immune, and the impacts can be significant.

How can businesses prevent these types of attacks?

Most organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand are still trying to protect themselves using traditional security measures that are no match for a burgeoning tide of bots, ready to be mobilised against them in a few strokes of a keyboard.

While this might sound daunting, implementing good cyber security protections against DDoS attacks does not need to be.

1. Speak with your network provider to understand what DDoS mitigation services they offer and how much traffic they can mitigate before your organisation is affected. This is an added service for some providers, while others might charge surge pricing in the unlucky instance that your website is bombarded with traffic during a DDoS attack.
2. Ramp up your front-line protection. Engage a provider with specially designed network equipment or a cloud-based protection service to mitigate your business from incoming threats. Here, it’s essential to consider the potential risk to your company and consider the scalability, flexibility, reliability and network size of potential providers. For example, large-scale attacks have the potential to take out on-site network infrastructure, while cloud-based solutions can scale when mitigating attacks.

3. Create a DDoS attack incident response plan. The overwhelming nature of a DDoS attack can take out multiple systems and services, not just your website. And in the moment, it’s easy for panic to set in. Be proactive, create a dedicated DDoS incident response plan, and conduct exercises to ensure its effectiveness.

4. Regularly patch your systems, software and hardware. Developers regularly release updates to decrease or eliminate vulnerabilities in software. Applying these patches to operating systems, applications, and all network-connected devices in real-time is the simplest way to mitigate a cyber security attack. There’s a reason why patching is CERT NZ’s top critical control to protect organisations from being breached—don’t leave your business wide open.

A View from Afar: Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan present this week’s podcast, A View from Afar with a deep-dive into cyber-attacks and hybrid warfare – Especially how 2021 has witnessed a Cold War II styled stand-off between global powers.

To re-cap, there has been:

• Allegations of a global-scale hack by the People’s Republic of China.
• There’s the Pegasus spyware scandal, where Israel has exported deep-tracking and targeting spyware to despots and authoritarian governments.
• Then there’s been the relatively silent mission-creep of Palantir as a Western-oriented Public Private Partnership-styled signals “facilitator”.

Paul and Selwyn discuss how all of this sets 2021 apart and adds up to an evolution of hybrid warfare capabilities.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

New Zealand’s cyber security agency believes China has been behind numerous hack attacks spanning years.

The government joined Western allies and Japan in calling out Beijing for so-called state-sponsored hacks, including a major incursion in February when Microsoft email servers were targeted.

The US has charged four Chinese nationals — three security officials and one contract hacker — with targeting dozens of companies and government agencies in the United States and overseas under the cover of a tech company.

“What we do is when we see malicious cyber activity on New Zealand networks, that may be through our own capabilities that we have to help protect New Zealand networks or it may be something that’s reported to us, we look at the malware that’s used,” Government Communications Security Bureau Director-General Andrew Hampton told RNZ Checkpoint.

“We look at how the actor behaves. We look at who they might be targeting and what they do if they get onto a network.

“That allows us to build a bit of a picture of who the actor is. We then compare that with information that we receive, often from our intelligence partners who are also observing such activity.

“That allows us to make an assessment, and it’s always a probability assessment about who the actor is.

The APT 40 group
“In this case, because of the amount of information we’ve been able to access both from our own capabilities and from our partners, we’ve got a reasonably high level of confidence that the actor who we’ve seen undertaking this campaign over a number of years, and in particular, who was responsible for the Microsoft Exchange compromise, was the APT 40 group — Advanced Persistent Threat Group 40 — which has been identified as associated with the Chinese Ministry of State Security.

The RNZ National live stream.  Video: Checkpoint

“The actors here are state sponsored actors rather than what we would normally define as a criminal group. What we’re seeing here is a state sponsored actor likely to be motivated by a desire to steal information.”

Hampton said there was a blurring of lines between what a state agency does, and what a criminal group does.

“Some of the technical capabilities that previously only state organisations had, have now got into the hands of criminal groups.

“Also what we’ve seen in a range of countries is individuals who may work part-time in a government intelligence agency, and then may work part-time in a criminal enterprise. Or they may have previously worked in a state intelligence agency and are now out by themselves but still have links links back to the state.

“We don’t know the full detail of the nature of the relationship, but what we do know is the Ministry of State Security in China, for example, is a very large organisation with many thousands of of employees.

“So they are big organisations with people on their payroll but they also would have connections with other individuals and organisations.

Information shared with criminals
“Something else worth noting with regard to this most recent compromise involving the Microsoft Exchange, what we saw there is once the Ministry of State Security actors had identified the vulnerability and exploited it, they then shared that information with a range of other actors, including criminal groups, so they too could exploit it.

“This is obviously a real concern to see this type of behaviour occurring,” Hampton said.

All evidence showed the cyber attacks were all originating from mainland China, Hampton told Checkpoint.

He said such attacks would be aimed at stealing data or possibly positioning themselves on a system to be able to access information in the future.

“A common tactic we see, unfortunately, is there may be a vulnerability in a system,” Hampton said.

“It could be a generic vulnerability across all users of that particular system, and a malicious actor may become aware of that vulnerability, so they would use that to get onto the network.

“That doesn’t mean they will then start exfiltrating data from day one or something like that. They may just want to to sit there in the event that at some point in the future they may want to start doing that.

Malicious actors
“This exploitation of known vulnerabilities is a real concern. This is why all organisations need to keep their security patches up to date, because what can happen is you can have malicious actors use technology to scan whole countries to see who hasn’t updated their patches.

“They then use that vulnerability to get on the network and they may not do anything with it for some time. Or they might produce a list of all the organisations, say, in New Zealand who haven’t updated their patches.

“Then they make a decision – okay these are the four to five we want to further exploit.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

For the best overall guide to what has happened in the Budget leak/hack scandal, see the just-published article by Henry Cooke: What we know and don’t know about the Budget ‘hack’. Amongst his rundown on the background to the scandal and the theories offered so far, Cooke points out that, rather than being hacked, the Treasury website might simply have been scanned by Google, allowing a cache of pages to become available to someone who has handed them on to the National Party.

Another leading explanation for how the Treasury’s Budget information was released early to National comes down to a simple but obvious idea that parliamentary staffers looked for and found the information on the Treasury website. This would also explain how National leader Simon Bridges could be so categorical in his insistence that his scoops weren’t based on hacking or illegality.

According to this theory, National had one of its Parliamentary staffers monitoring the Treasury website in the days leading up to Budget Day, constantly using the frontpage search bar on the site to look for “Budget 2019”. The hope being that at some stage some Budget documents would be loaded onto the site momentarily, in anticipation of Thursday’s publication, before they were then locked away for safety.

The story goes that by searching every five minutes or so, the National staffer eventually hit the jackpot when documents or pages turned up with the goods. It might have taken hundreds or even thousands of searches over a couple of days.

In fact, National Party pollster and blogger David Farrar has outlined a similar scenario based on his previous experience as a parliamentary staffer: “when I worked for the Opposition in 2000 or 2001, I recall waiting for the Government to release the Police crime stats. They always put a positive spin on it. I went to the Police website and looked at last year’s stats. I also looked at the previous year. They had the same URL format. I changed the year to the current one, and hey presto I had the official crime states four hours before the Government was due to release them” – see: My guess as to what happened.

Farrar argues that something similar may have happened, and it therefore wouldn’t constitute hacking: “So my guess is something similar has happened. That possibly the material was put up on a website of some sort and someone found it. Treasury are calling it hacking because they didn’t think it was open to the public. But there is a difference between hacking a secure computer system, and locating information that is on the Internet (even if hidden). Was there any cracking of passwords for example?”

But do such explanations fit with what Treasury are saying when they claim that their site has been “deliberately and systematically hacked”? It’s arguable either way. Certainly, some tech-specialists seem to think that something much more sophisticated must have happened – especially based on the fact that Treasury has called in the Police. For one of the most in-depth discussions of the potential hacking, see John Anthony’s Budget 2019: ‘They’ll remember it as the budget that got hacked’.

Despite some tech specialists believing that a sophisticated hack has occurred, one expert believes a software application might have simply found the material on the Treasury website: “Kiwi cyber security consultancy Darkscope technical director Joerg Buss said a likely scenario was that someone used a ‘spider or crawler’ program to find hidden content in the Treasury website. Such software may have uncovered Budget 2019 files which had not been protected properly, he said.”

It could also be as simple as using Google to search for the material, which is covered by Juha Saarinen in his article, Conspiracy or cock-up? Strong evidence Treasury published Budget accidentally – rather than a hack. He says that “screenshots of the results from a Google search for ‘estimates of appropriation 2019/2020’ are circulating on Twitter suggest that the data was published accidentally.”

Of course, the fact that Treasury has called in the Police would suggest that the government department believes that something much more sinister or malevolent has occurred. However, care needs to be taken in reading too much into this – especially since the Police haven’t even confirmed that they have agreed to investigate, except to say that they are assessing Treasury’s request.

Furthermore, whenever governments and officials call in the police or make claims that criminal actions have occurred in the political sphere, we should always be very sceptical. It’s the oldest trick in the bureaucratic book – to divert attention or to impugn an opponent with charges that they are mixed up in criminal activity. That’s not necessarily the case over the controversial budget leaks – it’s still far too early to tell what has happened.

This is certainly the argument made today by leftwing blogger No Right Turn, who suggests that government officials have a tendency, when they’ve made mistakes, to try to point the finger elsewhere, often using rather draconian measures to do so – see: Treasury, “hacking”, and incentives.

Here’s his main point about how politicians and officials are inclined to bring the police into politics: “Unfortunately the natural instincts of power in New Zealand are to double down rather than admit a mistake, and to call in the police when embarrassed – just look at the tea tape, or Dirty Politics. With those, we saw police raiding newsrooms and journalist’s homes. I’m wondering if we’re going to see police raiding the opposition this time. Which would be highly damaging to our democracy.”

The blogger says that “the bureaucratic incentive towards arse-covering and blame-avoidance pushes that to be reclassified as nefarious ‘hacking’, and that incentive gets stronger the higher up the chain (and the further away from IT knowledge) you get.”

Here’s his own explanation for the release of the information: “The most likely scenario is that Treasury f**ked up and left them lying around on their web-server for anyone to read, and National or one of its proxies noticed this and exploited it. Accessing unprotected data on a public web-server isn’t ‘hacking’ in any sense of the word – it’s just browsing.”

The onus is therefore on the Treasury to be much more transparent about what has happened writes Danyl Mclauchlan, saying a “brief technical explanation about what the ‘hack’ amounted to would be a lot more useful than all the bluster and nebulous waffle we’ve heard so far” – see: Budget hacking scandal: About time Treasury told us what actually happened.

Mclauchlan says that if it turns out that the leak has simply come from information on the Treasury website, “then we’ll be talking about the resignation of the Treasury Secretary, rather than National Party leader.”

The No Right Turn blogger doesn’t see the Government delivering such transparency any time soon: “neither Treasury nor their Minister has any interest in that (Ministers are rarely interested in incompetence in their own agencies, because it makes them look bad for allowing it). As for us, the public, we’re the loser, stuck with an incompetent, arse-covering public agency which has just failed on one of its most important tasks” – see: Treasury owes us answers.

He argues that the decision to go to the Police means that Treasury can now sidestep such accountability: “conveniently, by referring the matter to the police Treasury has ensured that they can never do that. It might prejudice the police investigation, you see. OIA requests can be refused to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, and anyone who actually tells anyone anything can be prosecuted. Accountability of course goes out the window”.

That doesn’t get National off the hook, however, if the party has done something illegal in the way they have procured or used the Budget information. One lawyer who knows a lot about hacks is Steven Price, and he argues that the release by National of the information was not in “the public interest”, and that it appears to have “broken the law relating to Breach of Confidence” – see: Budget leak: Nats’ behaviour “entirely appropriate”?

Price says that he is “irritated at the sanctimoniousness of Simon Bridges’ denial that the Nats had done ‘anything approaching’ illegality.” He does admit however, that if National have obtained the Budget information “through some area of Treasury’s (or some other government) website that was technically publicly accessible, then that would at least raise arguments that it wasn’t confidential in the first place, because it was in the public domain.”

Herald political editor Audrey Young is also less than impressed with how Bridges has dealt with the matter today, saying: “Simon Bridges needed to do two things today when he fronted the news media about allegations of hacking Treasury and he did neither. He needed to say, at least in general terms, how he received the leak of Budget of documents. And he needed to say he had contacted the police to offer them any assistance they needed in their investigation” – see: Simon Bridges needed to do two things today and he did neither.

But for another view on the politics of it all, and an explanation of why Bridges’ manoeuvres have been smart, see Brigitte Morten’s National plays strong hand over politics jackpot. She argues that it’s in the public interest for National to be able to dispute the Government’s narrative over Budget spending, and to be able to point out the “lower than expected spending” in areas such as health “that the government doesn’t want you to reflect on.”

Finally, for a recent minor – but extremely colourful – Treasury controversy, involving the use of a transformative wellbeing experiment for staff, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s must-read investigation: Peace, Rest and the Monkey Emoji Moon: playing Heartwork cards at Treasury.

The world is changing fast, with digital technological innovation that is both liberating and disturbing. The threats and opportunities this presents requires a massive debate, and intervention, to ensure such changes are as healthy as possible for humanity. The online dimension of the Christchurch terrorist attacks is now provoking a sea change in attitudes towards social media.

Around the world we are now seeing attempts to rein in the tech giants with government regulations. There are blunt questions being asked about whether the likes of Facebook are “monetising hate”, and whether the dream of social media enhancing democracy and social connectedness is over.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch Call to Action campaign is currently at the most visible end of this new momentum, and commentators have declared her trip to Paris a success. For example, this afternoon Henry Cooke has concluded: Jacinda Ardern’s big day in Paris ends with her getting what she wanted.

Likewise, Gordon Campbell is impressed with how the final Paris manifesto has come together, apparently managing to satisfy all sides, including Facebook – see: On the Christchurch Call.

But the campaign isn’t over yet. According to Kelsey Munro, a research fellow at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Ardern’s bid is still a difficult one – see: Christchurch Call: Jacinda Ardern’s Paris pitch a sign of tech giants’ power.

Munro points out that attempts to regulate social media so far, have been fraught and dangerous: “Many nations around the world have concluded that the public sphere must reassert a regulatory role; the problem is how to do it within reasonable limits. No one wants anything resembling the Chinese model. Australia’s ‘knee-jerk’ reaction has been widely criticised by the tech industry and lawyers as rushed and ill-defined.”

Clearly Ardern has been keen to keep away from some of the issues around free speech that are brought up by government regulation, as I explained in my previous column – see: Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” might not be so simple.

So is her campaign going to work? There are all sorts of risks with this sort of attempt at regulation. And this is best dealt with in Henry Cooke’s article, The risks Jacinda Ardern faces with her ‘Christchurch Call’ in Paris. He outlines three broad threats: 1) Over-reach, 2) Under-reach, 3) Being used by Macron to launder his image.

In terms of those first two dangers, the Christchurch Call might end up being too strong or too weak. The third point is the idea that in collaborating so closely with the French President and other world leaders, Ardern is naively being exploited for their own electoral opportunism. Cooke suggests that Ardern might need to “make her disagreement with these other leaders clear”.

This is also the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper: “What is French President Emmanuel Macron playing at? The answer’s pretty obvious, he’s trying to boost his flagging popularity at home while at the same time trying to establish himself as a world leader on cleaning up the internet” – see: Jacinda Ardern being used by Emmanuel Macron to boost his image.

Soper suggests that Macron has been rather disingenuous in his role: “If you needed any convincing that she’s being used, get a load of what happened as she was packing her designer bags for the French capital. Macron releases a 33-page report he’d commissioned… Why he couldn’t delay the release until this week’s summit is an insult to those attending. And what’s more, the investigation was only halfway through but Macron decided to make a song and dance about how well France is doing.”

The bigger problem is that Macron has a terrible record in terms of civil liberties, and is clearly no friend of free speech, which could taint the ongoing campaign to regulate social media. This is all very well explained by leftwing journalist Branko Marcetic who puts forward “a brief review of what Macron’s done while in power” – see: Jacinda Ardern must not let Emmanuel Macron co-opt the Christchurch Call.

Marcetic then asks whether New Zealanders should be comfortable with such an alliance: “This is the man Ardern is teaming up with to figure out a way to regulate online spaces. Concerns over this shouldn’t be limited to the New Zealand right – with Macron at the helm, there are legitimate worries the outcome could threaten free speech, including for that of the liberals and left that are backing such measures right now.”

He concludes: “Ardern should be careful that Macron and any other embattled leaders in the G7 don’t use this meeting as an opportunity to push measures that harm not just journalism, but all of our civil liberties. But more importantly, the New Zealand public needs to hold her to account and make sure she doesn’t.”

And some are worried that the clampdown will inevitably intrude on the traditional media. Barry Soper criticises Ardern for “trying to reign in the mainstream media’s coverage of events to ensure it’s not gratuitous, and that for all of us should be worry. It’s not for the politicians to dictate how events should be covered” – see: The media here is generally self regulatory.

It’s clear that the task of social media regulation isn’t a simple one. And one of the best outlines of the pitfalls and best practices that Ardern and co should keep in mind can found in Dan Jerker B. Svantesson’s article, It’s vital we clamp down on online terrorism. But is Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ the answer?

He cautions against the “risk of hasty, excessive and uncoordinated responses” to social media problems and suggests that we are currently seeing a rush of politicians who all want to gain political capital from coming up with fast answers. He says “as part of this we must avoid hasty ‘solutions’ that will only mask the issues in the long term, and potentially cause other problems such as excessive blocking of internet content.”

Svantesson’s own list of requirements for new regulations are the following: “Effective legal regulation of the internet must be clear, proportional (balanced for all involved), accountable (able to be monitored and checked) and offer procedural guarantees (open to appeals).”

Similarly, Jordan Carter and Konstantinos Komaitis, of Internet NZ and the Internet Society, have put forward their own suggestions of what needs to underpin any new rules and laws – see: How to regulate the internet without shackling its creativity.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has also jumped into the debate this week with the launch of her own Foundation think tank report, titled “Anti-social Media”. This calls for a new body to be set up to regulate social media in this country in the same way that the New Zealand Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority does with traditional media. For an in-depth discussion of the report, see Thomas Coughlan’s How to regulate social media.

Clark has explained the thinking behind this, and how it’s partly based on her own personal experience: “What I’m concerned about is that the rising level of rhetoric on social media from people who think they can get away with just about anything… And let’s face it, they can. I have regularly reported very hateful content, and very often you just get these reports dismissed. So that’s why you now need what this report recommends, which is the statutory duty to self-regulate, and then you need the regulator overseeing that” – see 1News’ Changing hate speech laws would ‘not necessarily’ have prevented Christchurch attacks – Helen Clark.

For more on this, as well as other debates about regulation of social media in New Zealand, and what sort of agreement was expected from the Paris meetings, see Derek Cheng’s Christchurch Call summit: New rules must leave nowhere to hide. In terms of the Paris agreement, he notes that “whether it will have any teeth will be a key issue, given it will be a voluntary framework.”

A new survey out shows that there’s a strong demand amongst New Zealanders for this problem to be sorted out: “More than half of New Zealanders want livestreaming stopped until platforms work out a way to immediately remove violent or other harmful content, a survey indicates. The online survey of 1134 adults carried out in the second half of April, found 54 per cent of those questioned wanted a halt to livestreaming in the meantime. In contrast, 29 per cent thought platforms should be given time to sort out a solution” – see: Most Kiwis want livestreaming halted until violent content can be curbed: survey.

Much of the debate about the problems of online extremism and regulation comes back to The Matrix movie’s concept of being “red-pilled”, which is explained in today’s Christchurch Press editorial: “To be red-pilled is to have the shackles of delusion removed and to see things as they really are” – see: Cleaning up the dark corners of the internet. But if this sounds like a positive development, then for a bigger explanation of the problem, see Henry Cooke’s Christchurch Call could lead to work on ‘red-pilling’ of online radicalisation.

Despite the difficulties involved, there’s no doubt that the tide has turned, and there is now a significant public appetite for some sort of action to be taken that might deal with the tech giants. After all, their reach affects everything in society – including democracy and politics.

This is a point well made in a report released this week, “Digital Threats to Democracy”, which suggests that the way New Zealanders are interacting with information online “can lead to the rapid spread of incorrect information and hinder the discussion and debate of issues of public policy” – see Brittany Keogh’s Social media influences New Zealanders’ opinions on politics and hurts democracy, study says.

Finally, there’s plenty of other disturbing evidence of the brave new world we are moving into. For one of the best recent accounts of this, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s book review, Big Google is watching you. Looking at an important new book by Shoshana Zuboff, a professor of social psychology at Harvard Business School, called “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power”, Mclauchlan explains why he feels so uncomfortable at the supermarket.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

The week before Christmas was dominated by what may actually have been the most important political issue of the year in New Zealand – revelations that government agencies have spied on New Zealanders through the use of private investigators. The matter ended up being somewhat buried in the end-of-year chaos, and perhaps conveniently forgotten about by politicians with an interest in the issue remaining unresolved.

Yet the story isn’t going away. Today, the Herald published revelations about how the private investigations firm Thompson & Clark was previously employed by government-owned Southern Response insurance to review Official Information Act answers about the use of the private investigations firm itself – see Lucy Bennett’s Megan Woods seeks answers on Southern Response’s use of private investigators.

Here’s the key part of the story: “In January 2017, when Woods was the opposition spokeswoman on the Christchurch quake recovery, Thompson & Clark Investigations Ltd (TCIL) invoiced Southern Response $2070 for reviewing a response to an Official Information Act request from the Labour Party research unit on its use of TCIL.”

The article reports on how “TCIL also appears to advise Southern Response on how to circumvent public scrutiny.” For example, Thompson & Clark gave the following advice to Southern Response’s chief executive: “to get around disclosure, privacy and OIA issues, we normally set up a discreet email address for you – in Gmail or similar … do you want us to set up a discreet email account for you – or do you want to?”

The original “explosive” SSC report

Despite the State Services Commission report being released during the busy period just prior to Christmas – leading to what some see as a lack of media coverage and scrutiny of the issues – there have been some excellent articles and columns published about it.

Andrea Vance produced some of the best coverage of the report and the aftermath. Her first report, Security firm spied on politicians, activists and earthquake victims, detailed the full extent of what had been uncovered by the report into government agencies using private investigators. Overall, she said that the “explosive report details a slew of damning revelations”.

Vance followed this up with an in-depth article, Public service bosses ignored warnings about Thompson & Clark for years, which revealed that “for a decade public service bosses ignored the warnings about Thompson & Clark. Their tentacles were everywhere. Dozens of ministries and agencies used their services – and yet no-one in the upper echelons of the public service questioned their reach or influence.”

According to Vance, “officials became drunk on the power of the information offered up by security firms like Thompson & Clark. It allowed them to keep tabs on their critics and stave off any reputational damage.” She also argues that “A cavalier attitude to personal and sensitive information, and a troubling disregard for the democratic right to protest, was allowed to flourish within the public service over 15 years and successive governments.”

Hamish Rutherford produced some excellent analysis, explaining: “In an age where the use of contractors is already under scrutiny, a string of government agencies have effectively outsourced snooping, in some cases for highly questionable reasons. In some cases this was done with a lack of clear contracts, creating a fertile atmosphere for mission creep” – see: Use of private investigators exposes carelessness about role of the government.

Rutherford writes about how remarkable it is that public servants weren’t aware (according to the report) that what was going on was unacceptable. He therefore concludes: “we are reading about public servants who appeared to be seduced by private investigators, who decided to make their job easier without considering the implications for democratic rights, or the need to remain neutral. Weeding out improper behaviour may take work, but it seems the report exposes examples where public servants need to be told what their job involves, which would be a far more fundamental problem.”

RNZ’s Tim Watkin also has some strong analysis of what occurred, saying that the report on the state snooping “is a bit of a page-turner and a terrifying read for anyone who cares about the integrity of the public sector” – see: Heart of Darkness in the public sector.

According to Watkin, the situation is perplexing, given the risk-averse nature of the public service: “My concern is what this says about the culture at the heart of our public service. How did leaders who are by the very definition of their roles meant to be servants of the public decide that this level of covert surveillance was a good idea? Government agencies are typically so risk averse these days that they have multiple managers signing off press statements and an inability to make a decision on which pencils or toilet paper to buy without first clearing it with the minister’s office. Yet they are willing to subject those ‘ordinary New Zealanders” to secret surveillance.”

Possibly, Watkin says it’s the very risk-averse nature of the current public service that has caused them to be more open to snooping on citizens: “there seems to be a deep-seated sense of butt-covering and paranoia”. This is the very point made by Gordon Campbell in his blogpost, On why Thompson + Clark are just the tip of the iceberg.

In recent years, according to Campbell, the public service has become politicised, meaning that public servants have become more sensitive to the political needs of their ministers rather than the public good. This means that snooping on citizens and protestors starts becoming sensible, and to dissent against breaches of ethics in the public service has become much more dangerous for your career.

Not surprisingly, some of the strongest condemnation of state snooping on citizens has come from those organisations known to be affected – especially environmental groups. Former Green co-leader, and now Greenpeace head, Russel Norman emphasises the anti-democratic nature of what has been going on: “The chilling effect of being under constant and intrusive surveillance for simply campaigning on important social issues, fundamentally corrodes what it means to live in a free and democratic society. We’ve learnt that under the previous government, no-one was safe from being spied on if they disagreed with government policy” – see: Rotten to the core: The chilling truth revealed by the SSC report.

Norman concludes: “The State Services Commission (SSC) investigation may well be one of the most important examinations into the inner workings of the state that we’ve seen in New Zealand. I’d go as far as to call it our Watergate moment.”

If that sounds like the expected complaints of an activist, then it’s also worth reading what former United Future leader Peter Dunne had to say in his column, Only a first step in the data battle.

Dunne explains what has occurred as being “a gross breach of that implicit covenant between the Government and its citizens”, and he raises serious questions about how much more privacy is being curtailed by government agencies. In particular: “Was any information provided, formally or informally, to the intelligence services by Thompson and Clark, and was any information gathered at the behest of the intelligence services?”

Newspaper editorials have also condemned what has been uncovered in the public service. The Otago Daily Times has a strongly-worded editorial about the dangers to democracy uncovered in the report: “It blasts a warning about the insidious nature of state power and the need for vigilance and protection. Those who would disregard civil liberties for what they might think is the greater good should think again. Big brother and big sister are an ever-present threat. This is even more so in the electronic age. It was first thought the internet might lead to more freedom and more opportunity for dissent. But the massive losses of privacy, the ease with which data is collected and modern data analysis all hand more potential power and surveillance ability to big business and big government” – see: An ‘affront to democracy’.

In Christchurch, The Press has been asking important questions about what the report has revealed – see the editorial: More questions about spies and the public service. Here are the concluding questions: “The public needs to know more about this scandal that is so contrary to the way we expect our public servants to behave on our behalf. The public wants to know who approved of this surveillance, why it was considered necessary in a democracy and, perhaps most important of all, how much was really known about it by the ministers in charge.”

Will anything actually be done about the spying scandal?

The biggest risk to arise out of the controversial investigation into government agencies’ misuse of spying on citizens is that nothing further will now occur. So despite new stories being published about the state surveillance, there’s a danger that we are coming towards the end of the scandal, with no significant reform being offered to correct the problems.

Although the Thompson & Clark firm has been discredited by the scandal, many are arguing that they are not actually the real problem. For example, Andrea Vance says: “although they took advantage, Thompson & Clark aren’t responsible for public service culture and the undermining of democratic rights. That lies with Peter Hughes. For public confidence to be fully restored, the public service must demonstrate accountability and accept culpability, starting from the top down.”

Perhaps it’s time for a proper official and independent commission of inquiry into the spying problems in the public service. Security analyst Paul Buchanan has been arguing for this. And Gordon Campbell agrees: “given that the Thompson+ Clark problem is a by-product of the politicisation of the public service, security analyst Paul Buchanan is dead right in calling for a public inquiry. Only a wide-ranging investigation can address the attitudinal issues and power relationships between ministerial staff and public servants, of which Thompson + Clark are merely one of the end results.”

Tim Watkin has also argued that more needs to happen: “The proper response to this report is not a few hours of tut-tuting, the Prime Minister expressing formulaic concern that the spying was “disturbing” and the symbolic resignation of a single chair. No, the proper response is a change to the public sector culture. So who will lead that?”

Long-time political activist Murray Horton also proposes an inquiry – see: Thompson & Clark just tip of spyberg. Let’s have an inquiry into whole covert world of state spying. Horton explains the significance of the latest changes in state surveillance of citizens, saying that there’s been two major changes: contracting the spying out (perhaps deliberately in order to escape rules), and expanding the targets beyond just activists.

Other activists – especially those affected by the state spying – put forward proposals for reform in Jessie Chiang’s article, Environmental groups call for change after security firm revelations. For example, Russel Norman calls for prosecutions of those involved, and for the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment to be broken up. And Kevin Hague from Forest and Bird says: “I’m encouraging state services to go back to [learning] how to operate as a state service… and your obligations to the public and not just to the government of the day”.

For more thorough reform suggestions, also see blogger No Right Turn’s A private Stasi. He says “Businesses like Thompson and Clark, whose service is explicitly anti-democratic, need to be made illegal and put out of business.”

Finally, there’s the issue of the breaches of rules by Crown Law when working for the Ministry of Social Development – which Andrea Vance has described as “one of the most shocking findings”. The chief executive of MSD at the time was Peter Hughes, who of course is now chief executive of the State Services Commission, and therefore in charge of the whole of the public service. There will therefore be suspicions of conflicts of interest in terms of resolving that issue, and Hughes has handed the ongoing task to his own deputy at the SSC. For the best discussion of all this, see Aaron Smale’s Hypocrisy at the highest levels.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is describing the newly signed Boe Declaration as the most significant statement on regional security by Pacific leaders in a generation.

“All Pacific leaders recognise the security issues we face in our region are ever-changing. The Pacific is also becoming increasingly complex and crowded,” Ardern said.

Ardern arrives back in New Zealand today after a one-day trip to Nauru for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ retreat.

She said the security declaration addresses new challenges for the region, including cybercrime and transnational crime.

“The prosperity of New Zealand is intrinsically linked to the security of our region, which is why this declaration is so important,” Ardern said.

Climate change emphasis
The declaration also places emphasis on climate change.

“That is a new addition to the Boe Declaration. It hasn’t been present in security declarations before. But there is recognition from the members of this forum that if you are talking about threats to security climate change presents one of the most significant,” said Jacinda Ardern.

However, Pacific Media Watch reports that there was no significant response to Vanuatu’s call for the Forum to support its plan to submit the West Papua decolonisation issue to the United Nations next year.

The final communique “recognised the constructive engagement by Forum countries with Indonesia with respect to elections and human rights” and called for further dialogue.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz