The SIS has been politicised - by Labour

Only two weeks ago, the country was debating whether or not the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) had been unacceptably politicised. With the passing of the Counter Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill yesterday, 94 votes to 27, it seems we have a definitive answer to that debate: the SIS has most definitely been used as a political tool, only in this case, by the Labour party.

The bill was passed with the support of National’s coalition partners United Future and ACT (who apparently forgot their concerns about the size of government and commitment to individual freedom), as well as that of Labour, who had previously made much of their discomfort with its provisions. By throwing their weight behind the legislation, Labour have now lent legitimacy to a bill that would otherwise have rightly gone down as a hurried and unpopular bill rammed through parliament by a right-wing government. Instead, National now will always be able to cover the bill in the cloak of bipartisanship.

In return for this, Labour have won a handful of concessions which are so minor as to be irrelevant. Arguably the most significant of these was the change to the SIS’ proposed power to conduct warrantless surveillance on targets, lowering the time limit from 48 hours to 24. However, as numerous commentators have already pointed out, the issue with the original bill was never with the amount of time the SIS could lawlessly spy on someone, but with the spying itself.

The other major change that has been vaunted for supposedly strengthening protections for civil liberties is the tightening of the rules around when surveillance can be conducted. Rather than being justified under the amorphous concept of “security”, the bill now only relates to terrorist activity, theoretically limiting its potential to be used on law-abiding activists.

Of course, this ignores the fact that “terrorism” itself is a squishy, malleable concept that today means little other than “opposed to the state”, “Muslim”, or both. Just recall the case of Ahmed Zaoui last decade. Or, more recently, recall the UK government’s nine-hour detention of David Miranda, the partner of surveillance critic Glenn Greenwald, under terrorism powers in 2013.

Labour’s support for the bill has come after weeks of grandstanding from Labour leader Andrew Little, who had used the issue of the SIS’ potential politicisation to raise his political profile shortly after taking the reins of the party. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn’s damning report on the government and SIS’ conduct served, two weeks ago, as the perfect opportunity to lay into National, and Little didn’t disappoint. He launched into the task with gusto, decrying on the floor of parliament that “this is a government that does not know the boundaries between politics and political opportunism, and the requirements of keeping a safe, steady hand on the levers of state.” As calculated, Little’s speech received a flood of media attention, with many in the media praising his performance and proclaiming his fitness as party leader. Two weeks after this speech, Little elected to give the same government he was raging against moral support in expanding the surveillance powers of the state.

Of course, this is hardly surprising given that supporting the bill is a much more politically palatable option for Labour than not. Voting to empower the SIS was the safe option, keeping Labour’s national security flank protected over the coming years as it attempts to win back the political centre, much as attacking National for its inappropriate manipulation of the SIS was the politically popular option two weeks ago.

Incredibly, Labour have attempted to have their cake and eat it too, with Little vocally criticising the bill even as he continued to “reluctantly and begrudgingly” support it in parliament. Both he and Phil Goff have continually attacked the bill for being rushed through and not giving politicians and the public adequate enough time to properly consider it, yet have nonetheless voted for a law that was by their own telling hurried and undercooked. After it passed, Little sternly warned the National government that “we don’t ever want to be put in this position again.” Given that the Prime Minister has stated he wants to introduce “broader” anti-terrorism measures after this bill’s passage, he will surely be out of luck.

Labour’s vote for the bill may be frustrating for civil liberties advocates, but it serves as a vital lesson – namely, that they can’t automatically rely on the willing support of centre-left politicians to achieve meaningful reform of security laws. One of the great victories of the Terror Right throughout the West has been to turn the support of anti-terror legislation into a virtual political prerequisite. Political parties don’t want to expose themselves to the charge of being soft on terror and so, more often than not, end up supporting many laws expanding the security powers of the state.

It’s like this virtually everywhere. In New Zealand, it was the Helen Clark government which concentrated the power to make terrorist designations in the Prime Minister’s hands, with the Terrorism Suppression Act Amendment of 2007. In Australia, possibly the most extreme anti-terror legislation in the Western world was recently passed with the support of Labour, who similarly drew out concessions that did little to temper most of its provisions. In the United Kingdom, it was successive Labour governments which passed progressively more extreme anti-terror legislation, allowing pre-charge detention for increasing amounts of time. Finally, bipartisan majorities in the US regularly renew the controversial Patriot Act, which radically expanded the government’s surveillance powers in 2001. Why should our centre-left party be the exception?

The fact is that, even if Labour win the next election, rolling back the slowly rising tide of anti-terror powers will not be automatic. Political leaders follow the path of least resistance - if they feel like they can get away with not doing something that might lose them a few political points, they generally won’t. If Little and Labour do take power in 2017, the public will need to exert pressure on them and make it clear that they don’t want these powers renewed.

Interestingly, one of the concessions won by Labour was for a new, earlier sunset provision for the bill, which will now be automatically repealed on 1 April 2017 instead of 2018. If anything, this ‘concession’ actually strengthens the law’s chances of survival.

The new date means the debate around whether or not the bill should be renewed will take place months before the election, when both parties will want to look as tough on terror as possible. What’s the likelihood that, in a bid to widen the gap between it and Labour, National will turn this into a wedge issue and float the spectre of terrorism? And what’s the bet that, in an attempt to avoid being attacked as soft on terror and win poach votes from the centre, Labour will again support the bill? Past observation tells us, quite high. Except something tells me, this second time around, their support won’t be as reluctant.

ENDS

© Scoop Media