Is non-disclosure of the security & intelligence appropriations budget a good idea?

Perhaps the most uncomfortable OIA request I have ever made.

There are things that are remarkedly uncomfortable to do. Wiping a babies bottom for the first time, admitting you are incorrect in front of respected colleagues, and asking The Treasury questions about our Security Intelligence Service.

What makes it a little more uncomfortable is we can’t make an FYI.org.nz request to The Treasury, so it has to go direct, I.e., it’s not as transparently publicly available as it is if it is made through FYI.org.nz (which is an excellent, BTW).

So perhaps the best time is election time (with full knowledge any information won’t be disclosed till afterwards).

But perhaps, this is one of those conversations that we ‘have to have’.

There is extraordinary evidence circulating globally that democratic oversight of the security and intelligence services is parlous and/or negligible; that the power and reach of security and intelligence services are sophisticated, extensive and globally networked; and that related budgets have scaled up significantly.

We know this is not something legacy media in New Zealand discuss. I am certain citizens out there understand more than I do. Some have probably attempted to raise interest in this democratic black hole for quite some time.

My interest is in technology and how it creates risk - and the knowledge gaps that arise when there is no counter-balance of independent (i.e. public good) science and research information, nor ethics nor public law-based discussion that can stand back, eye a technology (or a pattern of overlapping technologies) critically, and freely draw attention to risk.

This includes identifying the social, cultural, legal, and rights-based problems of that tech over the shorter and longer term. Such work necessarily entails identification of the power-dynamics and conflicts of interest that might make it harder for elected representatives, officials and the public from attaining a balance of information (or intelligence), so as to weigh risk over the shorter and longer term. When officials reasoning is biased, policy and law can fail to protect the public interest.

Unfortunately, recent developments signify a more authoritarian, coercive state. This includes overnight law changes; unheeded public submissions to consultations; tracked (surveiled) lock-downs; mandated biologic ‘vaccines’ with indemnity; digital passports and ID’s holding biometric data; to mooted reserve bank control over programmable currency; - all the way to new forms of military tech that can be deployed to disperse protestors; and to the scaling up of use of biometrics-capable cameras in public commons, to their increasing adoption and use for surveillance and for ‘easy’ access to retail and public sector services. It’s a funny ‘ole time.

So, I asked some questions, in order to understand the reasoning used by officials to keep a particular appropriations budget, the Vote Security Intelligence ‘Non-Departmental Transactions Budget’, secret. As you see in the images below, this isn’t the only non-disclosed area, but to keep it simple I focused on this area.

Below is the email sent to Ministerial Services today, 27/09/2023. I’ve added images for this Substack.

---

Email to ministerial.services@treasury.govt.nz

In the ten years from 2013/2014 to 2023/2024 the total disclosed Vote Security Intelligence appropriation has grown from $37,699,000 to $107,337,000.

However, there is an undisclosed appropriation section, Intelligence and Security Department Expenses and Capital Expenditure, specifically, the Non-Departmental Transactions Budget.

The question for the New Zealand public might be, has this undisclosed amount grown reasonably and proportionately over the past 10 years, and where are the majority of non-departmental transactions directed to? Are these Non-Departmental Transactions for domestic or non-domestic purposes, for example?

This request concerns the extent and nature of the reasoning of officials which has led to this non-disclosure, specifically, regarding the first year of non-disclosure 2014/2015, and the recently released 2023/2023 appropriations budget.

Part 1. Vote Security Intelligence 2014/2015

In the years prior to and including 2013/2014 there was no (or was entirely undisclosed), listed Non-Departmental Transactions Budget in the Intelligence and Security Department Expenses and Capital Expenditure appropriation.

It appears that budget year 2014/15 was the first year that the estimates of appropriations for Intelligence and Security Department Expenses and Capital Expenditure - Non-Departmental Transactions Budget.

Page four of the Vote Security Intelligence estimates of appropriations 2014/2015 listed a Non-Departmental Transactions Budget, and instead of disclosing the budget, N/A is listed.

Part 2. Vote Security Intelligence 2023/2024

Vote Security Intelligence - Finance and Government Administration Sector - Estimates of Appropriations 2023/24 does not disclose Non-Departmental Transactions Budget in the Intelligence and Security Department Expenses and Capital Expenditure (PDF page 4/5). https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-06/est23-v4-secint.pdf

Official Information Act request Part 1:

(1)  Vote Security Intelligence 2014/2015 Non-Departmental Transactions Budget.

(a) In the public interest please supply email, memoranda, and regulatory impact statements and reports that disclose reasoning for the policy shift of non-disclosure of appropriations and ‘N/A’ directed to the Intelligence and Security Department Expenses and Capital Expenditure - Non-Departmental Transactions Budget, that resulted in this adjustment (i.e. N/A) in the Vote Security Intelligence estimates of appropriations.

(b) If this decision was not taken within Treasury please advise the responsible Department, Agency or Ministry and/or Minister.

Official Information Act request Part 2:

(2)  Vote Security Intelligence 2023/24 Non-Departmental Transactions Budget.

Treasury has an ‘Information Release’ page titled: National Security and Intelligence Portfolio - Budget 2023 Information Release.

The page states ‘Documents in this section of the Budget 2023 Information Release relate to the National Security and Intelligence portfolio.’

This page links to (titles incorrect?) a Budget 2023 Information Release dated July 2023, which states

‘Some parts of this information release would not be appropriate to release and, if requested, would be withheld under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).'

(a)  If reasoning is undertaken annually to decide whether to withhold the information, in the public interest please supply emails, memoranda, legal documents, and regulatory impact statements and reports that disclose reasoning for non-disclosure of appropriations and ‘N/A’ directed to the Intelligence and Security Department Expenses and Capital Expenditure - Non-Departmental Transactions Budget appropriations year 2023/2024. 

(b) If reasoning is not undertaken annually, is the withholding of information an automatic/standard process? I.e., no discussion is held but the Information Release/statement that explains the withholding under the Information Act is produced? Who was the responsible official for this process in 2023/2024?

(c)   If the withholding is a standard process, in which year was the non-disclosure of the Non-Departmental Transactions Budget protocol/convention adopted?

END OIA REQUEST.

Keep asking questions.