Increased sunlight on foreign interference threat welcomed

Experts say a new report outlining cases of foreign interference by the Chinese government is a welcome sign of added transparency but caution against overreach in responding to the risks.
On Monday the NZ Security Intelligence Service released its security threat environment report for 2024, and foreign interference and espionage were among the key topics.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) remained “a complex intelligence concern in New Zealand”, and carried out foreign interference activities against Chinese communities that sometimes involved “complex and deceptive front organisations” designed to replace more authentic and diverse community views.
“These front organisations will often appear to be community-based, claiming to represent an issue or a group of people but their true affiliation, direction and funding sources are hidden.”
The report noted that other states were involved in malicious activity. For example, the Russian government likely monitored the public statements and social media accounts of its New Zealand-based diaspora, attempting to shape their online behaviour.
Foreign interference at a central government level often focused on gaining access to public servants and politicians, building influence with them while trying to limit the ability of “certain communities” to have the same reach.
In one case, a foreign state “manufactured a business opportunity in order to build long-term influence with a politically connected New Zealander”, concealing its role in the offer.
Local government politicians and organisations were seen as a prime target for ‘influence building’, because of their authority over strategic resources and critical infrastructure as well as their influence at a central government level.
Last year, one foreign state offered to help fund a local council’s community event if they agreed to restrict the participation of a particular religious group that was banned in the country in question.
Another case study raised concerns about Chinese-language media in New Zealand, saying one outlet was “almost certainly responsive to PRC direction and repeats approved talking points in New Zealand”.
“Its publisher has attended PRC-organised media forums and signed content-sharing agreements with organisations that also conform to the narrative. The news outlet routinely republishes material from sources that are directly or indirectly controlled by the PRC.”
The report also addressed other risks, saying identity-motivated violent extremism continued to be a prominent ideology of concern, including antisemitism, anti-Māori and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
A small number of faith-based violent extremists were re-emerging in the country, but though Israel’s war in Gaza was being used to drive radicalisation and recruitment online, that appeared to be having less effect in New Zealand.
David Capie, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, said the report’s frankness was as notable as the specific cases and topics it discussed.
“If you’re an analyst, or you’re someone who’s been following these issues closely, then you’re probably not going to see a whole lot there that’s going to surprise you … but it’s a level of willingness to talk explicitly about some of these challenges that we haven’t seen from New Zealand government agencies or ministers in the past.”
Though there had been an incremental shift towards greater transparency dating back to the last Labour government taking office in 2017, the current coalition appeared more willing to speak out about its concerns across a range of foreign policy and defence matters.
“As more and more liberal democracies talk about some of these issues, it becomes more important for New Zealand government agencies to also be seen to be addressing what [is] sometimes pretty unpleasant and aggressive behaviour towards parts of the population.”
Though there was a risk of too many concerns being seen in terms of national security, it was also important to give the public a better understanding about potential security threats.
University of Otago international relations professor Robert Patman said it was commendable of the NZSIS to share such a detailed assessment with the public, and the “eye-opening” nature of the case studies merited serious consideration.
He said a number of New Zealanders still seemed to view the country’s small size and geographical isolation as protections against foreign interference and security threats, which was not true.
Patman said China’s status as a dictatorship and an authoritarian state was well known, and its “deeply unattractive political model” meant it was little surprise the country resorted to foreign interference to gain influence in liberal democracies such as New Zealand.
Though interference efforts from China, Russia and Iran had been recurring themes in recent intelligence reports, it was less clear whether the spy agencies would report on similar activity from one of New Zealand’s close partners.
Patman said greater intelligence and defence spending would help to allay partners’ concerns that New Zealand was “not always bringing enough to the party”. However, he was uncertain about whether dedicated foreign interference legislation, as had been pursued by other countries, would be of value.
“You’ve got to strike a balance in a liberal democracy between being vigilant but not introducing a legislative framework that seriously interrupts the lives of people who are law-abiding … it is a delicate balance, and I suppose one criticism of possible legislation in that direction is it might tilt the balance towards the Big Brother state.”
A request by some MPs for a fresh inquiry into foreign interference was declined in July, according to The Post. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said officials and politicians already had good awareness of the threats faced by New Zealand.