Some background is necessary to better understand Keith's above article. Here is an extract from my article "SIS Spied On CAFCA For Quarter Of A Century" ( Watchdog 120, May 2009. The relevant subsection is titled "Spying On MPs A Step Too Far":

"The most high-profile and controversial Personal File to have been released is that of Keith Locke (as the children of Jack and Elsie Locke, veteran Communists and activists, Keith and his sister Maire Leadbeater had been the subject of SIS Personal Files since their childhood and onwards for 50 years). The most controversial aspect of Keith's file was that the last entry was as recently as 2006, seven years after he was elected to Parliament as a Green MP".

"The SIS took a close interest in his meetings, as an MP, with members of NZ's Tamil community and a factfinding trip that he made to wartorn Sri Lanka earlier this decade. Keith made the point that the SIS was spying on meetings that he was holding with his constituents. Unlike me, and others, Keith hasn't received an assurance from (then SIS Director Warren) Tucker that the SIS has stopped spying on him; nor (unlike me) has he received an assurance from Tucker that '...you have never encouraged unlawful activity such as sabotage, subversion or terrorism...'".

"Spying on 'old Lefties' (Tucker's phrase) is one thing, but spying on a sitting MP is quite another. The revelation led to uproar in Parliament, the media and among the public. (Then Prime Minister) John Key, as Minister in Charge of the SIS ordered Paul Neazor, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, to investigate. He produced an unusually speedy report recommending that the SIS should not spy on MPs, but gave the spies a great big escape clause by saying that if they have to it should be cleared with the Speaker (a member of the governing Party)".

"Neazor also dipped his toe into the broader issue of the SIS files and said: 'Historically, because of the extensive cross-referencing system, when a Personal File existed, information from any source about that person could find its way to the file. It could produce a vacuum cleaner approach to collecting' ( Press, 18/3/09; "Watchdog Slates Scale Of SIS Files", Mike Houlahan). So, that's where all us 'old Lefties' et al are - we've been sucked up into the dustbag of (the SIS version of) history".

The SIS Personal Files released a decade ago came complete with handwritten opinionated notes on them. Here's another quote from my same 2009 Watchdog article: "One of the last entries in the Personal File of Keith Locke MP is the handwritten word 'Eeeexcellent!' accompanying a selection of letters critical of Keith published in various papers in very recent years".

"Paul Neazor, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, wrote, in his March 2009 report on Keith's complaint about the SIS spying on him as an MP: 'Mr Locke suggested that some at least of this material might have been gathered because of his critical stance in Parliament on intelligence issues. All I can say is that one notation which could have given that impression was certainly unprofessional and ought not to have appeared on a file of a neutral intelligence service'. I would like to hear the SIS' definition of neutrality".

"You Are Only Of Interest To Us As Long As You Are Interested In Us"

Director Kitteridge's letter of apology to Keith was accompanied by internal SIS documents in which he was identified as "an 'internal' threat because I 'wish[ed] to see the NZSIS & GCSB abolished or greatly modified'". This targeting of critics of the spy agencies as threats (or, indeed, treats) to the nation's security is nothing new. In fact, it continues a long and ignoble tradition. Another subsection of my 2009 Watchdog article was headed "Enemies List". Here's an extract:

"There was one particular campaign that the SIS monitored with particular attention to detail, namely that of any group or coalition of groups to abolish the SIS. CAFCINZ (the Campaign Against Foreign Control In New Zealand; CAFCA's original name in the 1970s and 80s) was in the thick of that throughout the years and it is still our view that the SIS serves no useful purpose, that it should be scrapped and that any of its functions deemed necessary could easily be done by the Police who are, theoretically at least, accountable to the rules of evidence and accountable for their behaviour in a court of law".

"(Then SIS Director Warren) Tucker's letter to CAFCA (30/10/08) says '...it is probably fair to say that there might have been less subsequent NZSIS interest in CAFCINZ if it had not continued with protests against US bases and visiting naval vessels and taken up an active 'abolish the SIS' stance". So, it makes no bones about the fact that it maintains a literal enemies list".

"This was made extremely explicit in Tucker's letter to me (4/2/09; in relation to my own SIS Personal File): 'You ask if you are still 'a person of interest' to the NZSIS. The answer is that you are only of interest to us as long as you are interested in us. You have campaigned publicly for the abolition of this Service but you have never encouraged unlawful activity such as sabotage, subversion or terrorism...'. So that's a relief that campaigning publicly for the abolition of the SIS is not equated with sabotage, subversion or terrorism".

"This enemies list was maintained right down to the level of finding out who were the writers of critical letters to the editor. For example, Anti-Bases Campaign founder, Warren Thomson, had one such letter published in the Press in 1990. This was duly clipped and filed, along with Warren's address, phone number and occupation (as gleaned from the electoral roll and phone book). The accompanying report described him as 'probably being the author of a derogatory letter about the NZSIS'. For the record, Warren's letter cited an Australian Prime Minister who had called his spies a 'bunch of stumblebums' and said that the description applied to the SIS".