Corporate Protector: GCSB Director, Ian Fletcher. Our spies’ principal mission used to be the defence of the realm. Today’s GCSB is about the protection of corporate property.
ANDREA VANCE, political correspondent for The Sunday Star-Times, is probably right
about “Fletchergate”. In her latest Sunday
Politics column she predicts: “By the time Key returns from China, the Beltway
will have moved on (as most of the rest of the public did days ago) until the
auditor-general decides whether to investigate.”
If by “moved on” Ms Vance means “being diverted by something
new”, few would disagree. We live in an age of twenty-four hour news cycles.
Hour by fleeting hour, newsmakers and journalists alike are confronted with the
ravening media beast’s unassuageable need to feed. Old news tends to get spat
out in disgust.
But if by “moved on” she means “forgotten” or “lost
interest” I think Ms Vance is mistaken. The peculiar story of the present
Director of the Government Communications and Security Bureau’s (GCSB) Ian
Fletcher’s, manner of appointment has left a deep impression not only on those
whose job it is to follow politics (whom Ms Vance dismisses, rather
contemptuously, as “the Beltway”) but also “the rest of the public”.
Indeed, the best summary of the whole affair I’ve heard was
voiced last Friday by my hairdresser’s young assistant: “Got his friend the job
and then pretended he hadn’t.” Sometimes I think our eyes and ears in the
Parliamentary Press Gallery underestimate their own effectiveness as
journalists!
The other observation I would make concerning Ms Vance’s world-weary
prophesying about Fletchergate is that it runs the serious risk of being
self-fulfilling. If the Press Gallery allows itself to be moved on – “nothing
to see here, move along” – then the public will be left knowing quite a lot
about the deficiencies of how Mr
Fletcher ended up being appointed, but very little about why.
And given the nature of Mr Fletcher’s job, understanding why
he was considered the only man for the job is of considerably more importance
than whether the Prime Minister or the State Services Commissioner should have
made the call that led to his appointment.
As John Key so colourfully summed up his view of Mr
Fletcher’s suitability: “This isn’t some bunny we’ve pulled out of a hat!”
The Prime Minister’s quite correct. Mr Fletcher is very far
from being a bunny. Indeed, the GCSB Director’s curriculum vitae makes for very interesting reading.
He is one of those Kiwis who, upon leaving our shores,
sprouted wings and flew very high. Given the Prime Minister’s similar record of
success, it is hardly surprising that, since taking office in 2008, he has done
all he can to bring such high-flyers home.
But, to move the story forward to the “why” of Mr Fletcher’s
appointment, what we need to know is which skills and experiences in particular – out of the many and
varied talents Mr Fletcher clearly possesses – prompted Mr Key to pick up the
phone?
To answer that question, we would need to know why the four
individuals short-listed for interviews by the State Services Commission’s
recruitment firm were deemed unsuitable. Obviously, that firm had been given a
very clear idea of the GCSB Director’s job description and made its choices
accordingly. But, equally obviously, there was another, undisclosed,
description of the Director’s role for which none of the four candidates were
suited.
It is, I believe, possible to infer from the public
criticisms of the former GCSB Director, Sir Bruce Fergusson, that individuals
suited for the GCSB that was
(primarily a receiver and deliverer of military signals intelligence for the US
National Security Agency) were not required by State Services Commissioner, Ian
Rennie. The person appointed needed to be someone capable of forging a new GCSB – informed by a more
contemporary intelligence-gathering culture.
The new world of espionage is no longer about intercepting
Al Qaida’s latest plots. According to Stuart McMillian, writing in the National Business Review of 28/3/13: “it
is the theft of intellectual property and commercial information that is
causing concern”.
Intellectual property and commercial information feature
prominently in Mr Fletcher’s career as a senior UK civil servant. They were
also the primary drivers behind the Kim Dotcom extradition case.
Our spies’ principal mission used to be the defence of the
realm. Today’s GCSB is about the protection of corporate property. As Mr
McMillan noted a fortnight ago: “The government has established a group to
protect major NZ infrastructure … This group is based within the Government
Communications Security Bureau.”
Was Mr Fletcher ready for such a role?
Between 2002 and 2004 he was private-secretary to Sir Andrew
Turnbull, the UK Cabinet Secretary. Historically, the Cabinet Secretary was the
civil servant responsible for watching over the Security Forces – a
responsibility Sir Andrew relinquished by delegation in the months preceding
Tony Blair’s decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq.
I’d say Mr Fletcher was ready for today’s GCSB.
Definitely worth a prime-ministerial telephone call.
This essay was
originally published in The Press of
Tuesday, 9 April 2013.
