SIS GANGING UP ON ORGANISED CRIME

At first glance the Security Intelligence Service's pitch for a role
in fighting organised crime looks like an exercise in
self-justification, writes The Dominion Post. With the Cold War
behind us and no evidence, to date, of Islamic terrorists operating
on New Zealand's shores, the country's top spy agency needs something to do.

New Zealand already has an agency devoted to fighting crime - the
police. However, as Police Association president Greg O'Connor has
repeatedly warned, gangs - the main source of organised crime in New
Zealand - are growing in influence and power, not losing it.

Gangs are not as visible as they were in the 1970s and 80s when
stoushes between the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, the Headhunters and
others were a staple of news reports. But gangs have not gone out of
business. They have gone into business - the drug business.

According to Mr O'Connor, the profits are so lucrative, particularly
from the "P" - pure methamphetamine - trade that gangs now discipline
themselves to avoid calling attention to their activities. The
drive-by shooting of Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua in May, for which
12 Mongrel Mob members have been charged, was the exception rather
than the rule.

However, while gangs are less visible than they once were, the
problems caused by them are not. We read about them every day in the
court reports dealing with those who have committed crimes to support
drug habits.

They show that more has to be done to stop serious drug use becoming
entrenched in New Zealand. But whether the problem is best tackled
by extending the SIS brief or the creation of Mr O'Connor's baby - a
national investigative body within the police charged with waging war
on gangs - is a moot point.

SIS director Warren Tucker made his pitch for an extended role in a
speech to a closed session of an intelligence seminar. He said he
wanted his agency's brief broadened to include countering serious
organised crime, particularly serious transnational
crime. Unsurprisingly, he did not spell out what the SIS could do
that the police cannot.

Such a move would raise a number of serious issues. Unlike the
police, the SIS operates with minimal scrutiny. It answers only to
the minister in charge of the SIS, invariably the prime minister, and
is scrutinised only by the inspector-general of intelligence and
security and a multi-party committee of senior MPs that meets behind
closed doors. It has a culture that is very different to the police.

For the police, the objective of an investigation is usually a
conviction. They need evidence that will stand up in court.

For spies, the purpose of an investigation is usually to gather
information. Putting it before a court would compromise their
ability to perform future duties. And extending the SIS
responsibilities to include crime fighting could blur the lines of
accountability that currently make the police commissioner
responsible for the maintenance of law and order.

But, if the SIS has surveillance techniques or informants who could
make a real difference to the battle against organised crime, Mr
Tucker's pitch deserves serious consideration.

At present gangs are becoming more embedded in society. The evil
done by the drugs trade only grows. Authorities cannot stand idly by
while more and more lives are destroyed.