The person, named NZ1 in the report, was assessed by the NZSIS and believed to be working on behalf of a foreign state, collecting intelligence on New Zealand-based people. The individual, who was the subject of a case study in the NZSIS 2020 Annual Report, was warned by the NZSIS in mid-2021 against continuing their activities.

In the report, Inspector-General Brendan Horsley laid out the timeline of how the person was given the warning. 

The NZSIS prepared an Operational Proposal and Risk Assessment (OPRA), which laid out the proposal to warn NZ1 in a public place. The OPRA contained the form of words of the warning: 

"My name is [XXX] from NZSIS. You are not being detained.

"Your actions are foreign interference on behalf of the [foreign country]. You are a threat to New Zealand's national security.

"You need to stop this foreign interference. We know what you are doing and so do others.

"You have been in the media recently and our annual report.

"Enjoy your [dinner/coffee/drinks/meeting]."

The NZSIS officer delivering the warning was to show ID and, when referring to the media and NZSIS annual report, hand copies to NZ1.

 READ MORE

• Intelligence and Security in our Changing World - Speech to the Victoria University of Wellington Centre for Strategic Studies
• Intelligence Agencies Minister Andrew Little foreshadows announcement that will 'test' spy agency critics
• Nanaia Mahuta vows to continue calling out China when necessary, says relationship between countries is 'maturing'
• US 'ganging up with its allies', is 'the world's largest source of cyber attacks', Chinese foreign ministry claims

The warning was given in mid-2021 at a cafe while NZ1 was meeting with a foreign government official. The NZSIS officer gave NZ1 the Service's 2020 annual report and a New Zealand Herald article about them and their activities. The officer also delivered the warning as scripted, did not engage with the foreign government official, and left the premises after delivering the warning, the report said.

After they gave the warning, the NZSIS briefed other government agencies on the operation.

Horsley said they can issue warnings but have to be careful about when and how it does so.

"It is not an enforcement agency and has limited scope for action beyond its normal role of collecting and reporting intelligence."

Horsley said he reviewed this particular warning because it differed significantly from a past example examined by his office. This case led to the Service developing internal guidelines on issuing warnings, he found that guidance was of limited value in this case.

"To its credit the Service recognised this. I have recommended it review this policy and have provided some guidance on what I expect it to cover.”

Despite the policy issue, Horsley said planning for the warning was reasonably thorough and recognised the uniqueness of the operation.

"I found, however, that there were some deficiencies in pre-operation consultation with other domestic agencies," he said

"The way in which the Service consulted others meant it was not as well informed as it could have been on the risks involved from the perspective of other agencies. These risks were mitigated somewhat by how the operation was carried out. However similar operations in the future would be better served by more formal and robust consultation."

The Inspector-General has recommended the Service engage with relevant New Zealand agencies to develop arrangements for how they will cooperate in these situations.

Horsley also recommended the Service provide information on its website about when and how it may issue warnings.

An unclassified version of the Inspector-General’s report has been publicly released here.