Statement On Spy Agency Probe Into RNZ ‘Russian Edits Scandal' And IGSS Report
Conflating editorial endeavour that seeks accurate reporting and proper context in news stories with subjective support for foreign enemies is a smear, creates a chill factor within newsrooms and stifles open and informed public discourse over foreign …
Statement by Mick Hall on a report released on April 17 by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Brendan Horsley, into an RNZ 'Russian edits scandal' probe by the NZSIS
April 17, 2025
I welcome a report released today by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Brendan Horsley, which found an investigation by the NZSIS into whether I was involved in state-sponsored foreign interference while employed at Radio New Zealand was necessary, proportionate and legal.
As a journalist, I am reassured by the report's findings that the spy agency followed its Sensitive Category Individuals (SCI) policy during its three-month investigation and that it informed interested parties there was nothing that indicated I was a national security threat or an agent of foreign interference.
I accept that the NZSIS acted out of necessity, after my sub-editing of international news agency stories had been mis-framed by RNZ management and others in June 2023 as an exercise in Russian propaganda.
These accusations, which caused widespread concern, were utterly false. Horsley's report points to this and is the second such review to do so.
In July 2023, an Independent Review Panel set up to look into the circumstances of my sub-editing found 'no evidence to suggest the individual intended to insert misinformation or disinformation into the stories, let alone engage in some kind of pro-Russian propaganda campaign'.
It added: 'On the contrary, it appears to have been an effort on the part of the journalist concerned to add what he considered to be more balance and accuracy into the stories via the sub-editing process.'
The panel found the public broadcaster's choice of language 'unhelpful in maintaining public trust'.
It found only a percentage of the 49 international news stories flagged as concerning by an RNZ internal audit of my work involved 'inappropriate' changes, while also noting that 'experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree on where the lines are between compliance with editorial standards and a breach of those standards'.
By its knee-jerk judgment that I'd acted in bad faith, and by its public pronouncements, RNZ management created a dangerous environment of hysteria and undue speculation over my motives.
It helped bring a journalist to the attention of the NZSIS and its Five Eyes intelligence partners. As Horsley's report points out, it is 'at the very least, disconcerting to discover that you have come to the attention of an intelligence agency, particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed'.
Conflating editorial endeavour that seeks accurate reporting and proper context in news stories with subjective support for foreign enemies is a smear, creates a chill factor within newsrooms and stifles open and informed public discourse over foreign policy and international affairs.
With the New Zealand government moving to introduce sweeping measures to criminalise foreign interference, RNZ management's damaging mischaracterisations should be of lasting concern.
I would like to thank Mr Horsley and his team for their professionalism and courtesy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
The David Seymour ‘bots' debate: Do online submission tools help or hurt democracy?
ACT Party leader David Seyour in studio for an interview on season 3 of 30 with Guyon Espiner. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill , led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner , that figure reflected "bots" generating "fake" submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to "online campaigns" that generate "non-representative samples" that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be "pretty difficult". "You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard." The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. "You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions." The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. "The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value." Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. "It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission." However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. "The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that." But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. "For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times." Jordan Williams co-founded the Taxpayers' Union in 2013 with David Farrar. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. "Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic," he said. "It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar." AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. "Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised," Williams said. Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. "When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing," he said. "But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits." Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. "The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. "To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Poor Countries Set To Pay $22billion For China Debt
Article – RNZ New research from the Lowy Institute shows the world's poorest countries will make record high debt repayments to China this year. , RNZ Pacific Senior Journalist New research from the Lowy Institute shows the world's poorest countries will make record high debt repayments to China this year. The research, released last month, showed China is set to call in US$22 billion for debts from 75 countries assessed by the World Bank as the world's poorest and most vulnerable in 2025. Ten Pacific nations were on the list. China's foreign ministry, meanwhile, denies Beijing is responsible for developing debt. Lowy research author Riley Duke said China had shifted from lead bilateral banker to chief debt collector for the developing world. 'Because of the large amount of lending that China did in the mid-2010s, and the way it structured its loans through its Belt-and-Road initiative, this year, it is seeing a huge spike in repayments,' he said. For Pacific countries that had borrowed from China, Duke said repayment strain was already an issue. He identified Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu as being at higher risk due to respective loans. In Tonga, the impact of Chinese loans had been a 'big political issue' this year. Duke anticipated that about 15 percent of the government's revenue over the next few years would be devoted to debt repayments. 'Last year, Tonga spent more on its debt repayments than it did on health for its citizens,' he said. 'And so when we look at the….forward outlook, there are more challenges on the horizon. There are key development issues across the Pacific that countries and their governments and their people want to be dealing with. 'But instead, these debt burdens are there and they're persistent. 'Again, just to focus on Tonga…. [it] ran five successful budget surpluses in the lead-up to having a big wave of Chinese debt repayments coming in. 'But then it faced huge economic costs from the pandemic, from the earthquake, from cyclones, and so that wiped out all the money that [the government] had put aside.' Duke believed the amount of China's lending into the region was less than a quarter of the level it was in the mid-2010s. 'I'd be surprised to see any new large loans from China in the region, and I think related to that is the broader topic of whether Pacific countries should take on lots of debt. 'Pacific countries have large financing gaps. There's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built, and sometimes loans are the best way to do that, and ultimately that just comes back to the quality of the project. 'People are a bit afraid of debt, and I think it's a bit…of a dirty word, but if a loan is taken out to finance a project that is good for economic growth, good for a Pacific country [because] it drives connectivity [and] it drives the economy, then it's a good loan, and it's good debt to take on, and it will pay itself back.' He said there had also been a shift in how China engaged with the region. 'China's main form of engagement with the Pacific 15 years ago was lending. I think 80 percent of all of China's development financing to the region was in the form of loans, and that's fallen off dramatically since around 2018.' That shift was due to a range of factors, including increased financing options for Pacific governments, Duke said. 'In 2010, China might have been the only partner offering large-scale infrastructure financing. 'Australia is now offering more financing in that space. The World Bank is offering more financing in that space; there's climate funds that are also offering adaptation projects and adaptation infrastructure. 'So there are more options on the table for Pacific countries than there was previously. And I think that is part of the reason that China's lending has declined.' China's foreign ministry denied Beijing was responsible for developing debt. 'China's cooperation on investment and financing with developing countries follows international practice, market principles, and the principle of debt sustainability,' spokesperson Mao Ning said. 'A handful of countries are spreading the narrative that China is responsible for these countries' debt. 'However, they ignore the fact that multilateral financial institutions and commercial creditors from developed countries are the main creditors of developing countries, and the primary source of debt repayment pressure. 'Lies cannot cover truth and people can tell right from wrong.'
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
More Than Half Of Voters Back Proposed Penalty For Te Pāti Māori MPs, Poll Suggests
Article – RNZ The Privileges Committee proposed a 21-day suspension for three MPs over the Treaty Principles haka. , Political Reporter More than half of voters consider the proposed penalty for three Te Pāti Māori MPs over the Treaty Principles haka to be either appropriate or too lenient, polling shows, ahead of the debate on the matter resuming on Thursday afternoon. That debate – which had potential to become a filibuster – was cut short when Leader of the House Chris Bishop unexpectedly postponed it last month. The Privileges Committee – which recommends punishments for breaking Parliament's rules – proposed a 21-day suspension for the co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and seven days for MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. It means no pay, no ability to vote on legislation, and no presence in Parliament for the duration. The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll asked for voters' views on whether the punishment fit the crime. Overall, more people – 37.0 percent said it was 'about right'; while 36.2 percent said it was 'too harsh'; 17.2 percent said 'too lenient', and 9.6 percent said they did not know: a 54.2 percent majority then backing the punishment or thought it should be stronger, in line with the coalition parties' view. The result puts opposition parties – which all labelled the three-week ban disproportionate – in a difficult position. Broken down by voting preferences, more than half of Labour's supporters (51.2 percent) backed leader Chris Hipkins' view the suspensions were too harsh, but a sizeable number thought the punishment fair (29.8 percent) or too lax (8 percent). Greens supporters were more convinced with three quarters (75.3 percent) calling the punishment too harsh, but still 12.4 percent said it was about right and 3.8 percent too lenient. Surprisingly, 9 percent of Te Pāti Māori's supporters also labelled it too lenient, although a clear 80.8 percent called it too harsh, with just 6.2 percent saying it was about right. The results for the coaltion voters were more predictable, far more National, ACT and NZ First supporters saying it was too lenient, compared to those calling it too harsh. But Speaker Gerry Brownlee, of the National Party, appears to be in the latter camp – he called the punishments 'very severe' and 'unprecedented' when setting down the original debate on Parliament's calendar. He pointed out no MP found guilty of contempt had previously been suspended for more than three days. The Privileges Committee recommendation was also only backed by coalition parties, despite convention dictating the MPs on the committee should aim for consensus. Those responding to RNZ's questions may have known these facts from media reporting – or they may not. Bishop's postponement of the debate took the teeth out of opposition criticisms the government wanted to keep the punished MPs from commenting on the Budget – as it turned out, the co-leaders did not speak in the Budget debate anyway. Budget delivered, MPs return to the debating chamber to discuss the punishment after Question Time today. The length of the debate rests ultimately in Brownlee's hands, and he has signalled a willingness to let it continue until all views were thoroughly aired. Whether parties actually want to filibuster – given the poll, and the risk of voters' patience for politicians talking about themselves wearing thin – is far from certain. Hipkins says a few of his MPs will speak, but they will not be running down the clock with endless speeches. The Greens' co-leaders have said they think the MPs should not be suspended, and they plan to scrutinise the decision 'to the highest degree'. But Te Pāti Māori is eager to put the matter to bed. 'Just got to hurry up and get it over and done with and let's sort it out, otherwise we'll be hanging around here waiting and waiting and waiting. Just, they've made their verdict – let's just get it done,' co-leader Rawiri Waititi said. This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure a representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.
