Secret inquiry would not help trust

AUCKLAND: Holding a secret inquiry into an alleged coverup was not going to help public confidence, the inquiry into a controversial New Zealand SAS raid has been told.

Lawyer Alan Ringwood said the majority of the mainstream media had come together to oppose the default secrecy provisions proposed for the Inquiry into Operation Burnham.

‘‘If you have open justice, what you get is public confidence in the process. A private inquiry into an alleged coverup may not be enough to inspire public confidence.’’

Listing his clients, Ringwood noted it was ‘‘almost all of New Zealand’s mainstream media’’ who were ‘‘actually competitors’’ yet had come together on a point of principle.

Ringwood’s submission for the nation’s media came on the second day of a twoday hearing to set the rules for how the Operation Burnham inquiry would run.

Concerns over the classified and sensitive content of information and witnesses has resulted in the defence and intelligence establishment lobbying for almost entirely closed hearings into the 2010 SAS raid.

The inquiry was set up to get to the truth of claims in the book Hit & Run, including allegations of ‘‘war crimes’’ by the SAS during the hunt for insurgents behind attacks on New Zealand forces.

The claims included an alleged ‘‘revenge’’ raid on a community in Tirgiran Valley which was said by authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson to have left six civilians dead and 15 others wounded.

New Zealand Defence Force says nine insurgents were killed.

Ringwood pointed to Supreme Court findings which endorsed the media’s role as the surrogate for the public in matters before the courts. There were similar statements around the role of the media in the United Kingdom’s inquiry into the Iraq war.

Both linked to the law under which the Operation Burnham inquiry was set up, which specifically referred to open justice and public interest as matters which had to be considered before information was withheld from the public.

‘‘The media is the conduit through which the public receive information about these matters of public interest,’’ he said.

Ringwood said it should be possible to make information available to the media — and public — if there were no reasons to withhold it.

‘‘If there’s nothing confidential in the document, there’s actually no good reason that document should also be available to the media.’’

He said media were not seeking to make public classified information, or to make public national security matters which needed to be heard privately.

He said it was accepted there was genuinely sensitive information which needed to be protected.

Earlier, NZDF’s lawyer Paul Radich QC told the inquiry publicity around former SAS corporal Willie Apiata winning the Victoria Cross had impacted on his ability to operate as a fullyfunctioning member of the elite unit.

The claim was made when the defence force was challenged over its insistence for anonymity for SAS members and the blaze of publicity around Apiata.

Sir Terence Arnold, one of the inquiry chairmen, asked about Apiata. ‘‘That was a very public thing. He went back to Afghanistan’’.

Radich responded: ‘‘I understand, sir, his operational capabilities were then adversely affected.’’

Deputy solicitorgeneral Aaron Martin said the highly sensitive nature of the evidence needed by the inquiry required special protection to keep it from being disclosed publicly.

The security of New Zealand and the benefit enjoyed from its international relationships was at risk, he said.

Martin, who was appearing for a range of government agencies including the intelligence services, said all classified material to be aired should be covered by a legal order suppressing airing or sharing.

Inquiry heads, Arnold and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, will consider evidence before setting rules for how the inquiry will operate. It has a reporting deadline of April although this may be extended. — NZME