P.S.A. OBJECTION TO USE OF SECURITY FORMS

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29263, 22 July 1960, Page 7

P.S.A. OBJECTION TO USE OF SECURITY FORMS

Objection to certain aspects of security questionnaires, which it claims have been used in some Government departments in Christchurch, has been taken by the . Canterbury section of the Public Service Association.

The text of a resolution of protest, passed by the main committee of the section, representing just under 4000 public servants in Canterbury, was released yesterday by the Canterbury section chairman (Mr T. P. Hogan). The matter of security questionnaires arose in Wellington recently when it was revealed that Ministerial secretaries had been required to fill them in. The questionnaire which it is claimed has been used in Christchurch, and which at least one public servant has refused to complete, includes questions about membership of the Communist Party in New Zealand or any other country. It also asks questions about membership of any organisations “looked on favourably” by the New Zealand Communist Party, and cites the China Friendship Society, the Society for Closer Relations with the U.S.S.R., and the Peace Council (which it describes as “front organisations”) as examples. Further information is sought on residence outside New Zealand, place and date of birth, nationality, occupation and addresses of father, mother, wife (or husband), and children over 16, brothers and sisters over 16, and relatives other than above resident outside the British Commonwealth.

Criticising the asking of questions about a public servant’s past affiliations, Mr Hogan said that his section of the Public Service Association was anxious’ to avoid what was implicit in that type of questionnaire—the suggestion of guilt through association. “We are concerned that this has apparently been going on in various places without any consultation of the employee organisation,” Mr Hogan said. Protest Resolution

The protest resolution carried at Sic Canterbury section committee meeting reads: t ■ <*That this section urges its national executive committee to publicly state now that it is opposed to the questionnaire method of the security checking of officers on the grounds that methods of staff selection on appointment and the official oath of secrecy should be adequate for this purpose.

“This section’s particular concern is that a New Zealand Labour Government should permit questionnaires of this kind to be imposed on officers in service wherein they are required to answer questions concerning persons other than themeelves. “It further requests that in

pursuing this matter the national executive officers should inquire as to the duties of security officers in various Government departments, particularly as to security checks on individual officers.” Mr Hogan said that the employer’s right to have some sort of security screening was not questioned, but it was strongly felt that it Should not be carried out in the present way after officers had begun their duties in the public service. “The sources of information on an individual officer’s background are so open to investigation that we feel that we are entitled to expect that, if we are appointed to positions classed as security positions, this information would be completed at this stage, and we should not be obliged to answer blunt, leading questions of an incriminating kind.” Mr Hogan said.

“It is particularly alarming that individuals have been asked if they ever belonged to an organisation looked on favourably by the Communist Party,” Mr Hogan said. “Some of our members undoubtedly belong to such organisations as table tennis clubs and Bible study groups, but we have never considered how favourably the Communists look on them.” Particular objection was taken to a question which inquired whether an officer was aware of any circumstances, arising out of consideration of character or security, which might raise a question as to the officer’s suitability to have access to classified Government information.

“We are pot condemning out of hand security clearances for officers, but we feel that this should be confined to the absolute minimum number of official sections of offices of the public service where a really rational case can be made out for security in the handling of State documents and other classified information,” Mr Hogan said.