Supervision Of State Security Service Sought

Press, Volume C, Issue 29608, 2 September 1961, Page 12

Supervision Of State Security Service Sought

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. Sept. 1. Changes in the control of the Security Service were urged by two Opposition members in the House of Representatives today. Mr W. W Freer (Opposition, Mount Albert) said the Security Service should be responsible to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, instead of just the Prime Minister. Mr Freer said there was no single item in the Estimates to show the cost of the Security Srvice. "The head of the Justice Department admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that the cost of the Security Service was included in items in the Justice Department vote. This means the Estimates do not give a true picture.” Mr Freer said “I don’t want to create the impression that we shouldn't have security. We should have it. But we should see that the reports of the Security Service are utilised in the best interests of the country,” he added Mr Freer said that in the last 12 months he had been able to prove that Security Service on people

were wrong in three cases He said thgre should be am inquiry into the Security Service by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition He said information obtained by the Security Service should be available to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition Mr J G Edwards (Opposition. Napier) suggested a permanent five-man committee to oversee the Security Service. He said the committee should comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a Supreme .Court judge selected by the other judges, the chairman of a district law society nominated by all the district law societies, and the Moderator of the Methodist or Presbyterian Church or an Anglican or Roman Catholic bishop. The House was discussing the Legislative Department estimates Mr Freer said the vote for the Justice Department included the cost of the Security Service. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said the method of showing expenditure on 1

the Security Service was exactly the same under the present Government as it was under the Labour Government. "I don't propose to go into a debate on it,” he said. Mr Edwards said people were not happy about the powers and activities of the Security Service. “I believe there is a need for a permanent committee to oversee tiheir activities." he said. “This committee should be able to examine the files of the Security Service Nobody knows what’s cn their files about him and he has no right of appeal. The committee I suggest could investigate. check and control the activities of the Security Service which, at present, is under the exclusive control of the Prime Minister. “The committee could alay any suspicions in the minds of the public. There’s always the suspicion of police state activities with security ■police.” Mr Edwards said. Mr N E Kirk (Opposition. Lyttelton) said the Christchurch branch of the Security Service was the only one listed in the telephone directory. He asked the Prime Mlrnster if he would have the Wellington and ’ Auckland branches’ telephone numbers (listed too. ■