The Press THURSDAY, MAY, 1, 1969. The Security Service

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31976, 1 May 1969, Page 14

The Press THURSDAY, MAY, 1, 1969. The Security Service

The Prime Minister is undoubtedly correct in warning his countrymen about espionage in New Zealand. There is no reason to doubt that items of information concerning political, trade, military, and diplomatic affairs are as eagerly sought here as in any other country to fit into a more complete intelligence picture; and the interests of the seekers are not New Zealand’s interests. Citizens expect the Government to employ public servants whose integrity and loyalty may be relied upon; and by far the greater part of the work of the Security Service is directed to ensuring that the State appoints reliable men ami women to positions of trust There is no secrecy about this, which is almost universal practice. The Government and Opposition are not at odds about the need for a Security Service; and both appear to be aware that the best protection against oppressive or restrictive action by the service is the right and opportunity of any citizen to protest publicly at what he considers to be an injustice. When the Security Service was attacked at the Labour Party conference last week Dr A. M. Finlay, MJ*., who was chairman of the conference’s justice committee, had little difficulty in persuading delegates of the need for the service. The conference still wanted the present service disbanded. Dr Finlay would have had little more difficulty in persuading delegates to support the line the Opposition has taken in Parliament- that is, to press for legislation to define the functions of the service, to clarify its responsibility, and to enable Parliament to pass a separate vote to finance the service. At present the salaries and expenses of the service are met through the vote for the Justice Department; and this illogically requires Parliament to examine the Minister of Justice on the vote although it is the Prime Minister to whom, the service is responsible.

In Parliament last year the Minister of Justice, Mr Hanan, agreed that the Security Service should have statutory authority similar to that for the security intelligence organisation in Australia; it was hoped, he said, that the Government Would in due course bring down special legislation to give the service this authority. It seems reasonable to expect that the Government will take steps to carry out this intention, difficult as it may be to draft legislation that will satisfy everyone. There .has certainly been no indication that the Government has changed its mind since Mr Hanan expressed the desire of his own department to be rid of a vote for which it has no administrative responsibility but which has been on the department’s estimates for many years under both National and Labour Governments.