Council seeks changes in security law

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32540, 25 February 1971, Page 15

Council seeks changes in security law

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, February 24.

The wide definition of “subversion” is allowing the New Zealand Security Service to continue its long»standing surveillance of political activity, mainly Left-wing, the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties says in a report.

“As such, it unreasonably limits that free exchange and development of political ideas which is fundamental to democratic practice,” the council’s report on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Act (1969) says.

The Security Service would cause less concern if it were concerned only with clearlydefined illegal actions. Of the three threats to security outlined by the Act, espionage and sabotage are crimes under other statutes, but the third, subversion, is not, the report says. Consequently, the service is to protect New Zealand not only from illegal but also from some legal actions, according to the report.

“Undesirable” “Whatever one may think about the need for a security service, it is clearly undesirable to have an organisation charged with protecting New Zealand from actions which her law permits.” It is difficult to distinguish between the legal and illegal aspects of subversion in the 1969 Act, the report says. “That is something which would have to be determined in the courts, and the Act gives no opportunity for that.”

Although, under present law, it is not generally an offence to advocate an illegal action, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act makes a person party to and guilty of an offence if he "incites, counsels or procures any person to commit the offence.”

“By including advocacy as a form of subversion the Security Intelligence Service Act extends the responsibilities of the Security Service to include surveillance of some entirely legitimate political activity.” Suggests deletion The council suggests the deletion of the clause defining subversion and replacing it by a reference to treason as defined in Section 73 of the Crimes Act. As newly constituted under the 1969 act, the Security Service is “essentially as it was before,” the council report says. “The main changes affected

are limited to the establishment of ministerial responsibility and the creation of appeal procedures.” Although the inclusion of the appeal procedures were a “tribute to public opinion" they could be improved, the report says.

For example, persons subject to an adverse security report should be entitled to receive through the Commission of Security Appeals a precis of the grounds on which the director of the Security Service considered an

adverse security report justified, the report suggests. In addition to the narrowet definition of subversion, the council also advocates that an annual report should be presented to Parliament on the service’s work and that New Zealanders subject to adverse security reports should be informed of the fact. Such limitation would not restrict the service in its performance of the classic functions of a counter-espionage agency, the report concludes.