Secrets Act criticised

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33655, 3 October 1974, Page 12

Secrets Act criticised

Not only does the Official Secrets Act try to prevent information from reaching an enemy but it can also prevent useful information from reaching the public, suggests the Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties, in a statement yesterday.

The council sees the 1951 Official Secrets Act as an unsatisfactory hybrid.

"There is no cavil with certain legislation against spying for a foreign Power to the prejudice of the State, or the sections against supplying information to an enemy. However, these offences are in a category quite different from the offence of unauthorised publishing of official documents within New Zealand,” the statement says. “There will clearly be some documents which if distributed within New Zealand would still be in opposition to a concept of the public good. Not all Government documents, or even Cabinet documents, will be in this category. “A need for different breadths of circulation and degrees of secrecy for different Government documents is suggested,” the statement says. “At present, any Gov-

ernment document wrongfully circulated in New Zealand is on a par with the crime of circulating military documents to a wartime enemy. “The Public Service is such a large section of the population that circulation within such a group can scarcely be regarded as secret correspondence although the Act does prohibit unauthorised releases of material between Government departments,” the statement continues. “The Council for Civil Liberties is not convinced of the value of secrecy, especially when proposals are at the discussion stage. It is at this very stage that ’interested parties’ are often privy to preliminary discussions in which the public’s interest is not always concerned. Access of the interested parties to the information is not the same safeguard as a wide circulation of ideas. There may be too much secrecy for the public good. Publication of a Cabinet paper on duty solicitors is scarcely prejudicial to the State, though as the Act stands it could be an offence.” “Such papers should, perhaps, be date-stamped and available for publication soon after they nave beer circulated to officials.” The position of the newspapers is far from satisfac, z

tory, the council says. The public must be informed, and if a newspaper receives an official document embarrassing to the Government the newspaper “has an imperative to publish.” Embarrassment to the Government is the very reason why the newspaper must publish the document. “At present, the Official Secrets Act is a most important method available to Governments in the suppression of information.”

Governments, the council says, make honest mistakes and scrutiny before decision can reduce such mistakes and reduce deliberate favouritism of certain groups. The value of the news leak is then clear. “Public servants are closely restricted by the Act in the statements they may make,” the council says. “New Zealanders are not accustomed to high officials having different views on policy issues, and the Official Secrets Act is one of the reasons why the public is ignorant. “One department of the Government can have opinions quite different from another on a certain topic. Both sides can be informed and responsiole, and there are occasions when both viewpoints should be aired. The Official Secrets Act prevents this."