The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 1975. The Official Secrets Act

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33816, 12 April 1975, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 1975. The Official Secrets Act

The Government is very sensibly going to produce for Parliament a bill to revise and replace the Official Secrets Act. Earlier, the Government intended to invite submissions to a Parliamentary committee: this course would have thrown open to ill-defined public wrangling an exceptionally controversial area of the law. The act as it stands is unnecessarily wide in its provisions: its interpretation leaves a wide area of discretion to the courts and an unfair burden of the proof of innocence rests on an accused person. Law draftsmen have hesitated before attempting to define precisely what are “official secrets” or what constitutes the “ safety or interests of the State ”. In the new bill these definitions should be attempted. The terms of such definitions may be broader than would be acceptable in other statutes: but some definition would at least give the courts, and the Government ano its officers, a better measure of Parliament's intentions. More important, the public would have a greater asurance that the law will not be applied capriciously.

Only one prosecution has been brought under the act in 24 years. That did not succeed, but it had the effect of drawing attention to the flaws in legislation which was prepared hurriedly under different circumstances from those of today. These circumstances might be found, on reflection, to demand much more rigorous rules, in respect of both the State and its citizens. Perhaps New Zealand has had few worth while “ official secrets ”: or those that have been passed to enemy powers have seemed to be too trivial to warrant prosecutions. The act also appears, however, to have acted as a useful deterrent to those tempted by the blandishments of some foreign diplomats. Certainly it is a reminder that even a small country cannot pretend that it has no need to preserve itself against espionage of many kinds. The provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with treason, sedition, and with the communication of secrets are no adequate substitute. As they stand they would be difficult to enforce except in time of open and declared war. The kind of threats to the security and sovereignty of States which have emerged in the last 20 years call for legislation that is more sophisticated and of a different kind. As Mr Rowling has said, the matter is too important to become a political football between the parties. It is even less desirable that its drafting should be subject to the whims of small pressure groups, some of which would be the first to complain about improper disclosures of information held by the State regarding individuals, but do not seem to see the preservation of the whole community’s interests in the same light.

The need for a Security Intelligence Service is a separate matter The service works under separate legislation, the Security Intelligence Service Act of 1969: but the service depends for its definition of “ espionage " —the source of much of its work—noon a clause in the Official Secrets Act. Mr Rowling, like his predecessors as Prime Minister, has found, once in office, that even New Zealand needs a small counter-espionage organisation. The service has no powers to enforce measures for security: it must denend on the regular police and the courts Although it has been fashionable for 20 years for some groups to protest about intrusions by the service, most New Zealanders are quite unconscious of its activities. Changes in the Official Secrets Act will require a redefinition of the functions of the service, but Parliament would be wise to allow the service to get on unobtrusively with its small, essential tasks. Safeguards may well be added to the law: but so long as the Government' s knows that foreign countries are able and ready to use New Zealanders to act against the interests of New Zealand some counter is inescapable.