Bugging bill deplored

Press, 25 May 1977, Page 1

Bugging bill deplored

PA Wellington The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties is totally opposed to the proposed legalising of telephone tapping, opening of mail, and bugging by the Security Intelligence Service announced yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon). The chairman of the council (Mr Dennis Rose) said yesterday that the council believed that to create legal authority for such acts would inevitably, no matter what legislative safeguards were set up, lead to a widespread invasion of individual priv&cy« New Zealanders would generally be appalled by the proposition that the S I.S. should be allowed to become a silent partner on the telephone, in the

mail box, and anywhere that people might meet. The legislation will be based on recommendations made last year by the Chief Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles). The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) said that the legislation was still being prepared by a Cabinet Committee and an officials committee.

“The proposal is likely to inhibit the free exchange of ideas, which is essential to a democracy. “The council has frequently argued that the security service, by its nature distrustful of all members of the community, has at its base an essentially antidemocratic element which is ultimately incompatible with the values of a freely governed community. “The latest proposal

amply illustrates this and serves as a reminder of the fact, demonstrated by events in many countries over recent years that democracy is at least as easily subverted by the actions of its own internal security agencies as by threats from abroad,” said Mr Rose.

Though details had not yet been announced it seemed that the proposal would be to empower the Minister in Charge of the 5.1.5., the Prime Minister, to issue a warrant authorising interception of any communication if he were satisfied that such action is necessary for the detection of activities prejudicial to security.

“This is the form suggested by Sir Guy Powles in his report on the S.I.S. “Such a test would be

very easily satisfied inasmuch as security is very widely defined in the S.I.S. Act reaching to such matters as advocating the undermining by unlawful means the authority of the State in New Zealand. “Advocacy of a strike without proper notice, the organisation of political demonstration, or even the advocacy of refusal to pay income tax could all on this test justify interception of communications.

“Effectively all political activity would be placed under notice of possible surveillance.”

The new bill is also likely to include another of Sir Guy’s recommendations, that the director of the S.I.S. and the Minister in charge should have close and regular consultation.