Security bill

Press, 4 October 1977, Page 40

Security bill

Sir, — The S.I.S. Amendment Bill currently before the House is a most insidious piece of legislation and needs to be thoroughly rejected by Parliament and the New Zealand public. Most comments on the bill have focused on the fact that interception warrants will be issued by a politician. More insidious still is the fact that Clause 5, subclauses (a) and (b), give immunity to agents and officers of the S.I.S. and place them above the law when executing interception warrants. Not even the Prime Minister enjoys such immunity. The fact that there is no judicial review covering the issuing or execution of warrants means that it would be possible for “Watergate” to occur in New Zealand and the conspirators could not be brought to trial. — Yours, etc., KEVIN P. CLEMENTS. September 27, 1977.

Sir,—The S.I.S. bill is a further stumble (pushed, clearly) down the shady paths of secrecy at present given generous public sanction (if only they knew) by the Official Secrets Act 1951. That act (described by commentators as “heavyhanded,” "too wide,” “obscure,” “a mess”) gives a potential cloak of secrecy to much “public” information. Instead of moving with the Scandinavian countries towards freedom-of-informa-tion legislation, we are heading in the opposite direction by legitimising cloak-and-dagger tactics for gathering information. It is obnoxious that public access to “public” information is so widely restricted. It is far worse that “Watergate” tactics are likely to have the full sanction of law. About the only things left open in our society will be the “in” doorways to institutions for the disobedient, and “out” doorways back to the Pacific Islands. —Yours, etc., ANDREW DENNIS. September 30, 1977.

Sir, — I am implacably opposed to the S.I.S. Amendment Bill. I do not have the same faith in our Prime Minister as W. G. Henderson, but I think he misses the point in his letter published in “The Press” of September 30. He needlessly defends Mr Muldoon because the issue is not whether he will misuse the bill, but the fact that it is open to misuse by any Government hereafter. By misuse I mean virtually any use. I hope that all New Zealanders heeded Mr Beetham’s warning that all the statutes necessary to convert this country to a police state will exist if this Bill is passed as is. That power is too much in anyone’s hands, no matter how trustworthy he is. — Yours, etc., P. G ROSS. October 1. 1977. *