Direction of State servants cut out

Press, 19 October 1977, Page 1

Direction of State servants cut out

PA Wellington State servants cannot be directed to assist security agents in their interception activities, under an amendment to the Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill announced yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon). Mr Muldoon, opening the second-reading debate on the legislation, revealed that the Government had decided to remove the service’s power to direct State servants in mail interception or telephone tapping. State servants would biasked to take action on interception warrants, but no action could be taken if they declined those requests, he said. Mr Muldoon said that under another amendment, journalists would now be able to reveal the identity of former members of the 5.1.5., but the section in the bill prohibiting the naming of present agents was retained. Mr Muldoon said amendments had also been introduced to “firm up” the bill in several other

areas. A section has been added to provide that interception warrants cannot be issued to gather information privileged under the law of evidence. Privileged Information which cannot be intercepted includes exchanges between a doctor and his patient, a lawyer and his client, and a clergyman and his penitent. Under another amendment, the terms and conditions of an interception warrant can include anything which the Minister in charge considers advisable in the public interest. Mr Muldoon said this would allow the Minister to put further restrictions on the use of the warrant. He said another change relating to the report of the Minister to Parliament on the issuing of warrants would make the review of the services a more positive one. The final change, announced by Mr Muldoon last week, relates to the destruction of information irrelevant to an inquiry gained through the use of

an interception warrant. The amendment also makes it illegal for a person to disclose information gained through an interception except in the course of his duty. Mr Muldoon said irrelevant material was already being destroyed by the 5.1.5., but the amendment made it mandatory. Mr Muldoon’s secondreading speech was, in his own words, “informal,” and aimed primarily at removing misconceptions about the bill, which he said people had gained from the activities of opponents of the bill.

The bill had been brought together in the context of the two main findings of the investigation of the service carried out by the former Chief Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles. These were a recognition that New Zealand required the 5.1.5., but that proper legal safeguards were necessary if the service was to engage in acts that were otherwise illegal, he said. Debate continued, page 6