Opposition fails to slow S.I.S. bill

Press, 29 October 1977, Page 3

Opposition fails to slow S.I.S. bill

PA Wellington A last-ditch effort by the Opposition to have the Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill go to a Parliamentary select committee was blocked by the Government yesterday. The motion was debated for almost two hours before the Government won a Division, and defeated it. Three hours later, the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) cut short what was expected to be a long sitting by moving the adjournment while the House was considering clause two of the 14-clause measure in the committee stages.

A few protesters gathered in the sun outside Parliament Buildings during the debate, but the public galleries were quiet — policemen sometimes seemed to outnumber visitors.

The Opposition showed its resolve to fight the measure at every opportunity by forcing divisions and putting up speakers. Earlier, Mr W. W. Freer (Lab., Mount Albert) had asked whether the House would adjourn for lunch, but Mr Muldoon said he wanted it to sit right through, so that members could get home earlier.

The Opposition's final bid to have the bih referred to a select committee came in a motion by the member for Wigram (Mr M. A. Connelly) but it was defeated, 40-24. Mr Connelly said he saw no reason why Parliament should not be involved in further consideration of the bill. The Government was still undecided about some precise aspects of the legislation, and select committee consideration could help it finally make up its mind, he said.

The former Chief Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles, had pointed out that the bill differed in some respects from the recommendations in his report on the S.I.S. His proposals were put forward as a “package deal,” but the Government had not adhered to his report.

If the bill had been referred to a select committee — and people had had the opportunity to make submissions—there would have been far less controversy.

“Telegrams and other correspondence are still coming forward, and comment is still being made in the news media,” said Mr Connelly.

Mr Muldoon replied that the Government had carefully perused and considered submissions, and amendments had been made. One issue — the definition of espionage — had been sent to an officials committee for study, “but on the remainder of the issues the bill and the supplementary order paper

represent the Government’s final view.’’ Mr Muldoon, who is also the Minister in charge of the S.I.S. said there had been wide public debate on the bill.

The impact “of a certain television programme” had had an effect, “but we know what happened to that television programme,” he said.

As the weeks had passed he had noticed a change in the public attitude towards the bill. Mail and messages he was receiving were now overwhelmingly in favour.

If the bill had been sent to a select committee it

would have given fringe elements a better platform for airing their views, he said. The news media, which usually reported the “sensational aspects” of select committee proceedings, “would have had a field day.” The bill had already been referred to a Labour Party select committee for the hearing of submissions, said Mr Muldoon.

Was Mr - Connely saying that the committee had not done its job, and that "it should go round again?” To this Dr A, M. Finlay (Lab., Henderson) said that

Government members were nowhere as fully informed as Opposition members as a result of the voluminious submissions received. Referring to Mr Muldoon’s statement that his mail was overwhelmingly in favour of the bill. Dr Finlay asked: “If that is so, what is the objection to having his corlespondents speak up in public to an open committee?” Mr Muldoon’s mail was in sharp contrast to that received by the Opposition dnd newspaper editors, he said.

Dr Finlay said the day’s proceedings in Parliament with the introduction of the mini-budget before the S.I.S. bill debate, were a “furtive and almost shame-faced way of sneaking it through Parliamen ”

The debate would be smothered by the mini-bud-get, which would get most of the space in the newspapers. Then began the clause by clause committee-stage debate.

Mr Muldoon said the provision in the Post Office Act for the Governor-General, on the advice of his ministers, to detain or open any postal article had been there since 1858. It was a far wider provision than anything in the S.I.S. bill.

The act also provided that telephone tapping could be done with the consent of the Postmaster-General. Speaking about the interception provisions in the bill, he said. “This procedure will be used very sparingly indeed.”

Mr D. R. Lange (Labour, Mangere) said there was still no protection to make evidence collected from phone taps inadmissible in a court of law.

He suggested judicial review as the obvious means of bringing accountability into the issuing of warrants. The Attorney-General (Mr Wilkinson) said it wduld be bad for the Judiciary to become involved in political controversy s.uch as could stem from matters concerning the warrants. To this, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) said that a citizen would bet in no position to take common law action, because he would not be able to reveal the facts.

Mr Rowling harshly criticised Mr Muldoon, both in his handling of the bill, and in the powers which it gave him. He had shown himself unable to take justifiable criticism, and had used diversion and suppression to his own ends during the passage of the bill.

Mr Muldoon also lacked the judicial temperament to be in charge of the issuing of warrants.