S.I.S. bill through all Parliamentary stages

Press, 5 November 1977, Page 1

S.I.S. bill through all Parliamentary stages

PA Wellington The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill was finally passed through all its * Parliamentary stages yesterday afters noon, and now requires only the Governor-Gen-eral’s assent to become law.

The bill, which had aroused widespread protest, was given a third reading after almost two hours of debate.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) said yesterday that proposals put forward in the report of the former Chief Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles) were intended for passing into law as a complete package. “Any change would unbalance them and, unfora tunately, that has happened,” he said. Mr Rowling repeated the Opposition’s concern about the lack of definitions in the bill, which he said remained in spite of the Government’s many amendments. The S.I.S. had been given power to institute surveillance of potential subversion — but where was the line to be drawn on what constituted potential subversion, and by •whom?

Mr Rowling said that the power to grant interception warrants given the Minister in charge of the Security Service was dangerous in the hands of the present Minister (Mr Muldoon).

He described Mr Muldoon as a man “noted for his intolerance and lack of judgment towards minor* ity groups and, indeed, anyone prepared to stand up" against the Establishment.”

Mr Rowling said the bill was also defective in failing to provide persons with redress against the

issue of a warrant no matter how much their reputations had been damaged. But, Mr Rowling said, the most damaging provision was the right given the S.I.S. to take any reasonable action to gain interceptions. Because reasonable ae« tion was not defined, agents presumably had the right to break and enter homes — an action normally punishable by a heavy prison sentence, Mr Rowling said.

The Opposition spokesman on Justice, Dr A. M. Finlay, said it was to the Government’s credit that it had made some attempt by way of amendments to remove some of the “indignities transparent in the bill.” “But unfortunately ... I fail to detect any genuine contrition or regret.” Dr Finlay criticised the small role played in the debate by the Government member for Hamilton West, Mr M. J. Minogue.

He said Mr Minogue spoke during the second reading — “at the small hour of 2 a.m.” — but was absent from the House during most of the committee stages. Yet Mr Minogue had indicated he would try to amend the bill, Dr Finlay said. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Taiboys) accused the Opposition of using the bill to pursue political goals and to bring unity to the Labour Party.