Curbs on powers of S.I.S. sought

Press, 28 August 1978, Page 2

Curbs on powers of S.I.S. sought

PA Wellington. Two late remits to restrict the powers of the Security Intelligence Service were introduced at the Social Credit conference. The remits would transfer the power to issue warrants to the acting Chief Justice, and would set a 90-day limit on the warrants’ duration. "The privacy and democratic rights of all New Zealanders who abide by the laws and democratic conventions of our society will be safeguarded,” the remit said. The second remit would allow a person under investigation, who was dissatisfied with an appeal to the Commissioner of Security Appeals, to petition to have the allegations tested in a court. A proposal for a bill of rights was thrown out by the Social Credit conference after a plea for caution by the leader, Mr B. C. Beetham. One delegate said that without a bill of rights New Zealand “has all the elements of a police State.” Moving the proposal, Mr G. Knapp, from East Coast

.Bays and a former member I of the National Party, said a I bill of rights was necessary because New Zealand lacked ta written constitution and Parliament’s supremacy was absolute. Mr D. Howes (Roskill) . said “Our one constitutional guarantee at the moment is the Governor-General and we have a political appointee in that position.” ! However, Mr F. C. Jordan ■ (Howick), a Social Credit member who made submis- ; sions to the Royal Commission on the Monetary Sys--1 tem in 1955, said any bill of • rights could be reversed by - a decision of Parliament > anyway. He was supported by Mr i Beetham who intervened for I the first time in policy debate at the conference. Mr Beetham said Social Credit should be cautious : about a bill of rights because it could protect “the vested interests of the money power. The effect of the American written constitution has been on many occasions to restrict the will of the reforming majority.” It had restricted workers’ rights to collective bargain-

ing and had denied rights to negroes for 100 years, he said. Mr Beetham suggested that the remit should be changed so that any bill of rights would specifically not protect “the money interests.” Although the original remit was rejected, Mr Beetham’s suggestion was referred to the league’s policy committee.